willingness on the part of european leaders to take those actions, and we look forward to hearing from them. the president is deeply engaged in encouraging them to lay out the next step in the escalation of their response. >> carol? >> could either or both of you comment on the action taken yesterday and has the u.s. prepared a contingency plan given -- if there is-global reaction monday, and on the meeting with vladimir putin and syria, be considered a standoff with russia -- do you guys consider the standoff with russia as a reset? >> first of all, the reset was based on an agreement that we could cooperate, understanding

we have areas of differences. we continue to see positive results from that policy. we supply our troops through russia. cooperation in afghanistan is essential. we work with russia on the iran issue. they joined us in a u.n. security council resolution which is the foundation of sanctions we went on to put in place on the iranian government. russia has been with us in talks in sending a clear message to iran that they need to live up to obligations. they are hosting the next round of talks in moscow. nuclear issues, locking down weapons depend in large part on cooperation, and, again, our dialogue with russians allows us to have a viable mechanism for reducing our deployed nuclear

missiles and launchers. in other words, we are able to work to incorporate on a set of dishes even though we have differences. just because we have differences on certain issues it does not mean we want to throw aside the cooperation we are getting on issues from afghanistan, to iran, to nuclear security. however, we have had a substantial difference on the issue of syria and our view has been that bashar al-assad has no legitimacy to lead the country anymore. he is lost that legitimacy by the actions he has taken him and he needs to step down from power. if that has been the u.s. view for some time. we believe that is what the syrian people have indicated that they want. so, we of work through the u.n. security council to try to take action to put pressure on this regime to send a clear message that there needed to be changes in syria.

the russian government did not support those efforts and blocked two resolutions at the u.n. security council, however they have been a part of a plan that puts for a road map that could allow for a end to the violence in syria and a political transition. it is our assessment that the syrian government has not met any of its commitments under the plan and therefore what we need to do to preserve the credibility is to look at a transition and say this has to be about more than simply getting monitors into the country. this has to be about holding the government accountable for its actions and assuring the syrian people there will be a transition that involves real change in the country. we have held up a model of yemen where you have the leaders step down from power in an orderly fashion and a road map towards elections. we and working to have the russians, in line with the broad international community. this is not just a relationship

with the united states. it is the international community that is expressing the need for a real transition in syria. we will continue to work through that area of difference with the russians because we believe they can play a role in pressing me bashar al-assad regime in transition. even as we do that with russia, we of the friends of syria where we are working with like-minded nations to put pressure on the regime to impose sanctions, supporting the transition and the opposition. we will continue to do that. we have been clear that we will continue to lead discussions at the u.n. and the security council about what steps need to be taken. we'll continue with the progress that has been made them the recent and what we as shown is we could get strong differences, but it need not derail cooperation on other areas. >> it is important to recognize

that the president recognized very early on that we needed to help insulate our economy and we need to provide an insurance policy, that our recovery was quite vulnerable to headwinds from europe and that is why he worked so hard to put in place and economic plan that would provide support for demand in the short run at a time when demand is exceptionally weak in europe and other parts of the world. while working on a medium-term plan to put public finances on the sustainable pepper, -- sustainable path, early on he undertook stressed tests that injured that our capitol banking system -- stress tests that insured our capitol banking system would be much better prepared for any shocks they encounter, and that is why he pushed so hard for dodd-frank

with -- which strengthen supervision and regulation, but also ensures that our regulators have the tools they need to ensure the resilience of the banking system. early on he put out an approach that really does bolster demand, growth and job creation and we see other countries now coming around and also recognizing the need to do more to insure their economies from these risks. >> going back to russia, you guys have said the reset was based on issues not personality, it is obvious that vladimir putin does not have the same sunday sentiment of u.s.- russia interests that president of the the bid. surely, that will -- that the former president did.

>> we have always said this is an interest-based relationship and frankly we were not going to have a relationship that depended overly on personalities because what we wanted to do is build the foundation of common interests that could sustain progress. president ned dmitry medvedev -- present dmitry medvedev did have a good relationship with president obama. we do not attribute the progress that is been made just to get personal report. a lot of the technical report -- technical work was done. secondly, prime minister vladimir putin as prime minister was an influential figure in russia. given his influence, even as president dmitry medvedev was the leader of the government, our assessment was the prime

minister vladimir putin was supportive of the recent -- reset as a unfolded. vladimir putin has indicated that he is in full agreement with the policies that president dmitry medvedev under talk to anyone to continue the cooperative nature of the relationship. in the initial phone calls president obama has had with president vladimir putin, the indication has been that we want to continue to build on the common ground that we have. that said, president vladimir putin is clearly someone that can articulate where he has differences with the united states and we can also articulate where we have differences with russia and the assessment is that being candid with one another is in the best interest of the relationship. i expect it will be candid discussion. it will get down to business. we'll be able to sustain cooperation in some areas. we will let differences in other

areas. we will work to bridge those issues because the relationship is in our interests, russia's interest, and in the interest of the world community because when we can work together on issues it opens up the door to much better progress, whether you're talking about the proliferation and nuclear security, regional tensions as in syria, or with the global economy. >> with the u.s. support a syria bad as the -- >> we will take you live to the white house now with president obama and comments of a major change in immigration policy. >> the afternoon, everyone this morning-good afternoon, everyone. this morning, secretary janet napolitano announced changes that will make to the immigration policy to make it more fair and just, particularly for certain young people,

sometimes called the dreamers. these are young people that study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, our friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flight. they are americans in their heart, in their minds, and in every single way by one, on paper. they were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants and often have no idea that they are not documented until they apply for a job or a driver's license or a college scholarship. put yourself in their shoes. imagine you have done everything right your entire life -- studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class only to suddenly faced the threat of deportation to a country they you know

nothing about with a language of the evening not even speak. that is what get -- you may not even speak. that is what gave rise to the dream back. it said if your parents brought you here as a child, you have been here for five years and you are willing to go to college or serve in our military you can one day earn your citizenship. if i have said time and time again to congress, send me the dream act, put it on my desk, and i will sign it right away. both parties wrote this legislation and one year and a half ago democrats passed the dream that in the house but republican walked away from it. it got 55 votes in the senate, but republicans blocked it. the bill has not really changed. the need has not changed. it is still the right thing to do. the only thing that has changed

apparently was the politics. as i said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people who for all intents and purposes are americans, have been raised as americans, understand themselves to be part of this country -- to expel these young people that want to staff our laboratories, start new businesses or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents or the inaction of politicians. in the absence of any immigration action from congress, when we have tried to do is focus immigration reenforce -- enforcement resources in the right place, prioritizing border security, putting more votes on the southern border than any other time in our history. today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in

the last 40 years. we focus in use discretion on who to prosecute, focusing on criminals that endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education, and today deportation of criminals is up 80%. we have improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. well, today, we are improving it again. effective immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. now, let's be clear, this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship.

it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary, stop-gap measure that lets us focus resources wisely while getting a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. excuse me, sir. it is not the right time for questions. not while i am speaking. >> precisely because this is temporary, congress needs to act. there's still time for congress to pass the dream at this year because these kids deserve to plan their lives increments, and we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic needs, giving farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they will have. reform that gives science and

technology sectors certainty that the young people that come here to earn their ph.d. will not be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries. reform that continues to improve border security and lives up to our heritage as a nation of law and a nation of immigrants. just six years ago, the unlikely trio of john mccain,. kennedy, and president bush came together to champion this kind of reform, and i was proud to joined 23 republicans in voting for it. so, there is no reason why we cannot come together and get this done. as long as i'm president i will not give on this issue, not only because it is the right thing to do for our economy and ceo's agree with me, not just because it is the right thing to do for our security, but because it is the right thing to do period,

and i believe eventually republicans will come around to that view as well. i think it is the right thing to do because i have been with groups of young people that have worked so hard and speak with so much hard about what is best in america even though i know some of them must have lived with the fear of deportation. some of them have come forward and great risk to themselves and their futures in hopes it would spur the rest of us to live up to our most cherished values. i've seen the stories of americans in schools, churches, community is around the country that stood up for them, rallied behind them, and pushed us to give them a better path and freedom from fear. we are a better nation and one that expels innocent, young kids, and the answer to your question, sir, and the next time i prefer you let me finish the statement before you ask the

question, is this the right thing to do for the american people -- i did not asks for an argument. i'm answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people and here is why, here is the reason -- these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions and are already making contributions to our society. i have a young person serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom. the notion that in some way we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. if there is a young person here who has grown up here and who wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that is the right thing to do. given certainty to our farmers and ranchers, making sure that

in addition to border security we are creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration. these are the right things to do. we have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants as well as a nation of laws and that will continue. my hope is that congress recognizes that and gets behind this effort. all right? thank you. >> what about american workers that are unemployed while you import foreigners? [inaudible] [no audio]

>> president obama at the white house announcing a major change in immigration policy, affectively implementing what has been known as the dream act, which would stop deportation of younger illegal immigrants, those that came here as children, a move that could effect a hundred thousand immigrants to the west. we are opening up phone lines to reaction. here are the lines to use. >> make sure that you mute or television or radio when you

call in. we will go to merkel, a compton, california. democratic caller. >> i think it is ludicrous that the powers that be will not sign this dream act. these children have come here through no will of their own, and most of them, i'm sure, had their parents, grandparents come into this country as immigrants and it is a shame they will not give these people a chance to become citizens. everyone of us in this country came here against our will or came in the wrong way. they need to be allowed to have the same benefits. thank you. >> there's a lot of congressional reaction from twitter and more. tennessee on our republican line. hello. caller: hello. i am a first-time caller. i am a little nervous. >> go ahead. >> i am appalled, actually.

from as far back as i can remember i have been a republican. i believe in the rule of law. they may have come here without any choice, but so far this country is supposed to have laws and i do not know who this man thinks he is. he is not god. the justice department and him think they do not have to follow the law, and i think there are a whole lot of people in the country that are fed up with it. >> thank you for your comments. we are planning to take you live to see mitt romney in the second stop on his bus tour which began today in new hampshire coming up at around two o'clock 30 p.m. eastern. we hope to take you there live. he has made comments on immigration. if you go to our web site, and look at our website -- our

election site, you can look at candidates and we have his comments on immigration. lancaster, california. independent line. blend. -- glenn, hi there. >> hello. what gives this man the right to do that? ronald reagan did this in 1987, or whatever it was, and the law has not been in force since then. >> the house and senate are all this week, but plenty of reaction -- stephen king of iowa says he plans to sue the obama administration to halt the implementation of the newly announced policy, and looking at some tweets, this is another distraction from the economy. here is roles in illinois. republican line. >> i am republican.

i am again the posse >> what specifically do you not like? >> i think they should come here legally and get in line like everybody else did, and we have people that cannot even get jobs. no. i am against it. >> arlington, west virginia? >> no, it is huntington. >> huntington, west virginia. >> i believe this is the most arrogant president. >> i'm going to let you go. you can call once every 30 days, but we want to hear from others this afternoon. next up, we hear from chicago. independent line. >> breedings and good day. i'm a truly independent motor from the standpoint of there are

things that i agree that the president does and there are things that i disagree with. this immigration thing is a lot trickier than a five-second talking point, i agree with this or i agree with that. the dream? , i do not know how i feel about the dream -- the dream that, i do not know how i feel about the dream act, but for my generation, while democrats disrespected president bush, and i am african-american and i was called less black because i would defend president bush against on wanted character attacks. >> can i ask you how old you are? >> i am 32, sir. we were in our young 20.1 president bush was elected and then the for the fiasco. i set to say that while president bush was

disrespected, i truly believe that the blatant disrespect of president obama is a gas leak -- ghastly. i supported jon huntsman in the primaries. had he been the gop standard bearer i would vote for jon huntsman but he was deemed too liberal by the republican base. i have no choice but to vote for obama, so i'm hoping in 2016 jon huntsman runs again. >> did you vote less time for john mccain? >> no, sir. i voted for ron paul >> damian in chicago. the president heads to chicago this afternoon for the weekend and then he is off to mexico, los cabos, for two days and the g 20 summit. let's hear from caesar in new york city and our republican line. make sure they you turn down

your television set. go ahead. i am willing to put caesar on hold. charlie, and north carolina. democrats line. >> i would like to go ahead and say that i am a 22-year-old. i've been in raleigh, n.c., for about 17 years, i am and eagle scout and i graduated from high school from it in top honors, and i am an illegal immigrant and i am not able to continue studying and do the things i wished to do because of a simple paper that says i was born here. just like president obama said, i have the same hopes and dreams that any regular american would have, and unfortunately my parents did not bring me hear what my mom was still pregnant or something, but i am insulted

to hear that -- i have helped in some many ways as an eagle scout, as a fellow citizen, and to hear citizens themselves say they are appalled that anyone would try to help of someone like me. >> tell us about your background. where did you come from, and where are you in terms of your path to citizenship? >> i am actually from mexico city. i was brought here when i was four years old. my mom is the one that is petitioning me to become a citizen. currently, my petition is in 1996. is quite long ridge is quite long. 1996 -- the line is quite long. it is 2012. >> remind viewers how old you

are? >> i am 22. >> thank you. let's go back to cesar, new york city. >> i think everyone should come like us, the right way, not illegal. upcaesar, you're breaking just a little bit. frederick, new york. republican line. >> i think that the president needs to, you know, focus more on black folks as opposed to, you know, skirting everything else that he has been doing as president. he has not done anything for black people. i think he is just trying to corner the vote. that is why i am a republican.

he is selling out, so to speak. >> you see this move s totally political? >> it looks like a political move at this time just because he is doing everything except for addressing black people. he is a black president, and i think he should be addressing the issues of the black people and it is jobs. it has always been the same. >> again, the president announcing this afternoon the administration will stop deporting children of illegal immigrants that were born outside of the country. it could effect some 800,000 immigrants according to the associated press and a right to extraordinary step comes one week before the president plans to address the national association of latino elected and appointed officials in orlando late next week. saint petersburg, florida. frank. >> i think the president had to

take this step because we now, presently, unfortunately have an obstructionist congress that refuses to act. a few years earlier, as the president noted, we had bipartisan support and others, but it was the eighth media, meaning lou dobbs and rush limbaugh, who fanned the flames of this information and hatred that got enough conservatives in the senate to kill it. now you have more tea party types, which makes what came so close to happening when president bush was in office and was or is it -- now it is a dream that does not seem realistic. that is how irrational our congress has become. it has become dysfunctional.

in november, people have to decide if this is the kind of government they want, or do they want to have a government that works for the benefit of the people and does not care about their power plays. host: this marks the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the dream act. here is senator lady. kudos for keeping the dream act alive for so many people. we want to keep track of how members and reporters are responding. it is easy to do. let's go to philadelphia next. mary is on our independent line. caller: i am so glad that president obama stepped out to do this for our young hispanic and spanish children. how people can say, i am and american and go against

allowing someone who is doing good things for this country and will do good things for this country -- since when do we get off putting people out because we were born and raised here? i am speaking as an african- american woman. i do not see the reason why we should continue to punish people who want to live better lives. host: we plans to bring you live coverage of mitt romney. we will take it and show you later in our schedule. here is elizabeth in houston. she is a republican caller. welcome. caller: i am in houston, texas. i am 25 years of age. this is my first time calling. i was calling regarding the subject. we are talking about immigration and kids who are brought as newborns below the legal age of 18.

just like we are republicans and we say no to abortion and so forth, these kids have no toys. that is something we believe in. we believe it is against the law. if they have no choice and work for their betterment, that is the american dream. the other thing i wanted to talk about is that it is the law. there are people who are on lawful citizens and they are felonies and they have misdemeanors. these people are given opportunities to get one step closer to their residency. they work just as hard. i have several friends and family members who have gone through so much education. they have gotten their masters and they have had to pay out of pocket and they are struggling for a better job. they cannot get a real job that will pay the money.

i think this was a great thing and maybe obama was doing it for the candidacy for the presidential election coming up, but i think it is a great topic he brought up. >> we will hear from keshia in atlanta. caller: this is keshia in atlanta. i am so proud of my present for getting up and saying something popular in an election year. i know so many illegal people who are here working with us and working for their families and they deserve a chance at the american dream. i applaud him for what he is doing today and for the people who disrespect him on necessarily, it is appalling and unbelievable. host: the president, this afternoon, announcing a major

change in immigration policy in the deportation of children brought to the country illegally. here is his statement. >> secretary napolitano announced new actions my administration will take to amend our immigration policy to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just, specifically for certain young people, sometimes called dreamers. these are young people who study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, they are friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. they are americans in their hearts, their minds, and every single way but one, on paper. they were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants.

often, they had no idea that they work on documents and until they applied for a job or a driver's license or a college scholarship. put yourself in their shoes. imagine you have done everything right your entire life, studied hard, work hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class, only to suddenly faced the threat of deportation to a country you know nothing about, with a language you may not even speak. that is what gave rise to the dream act. it says if your parents brought you here as a child and you have been here five years and you are willing to go to college and serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship. i have said time and time again to congress, send me the dream

act, put it on my desk and i will sign it right away. both parties wrote this legislation and one year and a half ago democrats passed the dream that in the house but republican walked away from it. it got 55 votes in the senate, but republicans blocked it. the bill has not really changed. the need has not changed. it is still the right thing to do. the only thing that has changed apparently was the politics. as i said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people who for all intents and purposes are americans, have been raised as americans, understand themselves to be

part of this country -- to expel these young people that want to staff our laboratories, start new businesses or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents or the inaction of politicians. in the absence of any immigration action from congress, when we have tried to do is focus immigration reenforce -- enforcement resources in the right place, prioritizing border security, putting more votes on the southern border than any other time in our history. today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the last 40 years. we focus in use discretion on who to prosecute, focusing on criminals that endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education, and today deportation of criminals is up 80%. we have improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. well, today, we are improving it again. effective immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national

security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. now, let's be clear, this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary, stop-gap measure that lets us focus resources wisely while getting a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. excuse me, sir. it is not the right time for questions. not while i am speaking. >> precisely because this is temporary, congress needs to

act. there's still time for congress to pass the dream at this year because these kids deserve to plan their lives increments, and we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic needs, giving farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they will have. reform that gives science and technology sectors certainty that the young people that come here to earn their ph.d. will not be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries.

reform that continues to improve border security and lives up to our heritage as a nation of law and a nation of immigrants. just six years ago, the unlikely trio of john mccain,. kennedy, and president bush came together to champion this kind of reform, and i was proud to joined 23 republicans in voting for it. so, there is no reason why we cannot come together and get this done. as long as i'm president i will not give on this issue, not only because it is the right thing to do for our economy and ceo's agree with me, not just because it is the right thing to do for our security, but because it is the right thing to do period, and i believe eventually republicans will come around to that view as well. i think it is the right thing to do because i have been with groups of young people that have worked so hard and speak with so much hard about what is best in america even though i know some of them must have lived with the fear of deportation. some of them have come forward and great risk to themselves and their futures in hopes it would spur the rest of us to live up to our most cherished values.

i've seen the stories of americans in schools, churches, community is around the country that stood up for them, rallied behind them, and pushed us to give them a better path and freedom from fear. we are a better nation and one that expels innocent, young kids, and the answer to your question, sir, and the next time i prefer you let me finish the statement before you ask the question, is this the right thing to do for the american people -- i did not asks for an argument. i'm answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people and here is why, here is the reason -- these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions and are already making contributions to our society. i have a young person serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom.

the notion that in some way we would treat them as expendable makes no sense. if there is a young person here who has grown up here and who wants to contribute to this society, wants to maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks who are looking for work, that is the right thing to do. given certainty to our farmers and ranchers, making sure that in addition to border security we are creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration. these are the right things to do. we have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants as well as a nation of laws and that will continue. my hope is that congress recognizes that and gets behind this effort. all right? thank you. >> what about american workers that are unemployed while you import foreigners?

>> president obama from within the hour at the white house. a number of news reports and fox news radio indicate the reporter shouted a question at present obama was from the daily caller. we are planning to take mitt romney in milford, new hampshire. up next, from earlier this week. a discussion on the future of the republican party.

>> one of the first things i learned was the institute's mission statement. the count -- the competition of ideas is a fundamental to a free society. we have had many debates. we differed strongly over anti struck -- antitrust policy and we have disagreed with libertarians on many issues

including abortion and organ donation there were disagreements. scholars have even deferred about the merits of plastic bags. our speakers are well known to you and the biographical material is available to you.

>> it is a pleasure to be here for this interesting debate. i am here to give you the rules and then i will leave the stage to these two gentlemen. i will be back for the question and answer period. we will begin with a minute

opening statements -- with a 8 minute opening statements. there will be a 27 minute -- it is not 26 or 28 -- it is 27 minutes of questions and answers followed by closing statements by each gentleman. we will be taking questions from e-mail and twitter. for those of you so inclined, the twitter hashtag is a eidebates. at the end of each round, there will be a buzzer or a bell for that. that will sound the end of the round. i will be back to moderate

questions. 8 minutes for each opening round bottle -- followed by five minutes for opening rebuttals. thank you all for coming. this debate was precipitated by the washington post outlook piece that michael author and i did. our new book is even worse than it looks. makes a great holiday gift. i want to start by thanking my friend and opponent, steve hayward. i would like to give a chance to get bush, an aei favorite who said ronald reagan and his father would have a hard time --ng elected by today's or

ultraconservative republican party that does not find common ground. thank you for your impeccable timing. i would like to thank allen west, richard murdock, donald trump, michele bachmann, the 237 house republicans and 97 senate republicans who have signed the note tax pledge and others who have made my tasks so much easier. i am attempted to do a sally field by saying, you like me. you really like me. but surveying this audience, no. i am going to talk quickly because i have a lot of things to say and evidence to provide. i would not talk as quickly as my son who did policy debate where you blurt things out. let me start by emphasizing what i will not be saying. i would not say one party is good and the other is evil.

partisanship and hardball politics are normal and both parties will a job by was not say all republicans are extreme. many, including some strong republicans -- conservatives want to find common ground. i will not say conservatism is extreme. there are plenty conservatives who are not extreme. a party can be extreme in three ways. i will discuss each. taxes, ideology, and rhetoric. first tactics. tactics depend on context. the gop has adopted non pilot -- non pont - non-parlimentary

tactics. they defined the adversary as the enemy and hold positions because of who the -- who is supporting them not because of what is in them. the first evidence comes from the filibuster. let me put up a charge. it is being applied in a fashion unseen in the previous history. i do not have time to go over the filibuster. much of it is in the book. let me say that in the past, filibusters were used rarely for issues of great national moment by a minority feeling intensely about them and willing to stop everything and throw themselves into making their point. now it is used routinely as a weapon of obstruction. cloture motions were three a month in the 1980's. now there are two or more in a

week. the minority has a point. many of the cloture motions are filed prematurity -- prematurely. they are designed to close off debate. it does not explain multiple filibusters on bills and nominations that garner unanimous and near unanimous support. the workers and business assistance act passed 98-0. the credit card holders bill of rights 95, seven days of floor time. recovery act on mortgage and securities fraud, six days of floor time. all done to stretch out the time frame and take out the most precious commodity of the senate and block things from happening. the same has been true of nominations. the most prominent being the court of appeals judge.

99 desk 0 on cloture votes. filibuster is used for the new nullification are also unprecedented, blocking people or by a considered even by those opposing them as being fully qualified and passing every vetting spent her but blocked for things like the consumer protection bureau, medicare and medicaid services because the people blocking them don't like clause that had been legally and constitutional and acted and want to keep them from being implemented. if i had a lot of time, i could talk about the debt limit used as a hostage to non-negotiable demands and fulfilling the mitch mcconnell predictions. two other examples of extreme tactics -- but greg conrad fiscal commission where people supported it voted against their own bill because they did not want to give a victory to the other side and the same with the benefit widen health reform bill.

these are not simply benefited -- these tactics are not simply don in washington. immemorial bridge was adopted and governor court refused to sign at as he expected other comparable bills because it was introduced by a democrat. these tactics have been successfully defined by richard murdock who beat richard lugar in the senate. i said by partisanship should -- i said bipartisan should consist of democrats coming to the republican side is what he said. public opinion surveys show that the two parties in congress -- let me put up a couple of charts that show what has happened over time in congress -- the voting records for the house and senate.

you will see clearly the republicans in congress are the most conservative that they have been in our lifetimes and, indeed, perhaps more conservative than in a century. the democratic party, especially as a loss to southern democrats, moved some went to the left but nowhere near as much. let me quote the most prominent and respected conservative intellectual -- calvin coolidge, a conservative favorite. or even ronald reagan who favored large-scale government research be on the missile defense. that recognizes "that came from steve hayward. the party in congress voted to kill the census bureau's survey and economic census which has been used by businesses for a variety of vital purposes to establish different purposes.

representative daniel webster who sponsored it said it is not scientific, it is a random survey. you can see why he is not on the intelligence committee. exampleslots of other and examples on rhetoric that start with allen west and move to many others which we will have to discuss during the bottle or other times. that's my eight minutes. >> i want to begin by thanking the senator that said dick cheney should be convicted of war crimes. when conquering roman generals would return to their victory parades in rome, they would

place a slave behind him to whisper in his ear that all glory is fleeting. norm is our slave at aei. does he have a naked pictures of arthur brooks? that wouldn't work because arthur worked out. norm is a very valuable presence around our hallways and keeps us on our game and promises not to confuse ideology with partisanship. it is quite useful to have someone around to point out the inconsistencies and blind spots and petty hypocrisies.

norm makes all this better and sharper in our work even if we mutter about his latest provocation. i admire much of his work seeing that his interest in the congress stems from a deep affection of the first branch. his grief is sincere and the worry about the future is well- founded. his work on the continuity of government project urging us to take respective remedies against the worst case terror strike as of the highest value. in contrast to the continuity of a government project, and less enamored of what i think to be his continuity of liberalism project. i read his book and it is worse than it looks. [laughter] it makes a good holiday gift, i

will agree with that [laughter] we live in a time of heightened polarization making the task of governing mentally difficult. a very distinguished political science said this --"democrats and republicans are swaggering and on certain, secure and paranoid, each side is confidence in its own domain. party is fearful that will make a mistake and lose its own empire not just for one term but for decades and the site is hopeful that confined to capture its rightful complete majority by forcing the other to make a fatal mistake. the result is passive aggressive politics, politics avoiding blame greedy side is so concerned about avoiding a mistake that taking risks to make better policy is increasingly uncommon." i think that is a good anecdotal description. it correctly perceives the

symmetry of the two parties and rightly assigning equal blame to both parties. this assessment comes from norm ornstein writing back in 1990. what happens to that guy? i miss him. by the way, the title of the article was "the permanent democratic congress." that seems like a golden age. he said republicans or the chicago cubs of american politics. according to his hypothesis, things have changed such that to the republicans are and insurgent out liar in american politics. they fear polarization has become asymmetric or it is the republicans' fault. his tricycle one of the political parties and outline what happens to be at its highest level in terms of elected officials nationwide in

70 years unless you are prepared to take the next that does suggest the american people have taken leave of their senses. that does not appear in norma's book. you hardly notice the election of 2010 took place. the republicans did not win majorities until they turned to the extremists of. some people never got over the 1994 election. i want to lay down a couple of markers. his book contains a catalog of genuine republic embarrassments and hypocrisies. i thank that as susceptible but is it true that the partisanship of republicans today is different in character than the kind of partisanship of to both male -- of tip o'neill or the same position taken by democrats against george bush? his republican harassment

fundamentally different than the way democrats use the oversight process to harass or reagan appointees? that extended to eliminate budget appropriations or cutting program funds for long- established programs. we could waste a lot of time debating whose political calipers are more finely tune but it is ultimately quite futile to argue in this maupertuis can dispense with the balance sheet and go directly to the sneaky presumption that whether into nothingness when the village torn away. take the view that the democratic party is more it illogically and diverse -- ideologically diverse and perfect -- and protective of the government role as it has developed over the course of last century. it seems to make it does not

take an extremist to say that is precisely the problem. the democratic party is the status quo party until they get the opportunity to ratchet up the state in a big way which has been the story of most of the last century after which they sit back and protect the status quo and republicans are supposed to be fine with this? this would astound rickey henderson. they say the ideological center of the republican party must change to regain national health. there could be returned to the kind of accommodation that the

principal use of moderate republicans is to shoot the wounded after the battle is over. i suspect that idea of good government would be president david gergin. is the republican party extreme? i certainly hope so. the republican party began its life as an extremist party dedicated to the purpose of a bolling -- abolishing barbarism. the supreme court declared the republican party's platform to be unconstitutional. there is little reason or purpose for the republican party unless it acts with a new determination to call it the size of all to the and thus ratcheting expansion of centralized government power and reckless spending. gains prominent positions in "the post," but all glory is fleeting.

[laughter] >> i don't disagree with a finger first minute and a half. [laughter] let me next say that i don't know which is meant more disorienting, appearing naked pictures of arthur brooks or david gergan as president.

they are on the same park. let me move on to some of your arguments. when i wrote that piece in 1990 and i noted that what would likely end the democratic majority that was moving toward 38 years would be a democratic president and a counterpoint that would take place but things have changed since 1990. indeed, many of the arguments i would make here, and i want to go back to where i started, neither party is an angel. votes have often crossed lines and done things that are

deplorable. the democrats or the way they handled the bork supreme court nomination, blocking estrada statements by people like allen west and cynthia mckinney. we singled out allen west who said that between 79 and 81 democrats in the house are members of the communist party. he asked about cynthia mckinney. i went back and looked. we have a faulty timers. i got a whole bunch of newspaper clippings. there are differences here on that front. more significantly, so much of this is a matter of degree and not kind but the unprecedented things i have mentioned. look at blogging nominations and i can show you a chart after chart of the number of nominations blocked compared to the reagan years and the swiftness with which the executive and judicial appointments went through. if you want to talk about cooperating with the president, i look at two points of comparison -- when george w. bush came into the white house, in a white house that was in tatters almost. you have the most controversial election at least in our lifetime if not an american history. you had a president who had no coattails, 36 days to come in, facing an adversarial environment. it would have been easy for democrats to hold a dinner meeting on inaugural even say the way that we can regain power is to stomp on his neck and lever led up.

we can vote against everything he wants his presidency will die. instead, they cooperated immediately on no child left behind. that gave him a victory that established the legitimacy of his presidency. democratic votes provided the margin for the tax cuts. that was a hallmark of the bush presidency. democrats say the vote on the tarp program which saved the bush presidency. contrast that with another book about the meeting that took place with top republican leaders on inaugural even 2009. the president came in on a landslide with a 70% approval in the worst economy since the great depression. i think that is the difference and when you look at things like blocking nominations that are widely acceptable because you don't want bill to be implemented, that is the difference. let me address the argument that you made that tom and i have lost our marbles and how can a party be extremely good wins elections? let's think of some examples in history of parties that were extreme and won the elections. peter is old enough to remember the 1930's. he is very, very old.

1 he is perhaps our oldest colleague. [laughter] i can give you some examples -- parties win elections when people are unhappy. in our system, elections get one and lost far more often because they are referendums on what is going on -- that economies bring about elections. republicans have learned from

1994 and 2010 is that if you make the process looks awful, worse than it usually is, make it even worse than it looks, you may well win elections if people rebel against what they see as the party in power. that is a good thing if you want to win elections. it is not a good thing if you want to solve problems in government. i think that is what is behind jeb bush -- no raving liberals being upset about the direction in which his party is going. >> the bush family has not gotten over from losing to renaldus magnus in 1980. a lot has changed since 19 '90s. there was a question of debate this year about taxes. why was that answer given by the field? it was because the history of the last 30 years or so since politics became closer is that these deals never work for republicans. they have seen this before. how many times has the republican charlie brown fallen for the lucy and the football trick.

this explains why you see the rise of the tea party which is the republican analogue to the anti-war movement three or four years ago. it is a disruptive force and might tear the party apart. you mentioned the greg comrade commission. we can play tennis like this all day. there is a piece of evidence was a fundamental problem that

the republican party has not gotten over the prison and that they want to be the permit relief party in america. this explains the symmetry of the ferocity of the competition. maybe the best example is the 2004 election. republicans extended their majority. tom daschle was defeated, the majority leader, in part because of the argument that he is an obstructionist to nominees. terry reid comes in and joe biden was asked to come into said this -- he said majority leader's have not filled that role. dianne feinstein said that if we keep going on this way, we

will be a minority party. this kind of presumption made perfect sense in 1955 or 1965 or 1985. it does not make sense after the 1990's. you see this subtext often. there's something unnatural about republican majority? this adds to the ferocity of the republicans who say it will not kick the football again. >> thanks, gentlemen. that was very civil, wasn't it?

[laughter] i'm supposed to take some questions but i thought i would each of you one quick question. norm, how would you respond to a political party that is about to nominate mitt romney as its presidential nominee and four years earlier, nominated john mccain as its presidential nominee? alice that fit with your idea that this is a bunch of -- how does that fit with your idea that this is a bunch of crazy radicals? steve, i thought i would ask you

to address the following point -- what might make the republicans radical in this day and age is their understanding or maybe there miss understanding of the legislative process. the nature of the legislature involved in a give-and-take and compromise and if you listen to many republicans these days, compromise is a dirty word and they seem unwilling to compromise. if that is how they approach the nature of legislative process, it undermines the institution -- the fundamental nature of the institution. norm, you can start. >> the best way to answer that is to look at what john mccain and mitt romney had to do to win nominations and where they are. i worked a lot with john mccain who has been for much of his career very conservative and a problem solver, somebody who looks for solutions on immigration, climate change, campaign finance, and other areas. he abandoned all of those positions as he moves forward to win a republican nomination.

i look at mitt romney who has taken a position on immigration that has made sure that he has a position outside the bounds of our normal politics, a candidate to openly embrace as donald trump will even george will calls a blow creating big around as but who has gone over the line in terms of some of the things he has said. other litmus test that had to be taken -- when i talked to jon huntsman who could not even get traction in the presidential contest partly because of his own missteps about litmus tests, candidates have to take those positions and you all to them. i don't -- i view mitt romney as somebody who is not just the etch a sketch a guide but the chameleon. that does not matter. he will move into office if he

assumes the presidency and the bound to what he has promised in the past but also to a legislature that has moved far enough outside and that includes budget and tax positions that go very far from what we have seen in the past that would leave him at the edges whatever his internal beliefs are. >> i actually think there's quite a bit to be said that the republican party is not very good at the legislative process. the republican party atrophied during those years when they were out of power. during that time, republicans succeeded in electing presidents starting with eisenhower. even before that, the two parties had a slightly different character. republicans became the executive-minded party and the democrats became better at the legislative process. had there been a way to organize the tea party, it would have happened earlier. tom delay said we cannot

possibly cut spending any more. there was nothing left of any principle core of republicanism in congress. they were not any better than the democratic party from a conservative point of view. they used bill clinton as a foil and got things done. they have yet to prove that they can actually govern as the majority party in a parliamentary sense for any other and that will be a big task that happen to win the election. >> we will go to questions by want to remind people that they can still either e-mail their questions to aeidebates or twitter. we have a question -- let's start off with this one -- what

is the role of the tea party and is it the reason or how much of the reason at all that you think the republicans are extreme and how do you think the tea party fits into the republican party and the question of extremas and? >> i think it is the first time -- it is a pretty substantial populist movement of the right. getting into the rallies was unprecedented. >> there were all at country clubs. [laughter] >> there's got to be a good joke about a country club riot. just as the new left and the anti-war movement and associated parts push the democratic party to the left in the 1960's and 1970's to the ruination of johnson and mcgovern, the tea party is problematic to republicans. i happen to like to them. they are my kind of peeps. one of my ironic criticism no

ofrm's book is that it does not take this it to -- the thesis seriously enough. the republicans may fracture in two. there is talk of a tea party candidate this year. they would run independently. it would look something like the wallace candidacy in 1968. at that point, i predict n thatorm - norm will look back on with on this on ralph nader. >> can you comment on the occupy wall street movement and with the regard that? >> the tea party movement is a populist movement said o as theccupy movement this period rose during a time of economic turmoil, as it usually does. it was an attack on leadership and establishment leadership but

i think we often use tea party as a kind of shorthand that simplifies things too much. the headaches for john boehner -- mitch mcconnell has been very cold-blooded in his strategy in a way the john boehner has not -- it was in the house for more than the freshman tea party members, the members of the republican study committee including longtime veterans like jim jordan of ohio and mike: pants and a number of others who posed a much deeper challenge. it's part of the problem was there is a natural tendency when you have this movement emerging and people who are energized to write to that tiger and exploited as much as you can. once you have taken them past

the finish line, you can call up to them. you can change the animal metaphor. if you cultivate a hungry rottweiler and it scares everybody in the neighborhood, that can be fabulous until you have to go outside. then it may not recognize to the master really is. it has been frustrating for john boehner who is a legislator and problem solver that he cannot control his troops. that is a part of what is going on here. what is also true is that the tea party people coming in as freshmen viewed themselves as different from the 1994 class. we share a lot of ideology but they went washington. if you think the 1994 gingrich republicans went washington and

they compromised, that tells you something about where we are.

the occupy movement emerged from the same routes but it tells you the tribal differences between the two parties. the tea party movement was leaderless but they organized and ran candidates and moved into the political process to have an impact and they did at. he occupy movement is sitting there waiting for something to happen. they have had an impact in changing the dialogue, the 1% and a 99% that is out there and the fact that you had the published "her of the manchester union leader" saying he was going to endorse newt gingrich and not mitt romney because mitt romney is a nice guy but embodied the 1%, tells you the impact they have had. have they had an impact on our politics or the legislative process- no, find me one candidate who was recruited a an as occupy wall street candidate to run for office. it gets back to why will rogers said heineman member -- said i'm not a member of any organized party. i am a democrat. >> a number of questions, our combatants have already taken a shot at.

it has been part of their earlier comments. i think this is a very direct question and let's start with norm. doesn't it seem like democrats are unwilling to meet the gop halfway? it seems the republicans went more than halfway for much of the last century. they went 80% of the way or more and now the republicans are sticking up for republican principles while democrats the new gilded age is upon us. this leaves the pa with someuse. if you look at the trajectory of discretionary domestic spending which is most of government as we know it, it has been leveled off and declined significantly.

we've talked about how those deals were bad and republicans have been screwed repeatedly. i'll go back to my friend jenna bush who noted the 1990 budget agreement where you got some very significant restraint with tax increases and as a group -- bruce bartlett says that when you cut taxes, you don't cut spending and when you raise taxes you do and that is where we have seen those dynamics. i think you see some significant opportunity here to do more than meet halfway with the gang of six plan. steve mentioned the simpson balls commission.

when president obama said positive things about the gang of six planned an said this is a framework from which we can work. that killed it for republicans because they were against it. we are not saying that the amount play out. >> this is way too fun. obama saying positive things about the gang of six deal -- i have a more cynical take on that. that was his way of killing it. the quickest way for obama to

kill a deal he doesn't like is to praise it. i've actually toured with the idea that maybe we should raise the taxes on the 1% because many vote for obama and they deserve it. the more serious part of the theory is if you want people to want less government, mabel they will pay for the government they're getting and they will want less of it. under obama, we have seen the federal government's share of gdp go from a historic range of 23% in peacetime to 27%. we have already had this wretched with obama care and the stimulus. we're told meet us halfway.

they are open to higher revenues but not necessarily higher tax rates but obama does not want to have that are given. he believes in punitive liberalism to tax the rich. people will have to move off of that if there will be in a move on the republican side to. >> do you want to respond? >> i get a fairly robust response to that. that spending has gone down. the morn 0.10 -- the more important move is that it is more cynical. he has said he is responsive of a plan that includes cuts to medicare, social security, and medicaid which is what the gang

of six plan did. you'll have a hard time backing away from that and you have laid down a marker that is very different that republicans rather than john boehner have laid down. as soon as they got to negotiations, erick kanter walked out. -- eric cantor walked out. we have a population that is aging and living longer. however you want to deal with it, we will have some increases in entitlement although we can curb that rate of growth. when you have taxes at the lowest level of gdp since the 1950's, the idea that cutting them further will enable you to deal with the deficit and the debt, i find that just bizarre.

>> the next question. i get this one all the time. this is a classic question of any speaker. we have members of the media here. this is a terrific opportunity to beat up on somebody. how much does the media make the republican party look more extreme than there really are? is the media a factor here or not? >> there was a saying that went around in the 2004 election that the media was worth 15 points to john kerry. that's wrong. they seem to be able to win despite media criticism, hostility, what ever. also, what's really fun these days is i just watched robert rice giving a speech talking about the good old days when they all watched the same

network news. people get their news from all over the place now. the go back and let at this, does not happen as much anymore. i do not tend to play that game usually. >> tom and i have written a lot about this and i think there is substantial liberal bias back in the 1960's. of course, i think the media environment has changed radically. we have a partisan press that is back to the future than it with much more immediacy. this is not like william randolph hearst which has added to the complications. if you talk about the media, you have to start with that. you live in a world where the

self identified members believe the president is not legitimate, it tells you something about the way the media dynamic is working. that has left the mainstream press with a bit of a dilemma. they have done that by falling back that your report on both sides of the story. your report on both sides of the story. that means there is a holocaust denier and a holocaust victim, you want to give them equal say. i do not think it works. among other things, i think it helps to enable some of the disfunction we have now. go back to the filibuster. when you get news stories that say bills died in the senate when they got a majority of support and died only because of filibuster but you do not mention the filibuster, that seems to me to be an inaccurate

way of reporting. >> as may be uncomfortable, but try to imagine romney is elected president and republicans when the senate by picking up six seats or something. should we expect the democrats in opposition to behave just like the republicans are behaving now? do you expect them to be magnanimous? will they really behave so differently? >> it will be interesting to watch and i think democrats will say, "you did it to us, we'll do it to you." whether they can work together remains to be seen. let me give you a compare bull scenario.

imagine in democrat told the senate and romney becomes president. do i think at that point that hey will savy "screw you" and they will block everything in hold hostage? i think romney will go to democrats in the senate for more frequently than he will the republicans and say, "please, help me out here." why would that a considerable amount to -- not $10,000, but he would find plenty of democrats willing to cut deals with him. >> one problem they correctly identified in the book is that both parties are subject to enormous pressures.

-- i'm trying to think of an example. there's not a formal pledge type thing. with all of the ways that these political organizations are established, there is another domain on political reform in general. richard lugar may have a seat you had the old robust separate party organizations that had been undermined by various schemes and so forth that have diminished the power of organizations and increase the power of these other organizations. they cannot come to the rescue of the moderate or long-term serving members.

>> we have a problem lead time for one or two more before closing statements. let me start with you. somebody asked was the debt ceiling debate an example of extremism? or do you think it was inappropriate tool to constrain government? >> i would answer it this way. the fight over the debt ceiling represents the new moment we are in. enough is enough. it is a dangerous thing to do. i'm not very impressed by credit ratings. it the downgrade does not get me terribly excited. the optimists in me thinks that, however this turns out, that the first run of the debt ceiling

agenda is a bit of a train wreck. this turned out to be the key moment when people came back and said there would have to see their way through it. we can play lots of games about a lame duck session depending on election results, but i will stop there. >> is this a modern version of the game of chicken and they play a better than the republicans -- than the democrats? >> on appaled what has happened. you do not play chicken with the full faith and credit of the united states. it's true. we're one of only two countries that does and you are ratifying previous debts and it has been a political football ever since we have done this. it is almost funny as you look at them exchanging scripps with

each other. the level of hypocrisy as a stand up and vote against the debt limit that you will stand firm for fiscal responsibility. then you take the script from the other guy. the fact is every time in the past, the leaders know it was a game and they were not actually going to endanger the full faith and credit of the united states. i view standard and poor as both standard and poor. the politics of this leave us with no confluence that you'll be able to manage the future.

these of the political equivalent of "the avengers" but they can't act. the does to me we're operating on dangerous ground here. we can get away with it a long as there's no other reserve currency and other systems are doing worse than we are but it's not a game i believe we should be playing. we were discussing his position on raising the debt ceiling. would you really push hard enough.

it is reasonably bright and articulate. yes, everyone would know it would be a technical default. it would just be a technical default. i do not know if that is radical or different. closing statements and then a brief conclusion. withently we're beginning steve, a five minute closing statement on whether the republican party now is [inaudible] >> ok. let me start my time.

it's in the cannot conclude that there are too extreme when you begin with the odd premise that democrats and liberals are merely pragmatic problem solvers. it seemed to be extreme and rolling back the clock. this seems to be avoiding the issue very clearly and is distortion test. we have talked about some of the reforms that norm suggests about the filibuster, voting forms, and so forth, which i think would make very little difference. you can find this at newcriterion.com and they make

it challenging argument. this brought a whole new order to our governance. usually this was throwing a party becoming a dominant and long-lasting majority. it could be that this is a variation of the classic realignment theory, but in the present case the fact is this. what they call the blue state model of governance is broken. we are not just looking at some broken entitlements but a look at extraordinary growth. you see democrats in san jose, san diego, the mayor of

chicago, the democratic legislature of rhode island all seem to get this. the national democrats do not seem to know this yet. it even if obama is reelected, he and his ideologies are going to look like the end of an era. suppose that the clash of the parties, as been described, could be the minister ameliorated through process reforms. it takes optimism to a whole new level. as i said in the extemporaneous comments, this ought to be taken more seriously.

this has been banished by our mind thanks to the post-war democracy is back in europe and i think it is not impossible that six months from now greece could have a military government or that spain could ask for help from a to a unemployment goes to 40% because of the gathering storm. our prospects are not as dire suggesting republicans are extremists. we are more stable than that, but there is a prospect of republican party breaking up unless it holds together for its principles. if it becomes another "me, too" party, it will just become the tea party. what is the point? that is why i conclude on the point that the prospect comes along, norm will look back with was a warm feelings for mitch

mcconnell and john boehner. then you can pass the airsickness bags to norm. >> thanks. let me talk about how much i value steve as a colleague and i'm sad that he will be leaving us. he is, of all things, moving to california. we will not going to that. i would also note that he has been apostate within the conservative movement in his own party tried to raid in a conservative movement and we also have someone who takes a very conservative position on climate change but knowledge is there may be a problem resulting in him. ostracized by many as well. i have a lot of sympathy for him in what he's trying to do. i'm uneasy about the future.

i do not think we will see the emergence of a new majority. we are equally divided. a large part of the problem is not structural but cultural. moving beyond the trifle politics back to somewhere where we'd look to problem solving will be difficult to do. as much as anything, the book is a lament about the decline in problem solving. as a book for the trajectory of the last few years and think about the entitlement state and think about the reality that reining in the cost and size of government comes down fundamentally to health care costs, we did not have two parties playing to rein in health-care costs. repeal and replaces now repeal and we'll talk about it later. but i think about medicaid, the biggest concern is long-term care for the elderly. we're looking at a population that is getting older and living longer. long-term care is going to be a

huge problem. we find it largely through medicaid. anyone who believes that you just cut it 30% and give it to the state that they will find a formula to take care of the elderly in the nursing homes that goes beyond one nurse's aide for every five patients to one for every 25 is simply deluding themselves. has there been any willingness to sit down and discussed how, either liberals or conservatives, can figure out a way for society to deal with the problems that people will have with their parents and grandparents down the road. whether you're liberal, conservative, or anything else they need to be resolved. the government is going to play a role and we are no longer at a point where we can even have a conversation on those things. how we move to that point remains an enormous challenge for us. it's a challenge for both parties. i worry about a democratic party

that, over time, may in itself become more extreme or more liberal. as we have said in our jargon, it has moved to the 25 yard line while the republican party has basically moved beyond its own goal posts. you can imagine a democratic party that loses almost all of the remaining elements of its moderate and conservative movement and decides more and more to dig in its heels. the democratic party that took the reins of power and did not enact any of the wish list of items that did not do single payer or include a public option, the idea that this is the secular socialist machine that newt gingrich called it or that this is an administration that, as herman cain said, consciously deliberately is

trying to destroy capitalism, i find that a little ridiculous. you can imagine both parties moving further apart. you can imagine those conservative jeb bush-top republicans with nowhere to go. i do not think a third party will emerge. our culture will not tolerate it. we will have to find some way to get back to a culture problem solving where the rest of the country may look like california squared. >> i would like to thank steve and norm for a terrific debate. [applause] wait, wait. stay there. they have shared their great intellect and stability. this and other debates are available on aei.org and transcripts are available there. norm's book is available for purchase after we adjourn.

it is even worse than it looks. finally, before we adjourn, the get these two gentlemen. look at them. they are even better than they look. we are adjourned. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> justice ginsberg is speaking at the national convention of the american constitutional society. that will be live starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> one of the quotes from the white house staffer that i thought was expect --

especially inspiring is, "want to realize the magnitude of different to can make, everything will pale in comparison." >> he came in and said, "those who think they're crazy enough to change the world actually do." >> that same man said choose carefully and do this tirelessly. we think too many things and we generally focus on that one thing that should be a top priority. >> the u.s. senate youth program brings to the washington for leadership education. this year, brian kamoie. >> i started with the mind set. what is it like to be them? now that i'm in this role, what can share with them that either i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they leave washington week,

which as you have mentioned, is a very intense rapid-fire experience? it's a very good thing to encourage them to pursue public service. kamoui on "h brian q&a." >> the invasion and burning of d.c. this weekend on american history tv. marking the beginning of the war of 1812 where francis scott key had seen through the rockets' red glare. your calls like at 11:00 a.m. saturday. also, more on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. "the contenders." this time with william jennings

bryan. that is this weekend on c-span3. >> the netroots held their annual conference in providence, rhode island, and it focused on the economic recovery in the middle class. two of the panelists included paul krugman and afl-cio chairman richard trumka. but they called on the need to build a 99% movement to force change in the political arena. this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> i'm not going to take it personally that they put us here at 9:00 a.m. after a rousing friday night of partying in providence, but i'm so glad to sort of see all of you here and to know that we're being streamed live on c-span. the words and the heart of these incredible speakers we have will reach a very large audience this

morning. thank you all for being here and thanks to netroots for putting this panel together. this morning, we will be joined by a fantastic group of people who had a share day and sometimes divergent, but always exciting, set of the visions for where we should be leading our economy to get out of the mess we're in and it to a brighter future. we have richard trumka, the president of afl-cio. [applause] we have the founder of the agenda project, erica payne. [applause] the founder and executive director of the national domestic workers alliance. [applause] and last, but not least, the

only person on this stage to win a nobel, as of yet, economist paul krugman. [applause] here's how we're going to do this this morning. we will hear from paul krugman, who has an incredible book out called, "and this recession now -- "end this recession now!" then we will go into a quick moderated discussion among these fantastic people and we will have 20 minutes at the end for audience questions. without further ado, i would like to invite paul krugman to the stage. [applause] >> good morning. thanks to netroots for letting

me talk here. a few remarks because we will mostly be doing a discussion. i want to say couple of things. i do have the "d" word in my book, depression. why not something more reasonable? part of the reason is i think we really need to understand that there's a difference between the ups and downs of the business cycle. a recession, roughly speaking, is when things are heading down. a depression, there is no formal definition, but i would say that is when things are down. that is when things are terrible for an extended period of time. there were times of official recovery and it was not all recessions.

it is not as bad as the great depression. that is the winning slogan. it is incredibly awful. if you do not know multiple people who are suffering, then you must be living in a very rarified environment. you must be a member of the ronny clan or something. -- romney clan. there are 4 million american workers that has been out of work more than one year which has not happened since the 1930 proxy. there was incredible suffering among young people trying to get their lives started. everytime i see a politician or pundits saying we did think about the that and the burden on children -- what about young people right now who cannot get their lives properly started? [applause]

it is really terrible. it is a problem across the entire advanced world. it is incredibly bad here. the thing about it, and none of this has to be happening. we did not have a plague of locusts, we were not hit by a tsunami. it was not some terrible act of god. it was acts of man. right now, it is easily solvable. we have seen this movie before. we know how this works. you tend to think about, people who are demanding, we solve this thing quickly, they must be crazy idealists who are defying

the wisdom of economic knowledge. it is the other way around. the people in charge are refusing to end this thing quickly, who are ignoring the lessons of history and rejecting economic knowledge that we know from history. there are some lessons we learned. do not slashed government spending and lay off hundreds of thousands of workers in the middle of the depression. [applause] i thought we knew that. and yet, we have been ignoring all of that hard-earned knowledge. you should know "the new york times" book review is run by a

neocon. the reviewer is shocked at the lack of respect i show for highly respected people. i think he uses that phrase. there is a phrase i picked up -- i do not know. i love and i use it. we have been living under the tyranny of the very serious people. they are getting it wrong. just going with their prejudices instead of what we know from textbook economics. what we know from 80 years of historical experience.

we could solve this. solving this depression is not fundamentally an economic problem, it is a political problem. it is a problem of getting those various serious people out of the way in doing what we already know. [applause] y gatherings like this are important. thank you. -- why gatherings like this are important. thank you. >> i have to say one quick housekeeping thing. if you want me to do my job, you should turn the clock on. paul really laid out a problem, which is a fundamental one at the root of the crisis. there is a problem of unemployment, underemployment, a lack of economic strength, and security among the vast majority of the working people in this

country. if you look at that problem, there are a set of solutions that have to do with more government spending, stronger labor unions, higher wages. have to allow for a certain amount of inflation. the progress of economic agenda, in other words. if you reshapes the problem, that the problem we are in today is that the problem is a high government deficits, there is an entirely different problem at the state level and the federal level. if you look at the problem that way, the solution is, lower wages. cutting public benefits. destroying public unions. we are in a moment where it feels like we have to ensure that the real crisis is the crisis of the day. how is the american labor union movement, which is implicated in both of those big economic --

[inaudible] >> that is pretty loud. every country in europe -- all 11 of them had an election and all 11 of them lost. it doesn't matter, the left, right, or center. nothing will change unless we make a change. none of us are big enough to do it alone. we really do have to build a movements, the 99%, at that is

capable of coming together. forcing the president to have that same debate. at the afl-cio, we are reaching out to communities. in the past, we were not the best partners in the world. the labor unions idea of a partnership, when we had a problem, everybody helps us solve it. we are changing that. we also used to say, here is our solution. we're trying to change that. what we have done, we have convened a group of all the progress of groups out there and we are talking about an economic agenda that will work for all of us. we will release it in mid-july.

it was developed by a number of progressive groups. all of us worked together so it would be our agenda. we are using it as a test for a candidate. if they support that economic agenda, we will support them. if they do not come up we wish them well and send them packing -- if they do not come up we wish them well and send them packing. -- if they do not, we wish them well and send them packing. it used to be we thought about elections in one cycle. now we look at elections in three cycles. we can strategizing over a long period of time. the other thing we have done is change our system from a part- time system to a full-time system. buildup our structure, while we were celebrating the election

night, the people that tried to unelect the candidates we supported our plotting and scheming to someplace else. before long, they had amnesia. now we go to a full-time program that will be in place. the day after the election, we will be looking to build to expand and mobilize and educate. we will move from electorial politics into advocacy and to accountability pretty seamlessly. building that movement and stand together on the economic message is the best thing we can do. quite frankly, whether they are in the white house or the state house or anywhere else, when they get -- it will be up to us

to keep them accountable and make them come back to the main thinks they ought to be doing. that is creating jobs, creating more jobs, creating more jobs, and creating an economy that works for everyone and not just the 1%. [applause] >> rich talked about creating a movement. one of the most difficult problems for the progressive economic movement is that there is a court inequality -- core inequality. the tens of millions of americans who are most economically dispossessed are also -- are offered -- are often the ones that are least likely

to vote, at least likely to contribute. that is one of the core problems that we face in finding a creative movement. you are doing an incredible thing. we are in all of what -- in awe of what you are doing. you are doing an incredible thing of bringing the most dispossessed workers into transforming their work place and transforming our economy. can you talk a little bit about what you are doing? the challenges you face and the potential for the broader economy? >> absolutely. good morning. can you hear me? can you hear me? good morning. are you awake?

thank you so much for the question. women for started organizing domestic workers, it was seen as a marginal work force, excluded. what we have seen over the course of the last 15 years is the conditions that define reality for the domestic worker increasingly defined reality for every american worker. the instability, the lack of benefits and job security, the contingent and temporary nature of that. we have come to realize that we have so much in common as workers in this country, all of us, from every corner of the economy. the good news is that from those places of exclusion and marginality, there has been incredible effort to organize and transform working

conditions. there have been really big victories, historic victories, the domestic workers bill of rights. [applause] establishing protections for over 200,000 women workers doing the work that makes all other work possible. not only is it a place to look to four victories, but to actual solutions that can not only address reality for those particular groups of workers, but for the whole work force. if you look at the care jobs, looking into care, you can almost -- it is almost a kind of window on to the health and well-being of the economy that manufacturing was in the 20's and 30's. if we can lean into some of these sectors, we can figure out

how to set a tone for the kind of the economy we want to be building in the 21st century. care is continuing to grow as our country changes. as we age as a nation, a lot of people talk about the changing racial demographics of the country, but we are also aging at the rate of a person every eight seconds turning 65. there is going to be a growing need for care. there is a huge opportunity to reshape that shape -- reshape that piece of the economy that recognizes everyone's human dignity. we can create jobs to the tune of 2 million new jobs in home care to make sure that everyone needs care can get it. that we can all collectively afford the care that we need to live with dignity. that is the kind of agenda that will help us unite the country

across race, class, and generation, but also help us get to the heart of some of our biggest economic challenges. [applause] >> talking about caring for our elderly, the senior citizens, but you through -- threw granny off a cliff. tell us what you are doing to wake up washington. to interrupt the media cycle. >> for those of you -- you hear america the beautiful playing in the background, a very peaceful scene. the republicans want to privatize medicare. the music turns very sinister

and she starts struggling and as the cliff approaches the viewer is asking themselves, they are not really going to do it, are they? you see her body fall down. it was a fantastic shoot. [laughter] it was great. the one with the grandmother eating cat food was good as well, but we did not release that win. we spent $3,500 making that bad. we spent no money on a paid ad buy. but it got 20 million immediate impressions. we released it just as paul ryan's budget was coming out. what you saw happen was the phrase "off the cliff" went everywhere. you had mitch mcconnell protesting that no one is trying to throw granny off the cliff.

when you get them into that position that is a win. when the senate minority leader is protesting that he is not trying to throw granny off of a cliff, that is a win. talk about creating messages that break through. the way we view our job is to look at the public policy practice as an endless cycle of product developing packaging and distribution. the product may be a specific piece of legislation, a value system. ideally, does two things are connected. the distribution is where the cost is. i spend a lot of time working on financial reform. during that same period of time, the bank spent $600

million on lobbyist. there is an order of magnitude that is different and financial resources that we have to use as the given to our problems. ok, so we have to understand that they have $300 to our $1. what we have to do is find places where we can get $200 in impact for every dollar that we spend. our patriotic millionaires campaign, which is 200 amazing folks who are running around the country asking to have their taxes raised. that campaign has been about $80,000. it has gotten about 80 million media impressions. the way that we are able to the fact that is because we do not worry who gets the credit for putting the message out. ok, it is a liberal advocacy group -- who cares?

that is not news. 200 patriotic millionaires, that starts getting interesting. we lead with those other brands. what i would encourage us to do, i know liberal's lovette coalition. i do not think they are particularly -- liberals love a coalition. do not have your coalition and you're outside forces. kids in a group together and make the white house take want -- but it's a group together and make the white house take one meeting. do the helicopter strategy. the white house has to take town meetings because 10 different people, 10 different groups are working on a message. make sure you say something that is worked setting. you know? -- worth saying.

you know? we encourage people to look carefully at this problem, to be accountable to voters. will we do a letter about financial reform, we got 40 experts to sign the letter that said, you have not done finance reform. until you do the following 10 things come at you will not prevent the next crisis. usurer bold language. use graphic images when you need to. i understand that sometimes people need to say things in order to open up the oxygen for other people to say things. what i said to them, denounced us. i do not care. i just got you eight minutes. to say why paul lyons plan --

horrible.'s plan is [applause] >> i think we are in a difficult place right now. even our president is talking about the need for the federal government to tighten its belt the way the households are tightening their belts. what is wrong? what to replace it with? >> when john boehner first used to tighten our belt metaphor six months later, the president

started using it. we are not an individual family. we are a society. if you are just some person who has overspent, you can cut back on your spending and work off your debts. we are a society -- who are you selling stuff to? you are selling stock to each other. -- selling stuff to each other. if all of us decide that we will tighten our belts, guess what. we all end up poor. this is the kind of stuff that we are supposed to know. this is the stuff we have known. if everybody were to slash spending at the same time, it is

self-defeating. that is why the metaphor is wrong. you put me on the spot. you need to grow your way out of a problem like this. somebody has to be out there prepared to invest in growth. who is going to do that? american households -- they were led on by false promises corporations are not in business for our health. invest not to going to if they do not see a market. wouldn't it be great if there was some assistance, what do we need to make this economy work?

the government could be playing that role. we do -- when people say, the government should be run like a business. if it was a business, 1.7% of long-term interest rates, if they could borrow for free, it would be doing that. it would be borrowing that money. that is what we need to do. this deficit obsession is the

most amazing thing. in the long run, we have to pay our bills. what we need right now is jobs. i thought that was great. the weakest people get silenced -- a way that people get silenced is by being accused of being shrill. you have to get people's attention. if some people end up not liking you, that is ok. >> we get a lot of hate mail. [applause] i would love to pick up on what paul said about this house hold

mentality. is ok from a messaging point of view to can see the point that we always want to be aware of our spending and priorities. a tree just fell on our house. if we're going to be forced into the metaphor of the regular family, i in individual who decided to go to business school to invest $100,000. do you know what i am saying? investing in america -- four years ago, we had the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the first thing you have to do is get the tree off your house. get the tree off the house.

and then we will buy the less- expensive peanut butter. do you know what i'm saying? >> about the question of the peanut butter, one would say, and we often talk about this period did of a shared prosperity, this golden era between the end of world war ii and when ronald reagan took office. we had this period of time when incomes rose in tandem, where labor unions were strong.

all of that has changed. we now have two parents working and [inaudible] we have people going into the work force without the kind of security. i would like to challenge this idea that what we need to do is spend a little bit now in short- term spending and then we should spend less than we even have been now because of our long- term deficit. it seems to me that we are going to have to do a lot more to put the american people on sound footing. we have to make universal child care. it seems to me that is going to

take a fair amount of money. and so i am hearing from the american labor movement, let's rework the entire package so that we are doing the kind of investment needed for generational transformation. what has been the response? >> i would like to comment on the previous question. there is a danger [unintelligible] more and more democrats have been trying to embrace simpson- bowles. it was never voted on by that committee of 12. [applause] it has some very odious things in it.

they have cut medicare, medicaid, social security. one thing we need to do collectively is to give our friends a little bit of a backbone. we will oppose any cuts in social security, medicare, medicaid regardless of who proposed it. we will fight against it. [applause] getting back to your other question, from 1946 until 1973, productivity -- the interesting thing about that is the people -- the wage gap was collapsing.

we represented about 35% of the work force. we were driving wages. we were driving wages not they got raises because we negotiated raises and better benefits and the time off and the weekends. in 1973 things started to change. volcker said, although he has two job, his job is to fight inflation and create full employment. he said at that time i will no longer concern myself with full employment. i will only concern myself with fighting inflation. that has been the position of every president democrat republican alike. we have now gone to 12% of the

work force. we think collective bargaining is the cornerstone to a balanced economy so that everybody has a chance to feel a little bit more of the wealth we produce. we do have money. we are the richest nation we have ever been. corporations have had two years of record profits. over two trillion dollars sitting in the banks. banks are not lending. the one to continue to shrink their way out of this. if we create jobs to grow your way out of this, the revenue increases and you do not have to worry about cutting back. you have to worry about investing in the future whether

it is a great education for our children that need an education. that helps break the cycle. whether it is converting bad jobs and to good jobs. remember, i came out of the coal industry. coal mining jobs were bad jobs before we had a union. steelworkers were bad jobs. we've made them good jobs with collective bargaining. [applause] to come up with an economic agenda and keep people on it. do not let them digress into this deficit nonsense that says the only way we can go forward is to keep cutting benefits. forcing people to invest in infrastructure. forcing them to invest in job- creating -- saving energy and

give us a better future. those are the you -- that is the ticket forward. it does give every kid a chance. right now we still have a couple of kids that go to bed hungry every night in this country, the richest nation on the face of this earth. that is unacceptable. we still have people that do not have health care that cannot by madison and the richest nation on the face of the earth. that is unacceptable. we can change that. all of us can. [applause] >> i will take some of the first questions from the audience. the decision by the federal reserve to basically let go one of its twin imperatives. i think this is an important point. it is important for the progress of blog is feared to be able to

speak fluently about it. -- blogosphere to speak fluently about it. why is it that the fed is so scared of inflation and whose interests are served when we do not have high inflation? what can the fed to do to bring down unemployment? >> this is one of those cases where i probably suffer a little bit from what i usually managed to avoid a which is the pundits disease of being too close to the people you should be bashing. ben bernanke was chairman of the economic department at princeton before being demoted to his current position.

what is going on there? it is not the kind of rawness you are seeing. is not like the koch brothers are holding secret meetings. it is more about who you hang out with. it is the nature of the beast unless you fight it really hard, you will spend a lot more time hanging out with wall street, basically with the creditor that you like and then with workers. unemployed workers did not attempt meetings of the federal reserve. there is a natural bias to be afraid of anything seen as hurting bond holders. anything seen as holding -- anything seen as hurting.

being a central banker, what you are raised to do is you are supposed to take away the punch bowl as the party is getting going. that translates into a mind-set where you take away the punch bowl and leave them with no party to begin with. sometimes it goes even beyond the. the great recession is not as bad as the great depression. the federal reserve is not as bad as the european central bank. there is a phrase. you are doing your right -- you are doing your job right. right now it is something strange going on. literally they are not making

sense at the fed. they're saying the -- is not just ben. the deputy who i like a lot, they are saying, there are more things we could do but we are not ready to do them. the economy is in terrible shape. we will not even hit our inflation target. unemployment is way above what it should be. for some reason we will not do anything. something is going on which is a mixture of a class interests in a subtle way, absorber it by the board. i put that in my article about bernanke in the times article, they did not know what it was about.

the point is, it is not easy. one of the things we do. we went through a long stretch of believing technocrats to always do what was necessary to rescue the economy which was wrong. when you have a severe crisis like you have now, monetary policy is not enough. you need the government to step in with spending as well. that does not mean there is nothing you can do. >> there is a major cognitive a problem we face as progressives trying to explain why it is the economy is performing the way it is.

who is responsible. i think one of the major problems is that the american people and most people around the globe and do not see the economy as something that people are controlling. people view the economy as something like the weather. there is not very much that people have done to put us in this position. there is not very much that we collectively can do to get us out of this. that is one of the deep problems we face. it seems like all of the solutions we would be abdicating require getting over that hump. how is it that you were trying to advocate solutions you deal with that? >> what i try to think of is, you are telling a story. any story has a set of plot

points. some are natural and some you need to create for yourself. if you think of the unemployment figures coming out, all of these are flat points when you have another opportunity to tell a piece of the story. i always talk to my team about needing to know what we are doing and what we are really doing and what we are really, really doing. if you raise taxes on millionaires, great. it does not solve all of the problem. but we have inserted the word a patriotic into the discussion around taxes. if you think about the government as a company, there is not a ceo on the planet that would take the job if they had 100 people who could veto every decision they made it. what you want to do is

understand the levels underneath. one of the issues with financial reform which is impossible to message is when people hear the words derivatives they fall asleep. it is not a hard thing to get your mind around. is pretty simple. a bunch of rich privileged guy is still all of our money. that is what it comes down to. i know it is more complicated, but i do not have the disadvantage to being close to ben bernanke. this is where i think it is important for lots of people to play different roles. if he will get out your telephones. if you give us five minutes a day we can help move this along. every issue you care about, environment, social security, all of these.

if he put in the following number, 202-452-2955. that is ben bernanke's phone number at the fed. whatever. jamie dimon who is the president of j.p. morgan has been walking around since the financial crisis acting like he is smarter than everyone else. if only people did what he did it would not lose their money. two weeks ago he lost $2 billion in a single trade. you do not know what you are doing anyway. he should not be on the board of the new york fed. and story. it will not solve everything. what it does is it is a little plot. and people's heads. is a death by 1000 cuts.

you take those moments to take on the power structure that is standing in the way of good progress of policy. you take them down one by one. when you have big opportunities to grab the big opportunities you have set yourself up to take the victory. >> this question is from -- >> you need to use the number to tell him to have jamie dimon resign. 202- -- did you not write it down ? 202-452-2955. it goes directly to his office. tell him you think he should get rid of dimon from the board of the fed it. it will be fun. >> and tell him to end the depression now? >> yes. >> a question from the audience

is an important one here. how do you talk about increasing wages when people are just grateful to have jobs? >> that is a great question. the slogan we use a lot in our organizing is protect what we have earned and create what we need. as we fight to protect our jobs. as we fight to keep our jobs. as we fight to protect social security. we need to be fighting to create what we actually need in this country. fundamentally if we do not put out there what it is that we need, we will never be able to build the movement we need that has the power to change this country once and for all for all of us. it is a question -- jones always talk about this notion that our demands have been too small to win. we have relegated ourselves to

the narrow issue base kinds of demands that have not allow us to unite the broad cross sections of people and interests. communities, workers that we need to be able to unite to build the power we need to take back this country and to move towards our hopes and dreams not only for ourselves but for our children. we do need to work to fight for protect what it is we have. if we do not assert what is right and what we need for ourselves and future generations we will never get there. [applause] >> this is a fun question that came from the audience. has anybody on this panel being contacted by the white house to

ask what they should do about the economy? >> yes. [laughter] i am trying to think about what i can talk about and what i cannot. this is public knowledge. there was a critical period for the administration when the president had the most leverage and might have been able to do more. we lost those arguments.

the guys who must know what they're doing because they are so rich. even the obama white house came across as having answers. at this point i do think the president --[unintelligible] there was a critical moment where we could have done a much more. if the notion is that all was lost -- if your notion is that obama is as bad as the rest, there is an open line of communication. they are listening. it is not lost cause at all.

unfortunately, i am afraid they did not start to listen until it was too late to do a lot of what should have been done. >> most of us have been able to express our views at one point or another with the white house. it seems like the answer was always "show me the 51st vote." show me the political reality. that was before the 2010 midterm election. we are now faced with a republican house with an insane economic agenda barreling down at us. the paul ryan plan, the romney plan, what ever it is that anyone on the right is advocating.

the moderate your for it is somehow simpson bowles which is a complete repudiation of the new deal. not a complete repudiation, it is a fundamental undoing of the last 60 years. let's put it that way. how do we make a new political reality, and,b, what would we actually say if we got into a back and forth with the political strategist at the white house. trade the middle class, trade 10 million jobs, and they say we do not have the votes. what can we do in this moment and how can we get it to move? >> we have to say our program and stick with it. we force them to come this way. a couple of years ago this president was against same-sex

marriages. you took that issue on. and as much as anybody, you convinced that president he had to come over to the right side of that issue. we ought to give ourselves a round of applause because you deserve it. you have to start sticking out some territory and sticking with it. whenever the president was talking about debt reduction and not about job creation, we went public. a lot of us started talking about how he is making a strategic mistake. this is not going to happen. finally, he realized he was in their backyard playing their game by their rules on their turf and it would not work for him or us so he came our way. he started talking about job creation. yes, he still has to have a

reality of getting the votes. if we come together and we build a a popular demand for those things, they will not have a choice. if republicans continue to be obstructionists, they will get rolled over just like a bowling ball knocks those pins over. we will have a different set to play with. sticking with our story. demanding it, not being ashamed. not just whispering it to members of the administration and private but saying it publicly to them as well, this is the solution. job creation, job creation, job creation will get you where you want to go. let's not forget about a couple of things we talked about earlier. the powers at the really want us to believe there is nothing we can do about it. it is like sand on the beach and

we get washed back and forth. that is nonsense. this is about policy. trillions of dollars with the bush tax cuts. that could have been used to build education, roads, infrastructure. it is not hopeless. and we are not for these decisions. stick together, articulate, and do not apologize for them. that is our biggest mistake i think. we say, we know. these are public employees. i know they have pensions bought -- they ought to have pensions. everybody ought to have a good pension. [applause] >> heather, i want to build on this point. i think it is so important.

these are choices by people who have the ability to make other choices. this financial crisis which cost this country -- one of the stupidest things i have ever heard of them getting away with is when the banks paid back the $750 billion, that they paid it back. if a card kills 20 people and we give them money to fix that car -- that is not the sum total of the car. they have not paid back what they did to this country, number one. i will not believe they have paid it back until we get some money in the bank until a bunch of them go to jail. [cheers and applause] there are about 8000 felony convictions. there have been about zero. this -- simon wrote 13 bankers

and said, he was arguing with larry summers and bob rubin and alan greenspan. she wanted to release the concept papers about the problems that derivatives could cause the country. larry summers said i have 13 bankers in my office that say if you release this paper, you could cause the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the concepts of paper is dangerous. unregulated derivatives market not dangerous. ok. the idea that this administration and plenty listen to the bobbies. they move around in packs around

the new york. everybody listening to the bobbies. this is his fault. he ended glass stiegel and got into citigroup the next day. we need to bring that story. it is not that complicated of a story. >> one of the biggest problems that we had with the white house in the early months is they had a notion of putting links on the board. you have to win every legislative battle. it is just a bad political thinking. the public does not know. the public does not care. they know two things. they know how the economy is doing. and they know what you stand for

something. what you can do is stand for something. you can say, these people that do nothing on the wrong side. i stand for something. give it to the right. the play a long the game. they spent 40 years getting us to this point. they started with things that seemed like crazy hopeless dreams for them. things like eliminating the estate tax, privatizing social security. by hammering at those things that brought them very close to reality. stand for something. they have the advantage of 100

to one. progressives have an advantage and that is we are actually right. [applause] >> speaking of this long game, if we look at our long game over the next 40 years, in the 2062 we will be a country where there is no racial majority anymore. i would like to get some thoughts from the panel here that they on the right have seen that 40 year game in a much clearer way than we have on the left. i was at a meeting with a high level executive official. he held up a map that the lawyers committee had created. it shows where all of the attacks on our freedom has

happened. you can hold up a map of the 2008 election. then you can actually do a third thing. that map was not in the room at the moment. you can hold up a map of the demographic -- demographic in the country. it matches up. they have always -- they have already recognized this game called a democracy will be a losing game for them. they need to attack the freedom to vote to keep power. they have recognized the need to attack the strongest remaining set of unions in this country. they have recognized one of the reasons why is because if we are a majority of people of color are able to secure middle class jobs. they have done that calculation

in a way i do not think we have. we have seen our fates in this country are linked with the unfinished business of creating real healing around racial divisions and compressing racial anxieties that still marked political debates and one way or another. there are some people on this stage who are more than a most of us able to have a microphone about what it will take to build the country we want. i think there is a challenge today because that microphone when it comes to race is often silent. what is it that we can do to fill the void of silence around racial anxiety and to take that microphone away from the right and talk about it in a way that is bringing us together instead of forcing us apart? [applause]

>> i am so excited about that. when it first moved over that california was the first minority majority stake, i got so excited. i am sick of old rich white dudes being in charge of everything. looking at that change is an amazing positive and wonderful thing with and this room. it is great. for anybody who was that the panel last night, there was a wonderful woman who did a presentation on "if you want to change the world, be friends with somebody different than you." i thought that was marvelous. they have systematically gone about repression and -- repressing the vote. if there are some things we need to go after, like he said,

social security privatization was a 25-year effort. if you are looking at the world the one to build versus the world you have an things that stay its rigid stand in the way of those, grover norquist is preventing politicians -- who will do what they need to do to get elected. our job is to change the dement -- dynamic under which they think they are running. grover norquist has been one of these. we need to do what we can to get rid of grover norquist so those politicians are not faced between themselves and that guy and that pledge. the chamber of commerce is the biggest lie in american life. the idea that they walk around like they speak for american business when they speak for 49 multinational corporations to underwrite 50% of their budget.

it is not complicated really. we call them derivatives, we call them this or that. this is really about a small number of entitled rich guys. there is a study that said extremely wealthy people, one of their common characteristics, a single british characteristic and't ability to live ethical gray areas. it think about that. >> there is a small but significant victory you can point to recently. it is operating completely under the radar doing damage. small groups of activists and

researchers have been documenting it. finally they brought that stuff above water. we have seen a significant number of people dropping their connections. there will be -- a lot of what they do will pop up under different names. there is a wac of all concept to a lot of this. -- whack a mole concept to a lot of this. by and large, we are still a democracy. if we can keep it. if you can at shine that light, you can win victories.

always keep on plugging. >> you missed my plan, i was going to give the last word. >> it is a short-term strategy the republicans on the ride are using. it will be a different world. they should be trying to bring them in. they should have policies that affect people rather than step on them. they are planning for the short term. they pass these bills around to reduce the progressive vote in the country by 10% in 2012. they can come after collective

bargaining, seniors, immigrants, everybody and try to cut back on the vote. is a short-term strategy. is corrosive to democracy. they think this is not their play. i think it will cost them the lee -- dearly in this election because of what they did. they made war on employees. they are going backwards. i will close by saying this. i want to thank netroots for doing this. these are people that really are fighting every day to make this a better world and a better place, one that we studied about an hour civics book that we

really do not recognize today trying to create an economy that will give everybody a chance to get a head. i just want to thank each one of you. thank you for what you do every single day. [applause] >> thank you. >> i will just say two things. the economic reality for today is a tremendous opportunity to make a different set of choices are around how we deal with -- around race, class, generations. i think we can create economic solutions that actually address and help to heal some of the past exclusions and inequities that are based on race and gender and all the forces we have been confronted with. we can create jobs that prioritize -- jobs for people

who have been historically under employed, immigrants. we can think about job creation strategies that really do help to address the leveling of the playing field that has been historically and over history and overtime. there is a tremendous basis for unity and coming together. more than ever we share as americans today. from that place of shared experience and understanding one another's stories as part of the 99%, we can build a 99% movement that actually helps us reshape the economy and all of our visions. there is room enough. there is resources enough. there is solutions enough that all of us can actually see our hopes and dreams realized and an american democracy.

it is up to us to build that type of movement and build those solutions that actually address all these things. [applause] >> all right. we have just a few short months to make a strong statement about the country that we are. the degree to which we will not turn back, and the kind of economy that we need in order to recreate a strong the, the verse, a growing middle class for all of us. the people on this stage are every single day writing about, fighting about, caring about, researching about the solutions and strategies to make that happen. it is your job as a blockers and

online advocates to make sure that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and to make sure this is not the only time you engage with their ideas. you can find them all online. you can call them like you call ben bernanke this weekend. >> tell him i said hi. >> you can make sure we are creating an echo chamber for the kind of values that we want. please join me in thanking this incredible panel. at [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> supreme court justice ginsburg is speaking at the national convention of the

american constitution society. we will have that live at 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. follow david maraniss on his journey walking in the president's footsteps. "barack obama; the story." live at 7:30, he takes your questions. jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war of ideals. >> american politics has been distorted by the idea the further away you get from the left to closer you get too bad things. in some ways the best working definition of a fascist is simply a conservative who is winning an argument. >> that is sunday at 9:00 on

book tv. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell talks about campaign finance laws and free-speech. he talked about what he said are harassment tactics to silence political opposition. following remarks he answers questions. is just over one hour. quacks i would like to welcome all of you to what i think will be a powerful presentation by senator mitch mcconnell. the constitution is getting more attention this year than usual. most cases that go to the supreme court are statutory interpretation. this administration's rather

cavalier attitude has produced an unusual number of constitutional challenges. the obamacare case, of course. three days of debate at the supreme court has captured the attention of the american people. there is good in it because the american people have seen the importance of their constitution and how seriously it is taken. there are some bad parts about it or troubling parts about it. the administration does not seem to be giving a lot of weight to constitutional issues. three recent cases, one on religious freedom, in other on civil liberties, and a third of property rights. the administration lost 9-0 in the supreme court. other cases are on their way to the court and also look like shore losses. -- sure losses.

the appointments are almost certain to be struck down. they cannot be squared with the language of the constitution on recess appointments. bill gives the secretary of the treasury the power to seize any financial firm, bank, hedge funds, insurance company if he thinks it will fail and turn it over to the fdic for liquidation. if the company disagrees the secretary can go to court and compel compliance. the court has one day to make that decision. if it does not decide in that time, the company is turned over for liquidation to the fdic by operation of the law. stays and injunctions are not

allowed under the law. it is a felony for anyone to disclose that the secretary asked for the court's order. all of these elements seem to violate the fifth amendment was the prohibition of taking property without due process and the first amendment was a guarantee of free speech. the free-speech issue in particular brings us to the record of our speaker this morning, mitch mcconnell. in an article this january, and not intended to be complementary to senator mcconnell noted that "for most of his time in the senate, mcconnell has been notable chiefly for maintaining staunch opposition to campaign finance reform." and he has. why not? what could the founders have had in mind when they added to the constitution the words "congress

shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." of course they were talking about politics and elections where the freedom to speak and communicate is the underpinning of democracy. it is especially ironic that the greatest threats to freedom of speech have come in elections in the guise of campaign finance reform. throughout his career in public life long before he was elevated to the position he holds today, mitch mcconnell has been true to the founder's intentions. it has earned him a great deal of opposition and disparagement. so much so that the former senator phil gramm was moved to say on the senate floor in 2002 before the historic vote on mccain fine gold "it is very difficult to defend ideas that are not popular. to be attacked every day in the

media because of a position you take. there are not many people tough enough to do that. there are probably three, four, or five people in the senate. i am being generous. i have watched and read those editorials vilifying the senator from kentucky. i will never forget the fight he has made on this bill. i thank him. the constitution does not work by itself. air requires a few good men. the senator from kentucky is one of those good men. it is my honor to introduce that good man -- senator mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> thank you very much. i understand the president spoke for 55 minutes yesterday. i will try to do better than that but i have a lot to say this morning. it will be hard to say that

briefly. one of the things that has always distinguished americans as a people is the eagerness with which they have organized around issues and it causes. in no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in america. yet today the principal faces a grave external threat. it the danger comes from a political movement that is uncomfortable with the idea of the group's it does not like speaking freely. from an administration that has shown an alarming willingness itself to use the powers of government to silence these

groups. this dangerous alliance threatens the character of america. that is why it is important for all conservatives and indeed all americans to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in. against any effort that would constrain our ability to do so. the bulwark of this freedom is of course the first amendment. defending it is what i would like to talk about today. it is hard to a imagine a more broadly accepted proposition than the fact americans are free above all else to speak their minds openly and freely without fear of punishment or reprisal from government authorities. human nature being what it is i think we would all have to admit that there will always be a temptation, particularly among those in power to muffle 1's critics.

but for politicians in our country, it is a temptation always to be resisted. any inclination to do so would demonstrate a misguided notion of our proper place in a government that was established as the preamble to the constitution makes clear by the people. the form of speech most needful of absolute protection is political speech. particularly at those moments of natural -- national elections. those in authority may have asserted the right to limit speech. but not here. not in our country. the government simply does not have the authority.

this point was so obvious to the founders that the primary author of the federalist papers suggested that the bill of rights was not only unnecessary, not only unnecessary but dangerous. since by identifying the things the government cannot do, it might lead some to think that whatever was not listed was fair game. of course hamilton was a bet on to fear future governments would attempt to assume powers that were never intended to have. it is precisely for this reason we should be glad he lost this debate and the bill of rights survived. without it we would have far less 2.2 in defending the principles of our founding. americans have needed all the help they can get. for many of us in this room, the constitutional debates we have been engaged in over the past few years have been deeply encouraging. they reveal a broad appreciation

of our founding principles and capacity to several -- civic engagement that some feared was in decline. for me personally, they have provided strong validation of a fight i have waged for three decades against those within government who would micromanage political speech. at times this fight has compelled me to take positions that were not exactly popular. for example, opposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning was not a popular position in kentucky. i suspect it would not be anywhere else either. my views on campaign finance reform were far from universal, even within my own party. with very rare exceptions, the media has been merciless. as the years have gone by, many of the early critics have begun

to come around. it is my firm conviction that in the years ahead i will prevail. since mcconnell versus fec i have filed six greece and court battles with a 70 works now. all i really need to win the is all i need is the 41 words of the first amendment. it is the same approach that millions of other citizens have taken embezzling this administration's attends to assume powers. -- ievery one of these fights is winnable as long as we keep at it. i think precisely because we have been fighting on so many fronts it is easy to overlook threats including the threat to

speech. we see instances of it here and there but as engaged as we are in so many other battles we risk losing side of the size and scope of this one. if you will allow me i would like to spend a few moments running through some of what we have seen. i will lay out the stakes as i see them. the tax -- the attacks on speech are legion. perhaps the most is the disclose act. this is the legislative approach to the citizens united. it aims to get around this by this ruling by compelling certain targeted groups to disclose the names of their daughters while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same. -- the names of their donors

while excluding others, such as unions from doing the same. what we are talking about here is entirely different. what this bill calls for is government compelled disclosure of contributions to all grass roots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. if disclosure is forced among some and not all, it is a political weapon. that is precisely what those that are pushing this legislation have in mind. this is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation either by government authorities or through third-party allies. that should concern everyone of us. those pushing the disclose act

have a simple view. if the supreme court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, we will find other ways to do it. you have all heard about the idaho businessman who has become a personal target of the president for speaking out on candidates and causes the president opposes. jorum -- shortly after being singled out, people were digging through his divorce records, cable television hosts were going after him on the air, and bloggers were harassing his kids. charles and david koch have become household names not for the tens of thousands of people they employ, not for their generosity to charity, and not for building up one of the most successful private corporations on the planet, but because of their forceful and unapologetic

promotion of capitalism. in return, one of the top aides expose them to scrutiny by suggesting they did something shady on their taxes. earlier this year the president's campaign manager sent a mass e-mail to supporters noting them of a koch backed event to incite the kind of mob that showed up. the koch brothers have had their lives threatens -- lives threatened and have been harassed by left-wing groups. one said "choose your expiration date." if the president of the united states oppose these tactics he would just have to condemn them. instead he has joined them. president obama has accused the kochs of being part of a corporate takeover of our democracy, whatever that means.

not only did his campaign publish a list of aid to private citizens as his enemies, and actual old school enemies list, he recently double down on the ever won some began to call these thuggish tactics into question. none of this should be surprising to a former community organizer who told a radio host that latino voters should vote with the idea of punishing their enemies and rewarding their friends. that is the president of the united states. all of it should be surprising to a former community organizer who happens to be president. the tactics i am describing extend well beyond campaign headquarters in chicago. to an extent not saying -- extend deep into the administration itself. news reports suggest top white

house officials have participated with a left-wing organization in washington whose stated purpose is to track conservative media voices, seize on potentially offensive content and use it to mount intimidation campaigns aimed at driving these voices out of the public square. earlier this year dozens of tea party affiliated groups learned what it was like to draw the attention of the speech police when they received a questionnaire from the irs demanding attendance lists, meetings transcripts, and donor information. one describe the situation this way, the groups like ours either drowned and unnecessary paperwork or you survive and give them everything they want only to be haunted. the head of one national advocacy group has released documents that show his group's

confidential irs information found its way to a staunch critic on the left that happens to be a co-chairman of the president's reelection committee. the only way this could have been made public is of somebody leaked it from inside the irs. just last week we learned of a decision revoking the tax-exempt status of nom profit groups that foreshadows an effort to do the same to bigger groups on the right that the administration regards as a threat to its campaign. those who have the resources and the will to fight these things should be commended. those who do not should be able to count on our support. let's be very clear, no individual or group in this country should have to face harassment or indoor crippling expenses to get their own government simply because the government does not like the message they are advocating.

one person who grasps this issue better than most is justice clarence thomas. if you have not read his partial his opinion reminds us that the courts have found a chilling effect and of harassment of free-speech can actually run afoul of the first amendment. this is why the fcc has exempted the socialist workers party from any public disclosure since 1979. they have been exempt. as long as they are able to show that disclosure has lead to harassment, the sec has been happy to exempt them on first amendment grounds. as the court put it in buckley, the evidence offered needs to show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party's contribution names will subject

them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from government officials or private parties. the court used similar reasoning when it told the state of alabama back in 1958 that it could not compel them to reveal the names and addresses of its members. the court found that compelling disclosure of affiliation with groups engage in advocacy in a fringed upon the freedom of people to associate with whatever group of daylight had violated the first amendment rights. all this explains why justice thomas stop the majority opinion in the citizens united did not go far enough. -- fought the majority opinion in the citizens united did not -- thought the majority opinion in the citizens united did not

go far enough. among other examples, the justice thomas cites the case of a los angeles woman who is forced to resign from a job she held for 26 years managing a family-owned restaurant because protesters kept showing up at the restaurant and kept yelling, "shame on you" at customers. it was a mop. -- mob. justice thomas goes on to note that the internet has made these tactics easier to pull off and increases the likelihood that the public will be discouraged from participating in the political process. it is a point that is underscored. it is something that he raised

the alarm about in his final interviews. here is how it works. someone who knows how to hack 9/11.hones co 911aused within minutes, the swat team can show up at your house with helicopters flying overhead. this tactic is criminal and should be prosecuted aggressively, the goal is equally reprehensible, namely to scare people who dare to speak right or otherwise support a cause that they do not like. closingthis up in the paragraph of his opinion of citizens united. here is what justice thomas had to say, "i cannot endorse this. it said? citizens in this nation to death threats, ruined careers, are preemptively threat letters as a

price for engaging in core political speech. this is a primary object of first amendment protection." what justice thomas is describing here, perhaps in a private citizens could choose to participate in the political process is of course deplorable. i think we all have to admit that based on a different order of magnitude from the government itself, the government itself facilitating or encouraging these things or the government using its own powers to harass or intimidate those who participate in the political process, and that is precisely what we have seen. fortunately, republicans have been alert to these dangers. one of the most important things we have done is block passage of disclose. but the assaults keep coming.

democrats in the house and senate recently proposed the so- called people's rights amendments. which basically repeals the first amendment. the president's top political advisers, david axelrod, told an audience in manhattan, "when we win, we will use whatever tools are out there, including a constitutional amendment to turn it back." this is all you need to know about this administration's view of this free-speech. the president will seek to go around congress by attempting to change the first amendment.

amending the first amendment for the first time in history is an act of radicalism. it is an act of a radicalism. yet these are not the only ways the administration is aiming to do. they are attempting to achieve this through regulation. over at the fcc, the democratics want third-party groups to reveal their donors. the are deadlocked at the moment with all three republican commissioners standing strong, but this effort is not limited to the fcc. the sec just finalized a rule requiring broadcasters who want to post ads online.

the association of broadcasters are fighting back right now in court. last year, the sec required shareholder approval or disclosure of political activities. under pressure from left wing groups, many companies have started including the question on the property statements. during the health care debate, i remember this one very well, the department of health and human services issued a gag order on a health insurance company in my hometown and other private health insurers. it said they could not informed seniors about the impact of obamacare on their health care. the order them not to inform their own customers of the impact of impending piece of legislation.

however, work recently ahc is spending $20 million of our tax money to promote obamacare. they are stifling speech that is critical of the bill even as they say we need to promote it. it is not just the agencies. over at the white house, the president's lawyers recently circulated a draft of executive order that would require anyone bidding for a government contract to disclose political donations, including those of the affiliate's and subsidiaries. and their officers and directors. the message of the order was clear. you do not have to be a rocket

scientist to figure this out. if you have a government contract, you better support our cause or at least keep your mouth shut when it comes to causes we oppose. it is the same message the administration a's official said last week -- administration's official said last week. here is what they said of him, "he is dead to us." my own view has always been that if you cannot convince people of the wisdom of your policies, then you better come up with better arguments. you cannot convince people the wisdom of your policies, you better come up with better arguments. but for all of the tolerance,

the political left has demonstrated a militant in tolerance for dissent. sadly, a growing number of people on the left appear to have concluded that they cannot win on the merits. so they have resorted to bullying and intimidation instead. the potential consequences are grave. that brings me to another point . it should go without saying that the political left has always faced a political uphill climb. america is not western europe. in order to succeed in this environment, liberals have resorted to one of three types. obscuring, pursuing in the

courts what they cannot through legislation, or muzzling their critics. but there is another element to these efforts that is less understood. it involves the greatest behind their campaign efforts. the collision of private interest with politics is somehow inherently corrupting. that is the core of their view. this is the great untested premise behind all of these efforts to regulate political speech. if you people think of how radical that is -- a few people think of how radical that is.

what all of these efforts have in common is a deep, deep suspicion of the private sphere. all of these efforts are for the purpose of limiting the ability of those engaged in private enterprises, are certain disfavored the associations. the gold is to seal off congress from anyone engaged in the private economy -- the goal is to seal off congress from anyone engaged in the private economy. behind theseon b are the same assumption to underline this president's economic and regulatory policies. anyone who makes a profit is cheating our customers or mistreating their employees.

or they could be doing both. their motives are in mpure. those to interact with them are somehow duped, and there for the are not entitled to the protections of the first amendment. for those who hold this view, it has always been a tax payer funded campaign. if the advocates of this approach have their way, government would control how much is spent on elections, courtesy of the taxpayers. but the question is, who would check on the politicians that? the only voice is expected to respond to would be the public interest. private interest would end up

with minimal influence on the direction of public policy. of the people running for the public-sector solutions would decrease dramatically. if you write the rules of the games, it is a lot easier to win. especially for incumbent politicians. that is what the so-called reform, has always had in mind. it is important to remember that one of the things that makes affected the harassment and intimidation tactics i have described is the various selectivity. there are many folks running to the ramparts to defend all company executives and hedge fund managers. the minute we allow ourselves to be convinced that some people stand outside the perfections of politics, we are in trouble. these rights to not exist to protect is popular, but to

protect what is not. that is why it is a mistake to view this as merely a catholic issue. it is a mistake to view the taxes of millionaires and billionaires outside of our concern. it always starts somewhere. it always starts somewhere. the moment we stop caring about who is being targeted is a moment we are all at risk. if we do not protect unpopular speech, then itis safe. -- then no speech is safe. if we do not protect popular beliefs, the no belief is safe. let people support whomever they want as much as they want to and let the best man or woman win.

the government can get out of the business of divvying up speech rights. it has no authority to confer. that is what the founders obviously intended. in my view, no one the use our freedoms -- who values our freedoms should expect anything less than that. as a court put it in buckley, the concept that government may restrict a speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is a wholly foreign to the first amendment, which was designed to secure the widest possible dissemination of info from diverse and antagonistic sources and to ensure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bring about a political and social changes desired by the people.

it has never been stated better. campaign contributions are speech. in case anyone thinks unlimited contributions are a bad idea are fetched, butr does look at virginia. they impose no limits on contributions whatsoever. right across the river. last i checked, elected officials in virginia are no more prone to scandal that officials in the state. corporations are no more taking over politics than they are anywhere else. for all of this talk after citizens united talk about corporate takeover of politics, not a single fortune 100 company contributed a penny to the 8

super pacs the supported the republican candidate. not a single fortune 100 company and she did a penny to any of the super pacs supporting the republican presidential candidate. oil, wall street banks, health insurers, the 3 big corporate bogeyman the president always was us about in the wake of a decision. -- warns us about in the wake of a decision. here is my point. we do not always agree on everything. but my message to you today is that there are certain principles that should always unite us. one of them it is the ability of

the first amendment. that is why we have to unite against these tactics wherever we see them. if you see these things, speak up. call out the offenders. get ready for the criticism. fight back. for me, that has been a long battle against efforts to constrain political speech. it may not be the most glamorous issue out there, and it did not make me any friends on any editorial boards. but a great freedom is at stake. having been in this fight for a long time, i can tell you this -- when you have an administration that is willing to throw court amendments right out the window for the sake of an election, we are in dangerous

territory indeed. this may not be the fight that brought you to washington, but it may very well be the one that keeps you from achieving your goals, especially if you are a conservative. your ability to speak out on behalf of that clause is very much at stake right now. as i said at the outset, this affects all of us. everyone in this room, liberal or conservative, is engaged in what they call the very important battle of ideas. the first amendment makes all of that possible. if we lose the rights of speech, we have lost these battles before they start.

as november draws near, some of those running for office will fill the need to choose their battles. there'll be a strong temptation among conservatives to take this issue off the table and to make concessions. my advice is to resist the temptation. everything we are fighting for is contingent on our ability to actually speak our minds. nothing is more important than that. my plea to you is this -- send a message to the next generation of leaders that the first amendment is something about which there could be no compromise, none whatsoever. we may not win every fight, but we can at least to guarantee we will have a place in a debate. in the end, i am confident the best ideas will always win out. after all, that is how free

markets work. whether it is a market of goods or a market of ideas, the best product will win in the end. no american should ever be afraid of that. as holmes put it nearly a year ago, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought itself. the power of the thought itself to get accepted in the competition of the market. the best defense we have is still found in the sweeping command, congress should make no

law of bridging the freedom of speech." thank you very much. [applause] i will take a few questions. i will indicate in advance that we have some people in the press here. the questions relating to the speech that i made, i will not respond to any other types of questions. i will be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. senator, organizations use the

liberal judicial system to harass and intimidate americans speaking up. they threaten people to sue them or even take them to court. even in indication, people can be financially destroyed. this could have a chilling effect on all others. what do you think our progress should do to remedy this situation? >> a good place to start would be the president himself and indicate this is unacceptable behavior to his own campaign and his own government. we are trying to shut up the people who do not agree with you. compete in the market ideas. that is the whole point of my speech. we do not need the government micromanaging who can speak and who cannot. we do not need the government

targeting people. this is not the first administration. many of us remember the nixon administration making any lists and going after people to shut them up. let, let's compete. the president is not an able to compete. he won the last election. many people think he will win this one. not in my view. he should not pick winners are losers in the political discourse of this country. >> senator, i am from examiner.com. what is wrong for $1 per voter and $1 for one corporation? >> what do you mean? >> what i mean is what is wrong with having an equal vote with a $1 per person? >> it is impermissible under the first amendment of the

president should decide -- for the government to decide who can speech. the government cannot level the playing field. it is impermissible under the first amendment. i think what you are suggesting is that someone decree that you have equal contributions? it would not survive the first federal district court in this country. >> peter with mpr news. a justice has said the marketplace of ideas should be open to people who are willing to have the courage to be identified with what they are saying. >> good to put the microphone closer to your mouth. there you go.

>> she talks about people in the political square having civic courage to be identified with their ideas. can you talk about that in the context please? >> that is an important point. i disagree with them. i did nothing regular citizens should have to expend any political courage at all in this national debate. candidates and parties, whose donors are used to the battles and criticisms -- i do not think it should be required for a regular citizens to be terribly courageous. i disagree with them. justice thomas concurred with the decision, but dissented on that very point that you read

out as to whether or not one must open up its membership list let the state of alabama was try to do in 1958 as a condition for being involved in the public discussion. views,ally applieuad his but i do not agree with that one. >> hi. kurt with committee for justice. given the limited time, i am concerned about the threats come from partnerships between government and outside groups, particularly on the left. whether we are talking about executive agencies or reports. there have been losses against

bl seven giveoggers -- against conservative bloggers. there have been attempts by the left to revoke fcc licenses. the folks and a government agency can get rid of documents readily because they do not like what the documents are about. various things such as that. the sec challenges to what we would consider free-speech and saying it falls into the campaign finance laws. can you briefly address that sort of abuse that comes from that outside group of government partnership? >> i sort of did. at the risk of repeating myself, i mentioned four agencies are involved in those kinds of activities. i think the government ought to but out of of trying to punish people with whom it disagrees. it is going on inside the

administration, but at independent agencies and with the bombing campaign. it is happening because the president is setting a bad -- and within the obama campaign. it is happening because the president is setting a bad example. setting a better example on important issue like this is something i expect out of the president. if we do not get it out of this one, we will get it out of the next one. >> two more questions. you said those of us who care about freedom should spend some time on the issue of the first amendment rights of everyone. what went wrong with the bush administration when they decided to sign the campaign laws rather than veto it?

there was enough strength to sustain a veto, but that did not happen. >> it was a great disappointment. i was a strong supporter of president bush. i think he made a mistake. i went to the court house the very next morning. the ink was hardly dry on his signature. regretfully, we lost that. the court has gotten more sensitive and better on political speech issues sent at that time. there has been a movement in the court into a better place in this whole are re of issues -- array of issues. it was a low point for me because we try to defeat the bill in the senate. we were unsuccessful. it ended up being signed by the

obama party. it was not a happy day. i think we are making progress. the court is allowing us to begin to move in the direction of taking the shackles off. citizens united was extremely important. citizens united was about corporate speech only. basically what it said it was, corporations that own newspapers and tv stations no longer have a permit. they no longer have first amendment rights, but no other corporations does. it leveled the playing field. it led to the president saying that corporate america will own government. none of that has happened. corporations, all corporations should be free to express themselves. who is afraid here?

let's have a big conversation about the future of the country. you make your best arguments and i will make my best arguments. the voters will decide on who they favor. it was not exactly my favorite day the day after. we are still in the fight. we have won a lot of battles in the last 10 years. >> i was going to ask, in this room is probably the most well informed voters. what about voters who do not really know that corporations are people too? >> i would be the first to admit that this issue is on the minds

of voters. it ought to be on the minds of folks like all of you who are interested on the details. i thought it was healthy in america that not everyone is watching cable tv every night. for most americans, politics is a marginal thing in their lives. they're not spending as much time thinking about this. it is our obligation as those who are involved in the political process and write about the political process and lobby the government, it is our obligation to the rest of the americans to make sure that the conditions continue to exist so they can hear all points of view. for those of us who have spent a lot of time on this issue, it is our obligation to fight this fight. a regular citizen in this country, i am sure this is the last thing they are thinking about.

that is a normal reaction where you have had 40 months of unemployment above 8%. the government has a debt the size of its economy. boy, those are big issues on the minds of americans. it is our obligation, the people in this room who work on this type of stuff all the time, to make sure that even the most casual voter hears all the arguments. i assure you, having taught the subject as a part-time professor taught and talked about and studied and was a political participant myself -- i am telling you, the government is

to get out of this area and stop trying to pick winners and losers. let the people exposed to all points of view. i would like to be able to make all of these arguments unfettered by government intervention in every election. mostly outside groups i have had experience with, it has been a real bad experience. when i ran for re-election in 2008, we had demonstrators in my front yard. i was never tempted once to get rid of them. they had a right to come after me. it was particularly sweet when i picked their you know what. but we should not be afraid of competition. that is my view. the longer i am around this issue, the more i am convinced

that minimal government a political speech, i am ok with parties and candidates having contribution limits. >> we will be the last few minutes and take you to supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. we will show you the ai event later. >> it seems to be a fabulous job that i have. i have a special privilege. i get to introduce peter rubin. many of us considered to be the father aof acs. it is a little bit of sibling

rivalry. we should congratulate peter and jennifer. [applause] peter is now an eminient member of the appeals court. in 2001, he was a criminal law professor at georgetown university law center. it was there he led a group of law students, scholars, and lawyers in beginning to build what has begun our vibrant network of progressives to counter the right wing legal movement. i hope you will extend a very warm welcome to our founding father, justice peter rubin. [applause]

>> i hope he will join me in thanking the staff to make this a great convention. [applause] it is not often one gets to introduce a living legend. among those in our shared profession, there is no legend greater than that of our next speaker. i have have a wonderful experience of serving for many years on the georgetown faculty with many. it is a pleasure to introduce her because of her friendship and longstanding support of acs. she spoke at the convention right here in this room. she honors acs at its 10th and the convention. i know all members and friends

of acs are grateful to you. even before she took the bench, justice ginsburg had a profound impact on the shape of american law. she was the first to become a female professor at professo her university. she argued many cases before the supreme court's, including an 8- 1 decision in a case. she opened up the path for -- she was elevated to her seat on the u.s. supreme court by president clinton in 1993. she has served there with distinction for almost -- decades now. on the high court, she has

written as a dividend decisions, like the u.s. versus virginia. justice ginsburg has written important dissent in cases such as goodyear tire and rubber. the discrimination was made against her. that decision was overturned by congress, which amendmed title 7. the theme of this convention is democracy at stake.

justice ginsburg dissented from the court's decision and the bush versus boagore. it stopped the count of ballots in florida and thus the nation. he was also among the dissenters in another case that had a significant interest to all of you, citizens united versus fcc. it is based on the conclusion that such expenditures did not give rise to corruption are the appearance of corruption. in a recent statement accompanied an order granting the stay of the montana court decision, it presented a challenge to citizens united, she wrote in a sentiment which i know many thought not all of you will agree to consider whether

by candidates allegiance, citizens united continue to hold sway. as americans, we accept the truth of dr. king's words. we were reminded of it this morning. the art of the moral universe benz for justice. here on earth -- bends for justice. here on earth, at human hands work together. no stronger hands have been devoted to that path than those of our next speaker. because of her, we live in a better and just america than we otherwise would. ladies and gentlemen, just as ruth bader ginsberg -- justice ruth bader ginsburg. [applause]

>> please be seated. that was a splendid introduction. the truth is, i have had more than luck in my life to be a lawyer when the women's movement came alive in the early 1960's and 1970's. i lent my skills as a lawyer to nudge that movement along. many of you know it is flood season at the courts. [laughter] all i can offer is an impressionistic view of what

life has been like at the court in the 2011-2012 term. in doing that, i will -- some years ago, a former law clerk turned professor who perhaps is in the tonight, he reigned the justices by the number of laughs they provoked at oral arguments. he traded me -- rated me the least funny justice who talked. i remained in last place this term with only two laugh lines. a tally that had another justice

with the most laughs. the chief was a distant third. it made a promising sign that the new york times picked up one of my laugh lines. it was in a case against clinton. it concerned an act congress passed, permitting u.s. citizens or in jerusalem to designate isreal as the birthplace shown on their passport. the president resisted the law, urging that it intruded on his foreign affairs prerogatives. in defense of the legislation, another are give up a stand argued that it gave parents a choice.

justice kagen suggested that u.s. citizens born in jerusalem could simply choose to list palestine on their passports. they could if they were born before 1958. [laughter] well, you have to be very old then. i intervened. next year, i will turn 80, god willing. [laughter] [applause] in the past years, lawyers and journalists have paid rapt attention to remarks from the

bench concerning our work loads. some commentators think it is too light. justice breyer quipped, i am not trying to get out of work. another said that they like to get out of the work, to tell the truth. it is hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagen takes great care not to step on the questions of her senior colleagues, but one time she tried to enter the fray and only to be silenced by louder voices. go back to justice kagen.

do not forget her question. many minutes had elapsed by then. justice kagen smiled and said, "i have forgotten my question." see would means to be the junior justice? [laughter] some have called the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justices know fewer than 10 times. some of us think that justice is extraordinary and is perhaps becoming ordinary. the decline was offset by decisions issued in cases decided without oral argument.

already number 10, more than twice the number issed last year. too many? i leave that to you to judge. today, opinions have been released in 58 of 80 are demented cases. one was dismissed. 21 cases remain to be announced before the justices gather for the summer. the court split 5-4 in 9 of the 58 cases handed down. close to 16% sharp disagreement record, we agreed unanimously on the bottom line judgment in 26 of 45% of the announced cases.

many opinions were agreed upon unanimously. many of the most controversial cases remained pending. it is likely the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after. i will now describe rather quickly some of the most watched cases. first, the u.s. versus jones. it presented a 20% rate for the amendment question. if police attaches a gps device to your cart and traps your movement for several weeks, have you been -- in the

amendment? yes. the frames would have been shocked at the thought of a constable hidden beneath the coach. the tracking device physically invaded private property for the purpose of attaining info. attachment of the device -- physical invasion of private property was not the motive. he said, the long term monitoring of jones' car plays on privacy.

the ninth circuit was leaning on the split. the chief got to the heart of the matter. there is something creepy and an about such behavior. it would be like living in a totalitarian regime. the meaning of the fourth amendment was again at issue in florence of burlington county. it concerned a practice in a new jersey jail and subject to all jailees to strip searches. florence was arrested for failure to pay a fine. hat wasin fact paid wa

due. transfer from one job to another, he was stripped twice. he sued the jail in which the searches occured. by the time florence had reached the supreme court, 8 quarts of appealed had already held the strip searches were impermissible. in florence, another circuit disagreed and up held that jill's routine practice. justice kennedy wrote to the court affirmed the third circuit's decision. the strip searches struck a reasonable balance the majority held between innate privacy on one hand and safety

administration on the other. justice breyer dissented along with me and justice sotomayor. it is humiliating and degrading. it is a serious affront to human dignity and individual privacy. as there was nothing to suspect that he was concealing drugs, we judged that the searches to which she was exposed were unconstitutional. the third case, sec pursues fox tv station -- fcc versus fox tv station. worldris hiltons o fthif this

eagerly await the decision. [laughter] it is beyond my comprehension, i told the clerks. [laughter] [applause] the case came to us on a return trip. the sec did not violate the administrative procedure act. -- the fcc did not violate the administratiove procedure act. i dissented what justice stevens and breyer. the considered in the first instance the constitutionality of the fcc's newly minted policy.

it struck down the sec broadcast indecency are testing in its entirety -- fcc podcast indecency in its entirety. we accept of the government's petition for radio. -- review. speculation abounded whether tv television would say "s" words before the courts. he did not. counsel for abc 71 up to colleagues. abc and's council press reported there have been nine seasons of unsanctioned "nypd blue" episodes that have played

uttocks.ayed better the then pointed to all the buttocks that adorned the court room walls. [laughter] [applause] a fourth case will be re-argued next term. it our original presented this question -- can corporations statureder thia certain it? mohammed obverses palestinian authority, he held under a much corporations are not

allowed to sue. this raised an alternative ground. the ailey and stature should not apply at all the conduct occurring in a foreign nation. some of the justices show a keen interest in pursuing that. . we ordered the parties to brief under what circumstances the alien statute provides relief for violations occurring outside the u.s. next, a pair of cases. both presented this question -- does the amendment right to counsel extend to the negotiating and consideration of

-- are the defense allowed to laugh? the majority held that the sixth amendment right does attached. fry had been charged with driving with a revoked license. the prosecution offered a choice of two plea-bargain is. one was a recommended three-year suspended sentence plus 10 days in the county jail. the other, 90 days to be served on a lesser charge. attorney did not tell him that the offers had been made by the prosecution and so both of them left. he played -- he pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. when ineffective assistance of counsel caused him to accept a plea offer, further proceedings

lead to an outcome less favorable than the plea-bargain and the defendant may be titled to a remedy. justice scalia pointed out that many countries do not do american plea-bargaining and adhere to the belief that the lot is the law and those who break it should provide -- should pay the penalty provided. justice scalia is not colored to foreign policy advisory. -- is not allergic to foreign policy advisory. [laughter] next, a pair of cases prompted by the 2010 opinion in ram against florida.

-- graham against florida. he held that the eighth amendment bars life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide crime. miller and jackson present these further questions. first, does life without parole, can it be imposed on a 14-year-old who is convicted of homicide? does that violate the eighth amendment? and if such a sentence can be imposed on a juvenile, does it violate the eighth amendment when the sentence is decreed under a mandatory sentencing scheme that allows no consideration of the child's age? finally, two cases attracted the terms "largest headlines" and

"knee-high amaechi briefs." in april of 2010, arizona enacted legislation entitled " support our law enforcement and saved neighborhoods -- save our neighborhoods act." it was designed to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the united states. arizona describe its policy as implementing attrition through enforcement. before law took effect, the united states sued arizona, alleging that the federal immigration and nationality act pre-empts sb1070.

the district court, finding that the united states was likely to succeed on the merits, not enjoyed enforcement of 4 provisions of the act. the ninth circuit affirmed and the state's petition for review, urging that arizona's law complement's and does not conflict with federal law. one indication of the importance of the case -- five states have passed similar legislation and bills modeled on the arizona scheme have been introduced in most other states. last but surely not least, the affordable health care case. no contest since the court provided new briefs and arguments has attracted more attention in the press, the academy, the ticket line outside

the supreme court. airline that forms three days before oral arguments commence. some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they might be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter-protests going on outside the court while oral arguments were under way inside. arguments consumed more than six hours, spanning 3 days. remarkable in modern times, but recall that in one of the cases prominently cited in the health care briefs, oral argument in 1819 ran on for nine days over the course of two months. the three cases challenging the constitutionality of the health care act present for questions. first, does congress have the

authority through the commerce clause or the power to tax and spend for the general welfare? to enact this individual mandate? second, is the individual mandate requiring the purchase of insurance, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall? or made a mandate the chopped like a head of broccoli -- [laughter] [applause] third, does the expansion of medicaid exceed the spending power of congress? fourth, the big question in writing the answer everyone is waiting for. the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a pre-enforced challenge to the

individual mandate in light of the injunction act of 1867? that act presents -- prevents anyone from suing the federal government to restrain the collection of any taxes. to accommodate an audience enormously larger than our core room would hold, we made same- day recordings of the arguments. and though our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors.. my favorite among press pieces widely observed -- "at the supreme court, those who know do not talk and those who talk do not know." nevertheless, a rumor circulated that an opinion hand down session would reveal the outcome of the health-care cases.

rumor followers attended the session, anticipating the announcement of the momentous decision. they got their just deserts. they learned from the only decision announced from the bench that day that section beebe of the real estate settlement procedures act only bars unearned fees split between two or more people. [laughter] i have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions. noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and propel legislative or executive change. peter mentioned a most fit example. i summarized from the bench in 2007, as he said and most of you

know, the case involved a woman who worked at an area manager at a goodyear tire plant in alabama. her starting salary was in line with the salaries but, over time, for pay slips so that by the end of 1997, there was a 15- 40% disparity between her pay and the salaries of her 15 male counterparts. she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc. eventually, a jury result her suit, favorably awarding her back pay and damages. the supreme court nullified the verdict, that she filed her claim to late. it was incumbent upon her to file charges of discrimination each time she failed to file

suit each time goodyear discriminated against her. it became grandfathered beyond the province of title 7 to repair. ignored realuling world employment practices, the practice is title 7 was meant to govern. sue early on was the majority's council when he may not know that men are receiving more for the same work. the defense had nothing to do with her gender. she just did not do the job as well. a case that cannot be made when somebody has been on the job, getting good performance ratings for 20 years. if you wait until a case is fully based, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable

case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation, i urge, could not have been what congress intended. the legislature may act to correct the court's reading of title 7. 19 months later, the court passed the act, overruling the court's decision caught a decision by considered entirely out of touch with the real world of work for it -- the real world of work. [applause] and the court's first opinion of the current term did not receive similar notice.

there i addressed my descent to a different audience. smith, abysmally represented at her trial, was convicted of shaking her 7-week-old grandson to her death. -- to his death. the ninth circuit held there was no convincing support for the state's theory that the infant died of shaking baby syndrome. the supreme court twice remanded the case to the board of appeals, admonishing the ninth circuit each time to heat input. the third time around, the court of appeals struck out. the supreme court summarily reversed the circuits grant of her relief and told the court of appeals not to tamper with the state court's conviction. justices brier and some or joined my dissenting decision. -- breyer and sotomayor joined

my dissenting decision. what is now known about shaken baby syndrome and evidence showed she possessed no danger to her family or anyone else in society. in december of last year, smith filed an application with california governor jerry brown. the application borrowed some words from the dissenting opinion in the court. on april 6, i governor brown commuted her sentence to time served, noting significant doubt about her guilt. [applause] that was the governor's first

grant of clemency in his current term. justice, at last, prevailed. don't you agree? [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause]

>> i am not sure the law professor was calculating how funny the justices are. we are well aware that justice ginsburg has a fine sense of humor and a very incredible wit. perhaps we can give her one more round of applause for coming in the middle of an incredible time. [applause] what a privilege that was for us all. i think i can say without any dissent in this room. before justice ginsberg has to

go and work, but we actually have a reception that follows. before we break into the reception, i want to remind everybody that we start again at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, where we have a panel on the aftermath of citizens united, are favored by the move. please be here on time for that. -- our favorite bugaboo. please be here on time for that. now we are going to go to the reception, where we will hear from our next guest, richard grod -- gordray. before you arrive at the reception, we have a silent auction that has some splendid items of all kinds. music, books, paintings -- by my mother. [laughter]

supreme court bobbleheads. this auction will end during the reception, so please go out and did. and enjoy yourself for the rest of the evening. we will see you again in the morning. [applause] >> attendees leaving the speech by ruth bader ginsburg . she talked about the supreme

court this term. if you missed any of for speech, you can find it online at the c- span video library at any time. take a look at our prime-time schedule on the c-span networks. on c-span, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama announcing a change to the u.s. immigration policy, which would stop the deportation of some illegal immigrants who came to the u.s. with children. on c-span2, the supreme court oral arguments on health care. on c-span 3, the u.s. tax code and wealthy americans. tomorrow on "washington journal," political action committees and their role in campaign 2012. then we will have adam striker on promoting conservative principles using social media. and the former national security

council chairman john norton moore. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. >> the story behind the star spangled banner, the invasion of the burning of washington d.c.. this weekend on american history tv, mark the bicentennial of the start of the war from fort mchenry, the site with -- the site where francis scott key would see through the rockets' red glare. also this weekend, a series on key political figures who ran for president but lost and change political history. "the contenders," this week with william jennings bryan. american history tv, this weekend on c-span 3. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii,

kansas, chicago, and washington. follow david maraniss in his journey to follow the footsteps of the president. then live at 7:30, he will take your questions. also, conservative commentator donald goldberg blames liberal court -- blames liberals for an ongoing war against ideas. >> american politics have been distorted by the idea that the further you move away from the left, the closer you get to bad things. in some ways, the best working definition a fascist in america is a conservative who is winning an argument. >> that is this weekend on c- span to. -- 2. >> in his first briefing as commander, admiral samuel locklear told people that the

u.s. is not interested in building any more bases in the pacific. this is 25 minutes. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the pentagon briefing room. i am pleased to introduce you to samuel locklear, the pacific command commander. he has been in command since march for it -- since march. this is his first time in the pentagon briefing room. he will make brief opening remarks and we will open the floor to your questions. i would ask you to please identify yourself and who you are before you ask the question. we have 30 minutes ago. with that, the floor is yours. >> good morning and thank you, captain. first i would like to recognize capt. kirby. he has been selected to the rear admiral and will soon head of the -- head up the chief

operations information area. the thing i can tell you from being a naval officer myself and an admiral is he has a big job of taking care of the information. he has to watch a out forfolk -- for folks like me. it is my first time here. i have been pacific commander for about three months. i have done extensive travel and will continue that in the near term. i also thank you for being here today and for those of you who do find the time to travel with us and to see what we are doing with our alliances, the partners in the pacific, we have the opportunity and we certainly do welcome that and support it. i am privileged to a lead of the roughly 320,000 u.s. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families who happen to be with them in the asian-pacific. this is my area of

responsibility as the oldest combat command in the u.s. military. it is the largest. it covers roughly half the service of the earth. there are 3.6 billion people, 36 nations, the largest armies in the world. many of the largest economies in the world. and certainly, it is a region with tremendous opportunities as well as tremendous challenges. the of the seven l.i.'s u.s. at our in my section. as well as some of the most critical strategic positions we have in the globe and critical emerging partnerships. you have all been reading and discussing among yourselves the rebound, sometimes referred to as the pivot to the pacific. if you come in as a good

commander, it is good to have your boss tell you what the priorities will be. in this case, i was privileged to have from our commander in chief and our secretary of defense a clearer idea of what our priorities would be, what that rebalance would consist of as we move forward. we look forward, in the coming weeks and months, to continue to articulate how we are going to make that rebalance occur. that rebalance is based on several key aspects of rigell forward. one is it refreshes and and reassesses where we are with our key alliances. these alliances formed the backbone, the cornerstone of our security policy in the asian- pacific. the rebalance recognizes that we

are a pacific power. we do have national interest throughout the asia-pacific. it is in the best interest of our children and grandchildren that we stay engaged in the asia-pacific and continued to build those alliances and partnerships that allow us to halt ensure a security environment that will allow future peace and prosperity in this vast region. we will look at our alliances and continued to strengthen them. we will look that key strategic partnerships and ensure that those are properly taken care of and properly articulated. take a steady, deliberate, sustainable approach. we will continue to work on our military relationships with china. it is so important that, as china emerges, that we

understand each other, prevent this cartilage and as we go forward, and that we certainly like to have our chinese military counterparts be a positive influence on the security environment. we are hopeful that that can occur as we go forward. steady, deliberate, and sustainable is the way i would characterize our rebalance. the challenges you are aware of, we still have instability on the korean peninsula with north korea. a new leader with a provocation cycle that is concerning that has nuclear ambitions and recent missile launches and the continuation of proliferation. we also have transnational threats. we have violent organizations in southeast asia and south asia that we are concerned about as well as a host of other humanitarian systems, relief

scenarios that will note, in this region, can, upon us quickly. we must be able to respond quickly. we are also concerned about the cyberworld and where we are today. as our alliances and partnerships grow, we will continue to carry on the dialogue on how to address these threats together. we will discuss the cyber environment tomorrow. it is a rapidly changing, rapidly evolving environment that we have to deal with. it is very important. are foreign forces underpin our strategy. we have traditional basing the we have had since world war two. japan, the republic of korea, we are also pursuing some new initiatives that are an opportuny for us to partner

with other countries to be able to share their facilities, to share in our abilities, and be able to partner so that we can build a security environment where we have incorruptibility, where we can potentially rotate u.s. forces throughout the region to be able to help our partners and our allies as we go forward. with that, i will stop there and invite you to ask some questions. >> the pacific lottery is one week away. u.s. commission officers will be leading enterprises. >> this year will be the

largest pacific exercise we have done. i had the privilege of leaving the exercise when i was commander back in 2008 writ it happens every two years. i think it is an excellent example of the type of multilateral, cooperative cooperation that can occur between military's that improve our interoperable barely -- are interoperable ability and the fact that we come together and allow leadership from different countries that participate, i think there are 23 nations this year, we allow them to take those leadership roles and it strengthens our alliances, are partnerships, and our ability to operate. i think you will be quite pleased by what you would see from that operation. they also have one week where

they do things socially together. they have soccer matches, baseball games against each other. it is quite good. that we each of the countries can experience the culture of other countries. it has been in competition with the tether, but in a very good way. the best music and the best food and the best decorations on the ship. it is a great example of what can be done globally. it is in the microcosm of the maritime event that occurs in hawaii. there was a pretty good movie that was just put out. >> i am from the "london times." the anticipate that the u.s. navy and air will have a new

weapons to counter the ship the chinese have? >> tier second question, i do not have a time and to give you on that -- to your second question, i do not have a timeline to give you on that on what and when we will do as a move forward. to the degree that the u.s. navy is continuing to look at the threat. this is not something new. we have been doing this since our navy has been formed. we are updating our defense systems to make sure we have the guaranteed access to do the job that we are doing and we need to do. i am confident today in the

ability of our u.s. forces and our allies to be able to move forward in the places we need to move forward. we need to provide a secure environment that allows peace and prosperity in the asia-pacific. >> you pmentioned guam and japan. speaking generally over the next few years, how much of the think things will shift? will it look a lot different from the past couple of decades? or are we talking about modifying around the edges? >> we have been looking at this with our allies for some time for a number of years. we are in discussion. nothing stays the same in the security environment. basically we have taken a look

at making sure that our posture is operationally relevant. it has to be resilient enough for us to be able to support the top operations that we do. it has to be sustainable. in has to be politically sustainable. you cannot deny that any one of them are important. take a look at our force posture in northeast asia. it has a historic basis to it. there are some changes we need to go president obama with. we have an agreement with our allies were those -- there are some changes we need to go forward with. we have an agreement with our allies. we have a world globalization where we have a massive amount of interstate and enter country

commerce that flows through the commons -- maritime commons, cyber commons. we have to ensure that our military forces are positioned in the right place collectively. not just the u.s., but among our allies and order so we can adjust this changing environment. when i was a young officer in the navy, there are places today rate routinely operate our maybe that i could not even find them on the " if you had asked be were the work. -- globe if you had asked me where they were. we have a lot of different places in the world. our security environment has to adjust to that. in the asia-pacific, our

alliances will remain the cornerstone of our posture. we will make some changes globally in because of the strategic location. will do some things in one that makes sense for our posture. we will work with our allies and partners for the opportunities to partner with them. building interested in a u.s. bases in the pacific. we should not have to at this point in time. we have reliable partners and allies. together, we should find ways to theselowi be be able to find locations where we can put security forces that respond to a broad range of secure issues, including humanitaria assistance and disaster relief. if you look at it, that is what we have responded to the most. those are the challenges we face the most together.

we need to be postured to be a will to do that in a world that has millions of people in it. >> i am with the "china review." yesterday, it was said it would put us times in key areas in the pacific. can you please elaborate on this? does that mean the u.s. think [unintelligible] second, and the be a military exchange [unintelligible]

>> there are standards set down by the law ends the convention and by customary law that allowed for certain activities particular and military vessels in various parts of the maritime comments. it can be in the territorial waters or passage or major straits and so points. there are a number of countries in the world, china been one of them from our perspective placed existing claims and excessive restrictions that are not consistent with international law. it is not just china. there are many that do this. as we look at the future, if you were able to take all of the

world's economic zones and put restrictions activities of security forces in those different countries, you would basically restrict about 35% of the world's oceans. every major sealine of strait ation s,traion, every would fall into that. it would put them i think further at risk if these existing claims are not resolved. i encourage this as we go through what to continue to have this dialogue. there are places where countries disagree, but we should certainly use a format of law, international law and forms to be able to express those claims

and articulate them. there should be some compromise. we cannot have competing claims that end up causing is calculation that would lead us to conflict. peace is the most important thing. they should be solved peaceably. there are enough resources in the world. we need to make sure everyone has enough adequate access to them. to your question as to our [inaudible]ations to andave counterparts iand i look forward to doing some dialogue. we will sit down and we will have the same conversations you and i have had. they will be open and frank.

that is the way we do business in the world we are in. >> [inaudible] >> i will go. the plan is i will meet with my military counterparts. we will have a discussion about military claims and other issues that surround that. the good news is that we are in a position in the coming months and years to continue to have a productive dialogue. it is very important for the security in the asia-pacific and the u.s. and china to have a productive partnership. admiral, could you talk about this coming u.s. exercise and

how it differs from the previous one? >> there has been a press release to talk about this particular exercise. they talked about the various stages of that. i will not go into that in particular. i would say that first of all, we are increasingly operating in a trilateral and multilateral forums throughout the pacific. not just in the east sea areas. take a look at the power of exercise program. you will see that it starts to shape a recognition that we have security challenges that go beyond northeast asia. in the case of this exercise

between japan, korea, and the u.s., two of our cornerstone allies in this region, it should be no surprise that we operate with them. cooperation our copper abili ability. it helps people in the region understand that those strategic partners are working together and a a way that is not aggressive, but demonstrating a freedom of access to up that particular region. we can learn a lot from it. it will be a great opportunity for both japan and korea to work closely together with our help. >> we have time for one more. >> just to follow up on that last question.

dod has been trying to strengthen bilateral ties and promote ties pitching japan and south korea. how do you envision that relationship going forward? the you see it more as an informal structural? we tried to do trilateral exercises? do you anticipate more formal agreements are partnerships? >> we have to take these things one step at a time. we have to do what we can in the environment we are in. as a move forward, there'll be a strengthening relationships between the republic of korea and japan on the military side. there are things -- as with us, that many mutual interests and consistent themes and world- class militaries. they should be able to

cooperate. they are close neighbors. they share many interests. as we go forward, we will see how the relationship develops. i think we're doing pretty good today. given the world we are in, we are building trilateral and multilateral exercises and constructs throughout asia- pacific. >> thank you. that is all the time we have for questions. thank you for coming. anything you would like to end with? >> continue to come out and see what we are doing. i would love to meet you and have discussions with you and let you see. you can see that the u.s. is committed to the asia-pacific.

we will move forward. thank you. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule on the c-span network. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama announced a change to u.s. immigration policy. it would stop the deportation of some illegal immigrants who came to the u.s. as children. on c-span 2, the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law. on c-span 3, the tax analyst organization has a discussion on the u.s. tax code on the wealthy americans. this begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span network. >> earlier this week, the fed reserve released a report that found the median u.s. household lost a percentage of its wealth. we will hear more of this now

on "washington journal." it is about 45 minutes. host: joseph gagnon from the peterson institute for international economics is here. good morning. guest: good morning. host: most people saw the headlines. can you elaborate on that headline for people watching at home and following the issue? guest: the biggest reason for this decline in home net worth is the house of values. also, the stock market is down where it was in 2007. those of the two biggest reasons. host: as far as home the use our work, does that effect all home in comes a bully? equally?

guest: proportionally, it affected the middle class the worst. they rely more on the home that value. \ host: 1 portion was housing and the other was stock. is is neutral funds? can you give us that debt it? -- gammut? guest: some hold stocks through their mutual funds or their retirement. the network has declined because it is all based on stock. host: what do you glean from the american family because of the reduction of these numbers? guest: it was the case that american families did not save enough for retirement. this makes it worse. it is not good news, that is for sure.

host: we are speaking with joseph gagnon from the peterson institute for international economics. we are taking a look at american families. we have divided the lines differently. now we have divided them by economic klaus. it a gimmick under $50,000, and number to call is 202-737-0001. if you find yourself over $100,000, you can call 202-628- 0205. us your thought as well.itter guest: they have studied the

economy and in many ways. this is part of the try to understand how the economy works and how people behaved. it helps them to understand what are some of the areas where it looks like people could -- the .ed could help people host: what is the time shot? guest: they do these surveys over several months. there are thousands of interviews. it takes time. between may and december of 2010. host: factor in what happened not only in terms of housing and stocks and how much people are making, a factor in what happened in 2010. guest: there is a modestly good

news. the stock is now back 18%. we have come more than halfway for more it was in 2007. host: that is moderately good news. we have gotten closer. it has fallen in the past few weeks. it is back again. housing has not come back. it is basically flat a tiny bit. host: what you said about people's net worth, that means housing has not improved that much at all? guest: if you are more well off, stock affect you. host: for the next snapshot, when does that get compiled? is it three years from now?

also monday that survey a year from now? guest: it takes them quite a while. it takes them a while to go over the results. host: who uses this the most and how does it affect policy making? guest: 1 of the biggest areas it would impact is tax policy. you want to see how well they're doing and is there any inequality. host: 1 of the figures that came out in 2007, the medium u.s. family income was about $49,000. in 2010, that figure drops to $45,000. to give some context to those numbers?

guest: what happened is that a lot of people became unemployed. many people drop to lower numbers. that slowed the medium down. this is also due to inflation. there has been a moderate amount of inflation. host: calls from our guests are lined up. jeremy in new york city. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. you mentioned that taxation -- and just in taxation -- adjusting taxation it might deal with the problem of fallen wealth. the general feeling is based on

something called a curve that if you increase taxation you will decrease production. is that cursed a legitimate as an economic theory? -- is that curve a legitimate economic theory? re-investing is not helping toward hiring people. i wonder whether that should not be spelled another way. guest: there has been a study of that curve recently. there have been a number of studies that have come out. they do find evidence for such a

curve. what some may not like is where the curve is. the results suggest that the taxes would have to be much higher than they are now to affect production to have a negative peffect. that is the latest research that people have been coming out with. i agree with you in the sense that i do not think the curve should raise taxes. at least not to the point where the taxes would hurt the economy. host: florida. david for those who make under $50,000. caller: hi. i'm a nurse. under the republican plan,

draining all of the money out of my 401, i will be making $42,500. not means my son will be able to go to medical school. my home is not worth as much as it was before. i will probably have to file for bankruptcy. it seems like the value of my home family is going down. my neighbors that i talk to are experiencing the same thing. i do not see anything positive happening if the republicans are elected. host: husband does that affect day-to-day decisions, especially economic -- how does that affect day to day decisions, especially

economic ones? caller: i have to cut down on food and fuel use. i put a larger portion o fmf my income to my mortgage. i will eventually not be able to afford that and lose my house. guest: i am sorry to hear that bad news. i am afraid a lot of people are in the same position. i do not know what to say. i am not here to talk about the two parties in the competing platforms. i would say that there is obvious the gridlock in washington. one thing the administration is trying to do -- i wish they would do more and i wish congress had done more is make it easier for people like you to

refinance with super low interest rates. i am not sure if you have been able to refinance in the past few years. rates have gone down from 6% to 3% lately. that would save you a lot of money if you could refinance. there is a program that would enable people to do that. there is a program that the administration proposed a but help you do that. the banks and that fannie mae and freddie mac have been turned implement that program. it deserves more attention. host: this is service say anything about areas of the country that have been affected more are less? guest: it shows if you come from florida, one of the states that have been hit, you are more affected. the stock market affects

everyone equally. nevada probably the worst. host: when it comes to the housing market, other economic news from the local papers. this shows that there are reports showing slow gains in areas such as connecticut still struggling to regain lost jobs. talk about that. guest: this has been a huge disappointment to economists and me. there should have been more action and more stimulus. it was split over many years . there almost no net status and we really needed it.

host: the fed reserve has been aggressive. it could have done more. the recovery has been weaker more than the fed or the administration expected. these financial crises have longer lasting a fax than other types of recessions. it is for slower recoveries. therefore you need more policy. that was not well known before the crisis. host: users in the fed reserve? -- you served in the fed reserve? guest: yes. host: what did you? guest: mortgage securities. host: what is the possibility of the fed going that route again?

guest: quite likely they will do a little bit of it. they are meeting next week. it is likely they will add to that program. of purchases every month. i think it will extend it two or three more months. theythey're doing now is sell the shorter-term treasuries they hold and buy longer-term. the interest rates are already at 0%. i think they could keep doing this for another two or three months, $200 billion worth. then they have to print money, which they might.

i would have them by more mortgages and help the housing market even more. host: our guest is with us for another 25 minutes. charles makes over $100,000. caller: 1 comment about the stimulus. he thinks we should have more stimulus. one problem was the stimulus. the government should allow more institutions to fail. you would have you companies start up and you would not have the government going to save those future corporations. allow them to fail and have other corporations popping up. rather than go with open hearts

surgery. the savings of americans. a major problem is social security. the middle class and below the middle class have come to see social security as their retirement fund. they rely 100% on social security. there is no incentive to save. the net does not hardly hold the water you need. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: we are a contractor. host: tell us about your family situation compared to five years ago. caller: we are by no means -- i would not say where the upper middle class.

we're slightly above middle class. our house dropped in value in $180,000 and it was only valued at about $500,000. it is climbing $4,000, $5,000 a year. we have a 401(k) and that also took a major hit. we're not selling our house or our 401(k). those two have to be one of the best bets you can invest in. guest: i think the advice is

correct. you are doing the right thing. in terms of your first point, if we let more companies and banks and companies fail then that makes more room for new start-ups. we try to -- that was herbert hoover's the losses they and things got worse and worse and worse. that can work if the economy is growing strongly when the companies fail because then there is other demand for workers. if the companies failed during a time of weakness, there is already excess workers. there is nobody who has any money to spend. that is why we need the

government. there's no sense in which there are not plenty of workers out there to be hired. there is no demand. that's the problem. we need to get more spending going in the economy. then these start-ups can take root. the government needs a high roll during a recession. host: this is judy in florida and makes under $50,000. caller: my concern is why can we bring the jobs back caregiving the corporations a decent percentage rate compared to the other countries? i think most of the companies in the u.s. would love to be back manufacturing at home. why can we give them a 20% rate?

we are paying more than any country in the world. everybodyderstand why has this hate for companies. they employ people. people are so much better off when they have a job. then they can spend money. it is not like they are taking it out of our pockets. they will be giving it back. i lived in toledo. we had 20 fortune 500 companies. somebody got mad because they were not paying their fair share. they left because they could not afford to make their products there. moneyou're working, your is being taxed and so is theirs. they were giving benefits for free. i don't understand this flight

to other countries other than to get away from the high tax rate that we have. guest: i get your question. we do have a high corporate tax rate. it is now much higher than that in germany and japan. ours is near the high end. i do not know anyone who thinks that is the main issue. i think that i would like to see more jobs in the u.s. in the sense that we have a big trade deficits. it is when you're in a recession that you want that to go way to bring the jobs back on shore. other countries are not letting that happen.

countries around the world are spending about $1.5 trillion a year basically trying to push down their currencies against the dollar so that they can export more to the u.s. if they export to us, -- they can lend the money to us. they have been determined to lend the money to us survey do not have to buy our exports. i'm not a protectionist. i do think this kind of policy right now is hurting america. i would fight this more strongly if i was the administration. china is a small piece of this. it is widespread.

host: brooklyn, new york, this is paul. caller: hi. i like what your guest is saying. i have significant investments. there's too much stupid money chasing stupid money. why can anybody tie that into the idea that there is simply -- the tax rate is too low on capital gains and the rich and there are no good investments because they have had to find new ways to invest in order to spend this phenomenal cash that has gone into investments. if you're to raise the tax rates even in a stair step method, you could -- the government could pour that in two parts of the economy where people turn around and spend it and that will promote consumer spending.

we have gone from bubble to bubble. it is not doing us any good. why don't we ever hear about that? host: how much of your net worth is based on investments? caller: how much of my net worth is based on investments? i'm currently 50% in stocks. quite a bit of it. host: thank you, caller. guest: one point i am in agreement with you -- i do not believe the reasons for having different tax rates are very strong. the reasons are a bit stronger. it makes for a convoluted tax

code. it leads to a employment of armies of lawyers and accountants. they do legal accounting structures that do that the cost money and are wasteful because it does not help anybody live better. it is a way of sheltering money from the irs, so it is wasteful. how high that should be? i do not know of any studies that say -- i don't think that would make people be more productive. another caller thinks that may go the other way. i think a simpler tax system makes a lot of sense.

host: robert ask a question on twitter this morning. guest: that's a symptom of our problems. people do not want to spend. the federal reserve has lowered interest rates super low. that is what it takes to get people to spend more. the fed is trying to help people temporarily. we'll make it unattractive for you to save. we want you to spend. this was always true with monetary policy. the amounts, the weakness is unprecedented. host: curtis, over $100,000. caller: thank you for taking my

call. two comments and a question. i work for fortune 50. if you lower the tax rates, corporations will bring jobs back to this country. our company is outsourcing because the labor in these other markets are so cheap. you can even compare tax rates when you are paying some but a fraction of what you're paying in u.s. salary. we get the cheap labor to make a profit right now. a problem we have is we do not see our interconnection of the society as a whole. "we have to cut the government." cutting government spending equates with cutting jobs.

the private sector is not going to make that up. they are in it to make profits. every month new numbers, from the fed. these numbers are publicized. does the fed ever thing to lend to one side or the other or do they remain neutral? guest: thank you. that comment on your comment. i agree about demand more important than tax cuts. tax rate issues are more of what is best for the economy in the long run. i think there would help

stimulate a little bit of demand. on the foreign outsourcing, yes, i think cheap foreign labor is the reason. the exchange rate between the u.s. and these countries a fax how expensive their labor is. administrations have been less aggressive than they should have been in protecting these tactics, making is more expensive so we will send jobs to them. that is something we could do more about. if we made them raise their rates -- we will never compete completely with china. closer proximity to the customers, it gives us a lot advantages.

the fed and politics -- the fed tries to avoid politics. chairman bernanke has given his opinion on policies which i have a political implication. he tries not to spell that out. he has asked for more stimulus in the short run to cut the deficit in the long run. he thinks that's the way to go and that has implications for the parties. host: your thoughts on the upcoming vote in greece. guest: at this point, i think greece is not the most important thing is going on in europe. i think it is almost a given they'll have to default on their debt entirely and possibly leave the euro area.

they could possibly defaults and stay in the euro. it will be messy. they are small. they have many months to prepare for this. the real worry is can spain and italy make it? would they have to restructure? that's the real worry. i think greece is relatively small and europeans have a lot firepower. i think the real issue is, can spain and italy make it. host: mark for those who make under $50,000. caller: i fall into the second category.

failure to enforce our immigration laws. let's go to the globalization and the stimulus. globalization of our companies, taking jobs overseas and everybody is saying, let's bring them back. most of the manufacturing jobs now are competing with those companies overseas and in mexico and you can't quantify how you're going to pay somebody of dollarst -- to pay somebody $12 to $20 an hour. you have to make a more

attractive to bring the business back here. the stimulus -- you got the stimulus going out and then you look and you see the whole demographics has changed. it is not going to work. host: what type of work do you do? guest: i am not an expert on immigration. on the overseas competition, we are in agreement. dozens of countries are stand -- spending over a trillion dollars every year basically to avoid buying our exports and to buy our bonds and financial

exports, which does not create jobs the way of buying our exports would. they pushed their currencies down and keep their workforce at cheap. if we stop that, their workers would become more expensive and american companies might see the trade-off was less advantageous and they might hire more american workers. i agree with the caller on that. host: elizabeth from oregon portland -- portland, oregon. caller: there is no benefit from having those people come in. all they do is drive down the wages of the workers here because they work for practically nothing.

the guy who called at the beginning from florida who claim to be a nurse making less than $50,000 a year. i have been in surgery and know that they are very well paid. he is either a line about what he is making or he is working a couple of days a week and blaming republicans. he should get off his butt and start working. host: tell us about your situation. caller: my situation is better. i live below my means. host: are you doing better than five years ago? caller: yes. it is a matter of managing your money better. we have market encouragement to do that.

people are having to cut back and it is probably a healthy thing. that would be nice if the economy could pull out. i did nothing government spending will help that. crediteople's use of these days. guest: i think it is important to distinguish between personal finances and the overall finances of the economy. people have not saved enough. that was the problem all along. saving rates have gone up, and that is good. the timing is not the best because you want the saving rate to go up as the economy gets stronger, not 1 it is week -- not when it's weak. it has to be the government if the household are not saving.

if nobody spends, we're all out of work. what works for a family is not what works for the economy as a whole. what the government and what families do affects the economy. we need to get to balance where everybody is employed and they saved a good amount and the government gets back into the balance. when you have an unused capacity, it is very advantageous for the government to spend in that time and that time only. host: and consumer credit? guest: if people were willing to borrow, we would not need the government to do that for them.

we want that in a context where they start saving down the road. i think it is better that households changed their behavior now. save more now. host: for those who make under $50,000, our next caller from tennessee. you are on, sir. caller: if the lady who just called, she was talking about making all that money. i am retired. i never made $100,000. i was making money to just keep my family going. that is what i have to live off of, but social security. that is like these corporations that move overseas.

if you look a product that is coming back, like from china, it is still the same price that it was when it went over there. they are setting up in the front office and they are not obligated to people, to have to pay them social security and this stuff. they do not cut prices on their stuff, you know. and, two, it don't matter if we cut the taxes down to zero. they're not going to put people back to work. you got to have somebody buying this stuff. these corporations are not going to put the money out there and not sell it to nobody. host: is your home paid off?

caller: i'm 68 years old. i worked hard. host: what is the value of your home? caller: probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars. guest: his observations are valid. host: michael, over $100,000. caller: good morning. isn't it true -- prior to the 1990's, some economic conditions is what caused artificially inflated values, particularly real estate in the 1990's.

now the values have come back down to what was, so the wealth hasn't gone away, just the value of certain assets. guest: if you plan on living in your home for the rest of your life, whether it goes up down in value does it matter to you. what matters is the instrument you get from living in your house and so you don't have to pay rent and. if you do want to move or pass some money on to your children,

the value does matter. this survey is based on the idea that the guy of your home what does matter. but i take your point. host: is there a likelihood that we will see similar themes from this survey in the next survey that comes out? guest: i think you'll see some recovery. 2007 was kind of a peak. i don't think houses will go all the way back like that. we'll see some recovery. whether the government programs pushed house prices up too much. not in the 1990's. was it true that government programs pushed house prices up? i did nothing so. we have fannie mae and freddie mac and there was ambiguity about whether there were part of the government or not.

they were not the instigators of the housing bubble. they joined very late in the game. it was wall street with these new financial products. that is what has happened. that was the subprime practice. it was the private sector, wall street. host: joseph gagnon from the peterson institute for international economics. thank you for your time and your input. we will look at how cities are growing. growing.