not best in terms of necessarily what is good for national security. i am kind of pessimistic that the shrewdest cuts will be made. but there is a chance. there is a chance. i know people at the pentagon care very deeply about trying to allocate the cuts in a responsible way. they are riven by disagreement into service rivalry as people are on the hill. the system rarely produces perfect outcomes. >> in a few moments, patty murray and what it might take to reach a deal in congress on the debt. in 40 minutes, a forum on what the -- on what role the u.s.

should be in in syria. and then president obama campaigns and ohio. >> let me say that again. my agenda is not to put in place a series of policies a lot of attention and applause. my policy will be create jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda. i submit to you this, if you want a president who will make things better in the african- american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. >> nit romney and vice-president joe biden spoke at the naacp national convention in houston. >> just close your eyes and imagine, imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior invited

a -- adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork. imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as attorney general and head of the civil rights division, or those other incredibly important positions at justice. >> patty murray says she and other democrats are ok to let the bush era tax cuts to expire if republicans do not agree to a deficit deal that includes significant additional revenue. senator murray shares the democratic senatorial campaign committee and spoke at the brookings institution about 40 minutes. >> we're glad to have you here. we have had a project here on the budget deficit. none of us can vote or introduce bills, so we are glad to have

someone who can do both of those things, not to mention chairman of the committee, to come here and tell us about the deficit and what their plans are. their pleas to be doing it. i will begin with doing a introduction of the senator, and that i will ask her a question and the audience will have the chance ask her some questions, and then we will go to a distinguished panel and the audience will have more time to ask questions of the panel. let me first say that the top today will be about the so- called cliff or slope or whatever you want to call it. just in case there might be people out there who do not know exactly what it is, it includes the bush tax cuts come out of unemployment compensation extension, the payroll tax holiday, the $1.20 trillion

sequestered, and a number of other items. many of you are familiar with the expression but i do not have a dog in this fight. there is nobody in washington that does not have a dog in this fight. senator murray will tell you the rest. senator murray? [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction. i am so glad to be here today to discuss this issue with so many of you who have been working on it for a long time. i want to thank the budgeting for national priory's project costing us today, as well as the members of the panel that you will be hearing from shortly and all of you for taking time to be part of this. as all of you know, last august i was asked by majority leader reid to co-chair the joint

select committee, the supercommittee. it was not the most sought after drop in congress. in notch below the chair of the dfcc, but i agree to do it because i thought it represented a few important opportunities. the opportunity to avoid the pain of sequestration that would be triggered if no deal was made, the past and responsible, long-term deficit-reduction plan with a simple majority, a guaranteed vote in the house, and no ability for it to be filibustered in the senate, which is no small deal these days. also, after years of partisan rancor, culminating in a truly ugly and absolutely unnecessary debt ceiling battle, the opportunity finally showed the american people their government was not broken and that we could come together when we needed to. as everyone knows, the

supercommittee was not successful and we could not come to a bipartisan deal. the reasons for that, the lessons learned from those months of intense talks, are absolutely critical as we face those exact same issues heading into the end of the year and the so-called fiscal cliff. because if we want, if the want to come together around a balanced and bipartisan and deficit-reduction deal, the american people expect and deserve, something is going to have to change. today i want to talk the addition, the values, and priorities that drives my approach to tackling our challenges, and i will contrast that with what i see as the shortsighted and deeply flawed isn't that has been dominated the republican party. i will run to help these visions played out in the specifics of

the supercommittee negotiations and the recent budget debate, and then i will lay out how i see a pat ford as we now head toward the end of the year. my approach to this issue starts with my own family. it starts with the story that probably is not so different from stories told by families across the country. i was born and raised in a in washington. my father ran a store on main street, and everybody helped out. my family was not rich, but we never felt deprived in any way. when i turned 15, things started to change. my dad, a world war ii to veteran, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. in a few short years his illness got so bad he could not work any more.

my mom had to take care of him, but she needed a job so she could support our family. she found some work, but it did not pay enough to support me and my six brothers and sisters and a husband growing medical bills. without warning, my family had fallen on hard times, but thankfully, we lived in a country where the government did not just say tough luck. my dad was a veteran, so he got some health -- help from the v.a. for his medical care. my family had to rely on food stamps. it was not much, but it put food on the table so we could get by. to get a better paying job, my mom needed some training. fortunately, at the time there was a federal program that helped her at and make washington vocational school where she got a degree in accounting and eventually a better job. and my brothers and sisters and

i were all able to go to college through federal grants and student loans. like millions of americans, caught by with a little bit of luck, we pulled through with a lot of hard work, and while i would like to say that we were strong enough to make it on our own, i do not think that is true. i know that the support we got from our government was the difference between seven kids who might not have graduated from high school or college and the seven adults we had come to be, all college graduates, all working hard, all paying taxes, and all now getting back our own communities. said this is the primary prism that i -- so this is the primary present tonight you this nation must budget to and what guides me in the senate with the choices we make. not the government should solve all the problems, because it

cannot, but we are a nation that has always come together to stand with families like mine, to invest in our people, in our communities, in our future, and to build the most robust middle- class the world has ever seen. it budget is not numbers on a page. despite what you may think if you listen to some of debates we had been having recently, the word budget is not just a synonym for deficit reduction. it is not just about charts and graphs and trajectories we hear about, although those are important, too. a budget tells a story of what kind of nation we are and that kind of nation we want to be. and that it is a statement of our values and our priorities and our vision, or at least that is what it ought to be. these ideas led to some very clear goals as i went into the

supercommittee. first, i thought everything he did to be on the table when we started. this did not mean members were supposed to check their bodies at the door, but it did mean we have the best chance of success if members did not rule out any changes to entire swaths of the federal budget before we began. second, i felt strongly that any deal had to be balanced and include both spending cuts and new revenue. the middle-class and vulnerable americans had already sacrificed so much, they lost their homes, they lost their jobs, their life savings, and they should not be called on the continued bearing the burden of deficit reduction alone. third, i wanted to make sure we did not let the very real need to tackle our deficit and debt cause us to cut out the most critical investments in our

families and our future or set aside the values and priorities that have made america great. fourth, i wanted to be a big deal, a grand bargain. i was willing to consider a small deal to avoid the pain of sequestration, but i thought it should be a last resort. i wanted us to put our country on track to tackle the debt and deficit, not simply continued lurching from crisis to crisis, and i was willing to make the tough compromises that work required to get there. but unfortunately, while there are many republicans who share those goals, who see the value of a government that works for the middle-class, families, their party has been dominated by an extreme ideological strain allows itself only to think in terms of cutting and shrinking and eliminating, and never in terms of investing or

growing or fairness. they have a vision for our country in which families like mine would not have gotten a hand up. we would have been left to fend for ourselves. a vision best articulated by one of their ideological leaders, grover norquist, who said, "i'm not in favor of abolishing the government. i just want to shrink it down to the sites where we can drown it in that bathtub " he was kind enough to wish me good luck on the super committee by telling reporters that washington does not do budgets. he has elicited a pledge from every single republican member of congress to never, under any circumstances, raise taxes by even a penny, but the fact that the wealthiest americans are paying the lowest rates in generations. despite the fact that the

wealthiest americans are today paying the lowest rates in generations and the federal government is taking in the lowest level of revenue in decades. unfortunately, part of many republicans have latched on the this deeply, damaging ideology. they pay lip service to deficit reduction, but what they actually seem to be concerned about is cutting taxes for the rich and starting programs that help middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans. if republicans really thought the deficit was the most pressing issue, you would not have seen their presidential nominee said he would reject a deal to cut $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. u.n. not have seen them do everything possible -- you would not see them do everything to protect the bush tax cuts for the rich. he would seek far more interest and compromising with democrats

to get the grand park and that everyone in this room understands we need. you would not cede their single- minded focus on flashing -- see their single-minded focus on slashing discretionary spending and provide critical support for our families and investments in our future. it was with very different visions and priorities that the two sides came together in our supercommittee last year. i understood it would be difficult. i knew democrats were ready to compromise and open to the concessions a balanced and bipartisan deal would require, and i was hopeful republicans were as well. the first thing that the super kid committee met, we went round the table and we talked about what we wanted to accomplish. we shared coffee and runny eggs,

and our hopes for the coming months. democrats discussed our priorities and our willingness to put everything on the table to get a balanced deal. we discussed our desire to continue working to cut spending responsibly. we pack -- we talked about our willingness to tackle entitlements and make sure they were strengthened in a way that assured they would be there for our children and grandchildren. we highlighted the need to responsibly reduce defense spending while making sure our national security needs were addressed. we laid out our belief that in a fragile economy, with millions of americans out of work, it made sense to invest in the short term while putting our nation on a path to long-term debt and deficit reduction. of course, we talked about the need for a balanced approach

that included revenue. republicans opened in a very different way. one said defense cuts were off the table and indicated that instead of trying to go big group should focus on doing just the opposite. he wanted us to go small. republicans pushed for us to focus on the so-called low- hanging fruit from prior negotiations before working on any of the tougher issues, meaning that they wanted to start by locking in and agreeing to all of the spending cuts that were identified as potentially working in a larger deal, but none other revenue increases that would have actually made such a deal possible. this was a tactic we have seen before, and we would not agree to an approach that would lead to an all-cuts and balanced deal. it was not a great start, but my hope that this was a negotiating position, not a hard line.

we continued our bipartisan conversations. we traded offers and ideas. we had our staffs draft and analyze potential language. there were times when i thought we were very close. but looking back at the offers from the other side that represented the greatest attempts at compromise, it is clear that while we were close on the spending side, republicans had not even left their corner when it came to revenue. the biggest offer democrats put forward was an attempt at a grand bargain. this proposal, built on the $1 trillion in cuts in the budget control act, with an additional $1.30 trillion in cuts to spending and changes to entitlement programs, as well as $1.30 trillion in new revenues. it included a short-term investment in jobs to get our economy a boost.

to be honest, it was a painful offer creek included a compromise on entitlements that i personally was not comfortable with. it had deep concessions on the spending side. but i knew that the only way a deal was possible was that both sides were willing to accept some pain, and i was willing to do that for a balanced and fair deal. but our balanced proposal stood in sharp contrast to the offer republicans would hang their hats on when it all and it. this was their attempt at acting like they were putting revenue on the table and offering a compromise, while in fact it was doing the exact opposite. the toomey plan was small. it included $700 billion in spending cuts which was less than what democrats have offered come around $300 billion in new government fees, and $300

billion and what they were calling new revenue. it is important to note many of those numbers were pfuzzy. i want to unpacked that last number of that, because republicans were trying to do something not unique to this plan. we were seeing this over and over in their proposals. the toomey plan would permanently cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest americans, from the 35% is now, and schedule it down to 28%, which would add trillions more to the deficit. it gets even worse. the plan claims that what revenue would be offset by closing loopholes and and the deductions, and, further, there would be $300 billion in extra revenue. but while the plant is explicit about giving the rich the

biggest tax cuts since the great depression, it is painfully vague when it comes to where that revenue is going to be found to offset that. it ignored that per completely. it's simply assumes congress will be able to get that done through tax reform. well, there was some analysis done on a proposal similar, and what they found was that in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich, we would have had to slash to the but the personal and dependent exemptions, almost all item is deductions, including the most popular ones we all know, home mortgages, charitable donations, state and local taxes, college tuition tax credits, almost all the tax credits. to spell out the obvious come up under the toomey plan, the richest americans would get a huge tax cut while the middle class would lose the tax

benefits that mattered to them the most. in an analysis of a similar plan, it was estimated somebody making over $1 million a year would see an act average -- an average tax cut of over $31,000. anyone making over $200,000 would get a tax cut. for anyone making less than that, the middle-class, the poor, the cuts and rate did not make up for the exemptions and deductions a loss. for example, someone earning $55,000 would see an average increase of almost $1,000. not only is it deeply unfair to ask the middle-class the foot the bill for another deficit- busting tax cut for the rich, but the to the plan would have locked them in with no guarantee that the revenue would ever be found to pay for them. there is nothing irresponsible about that in my book. i find it offensive.

i was reminded of the plan when i saw the rye budget this year. n's budget cuts taxes for the rich more than the toomey. ryan did the cbo to score his plan as a deficit reducer, so he simply directed the cbo to score his plan assuming it would raise 19% of gdp. that is quite an assumption. i wish we could assume all of our problems away like that. bruce bartlett slammed the plan, writing, he offers only the sugar of the reductions without telling us what the medicine of the big broadening would be. mitt romney said something

similar, cutting rates for the rich, while refusing to name the deductions that would be needed to play for it. it was a bait and switch. it was not a step in our direction. it was a leap toward the tea party and away from ideal. democrats were willing to match the republicans dollar for dollar on the spending side and more. we even beyond when it came to tackling entitlements. we had backing from our leadership and our party to make a big deal. we jumped right into the middle of the ring. republicans refused to move an inch in our direction on revenue. they actually tried to use deficit reduction committees to cut taxes for the rich even further credit they were so focused on how their base would react, they could not summon the will to leave their policy -- partisan court. why is this? why is the moderate republican

party so opposed to allow the rich to pay just a little bit more in taxes to help solve the debt and deficit republicans and as a country, that they would prefer no deal at all? it was not always this way. president reagan raised taxes 11 times. president george h. doug will push famously raised taxes to raise -- to rein in the deficit. this should not be controversial. outside the republican party is not, because if you believe the deficit and debt are major problems that need to be addressed, as democrats do, and as republicans claim to, then you cannot simply ignore revenues at a time when at 15.4% of gdp they are the lowest in 60 years. poll after poll shows the american people overwhelmingly want to reduce the deficit with a combination of cuts and revenue. every single group that has made progress in the area, from

simpson bowles did others, were able to come together because their plans were ballots. we do not want to increase revenue for the sake of increasing revenue. of course not. as a nation, we need to pay for the services and programs the american people want. we need to rein in the deficit and debt, and we need to do it in a responsible way. democrats understand this, and congressional republicans should, too. because all this is coming to a head once again. unlike last year, the consequences of gridlock be felt immediately. millions of jobs could be lost to the automatic cuts. programs would be slashed irresponsibly across the board and middle-class tax cut would expire. once again, if republicans will not work with us on a balanced approach, we are not want to get a deal.

i feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans bear this burden alone. it is just not fair. if we cannot get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then i will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that those middle- class families under the bus. i my party and the american people will support that. i hope it does not come to that. i think we have reasons to think a deal can happen before the end of this year. and the democrats are willing to compromise. we need a partner. i am seeing encouraging signs from republicans who are sick and tired of being boxed in by the most extreme elements of their base, who do not like being responsible for continued manufactured crises that hurt our economy and destroyed our

nation's in this government and are concerned about the impact of sequestration. in the privacy of backrooms, republicans are far more willing to discuss the need for revenue. there are some republicans who are passionate about national defense and willing to make tough choices on riveted to protect pentagon. in fact, some of the productive conversations that my republican colleagues have been having have let grover norquist to decry it there "in pure thoughts -- impure thoughts" when it comes to taxes. if he is mad, we must be on the right track, because the only way that we can get a balance and bipartisan deal is if republicans can persuade their leadership to stand up to the most extreme elements of their base and come to the table with real compromises.

i also think the republicans are starting to realize something very important. on january 1, if we have not gotten a deal, grover norquist and his pledge are no longer relevant to this conversation. a name that i heard repeatedly by republicans over and over in the supercommittee will no longer be part of this debate. we will have a new fiscal and political reality. if the bush tax cuts expire, every proposal will be a tax cut proposal, and the pledge will no longer keep republicans boxed in and unable to compromise prick and middle-class families start seeing money coming out of their paychecks next year, will republicans stand up for new tax cuts for the rich? will they continue opposing the democrats' middle-class tax cut? i think they know that will be an untenable position, and i hope this pushes them to come to the table with real revenues now

before being forced to the table if we do not get to a deal by the new year. we should not wait pit is not good for the economy. it is not good for the markets. most importantly, it is not good for the taxpayers and small businesses across america. when it comes to expiring bush tax cut, i agree with president obama. let's extend them to the 98% of workers and a 97% of small businesses then have or real debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans that we disagree on. before all this we will have a vote to do that in the senate. some republicans have indicated they will make an effort to extend all of the bush tax cuts, including those for the rich. i challenge them to do something different, to be honest about what they really want an all-out everyone to clearly state their position on this issue. i challenge them to offer an

amendment to our middle-class tax cuts that would simply extend the tax cuts that are fighting for, the tax cuts for the rich. a real amendment. they do this, all of the bush tax cut would be for a clean, honest, extension of and the american people would know where everyone stands. any senator who supports extending tax cuts to the middle-class, and the center that supports extending tax cuts for the rich can revoke fort -- can vote for the republican amendment. that would give everyone an opportunity to vote for exactly what they want and will make sure the political gimmicks don't get in a way of delivering results to the 98% of workers both sides agree should have their tax cuts extended.

if republicans don't do this, if they continue playing political games and only offer an amendment to kill this bill, then i will have proven conclusively they don't care about certainty, but care about extending those tax cuts for the rich and they will use every bit of leverage they have to do it. if we are really going to address these issues, we have to cut through the political smokescreens. it is time to put our cards on the table, offer real choices, and have a debate that is worthy of the senate. holding the middle class tax cuts hostage may be a smart tactical move if the goal is to protect the rich, but it is not good policy, not good politics, and democrats will keep reminding the american people why middle-class tax cuts are not being extended immediately, even though both sides said they want them to be. i have also heard the claim made that we need to extend all the tax cuts to give us time to

reform the tax code. we absolutely need to reform the tax code. it is badly broken and i'm certainly willing to discuss the fast-track process for getting that done, but there is absolutely no reason that we need to extend the tax cuts for the rich as a precondition for reforming the tax code. when we do get to work on this, republicans will have to except that tax reform a back door way for them to sneak through more tax cuts for the rich, it is -- to raise revenue to help rein in the deficit and debt. in addition to the expiration of the bush tax cuts, we also face a $1.20 trillion in automatic spending cuts. as you all remember, sequestration was included in the bipartisan budget control act to be about sought an incentive to compromise. but republicans were not willing to offer any concessions to get

to deal, and now they want to have their cake and eat it, too. they want all the deficit reduction but without any of the bipartisan compromise of shared sacrifice. democrats were willing to accept all wobbly imbalanced deficit reduction plan to avoid the automatic cuts, we would have done that back in the super committee. we did not then and we will not now. anyone who tells issue sequestration is going to simply disappear because both sides want to avoid it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. it is going to have to be replaced. a replacement on to have to be a balanced plan. we are not going to allow just the defense cuts to be replaced without addressing the domestic spending cuts that would be devastating for the middle class. none of the automatic cuts are good policy. there were packaged together in a bipartisan fashion to get both sides to the table and i will be replaced or not as a package.

the defense cuts get most of the tension here but across america, all the automatic cuts would be equally damaging to our families and communities. that is exactly why have been working across the aisle with senator mccain of legislation calling for an analysis of the impact of sequestration across of defense and nondefense spending. i am hopeful that information will help us bring the same spirit of bipartisanship to a balanced and bipartisan approach to replace those automatic cuts. once again, i will not agree to a deal that rose middle-class families under the bus and forces them to bear this burden alone. unless republicans and their commitment to protecting the ridge above all else, our country is going to have to face the consequences of republicans entrenchments. this is about more than taxing our debt and deficit. it is about coordination. we cannot ignore this great

challenge. we need to rein in the debt, but it is not all that defines our budget. our budget and our nation will be defined by the scientists to come out of our schools, by the businesses that we create, by our communities, our universities, our research, development, are innovation, and we will be defined by the opportunities we afford to every one of our families and workers by the fairness of our society and how we treat the most vulnerable among us. when i go back home to washington state, my constituents don't come up and say they want the federal government to spend 18 or 20 or 25% of gdp. they tell me that what a strong school system for their kids. they want them to go to college if they want to. the one good jobs in their communities, save roads. they want the government to be there for them when they need to

for getting back on their feet. in other words, they want government to do what it did for my family. what'd has done for millions of families for generations. they do want us to tackle our debt and deficit. this certainly do not want us to hand the bill to our kids. they wanted done in a balanced and fair way that does not leave the middle class holding the bag along. those are the priorities are will be pushing for more about all the tax cuts next week and in that weeks and months and years ahead. i believe the reflecting american values that have carried our nation for for generations and the vision that will continue our country's great leadership and to the 21st century and beyond. i know the democrats are ready to go to work. we want to make a deal. we are ready to compromise. i am personally willing to talk to anyone from either party who wants to solve this problem. as soon as republicans decide to work with us, i'm confident we

can get to a balanced and bipartisan deal with the american people. thank you. >> you said democrats are ready to deal. can you give us any indication of the deal democrat the put on the table and what significant enticement ship changed and how? and you think the majority of democrats would support a? >> as i indicated on the super committee, democrats did put a package forward that did include changes to entitlements to assure that they were there beyond one generation. i have a granddaughter. i understand that and am willing

to make decisions to make sure we have long-term security for medicare and medicaid in our entitlement programs. but that is in the context of a balanced approach. the reason those changes and suggestions were not accepted is for one reason alone, and that is because the republicans would not put any revenue on the table to help make that deal in compromise. >> we have time for one or two audience questions. at a clear, short question. there is a mike right here. >> my basic question is, would make the negotiations a lot easier to get on with going big, the grand bargain, if there were more money to work with right now? it could be generated without

any increase to the national debt. in one minute flat, i can sharpen up that question to be as precise as i think it should be. >> just give us the essence of it. you have an idea. >> the essence of it is, as many of us know during the 1930's there were many prominent economists who argued that to fight the great depression, we should read -- reintroduce the lincoln era greenbacks, a means of exchange which do not increase the national debt at all. it is complicated subject with a lot of history. there it -- been many times and places where paper standard, greenbacks have been used successfully. and with very limited inflation. in one case, release level of inflation of our country for 52

years. it was a major debate, a grand debate of the 1930's, and my question is, should we not be reopening that grand debate as well as pursuing the grand bargain? >> fortunately we are at the brookings institute and you have a wonderful panel of experts who will come after me you could address that better than i. i sat on a super committee. everyone wants a magic answer. everyone wants a miracle to occur. everyone wants to pull something that looks good, sounds good, but in reality, cbo does not support it as something that will reduce our debt and deficit. we have to come forward with a plan that will reduce our debt and deficit. democrats on the committee did that, but where we did not get any compromise was on revenue on the table. >> my question is, the issue of

jobs and outsourcing. you remember when i lived in seattle, it was during the clinton administration that there was a proposal that was passed for naphtha that still continues where they are out forcing johnson has not changed in both houses, where the democrats and republicans have endorsed this and continue with the unforeseen of jobs, which eliminates jobs in this country. what position do you take on how his change the economy, will it add jobs in this country if we eliminate nafta and gatt? >> we are not here today to debate trade policy, but i can tell you that every democrat strongly believes we should be making things here in this country and creating jobs and showing the world that we can be strong in the future. that takes a lot more than trade agreements. takes training and education for

our work force. it means making sure people have the skills we need to manufacture and built here in this country. i can tell you standing here, if all our deficit and debt reduction comes out of that small portion of the budget and eliminate some education and training, we will not be able to manufacture and buildings here in this country. i know we are out of time. i just want to say to your audience, i believe we can get a good deal. i believe it will take leadership and compromise. there are good people working at this at every level. i am willing to work with anyone who comes to the table and is willing to bring real revenue and a balanced approach to solve this really important generational challenge for our country. >> senator, thank you very much. [applause] >> live on the senate floor.

the democratic senators say they are holding a midnight vigil tonight on campaign finance disclosure laws. earlier this evening, senate republicans blocked the bill. it would have required any organization that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report within 24 hours of identifying donors who gave $10,000 or more. you can see the senate live right now on c-span2. but there has been a hostility to poverty. since the war on poverty, lyndon johnson was that it is was the best president. he spent money on it and talk about his social service program. richard nixon is actually the father of minority business development. inside his minority business -- he established the small business administration and use the term economic justice.

richard nixon, economic justice. >> the former president of bennett college for women regularly writes and comments on politics, education, an african- american economic history. live sunday, august 5, at noon eastern, your calls, e-mails, and tweets. >> in a few moments, a forum on what the u.s. role should be in syria. in an hour, president obama campaigns and ohio. then more about this year's election with the christian broadcast networks to political correspondent, david brody. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke presents his monetary

policy report to congress. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. also at 10:00 on c-span3, the senate energy committee looks at the gullibility of electric grid to cyber attack. -- the vulnerability of the electric grid. >> speaking at the wilson center, joshua landis outlined his concerns. this is an hour. >> i run the mid lease program at the wilson center. it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you and our speaker, prof. joshua landis from the university of oklahoma.

he is the director of the center for middle east studies at the university of oklahoma and the author of a daily newsletter on syria. i have known him for a long time. we first met when i was teaching at princeton and he was a grad student. he has won the best teacher price at his university, raised over $1 million for a new chair in iranian studies, and helped bring government funded arabic flagship program to the university of oklahoma.

he has lived for years in syria and most recently since -- spent summers in syria but the last time i will leave you with their was just before the revolution began. dr. landis travels frequently to washington d.c. and he is very much in demand. it was very hard to get him, sir joshua, many thanks for excepting our invitation and coming. >> thank you so much. you are very kind. it is a pleasure to be here at the wilson center and to talk to you today.

i have two parts to this talk today. the first part is looking at the larger context, a little bit of the history, and an evolution of my own thinking about syria. the second part will deal with what should washington be doing. let me began with the larger, regional context. almost a year ago i wrote an article saying that the regime was doing, but it would be long and bloody. i expected bashar al-assad to be in power in 2013. it is the last minority arian regime in an area where every regime was minoritarian and it

would be long and bloody, ironically, in a sense. let me draw that for you a little bit. after the first world war, we have a mishmash of sex and class differences, urban and rural. in many ways, the colonial powers drew stage rather haphazardly, in which different communities were forced to get along. that have had a very hard time nation-building. it is not uncommon, but it certainly describes a comparison to north africa where sunni arabs or the majority. they did not -- colonial powers

help minorities to power, or in syria, it enabled them to get to where they could get power. 11 on, there was a civil war for 15 long, bloody years that was about unseating that power like the muslims. it was about many other things, too. i am oversimplifying, but it was long and bloody because they did not want to give up power. and still do not like giving up power. in iraq, the 20% sunni arabs were put in power and ruled over their majority shi'ites. america decapitated the regime and put them on top and flown the sunnis down to the bottom. that should have been decisive, but it was not.

they have been fighting back to gain state authority. america let the power-sharing arrangement went left and that is being dismantled by the majority. there are car bombs a golf every single day in baghdad with the death toll sometimes as high as it is in syria. casting down the minority is a long and bloody process. reversing this order, we can take israel and palestine. the jews for 30% in 1948 when the british left. the muslims thought they were going to be able to take over palestine. they went to war and lost. we all know how that ended with them. this solved their problem by becoming majority.

today the palestinians are jews are and the juic triumphant. in some ways it is a zero sum game because the people in that region have not quite figured out how to rule happily and share power happily. not in iraq, not in lebanon, not in palestine. the question is, how did they do it in syria? they were not put into power by the french but they were over recruited for the syrian army. by 1955 -- 1956, we believe there were 65% of the noncommissioned officers in the syrian army. within a decade that became the minority of the officers and

rebel to carry out a coup and take power in 1966. with that power of the army came power over the state. the last coup was 1970 when assad took over and the assad family ruled. the minoritarian element is a strength this -- a strength and weakness. the assads have been preparing for this day of revolt for many years. they have put their sons and the military. they have prepared every major ministry that is important, and the security apparatus is dominated by family. in contrast to the rhetoric of

nationalism of the bath party the assads understood that syria was not a nation in some ways and they went for family values. that put their family in charge of everything. they understood that it would take a village to ruled syria. they rely on traditional loyalties. that meant family first. the assad family is plugged into every major security. then they used drive and village affiliations, and ultimately the sect. of course they could not rule alone, and they need to make sunnis.es with the sudanes we are seen that unraveled only recently with defections from high levels. the logic of this uprising is a sectarian logic.

at the heart, it is sectarian, and that is driving this. the sunnis are slowly abandoning the regime and being stripped down to the basic core, these traditional loyalties. when they are completely stripped down, i think the regime will fall fairly precipitously, and that will take time. the strength is they are frightened. they have their backs to the wall and at no word ago. like the christians in levitan, like the palestinians. they don't know what the alternative is. they are frightened, and they have convinced themselves that they face a very bleak future. that is why no major figure from inside have effected so far. that may come at the very end, but it has not come yet.

so assad's success was that he relied on traditional values and salt syria's major problem, which was that it had become a banana republic. coups.about 220 many say it is their fault that syria is not a nation today, because he has destroyed politics for four years, and there is a lot of truth in that. what many people are more reluctant to say is that the sunnis dominated politics, and there were elections in 1943 and 1947 and 1954 that went not perfectly, but fairly well. the first coup in 1949 resemble the situation today in many ways. the sunni president faced a

crisis in government. this is an important point. after the war in palestine which syria lost, he faced a crisis in his government. everybody was demonstrating in the streets, not unlike the beginning of the arab spring. all political parties in the democratic life for demonstrating they wanted a new government. he could have solved the dilemma for politics and for the party and allow the main opposition party to form a government. he would not allow it, because he thought they were traders, -- ,e thought they were tradertrais and he said so.

he believed they wanted to unite with iraq and form a greater syria. he wanted to unite with egypt and the other arabs. you get this major split down the center of syria and each political party thought the others were traitors and not nationalist because they were going out of the country and making deals with other arabs. syria was screwed up politically. he refused to allow the broadening of government and called emergency rules and put the army on the street to break the heads of all the demonstrators. as soon as he tried to fire the chief of staff, the first coup was carried off. that was the failure politics in syria because the major parties

could not compromise. that repeated itself over and over again in syria until the assads took over and use military might. speaks a load about syrian politics. it has been fragmented and there is lots of distrust. and never formed a real political party. it was all about the man they complained bitterly that he did not trust the party or the program. today, we look at the syrian opposition, we see the same traits being played out over and pick over again. in america, we said we well -- we will get this council up and we will unify them and we will have something to replace assad with. that, of course, is the greatest danger in the policy side of things.

there are also very important class divisions, rural divisions. the opposition was always week. let me turn now -- those are the major problems that syria has faced. and with this uprising, the assad regime has failed. it will never be able to put syria back together again. all of the numbers have gone the wrong direction. economic failure, terrible. the youth mold, terrible. -- youth bulge, terrible. the growing property rate -- the un statistics were 30. poverty rate is creeping up to 32. poverty means $2 a day or less. egypt is 40. yemen is even higher. there are some terrible statistics out there for a party. -- for poverty.

the lower classes were being hammered. and with the population explosion, the authoritarian system under assad was designed for 7 million, 8 million people. in the early 70's. socialism, the authoritarian bargained, take away the freedom of the people, but they have jobs. they have some security. subsidize basic products. and give them security. that was the slogan. and that work. until zero -- syria and iran out of water. as their became more and more people -- syria ran out of water. and as there became more and more people, they could not take care of them all. the upper class got rich, but most of syrians suffered. this country was waiting to explode.

assad did not have any answers, and he refused to really open up the system. he kept his father's model, which is to keep a few intimate around him, the people who are loyal, and to disregard the rest. and he had the option when he first came to power of rescinding the death threats of the huge muslim brotherhood, to try to draw the mint and reach a compromise. but he was frightened. and we saw this -- to draw them in and reach a compromise. but he was frightened. and we saw this recently in a wikileaks video. he says in an e-mail, we cannot discuss -- we cannot do this because the muslim extremists will get power at the local level and then they will want power up the center. and this froze him, because he saw his people as extremists, many of them, and he refused to broaden the halls of power. this was the narrow nessun of

the regime, very brittle, and refusing to reach out. -- the narrowness of the regime, very brittle, and refusing to reach out. it read a lot of dangers for america to just waltz in and try to -- it created a lot of dangers for america to just waltz in and try to fix it. our current policy toward syria, i think, is the smart policy. the question is, when is that no longer a smart policy? the reason why it has been a smart policy -- and our road in an article not long ago -- i wrote in an article lot of ago for america to stay out of syria. it is not good for us to be nation-building. we have seen is in iraq and afghanistan.

syria is not an easier country. it has the same divisions. and the minority in power are only 12%. and the sunni arabs are 70% of syria. there are 10% other minorities. the christians are said to be 10%, but they are more likely close to 5%. their numbers have been falling pretty precipitously. not good at nation-building, the u.s. is ready or active in the arab world. democracy is unlikely to be produced in syria anytime soon. the only two things that social scientists agree on as indicators of democracy promotion are fairly old populations, over 30 or over gives you in more than 50% chance of locking in a democracy. syria is 21. the only other places that are younger, gaza strip and yemen.

trees yet is 30. egypt is even older because -- tunisia is 30. egypt is even older because they had a good family care in place. and then wealth, syria per- capita gdp is about 3.2000 a year. -- 320,000 a year. -- $3.2 thousand a year. democracy is unlikely and expensive to rebuild. the syrian opposition ask for $12 billion in startup funds once they breeze -- they defeat the regime.

but that would be tiddlywinks. we are spending over $4 billion a month in afghanistan. we were spending up to $7 billion in iraq at its height. americans are broke. they do not want to get into this kind of thing, if we get sucked in. but the most important thing is there is no nation, really. people get mad at me for saying no nation. i'm not saying there is no bond between syria. but there is not a tradition of unified leadership. and there certainly has not been a unified leadership produced out of the opposition. that is dangerous for america. if you waltz in and destroy the regime and you decapitate it as you did in iraq, the death could go up. the major argument for doing this, other than the strategic interests and hurting iran is the humanitarian argument.

you go in and you will stop the killing. and what happens if the killing goes up? it did in iraq. once we destroyed the regime, the death rate went up because civil war started. will america defend going into syria to stop the civil war, or will they just turn their back on syria if there is no government? that is the danger of getting sucked in. is america prepared to interpret -- intervene? in a perverse sense, war is a nation-building process. there is an organic process to struggling against your enemy, the assad regime, that brings people together. you look at the major nation builders of the new middle east,

whether it is ataturk, saudi arabia, iran or even in israel, almost all of them were out war for 10 years before they became leaders of their countries. they became national figures because they defeated, because they unified their country, and they produced an army that would back them up. they became heroes. in syria, there is no person like that. there may emerge out of this battle -- one would hope that if you give assyrians time, a leadership will -- you if you give the syrians time, a leadership will emerge. you have all of these new committees that are being formed. you've got the coordinating committee, exiled groups, all eight committees. a new civil society is the merging and not just in villages, but between villages and towns, and internationally. and that takes times. that will produce differing leaders.

there are over 100 militias organized in syria. they are not cooperating. there is no central command. maybe that will emerge. of course, the danger is that they will not emerge, that assad will kill them, that this war will be very destructive. and rather being and -- an organic process for building, it is an organic process for destruction. that is what many fear. all that is why they are asking for intervention. but i'm jumping ahead of myself. those are the dangers. it's that we cannot do this well and we do not know how to do it. and there is logic to allowing syrians to build a new nation out of this process of fighting,

and that good leaders will emerge because they will be successful on the battleground, and it will make alliances, and those malicious " eventually get some -- of those 100 malicious will get melded into one. and then when they defeat assad, there will not be chaos, like there was in iraq. there will be a government in waiting. and a national military making sure there is not wholesale looting and that people do not do bad things. that would be the ideal. and i would be the rationale for the obama policy -- that would be the rationale for the obama policy. there are other rationales for it, of course, like he does not want to be george bush. multilateralism. the russians said no, you do not

want to go into afghanistan. many people would say it was stupid that we did that. we should have said come out too bad, we cannot go into iraq. america would have been better off. and you could have -- you can make a lot of arguments that america should not have taken leadership. we would not have got ourselves into $2 trillion worth of expenses that turned out to be not so good for america. there are other reasons for arguing to stay out. let me wind down by saying i was very strong on staying out. many of my closest syrian friends, even those who are of the minority ruling party, are saying this is terrible. assad is a loser. he has lost. he is going to lose.

he is destroying the country. look at how many refugees there are. outside, but also internally. those lives will be destroyed. it will be hard to put them back together again. the damage to the cities, to the towns, to the people is immense and it is going to get worse. and russia and iran is still backing them, and that is partly because america is prevaricating. they argue, send a cruise missile into the palace. finish it. the place could collapse like a house of cards. assad will begin to deal and understand that we mean business and the whole thing will come tumbling down. the problem with that is that it is wishful thinking. what if it does not happen that way? you get sucked in -- you get sucked in and then you have to bomb military headquarters and you begin destroying a lot.

where did that and it? that was the argument in iraq. we will just talk them and the place will fall apart and we will emerge happy. i am very turk -- very torn. i was a big advocate of non- intervention. i still believe the opposition is getting stronger every month. americans are providing help. the saudis are providing help. although there does not seem to be enough arms for the opposition. we have seen recently. we have seen articles about success stories, success stories -- today in the "washington post" there was an article about a town that has been living under opposition role very happily with christians and muslims.

there is another article about libya. there was an election and yes, it is a chaotic country, but the worst has not happened. maybe decapitation can work. the trouble with syria, it is a much bigger country. it has problems that others do not have along sectarian lines. diyala -- the leadership has not emerged in alternative leadership. the opposition has been getting stronger. you could say, just be patient, give the opposition of little bit more help, but they can do it. the fighting has now gotten to damascus the last few nights and in damascus, there has been a

lot of fighting, all around the outskirts. so far, this battle has been one of the angry young men in the countryside. it started with the poor countryside areas that are known for their poverty, because they are the ones that syria has failed the most. the opera glasses have not joined in, really. classes have not joined in, really. but increasingly, they are defecting. increasingly, the fight is moving into the cities and when it does, this regime will be overwhelmed. i will end by saying the argument for staying out, for not getting sucked in our very strong. i think they are still compelling. i think the opposition is getting stronger every month. the trouble is, the regime is becoming more violent. it still has support from russia and from iran. and that is allowing assad to

believe that he can weather this and defeat it. the levels of violence are getting more and more horrifying at some point, you have to ask where the tipping point is. i'm not sure we have arrived there. it seems clear we are going to stay out of this for the next several months. and hopefully, we will see the opposition unify and beginning to develop a leadership with a better command and control, so that they will be able to do this on their own. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to open the floor to your questions. we will not take any comments. we will just take questions. there was -- there will be an overflow on the floor and we will take comments then. just wait for the microphone. yes, thank you.

>> barbarous flavins from the atlantic council. -- barbara slaven from the atlantic's council. obviously, obama does not want to get involved until after the elections, but life could intervene. what if the regime uses chemical weapons against its own people? we have seen reports that they are moving chemical weapons around. if there is a mass atrocity, what should the response be and what would the response be? >> obviously, public sentiment drives policy to a certain degree. these would create a groundswell of sympathy and horror at what the regime is doing. it is already quite developed. can america improve the situation?

this is really unknown. if you do send a cruise missile into his palace and begin to hunt him down like you did gaddafi and altman to kill him, how long will that take? -- and ultimately kill him, how long will that take? and then the big question is, does the death rate go up? if it does, then we can say, we have achieved our strategic goal, which is to hurt iran, and we can go home now. that is a little bit like what we have done in other places. that would be my fear. i do not know if america has the staying power. the regime is going to ration out violence. it is going to come. i do not know if it will be chemical weapons. i doubt that. but who knows?

the levels of violence get worse all the time and it is clear that assad is increasingly living in this little world where he is convinced that everybody is an extremist and he is standing for good. you know, i rose in the desert. -- a rose in the desert. >> we are taking quick questions here. and also an overflow. is there any evidence -- christians and other religions are growing supportive of the fnc after a change in its leadership. >> the minority in general has been supportive of assad and they are fearful of others. i think many christians believe this regime can only so trouble from now on in.

they are only hurting everybody in syria because there is no way for them to win. the longer they stay and syria is prevented from trying to get on with the next step, the more damage will be done. i do not think the druse and the christians are going to be. of course, they're worried about their way of life, but their way of life under the assad regime is going to change. syria has changed. syria is never going to go back to those days. it is very hard for anybody to get used to the notion that life is going to change.

and syria will go straight time of chaos. many more people of today of minorities are embracing the fact that it will have to go through that time and it is better to get on with it. i know many in the minority ruling party that have talked to me about the notion that something needs to be done, you know, internal intervention. >> can you tell us a little bit about the support that the iranians provide for the syrians? the russians, we know where they stand. but the iranians, what kind of support today provide? >> it is very secretive. i do not really know. but we have read the articles about the billions of dollars that iran gives, but i do not think people know what the aid is. it is clear that iran understands that it is under attack not only by america, but the sunni major states, saudi arabia and the gulf.

and it sees syria as the cutting edge of a defense against this larger onslaught. and the west sees syria as the weak point for iran. if they can take down syria, then they can get iran. and our policy is a regime change in iran, as it is in syria. i think there is a big fear of this domino effect that iran sees, that they will be targeted once syria goes down. and i think russia and china believe the same thing. i do not think syria is that important for either country. what they do see is iran cosseting their afterwards. and for china, 20% of their energy comes from iran and they have invested billions there. they see this as a great factor of instability. if america has its way with syria, this will keep a dynamic that is bad for china. i was in china not too long ago on an east/west confab of energy think and i was shocked at the number of diplomats who turned to us and said, why are you pursuing this anti-chinese policy?

we are trying to lift hundreds of millions of chinese out of desperate poverty into the middle class and we need energy to do it. our entire economic miracle is fuelled on energy that has come from the gulf. new up put sanctions on it -- from libya -- put sanctions on libya, sudan, every major country that we get oil from. this raises the price of oil and it will cause our economic merkel to slow down. and that is hurting chinese people. we immediately turned to the chinese and said, we are the good guys and you are the bad guys. you are immoral and we are trying to help the good people in the middle east and heard the bad people.

you are doing the opposite. and obviously, you have two different views of morality. they're concerned about helping the chinese and we are concerned with helping middle eastern people. maybe that is not quite the way it is, but we had to have it, this argument over who is more moral. and our intentions are good. and the chinese were clear, they see this as anti chinese policy. and i think that is what they believe. and i think syria is at the cutting edge of what they see is a larger position in the middle east that will be undermined by american action. iran is clearly at the front end of that, and they see syria and they have convinced themselves that syria is very important to them, and they will subsidize it. syria had about $18 billion in reserves 16 months ago. nobody ever saw it, but that must have run out. they are still paying salaries. they are still paying the military.

they are still paying some subsidies. it is unclear where they are getting this money from. it is going to be turning to iran. that is the main place iran is supporting. there has been all this talk about hezbollah and soldiers. i do not think that is true. but i think they are helping in whatever way they can without putting soldiers on the ground. >> away in the back. please, be very brief in your questions. >> good to see you, and good to hear that you are thinking assad is going down. like any other government, when a dictatorial regime existed, when it collapses, it is going down, by a intervention or not. this is a counter argument for being used to prevent another invasion.

a successful election has just taken place in libya. >> whatever side you are on, i want to defect to it. muhammed was a refugee placed in the oklahoma city. , and friends of ours called me up and said, can you help the guy, -- some common friends of ours called me up and said, can you help the guy? he is in oklahoma city. [laughter] i guess that was grounds for handing out. -- for him needing help. i saw him a number of times. i'm glad that you done so well. i have always been on your side.

yes, i know the arguments, the no-fly zone, and just a few well guided cruise missiles. the libyan model. hund the guy down and kill him, and it will be over. -- hunt the guy down and kill him, and it will be over. we will do the rest. you just do not know what is going to happen. that is the trouble. and clearly, america feels for. -- feels poor. obama feels like he's got other things to do. america is tired of nation- building. and it feels like a fool's errand. and what is more, hillary clinton keeps on saying, we are winning. strategically, everybody in washington believes we will get to fill our goals. i think everybody in the opposition believes they are winning. they say, every month we are getting stronger.

there is no compelling interest to intervene. you can give them better intelligence and do things like that. of course, our policy is to starve the regime through sanctions, and to feed the opposition with money and arms. and we are doing that. you try to moderate that by squeezing harder with more and more sanctions, which is what america is trying to do, and we are trying to shame rush into doing so as well. and then get better intelligence. in libya, it is different. you do not want syria to be liked iraq and afghanistan. it is possible that it could fall quickly, the regime, and new leadership could happen very quickly. many are saying, they're winning anyway, so let the syrians and do the heavy lifting. and in fact, going slow has

certain benefits, which i outlined. it is an organic process. you cannot hurry it along. the syrians are very divided. you were there at one point and you don't it. presumably, because you did not like what was happening there. i could turn to you and say, look, make me a believer, unite, get along. do not disagree over the most fundamental things. like, how much islam are going to have come are outsiders brabant -- how much islam are we going to have? are outsiders bad? >> a question from the overflow, the red cross and the civil war this weekend, what is the implication? >> people have been announcing civil war for a long time.

i think syria is in a civil war in many ways. it is not an even civil war. increasingly, it is going to be the minority ruling party against the rest. it is not there yet, but it will eve of in that direction. i guess, the implications are legalistic implications before taking people to world court and so forth, because crimes against humanity -- i do not really understand all of the legal things. but there are legal ramifications. you can take people for crimes against humanity more easily if it is seen as a civil war and there is no recognized government. >> identify yourself. >> my name is mohammed. i am syrian, from damascus. a very brief question -- how do you explain the 10% or 8% christian population.

at the beginning of the century there was a muslim leader that they protested for. our knowledge is subjective. you think that you are married to a woman who belongs to that sector influences your thinking in any way? >> let me take the second part of the question. [laughter] i am married to an alueitte. -- an alawite. my father went to syria as a young man appeared he -- there was no education when my grandfather built the for school. at the age of fourth grade he was able to begin school.

and he got into the navy, which is white -- which is what they did. he graduated in alexandria. there was no naval academy in syria. and it was unification. he was a nationalist, and has been ever since. he retired about 20 some odd years ago. and has been pretty much in active, drinking tea on the balcony since then, because there is no role for people who are retired in syria. and there is not much civil society, even in the minority areas. mdot been married to a woman of

that minority influences me. -- being married to an alawite influences me. i know them. i understand them. but my ideas about syria were formed really, before that. they were formed from growing up in beirut, and from living and teaching in beirut during the civil war. when i watched christians and muslims kill each other in big numbers, and people who were very sophisticated. then i watched the iraq war. and everybody said, just not of the regime and it will all be good. everybody will get along. it did not happen. and my first year living in syria was in 1981-'82. i live in the dormitories at the university of damascus. i watched syrians -- every room in my dormitory was/sec.

-- was divided by sect. there was a true 0 -- and we talked about -- this was a druze room and we would talk about that. people would come and visit from the different sects, but they would change the conversation. if a particular set came into the ramat it would change the conversation. that is what made me so worried about syria. yes, this regime -- there was never any illusion that it was ruled by force. and assad threatened to turn sarratt into 100 afghanistans if he was taken down -- turn syria into 100 afghanistans if he was taken down. and syria is paying an incredible price for it.

i did not have illusions about it being a very hard landing. the first article i wrote in the beginning of april last year was "there is no soft landing for syria." and my second was "deeply sectarian regime. shahram most of my -- "deeply sectarian regime." and most of my friends attacked me for this. and you are my friends. and i still love you. but they could not believe that there are a society where sectarian. clearly, i do feel for the ruling minority. and i understand them. you want to avoid having lived through lebanon, having watched iraq, the hope is that syria can somehow avoid this kind of destruction to society.

i was fearful. i was a coward. and the minority have had the -- their foot on the necks of the majority. there is no denying that. you -- it is not that i'm married to a woman of the ruling minority, although i'm sure that has made me more sensitive to minorities, i suppose. but it has also made me more pessimistic about the future of syria. that is what made me so tentative to jump in. i wrote my dissertation, and most of my riding is on this, and i saw how the golden vision of syria as a nation with democratic until the ruling minority came along and roy it. it was not like that.

mr. news reported for its -- came along and ruined it. it was not like that. the sunnis are ruined it for themselves first. there is not a syria like that that is waiting to come back. this underlying sense of pessimism under -- over iraq and lebanon and syria is what may be hesitant to jump in. >> no follow-up. nothing. >> i will get it afterwards. >> there is a question from the overflow. where does al qaeda stand in syria? >> al qaeda will try to make as much hay as they can in syria. no doubt about it. in iraq, everybody said that everybody who attacked him was al qaeda appeared and assad is sang the same thing. he is not the original. there are al qaeda in syria, i do not doubt it. but they are not a dominant

factor. many people said, if we went in and intervene, there will be no al qaeda because syria is going to get radicalized. i think the syrians will find their justice in time. -- their juste milieu in time. our major intellectual argument for going into iraq was democracy. it would not stop any of that and we did not create democracy. a lot of people are trying to use it as a reason not to get involved in syria. i do not think that should be a leading reason for making your to regulations on syria. >> my question was answered.

>> what are turkeys goals in this crisis? and are they likely to be realized? >> i think they are going for a big education on syria. i think they knew very little when it started out. and they're one -- they'reerdouin's get reactions have been very good. he wants to shift power from the south in the gulf of to the north and the middle east, and have turkey be in the center. and that is what he was doing very successfully. syria and screwed it up by getting into this terrible arab spring. he went down to try to talk to assad and it did not work. he got mad and he had to decide -- he had to side with democracy, and the same way that america has to side with democracy when push comes to shove, because it is the national religion.

i think he did that. but once he got his feet in, he realize how dangerous it is. that is what all of the neighbors have been doing. indeed kkk is -- the kkk is still a very powerful party there and many are worried that turkey will gain influence in syria. the minority ruling party in syria, they are shiites who tend to sympathize with the shiite regime. entering in directly into syria, you would at open up sectarian issues in your own country. it is a lose/lose for turkey. they can only get more kurdish problems, more sectarian problems, and it will lose their money. that is why they said they would come in behind america, but they will not go in first because it

is a swamp. >> very brief questions. >> i come from a christian background. if we live -- leave the united states not to support some groups there, but we will support islamic extremists in the country -- the people there are very secular and very diverse. by having the west outside open up things for groups that do not have any support in syria. >> i think america is trying to pick winners. if they do not have any support, then there will not be any support.

this is one of the difficult problems. we did what we did in syria and afghanistan in the 1980's, which is to go 50/50 with the saudis, do a sort of sharing program of funding the prejean to bring down a regime we do not like. we have not given them stingray missiles yet, but maybe we could get there. the al qaeda question is important, and the sense that it does cover in the thinking of how america will do it. and the cia has clearly been sent to syria to say, do not let in as honest extremists. we've got -- islamic extremists. we've got to pick some winners. clinton announced that all funding would go to the syrian national council and that saudi arabia had agreed to do that. which would mean that america would be able to pick the winners, and it would not go straight to the muslim brotherhood or to those that sell arabia might like to fund.

that broke down because syrian national council had its heart attack and jettisoned -- everybody attacked the kurd and it all began to stab each other. america's plan fell apart in its hands. the weapons are not getting in the numbers they hoped. i do not know where saudia arabia is on this. they have talked about having a tag team group that would make policy but i think that policy is probably not coming together the way america wants, which is leaving the door is open for people to fund who they want to. which is what america was worried about in the beginning. so that is a concern. christians are going to worry about that.

assad is a loser. he will make syria worse in the short term. he is going to kill lots of people, he will destroy the place and he will not be there eventually. he will lose. then where does that leave the questions? the christians are going to deal with muslims and they will deal with some islamists and syria will be much more islamic then it is today. we have seen it in egypt, tunisia, all over. suck it up. have to i mean, the christians will have to suck it up. they will have to decide if they can live in a new syria. they have always stood for the opposite and that they will not be saudia arabia. they will not be iran. they will be more like turkey. even if they are not turkey,

there will be more like turkey and the questions will be respected as they are. everyone sees questions as successful. they are in the the but angry at them because you name yourselve s john and other western names in the attack for not being arrogant enough. if you can stand that, i do not think it will be so bad. -- they attack you for not being arab enough. if he can stand that, i did not think it will be so bad. the either killed the armenians or kick them out and a lot of serious questions have already gone through one expulsion. they are fighting for good reason. he got to be democratic and was able to win elections and the democracy because there were no questions. if there had been 20% questions, -- 20 $ christians, he would not

have succeeded. i did not know if that is exactly true but you can see it. syria has that problem because there are alawites and christians and others who are frightened of is lummis. they have a reason to be frightened. look what happened. this century has been hard for christians in the middle east. but what can you do? syrians -- christians will have to make their bed with a new syria. it is better to do it faster than slower. >> we have run out of time. please join me in thanking dr. landis. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank the woodrow wilson center.

>> president obama campaigns in ohio. then more about this year's election with the christian broadcasting that court -- network and david brody. on washington journal tomorrow morning, bloomberg news staff writer lisa lerer will take questions of aboutbain -- about bain capitall . and then the heritage foundation. we will discuss entrepreneurship in america with the new america foundation. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> there has been hostility. since the war on poverty, lyndon johnson was the best president that look at poverty issues and spent money on it and talk

about the social service programs. let's follow that by richard nixon, the father of minority business development. inside his minority business administration and development agency, they used the term economic justice. but the former president of bennett college for women writes and comments on politics, education and african american economic history. sunday on august 5 at noon, your questions, calls and e-mails for the author of "surviving and thriving." in depth, august on "book tv." president obama campaign in ohio on monday. he focused on middle-class tax cuts during a town hall meeting in cincinnati. this is a little more than an

hour. >> hello, cincinnati. it is good to be back. everybody please have a seat, if you have a seat. i think most people have a seat here. it is great to see all of you. i want to a knowledge, i want to make sure that i acknowledge your outstanding mayor in the house. [applause] he is around here somewhere. there he is right there. good to see you. i know that some of you think that i came to this music hall to sing. [laughter] [cheers]

but i have to tell you, there is no concert tonight. or least not this afternoon. there may be a concert tonight. michelle has told me i should not be singing in public all the time. [laughter] happy birthday? should we -- what is your name? adam? how old are you? let's sing happy birthday to add them -- to adam, . happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear adam. happy birthday to you. [applause] so, there was a concert after all.

there you go. what's your name, sir? okay. birthday, but congratulations on being 101. [applause] he looks good. i have to follow him around and see what he eats. i will eat what he eats. you guys -- 105 rifghght here. [applause] [laughter] what is that sweet ladies name? margaret harris is 105 years old. 106 next month.

she is beautiful. i guess folks do pretty good down here in cincinnati. [applause] you have 105, 101. okay. god bless you. we love you, too. anybody else over 100? you are not over 100. all right, no more birthdays. that's it. no, i am not going to sing. no al green. today, we are turning this beautiful music call into a town hall. so i am not going to take too much time up front. i want to spend as much time as possible answering some of your

questions and getting your comments. but i do want to say a few things about what is at stake here. four years ago, we came together -- democrats, republicans and independents, who were interested in restoring the basic bargain that made america the greatest nation on earth. we have so much to be thankful for. an incredible land, military, our men and women in uniform. there is always a great wealth in this nation by what really -- but really sets us apart has always been that we have the greatest middle-class and a basic idea that says if you work hard, then you can get ahead.

if you are responsible, then you can live out your dreams. you are not confined to the circumstances of your birth. a basic belief that if you are doing what you need to duke, because we are not a country that believes in handouts. we believe in working for what we get. you are able to find a job that supports the family. you can get a home that you call your own. that you are able to send your kids to get a good education and hopefully a lot of them go to college and they can achieve and succeed in ways he may not have imagined. that you will not go bankrupt when you get sick. that you will be able to retire with dignity and respect. [applause] that is the idea that built this country. that is the idea that turned us

into an economic powerhouse. and what we saw for about a decade before i took office was that dream was slipping away from too many people. people were working harder but they were getting less. incomes and wages were flat landing while the cost of everything from college to health care to groceries to gas or all going up. our goal was to turn this around and we knew it would not be easy. we knew that it might take more than one term, maybe more than one president but we knew that we have to get started to reclaim this dream. then what we discovered was that because of irresponsibility, because of economic policies that have failed, and the lack of oversight when it came to regulation, we inherited the worst financial crisis and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. millions of people were hurt.

lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their savings. and a lot of folks are still struggling. but here is the thing -- americans are tougher during tough times. this crisis had not changed our character. it has not changed what we believe it in. it has not changed that basic notion that everybody should get a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and play by the same set of rules. [applause] even though over the last three and a half years our central focus has been how do we recover from this crisis and get people back to work and make sure that small businesses are doing well again and that they are getting

financing, despite those things, our goal has not been just to get back to where we were before the crisis but rather to build an economy that lasts. to build an economy that says no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, you can make it if you try here in america. [applause] everything i have done since i had been president has been focused on this central issue. that is the reason i am running for a second term as president of the united states. [applause] [applause]

part of the reason i am here today -- i want to remind everybody that the challenges we face are solvable. the problem is not a lack of big ideas, it is not a lack of technical solutions to policy issues. the problem is we have a stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different ideas about how we move the country forward. this election is about more than just two candidates or to political parties. it is about two different visions about how do we build a strong economy? and the good news is coming here you are the tiebreaker. the choice is up to you. governor romney and his allies

in congress, they believe in an economic theory that says folks at the very top are doing while then that spread everybody else. it is what we call top down economics. so right now, their main prescription for growing the economy faster is an additional $5 trillion of tax cuts, most of which would go to the wealthiest americans, even ift gut programr investments and research in science. they have a two-part plan.

one is to make sure wall street does not engage in the same reckless behavior that got us into this mess in the first place. [applause] card. in decades. the average wage and income of during this period. i do not know about you, things.

not work, i do not try it again. [applause] something that did not work. for example, the governor said he would extend the tax cuts to indefinitely. until he puts a tax plan in place, but his tax plan is not cuts. trillion -- it is almost impossible for you to bring down the deficit and deal with the debt with that kind of tax plan.

would go to the top 1% of all households. economic study that says his until today. today, we found dow there is a new study by a nonpartisan economist but said his economic plan would create 800,000 jobs. the jobs would not be in america. they would not be in america. [applause] by eliminating taxes on corporations for an income, his plan would encourage companies agencies.

because his experience has been business of outsourcing. now he wants to give more tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. i want everybody to understand, ohio, i have a different theory. we do not need a president who plans to ship more jobswe want to give more tax breaks to companies -- i want to give tax breaks to companies who are investing right here in ohio. investing in cincinnati. i want to give incentives to companies that are investing in it you, the american people, to around the world, made inthat is why i am running for president of the united states. [applause] is going to give himself a big

tax break. we need a president who is going to cut your taxes. four years ago, i promised to cut taxes for the middle class. i kept that promise. the typical family tax burden is $3,600 lower than it was when i came into office. i want all of the press to notice that. you hear all of these crazy accusations -- obama is raising

taxes. no, here are the facts. typical middle-class families, your taxes have gone down $3,600a couple of weeks ago, i called on congress to extend these tax cuts to 98% of the american people. their income taxes go up not one single dime. i should point out, by the way, 97% of small businesses would also not see their taxes go up because they do not earn more than $250,000. if you are fortunate enough to be the other 2%, and i am, for

those folks, we can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes. by going back to the rates that were paid under bill clinton. that will help us reduce our deficit by about a trillion dollars. everybody says the deficit and the debt are important, and i agree. [applause] i want to point out the last time we did that, when bill clinton was president, we have surpluses, created 23 million new jobs, and we created a lot of millionaires and billionaires, too. when an economy is growing from the middle out, and from the bottom up, everybody does well, including people at the very top. that is how you grow an economy.

[applause] when teachers and firefighters, police officers, construction workers when folks were putting in a hard day's work, when they do well, everybody does well. that is how america has always succeeded. we believe in individual initiative and self-reliance, but there are some things that we did together. growing and economy is one of them. my grandfather, he went to college on the gi bill. that generation help to expand the middle-class. all those things benefited everybody. that is the vision i want to carry forward.

when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, one at of eight jobs in ohio depend on the auto industry. a million jobs across the midwest are at stake. i am going to bet on american workers and ingenuity and how general motors is back on top and chrysler and ford are on the move. [applause] let me close by saying this and then we can get to some questions.

my vision says we will invest in education and we will hire new teachers, especially in math and science, open up to a million more -- we already held to make sure student loan rates, but now we have to work more to lower tuition costs said that young people are not burdened with debt. [applause] inre going to invest education. we're going to invest in american energy. yes, we want to continue to expand our production of oil and natural gas, but i want to make sure we are the leaders in solar and wind, the energy of

the future that can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. american manufacturing, change our tax code, provide incentives for companies that invest here, invest in basic research and science so we are the cutting edge. whoever has the best technology will ultimately have the best economy. rebuilding our infrastructure. i know you have some bridges around here in need of repair. let's put construction workers back to work. [applause] i ended the war in iraq, as i promised. we are winding down the war in afghanistan. we have decimated al qaeda. let's take half the money we were spending on war and do some of nation building right here at home. [applause] >> four more years!

>> finally, let's reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, let's do it in a responsible way that allows us to continue to make these investments we need to grow and make sure that everybody is doing a little bit to help the country. that is my vision. it contrasts with the other side. you were going to be the tie breaker, this is going to be your choice. there is going to be a lot of paid advertising. there is going to be a lot of money. we're seeing people right $10 million checks to get me out of office. i know is not you.

even though my hair is a little grayer i still have as much confidence as i ever had in the american people. one of the great privileges of being president, you get a chance to travel across the country. you meet people from every walk of life. wherever i go, what i am always struck by is the decency and goodness and hard work and responsibility and faith the american people have. i will always bet on the american people. we have an honest debate on what needs to happen in this country and what future is best, we will finish what we started in 2008. we will remind the world why the united states is the

greatest nation on earth. thank you. [applause] >> all right. ok, everybody take a seat so i can see who wants to ask a question. there are only a couple of rules. you have to raise your hand. if you have a question. i am going to call girl, boy, girl, boy, just to make sure that it is fair. if you have a chance, stand up

and introduce yourself. there are folks in the audience with microphones. everybody take a seat so i can see who wants to ask questions. there are only a couple rules. number one, you have got to raise your hand if you have a question. i am going to call -- girl, boy, girl, boy. just to make sure that it is fair. if you have a chance to stand up and introduce yourself. there are folks in the audience with microphones. wait until you have a microphone so everybody can hear your question. i want to get in as many questions as i can, at least six or seven. so if people can keep their questions short, i will try to keep my answers short. but if you ask me, you know, how do you bring about world peace, that is a big question. [laughter] so trying to keep the question one that we can be 6 think about. i am going to start with this young lady right here in the pink blouse. introduce yourself when the microphone comes up. and is that the birthday boy? he is getting a lot of attention today. >> my name is anna, and my son is openly gay. he is grass roots and speaks for a lot of lgbt communities. we would like to know, since

you are for the lgbt, what are your next steps? what are you going to do for us? [applause] >> look, let me say this -- first of all, i think the american people have seen and made such progress on recognizing the idea of equal rights, equal dignity, equal respect for everybody. that applies to everybody. [applause] that is a bedrock principle of america, and when i came into office -- everything from making sure that same-sex couples could have visitation at hospitals just like everybody else, making sure that we ended don't ask, don't tell, because fighting for the country you love should not depend on who you love. [applause] being clear that doma is

something that we should repeal. across the board, i have tried to constantly align myself with what is best in our tradition, and that is you treat everybody fairly. americans are about fairness, and that does not mean that folks have to agree with everybody on everything. we do not, you know? but we want to treat everybody fairly. now, i think it is important to recognize though that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are still subject to discrimination. that is why we passed hate crime legislation, and we have still got to fight for that. i think it is important for us to respect decisions that states make with respect to expanding treatment of same-sex couples in marriage. but, also what i want to say is that gay and lesbian families

are like everybody else. what they are also worried about right now is making sure they can pay the bills. you know, so my strong belief is that it is important for us to focus on individual issues of fairness but also recognize that we all have common interests as well. your son is 18. i am assuming he is going to get some more education. i am assuming you are worried right now about making sure he does not come out with a whole bunch of debt. >> miami. >> outstanding, congratulations. [applause] so we want to treat everybody fairly, and we also want to make sure that the economy treats everybody fairly. and i am going to be fighting for that as long as i am president of the united states. [applause]

all right, this gentleman right here. does anybody have a microphone? ok, very good. i am impressed. >> mr. president, i am jim reilly. 10 years as an elected city official has shown me a real change in with the republican party has been doing to us. they have taken away our power to protect our national -- natural resources, water and air, from the oil and gas drillers doing fracking here in ohio. the more you do and the administration to protect us from the efforts of drilling for natural gas. >> it is a great and important question. a couple things i want everybody to know. first of all, if you hear anybody say that somehow we are impeding the development of our energy resources here in this nation, i want you to know these facts. oil production, higher than it has been in eight years. natural gas production, higher

than it has been probably in our lifetimes. oil imports, actually lower than they have been in 16 years. in fact, our oil imports are less than 50% now for the first time in a very long time. so we are moving in the right direction in terms of energy independence. now, part of that is this boom in a natural gas, and this is something we should welcome, because not only are we blessed with incredible natural gas resources that are now accessible because of new technologies, but natural gas actually burns cleaner than some other fossil fuels and is an ideal fuel energy source that we potentially can use for the next 100 years. so i want to encourage natural gas production.

the key is to make sure we do it safely. and in a way that is environmentally sound. now, you always hear these arguments that somehow there is this huge contradiction between the environment and economic development or the environment and energy production. and the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of folks right now that are engaging in hydraulic fracking who are doing it safely. the problem is that we have not established clear guidelines for how to do it safely and inform the public so that neighbors know what is going on and, you know, your family, you can make sure the in your area, they're being responsible. what we said is, look, we're going to work with industry to established best practices. we're going to invest in basic research and science required to make sure this is done safely and in a way that protects the

public health. and for responsible companies, they should be able to operate, make a profit, and we can all benefit and put people back to work. but if you are and irresponsible company that is not doing the right thing, we're going to hold into account, and that is how we should develop this incredible resource, which, by the way, if we do it properly, could end up changing the economics and politics globally with energy in a way that is actually very good for us because we will be less dependent on what happens in the middle east and our economy will be less subject to the kinds of spikes we saw earlier in the spring in terms of gas prices. all right? thank you for the question. [applause] all right, it is a woman's turn.

the young lady in a white t- shirt right there. hold on, hold on. >> i and my husband small- business owners. he actually has a question that he needs answered. >> wait, no, no, you cannot do that now. i called on the young lady. that is what is called a bait and switch. [laughter] no, the rule is that i am going to make sure that women get equal time with men. [applause] >> i am not asking that -- >> well, like -- >> no, no. >> ok, his question was, he is a small business owner, and he wanted to know what you can do for the self-employed businesses with less than 10

employees working with them. >> ok, here is what i am going to do. i am going to let him go ahead and ask his question. [laughter] then i am going to call on two women in a row. [applause] we got cheated here. go ahead. >> ok. >> next time, you stand up. do not send your wife out first. [laughter] >> ok, i am tony white. hello, mr. president. >> good to see you, tony. what kind of business do you have? >> barbershop, a beauty salon. i have been in business for over 10 years now. what i am trying to find out is, what will you be doing or if there is anything you will be doing for the self-employed and businesses with employees, with less than 10 employees? also, when can i cut your hair? [laughter]

[applause] >> well, first of all, let me answer the second question first. you know that you would not want a president who was disloyal to his barber. right? [laughter] [applause] i mean, a man and his barber, that is a strong connection. >> i know, i know. >> so i am not going to let you cut my hair, because my barber would be hurt. >> just one time, just one time. >> maybe i will let you give me a line. [applause] all right, in terms of small business -- look, small businesses are the lifeblood of our time.

they account for most of the new job growth. we have got, obviously, great big businesses. in this area, proctor and gamble is an example of an outstanding large business. but a lot of the job growth happens with small businesses who then become medium-sized businesses and then maybe it's some point become large businesses. so, ever since i came into office, one of my biggest priorities was how to support small businesses, which is why we have actually provided 18 different tax breaks just targeted at small business since i have been in office. it is the reason why we have pushed the small business administration, especially when the recession had just hit, to extend additional financing and to waive fees for small businesses, because one of the biggest challenges for small businesses is getting credit lines. and we have actually been pushing the banks to say, look, taxpayers pulled your backside out of the fire. it is now important for you to step up and make sure that small businesses are not finding

their credit restricted, especially if they have been in business for awhile. the other thing we have done is to say, you know, what are the critical needs of small business -- a lot of times when of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you as a self-prop., that you can get health insurance for you and your family. >> correct. >> so when you hear about the affordable care act, obamacare -- [cheers and applause] and i do not mind the name, because i really do care. that is why we passed it. [applause] you should know that once we have fully implemented it, you're going to be able to buy

insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you are an employee at a big company, you can get right now, which means your premiums will go down. we will also give you an additional tax credits for if you are providing health insurance for your employees. we will give you tax credits for that. right now, one of the things we're pushing congress to do is to give you a tax credit if you hire additional workers are you get folks who are working for you a raise. we want to give you incentives to do that. [applause] but this is an example of where there is the contrast between myself and my opponent. as i said before, his basic tax plan is to give folks at the top a tax break. now, we could have that debate, but what i have said is -- in

the meantime, let's get 98% of individuals and 97% of small businesses some certainty right now by going ahead and passing a law that says your taxes will not go up. because if congress does not act, by the way, by january 1, and everybody's taxes here are going to go up by an average of about $1,600. if congress does not do anything. so what i said is if you really want to help small business right now, give 97% of them the 70 that their costs will not go up -- the certainty that their costs will not go up. and then we can have a debate about the other 2% to 3%. the other thing i will say is you will hear republicans say, you know what, if you tax, let's say, somebody with $1

million income, you are going to be crushing the small-business jobs created. first of all, i explain 97% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. setting aside that, the way they describe small businesses, half of the fortune 400 richest americans in the country would qualify as a "small business." hedge fund managers would qualify as small business, even if they were pulling in $1 billion a year. this is an example of what i mean when i say we just want everybody to be treated fairly. you know, michelle and i were talking the other day, and her father works as a blue-collar worker. he was at the water filtration

plant in chicago, worked there all his adult life. and he had ms, so that -- so by the time i met him, he could barely walk. but he barely missed a day of work. he had to use two canes and had to help getting dressed, but he never missed a day of work. and he held pride in being at the job, even if he did not feel well. and he used to tease folks who were lazy. he would say, these people are so lazy, they will not even go to work to pick up their paycheck. they want it mailed to them. [laughter] and michelle's mom stayed at home when the kids were young, and then she went to work as a secretary. she worked as a secretary most of her life. we were talking about how they

do not envy people who had a lot more. there was no sense that somehow, well, you know, our lives are less because we're not millionaires, we're not making huge amounts of money. god bless folks who are successful and doing well. the only thing that michelle's parents, my mom, my grandparents, the only thing they did not like is when they felt like folks at the top taking advantage of their position and not following the same rules as everybody else. and keeping other folks down. and we do not want an economy in which some are being treated differently than others. that is all. and that is especially true when it comes to our small business folks. i want them to have some of the same advantages, because you probably cannot afford the same

number of lawyers and, you know, accountants and all that stuff that a working all these loopholes. and i want to make sure that you're getting the same good deal as everybody else. all right? [applause] ok, i am going to call on this young lady right here. she seems like she has an urgent question. hold on, wait for your microphone. we're getting the next generation involved in this. [applause] right here. >> what is your favorite girl scout cookie? [cheers and applause] >> i have got to say, this is one of the toughest questions. what is your name? >> julie. >> and you are a member of a girl scout troop? how long have you been a girl scout? >> i think only this year. two years. >> have you been having fun? >> yeah. >> you know, i have got to say

that i am pretty partial to those mint, uh -- [cheers and applause] that is just me. i did not mean to create controversy here. there was somebody booing. [laughter] who was booing up there? you had a difference of opinion. what are you, oatmeal? [inaudible] peanut butter is quite good, too, but i am going with mint. thank you for the question, thank you. all right, remember, i said i was going to go two ladies right now. right here. go ahead. do not fall now. go ahead.

>> my name is susan. welcome to cincinnati. >> thank you. >> given how divided the country is, if elected, how do you plan to try to unite to everyone? >> well, i will be honest, sometimes people ask me, what is my disappointment since i have come into office? obviously, we're always trying to grow the economy faster, put people back to work faster, but one of the disappointments i have had is that we have not changed the tone in washington the way i wanted to. [applause] part of this just has to do with the fact that the other side had a basic political theory after i got elected, and this is not my opinion.

i mean, this has been said by the leader of the senate minority in washington. and the basic theory was, you know what, we kind of screwed things up. obama is really popular right now. if we cooperate with them, then he will get credit. so we're better off just saying no, and if we do that, then over time, folks will forget the mess he inherited in we can go after him and hopefully that will help our politics. again, this is not my theory. this was explicitly their strategy. what is true is also we have got, as i said, two different visions about how to move thebut my hope is that this election allows us to, once and for all, resolve some of the bigger questions about how we move the country forward. because, right now, we have many choices. i believe in investing in education and transportation and science and research and bringing down our deficits in a

balanced way and changing our tax code to make sure the companies that are investing here are doing better. mr. romney has the opposite view on almost all those positions. things like don't ask, don't tell, he wants to reverse. on issues like immigration, i believe in comprehensive immigration reform. he does not. on issues related to women. i believe that planned parenthood does a lot of good and women should be able to control their own health care decisions. [applause] you know, he does not. on iraq, he said me ending the war was tragic. i said, i think it was the right thing to do. [applause] on afghanistan, i imposed the deadline of timetable for when we are going to bring our troops home.

he wants to extend their stay indefinitely. on all these issues, we have profound differences. ultimately, there are the arbiters of this agreement. in this election, if the american people decide, you know what, we want to try what mr. romney is offering -- no, that is the great thing about democracy. people can vote and make up their minds. so if that is the case, then you can count on mr. romney implementing the plan that he and the republicans in congress have put forward. $5 trillion in tax cuts, massive cuts in a lot of the programs that are so important from my perspective to growing the economy -- those will be eliminated. medicare will be voucherized. they will implement what they say they are going to implement. but if i am 8 elected, not only

do i think that we will be able to continue the progress that we have made over the past 3 1/2 years -- if i am selected, i think that a lot of republicans, since this will be my last election, they will not be as interested in just beating me, and maybe they will be more interested in moving the country forward. that is my hope. [applause] and i have to say, you know, the truth is, on most of these issues, there should not be so much partisan rancor. because most of the positions i have taken our positions that used to be supported by republicans. and if you want just one good example, health care. [applause] the bill i passed is, in all respects, it's similar to what

mr. romney passed in massachusetts. it is working really well there. he should be proud of it. instead of running away from it. and the original idea of using the private sector to make sure that everybody had health care, that originated as a republican idea. and i said, fine, i am willing to work with your ideas to make progress. so, i actually think that there are a number of republican members of congress who right now feel as if they have to walk the party line, but it the

object -- if the objective is no wonder just beating me, my hope is that there will be more open to funding common-sense solutions to the problems that our country faces. and i know that is absolutely a goal of mine, because in the end, we're not democrats or republicans first. we are americans first. that is what i believe. [applause] all right. now i have got time for two more questions. this gentleman in the blue shirt right there. all right, i will end over here. go ahead. >> mr. president, i have been teaching for 21 years. [applause] >> congratulations. >> thank you. i teach at a vocational school, career tech school. we have been talking about jobs and kids. i know you want every kid to go to college, but not every kid is going to go to college. we need people to work. we need to have plummer said to have people build bridges and those kind of things.

-- we need to have plumbers. i believe it. we do miracles at our school. we take kids with very rough lives and make them productive. the problem is that they're not getting enough chances to get to go to work right away. we have a advisory boards, but these advisory boards are free. these people are not getting paid. what we need, and i was hoping that you could tell us if this we have people come in, you know, give tax breaks to these companies to come and help schools, to teach the schools what they really need for these kids? that is what we are looking for. [applause] >> well, first of all, thank you for teaching. most important job there is. [cheers and applause]

we appreciate that. second of all, i want to be very clear, when i say everybody needs a higher education, i do not mean everybody has got to take a four-year college education. the point is that, these days, if you want to be a plumber, electrician, or to be working in a factory, you will generally need a little more training than high school provides. which is why our community colleges are so important. but, you're absolutely right that one of the, i believe, mistakes we have made -- 20 to 30 years ago, was to start deemphasizing vocational education. [applause] because not everybody wants to sit in a classroom with a book. a lot of folks want to do stuff. right now, we have got shortages of folks in fields

that need technical training but do not necessarily require a four-year college degree. so part of what i am talking to secretary of education arne duncan about is how we work with high schools so that young people who have an aptitude, whether it is in graphic design or in electronics or you name it, that they can start getting on a path away so that they are being trained for the jobs and they are being matched up for companies that are hiring now. they maybe start apprenticing junior, senior year of high school. maybe it extends to another year or two line community college. and by the time they're 21, 22, 23, they are experts in fields where we know there is hiring taking place right now.

they are experts where we know there is hiring taking place. it is very important. we will be working with local governments and community colleges to try to figure out how we can expand what is already a proven idea and a lot of places. you and i are right there. we are doing it. that see if we can make progress. -- let us see if we can make progress. i am going to call on this yen lady right here. we have to get a microphone to her. it is the icc. that is a good-looking young man. >> my father is an unemployed construction worker. he is on unemployment. will he have a job before his unemployment runs out?

>> this is important. what is your name? >> taylor. >> it is so nice to me in. -- meet you. my hope is that we can put him to work. housing to the biggest hit. you have this big bubble that collapse. since september of last year i have urged congress to expand our efforts to rebuild roads, bridges, schools, making sure that all these folks like your father who want to work, and these are not folks that are looking for a handout.

they want to be on the job so they have an opportunity that we're going to have to do anyway. this is important. how many folks here have a house and you know that you have a leaky roof? you can put off patching it up. sooner or later you will have to. sooner or later. if you do not, what happens? it falls in and it is more expensive. the same is true if you have a busted broiler. we all have deferred maintenance. we cannot always do it right

away but a lot of times if we have the opportunity, we should do it, especially if it is cheap. it is cheaper now to do it then will be later. interest rates are low. contractors are begging for work. they will come on under budget. we cannot out a whole bunch of work that needs to be done for this country anyway. and put people back to work which would grow the economy. so far i have not gotten a positive response from members of congress on the other side of the aisle. if they did just passed, the sign of modest cooperation, a transportation bill that would not lay off more construction workers. i want to rebuild america. if your father still does the get a job, part of what i am

also looking for is making sure that unemployment insurance is there for folks who want to work but are having trouble finding work. i want to folks to be clear. unemployment benefits are paid for. your employer paid for them. directly and indirectly you pay for them. the idea is to have the safety net because everybody every once and awhile could have some bad luck. we try to extend unemployment insurance. we were able to in 2010. it has been harder to get congress to extend it further. i do not know what category

your father falls in. my general view is that as long as the economy is weak and somebody is willing and able to work and looking for work actively, which is required, then we should be for them to make sure they can pay the rent and look after their families. we will continue to negotiate with congress to make sure that unemployment is there. the most important thing i want to do is make sure your decking get a job. all right? -- dad can get a job. all right? i am going to be back in cincinnati. i am going to be back in ohio. i want to thank you for your attention. i want to explicitly ask you for your support. this is going to be a close election. it is going to be an important debate.

i want everyone to understand what i am trying to do is to keep my promises. i promise i would end the war in iraq. i ended it. i promised we would keep taxes low for middle-class families. i did that. the most important promise i made, some of you remember me saying this not good 2008, i said i am not a perfect man. i said i was not going to be a perfect president. no president is. what i promise you was that i will always tell you what i thought and believed and i would wake up every single day fighting as hard as i knew how for you. [applause]

do you know what? i have kept that promise. when i look around this room i see an elderly couple and think about my grandparents and everything they did for me. when i see this young lady asking about her-i think about my daughters. i see myself in you. my most important job is fighting for you and the basic american idea. if you work hard in this country you can succeed. you can get ahead. i am going to do everything i can as long as i have the honor of being president to fight for you and and working families and middle class families all

across this country. i hope you will stand with me. i hope you will work with me. let's finish what we started and remind the world why the united states is the great nation that it is. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ [playing "your love keeps lifting me higher" by jackie wilson] ♪ [playing "your love keeps

lifting me higher" by jackie wilson] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

electionn this year's from washington journal. this is 45 minutes.

but our next guest is the christian broadcasting network chief political correspondent. david brody has also written a book called the teavangelical. welcome. tell us about the term. >> it was in 2009, 2010 when these tea party rallies are going on around the country. i noticed they were praying at the beginning of the rally is -- rallies and there were some prayer circles. i did some interviews and many of the more conservative christians. about 60%, some surveys say even higher -- they are conservative christians so i needed a name for it. tea party christians was too boring so i went with the teavangelicals because most of

these chris -- conservative christians are breaking bread with the libertarians within the tea party movement. host: a conservative christian, typically evangelical who strongly supports the tea party agenda or is active in the tea party movement. is this a new phenomenon? guest: this is kind of a more frank of that more majority, christian coalition days. now we are saying fiscal issues take paramount importance here. during this time in the country's history. clearly this is a big part of what they are -- they are breaking bread with the libertarians. host: does that mean social issues have taken a back seat? guest: not at all. just because the social issues are very important to the

evangelicals does not mean they want to co-op the movement. they can feel just as strongly about abortion and life issues but it will take the ball in play elsewhere. they are not bringing it to tea party rallies. about 60% of the tea party is considered socially conservative. so you have all these conservative christians and social conservatives in the movement but what have they done? they adhered to a strict fiscal discipline and terms of the messaging coming out of the tea party. host: the tea party enjoyed strength in previous years. what does the addition of these teavangelicals give to the party? guest: here is the bottom line -- libertarians can not make a difference in this country by themselves. conservative christians cannot do it all by themselves as well.

clearly the key part is to bring both sides together and that is what the teavangelicals are doing. if you take them out of the tea party, you are left with less than half of the movement. there is no tea party movement without the conservative christians. host: as far as describing them as a group, how would you define evangelical? guest: we go through that in the group -- the book. we use a certain definition -- evangelical as someone who believes in the bible, that every word in the bible is true. it starts with that in the belief in jesus christ as your personal savior. you go from there. there is some fine-tuning if you like but those are the staple points. host: david brody is our guest

to talk about his book and the influence of the teavangelicals. if you want to ask questions about his book or religious voters in politics, here is how you can do so -- 202-628-0205 for independence. you can send an e-mail. if you had to say as far as a teavangelical is concerned, who is an example? >> quite a few people. we lay out the powerhouses. i name six of them. sarah palin -- they all have their strengths and weaknesses. mike huckabee, jim demint, allen west and marco rubio and mike pence. mark your review is catholic but in the book i talk about -- you

can be a teavangelical like rick santorum but he is also a roman catholic. people sometimes get confused and both want to make sure we understand what we are talking about here. conservative christians broadly. i happen to use the word teavangelical. >> how are they looking at mitt romney? guest: they were not that enamored with him clearly during the primary. we have seen the exit polls. this is not so much about mitt romney at this point as it is president obama. how did they see mitt romney? they are somewhat skeptical but realize that this is their best shot and only shot to bring in this president and taking him out of office. about 15% of evangelical christians would not vote for a

mormon. having said that, not to stereotype people but if you look at it geographically, you would think that more of the anti mormon sentiment may be in the southern part of the united states, states that mommy will win in the house. if you look at a swing state battle, it probably will not be as much as people think. host: david brodie our guest. first call for him from kentucky. on a democrat mind. good morning. caller: constantly pushing to force their religion on me. one of the beautiful things about the first amendment is my choice not to participate in religion and did you are trying to chug your theories on abortion and creation on me.

i will not have that. every one of the people you have mentioned lack spiritual substance and are trying to convince me they are right rather than finding their own spiritual salvation. thank you. guest: it is a sentiment that is out there. if you goat, you will see these folks are not -- it is not necessarily about making this christian nation and everybody needs to go under this one banner. these evangelicals feel very strongly about the judeo- christian principles and a return to that. it does not mean they will force their faith, especially as it relates to tea party rallies. you can be principal without being obnoxious that is more of the sentiment out there that i experience.

i am not saying there are not pockets of that but at the same time, i do not think -- >> can you connect boarded teavangelical would find a judeo-christian principle in tax policy? guest: we talk about tax policy in the book. some use by will voice -- versus to make their case but evangelicals to that as well. we talk about turning to fiscal responsibility. in the bible, they talk about a good person living in the -- leaving and hair tends to their children's children. but you estimate what it would cost in the first place? from a conservative perspective, they see fiscal responsibility and good tax policy in the bible as it relates to -- it does not mean

they do not want to pay their taxes. they believe that lower taxes means more money that a family can choose to spend rather than the government. host: jim, republican line, north carolina. caller: good morning. i hope you can hear me. the tea party deal -- if i understand their primary concern, one of their principles is that government is too big. let's stick to federal. if i we did you talk about principle -- the principle without being obnoxious. if i inherited a censet of principles, one of the primary

problems in the government is medicare and the government programs of that type. if i ally myself with the tea party movement, i have to cut my medicaid card up to be to to my principles without being obnoxious, don't i? guest: i am somewhat following the argument there but i think he makes a larger point which is about government getting too big. in the book, many of these teavangelicals think god is getting smaller and government is becoming way too big, becoming people's god. this is a big reason why teavangelicals have joined the tea party. this is not just about president obama. it started under some of the big government programs under president bush and the bailout and all of that. so they are saying enough is enough. they believe that this is part of a spiritual awakening in this

country. they really believe this and they see is manifesting itself in the tea party movement. host: he wanted to contrast the tea party pages to the teavangelicals. he cites sarah palin claiming to be tea party patriot. can there be both? guest: i am sending -- assuming he is talking about the organization. the person who heads tea party lapage it is good friends with rolf reid who heads up the faith and freedom coalition. the worked together in 2004 during the bush-cheney reelect. they have a lot of dance and art in -- they have a lot of sense

-- events. the web is connected in different ways. it does not mean it is organized specifically like that but it is loosely organized between -- from a relationship perspective. host: alexander, virginia, john, and attended. caller: i wanted to ask mr. brody if his theory is that the tea party is primarily evangelical, why isn't that almost all the money from the tea party is going through grover norquist and other wealthy investors and wall this a question things, their focus is primarily on reducing taxes and eliminating the effectiveness of government. they have to destroy it in order to make government ineffective.

how does that represent any type of christian values? guest: this is a bottom up movement. yes, there is tea party money floating around with the koch brothers. but this is a bottom-up movement. the movement is so organic in nature that the belief system of the tea party comes from not so much the koch brothers and the money and all that, it comes from the ground up. you cannot stop that. if the koch brothers or anyone else tries to become a tea party master, it would not work. it's not so much about the money. the money is not what is driving the movement. it's the people driving the movement. many of them are evangelicals. they will have the final say on what is going on. host: donna on twitter says -- guest: talking about libertarians, they talk about a

return to constitutionally limited government. teavangelicals call it something different, a return to judeo- christian principles, but it's the same thing. people say what does that mean? it means district restriction as to view of the way the founding fathers intended this company to be -- a restructionist view. host: there is talk in the paper about the louisiana governor bobby jindal possibly becoming a vice presidential candidate for mitt romney. does bobby jindal captured things evangelicals light? guest: the would be a wonderful teavangelical pick.

even among evangelical leaders. they love bobby jindal. but whether or not he is ready for prime time nationally, that is separate. but in terms of his public policy work and the idea that he converted to catholicism from hinduism and has been a champio -- champion in the pro-life community, he is in the tier "a." tim pawlenty would be another choice that would excite some. he is a born-again christian who does not talk about it as much, but he is. that would play well. he has also developed street spread within the in the -- developed street credibility within the evangelical community.

there is governor bob mcdonnell. and a couple others. marco rubio would be fine, but there are national readiness issues. they love mike huckabee, but that's maybe tier b. host: what about condoleezza rice > guest: mitt romney has promised to make the vice- presidential choice a pro-life person. condoleezza rice is pro-choice. that would be a broken promise within the evangelical community. host: dallas tx, emma on the democratic line. caller: i am curious who they are talking about taking the country back from. they took it from the indians and brought the slaves over to build the country and brought in the mexicans for cheap labor.

guest: that's a great question. i was on a program with tavis smiley almost two years ago. i remember him asking me that same question. i said it's not about who they are trying to take it from. it's where they are trying to take it to. they are trying to take it back to the founding of the country the way they interpret it, the way the founding fathers interpreted the founding of this country with a belief in the almighty god and return to lower or rather limited government. that it's what this is about. evangelicals are not out to make this a christian nation and they are not trying to convince everybody to be christian. there were so many teavangelical folks out there and i found the stories to be great. this book is littered with personal stories.

one of them about a tea party libertarian who was the head of the new york city tea party patriots. was a libertarian and wanted nothing with god and started to go to one of the tea party meetings with a lot of other tea party groups in florida. there was a big segregation of folks. some of those departed leaders started witnessing to him about the gospel at one of those tea party meetings. three months later he ended up introducing his wife to jesus christ. he became a teavangelical.

it was interesting because he was witnessed to with the gospel of jesus christ within a tea party setting with other tea party leaders, which i thought was interesting. there's a lot of stories like that. host: bob is on the republican line. you are on with david brody. caller: thank you. i very much appreciate your take on this. i have been a member of the tea party quite some time. not that i go to attend meetings, but i have it in my heart. i get on facebook and i share a lot with people. i believe in the foundation of our country. i believe in the founders and the way they believed. they were not takers. they were helpers'. they have strong moral character. you would rarely see -- i talked to people in the tea party on facebook. you do not see the viciousness that i hear so much on c-span and the morning from different groups -- it is republicans, democrats, and independents. it makes me sad.

we really want this country to get back to being on their own two feet and working together. your take in your book, i very much appreciate that. but i am not a religious person, so to speak. guest: he mentioned the idea about the viciousness and a lot of people thinking the tea party is vicious and a lot of other names. i brought on the upper west side of new york city. i read the new york times every day. i grew up in a liberal bastion of new york as a jewish guy. when you read the new york times

every day and when you go and pretty much have a corridor that is new york and washington, you really get a much different perspective on a world than when you actually travel around this country. that is exactly what i did for this book. when you travel around the country, you find out the tea party is not vicious at all. i am not saying they're not pockets in terms of certain knuckleheads so show up at rallies, but there are knuckleheads all across the country in all different movements. but the vast majority of the tea party is not vicious. they are god-fearing and got loving americans. host: how his money doing in reaching out to evangelical leaders? -- how is mitt romney doing reaching out to evangelical leaders? guest: i just saw an article within the last couple weeks. there's his campaign in front of the camera and another behind the camera. there's been a lot of reaching out behind the camera as it relates to mitt romney and his team.

one of his senior advisers is talking to all these type of leaders on a daily or weekly basis. we know that requiring and mitt romney have spoken a couple times in the last couple weeks. -- rick warren and mitt romney. in 2006 mitt romney was courting evangelical leaders. there's a fascinating story about how he had jerry falwell and a lot of others hosting & a which is in his living room in 2006. a month later they all got a package in the mail and it was a huge chair and on the back was a plaque that said you will always have exceeded my table. he's been doing that since 2006. there is a behind-the-scenes courting of evangelical leaders. in front of the camera, the romney campaign picks and chooses when they won him to show at family events. host: in spoke about romney

before the naacp last weekend your reference to a certain section of the speech that he talked about some potential problems when it comes to religious leaders. i want to play that section. [video clip] >> with 90% of african-americans who typically vote for democrats, some wonder why a republican would bother to campaign in the african-american community and to address the naacp. one reason is i hope to represent all americans of every race, creed, and sexual orientation. from the poorest to the riches and everyone in between. host: what did you find in that phrase? guest: he was about seven seconds too long in the teavangelical world, when he mentions sexual orientation. race and creed, he could've stopped there, but he went to sexual orientation. this has been a democrat and liberal playbook for some time, which is to include sexual

orientation as a class. if that is what he did right there. he is using the language of the liberal playbook. that is something but does not go over well with teavangelicals because this is what they have been fighting against for decades, the idea of classifying sexual orientation from the statutes and point within the federal government language. host: even as part of an oval and desire by some to see president obama out of office in the religious community -- an overwhelming desire? guest: when money used this language, it goes to a trust issuing and whether they can trust him on social issues. most of them will vote for him for his economics. the question is, it's all about trust and social issues. if it is romney all the way there with evangelical voters?

he is about 80% there. president obama did a great job in helping romney get there. host: arlington, texas, independent line, deon. caller: hi. as someone who grew up in church, i often found this whole movement of trying to inject jesus christ and religion into politics, i have often found it disgusting. first of all, when it comes to god's word, both parties fall short. i think we should kill this whole notion that somehow if you vote republican, you are voting with god and all this kind of stuff. basically, what you all have

done is create your own false religion. just vote for who you want to vote for, but quit -- and less jesus christ is running, you cannot vote your faith. second, the tea party and when i talk to my older relatives, it is the white separatist movement, the same old white citizens council, states' rights, things from the past, from the 1960's that they see. as far as supporting mitt romney, why would you support someone -- jesus said if anybody comes with another revelation, you reject them. host: we gave our guest plenty to talk about. guest: let's start with the racism part of his equation. this is addressed in my book. the tea party is not racist, but

i explain exactly some of the concerns people have. look, he mentioned white supremacist movement. if the tea party was racist and all, would allen west be a hero and herman cain? that is one thing to think about. as for faith and the republican party, if 10 evangelicals on the street, people within the tea party movement, they will have something pretty negative to say about republicans. it's about anti-incumbency. it's not about republican or democrat. they do aligned more with republicans, but that's not the issue. if they are tired of republicans and democrats and the way

washington works. that's the overriding issue. as for how faith fits into the equation, there are biblical absolutes of in the way teavangelicals see the world. is there something wrong with pushing your belief on someone else when they have heard enough? absolutely. you need to be able to back off. that does not mean you cannot be principled or have your believes as it relates to the bible. host: st. louis, missouri, denise is on our democratic line. caller: hi. i want to comment about jesus and the evangelicals. jesus said, "i was hungry and you fed me. i was naked and you close to me. i was in prison and you visited me. they said, lord, when did we do these things? he said, if you have done it to the least of them, you have done it to me." as far as you christians are

concerned, jesus said "vendor "note to god" app what is for god. -- he said, "render to god what is for god." that's what he stood for. guest: i have heard this before. do evangelicals believe about taking care of others in this world and in this country? absolutely. here's the difference. they don't want the federal government necessarily taking over, because they believe that churches and individuals need to

help other individuals, the community, everybody coming together. evangelicals are the most generous when it comes to charitable giving in the country. so this is not about them not fulfilling or trying to live out what the bible commands. that's not what this is about. this is about whether or not the federal government has the actual right or reasoning to actually make that argument and go ahead and have the federal government replace god or replace someone else's personal charitable giving. that does not mean they don't want some sort of social safety net. if you look in the numbers, there are folks who understand there's a need for social safety net. but where do we go exactly with this when we are spiraling out of control? host: what about the recent

decision on the supreme court on health care? the need for social safety net and people's perception on whether it is needed or not especially among evangelicals? guest: as it relates to the teavangelicals, they are very much concerned about what obamacare will do to the country, so they don't see it as a social safety net issue. the obama administration disagrees. but they see it much as government intrusion. they are seeing something much different in obamacare than what others might think it's a social safety net and expansion of medicaid. host: 4 day on our independent line. -- from a florida on our independent line is alvin. caller: we think allen west is crazy. some of the stuff from our forefathers should be rewritten.

we are debating. we drive different cars. we don't drive the cars that our forefathers had. we don't have a problem telling people with our defense budget. but helping the needy is where we should be. that's what the bible proclaims. these teavangelicals should be able to see that what they call obamacare is helping this country. guest: i have to tell you, one of the things that we address in the book has to do with paul ryan's budget and the moral implications on the positive and negative side.

teavangelicals believe it is a moral thing to do that if you know you are headed off a cliff, let people know that it's coming and we need to make cuts. look what's going on in spain. drastic cuts need to happen right away because nothing was done in the past. paul ryan and other and teavangelicals make that argument, that it's the most moral, compassionate thing to do to let people know we may be cutting your benefits drastically in the next five, 10, 15 years, so we are going to insist on a little so that we can ease you into that rather than drop you off a cliff. there is moral reasoning behind what teavangelicals believes. host: this on twitter -- guest: bears the federal government -- there is the federal government slash bureaucracy. with bureaucracy you get a a sense that when there is too many hands of the cookie jar, the way teavangelicals sees the

world, people are sinful and fallible. when you have a federal government that a lot of people think is not all that great and somewhat sinful and fallible, that the last thing you wanted the federal government controlling everything. host: david brody is our guest. atlanta, georgia, and william of the democratic line. caller: hi. you talk about being strict on the constitution. we had that before. people used the bible to proclaim that it was right to have slaves. if you want to get back to what they were thinking, that is what they were thinking. we know that is not what jesus was talking about. and we know that everything you are saying is anti-jesus or anti-christ.

you might want to look in the mirror of who you just might be. guest: i checked myself in the mirror all the time. i don't know how to respond. it is unfortunate that someone wants to judge either myself or others. this is what happens with teavangelicals and with evangelicals. they proclaim that jesus christ as lord and the only way to have an. -- to heaven. they are somehow ridiculed because of that belief. they see it as heartfelt and -- and they see it as compassionate as a loving act to tell people about jesus and unfortunate that it is interpreted like that. if there is the responsibility of christians to explain their views not just on public policy but also on their belief in jesus christ and to do it in a way that is not necessarily offensive.

remember, the gospel is offensive, because jesus christ required people to make a choice. host: anthony asks -- guest: they are not a big fan of it either. there is overlap between occupy wall street movement and the teavangelicals or the tea party. there's some of that. they have problems with corporate greed, but there's also an issue. -- also a capitalism issue. they believe in free markets. in terms of corporate greed, they do have a problem it, but there's a larger picture when it comes to free-market capitalism and letting free markets work as they will. host: carlo as on our

independent line from chicago. caller: i have a comment and then a question. how are you? guest: good, thanks. caller: you said teavangelicals are trying to return the country back to our forefathers, the judeo-christian beliefs. as an african-american, and i have learned, like the guy that call from georgia that said people have used the bible to enslave my ancestors in building this country. also, one of our forefathers was thomas jefferson, who has studied from the quran. what about the jews and muslims that live here if you are trying to return the country to the judeo-christian tradition? guest: i did not get his name.

host: carlo. guest: any person who called themselves the question and has no problem with slavery, they might want to rethink that. if it's unfortunate that people claim they are christian when they are racist. it is extremely unfortunate and very despicable. host: long island, new york, joanne on our republican line. caller: good morning. i took offense at the previous caller who said that this gentleman was using religion to further his cause and not in a good way. it is done all the time.

the rev. al sharpton and the rev. jesse jackson when jesse jackson counselled bill clinton on his infidelity and it turned out that he has a child out of wedlock of his own. i want to give the guys some support. host: that was joined from long island. guest: i would just say that i think joanne makes a broader point or i would like to draw a broader point from which is saying. when the teavangelicals come together under the tea party banner, it's very important -- they're not checking their faith at the door, but at the same time they care about the constitutionally limited government of this country, where they want to return this country to. the two are not mentally exclusive.

you can be a faith-loving teavangelical christian, care deeply about this country and walk and chew gum at the same time. all of these conspiracy theories and if everybody has -- we think the teavangelicals have some sort of agenda, i would suggest they go to ohio or florida and look at the tea party rallies and many other states. actually look at what is there. then report back in a year. host: connie on the democratic line. caller: hi. you said that charities should be the ones to feed the hungry people. we have about 46 million of them. you tell that to children in west virginia counties where there is no charity. a lot of rural areas there's no place to go for charity.

there's no churches. they are just as poor as the people who live there. so they depend on the government to get food stamps. if you are a christian, why would you want to cut food stamps for hungry children? this is exactly what the paul ryan deal does. by now with so many people are out of jobs they want to cut food stamps. guest: it is unfortunate that people think teavangelicals wants to cut food stamps 400 children. -- for hungry children. they see it as a partnership between charities, between local charities with the community, within churches come within the broader evangelical community, and much broader than just the evangelical community to help out there fellowman. does that mean the federal government has no responsibility or does not take part in all this? no, that's not what we are saying. they believe in a social safety

net. the question is how big exactly and what about expansion of this? and how much it should be expanded? and whether or not that is the role of the federal government. so this is about the role of the federal government. it's not about trying to tell folks that we want to keep children hungry in america. it's unfortunate that some people feel that way. but the good news is we have a book that explains it. host: david broder wrote the book. he's also the chief political correspondent for christian broadcasting network news. thank you. >> charlotte, north carolina and tampa, florida are hosting the republican and democratic conventions. local newscasts are following the conventions. >> they have the key to the time

warner cable arena. we got a first look at this work and some perspective on how far off -- how far they have left to go. " there is a lot less to be done and the dnc is just four weeks away but they have the time and money to make this arena shine come september. expectations are as high as the big screen above, what promises to be the biggest event ever at time warner cable arena. >> we hope sporting events, concerts' and other entertainment events but in the timber, this of reno will be the center of the world. >> before there is a celebration, there is preparation. >> and we will be taking some of the seats out. >> and renovations for the democratic national convention. >> work on the suites is just

starting at the arena. in addition, al local company is also converting gift shops and two workspaces and the practice court into a media filing center to make additional space. about 500 shares still need to be removed. 3000 shares were removed at the last democratic convention in denver. >> this arena makes it a bit easier. >> it will still be pricey taking the arena apart and putting it back together. it will cost about $7 million which will come from an estimated $36 million the host committee promised to raise. >> i do not have any concerns. our fund raiser is on track. we have the resources we need to do the work we need to do. those resources are at work here today. >> organizers are saying they feel confident about the funds they have raised. the most time consuming and costly part of all this is

infrastructure for cable and internet. they expect to have all this done by late august. one week before the convention. >> there will not be any more concerts' or games at the tampa bay forum over the next six weeks because the republican national committee take -- took over the venue today for the convention. >> the republican party will spend $20 million getting it ready for mitt romney's nominations. we have to coverage tonight. >> as many as 300 people or working each day to get things ready for this historic event. >> this is a massive undertaking that involves everything from improving the form's acoustics to increasing the power to ripping out seats and rewiring suites. it is officially moved out a for

the tampa bay lightning and move in a day for republicans. with only 41 days until the start of the convention, work has kicked into high gear. among the things that need to be done -- 3000 seats need to be taken out. the main stage must go up. most of the luxury suites have to be converted into many television studios. >> there is no more planning after a year and a half a planning. what you see now is changed. >> officials estimate it will take nearly 50,000 man hours between now and august 27 to get the place ready for the convention. more than 300 people working on sunday to retrofit the facility. one detail that has not worked out yet is the cd chart and will happen with the florida delegation. >> florida -- there is nothing that can be done.

they cannot get their delegate back. but everyone in florida that is coming to this convention will be treated like gold. it will have the time of their life. >> the republican party is taking over the tampa convention center and doing major work inside that building as well no word yet whether the pipe organ will be used but there will not be touching it and moving it outside this building during this event. there is also a move out day. moving out takes a lot less time and they will be moving out by september 15, a little more than two weeks after the convention is over. dropped oneesident, for me will be creating jobs. let me say that again -- my agenda is not to put in place a series of policies that get me a lot of attention and applause. my policy will be to create jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda.

[laughter] i submit to you this -- if you want a president who will make things better in the african- american community, you are looking at him. you take a look. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney and vice president joe biden spoke at the naacp national convention in houston. >> close your eyes and imagine -- imagine what the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork. imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as attorney general and the head of the civil-rights divisions are those other incredibly important positions of justice. >> watched the speech is online at the c-span of video library.

>> in a few moments, patty murray on what it might take to reach a deal in congress on taxes, spending and the debt. after that, a forum on what the u.s. role should be in syria. later, president obama campaigns in ohio. >> on "boston journal," lisa lerer will take questions aboutbain -- about bain capital. and the heritage foundation. we will discuss entrepreneurship but in america with the new america foundation. "washington journal" is life every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. senator petr -- patty murray says she and other democrats are

willing to let the bush era tax cuts expire and allows sequestration to take effect if republicans do not agree to a deficit seal the deal that includes a national -- additional revenue. >> we have had a product here since 2004 on the budget deficit. none of us can vote or introduce bills so we are glad to have someone who can do both of those things, not to mention the chairman of the committee, to tell us about the deficit and what their plans are. a brief overview of the event -- i will have a brief introduction of senator murray. then the senator will talk and i will ask for a question and the audits will have a chance to ask one or two questions. then we will go to a panel that i will introduce at the appropriate time and the audience will have much more time to ask questions of the

panel. let me first say the talk today will be in part about this so- called slope -- there are a lot of things coming due by january 1. it includes the bush tax cuts, unemployment compensation extension, the payroll tax holiday, a $1.20 trillion sequestered and a number of other items. many of you are probably familiar with the expression i do not have a dog in this fight. there is nobody in washington that does not have a dog in this fight. senator murray will tell you the rest. [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction. i am so glad to be here today to discuss with you this issue with

many of you who have been working on this for a long time. i want to thank the budgeting project at brookings for hosting us here today. as well as eight members of the panel that you will be hearing from shortly and all of you for taking time to be a part of this discussion. as all of you know, last august, i was asked by majority leader reid to co-chair the joint select committee on deficit reduction, or the super committee. this was not the most saw after job in congress as you may imagine. it was just a notch below the chair of the sec but i agree to do it because i thought a represented a few important opportunities. the opportunity to avoid the pain of sequestration that would be triggered if no deal was made, of course, to pass a responsible, long-term deficit reduction plan with a simple

majority, a guaranteed vote in the house, no authority for it to be philip are stirred -- filibustered. and after years of unnecessary debt ceiling battles, the opportunity to finally show the american people than a government was not broken and that they could come together women needed to. as everyone in this room knows, the super committee was not successful and we could not come to a bipartisan deal. the reasons for that, the lessons learned from those four months of intense bipartisan talk, are absolutely critical as we face those exact same issues heading into the end of the year and a so-called fiscal cliff. if we want a different outcome, and i want to come together around a balanced and bipartisan deficit reduction deal, the

american people expect and deserve, something is going to have to change. today i want to talk about the vision, values and priorities that drive my approach to tackling our budget challenges. i will contrast that with what i see is the shortsighted and deeply flawed vision that has been dominating the republican party. i will run through how these contrasting visions played out in the specifics of the super committee negotiations and the recent budget debate and then i will lay out how i see a path will work as we now had towards the end of this year. my approach to this issue starts with my own family. it starts with a story that probably is not so different from stories told by families across the country. i was born and raised in a small town in washington in a loving family. my father ran a 10 cent store on

main street and everyone in our family helped out at the store. my family was not rich but we never felt deprived in any way. when i turned 15, things started to change. my father, who was a will orii -- world war ii veteran, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. he could not work in the war -- work anymore. my mother had to stay home to take care of him but she also needed a job to support our family. she found work but it did not pay enough to support me and my six brothers and sisters and has been with growing medical bills. without warning, my family had fallen on hard times. thankfully, we live in a country where the government did not just say tough luck. my father was a veteran so he got help from the va for some of

his medical care. for several months, my family had to rely on food stamps. it was not much but it put food on the table to get by. to get a bit -- better paying job, my mother needed training. that was a time there was a federal program that helped her to to a vocational school where she got a two-year degree in accounting and eventually a better job. my brothers and sisters and i were all able to go to college through federal grants and student loans. the millions of americans, we got by with a little bit of luck. the pulled through with a lot of hard work and what i would like to say we were strong enough to make it on our own, i do not think that is really true. i know that the support we got from our governments was the difference between seven kids who might not have graduated from high school or college and

the seven adults that we have come to be, all college graduates, all working hard, all paying taxes and all now giving back to our own communities. so this is the primary prism that i view our nation's budget through and it is what i'd me as i work to impact the choices that we make. not that government can or should solve every problem -- of course it should not and cannot but that we are a nation that is -- has always come together to stand with families like mine, to invest in our people and our communities and our future. and to build the most robust middle-class the world has ever seen. that a budget -- a budget is not just numbers on the pace. despite what you may think, the were budget is not a synonym for deficit reduction.

it is not just about charts and graphs and trajectories we often hear about those -- though those are important. and what it tells a story of what kind -- a budget tells a story of what kind of nation we are and what kind of nation we want to be. it is a statement of our values and our priorities and our vision. at least that is what it ought to be. these ideas led to some very critical -- i thought everything needed to be on the table when we started. this did not mean members who checked their values at the door but it did mean that we had the best chance of success if members did not rule out any changes to the entire areas of the budget before we began. i felt very strongly that any deal had to be balanced and include both spending cuts and

new revenue. the middle-class and vulnerable americans had already sacrificed so much, they lost their homes, they lost their jobs, their life savings, and they should not be called on the continued bearing the burden of deficit reduction alone. third, i wanted to make sure we did not let the very real need to tackle our deficit and debt cause us to cut out the most critical investments in our families and our future or set aside the values and priorities that have made america great. fourth, i wanted to be a big deal, a grand bargain. i was willing to consider a small deal to avoid the pain of sequestration, but i thought it should be a last resort. i wanted us to put our country on track to tackle the debt and deficit, not simply continued lurching from crisis to crisis, and i was willing to make the tough compromises that work required to get there.

but unfortunately, while there are many republicans who share those goals, who see the value of a government that works for the middle-class, families, their party has been dominated by an extreme ideological strain allows itself only to think in terms of cutting and shrinking and eliminating, and never in terms of investing or growing or fairness. they have a vision for our country in which families like mine would not have gotten a hand up. we would have been left to fend for ourselves. a vision best articulated by one of their ideological leaders, grover norquist, who said, "i'm not in favor of abolishing the government. i just want to shrink it down to the sites where we can drown it in that bathtub " he was kind enough to wish me good luck on the super committee by telling reporters that

washington does not do budgets. he has elicited a pledge from every single republican member of congress to never, under any circumstances, raise taxes by even a penny, but the fact that the wealthiest americans are paying the lowest rates in generations. despite the fact that the wealthiest americans are today paying the lowest rates in generations and the federal government is taking in the lowest level of revenue in decades. unfortunately, part of many republicans have latched on the this deeply, damaging ideology. they pay lip service to deficit reduction, but what they actually seem to be concerned about is cutting taxes for the rich and starting programs that help middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans. if republicans really thought

the deficit was the most pressing issue, you would not have seen their presidential nominee said he would reject a deal to cut $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. you would not see them do everything to protect the bush tax cuts for the rich. he would seek far more interest and compromising with democrats to get the grand park and that everyone in this room understands we need. you would not see their single- minded focus on slashing discretionary spending and provide critical support for our families and investments in our future. it was with very different visions and priorities that the two sides came together in our

supercommittee last year. i understood it would be difficult. i knew democrats were ready to compromise and open to the concessions a balanced and bipartisan deal would require, and i was hopeful republicans were as well. the first thing that the super kid committee met, we went round the table and we talked about what we wanted to accomplish. we shared coffee and runny eggs, and our hopes for the coming months. democrats discussed our priorities and our willingness to put everything on the table to get a balanced deal. we discussed our desire to continue working to cut spending responsibly. we talked about our willingness to tackle entitlements and make sure they were strengthened in a way that assured they would be there for our children and grandchildren. we highlighted the need to responsibly reduce defense

spending while making sure our national security needs were addressed. we laid out our belief that in a fragile economy, with millions of americans out of work, it made sense to invest in the short term while putting our nation on a path to long- term debt and deficit reduction. of course, we talked about the need for a balanced approach that included revenue. republicans opened in a very different way. one said defense cuts were off the table and indicated that instead of trying to go big group should focus on doing just the opposite. he wanted us to go small. republicans pushed for us to focus on the so-called low- hanging fruit from prior negotiations before working on

any of the tougher issues, meaning that they wanted to start by locking in and agreeing to all of the spending cuts that were identified as potentially working in a larger deal, but none other revenue increases that would have actually made such a deal possible. this was a tactic we have seen before, and we would not agree to an approach that would lead to an all-cuts and balanced deal. it was not a great start, but my hope that this was a negotiating position, not a hard line. we continued our bipartisan conversations. we traded offers and ideas. we had our staffs draft and analyze potential language. there were times when i thought we were very close. but looking back at the offers from the other side that represented the greatest attempts at compromise, it is clear that while we were close on the spending side, republicans had not even left their corner when it came to revenue. the biggest offer democrats put

forward was an attempt at a grand bargain. this proposal, built on the $1 trillion in cuts in the budget control act, with an additional $1.30 trillion in cuts to spending and changes to entitlement programs, as well as $1.30 trillion in new revenues. it included a short-term investment in jobs to get our economy a boost. to be honest, it was a painful offer creek included a compromise on entitlements that i personally was not comfortable with. it had deep concessions on the spending side. but i knew that the only way a deal was possible was that both sides were willing to accept some pain, and i was willing to do that for a balanced and fair deal. but our balanced proposal stood in sharp contrast to the offer republicans would hang their hats on when it all and it. this was their attempt at

acting like they were putting revenue on the table and offering a compromise, while in fact it was doing the exact opposite. the toomey plan was small. it included $700 billion in spending cuts which was less than what democrats have offered come around $300 billion in new government fees, and $300 billion and what they were calling new revenue. it is important to note many of those numbers were fuzzy. i want to unpacked that last number of that, because republicans were trying to do something not unique to this plan. we were seeing this over and over in their proposals. the toomey plan would permanently cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest americans, from the 35% is now, and schedule it down to 28%, which would add trillions more

to the deficit. it gets even worse. the plan claims that what revenue would be offset by closing loopholes and and the deductions, and, further, there would be $300 billion in extra revenue. but while the plant is explicit about giving the rich the biggest tax cuts since the great depression, it is painfully vague when it comes to where that revenue is going to be found to offset that. it ignored that per completely. it's simply assumes congress will be able to get that done through tax reform. well, there was some analysis done on a proposal similar, and what they found was that in order to pay for the tax cuts

for the rich, we would have had to slash to the but the personal and dependent exemptions, almost all item is deductions, including the most popular ones we all know, home mortgages, charitable donations, state and local taxes, college tuition tax credits, almost all the tax credits. to spell out the obvious come up under the toomey plan, the richest americans would get a huge tax cut while the middle class would lose the tax benefits that mattered to them the most. in an analysis of a similar plan, it was estimated somebody making over $1 million a year would see an average tax cut of over $31,000. anyone making over $200,000 would get a tax cut. for anyone making less than that, the middle-class, the poor, the cuts and rate did not make up for the exemptions and deductions a loss. for example, someone earning $55,000 would see an average increase of almost $1,000.

not only is it deeply unfair to ask the middle-class the foot the bill for another deficit- busting tax cut for the rich, but the to the plan would have locked them in with no guarantee that the revenue would ever be found to pay for them. there is nothing irresponsible about that in my book. i find it offensive. i was reminded of the plan when i saw the rye budget this year. ryan's budget cuts taxes for the rich more than the toomey. ryan did the cbo to score his plan as a deficit reducer, so he simply directed the cbo to score his plan assuming it would raise 19% of gdp. that is quite an assumption.

i wish we could assume all of our problems away like that. bruce bartlett slammed the plan, writing, he offers only the sugar of the reductions without telling us what the medicine of the big broadening would be. mitt romney said something similar, cutting rates for the rich, while refusing to name the deductions that would be needed to play for it. it was a bait and switch. it was not a step in our direction. it was a leap toward the tea party and away from ideal. democrats were willing to match the republicans dollar for dollar on the spending side and more. we even beyond when it came to tackling entitlements. we had backing from our leadership and our party to make a big deal. we jumped right into the middle

of the ring. republicans refused to move an inch in our direction on revenue. they actually tried to use deficit reduction committees to cut taxes for the rich even further credit they were so focused on how their base would react, they could not summon the will to leave their partisan court. why is this? why is the moderate republican party so opposed to allow the rich to pay just a little bit more in taxes to help solve the debt and deficit republicans and as a country, that they would prefer no deal at all? it was not always this way. president reagan raised taxes 11 times. president george bush famously raised taxes to rein in the deficit. this should not be controversial. outside the republican party is not, because if you believe the deficit and debt are major

problems that need to be addressed, as democrats do, and as republicans claim to, then you cannot simply ignore revenues at a time when at 15.4% of gdp they are the lowest in 60 years. poll after poll shows the american people overwhelmingly want to reduce the deficit with a combination of cuts and revenue. every single group that has made progress in the area, from simpson bowles did others, were able to come together because their plans were ballots. we do not want to increase revenue for the sake of increasing revenue. of course not. as a nation, we need to pay for the services and programs the american people want. we need to rein in the deficit and debt, and we need to do it

in a responsible way. democrats understand this, and congressional republicans should, too. because all this is coming to a head once again. unlike last year, the consequences of gridlock be felt immediately. millions of jobs could be lost to the automatic cuts. programs would be slashed irresponsibly across the board and middle-class tax cut would expire. once again, if republicans will not work with us on a balanced approach, we are not want to get a deal. i feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle- class families and the most vulnerable americans bear this burden alone. it is just not fair. if we cannot get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then i will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that those middle-class families under the bus. i my party and the american

people will support that. i hope it does not come to that. i think we have reasons to think a deal can happen before the end of this year. and the democrats are willing to compromise. we need a partner. i am seeing encouraging signs from republicans who are sick and tired of being boxed in by the most extreme elements of their base, who do not like being responsible for continued manufactured crises that hurt our economy and destroyed our nation's in this government and are concerned about the impact of sequestration. in the privacy of backrooms, republicans are far more willing to discuss the need for revenue. there are some republicans who are passionate about national defense and willing to make tough choices on riveted to protect pentagon. in fact, some of the productive conversations that my republican colleagues have been having have let grover norquist to decry it there "impure thoughts" when it comes to taxes.

i hope these "impure thoughts" continue. if he is mad, we must be on the right track, because the only way that we can get a balance and bipartisan deal is if republicans can persuade their leadership to stand up to the most extreme elements of their base and come to the table with real compromises. i also think the republicans are starting to realize something very important. on january 1, if we have not gotten a deal, grover norquist and his pledge are no longer relevant to this conversation. a name that i heard repeatedly by republicans over and over in the supercommittee will no longer be part of this debate. we will have a new fiscal and political reality. if the bush tax cuts expire, every proposal will be a tax cut proposal, and the pledge will no longer keep republicans boxed in and unable to

compromise prick and middle- class families start seeing money coming out of their paychecks next year, will republicans stand up for new tax cuts for the rich? will they continue opposing the democrats' middle-class tax cut? i think they know that will be an untenable position, and i hope this pushes them to come to the table with real revenues now before being forced to the table if we do not get to a deal by the new year. we should not wait pit is not good for the economy. it is not good for the markets. most importantly, it is not good for the taxpayers and small businesses across america. when it comes to expiring bush tax cut, i agree with president obama. let's extend them to the 98% of workers and a 97% of small businesses ever been a great should have tax cuts and then have a debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans that we disagree on.

before all this we will have a vote to do that in the senate. some republicans have indicated they will make an effort to extend all of the bush tax cuts, including those for the rich. i challenge them to do something different, to be honest about what they really want an all-out everyone to clearly state their position on this issue. i challenge them to offer an amendment to our middle-class tax cuts that would simply extend the tax cuts that are fighting for, the tax cuts for the rich. a real amendment. they do this, all of the bush tax cut would be for a clean, honest, extension of and the american people would know where everyone stands. any senator who supports extending tax cuts to the middle-class, and the center that supports extending tax cuts for the rich can vote for

the republican amendment. that would give everyone an opportunity to vote for exactly what they want and will make sure the political gimmicks don't get in a way of delivering results to the 98% of workers both sides agree should have their tax cuts extended. if republicans don't do this, if they continue playing political games and only offer an amendment to kill this bill, then i will have proven conclusively they don't care about certainty, but care about extending those tax cuts for the rich and they will use every bit of leverage they have to do it. if we are really going to address these issues, we have to cut through the political smokescreens. it is time to put our cards on the table, offer real choices, and have a debate that is worthy of the senate.

holding the middle class tax cuts hostage may be a smart tactical move if the goal is to protect the rich, but it is not good policy, not good politics, and democrats will keep reminding the american people why middle-class tax cuts are not being extended immediately, even though both sides said they want them to be. i have also heard the claim made that we need to extend all the tax cuts to give us time to reform the tax code. we absolutely need to reform the tax code. it is badly broken and i'm certainly willing to discuss the fast-track process for getting that done, but there is absolutely no reason that we need to extend the tax cuts for the rich as a precondition for reforming the tax code. when we do get to work on this, republicans will have to except that tax reform a back door way for them to sneak through more tax cuts for the rich, it is --

to raise revenue to help rein in the deficit and debt. in addition to the expiration of the bush tax cuts, we also face a $1.20 trillion in automatic spending cuts. as you all remember, sequestration was included in the bipartisan budget control act to be about sought an incentive to compromise. but republicans were not willing to offer any concessions to get to deal, and now they want to have their cake and eat it, too. they want all the deficit reduction but without any of the bipartisan compromise of shared sacrifice. if democrats were willing to accept all wobbly imbalanced deficit reduction plan to avoid the automatic cuts, we would have done that back in the super committee. we did not then and we will not now. anyone who tells issue -- tells you sequestration is going to

simply disappear because both sides want to avoid it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. it is going to have to be replaced. a replacement on to have to be a balanced plan. we are not going to allow just the defense cuts to be replaced without addressing the domestic spending cuts that would be devastating for the middle class. none of the automatic cuts are good policy. there were packaged together in a bipartisan fashion to get both sides to the table and i will be replaced or not as a package. the defense cuts get most of the tension here but across america, all the automatic cuts would be equally damaging to our families and communities. that is exactly why have been working across the aisle with senator mccain of legislation calling for an analysis of the impact of sequestration across of defense and nondefense spending. i am hopeful that information will help us bring the same spirit of bipartisanship to a balanced and bipartisan approach to replace those automatic cuts. once again, i will not agree to a deal that rose middle-class

families under the bus and forces them to bear this burden alone. unless republicans and their commitment to protecting the ridge above all else, our country is going to have to face the consequences of republicans entrenchments. this is about more than taxing our debt and deficit. it is about coordination. we cannot ignore this great challenge. we need to rein in the debt, but it is not all that defines our budget. our budget and our nation will be defined by the scientists to come out of our schools, by the businesses that we create, by our communities, our universities, our research, development, are innovation, and we will be defined by the opportunities we afford to every one of our families and workers by the fairness of our society and how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

when i go back home to washington state, my constituents don't come up and say they want the federal government to spend 18 or 20 or 25% of gdp. they tell me that what a strong school system for their kids. they want them to go to college if they want to. the one good jobs in their communities, save roads. they want the government to be there for them when they need to for getting back on their feet. in other words, they want government to do what it did for my family. what'd has done for millions of families for generations. they do want us to tackle our debt and deficit. this certainly do not want us to hand the bill to our kids. they wanted done in a balanced and fair way that does not leave the middle class holding the bag along. those are the priorities are will be pushing for more about all the tax cuts next week and in that weeks and months and years ahead. i believe the reflecting american values that have

carried our nation for for generations and the vision that will continue our country's great leadership and to the 21st century and beyond. i know the democrats are ready to go to work. we want to make a deal. we are ready to compromise. i am personally willing to talk to anyone from either party who wants to solve this problem. as soon as republicans decide to work with us, i'm confident we can get to a balanced and bipartisan deal with the american people. thank you. >> thank you. >> you said democrats are ready to deal. can you give us any indication

of the deal democrat the put on the table and what significant enticement ship changed and how? and you think the majority of democrats would support a? -- support it? >> as i indicated on the super committee, democrats did put a package forward that did include changes to entitlements to assure that they were there beyond one generation. i have a granddaughter. i understand that and am willing to make decisions to make sure we have long-term security for medicare and medicaid in our entitlement programs. but that is in the context of a balanced approach. the reason those changes and suggestions were not accepted is for one reason alone, and that is because the republicans would not put any revenue on the table to help make that deal in compromise. >> we have time for one or two audience questions. at a clear, short question. there is a mike right here. >> my basic question is, would

make the negotiations a lot easier to get on with going big, the grand bargain, if there were more money to work with right now? it could be generated without any increase to the national debt. in one minute flat, i can sharpen up that question to be as precise as i think it should be. >> just give us the essence of it. you have an idea. >> the essence of it is, as many of us know during the 1930's there were many prominent economists who argued that to fight the great depression, we should reintroduce the lincoln era greenbacks, a means of exchange

which do not increase the national debt at all. it is complicated subject with a lot of history. there have been many times and places where paper standard, greenbacks have been used successfully. and with very limited inflation. in one case, release level of inflation of our country for 52 years. it was a major debate, a grand debate of the 1930's, and my question is, should we not be reopening that grand debate as well as pursuing the grand bargain? >> fortunately we are at the brookings institute and you have a wonderful panel of experts who will come after me you could address that better than i. i sat on a super committee. everyone wants a magic answer. everyone wants a miracle to occur. everyone wants to pull

something that looks good, sounds good, but in reality, cbo does not support it as something that will reduce our debt and deficit. we have to come forward with a plan that will reduce our debt and deficit. democrats on the committee did that, but where we did not get any compromise was on revenue on the table. >> right here. quickly. >> my question is, the issue of jobs and outsourcing. you remember when i lived in seattle, it was during the clinton administration that there was a proposal that was passed for naphtha that still continues where they are out forcing johnson has not changed tsourcing of jobs has not changed in both houses, where the democrats and

republicans have endorsed this and continue with the unforeseen of jobs, which eliminates jobs in this country. what position do you take on how his change the economy, will it add jobs in this country if we eliminate nafta and gatt? a lot of jobs are going overseas. >> we are not here today to debate trade policy, but i can tell you that every democrat strongly believes we should be making things here in this country and creating jobs and showing the world that we can be strong in the future. that takes a lot more than trade agreements. takes training and education for our work force. it means making sure people have the skills we need to manufacture and built here in this country. i can tell you standing here, if all our deficit and debt reduction comes out of that small portion of the budget and eliminate some education and training, we will not be able to manufacture and buildings here in this country. i know we are out of time. i just want to say to your audience, i believe we can get a good deal. i believe it will take leadership and compromise. there are good people working at this at every level.

i am willing to work with anyone who comes to the table and is willing to bring real revenue and a balanced approach to solve this really important generational challenge for our country. >> senator, thank you very much. [applause] >> if you will stay in your seats, we will bring the panel up now and bring the next phase of our program.

>> thank you for your patience. now we get to the part where we asked questions that are pertinent which we've just got

through being told. our panel consists of three people from brookings and one person not from brookings. next to him is bill gale, an expert in taxation and a senior fellow at brookings. bob greenstein, he masquerades as the director but he is the whole shot and he has written frequently and perceptively on this issue. it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. and alice rivlin, she has generated her own plan. and has a lot to say about a budget deal. this is a remarkable statement. several months ago, xavier came

here for a friday lunch. we had a lively discussion because he proposed the democrats should do exactly what senator murray just proposed. i think more people were incredulous and now we have a from a person who is on the head of the senate campaign committee. now we have it as a serious proposal. the first question to the panel, would this work? would it work? what were the result be if we actually went off the cliff? what would be the consequence for the economy and the budget debate? bill. >> well, i think part of her speech that impressed me was the ending where she said she was optimistic and hope for a deal. the kuala fire throughout the discussion was it had to be a

balanced deal. as i interpreted her definition was half taxes and half spending. my guess is that will not pass muster in any kind of an arrangement. it seems to me where she was calling a grand bargain, under that definition, looked like it was going to be thin. it was not going to get us where we need to get. simpson-bowles, which is the standard, we are in the $5 billion area, i think she sounds like she is about halfway there. so i think we need to escalate her aspirations. >> did you want to say something? >> yes. i think it is a bold move on the

port of the -- the part of the senator. when you say, will it work? it is a question of what it is. as a negotiating tactic, the threat to let the kid and caboodle expire at the end of the year is a brilliant negotiating tactic. i hope it does not actually happen because i think if we did that, we would take some risks with the economy. cbo, among others, has pointed out that going off the cliff would risk recession in the first half of next year. is't know whether that right, whether it is too pessimistic or optimistic. but there are real risks. on the other hand, as a

negotiating tactic, it makes sense. if you remember back when the been negotiating tactic of the republicans was, let's a default. that was truly scary to those of us who thought that the fault was an unacceptable option. but going off a cliff is risky but has some advantages. it would mean that the debt ceiling was no longer a problem and it would buy some time to think of a better answer and probably not be totally catastrophic for the economy. i am not for going off a cliff but as a negotiating tactic makes a lot of sense. >> bill. >> i do not think it is just a negotiating tactic. i do not think she is just

playing poker. there is more to it than that. that is, 90% of the republicans have signed a no new taxes' pledge. if i had any criticism of her speech, she was referring to extreme elements in the republican party that did not want to raise taxes. 90% is an extreme group. it is not an extreme republican ibm to sign the no new taxes' pledge. it is a mainstream idea. the problem the democrats have is if they want taxes to be any part of a budget deal, they have to not only negotiate republicans, they have to get them republicans negotiate themselves so they can hold hands and violate the new deal at the same time. one way to avoid that is simply to let the bush tax cut expired. that is 2% right there and they can get that by doing nothing.

it is a substantive issue and a strategic issue. i would not want to downplay the substantive part. you can get more revenue if you let the tax cuts expired then if you keep expanding them. in terms of the long-term effect, the way i think of this if we let the tax cuts expire and we initiate the sequesters, we will be on a much better long-term path and we are now in terms of budget attar gets. nobody will like the structure of war -- budget aggregates. nobody will liked the structure of what we have done. we will have cut discretionary spending instead of adjusting entitlements. the fact we are on a better pact would give us more revenue and give us an opportunity to reach a budget deal and it would give us the incentive to reach the deal because nobody likes that structure. the short term concerns, cbo

said this could push us into a recession, there could be dealt with via a short-term stimulus that did not involve the bush tax cuts. i had a peace of mind about this earlier this week -- piece online about this earlier this week. there are many more interesting issues, believe it or not, then what share of the bush tax cuts should be expended -- extended. the way to do that is to do something temporary now, let them expire, create a framework can deal with tax reform. i want to talk about the balance issue. i did not hear senator murray say anything about 50-50. maybe i missed it. it is not my impression that

50-50 is a requirement for anybody because it is an arbitrary division and because there are these tax expenditures which are really spending that happens to be embedded in the tax code. things like the mortgage deduction, the deduction for state and local taxes, those could be structured as spending items. the urban institute as a piece that showed that spending is a good 4% of gdp. you could cut those things and they could be called spending cuts and liberals could call them tax increases. i do not think it is that important. it is important that for this to be a sustainable deal, both sides have to be seen as giving something and giving up something. >> bob greenstein. >> i agree with bill.

this is more than a negotiating tactic. i again say that not just from sending -- senator murray's speech. president obama said he would veto a bill that extends to the upper income tax cuts. there is history here. " it is what does happen over the last year or two. we have had negotiations and we ended up with a package it was 100% spending cuts and no revenues. if he did not do that, the nation could default. over the last five or six weeks in meetings with various democratic senators, i have posed the question to them -- when you go into negotiations and to the lame duck, do you believe that although you talk about a republic -- a balanced package, that when you get up to january 1, you, the

democrats, will agree to extend all of the taxes? everyone who answered the question said yes, that is what the republicans believe. from the administration and the democratic standpoint, they heard john boehner say a month ago, every dollar we raise the debt limit has to be offset by a least a dollar in spending cuts. no revenues. the only budget that meets that is the rayn budget. -- ryan budget. if you do not somehow change the terms of the debate and show that you will not agree to any more deals that are spending cuts only, that you will continuously go farther and

farther down that path. with regard to the economy, i think the view which i share, it is reflected in the paper chad stone has done, if all of the tax cuts expire and stayed expire, the sequestration goes into affect and remain sixs in -- remains in effect. my view, when clinton and gingrich could not agree, the pressure on both sides was so great there was a deal in in three weeks. the pressure here will be greater given the state of the economy and concern in the markets. i think if we do not have a deal by january 1, i wish it were not the case but that may be the only way to actually get a deal that includes revenue and because it includes revenue these democrats to go farther inn the other wowise would

areas like medicare. to the degree republicans come to believe -- and a day not believe they do -- that people like the president and senator murray are serious, if that is believed, then it increases our chances of getting it done without going into january. >> and clarify one oint, -- point, if we went off a cliff, and now we are in january, the situation is republicans could agree to proposals that would produce additional revenues and they would be tax cuts because the rates have gone up as of january. correct? going back to your statement, does that create the possibility you could get a deal that involves revenue? republicans would be saying, these are tax cuts and yet they

are producing a trillion or what ever in revenue. >> that is a little too canned and cute. i think there are some republicans who feel we need to have some revenue. it is very hard for them to get in front on that in the party. if we go into january, there is volatility in the markets, financial markets, there is tremendous concern, the media is focused on this incessantly, the president has called bipartisan negotiations, in that context, i think it is somewhat easier for republicans. it is not this cute, a technical thing. >> bill, what do you think of

this? will republicans be able to cut a deal with tax increases more easily if the bush tax cuts disappeared? >> i really do not know, ron. i look on this -- alice says this is not worse than the republicans threatening the debt ceiling. i think it is the same kind of an adventure. this is the season when the parties are in conflict. they are throwing down their threats one to the other. i think it is a different game after the election. they have to sit down and decide what they want to do. i think what bob has suggested is the possibility there might be a kick the can down the road. there might be a fall-off the cliff followed by negotiations to save oneself. but i do not think we know that.

what we do know is there are precious few days in a lame-duck session. the problems are sufficiently complicated that it is extremely hard to negotiate the fall bargain. however it gets kicked over into 2013, a lot of the decisions will be made in 2013, particularly with respect to tax reform which will take the committees at least a year. >> let me ask you a yes sir no question. >> politicians do not know those questions. >> you are not a politician anymore. you are a scholar. >> i have gone straight. >> good. so you will answer. we have got over the cli? ff and if we can do revenues

and, to take bob's scenario, the whole country is going nats, the media is covering it, would those factors, is that more likely the republicans would allow some deal that would be a children or some amount increases? >> if i had to guess i would say bob is on the right track and that is a possibility. but i really do not know. it seems to me when the republicans are in chaos and the economy is in ruins, there will be heavy incentive for both sides. >> i think your question is missing an important element of the discussion. there are two aspects of the debate right now. a one is how much revenue to raise an the other is a

structural reform of the tax system. if the bush tax cut to expire but the route -- the revenue question is done. we have raised an enormous amount of money. from the perspective of getting enough revenue to be part of a medium term budget deal of $4 to ian, we are done to. if congress wants to continue to work on reform, that is great. i would be off for that. but in terms of -- simply letting the tax cuts expired does that. in that sense, it would make reform a significantly easier because then it would be about revenue-neutral or tax cutting relative to the baseline rather than about raising taxes. >> as you pointed out, that is a short term because you have not ratcheted down in that scenario any of the cost to drivers in

the long term. >> that is right. it is not the solution. >> our list. >> i want to speak up for the grand bargain. whether it results in a deal in december or a dealer in january, it is not as important as recognizing that is not what we want to do. we do not want to raise revenue by raising rates when we have an opportunity to improve the tax code and improved its pro-growth nature and is progressivity at the same time. and a sequester is not how we want to cut spending. mainly because it does not deal with the entitlement programs de, as your question to senator murray pointed out.

we have to have comprehensive reform that raises revenue and slows the growth of entitlements in the future. we cannot get there unless we do that. we need some kind of mechanism and here we have one. >> bob greenstein. >> following up on what alice said, we would much rather this occur in november or december. if we go into january, the increase to 39.6%, maybe, we do not know it will, maybe such a forcing mechanism. tax reform takes six months or a year. its current law goes into effect on january 1, my hunch is that increases republican interest in tax reform that they do not want 39.6%.

the democratic position is we will work with you to get below 39.6% so we can get a net contribution of somewhere in 1.x trillion range. if the republicans go for that, and democrats agree to certain things. this is the optimistic scenario. we would have a problem -- a process that takes six or 10 months and you have a timeframe by which they can produce legislation to raise y revenues and you package them together and you have some kind of enforcement mechanism if they do not do it. i think there is a somewhat better chance of actually getting their if the 39.6% actually takes effect. i want to be clear that if we go

into january and started down the slope over the cliff, there is no way that all of the bush tax cut state expired until the deal is done. when they work out the so-called framework agreement, they will make the book of the tax cuts retroactive to january 1. >> bill, you were dying to say something. >> i was not time to say something. >> you can speak anyway. >> there is an issue that we should keep in mind. we have had one major tax reform in 50 years. we have had one major health care reform in, i would guess about the same amount of time. we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. we cannot wait for the perfect tax reform, the perfect health care reform before we deal with

medium-term budget deficits and long-term budget deficit. that means we may have to take a deal that gets us on the right path even if it does not give us the right structure. we will have the opportunity to get on the right structure and we will have the money to deal with it. it means we have to deal with the deficit before we are ever going to resolve all of the issues in health care and tax reform. i want to be sure that people do not have the sense that if we do not solve the entire 70 five- year, 150 year deficit issue, that anything short of that is a failure. there is no public-policy issue we have solved 75 years into the future. it is a result of inflated expectations and rhetoric to expect we will solve this problem 75 years out, or 100

years out in the future. not thege is, let's perfect be the enemy of the good. if we can get onto a good path, let's take it and work from a better structure. >> i agree with that but let me be more optimistic about tax reform. this may be a moment where we dropped the impediment of incrementalism in tax reform which is fatal because then you are arguing about whose ox gets gored. this might be in a moment where we start over and put in a more sensible set of provisions which would tax almost all income at the same rate, lower the rate, and reinstate only a few of the

most necessary and important provisions, a child credit, and an earned income credit. and a credit, not a deduction, for home mortgage. you could do that and it is very attractive. there are a lot of actual republicans who think this way. and not all are in the grover norquist camp. if you read in the times today, he sounds a republican note of hope. >> i realize we are mostly scholars here. we are negotiating with frenzel,

but he implied he is not a full politicians anymore. let me ask you a question, this is a risky strategy by democrats. it could blow up and produce problems for them. are any of you concerned about that? >> less risky than national the fault like the republicans did last summer? >> i think it is similar to that. >> know, go ahead. >> that was a high risk. may be a worse risk. but this is a very high risk, too. high risk for the economy and high risk for the democratic party. they have a lot of interest involved in that tax code. they have amt going after their people. they lose their tend% rate. they lose a lot of things they like to have.

i think it is high risk and i tend to look at it as a before the election kind of threat or challenge tohe republicans. i think you get the same thing back. it is a whole new game after the election day. >> bill is not dying to say something but he can anyway. >> it is not a high risk. the democrats have seen the risk of going to the table and negotiating. what they got out of it in the debt deal was an all spending bill which was not even entitlements, it was discretionary. if they are not happy with that strategy, that outcome. they want the government to beef up revenue structure in the wrong term. wrong term. the only