have some of the same questions we do about how we take part and commercialize the space mission. host: alexander saltman, executive director of the commercial spaceflight federation, thank you for being on alexander saltman "washington journal." >> we go now to the national press club with the national business group on health is having plan on 2013 helped plan changes featuring the ceo of the national business group on health. >> good morning. welcome for those of you in the

room and those of us watching us live online or three c-span. we are very glad to have you join us today. i and the president and ceo of the national business group on health. with me is the director of the survey. i will make a few general remarks and then hit some of the highlights of the survey and then opened it up for questions. as i am sure you know, employers are very concerned about the cost pressures from providing comprehensive health services and benefits. with the supreme court's ruling on the constitutionality of key provisions of the affordable care act, employers at least are facing slightly less

uncertainty. the key words are "slightly less." they are looking for five months on how to learn what will happen with the health insurance exchanges for on all of the state that affect them. most of our members are in all states or many states. what happened at the state level is important to them. they are permitted to have a uniform plan nationally. the affordable care act could negatively affect that. the understand that the congressional and presidential elections could have an impact on what happens with the affordable care act and a lot of things that affect them directly. the survey of large employer health plan design changes that we are releasing today is the

first that is issued that provides details of what employers will actually be doing in 2013. this is what they have decided to do. if you do a survey in the summer, large corporations have made all their decisions for the next year. this is the first one that is released. we ask our members to provide information on their 2013 plan offering including changes due to the affordable care act, medical plan costs, consumer directed health care, incentives and pharmacy benefits. it was fielded between june 10 and july 6 of this year. this year 82 members participated in the survey. the survey results reflect the planned design of various of players ranging from those that have less than 10,000 employees

to those that have more than 100,000 u.s. employees. in terms and key finding, the passage of the affordable care reduce our confidence employers are on the likelihood of offering health benefits a decade from now. employers remain very confident that they will still be offering health benefits five years from now. they are relatively confident about being the one to provide health benefits within the next five years. they know that they have to control costs. we talk a lot about the long run in the short run. corporate benefit executives live in the short run. corporations live in the short run. most employers live in the

short-run. that is what really matters. the controlling health-care costs remains the highest priority for everybody. we also know that they will work hard to avoid the so-called cadillac tax. the excise tax plans. if they're doing all they can. they started in 2012 and ordered to then the curve as dramatically -- a started in 2012 in order to thin the curve . all employers offer at least one plan with a flexible spending accounts option. almost all will have to reduce limit to the limit at

$2,500. i will make an editorial comment. this was not asked in the survey. this is of considerable importance. lowering what is possible with fsa's means people have the highest out-of-pocket cost are limited on what they can set aside on a pre-tax bases. ally, this was not true. this has been raised over and over as a problem. many believe that some populations connected to large employers such as early retirees, cobra plan participants he will get their health insurance from cobra and

part-time are seasonal employees might find that entering the health insurance exchanges would be an attractive option when they opened. it should be roughly in the fall of 2013. the exchanges have to be operational by january 1, 2014. basically we are talking about next year. it seems really close right now. cost are really top of mind for employers. they are budgeting 7%. large employers are budgeting on the median basis. this is the same amount that they also did for 2012.

the 2013 amount is on the higher base. ithe ideal would be the percentage which actually go down -- would actually go down. while 7% is well above the rate of inflation, the 7% is down from the 7.7 term that was budgeted in 2011. we used the figure budgeted. most large employers are self insured. they use insurance companies only for administering paying claims. they do not pay insurance companies. this is action what is paid out on behalf of every employee who is covered. that is the 7%.

that is the number they get to their cfo. what do you need to book for benefit next year? they're saying in 2013 you better put aside 7% at a median level. that is a lot. there was a big story this morning in "times." most corporations are being very worried and anxious about what is happening. that 7% on top of no growth is a serious problem. these employers use a variety of tools to keep their medical spending down. the 7% is after plan design changes. it means they're putting in

changes that will be controlling costs somewhat. they are estimating that even after the changes it will be 7%. when asked to name the most effective way to control costs, 61% believe that implementing a consumer trichet health plans is one of the three most effective methods for controlling costs. 43% believe consumer directed health plans are the most affected. they are the most effective. in addition, 60 1% of respondents indicated that wellness initiatives of one of the three most effective methods for controlling costs. that is power point slide 12. only 36% cited increased talk

sharing among the top three. they did not cite that except in the third. they worry about too high cost sharing hurt low-wage employees and it can also discourage the use of appropriate care. it is ok to discourage inappropriate care such as excessive use of emergency rooms. it is not ok to discourage appropriate care. it is a complicated balance. 57% are increasing contributions. contributions are what the employee pays out of his or her paycheck. contributions are what come out of the paycheck first. they are increasing them mostly a very small amounts, less than 5%.

we have copies here for those who did not attend our survey. our employees surveyed said they would prefer to have contributions out of the paycheck, smaller amounts, more money in their pay and they were be willing to pay a higher cost sharing at the time a service. it was a historic change in benefits. this is all interesting how these things tied together. more than 3/4 of employers make online price transparency tools to find information about the relative price and quality of providers. this is a big job. we would say this is a major trend in the u.s., price transparency. everybody, i do not care what

side of the aisle you are on, everyone believes price transparency is essential to transformation in u.s. health- care system. about 32% are either currently are considering contrasting with surgical centers of excellence to improve safety and efficiency. about 1/3 are contacting separately with centers of excellence. the adoption of consumer directed health plans among large employers is very high at 73%. there is a slight increase in the percentage of those who are offering consumer directed health plans on a full replacement bases. some employers offer a choice. some employers say you have no choice except in the size of deductible. you will have to take a consumer directed health plan.

we call that full replacement. an example of that is ge. that went up slightly from 17% 219 sara -- to 19%. the adoption of consumer directed health plans, many employers think that is the most effective tactic for controlling health-care costs. that is a trend that is moving and will probably move faster now. 49% offer a health savings account. this is a protected amount of money that belongs to the employee. 52% have a health reimbursement account. it is one that is given to the employees and as long as they are at the organization or retire from that employer they

get to keep that. they do not own the account on like a help savings account. those are two different accounts. both of them are tax protected. contribute funds based on whether an employee participate in a wellness program or is live a healthier lifestyle. there is a movement now toward paying employees to participate in changes that will give them a healthier lifestyle. employers generally continue to experiment with and perfected the best ways to incorporate financial incentives into their programs. the median amount of those responding to this survey that

an employee can earn by living a healthy lifestyle and/or participating in programs increased to $450 in 2013. what they're paying them is going up. nearly half of the employers have one or more on-site health centers. part of the movement toward improvement is to bring services on site for the convenience of employees. they probably saved some money but is more for the convenience of the employee and the increase access. if you think about how you might get something checked out and you have a back injury and unique physical therapy, and the amount of time he's been going to and from the provider could make a requirement that you take up a day of work. on-site centers really help employees.

they also ensure the employee is getting the right kind of health care. maybe not overly aggressive on imaging. in terms of pharmacy benefits, therapy and prior authorization were the most commonly used tactics. step therapy is where you are asked are required to take the sometimes less expensive drug first. if that works, you do not go on to the next one. if it does not, then you have the next drought. did you have to go through that. unless there is a medical reason. prior authorization is exactly what it says. i would say we are not at all surprised that employers continue to work to moderate cost increases and look to

consumers them and individual accountability. to ensure that employees and dependents understand that they can do a great deal to control their costs and improve their health including reducing risk factors that they may already have. a typical model is that an employer would say in order to get your benefits are to be in a plan or to get a reduced contribution, you would have to take a health assessment or do a biometric screening. risk factors will be identified and then you would be working on those risk factors. we can talk in more detail about what that involves. it is a hand holding through the process and hoping that people will improve their life styles to be healthier and thereby

reducing their risk factors. as we learned from the survey of employees, employees are beginning to understand that more and more spent on health benefits means they will have less cash income for their of their family and household needs. employee your ears are highly engaged in improving employee health care a wide range of programs including programs to participate in coaching. employers and know that they have to use a combination of tactics. no one thing will do it. they have to virtually to all of them to reduce cost increases and demand for services because

of employees poor health habits are other things they might be able to have some influence over by reducing their risk factors. with that i will end. do you mind saying who you are. thank you. >> bloomberg radio. with regard to controlling costs, do your members have any feeling whether the cost control provisions in affordable care act will be effective, the encouragement of accountable care organizations, a panel of experts to make recommendations? in terms of consumer directed health care, i have been every year for a decade. the only answer i get is that

you can make some choices on your insurance. if i have a sudden pain in lower left appendix area, what choice do i have? the doctor says you do this and you do it. >> let me see if i can remember the second one. i will do the verse. our members are concerned that the affordable care act does not have enough ways to control costs. that cost control methods got dropped even when they were left in. we are very concerned about costs and that they will go up and not down. some of the mandates and some of the related requirements, the benefit mandates all will drive up costs.

there are no countervailing forces. some of the things you'd what to do to manage costs -- we would want to do to manage costs will not be possible. i think limits i would say. the lot does not specifically rule out some things like prior authorization. any time you put in benefits or you require mandates, you have to have something that stops misuse. if you do not have some management tool available then you can not manage them. that is a problem. in terms of consumer directed health plans, if you have a right quadrant pain there is a good chance it is appendicitis.

you are right. you should go to the emergency room. or go to your doctor's office. the vast majority of medical care, probably 80%, is not emergency or something where you do not have some control. if you look at the percentage of people that go to emerging say rims -- emergency rooms are not even huge. they're going to do things they do not really needs. if the have a good primary care -- if you have a good primary care physician so you get the right kind of primary care, that is what consumerism is about. most of them do not do it.

other questions? >> fox business. you mentioned employer companies being a little less uncertain about their health care situation since the supreme court ruling. you said there are still a number of things that are hanging out there that continue to increase uncertainty. uncertainty will reflect directly on job creation. what are your survey respondents telling you about where they think their health care issues will go beyond 2013? >> we did not ask that in a way that i could answer for you. i can tell you what we have and communication with our members on these topics. there are a lot of concerns. some of the biggest are like the essential benefits.

a decision was made to punt that to the state. incident the federal government saying what it would be if it had its own problems. the worst case is having a state-by-state decision making process and having variability by state. because there is plenty of evidence, we believe state legislatures are even more permeable than the federal legislature. it is a lot easier to get things passed in some states than it is that the federal level. if you look at state mandate, there is a long list of mandates. most employers do not like state mandates because they go overboard. they reduce the flexibility the employers have to serve their own work force.

if there are different ones, and they are stuck with that. it is a nightmare. if your company -- if you are a company, you have to have 50 different health plans. everyone could be different. you are talking about increasing by 50 the expense you make in of administering your health plan. it is a worse case scenario. the fear that if it is left in the hands of the state that we would have what we have now, that people in the state have to do what the state requires. multistate employers are protected by the federal law that ensures that if they can have a single health plan around the country. that has been around since the 1970's to protect pension plans originally. it affects health plans.

once it becomes state-by-state, it is a mess. it is very expensive. it is expensive in terms of what can be gotten three and mandated. that is one example. >> how do the correct results compare with projections from the obamacare plans going forward? >> we have not done that. i cannot answer that. the sense of these are rich benefits and most are based on more national numbers, and these would probably be higher. these are richer benefits. all of these have a very comprehensive benefits. the more comprehensive the benefit the faster the rise. i know we have people from kaiser. if you look at the kaiser survey their projections tend to be

lower. those numbers are smaller. they cost less. that is why we use our own figures. we wish we cost as little as that. they are comprehensive benefits. >> your members project the median increase of 7% next year. previously had you looked at how have the projections that members made compare to how much cost actually increased? >> we have not directly, we do it a little bit, we do not do it

systematically. on the projection, this is the number of they give their c f zero. there tends to be a conservative projection. they are not certain about what it is going to be. this is what they estimate. they cannot get in trouble if they come and under7% but a lot if they come in over. employers who are more aggressive for cost control programs will have a lower rate. we have people who are considerably above seven%. yes.

>> managed health-care executive magazine. under the aca the past experience of employers to have common national benefits protected by arissa no longer is the case. will not becally protected national benefits across the country. >> yes and no. it was not removed. not clarity on how that will work. if employers, what they have to do in terms of the changes. lot we do not know about how this is going to work. >> it seems as though they still

have grandfather plans. to employers expect that that a grandfathered plan will disappeared? >> for those of you, i do not know how much you follow. if you had a plan that was grandfathered, you did not have to do certain things until it was longer. i was surprised that they had grandfathered. you lose your flexibility. some employers have multiple plans. they have a single plan. they might have a separate plan for retirees. when i had health benefits at the xerox we had multiple retiree health plans. i might have chosen to keep grant's father the plants because i would not change those anyway. -- grandfathered plans because i

would not change those anyway. what we have seen is that more and more except for those left over, we will not touch them. the employers do not want to give up the flexibility. they will not worry any more about keeping them grandfathered. >> high. i want to follow up about their response on employee groups expected to find help exchanges. illus full-time employees as 16th term. do you have previous year responses to that question? do i understand it correctly that 15 firms are considering putting employees in exchange's das? >> i do not know the answer to the prior year.

this is not them moving their employees to the state exchanges. it is individual seeking exchanges on their own. >> it may be good for these individuals to use the exchange. is active they may not be covered. i am not surprised by the16%. i am sure some employers are thinking that might be good, especially for low-wage employees. when you look at the data on what a low wage employee would get, they do not get this in an employment relationship. that is probably why a lot of them do not get the coverage.

they cannot even afford a good plan because it cost them money. they do not have it. if you look at the numbers on household income and you look at something like an restaurant worker or a housekeeper. that individual makes $25,000, i am guessing, a year. that is before taxes. i do not know the exact number. let us say it is $23,000. then you say family coverage is going to cost may be a bargain at $200 a month. that is $2,400. the chances that the person is going to take family coverage is probably slim to none. they go into the exchange.

they will probably get a substantial subsidy. >> these types of companies, at which they be subjected to the employee penalty -- would they be subjected to the employee penalty? >> yes. >> there have been in number predictions about employers throwing in the towel. do you expect most of your members will do that? >> no. we are headed toward a defined contribution approach already. if you think about it, the ability to provide a health benefits is going to be tightly tied to the revenue.

many of the players are governments. their ability to provide health benefits that are growing at that rate is declining. if you just go back maybe 10 or 15 years, employers gave you a card and may be paid five or $10. the that tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical care for a couple hundreds of dollars. we moved toward more and more out of the paycheck employees are paying and cost sharing at the point of service, increases for emergency rooms. if you go to an emergency room and it is not an emergency, you will pay a lot more.

if you did some kind of a graph, you would see that we are moving more and more employers and not picking up the full additional cost they used to do. employees are spending more and more of their own money for health care and health benefits. it is a modified contribution approach. >> why didn't they not go the next step and actually do the defined contribution and that the certainty? >> in the short term a continues to be true. this was in our survey. the number one benefit/employees today compared to the past is health benefits. if you are in [inaudible] you have to provide really good health benefits. if you are in one of the industries that are booming, you

might even -- there are companies that provide health benefits and no cost to the employee. it sounds unheard of. those are the ones that your doing really well. as long as the matters to families that they have coverage, and the more complicated it becomes and the more messages we had about not having insurance, the more valuable. it did not used to be. it used to be like number 10 on any list of what you value it most in a job. now it is way up there. it is number one. it has changed a lot. i have a question over here. >> international medical news group. i am wondering if you could give some perspective on the split between the kind of pressure the employers are placing on workers and shifting to workers as compared to the providers.

there is some about direct contacting -- contracting. it seems most is focused on what are you doing to get the workers to be more accountable from the cost perspective. >> that is a great question. his starkly h --istorically, most employers that is exactly what they did. they said whatever employees get is right. the entire managed care era was all about exactly that. what came out of that was the consumers we do not what constraints of any kind. we do not what managed care. we do not one pre certification. we do not want to be limited to

which providers we can go to. we went through an era which really started in 1990's and really goes up until three or four years ago in which employers said you want it all. you can have prepared provider organizations. he will pay more if you go out of the network. if you want freedom we will give you freedom. we found that concept costs soared. utilization soared. nothing changed on the provider side. it is really cyclical. we're going back to employers saying we're going to limit what we give you. if you what all this freedom, fine. you are going to pay the full difference. then providers are beginning to

understand both from the government and other sources that they have to change. that is why we're doing the direct contaccontract. the kid that lucy was something costs but your employer health plan says the median price in this community for a particular type of image is 1200. it is everything from 800 to 5000. the employer will stay here are all the prices. we're going to pay up to $1,200. if you want to go to the place you think is not as convenient,

welcome to pay.re there have that in many instances. we have come full circle. as i sometimes say to providers, if what you hear is sounding more and more of like virtual managed care, you are getting it. that is where we are headed. employees will have the opportunity to pay more if they want. we will not get into that you have to choose yes or no. that is where we are headed. i think that is where we are headed with medicare and medicaid. other questions? if not, thank you very much for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coming out in about an hour and 15 minutes, we book alive to california for a nasa briefing. it it's excess lands it last night. its main objective is to determine whether conditions on mars. it is expected to last two years. piquancy that live today at noon eastern. all they live, at the education department is holding a conference on bullying prevention would several panels to coordinate a nationwide anti-polling campaign after a break, they will return with remarks from katie o'malley and then kathleen sebelius. coverage right now on c-span2. all this week, it is on core

programming. how the newspaper business has transformed during his career. he answered questions from university students who recently visited washington. he can see that is 7:00 p.m. eastern. c-span created by america's cable companies not the 1979, brought to you as a public service. >> michelle obama was on the campaign trail. she says this about her husband's accomplishments and why he should be reelected.

♪ [applause] >> thank you all so much. you know, thank you so much. first of all, i am so excited to be here and i wanted thank you all. it is hot in here and you guys are hanging in there. let me just say this, if anybody needs to sit down, sit down. i will not be offended. if you start feeling sick, said down. thank you some much. i am thrilled. i want to start by thanking meredith for that kind introduction. heartfelt, passionate. and for all for work and service to this campaign, to this country. let's give her a round of applause. and i want to thank the state party share for joining us as well as pam brown for her words earlier.

most of all, i want to thank all of you. thank you everything you're doing every single day to make this campaign possible. thank you for knocking on those doors, registering voters, giving people the information they need about the issues they care about. because the grass-roots work that you all are doing, that is at the core of everything we do in this campaign. that is how we did it for years ago. that is how we are going to do it again today. so thank you. [applause] and i know this work that you are doing, it is not easy. being involved in a campaign is not easy. i know you are all busy. everybody is busy. you have liked to live, jobs to do, class is to attend, families to raise.

i also know there is a reason why you are here today. it is not just because we all support a phenomenal president, my husband. [applause] and it is not just because we want to win an election, which we do and we will. [applause] what i remind people everywhere i go is that we are here and we are doing this because of the values we believe in. it is our values. we are doing this because of the vision for this country that we all share. we are doing this because people the that everyone in this country should have a fair shot and that means -- [applause] and that means that every single child in this country should have good schools to go to, right? [applause] all of our kids should be able to attend college without a mountain of debt. [applause] we believe that everyone should

do their fair share which means teachers and firefighters could not pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. [applause] we believe that if you work hard, you should not go bankrupt because somebody gets sick. you should not lose your home because someone loses a job and after a lifetime of hard work, you should be able to retire with dignity and security. [applause] these are basic american values. these are the foundations of this country. the values that the many of us were raised with, including myself. you all know my story by now. my father was a pump operator at the city water plant.

he did that job his entire life. neither of my parents had a chance to get a college degree. but let me tell you what my parents did for me which i know many people share this story -- my parents save for us. they sacrificed everything for us. they poured everything they had into me and my brother. so that we could get the kind of education and have the kind of opportunity could only dream of an education was everything in our family. it was our ticket to the middle- class. our pathway to the american dream. [applause] and when my brother and i finally made it to college, pretty much all of our tuition came from students loans and grants. people can understand that, right?

but my dad still had to pay small portion of that to which in himself. and let me tell you, every semester, he was determined to pay that bill and to pay it on time. my father was so proud to be sending his kids to college. he made sure that we never missed a registration deadline because his check was late. like so many people in this country, my father took great pride in being able to earn a living that allowed him to handle his responsibilities to his family. that is all he wanted. he wanted to be able to pay his bills and pay them on time. my father's life is a testament to the basic american promise that no matter who you are or how you started out in this country, if you work hard, you can build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids. [applause]

and what i want people to understand is my husband understands that promise because that is his story as well. that is why i married him. [applause] he is the son of a single mother who struggle to put yourself through school and pay the bills. he is the grandson of a woman who will up every day before dawn to catch a bus at a job at the bank. even though his grandmother was good at her job and she worked hard to support his family, like so many women, she hit that glass ceiling and watched men no more qualified than she was climb up the ladder ahead of per. but what he also saw was a woman that never complained, never complained. how many people do we know like that in our lives?

she just kept getting up, dusted giving her best every single day. what i want everybody to know is barack knows what it means when a family struggles. it is not a hypothetical. he knows what it means to work hard because you want something better for your kids and grandkids. he knows the american dream. he has lived it. he believes that when you work hard and have done well and you have the chance to watch your that doorway of opportunity you do not slam it shut behind you. you reach back. you give other folks the chance to succeed.

that is what the state in this election, that is why we are here. it is that dream. it is that fundamental american promise. from now until november, all we're going to need all of you to get out there and tell people about the values. tell them about his vision, our vision and about the choice we face in this election. he has cut taxes for working families by $3,600. he has cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. your president knows that we are building our economy and it starts with the restaurants and stores in these start-ups in

this country that three 2/3 of all jobs in america. i want to remind people that when how brock took office, at this economy was losing an average of 750 jobs a month. that is what he inherited. that is what happened after his inauguration. for the past 28 straight months we have actually been gaining private sector jobs, more than 4 million new jobs in of economy. -- in this economy. while we have a long way to go, people have to understand millions of people are collecting a paycheck again. millions of people like my dad are able to pay their bills again. this is a choice of the health

of our family. over the past century 100 years so many presidents have tried and failed to meet the challenge of health care reform. your president was determined. he was determined. barack was driven by the stories of the people he met, at the grandparents to cannot afford their medicine. the families going broke because a child got sick, a woman dying of cancer whose insurance company would not cover her care. that is what kept him going day after day. that is why he fought so hard for reform. because of that reform, our grandparents are paying hundreds less for their prescription drugs. our kids can stay on our insurance until there's 26 years all -- are 26 years old.

our young people do not have to go without health care. insurance companies have to cover basic preventive care. the things like contraception, a cancer screening, prenatal care, at no cost. they can no longer discriminate against you because you have an elements that they call a pre- existing condition. -- an illness that they call a pre-existing condition. if you get a serious illness, something like breast cancer, a and you need really expensive treatment, your insurance company can not tell you that you hate your lifetime limit and we are not paying any more. that is now illegal. no more. make no mistake about it.

this november we get to decide do we want these reforms to be repealed or do what the people we love to have the care that we need. it is our choice. that is the choice you face in this election. it is about whether our kids can attend college without a mountain of debt. when we were first are the out in our lives and we're all in love and buying a house are combined student loan bill each month was higher than our mortgage. how many people can relate to that? when it comes to student debt, my husband and i. we have been there. that is why perhaps a doubled funding.

he want of a gun people to able to get the education they need for the jobs they deserve. he wants all of our kids to fulfil their promise. that is why he has been fighting so hard for the dream act. he is fighting for responsible young people who came to this country as children and were raised as americans. he believes that these young people also deserve a chance to go to college, to contribute to our economy. this election is a choice about keeping our country safe. after 10 long years of war, after so many of our heroic men and women sacrificed, gave their lives, osama bin laden is no longer a threat.

you can remind folks that barack obama kept his promise to bring our troops home from iraq. he is working hard to make sure they get the benefits and support they have earned. this election as a choice of not supporting women and families in this country. -- of supporting women. women should be able to make our own choices about health care. [applause] remind people it's now easier for women to get equal pay for equal work because of the first bill he signed into law, the

lilly ledbetter fair pay act. of course, we have to remind people about those two brilliant supreme court justices he appointed and how he watched three women take their seats on the nation's highest court. [applause] when people ask you what this president has done for our country, here is what you tell them. tell them how many jobs he has created. tell them how much he has put back in the pockets of the american people. he has passed historic health reform and has set up for our most fundamental rights again and again and again.

i want you to remind everyone that so much is at stake this november. it's all on the line. are we going to continue the change we have begun? we cannot turn back now. we need to continue moving forward. this country needs to keep moving forward. for word. for word. -- forward. forward. [applause] more than anything else, that's

what we're working for. that's why we are here, the chance to keep fighting for the values we believe in in the vision that we all share. i don't care who you are. that is what my husband has been doing every single day as president. let me share something with you. as first lady, i have had the privilege for the last 3.5 years of seeing up close and personal one being president looks like. i have seen some things. [laughter] most importantly, i have seen how the issues that come across the president's desk are always the hard ones. the stakes are high.

you're going to get guidance and advice from all kinds of people, but at the end of the day, all i president has to guide them are their life experiences. all you have as president are your values and your vision for this country. in the and, of all boils down to who you are and what you stand for. we all know who my husband is, don't we? we all know what barack obama stands for. we have seen again and again just how hard he is willing to fight for us. [applause] remember when people in washington told him to let the auto industry go under with more

than 1 million jobs on the line? remember that? fortunately, he had the backs of american workers and he put his faith in the american people and as a result, today, the auto industry's back on its feet again and people are back to work earning a paycheck for their families. [applause] remember how people were telling barack not to take on health care? remember that? they said to leave out for another president, another day, just keep kicking that can down the road. fortunately, he had the backs of american families and as a result, today millions of people in this country can finally see a doctor when they are sick. they can get the care that they need to stay well. [applause]

when you need to tell people is that when it comes time to stand up for the middle-class so our kids can go to college and their families can make a decent living and save for retirement, you know what my husband is going to do, don't you? when we need a president to protect our most basic rights, and a matter who we are or where we are from, you will have to remember my husband, barack obama. [applause] this is why i'm fired up. i have said this before. i have done this before and i will keep saying it. he cannot do this alone.

that was never the promise, never the promise. that is the only guarantee. in the end, this could all come down to those last few thousand votes, particularly here in new hampshire. this is spread out across hundreds of cities and thousands of precincts. when you are out there wondering whether what you are doing is a smattering, i want you to think that one of new voter you registered in your precinct, the one neighbor you helped get to the polls, i want you to think that could be the one that makes a difference. that one conversation that you had, that one new volunteer that you recruit. that could be the one to put this over the top. that could be the difference

between us waking up on november the seventh and wondering if we could have done more or feeling the promise of four more years. that's the difference. one person. launching our're new initiative, it takes one. with every action you take to move this campaign for word, we are asking you to inspire one more person one more person. bring them with you, have them step up and do their part. if you are knocking on doors, bring a friend. if you're going to an event, bring in neighbor. when you vote early, or on election day, bring one new voter along with you. everybody knows one person, one brand, one colleague, once somebody standing on the sides who needs you to just shake them up.

barackobama.com/one and help them get involved. it takes one voice to change your room. if one voice can change a room, it can change a city. if it can change this date, it can change the nation. that's the power of one person stepping up and moving this country forward. we want you all to multiplier cells. -- multiply yourselves. this journey is mine to be long and hard. there will be plenty of twists and turns along the way. i want you to remember that is how change always happens in this country. real changes slow. if we keep showing up, if we keep fighting the good fight, eventually we get there. maybe not in our lifetime, but

may be in our children's lifetime, maybe in our grandchildren's lifetime. in the end, that is what this is about. this is what elections are always about. do not let anyone tell you differently. elections are always about hope. they are about the hopes for our children. it's not about us. that's what i think about every night how i want to do for them what my dad did for me. what rocks grandmother and mother did for him. -- what barack's grandmother did for them.

want to give them a foundation for their dream, opportunities worthy of their promise. i want to give our kids that sense of limitless possibility. there's always something out there and you're willing to work for it. when i get tired, i say to myself, we cannot turn back now. not now. we have come so far. i have one last question for you -- are you in? are you way in? are you ready to roll up your sleeves, fire it up, ready to go every step of the way? multiplied yourselves.

bring one person into the fold. we will need you every step of the way. thank you all. god bless. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the political parties will be holding platform hearings in advance of the summer conventions. democrats vote this week and on final platform process. later this week, the republicans will start there is. coverage begins august 10th with the reform party in philadelphia with live gavel to gavel the republican convention live from tampa and the democratic convention live from charlotte, n.c., starting september 3rd. in 45 minutes, live in pasadena, calif., for the mars briefing on the curiosity rover landing last night.

the reagan starts at noon eastern and we will have a live up for you here on the c-span. -- briefing starts at noon. now here's news on the rover successful landing. [cheers] >> it's time to see where curiosity will take us. [cheers]

>> we are receiving telemetry from curiosity. >> camera sequence is kicked off and waiting for images. >> heads up, folks. >> the signal to odyssey remains strong. >> images are starting to come down. >> standby for images. coming down. >> nasa engineers reacting to the curiosity landing late last

night. live coverage of the nasa briefing coming up at noon eastern on c-span. a discussion on the u.s. credit downgrade one year ago and its impact from today's "washington journal." host: take us back to one year ago yesterday when the u.s. credit rating was dropped down a notch. take us back to that time and the drama that led up to it. guest: not exactly a surprise when it came out on august 5th, but we had a prolonged debt ceiling debate. both of us remember that not very fondly. the s&p came out just after

president obama and congress had agreed to raise the debt limit and then the s&p down the agreement was not sufficient to put this country on a strong fiscal footing. it was as much a verdict of the condemnation of the nation's politics, the ugly debt ceiling fight we had had and the ineffectiveness of our leaders in washington. relative to other countries, they felt that the u.s. could not solve its fiscal problems. there was a lot of debate and mayhem in the days and months after the downgrade. in terms of the market impact, it has essentially been a non- events. host: was that the footage from one year ago of president obama addressing the nation about the

economy and afghanistan. here's what he had to say one year ago about the downgrade. [video clip] >> it is not because they doubt our ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions but because after witnessing one month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they doubted our political system's ability to act. the markets, on the other hand, believe our credit status is a.a.a.. warren buffett, who knows a thing or two about good investments, said there was a a.a.a.a reading that he would give us that. most investors would agree. that does not mean we do not have a problem. we did not need a rating agency to tell us that we need a balanced long-term approach to deficit reduction. it was true last week.

it was true last year. it was through the day i took office. -- it was true the day i took office. a creditt neede downgrade to save that. the debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip and it could do enormous damage to our economy and the world. that threat coming from europe, japan, and the middle east has not dampened consumer confidence and slowed the pace of recovery. host: president obama speaking one year ago about the downgrade. the president is blaming the bickering in congress or instability. what is your take away one year later? guest: one year later, i think

unfortunately not that much has changed. we see a lot of the same issues. i was amazed going back to look at what had happened just before the downgrade. we have rising concerns about europe. the european bank said it would be stepping in to buy bond than the market was unsure about whether they were acting forcefully enough. domestically, they were able to agree on raising the debt ceiling, but it pushed off a lot of these big issues that we were facing has become toward the end of the year with the fiscal cliff. these are spending cuts that really could affect the economy next year. i think president obama was right in terms of the market reaction. we are still being treated as a a.a.a. country. there is more interest in buying u.s. treasury bonds, but in terms of congressional action, we have not seen a lot of

progress were reasons -- or reasons to be more optimistic about our policies being able to get things done. host: is this affecting the economy at all? has this affected the economy in a big picture? guest: it has affected in the short term. the downgrade came out on a friday and the following monday the markets tumbled. one year later though, we see that treasuries have rallied and we have interest rates on the 10-year treasury, the benchmark, below 1.4% and down from where they were one year ago. the appetite for the u.s. safe- haven products have grown.

the s&p 500 is up over the last year. there has not been a substantial market reaction and they're saying it is an unprecedented move. it has really been a non- event. host: talky met the s&p downgrade one year later. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. let's get to the phones. a democrat in newark, new jersey. caller: i called weeks ago about

andnk i'm involved with, the same time, i have learned is thatt is happening the farmers, the cow people, pigs, they want to get paid 14 cents per pound for what they produce. 14 cents.a all this money is going into the business that handles everything produced in america, wheat, corn, beef, pork. 14 cents per pound is given to the farmers. host: what is your concern?

caller: i emphasize the banks, but we should try to rearrange our focus and helping the people more, maybe giving the farmers 20 cents per pound on what they produce. host: james's bringing up the economics of farming and agriculture. we saw it stall before they left town. saying congress needed to work better together with the white house. where do we go from there? guest: they left town for five weeks. the truth is that this is not actually a bad example of where things stand in terms of congress.

we could use a farm bill and we were not able to get that done before leaving to go home for their districts. this is just another example of why people do not have much more faith than they did one year ago when they downgraded the country and their political ability to get things done. host: but go to michael, phoenix, ariz. caller: we're going down another downgrade because of the lack of cooperation, no kind of really negotiation between the parties. we have both of the wars and now they're looking at another war, possibly. they're worried about syria. we have to worry about the people in the united states

first. guest: i'm not sure where going to end up in a war with syria, but there are a lot of policy issues that need to be decided in there are questions about foreign policy also and how well congress and the president can work together and agree on a policy direction. i think the other issue i should raise about this is there is some talk that the november election could result in -- and there are still questions that the s&p and still has questions about whether an election could really resolve this. even if we had mitt romney, a republican in the white house and republican-led congress, there are still questions about just how much we can get done. if we have a divided washington, but there are still lots of issues domestically and

for and about how much can be accomplished even after the election. host: tony asks -- one has been the blowback? guest: the ratings agencies, including the s&p and moody's and fitch ratings, there was a lot of talk a year ago that the downgrade would not necessarily mean anything because they have lost all credibility during the financial crisis a few years back and their performance leading up to that financial crisis in terms of how bay rated bonds that ended up becoming junk. so the market impact has been

negligible. i don't know how much of that has to do with people not putting a lot of credibility in the s&p. there are other factors behind it, too. the ratings agencies have a lot of room to go in regaining any reputation that they had. the other think it's the downgrade, the s&p, you could look at it as them trying to come out and be ahead of what was going on, send a message and say there are warning signs here. that morning has not been heeded. host: lexington, kentucky, william, a republican caller, good morning. caller: good morning. when interest rates start getting back to more normal rates like 5% or 5.5% and we are rapidly going towards a $20

trillion debt, which implies the interest rate will be $1 trillion plus, and if we ever hit a quarter interest rate, interest rates would go up to about 2.5 trillion dollars per year, how can the u.s. ever start paying continually year after year a $1 trillion plus and growing interest bill? guest: first, we are probably quite a ways away from a 5% interest rates, given where the economy is, given where the federal reserve wants to keep their rates to try to stimulate economic growth. it's true that we need to deal with some of these fiscal issues and at least demonstrate that if we are not calling to make drastic moves now, that we have a long-term plant. that is what the ratings agencies want to see.

that is what investors want to see, i think. it is something we will need to deal with. we have not dealt with it over the past year really in a definitive way. it is something that we are going to need to deal with for the country to potentially regain its triple-a credit rating and also to show that it has the political and fiscal leadership that will put us on a solid path long-term. host: yuval rosenberg, in your piece you quoted the founder of a securities company -- guest: yes, ted has been in the markets a long time. he is 72. when i talked to him he gave me a market perspective on this downgrade that happened a year ago, which essentially was that nothing much has happened. like i said before, some people

i spoke to a market feel they have no reason to be any more confident in our political leadership a year later. the problem, as he said, the stock market hates uncertainty in general. but with uncertainty regarding the fiscal cliff coming up at the end of the year, that is another overhang that has to be added on top of everything going on in europe and the economic growth concerns that exist in this country now. host: one of your colleagues recently wrote a story about the 10 kicked cans that can send the u.s. over the fiscal cliff. what are couple things washington can do to give the market is positive sign? some things that the broker deals on that would send the

right signals? guest: the fiscal cliff issue will get even bigger over the coming months as we get towards the end of the year. we have seen very little sign of movement on that. in terms of this is something that was set in place with the debt ceiling deal a year ago, we have automatic spending cuts and tax increases that were set to take place. this was supposed to be hanging over politicians heads to make sure they could get a long-term budget in place. they have not made much progress. if they were able to actually resolve some of those tax cut issues, whether the bush tax cuts would be extended, how the spending cuts are going to be dealt with over the near term and long term, whether there would be defense spending cuts or not, those are some of the issues they are still grappling with. we actually have another piece on our website this morning

that looks at congress has left town for five weeks and really have put off dealing with a lot of these issues until after the election. nothing so far has -- nothing concrete or substantial has taken place. one or two signs of optimism. they have been able to work in a bipartisan fashion on some tax expenditures in the last week -- tax extenders. but some of the big issues still need to be addressed. host: yuval rosenberg, let's now go to miami to hear from eric, a democrat. caller: we all know that the debt ceiling debacle was caused by the republicans trying to use it as black male in order to get president obama to pass the high end tax cuts -- as blackmail. it is hostage-taking by the republicans. the debt ceiling has never been

raised. it has been raised ofttimes under ronald reagan. -- 12 times. it will be raised under mitt romney if he becomes president. this is routine. the only difference this year is under the last of all your years is we have a black president. -- the last four years. mitch mcconnell made a statement and it was outlined in a book by robert draper, how they get together on inauguration night when president obama was having his ball, angry and talk about what they could do under the grover norquist plan, no taxes and death by a thousand cuts. ont: let's get a response his notion that the republicans are to blame and also talk about raising the debt limit and the

history of that. guest: i will take the second part first. the truth is raising the debt limit, like robert said, was pretty standard. it has only devolve into what we saw a year ago because it was made into a political issue. otherere's tea party and groups, republicans, and democrats who want the country to deal with the national debt. but the issue is it was used as a political football, used for political purposes. that caused a lot of the acrimony and contentious debate we saw last year. at the same time, lots of people on the other side will say that president obama had potentially a grand bargain on the table with john boehner and if he had stuck to the

parameters they have laid out originally, maybe he could have had a deal. there are arguments on both sides. i do think that what the caller is pointing to is the increasing polarization of the parties and political system in washington and that affected the credibility of our political leadership. it has not damaged it in terms of the market, in terms of the effect we have seen since the downgrade, but there are lingering questions about when our leadership can actually get some of these issues addressed. guest: i am not a budget expert, but raising the debt ceiling allows for the that the u.s. is

on path to create to be added to the books, allows the government to keep running, allows a lot of the services that people expect to keep being provided, checks to be paid out and things like that. i would question whether we need to walk down the debt ceiling. i think there might be better ways for our leaders to come together and work on long-term budget plan that is responsible. that, of course, i will leave the politics to the politicians. so far, at least over the last couple of years, we have not had that much get done. host: independent color, ohio. caller: ok, you know, we are worried about this debt. we should be. but as a country, we are relying on our congress and

senate to solve the problems when they are the exact people that got us into this. i think c-span should start bringing up the records of every senator and congressman, and give out their fiscal amounts of money they have gained since going into office, and find out this is not a way to solve the problem by reelecting people that got us into this mess. guest: joe, don't you think the election committee turn some of that or change some of that? host: he is not with us anymore rid of but what are the market's saying about how the elections will shake out -- the markets or the economist, are

they looking at how it was way one way or the other are just looking for some unity? guest: like ted said in that quote, first, they just want to have some certainty. in some ways it does not matter whether we go one way or another, they just want to have some certainty. and that holds true in terms of what s&p said a year ago when they downgraded. they did not take a good dog that position -- take a dogmatic position of not raising taxes, how much we should do by cutting government spending, they just wanted a plan. i think wall street in some cases has similar feelings.

they want a plan. at the same time, it is hard to argue they have not supported mitt romney so far. they have done it through campaign contributions and there has been some talk, it was mentioned to me that he thought the market would were ahead if mitt romney was elected. as we have seen over the past year, even with the downgrade in these political issues we're discussing, the market is up 16% under president obama. the market really does want just some certainty so it knows what tax policies are going to be, what other fiscal spending example, defense spending, will be. that will help set the stage for further action. host: saying -- congress and the senate are the problem. yuval rosenberg here is a headline in "the washington times."

yuval rosenberg, is this a case of the boy who cried wolf? does this create less fear for another downgrade? guest: i think another downgrade, now that we have been through one, i think they're ready less fear and uncertainty around it. the good news is, we made it through without substantial market impact, without our treasuries -- the interest rate on our treasures shooting higher. the u.s. is still considered a safe haven country for investors looking for safety.

even if the u.s. being downgraded, they will flock to u.s. treasurys in response. we have made it through -- some would say it is a knock on s&p, that means there downgrade really did not mean anything. in most cases, in many cases, in practical terms, that is true. but like i said, is still is a missed opportunity and other ways because it was a message the country leadership could have received. we had a year of continued limbo, essentially. host: ohio, republican caller. caller: i host a radio show in cincinnati. i want as a couple of questions. do you think the uncertainty is with harry reid refusing to put forth a budget to the senate? t think part of the uncertainty -- do you think part of the uncertainty is we need to maintain the current tax rates, even if we raise taxes on the

upper 1 percent honor to% which would generate just 10% of what they are spending right now. we have a deficit of $1 trillion per year. this would raise $1 billion per year. it would not have full effect as far as bringing about financial stability. guest: like i said, i think the market is not necessarily going to be dogmatic about which we wish to go in terms of taxes or spending. there is a lot of policy options that we have. it is just a matter of being able to come to gather. we had the simpson-bowles commission that was seen by s&p and a lot of market observers as a plan that could get us to long-term fiscal stability. that plan is still being kicked around. we a people in congress reportedly trying to resurrect a elements of it. there are ways we can move ahead, i just do not think we

will see much action before the november election. host: yuval rosenberg, formerly worked as an editor at wnyc.com and fortune.com. thee's a story today, fiscal cliff looms large. s&p downgrade, one year later, a message and he did. democratic caller, a kansas city, kansas, joining us to talk about one year after the credit downgrade. caller: i would first -- i think a lot of the problems we're having right now is because of the fact the republicans don't want to work with the democrats in the manner in which they should. it seems like as soon as president obama stepped into office, i have been watching

and listening to the news and what has been going on in the country, it seems like whenever the president tries to work to do something positive for the country, it was not happening because it seems there was a joint decision to knock down everything he is trying to do. he was a man who came and with hope for our country. i think the republicans would do well to heed the scripture that says "house divided itself will not stand." want to talk about the economy -- destroyed the economy of the country, you destroy the country. that is what is happening to a lot of countries.

throughout history, it is known that once you destroy the economy, you destroy the people. if they would come to gather published together and be not concerned about who he is that what he is about, then he would be in a better position. guest: president obama will be making that case to the american public over the next few months that he tried to get things done, and republicans in congress would not go along and just kept saying no. he had to deal with the obstructionist congress, essentially. that is something the american people will be voting about in november. host: tweet says, it only goes to show it is all relative. she says about the credit downgrade. even a lower rated u.s. may be seen as a better bet than other nations. put this in perspective for us, yuval rosenberg. where do we stand with other nations? guest: she is right, it is all relative. the u.s. lost its aaa rating

from s&p. it still has the aaa rating from the other to the major rating agencies, moody's and fitch, but over the past year, we have seen the market is essential be more concerned about the situation in europe. that turns out to be good for the u.s., for u.s. treasurys and investors and for the dollar, in a lot of cases. we have only 11 s&p rated aaa countries left in the world- germany, australia, some other places. but in terms of the market, the u.s. essentially triple-a- rated, quadruple a raided, even, places that still trust and the u.s. is one of them. in terms of investing in u.s. bonds, buying dollars, the market is still far has shown of the last year is still has a lot of faith in the u.s. as a

world leader and even though we lost the aaa rating a year ago, it does not really matter because investors look at everything on a relative basis. we have a better situation than many other places in the world. host: yuval rosenberg writes -- any speculation about what could happen in germany and with the impact could be? guest: in terms of a ratings downgrade, there's a lot of question about whether it would have any impact. i think people might still get nervous about the implications of that, especially germany been the anchor of the european

economy. what we have seen in the u.s. and other cases that past, the ratings downgrade by themselves do not necessarily matter. investors tend to make up their own minds about what the financial strength of a country is and how much credit they should put in those regions that come out. like i said before, we had the european situation which has gotten worse. we had, same as last year, concerns about spain and italy that are out there mounting a year ago are still out there today. people are worried about where interest rates are from spanish and italian bonds and whether this nation's debt will be sustainable, if they can continue without default. essentially, like i said, that means the u.s. has remained a powerhouse and investors are still willing to buy u.s. bonds

or buy u.s. dollars, but the european situation, as shaky as it is, i think if we go back to the question, germany, a downgrade by itself, would not necessarily mean all that much. it would probably rattle some people. based on past experience, it would not necessarily mean a disaster for germany or the eurozone. host: arnold, independent caller, tennessee. caller: what i find most distressing and maybe pessimistic about where things are headed with our country is it seems like the journalistic media apparatus of the country has ceded its responsibility in informing the citizenry into been something more as impartial. what i mean by that? when the s&p report came out a year ago, i downloaded and read it. it was available for anyone to do so. essentially, reporters said republicans say this is a lack of leadership by president obama and democrats say it is the tea party. wherever you turn on the tv, that is what you thought. the downgrade report actually

specifically says, and i will qutoe, if they had changed their baseline assumption on the future of u.s. debt because the majority of republicans in congress continue to resist any measure to raise revenues, a position we believe, is reinforced by passing the budget control. they say a black and white that republicans in congress refusal to raise any revenues was a big part of their decision, but all of the reporting -- republicans say this and democrats say that -- and it is like the media has been touted to position of not ever wanting to offend anyone and not calling republicans out on their extremism. i think this bodes poorly for our future. i did not see any report that actually stated it was all he said/she said. what you say about that? guest: first, i urge you to

take a look at the "fiscal times." you should check that out. second, i do think there's some truth to what you're seeing in terms of the media in general trying to provide a balanced view of things. that does not necessarily get at what is happening in terms of the s&p downgrade. maybe it did not play out some of the specific language as you may have wanted, but i do think in general the media has done a pretty good job of trying to explain some of these issues. and trying to put some perspective on what the s&p move meant. i went back and was looking at a whole bunch of articles that came out on the day of the downgrade and just after. there were questions about what it meant for consumers, the political process, and i think a lot of people pointed out at that time the s&p did specifically mention some of the republican approach while the same time, like i said before, not taking it out and out position on whether the long-term budget plan should involve specific amount of tax cuts or spending cuts or i mean

tax increases or spending cuts. host: give us more of an insight into what s&p itself said when it made the downgrade, what justification is a plant. -- it leant. guest: there was an interesting back and forth on the day the downgrade came out. it is a peak of the treasury department and had that notice the downgrade was about to come down. treasury look at the s&p's map and pointed out and said, we have a $2 trillion problem here print your mouth is wrong. -- here and your math is wrong. s&p tried to go back and forth and convince s&p to reexamine its analysis and real look at its conclusion. s&p went ahead and put forth the downgrade in any way.

in part, the government would argue the treasure to permit people argue that the time, what they did essentially was shifted it from being an argument based on the fiscal policy and the math and the numbers to an argument based on the politics, much more based on politics than originally had been. in the end, what they came out with was a statement that, as the last caller mentioned, looked at both issues. they really ran through some of the debt ceiling agreement and what the numbers they're meant for it and also looked at the politics and the with the debt ceiling debate had taken place, and put a lot of blame, a lot of emphasis on the major of our political discourse and the fact it was so divided and that they were not able to come to an agreement until the 11th hour. that is what was going on a year ago. i think in a lot of ways, we of seen a lot of the same issues continue. host: texas, democratic caller. caller: it is good to hear you all this morning. i appreciate your comments.

the republican view of people being manipulated and so forth, when nancy pelosi and harry reid went into office, that is when our fiscal problems began. they spent $1 billion like you and i would spend 50 cents. the sex trade in the drug culture, if you'd get somebody off of drugs, like being paid $700 an hour to make some look like an idiot, these are the things and the tricks and the things they tried to do using the republican line or whatever in order to make republicans deem evil, when in fact they do

not see the evil in their own backyard. guest: some of those comments and some comments like that are one of the reasons we have this sort of deep divide between republicans and democrats. i think the level of discourse in the country has shifted over the last couple of years. actually, probably even before that. but the truth is, there are spending issues and tax issues and other fiscal issues in general that will need to be addressed. nasa company rover on mars, but we cannot come together on a budget plan for the long term. that is something that is going to need to change before things deteriorated. host: yuval rosenberg, let's hear from one more caller, independent line, indiana. are you with us? caller: yes. i just want to remind people watching this program right now, you do realize president

obama had a majority in congress, a super majority for the first two years and got everything through he wanted to get through. let's please not forget about that while we are blaming republicans stalemate for s&p downgrading our credit. the midterm elections pretty much showed the president's policies were not very popular when the democrats lost historic amounts of seats in the congress and senate. i am an independent, not a republican or democrat, and understand what is going on. if the failed policies and leadership from this president that has left us with a

stalemate in both houses. this put the blame exactly where it goes a bit like a said, let's not forget he had a majority and supermajority in the senate his first two years. if the democrats were not -- the democrats were not worried about working with republicans then. host: we have heard from our guests and colors, this gridlock, this argument between two sides have caused some of the problems and cantor did to s&p making his choice to -- and contributed to the downgrade u.s. credit rating. does the partisanship worry you? does that concern you? caller: it concerns me, but it is our government at work, i guess. the people spoke when they threw democrats out of office midterm. host: let's get a final response from mr. rosenberg. guest: the caller is getting to the ultimate take away. we have congressional elections of presidential elections in november. the hope is once we are past