[video clip] live at 7:00 a.m.. >> watch coverage of the republican and democratic conventions on c-span. you're from for a seat to the 2012 conventions. next, new york city mayor michael bloomberg and news corp.'s rupert murdoch give their opinions on immigration policy. >> i started as a copy boy at the "new york times." " this sunday on c-span's q&a," robert pincus talks about his various jobs in journalism,

and his criticism of the defense department as a budget priorities. >> they built a formula in the on facility for the band, which was about 40 people. they got a separate rooms for everybody. if you spend $4 million on an elementary school, i bet it would raise questions. >> more with columnist walter pincus sunday at 8:00. >> new york city mayor michael bloomberg and news corp. chairman rupert murdoch gave advice to the obama and ronnie campaigns on immigration policy. "wall street journal"'s gerald seib moderates the discussion. this is about an hour. [applause] >> the council is having a discussion on one of the most vexing issues of public policy

facing our nation -- how to develop and implement fair, sensible, enforceable immigration policy. it is a topic that often is addressed with more heat than light. a partnership for a new american economy is working to change that tendency and to promote serious, intelligent, rational, and respectful engagement on that complex issue. we are especially honored to have with us two prominent leaders of the partnership for the new american economy. mayor michael bloomberg and news corp. chairman michael -- rupert murdoch. they are joining us tonight as the partnership releases a new report on the increasingly important role of immigrants in starting new businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, the

copies of which will be made available hopefully as you leave here this evening. mayor bloomberg, after an enormously successful business career, has gone on to an enormously successful career in public service. we new englanders claim him as one of our own. the gift to the big apple. and as one of mr. murdoch's headline writers might say, "local boy makes good." mr. murdoch, as you all know, took the newspaper business from down under and over the competition -- up and over the competition to make news corp. a truly global business. for him, the headline might be, "media mogul routes rivals."

his international perspective on the intersection of business and immigration will be fascinating to hear. to moderate the discussion, we are pleased to welcome jerry seib, the assistant manager and editor and executive washington editor of the "wall street journal," also writes a column a couple of times a week. terrific, terrific, terrific read. people often say to me, "how do you know what you know? " i say that i read gerry. that is the reason. i am pleased to introduce another talented and accomplished chief executive, who is also a partnership for the new american economy. our good friend, well known to all, the mayor of this great .ity

[applause] >> this is the major city. he is asking to sit. -- this is the mayor's city. >> thank you. quotes about having this forum in the middle of summer. we in the public sector work by things -- five days a week. you guys in the private sector can do whatever you want to do and nobody ever watches you. someday when i get in the private sector, i will not have

to worry about all that nonsense. it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. thanks to the new england council for hosting this evening's conversation. i am really proud to be a member of partnership for a new american economy. i want to thank my friend, mayor bloomberg, for keeping the immigration issue at the forefront. and really leading the way so our country can have an important discussion on the issue. i know tonights conversation is about immigration. but i also want to recognize mayor bloomberg for his leadership. together, we started mare's against illegal guns 26 years ago. now we have this as part of the coalition.

we started a plan to reduce the toll of gun violence across the country. i am proud to stand with him on this fight. i thank him for his leadership almost on a daily basis. [applause] i also want to thank rupert murdoch for being here and sharing his views. thank you for being with us. it just gives us diversity of opinion. tonight, i am pleased to offer some brief remarks about a vitally important topic to our nation's future. boston has a proud history of

immigration. our city has been a gateway for immigrants since just about the start of our country. tens of thousands of immigrants came to these parts in the early 1900's, and today, boston welcomes people from many different cultures and countries. immigration has made boston a better city. generations after generations, the irish, italians, the greeks, to today's immigrants from africa, asia, and latin america. immigrants have helped to reinvent boston. they make this old city new again and again. how are immigrants making boston better? let me tell you about three ways they are. number 1, immigrants are

strengthening our economy. all you have to do is shop at one of our neighborhood businesses. visit our hospitals. attend one of our colleges. eat at one of our restaurants. see how immigrants contribute to this economy. the drive to succeed knows no one race, color, or creed. let me give you some numbers to back up those statements. 8800 immigrants owned small businesses in boston, generate almost $3.7 billion in annual sales and employ over 18,000 people. newcomers in boston also spend just over $4 billion annually. this spending generates $1.3 billion in state, federal taxes

and helps support over -- 2500 jobs in our local economy. number two, immigrants are growing our cities. for the first time since 1970, boston's population stands at over 600,000 people. for us, more people means more challenges, more ideas, and more innovation. a lot of that population growth has come from immigrants. you know what we call immigrants here? mom and dad. you know what we call people from another country looking to fulfill their dreams in our city? brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles. we welcome them always open arms. we are here to help them along

the way. number 3, immigrants are making boston and more diverse and international city. you can walk through boston's neighborhoods and your 140 different languages, celebrate countless cultures, and sample food from around the world. listen to the fact -- in 1980, close to 70% of boston was a white -- was white. today, less than half the city is white. that diversity is one of boston's great strengths, a real competitive advantage in today's global world. immigrantsston's continue a strong tradition that dates to the start of our

century, they are a positive force for our city. they strengthen our economy, growing our population, and making our city more diverse. it is no wonder that some of our east coast, bonds have looked at boston to see what they can do to attract newcomers for the same positive results we have seen in the city of boston over the last several years. immigrants are making huge contributions in boston. this is what immigrants can do even more across our country. come together, get the job done at the national level. this is not a democratic issue or a republican issue. it is an american issue. we want our country to be open and forward-looking. as this debate moves forward, let's not forget our past, the

factors -- the fact is that we all are immigrants. almost all of us come from someplace else. that shared experience should guide our national conversation and its tone. we should be less concerned about where people come from and more concerned about where they can go. we as a city and a country can go together. i once again want to thank the council for giving -- the new england council for giving me this opportunity. this is one of those issues that we debate nationally, and locally, we are acting. we welcome those immigrants to our city. part of the economy, part of the growth, part of the diversity of washington. we have to respect that. i think that discussion that happens this evening will show that respect and how important

immigrants are. i just want to start the conversation. another one of those phony issues we discussed nationally. let's get down to those real issues that affect america. thanks a lot. [applause] >> i want to thank mayor menino for his kind remarks, but also, you all know he has been a great supporter of the business community here in boston. in particular, under his leadership, we have seen this innovation district that we sit in the middle of right now really come to life. we are thrilled that you are here tonight, and we are also honored by your leadership and your presence here, tom menino. [applause] notice there are index cards on your table. if you have questions for our speakers, please write them on

the card, and staff will come around to select them and give them to our moderator. with that, again, thank you for joining us here tonight. i turn the program over to joe. >> i am in great peril here tonight, and i need your help. i have agreed to moderate the discussion involving the man who signs my paycheck and the guy who started one of our principal competitors in the news business. so i have to be careful. i am counting on you to ask the hardball questions. please help me. but the money cards. do not hold anything back because i may have to. let's talk for a while, and then we will get to your questions. mayor, let me start with you. you wrote a piece in which you said there is nearly a consensus on this subject we are talking about tonight on immigration reform that something ought to be done. if there is consensus, why does nothing ever happened?

>> let me start by saying that tom menino understated his contribution to mayors against illegal guns. i helped, but he did a lot of the work. having said that, i am better looking. [laughter] integration means two different things. there is consensus on one of those things. immigration, and that is what rupert and i talked about, is the need to have people help our economy grow, put americans back to work, make sure the industries of the future are created here. to a group of people, immigration means what i call family reunification, and that is bringing over their relatives here, and they may or may not have the skills that we need for their economy, but the family reunification people would argue that that is as important or more important. i think it is true that both sides have tried to hold the

other side hostaged, but there is consensus, certainly on the economic side. there is enough pressure on both republicans and democrats in congress from the home town farmer who cannot pick his crops any more because he cannot get seasonal workers or the businesses that cannot get the engineers and doctors, lawyers that they need. the problem is that our country in congress and in washington has become so polarized, they cannot be seen working together. they may agree on something, but certainly, before the election, -- they learn what i call the dick lugar lesson. if you go to the middle and look rational, the orthodoxy of your party will throw you out, whether it is from the right or left. i think there is a consensus, but i do not see how they come to the other, unless the next chief executive, whether it is obama in a second term or mitt

romney, can pull them together, and that really is the chief executive's job. >> the report that is out today talks about the connection between immigration and economic vitality. in your mind, what is that connection? what is america missing in making that connection between immigration and economic vitality? >> maybe it is just ignorance. i have seen that paper, and one can argue very, very strongly that most immigrants add tremendously to the economy, but it is also argued about special immigrants. i think we are in a crisis in this country. for instance, of all of our graduate students, there are only 4% within science, technology, engineering, or math in a graduate.

in china, it is 31%. we have a demand just with our present economy crippling along in the next five years for 800,000 graduates. there will only be 500,000. there is a desperate need for 300,000. i think that is probably a great understatement. if we get right now qualified people, get them in, there should not be any nonsense about it. the mayor said it first. this is boring. we agree to much with each other. [laughter] but the h1b visa, they should not have them. when they get a graduate degree

in a certain subject, they should have a green card. and the argument. -- end of argument. there is a huge economic argument. we could take it step after step. for instance, an immigrant is more likely to start a small business than a non-immigrant. why is that? well, they are more ambitious. they have come here. they have left behind the place they come from, may be desperate circumstances. they want to dream the american dream. i think there is a lot more to this than economics. i think it is the nature of the country, the culture, the history, which will always be an open country, to welcome the oppressed, to meld them in, and they have formed the character of this country, which we must not let go. we all talk about the parties.

it is true there has been a flood of illegal immigrants in southern california or some of the southern states. there is sort of a nativist groups who do not want any more or want to send them all back, but it would not take much courage for the republican candidate or his deputy to ignore them and run right over them. they are not going to vote for obama, so what the hell? do it. it is just an overwhelming case. as i say, i think economically, which is an urgent case, and on a broader sense, i think ideologically, there is a great case for it as well. >> to add to the point, education is the key. america is falling further and further behind the world. in new york city, we have made enormous progress in the school

system. 65% of our minority kids graduate high school. i was in chicago this morning. 30% due in chicago. 65% in new york. yet, in new york, we are still falling behind what is needed in industry and falling behind what the rest of the world is doing. the one part of education that we own is higher education, except we are deliberately trying to kill it. we are taking the best and brightest -- they get their ph.d. or their masters, and then we send them overseas. they cannot teach here. they cannot do their research here. what do they do? they built the industry's overseas and start making the overseas universities better than us. you will not reverse that easily. there is something like 3 million unfilled jobs in this country. businesses just cannot find qualified people to work. it is not incident just education. in alabama and places like that, a lot of the crops this year just brought it in the fields.

they could not get people to pick the crops. -- a lot of the crops this year just rotted in the fields. >> if this were easy, we would not be having this conversation. you have to deal with the politics. you have to make people feel better. make my family feel better. my son is a physics student. you let in a lot of foreign physics students, are you diluting his job market? my sister lives in amarillo, texas. they are very worried about waves coming across the border. >> one, nobody has come across the border in a long time. we spend a fortune on technology. if you want to come to america illegally, do not waste your time going across the border and through the desert. it is dangerous. just lie here and overstay your visa. we have absolutely no ability to check who you are and get you back. -- just fly here and overstay your visa.

we solve our problem by having an economy crater. people do not come here to put their feet up and collect welfare. if there are no jobs, they did not come here. if they cannot find a job, they go back home because america is not a very good place to sit around and think the state will support appeared in the case of your son, somebody has got to create the business that he is going to go to work for. all of the numbers show -- and rupert pointed out -- immigrants, and i think it is because it is a self-selecting thing -- rupert is an immigrant. it cannot be easy to leave australia, come to the other side of the world literally, give up all your friends and family, everything you know, and start out from scratch. that is what people are willing to do. of course immigrants are going to be more aggressive. of course they will be more risk takers. that is why they have come here. your son will want to go to work in a place where there are other engineering companies. that is the duty of the boston area, which has the big high-

tech industries. york, where we are creating one. austin, texas, silicon valley. -- new york, where we are creating one. they want to be where there are other people doing the same thing, other companies. the way business works is you split off. people go back and forth. you copy each other. you work to -- you work together. you buy from, you sell to. unless someone starts the process, your son will not have a job. >> in silicon valley, you suddenly realize it is misnamed. it is not the silicon. it is the evidence. immigrant valley. go there for a couple of days. you'll be overwhelmed with young people with great ideas of trying to set up. some have been successful. you can name company after company -- big companies and hundreds of little companies, of course. they all took big risks.

>> i spoke to a united states senator i will let them couple weeks ago, and he was at silicon valley, and i asked what they want to talk about, and he said immigration. you are right. the question i have for you is -- i of the feeling is that strong in the business community, why are more people not marching down to washington where i live and making something happen -- if the feeling is that strong? >> that is why we have got to organize this, try to get a movement going. to make ourselves stock. we are the politicians. >> i would argue that the one thing that seems to drive most elected officials -- not all -- tom is not one of them. i am not one of them, i hope. but most elected officials, their business is a job. they might also want to make a difference in the world, but it is a job. it is the way they feed their families. the thing that drives them the most is a way to keep their jobs, which means getting reelected or elected in the

first place and keeping the party in power because that makes it easier to continue to get reelected. if you want them to do something, you have to convince them that voting with you for your interest will enhance their ability to stay in office. and i of the other side has a bigger threat to them -- and if the other side has a bigger threat to them, they will go in the other direction. the perfect example is the nra. it is a textbook case of how you go and influence congress. you either vote with the nra or you do not. they never take any prisoners. they are explicit, and they do not consider any of your other views. our problem is as rational people we will allow an elected official -- we might not like this one thing, but they are ok on the other things. the gamble is they will vote with the nra and hope we still like their positions on lots of other stuff. whereas if they do not vote with the nra, there is no question the nra will go after them. you have to make the immigration

lobby, if you will, say to the officials, "you either do something to help this country and get the people in your we need, or we will vote for your opponent and raise money for your opponent." unless you are willing to do that, you are just sitting in the wind. >> i want to spend the next few minutes just beating up on the teachers' union. [laughter] the mayor has had a tremendous 10 years, 11 years, a lot of it pretty tense when it comes to the teachers' union, and he has made a lot of progress. you can bet that his successor will undo all that. it is a tremendous problem.

for instance, they have managed to get themselves into position, and i think this is probably true across america, where all the teachers bargain for is a pension and how early they can retire, how soon they can get tenure, etc. so when the education authority comes to look at the books, they've got very little money for hiring new teachers. what do they get? they get the lowest -- they draw from the lowest 20% of university graduates. other countries make it legal that you have got to draw from the top 30%. it is all sort of self- perpetuating, and there has got to be a showdown sooner or later on this matter because they then charge their members q deduce,

and they throw money at every politician -- they charge their members huge dues and they throw money at every politician. >> will your reforms on rabble? >> i hope not. what we have to do is instill in the public the notion that they can have schools that include all the students. i think about it, we guiliani -- rudy giuliani was my predecessor. his job was convincing the public that you could have low crime and good race relations and that any mayor that came after him would not be able to allow a crime to go back up. since then, we have brought crime back down another 35%. we will have the lowest number of murders in the city's history. life expectancy, partly because of low murders in new york city, is now three years greater than

the average in america. but i could not let crime go up. i would just get beaten in the press every single day if i did. that is not the reason i brought crime down. that is not the reason ray kelly is i think the best police commissioner the city has ever had. but the public would not tolerate it. what we have got to do in education is try to create an expectation of the public they will not tolerate the reform's going away -- reforms going away. the teachers union will certainly put a lot of pressure on the candidates in the democratic primary. the democratic primary is everything. they will put an awful lot of pressure on offering their support in return for -- and they might not want to roll back everything. that is not fair. but a lot of the stuff they want to roll back. particularly evaluations that are specific. if you take a look in the

country, i think one of the real difference is -- differences is how much you want to measure people based on. some is touchy-feely, some israel members. rupert and i certainly would agree that you want to measure outcomes, and in the private sector, if you do not do a good job, you will lose your job. if your industry is in trouble, and because of the economy, you are competitive, so what? you will still lose your job. in the government, it does not work that way. the teachers union will set family structure does not today provide the background that it used to before and therefore, they cannot do a good job. that is not an excuse in the private sector. >> nor is it true, as the charter schools have shown. i know from some charter schools, when they draw by lottery tickets, 60% of them from single mothers, and they turn out and get incredible

grades. they do a superb job. they go on to college, everything. it is a tragedy that there's so few of them. >> there will be pressured to change the democratic party in new york city. 20 years of built up pressure for patronage is a pretty powerful thing. we will see. i think there are four main candidates that are running, and i think they are all intelligent and smart. they will have to make their case to the public and to the teachers' union and balance that. it is not easy for them. i will be interested in seeing what they do. all i know is what i have got to do is try to make the public understand if they demand a great government, they can have it, but it is up to the public in the end to hold government's the to the fire -- feet to the fire. if you do not do that, government will go to work for the people that had the most to

do with their getting reelected. there are certainly business groups that do the same thing. >> you started down this path of immigration a minute ago. what would you like mitt romney to do on immigration or to say on immigration, and what would you like barack obama to do or say on immigration? that either one, i would love them to say that they are going to change the whole system. at least at the beginning. get rid of this h1b thing. as for the so-called illegal mexicans, give them all -- that behave according to the law or that are okay, provided they learn english, give them a path to citizenship. they will pay taxes. they are hardworking people. they are everything. why mitt romney does not do it i have no idea. because they are natural

republicans. [laughter] they are catholics. >> they seem to be all in the democratic party, but they tend to be much more conservative on social values -- gay rights, public schools, the sort of thing. the republicans walking away from the latino community is about as dumb strategy as any political party has ever adopted. but you know why he does not do it -- the screams in his own party would drown him out. what are they going to do? that led to bad. he is going to go to the convention. are they going to go and vote for obama? -- >> too bad. he is going to go to the convention. are they going to vote for obama?

>> can you see a republican convention where they do not nominate mitt romney at this point? in terms of the general election, the people opposed are not going to vote for obama anyway. the same thing is true i would argue for barack obama. both guys have 45% of the vote. they do. you are really arguing about 10% or 15% in the middle, maybe less. those people are not ideologues. they have real interests, and they listen. that is where all the attention should be. i think that a lot of people, all the pac's spending misfortune -- i think all these people are wasting their money. there are so many ads in swing states, everybody tunes out and you cannot pay attention. it is slogan after slogan, and eventually, your mind bills to the whole thing. >> -- your mind dulls to the whole thing. >> on this hispanic think, i

agree with you. they are very sensitive people appeared on saturday, there was not a hispanic in this country who was not crying with joy about the winning the gold medal in brazil. did any candidate had enough sense to refer to it? no. but it is not a difficult thing to do. it takes maybe a little courage, a little bit of overriding a few advisers, but it can be done. >> in this new report, which is fascinating reading, the downside -- the good news is that business started by immigrants are going up. but aside -- i wanted to ask about -- ask both of you -- is that businesses started by

native americans are going down. what is the problem? why are there not more entrepreneurs among native-born americans? >> it has been too easy to go to college. and spent three years being subsidized to do bloody media studies or some rubbish. [laughter] truly, it is easier to go to college and take some soft course. that is one thing. you know, we have 23 million people in this country today who are out of work, who do not work. a lot of them have given up looking for work. are they getting so much benefits and everything? i do not know. but i think you have a big problem. it is getting very political.

i think you have so much doubt about what is going to happen to taxes or what is going to happen to regulation and everything else that people are frightened to start a business. there is uncertainty about the future, which gives people confidence to do something. >> it is two things. the hunger of immigrants. it shows every time. every ethnic group, the newer ones here are hungrier. that is a self-selection process. if you come here, you want to do it. those that are already here, some do, some do not. the other thing is having them go out and actually be creative and try new things -- you know, as his fascinating. this morning, i was in chicago giving a speech. the two presidential candidates are unwilling to say where they stand on immigration, on the fact that 40,000 americans are going to get killed in the next

few years with illegal guns. we have this triple witching hour of sequestering and the bush-year tax cuts -- bush-era tax cuts and the deficit ceiling staring us in the face. the good news for the country is we at least have two vice- presidential candidates that seem to have some courage and say what they want to say. whether the people who have picked them to run with are happy about it, i do not know, but you cannot say that either will ryan or biden are shrinking violets. good for them. whether or not you agree with them, at least you know where they stand. >> i agree totally. wish we could reverse their positions on each ticket. >> what of the big problems we have in the country -- there are these old industrial cities that have been hollowed out. boston, not true because you have a big stem group of peer --

up here. it has a big history. or chicago or new york, and there are other cities, but there are cities who their whole industries have just left. there's no traffic on the roads. they have too many classrooms, not too few, as we do. the question is -- what can you do about it? i was asked about it, and that picked detroit, and i do not know why i picked it as an example, but the federal government could do something and it would not cost anything. we are so worried about not having the money, but here is a solution to the problem. if you have a better one, we would love to hear it, but we could say that we will welcome people in this country, families and we will assign them to a city, and they have to agree to not be arrested, not take federal or state money, and be there seven years, and if they survive seven years, we will make them and their families full citizens. they would go there, by these houses that are parallel, fix

them up, there kids to school and tell them to value education, make a big fuss and demand the schools get better. immigrants have a very low crime rate. we certainly do not have to worry about that. they create businesses. if they had to drive to california every morning for three jobs and drive back at night, they would do it. when people vote with their feet, they come to america. it is the one currency. it costs us nothing, but it is phenomenally valuable overseas. you would get people to come here, and they would fill those cities with a vibrancy. people who are unemployed in those cities would suddenly have companies they could go to work for. they would get the jobs helping to fix up the houses. they would be in the schools, driving the buses, starting schools of their own because they see how other people can do it. other than that, i do not know how there is any great solution. at these immigrants that will create the jobs. >> i do not know that i agree

with that. that is a pretty high price to pay. but cities, and cities go, and there are great new cities being come and cities go. detroit is a disaster area, but you go 10 miles around, and there are beautiful suburbs everywhere. it is not that bad. there is just change. it will come back. someone will bring it back. i agree with that. you will probably get, you know -- i have a theory that within three or four years, you will see huge, chinese investments in land and development in this country because they will have to put their money somewhere. >> that is a good segue to the first question from the audience. thank you. appreciate it. it is something i wanted to touch on. what can we learn from other countries and the way they think

about immigration? other countries other than the united states. what should we be learning from them? >> we are learning -- and we can if they are successful -- i think that's -- what looks less successful is singapore is not a great example. they have got a tiny island, and that a lot of money to get the very best brains there, and as a result, they have a higher gdp per person. it is terrific. but if you look at australia, new zealand -- i would not say australia was ideal. there is a huge debate about it at the moment. it is only about illegals coming down from asia, and personally, i will let most of them in. it is interesting -- we have had floods at times from different

places, and it has led to crime, and whenever crime has been left alone, the community has taken over a town or the outside of sydney, or all vietnamese would be one, all lebanese another, it is not long -- maybe it takes half a generation -- they work it out amongst themselves with their leaders are. there are power struggles and gangs, but that is normal. look what we have had in this country. you saw that film -- what was it called? "new york." ." "gangs of new york >> it was fantastic, the battles. now we are a much more sophisticated country, a much bigger country. and people spread out much more. they do not all, in a flood --

they do not all come in a flood. >> we give out most of our basis for family reunification. take a country like canada, most of theirs are given out for helping the economy. there are a lot of countries around the world that will pay you to come there and start a business. they have a pro-business policy. they use immigrants as a stimulus to their economy, and we do not have that mind set. >> canada loosen up in the last year or so. >> yes, you should go to vancouver. a lot of the big i.t. companies have offices in vancouver because they cannot get the engineers into the united states, but they can get into vancouver. it is just a boat ride across the pond. >> it is a great manufacturing center for drugs to come across the border. something like $10 billion or $15 billion of bad drugs come in

from british columbia to the western states. i am not suggesting what you can do about it, but it is a fact of life. >> there is a question here about something president obama did a few months ago, which was a stopgap policy, which was essentially to say that his administration would not enforce the deportation laws as they pertain to younger immigrants who were born here -- illegal immigrant parents, been to school, got in trouble with the -- have not gotten in trouble with the law, we will not deport them. is that a good idea? >> politically, it was brilliant. romney, instead of changing his policy and outbidding him, said he did not want to look like a flip-flopper. well, what the hell is he talking about? it is the policy that matters.

administration has supported more undocumented and probably the last five administrations put together. you would not expect that from a democratic administration. -- the obama administration has deported more undocumented then probably the last five administrations. kids that were carried into the country in their parents' arms -- did they break the law? technically i suppose they had no right to come across the border. they did, but in terms of culpability, i mean, come on. these are people who want to work. they want to go to school. they want to serve in the military. we are desperately trying to get groups like the to push them out? the president was right on this. >> i agree totally. >> the next question, i will read what is written because i think it captures the political ranks. how do you count the the rhetoric that is out there that immigrants are taking jobs and

change it to immigrants create jobs? also the web up -- also, what about people's fears that immigrants might be terrorists? >> last time i looked, most of the terrorist tend to be born here, educated here. they all have mental problems and that sort of thing. it is true there are terrorists overseas. what are you going to do? close the book and not let anyone in? a terrorist is just as likely to be a terrorist as someone who comes here to work. i just do not think that is a legitimate thing to worry about in terms of creating jobs. if you have a seasonal worker, they create jobs at higher economic levels in terms of once the crops are picked, what happens to them? at the engineering level, they create jobs below in lesser skills, so you want to work in both directions, but the terror thing -- we have to be vigilant. we have to be in charge of our own borders.

we have to make sure that we have intelligent policies. for example, if you get a visa, you come here, we do not track when you leave, so we have no idea how many people are here. we are not doing the things we should do, and that is why i think the 9/11 memorial is so important, to teach people a lesson. but that is not a reason to not have people come here. the terrorists want to take away our economy, take away our rights, and if you do not let immigrants in, they are going to win. >> i am sure that the federal authorities, the fbi are very aware -- i know that is the case in britain, but you look where you get big muslim communities. they are all fine people. you want to have a look at the mosque and what they are being told. muslims are just fine, but there

are a few who are rabble- rousers' and brainwashes -- rabble-rousers and brain watchers -- and brainwashers. they are watching kids who have got not a school, go on a so- called family trip for a year or two years, they come back, and they keep them under surveillance for quite a while. they are british citizens, just as they would be american citizens here. i think we are watching it pretty well, but i do think we want to look at what is going on in some of those places. >> what about if he wanted change the perception politically that immigrants take away jobs to immigrants create jobs, how does that happen? >> i do not think that is true. i think it is only if the immigrant has worked harder. we have it in britain. because of the common market,

people can move around. hundreds of thousands of poles went into britain. mechanics and plumbers and so on. they built the olympic stadium. it is a wonderful olympic stadium. i was in it last week. they built it a year earlier. i guarantee if the british had built it, it would have been all done in the last week in triple time. [laughter] yes, they are pretty popular. they behave pretty well. now poland is doing better. most of them have gone back to poland. but they just work better. >> s&p did a study of correlation between how good a city is doing in america and the immigrant population. those with high immigrant populations had better credit ratings, better economies, better average education, lower crime, the sort of thing.

i think if someone wants to demagogue, there are people who will believe slogans because they just sort of want to. >> but i think there is a certain situation, which has grown in europe where politicians have been lying and giving out money and borrowing and so on, and we have an entitlement state. we get in our newspapers hundreds of letters a week from people who are working really hard in the north of england, getting 15,000 or 16,000 pounds a year, and they are pretty down hard. next door, they have got people getting 20,000 because they have got six kids, and they get every possible entitlement. that is pretty spread through europe, and that is why europe is now having this sort -- i do

not know what sort of mess it will be, but you can rise up from it through economic growth for the next 10 years. but we do not want to let that happen here. >> make the case you guys are trying to make, you have picked a terrible time to do it. unemployment is 8.3%. how can you make this argument about immigration before the economy craters -- how can you do it in this environment? >> you have to in this environment. it is like how can you make an investment when times are tough? new york city walk away from its future back in the 1970's. they did not make any investments in infrastructure or maintenance or anything because the economy was bad, and it took decades to work their way out of it, but if you go back and look at history in america of one great things were done -- central park, the empire state building -- these were things that were started at the bottom of a recession.

there is a guy -- not barnett -- gary barnett. everybody thinks he is crazy. he has been building through the whole crisis, and suddenly, there is enormous demand and he's got these buildings. he just sold a building for $90 million a piece, and stop telling because he cannot keep up with demand. he is going to wait until prices go up. brilliant, but the people, leaders make investments when times are tough. leaders bring along other people, and the president of the united states, this one, where the next one is, they have got to bring along congress. it is their responsibility to answer your question, to explain to the public and make sure we do it, or we will not have a future. >> we've got a great economy. the unemployment will go down. to get a great economy, we have got to have more and better

migrants. >> two years from now, will this immigration system have been changed, or will it be the same one, and will we be having the same conversation? >> i think it will have changed. it will have had to change. >> i agree. i think the pressure eventually will get to everyone, and all of these things where we say the president and the governor are not addressing the issue -- they are not addressing the issue, they are unwilling to say anything -- that is still pressure that will be there after the election. then, because the president fundamentally has a two-year, not a four-year job because midterm elections are really very important to his or her ability to continue on and to govern, so they've got a very short window. they have to address this right after the beginning, and it

will come out as a bargain with everything else. just over night, everything, they will get in here, hear, hear, and you get in here, here, and they will have two years to put their constituency back together. if they do not do that, you will have a lot, and we will also have more experience about what happened in europe and how they can down the road. some parts, they will really have to face some of this. spain is in big trouble. italy is in big trouble. in greece, they're just does not seem to be a solution. merkel has got big political problems at home. -- in greece, there just does not seem to be a solution. asia and china's economy's just slowing down. it is not good for america. not good for europe. all these economies are interdependent. people keep defending the chinese people. manufacturing in the united states has actually done very well. people do not understand how

good manufacturing has been the last year in america. what it has not done as it has not created jobs. it is using technology, but we need a market to sell the things we manufacture. china is the biggest market in the world for us. we want their economy to be good. they also insisted the bill restores with things that people want to buy at low prices. the consumer is one of these days going to wake up and say, "wait a second -- i want them to keep sending stuff here. without them, i could not afford it." >> one very hopeful thing -- in the last few years, we have had enormous discoveries of natural gas in this country. we have an energy policy for six or seven years, we will be totally independent of importing any oil or gas, and the gas which will go into the power stations and the coal will give out half the carbon in the coal dust. we will not have to worry about bloody wind farms and other

hideous things. [laughter] >> glad to see you supporting the coal plants. >> absolutely. we have got the gas now. except in your state, we have a governor who has been very slow to allow it to be brought out of the ground. >> the politics of that will be interesting. we have got to close on an optimistic note. i love it. thank you, and thank you for making my life easy. [applause] i would like to thank our two very distinguished speakers for their eloquence on a very difficult issue. and what they are asking all of us is that when we meet the federal candidates, and comets, or challengers -- candidates,

incumbents, and challengers, i think it is important that we elevate the discussion, and it is up to is to elevate it. these they get these master's and ph.d. is right here. we have the finest colleges. it is a shame that we send them back to their countries. they go back and they create these wonderful products that they sell to us because of the knowledge they have received here. we cannot agree more on the visa.

it says an awful lot about boston england to come here. we would like to give our appreciation to both of the speakers. the mayor alluded to manufacturing being back. you bet, right here. joseph clark is a company that manufactures magnificent -- chelsea clark is a company that manufactures magnificent products. we look forward to working with both of you. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in 10 days, watch coverage of the republican and democratic conventions live on c-span. we have your front seat to the 2012 convention. up next, and look at the u.s. political system and how it functions. later, michael blumberg and rupert murdoch -- michael bloomberg and rupert murdoch on the presidential campaigns. >> tamara on c-span, two live campaign events from around -- tomorrow on c-span, two lived at campaign events from around the country. president obama attend a campaign rally in new hampshire are in the afternoon.

our live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern right here on c- span. >> a look at the u.s. political system, including campaign finance reform, relations between the congressional and presidential branches, and the legislative process. we will hear from several speakers. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning. welcome back to the second day on our political system -- which way out? this is the 21st annual seminar at the vail valley institute. i do not remember being as excited with four speakers.

we begin with harvey rosen, who has a phd. he has been a member of the economics at princeton and is deeply involved in both public service and academia. he was very much involved in teaching and mentoring students at princeton. he has been a percipient of numerous prestigious awards. it is a great pleasure to introduce harvey rosen. [applause] >> thank you for that very kind introduction. they have been telling me how wonderful these events are at vail. i know what they mean.

it is delightful to be here. across the entire political system, there have been indications that the u.s. protocol said that is dysfunctional and even pathological. i was asked to talk about that. if you want to know whether something is dysfunctional, the first thing to figure out is what is the function? i checked the constitution in which -- the founders took these very seriously. george washington said it was an

important source of strength and security. we may be cheers in it a little too much. it is clear that things are not working if you look at the budget numbers. it is another indication that things are not quite functional. madison said it would be little help to the people that the laws made by man that are incoherent that they could not be a understood. the most natural explanation is too partisan. many americans believe there is too partisan fighting between the two political parties. there is an alternative to that

congress is as partisan at it always has been. it is built to fight. think about it. every committee as a minority staff and a majority staff. it has a chair and a ranking member. it is a feature of the system. if we have a system where we encourage them to fight, how does anything gets done? this is a question that was considered by economists after the 1950 possible. one economist eventually won that -- after the 1950's. one economist of benchley won a nobel prize. it is hard for democracies to work and to get consensus. but he lisd some circumstances uer which it would not be hard.

many of it was that there was not much disagreement. today there are lots of disagreements. there are fundamental disagreements about the role of government. how're they sought before? this is a political issue. -- how were they solved before? this is a political issue. imagine a story of a guy who survived 1889 and he was really remarkable. he decided to spend the rest of his life studying, which he did. he died and went to heaven.

when he was getting his orientation, st. peter told them that they had conferences on various topics of interest. this guy said, well, i happen to be an expert on that. i would be happy to talk. st. peter said, luckily we have a spot next week. we will put you in there. one of the people in the audiences will be noah. the question was politically if you have a disagreement, how do

you get-- the president can bribe members of congress. the president can provide cover to members of his own party. tha tis failed presidential leadership. is failed presidential leadership. this is obama up speaking only two democrats. we need of both parties to work together. one cavaet to this view is the

gerrymandering issue. i like this framework. i was thinking about it. to this dering fits in framework nicely. but as a means -- what doe sit mean when more and more constituents need to be bought off. if we have this problem where we are dysfunctional and the parties are not talking to each other, what can be done about it? it is natural for me to think of it in terms of budgetary issues. my discussion of these ideas

will be framed that way. i would like to talk about this one view that if we passed the right set of rules, we could fix it. that the rules right. we can fix all of this. most of them are legislative lawyers. pass a law. find the right law. i would like to discuss some of these. it reminds me of my job when i was on the council of economic advisers. i once heard someone characterized the job as being -- flushing roaches down the drain. there are roaches coming up the

sink. these roaches are ideas. they can come from colleagues and what you need to do is flush them down. when people say, what did you accomplish when you were in washington? use a you flushed down -- you say you flushed down those ideas. there are theories that there are to double much money and politics. let me talk about a man who has degrees in both philosophy and law. some people think the government is awful. as a democracy, we should have a good government.

why have democrats we have elected have gotten things so wrong? one explanation is that the voters were misled. consider the liberal media as a source of the information. each side strongly believes there democracy would work better if the public heard a good deal less from the other. in other words, it is precisely the desire to restrict political speech or otherwise unsuitable for the voting public. this raises all sort of interesting political issues. i want to ask the following question -- how do we know there is too much money? more than $4 billion was spent

in the 2010 cycle. that is a lot of money. those elections put members in the house and senate. there is a sense of the scale of the 2011 super bowl advertising and how much was pent for 30 seconds. -- spent for 30 seconds. to me, that raises a problem why

so much is put at stake. does money matter very much anyway? it is convenient to blame the nation a's problem on a special problemss -- nation's on special interests. well, what about the correlation between dollars and winning? meg whitman. make wickma just because you see a positive correlation, that does not tell you much. 32 ad be that donors

candidate could they see might have a victory. -- to a candidate that ac could have a victory. there is a popular writer who ical research. a number like that gives a false sense of cynicism. the point is that it is not very obvious that this money is swinging elections. at the end of the day, common sense tells me that if you stayed too far from your constituents opinions, you will

not get elected. there was a wonderful presentation given last night. there is a disconnect between the elites and the normal people. i found that research compelling. on the other hand, mitch mcconnell is from kentucky. the constituents have a certain view and they are reflecting it. how about another idea? line item veto. the claim is that the ability to veto certain spending reduces undesirable expenditures. you need to give the president line item veto. ronald reagan asked for it. bill clinton asked for it. what do we think about that? the labs have been busy at work.

a number of states have implemented line item veto and have been doing so for many years. it remains to be seen if line item veto has much of an effect. it does not matter very much. anything that you care about is not seem to have much of an effect. it is not clear and here is why. the president and the congress are always bargaining with each other. they're not talking about building a new dam in alaska. there is abortion, you name it. all the line item veto does is

strength in the president's and in promoting his own interest. you might not care about having the salmon from alaska, but if the president wants to go back, what it does is alter the power within the government. another problem with this notion suggests that our main problem is entitlement. they did not appear in the line item budget. there are on autopilot. that is why it is called entitlement. ok. we have lawyers at work. maybe we need something tougher than a line item veto.

if you do not like the deficit, what do you do? pass a law against the deficit. if these targets were missed, across the board cuts would happen. that sounds scary. according to the senate republicans' top adviser when the bill was passed, the first thing we did was to ignore it. how do it up the ante? amend the constitution. we can have a balanced budget within the constitution.

we can have a constitutional amendment. i do not think that will work. let me give you a few reasons. last i heard, we do not have clairvoyance working in washington. forecast a performance -- if the have a lousy forecast, congress might be in violation of our constitution without even knowing it. i think in general that is true, but we cannot count on it. second, the amendment would hopefully be transparent and britain to it would be less than 2700 pages. at the end of the day, it would have to list domestic products. these are all a concept by

using suitable conventions the congress could in the system. the events of the past 48 hours -- what is the past? the supreme court provided an example for maine. -- me. what about loan guarantees? when the government retains a loan, how much? it depends on how much you are getting paid. is it controversial? yes. but it would have to get done. do we really want people from the supreme court arguing? here is another question -- what

is the government? the know why fannie mae is our protest? -- do you know why fannie mae is arbitrized? the state and local government uses dodd-frank all the time. their 40,000 of them. special bid checks are entity set up so that they can borrow -- special interests are entity set up so that they can borrow. what do we do? we roll our eyes. we shake our heads and we move on. what happens if there is an amendment?

can they stop government activity? we want the courts more involved in policies? i think it would be a problem. bottom line, and after which rule is adopted -- no matter which will is adopted, the problem is that all members of congress have strong incentives to spend more and to pass less. unless the political and economic environment in this. public sentiment is everything. with public sentiment, nothing can fail. if there were constitutional amendments, there would be endless amending of the rules. it would take a different form. another nobelist made a point i

tried to make before with my roach example. i think this applies to leftists on utopia. after i heard a story about budgetary issues. the organizer got up and said, i cannot take this anymore. i am opening up the bar right now. that might be the best advice i can offer. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. our next speaker is craig barnes.

he has an impressive and intimidating background. he was an infantry officer. he was a trial lawyer. he was an international mediator. he applied his work in many places. he was a founder of the colorado common cause. he is author of an incredible variety of intellectual pursuits, one of which is an example of the roles of women in theology. he has a trilogy of plays of elizabethan england and a passionate book called "democracy at the crossroads." craig barnes. [applause]

>> thank you, governor. nice to see everyone here. nice to be invited. it is a pleasure to be here. i appreciate the invitation. thank you to harvey for spelling out the most articulate and a persuasive argument i can imagine. [laughter] in a little part of my early career -- it is an honor to be on the same program. in my early career, i began traveling back and forth to moscow and negotiating nuclear issues with the academy of

sciences. after that, i found myself in disputes in the war. later i was a negotiator for the u.s. government and the dispute over international river's. i came home from these troubles a flaming patriotism for the rule of law and prepress. i had won some cases in american courts. i have lobbied in the courts and congress. i had a run for high office and affective introduced the sunshine contest. i new democracy firsthand and i thought i knew in deeply. i came home from these years of our experience events that the difference between u.s. politics and politics of either asia are russia was as wide as

the grand canyon. the conclusions i share today, in part from the contrast between what i consider to be very different cultures and the political experiment which we initiated on this continent in 1776. the most of history, wealth and power go together. as wealth grows, its owners tend to surround and invade government. with the help of garment, increase their position, thus concentrating the world even more -- with help of government, increase their position, thus constituting the world even more. it was too and to support the heavy crown and the whole thing toppled over. supporting the government at the

apex, the ship of traditional governments around the world is the opposite. the wealth is at the top and the rest of the bottom. think of a monster with the golden glow at the top. -- think of a mushroom with the golden glow at the top. think of "tale of two cities." theflorence. or as the crown grows fatter, marie antoinette retreated, and the presence drew restless.

when people lose their belief, the stem of the mushroom disintegrates and the crown falls over. that is what we saw in the air of spring and in france in 1789. -- that is what we saw in that arab spring and in france in 1789. john anger was burned. -- joan of arc was burned. in every case, the case was freethinking. the danger was not the thinking, but the erosion of power. and in the first half of 18th- century, the scottish began to see this pattern. luxury kills.

but timing get to tom paine, he writes in "common sense" that we should put all of the crowns in a bonfire and burn them. we should charge rent. here is moral sentiment- no moral sentiment in aristocracy. the republican would allow a portion do have influence. to some extent, madison succeeded. more people had access to education and participated to some degree in elections. madison and his fellows felt in some sense.

the constitution treated a non- democratic supreme court. they could exercise the power over rights to be a human being and for women opossum rights to vote and over taxation. -- for women at's power to vote and over taxation. in the process, they have corporations and unleashed sources, including the potential of any member of the russian mafia of the mexican drug cartel to influence the so-called election of ordinary americans. with some exceptions, the

supreme court has been a tool. it has been a tool for wealth. it has been in constant opposition to democracy. it is no coincidence that economic opportunity or due process are drawn by jury are not enforceable with this hypocrisy. they do not have a word to try to enforce their nests in russian court. the russian revolution changed the players, but did not change the culture. they have a government that reinforces inequality by sending challengers to siberia. in this factor, they are in tune

with most of history. it is why that american democratic experiment is such an anomaly. unfortunately, classic is autocracy has now someone emerge in american politics. it is reinforced by scientific ideology, drafted by ayn rand. this ideology is the cause of our current consumption, the subject of our discussion. when i grew up in the wheat fields in eastern colorado, we gathered together in the summer to help each other bring in hay and chase the cattle when they got out and driving together to the county fair. did did this store propagated however is that that there is no such thing

as society. that changes the american story from the common good and the community to one of individual freedom. contrast that to james madison and the federalist papers in 1788. we may define a republic to be a government which derives all of its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people. directly or indirectly from the great body of the people. that is the great body of society. not from a favored class of it. otherwise, a handful of tyrannical people would aspire to take over. a handful of tyrannical nobles

might aspire to take over government. that is quite different from what margaret thatcher said in that there is no society. if there is such a thing as society, margaret thatcher is contrary notwithstanding. madison favored class of tyrannical nobles. there is the responsibility for the general welfare or the common good. author of the constitution and soft as opposite of democracy. today, americans an demographic is that 400 people have as much wealth as 90 million americans. americans -- wall street ceo's

in 2010 received bonuses of $90 million. it is an amount greater than the gdp of 23 countries. that creates an unmatchable gap. the rest of the american population is expanding foreclosure and job losses. the american people brought the bank's back up. no one learned very much. they went right on paying those extraordinary bonuses and not knowing that their support was shrinking. another stunning figure -- 6 wall street figures are richer than many americans.

think of whathat. literally unlimited resources, they can pick and choose when to fight it will pay for women to the supreme court. if they did that act down, they can turn their briberies to mexico and turn in illegal to the gulf. -- legal. luxury is the enemy of virtue. luxury is also the enemy of democracy. the u.s. chamber of commerce and the koch brothers plan to spend $1 billion in this year's elections. in last vegas casino owner said

he would spend $100 million to do whatever it takes to beat barack obama. and in washington, a rumor were circulating two weeks ago that these billions are being used to buy ads now. that means obama will not be able to advertise. does that seem like that destruction of free speech? you would be right. in 2005, dick cheney guided the oil and gas lobbyist who spent $750 million persuading congress are hydraulic fracking from the clean oil act. that seems like a massive amount of money.

in 2009, in the fight of the health care bill, the health industry spent $4.1 million per day in the first five months of lobbying against these health care reform bills. that seems like an amount of money available to patients for an elderly, uninsured, the port, or the small business, all who had a great interest in health care. there for, that amount of money overoverroad a normal per son's voice. that is the destruction of our democracy. and a 2011, at $62 million of an income pays taxes at 24% and mitt romney pays taxes at 15.9%.

every school teacher and every part across america and pays as high as certify%. -- 35%. if that seems to like a system that favors the wealthy in and disproportionately finances schools, libraries, and roads, as well.ight ont ha that as far as i can see, there is no sound economic reason whether the in europe and dignity and managing investments compares the dignity of teaching or nursing. this system shows countless years of countless lobbying,

even to the point that lobbying wants taxes on capital gains to be abolished altogether. corporations need more profit to invest more and create more jobs. why at this time when corporate profits or at record highs? eliminating capital gains would give them more profits and increase the bloglow on mushrooms. the hypocrisy is eroding democracy. we would be right on that count as well. the final analysis is my own experience in negotiating.

the democracy -- those values we should treasure mos to fast of e truth telling and non-violent and the opportunity. they're not written. they are fundamental for this democracy to succeed. imagine ithat your mother has a heart condition and is to go to the hospital and you have to negotiate to get her into the hospital. when she gets there, you have to negotiate with the doctor to get

it taken care of. that is corruptive in a practical sense. imagine if your scientific results, you cannot share with them with anyone. even falsify at and try to make up your report as they did in the soviet union. -- you could falsify it and try to make up your report, as they did in the civic union. what happens if the figures are fudged? you could be describing russian politics. you could be describing chinese politics. if it the common good depends -- the coming the depends on the

integrity. the ultimate source of our dysfunction in study after study is welt disparity. a huge wealth disparities. not just a little. i am not talking about the 1% of the 99%. there is a huge gap of what this party. the result of the population as a whole is raised in helplessness and mistrust. business does underlies the ability for people to participate in politics. that the mix the not want to participate in a boating.

the gap is too -- elainvoting. the gap is too great. it breeds obesity. it breeds lack of mobility. it means a limited life expectancy. there is a wealth gap. you will know where you stand compared to the rest of the developed countries. all you need to know is that where you are because the wealth gap undermines trust and its dysfunction. to restore things in the u.s., we need to return government to the whole of people.

we need to get corporate money out of politics. we need to declare that corporations are not people and that money is not speech. more significantly than any of daythese, we have to revise the understanding for the compassion and generosity that is part of our genetically programmed him and make up. we humans will survive together or we will not survive at all. it is participation by the greatest number that opportunities is spread and education for the greatest number that can turn history on its head as it can to do -- we attempted to do.

they do not have a word for fair in russian, but we do. democracy is flawed, but it is better. thank you. [applause] >> craig barnes, thank you. tom cronin is an acting president at colorado college, where he now holds a ph.d. at

stanford and was a white house fellow. he is a much demand speaker and commentator. he wrote a very well received a book on leadership. tom cronin. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for my inclusion in the vail valley institute seminar. thank you harvey and craig for those excellent opening remarks. i will talk about the american presidency and expectations that we have in a democracy. but me begin by saying the profits of gloom about the does functionality of our elections

are the american constitutional system have been with us since the very beginning. let me share with you one observation about the election of 1880. if thomas jefferson is elected, said a respected individual, the bible will be burned. we will see our wives and toghters of thsubject prosecution. that was said by a reverend. he talked about the horrible things that would happen if jefferson was elected. let's talk about the prospects of our political system. this was a presidential election.

right now we are in the 57th presidential election. 21 times we have transferred power from one political party to another. this is a singular achievement. no other nation that i know of has had regular elections and has figured out a way to transfer political power from one party to another. the presidential box congressional separation of power -- presidential- congressional separation of power is slow. it is slow to embrace certain things that many people think need to be increased more quickly. it has a tough time solving issues of inequality. it is a framework and a

structure and a foundation rather than a document. we have to supply the values and underline concerns and principles. we have campaigns that are very expensive. the amount of money for some campaigns seems rather small compared to advertising companies. there is a strange device that we would not have invented today. i know there were compromises made at the constitutional convention back and we designed our presidential-congressional separation policy. we need to take a moment to

celebrate that it has worked on many occasions. for a moment, i might sound like a chamber of commerce commercial, but looking back of the last 70 years, the system rose to the occasion in world war ii. old war ii was successfully executed and completed. -- world war ii was successfully ocompletedt competeand and won. there was a high rate system that we can be reminded about -- highway system that we can be

reminded about. eisenhower and congress could to gather. that is an incredible achievement. it took many years to be completed. it took a long while to get him in the final picture in this region. take the highway system as an example of the common good and doing something in a humanitarian way. there are other issues that are incredibly important. we have the clean air act and the china initiative. those are examples where congressional leaders and the president had the foresight to make our system work. the reagan era, tax reform of 1986.

we look back and see it could have been better, but it was an achievement for democrats, republicans, for them to work together. people thought it was impossible to get done. the artistry of politics is spirited debate and problem solving. the bush era and obamacare economics and the automobile industry -- those are examples where both parties worked. in the obama era and the affordable health care act of 2010 seems to have more legs under it than it did a few days ago. in a remarkable collaboration

begin congress and the white house, but now the supreme court as the third branch. it was a remarkable contribution. it is too early to digest what the role of it was. my point is let us remember that on occasion not every day and not every year and not every legislative -- usually there are two or three rather significant steps forward and are progressive and that serve the common interest. that does not mean that problems have been neglected that great, inequality, in particular.

-- that to create inequality in particular. we look at the opportunity. we tried to bring that about through legislation. we have a state legislator in the room from colorado. the person has been a fighter for minorities and immigrants. we salute him, michael johnson, for his work in that effort. the obama administration's made additional steps. i think both leaders are trying to figure out how to respond on immigration to make sure we can have people come to this country, but also have the opportunity to live a decent life. i want to say a word or two

about the splendid talks that are given yesterday in. >> he has several books. we are pioneering works in political science. he is largely correct that the american people have more in common about issues than many of the leaders in congress. there are issues that divide us. they get soft and we move onto other issues. a study that i have just completed in colorado politics, we found statewide respondents -- there are about 20% of what we call principal conservatives,

who would never wrote for a democrat, tea party conservatives. they are counterbalanced by maybe a dozen or 12% of what may be printable liberals. they rushed and listen to rachel m-- watch and listen to tachel rachel maddow. that is at most 20% on one side. most are pragmatic, pragmatic liberals, pragmatic conservatives or moderates who are willing to split the ticket and carefully make decisions. there is a large room in the middle.

read the last three paragraphs of a book that is going to press in a week or two. it echoes a little bit of what both the arenas of research find nationwide. the last paragraph says -- most people in colorado are not on the extreme right or left. they are not orthodox or rigid. they do not rule out of the views of good ideas that are held by other parties. some politicians may be polarized. most people from colorado are relatively small liv moderates. they understand politics is needed, and politicians bring about compromises. independent voters play a large role in a state like colorado.

they agree on many more policy matters then there are divisions. they want a better colorado. they want to come together to fight forest fires and to make for better roads and a better higher education system. the higher education system is embarrassingly starve to -- starved. person should is desirable. people have differing sensibilities as well as the views about the relative importance of liberty, equality, and social justice. politics comes about because society has to make choices about how to solve problems. there'll always be disagreement. humans could sharpened. most of colorado's political leaders will family debate about

policy challenges without becoming disagreeable or mean- spirited. there are some exceptions. for the most part, people are willing to talk and debate. politics in a spirited debate, compromise and problem-solving are the artistry in a constitutional to receive. we should cherish and celebrate, and we should shout out to those are effective artists. politics is a performing arts. when me add one other theory -- the change comes about in this country were often from the bottom up than from the top down. that is to say, when we want to

have women's rights, very rarely is it to have an american president or majority leader in congress lead the women's suffrage movement. it usually comes from the bottom up and takes decades and several elections. it usually takes some of agitators', who will star stuff up. people who could not get elected. this is to left and right. tax reform has come about often from angry people on the right who challenged things in california, like proposition 13, which captured the interest of governor reagan and brought about certain tax reform. issues of environmentalism. no president was a leader in the environmental movement.

the only person who may have been in at one for act two leader -- if you see a gun in the wall in act one, it will go off in act three. if you look hard, we should not give credit to most president for solving problems and saying lincoln sought slavery. lincoln did not believe in the abolitionist movement. he had 15 ideas about slavery. he was late when it came to what should be done. there are movements. mothers against drunk driving. that is not left or right. i do not necessarily agree with everything they believe in. it was a bottoms up movement --

one of her family members was killed by a dui incident. she went to city hall, and got no response. she got to other people who were in office. they said, we take this very seriously. there was light sentencing. within a matter of -- she went from being an act one agitator to a woman who decided she would get other mothers and baulked. eventually, madd was -- if you were running for office in the 1970's or 1980's. there would always be a table of mothers against drunk driver with pictures of their relatives

who have lost their lives and information about the white censusing -- light sentencing or none. this issue got up to the white house to reagan, who was against federal regulations, except the mothers for truck driving -- drunk driving wanted to raise the drinking age. he tagged onto legislation. places like montana have to raise the drinking age to 21. he was nominally against regulation, responding to and ideologically neutral group that wanted to bring about some change. if we want to alter things, we

need groups. repeople most of the time will respond if there is welling up from beneath. they are after a while the representatives of our system. i want to ask our guests to speak about the taxation -lements of the simpson bowles. a lot of people probably endorse the general concepts of a grand bargain or compromise and which

spending and tax exemptions are brought to the table. this is something america is not good at. our constitution is not good at focusing something as large as that. we tried that in the tax reform act of 1986. a compromise version commercial. it was a step forward. we are talking about something much more comprehensive and much more needed. i would love to hear about that. what is my time? five minutes? we expect a lot from american president. we force them into saying, i will be a united -- united, not divider. i will change the way washington works. i will change the way lobbying

is done. when he gets going, he said he will change the way the world works. everyone who listened to the rhetoric had to have an uneasy stomach. we knew enough about washington, d.c. to know that you're not one to change it very much. on day one, you're one, lobbying doubled in size. economic stimulus money became available. more people wanted more money. presidents often are very visible. we know we need hamiltonian energy in the american presidency to make our complicated system worked in a way to achieve resulting ends.

we need hamilton energy. retried after watergate to have a weaker presidency. four years ago, this month, watergate occurred. the presidency was bruised by a variety of crimes. there are efforts to rein in the american presidency. by a lot of noble people. it did not work. we knew that we need our system to work a presidency and a cabinet and some hierarchy that a emergencies.r version see we read strengthened the american presidency and had ignored a lot of constitutional constraints on budget matters as

well as the war powers resolution of 1973 and similar efforts we are trying to force president. that is not a happy story. president probably have too much power in the age of drones and secrecy. presidents are usually affected during crises, honeymoon years and when there is high popularity and prosperity. presidential popularity and the american people is fascinating. we lose confidence in president rapidly. truman lost 50% of support in public opinion over a three-year period. lyndon johnson lost 30%. nixon lost 40% over a two-year period. carter became unpopular in his

last term. his own party challenged him. george hov bush-- h.w. bush, one from 90% public approval to 35 per cent in one year. -- 35% and one-year perio. obama started off with 53%, but he began with 50 -- 65% during his honeymoon time. now he is at 38%. obama enjoys more public approval ask congress, more than the supreme court. more support than public schools, banks, and a slew of

other institutions. why are we so tough on presidents? we put on them would -- what we should be doing. we want them to unite us. it is a tough position to unite us. they have to make tough decisions on budgetary decisions. whoever gets elected in november will have to address the fiscal cliff and the economic decisions. well that made them popular? probably not in the short term. any time in natural disaster occurs or a recession occurs, or we do not like a war, as we did not like the vietnam war, who do we blame? we blame the person at the top of the pyramid, the american

president. we are tough on president. we tire of presidents. we are impatient. presidents will respond if we, the people, care about issues, the values we talked about earlier and to recognize that we have to help point the way. we want leaders to leave us in new directions. most of the gimmicks that are suggested to change the presidency or the election systems are liabilities. i agree with professor rosen, who suggested the proposed line item detail or for constitutional amendments are an illusion, just like the illusion

of entitlements for -- term limits for congressmen. we have a term limit for the american presidency. also, for the supreme court. term limits for congress to make no sense. we have term note now. the initial research evidence is power transfers to lobbyist, to the executive branch, to the governor. power moves. there are few reforms that i support. in anchorage -- in correct opening of the election process similar -- more people can vote. i am against the voter suppression.

we should have a boat king holiday, voting by mail. -- bolting holiday, voting by mail. i like the idea of we may have a filibuster percentage requirement lowered to 55. we lowered it from 67 to 60. it may help out. we could get a compromise on things of that order. most of the changes we need are changes in values. who are we as a people? what do we want to achieve? do we want to be an inclusive nation? what kind of tax reforms and entitlement reforms would be fair and balanced and makes sense for the kind of a country we aspire to be over the next

century? thank you very much. tom.hank you, a our last speaker is a professor of science at stanford and a senior fellow at the hoover institute. this is his second time with us. we were so impressed with him at the first time. we were compelled by his message. we cannot wait to get him back. he has been elected to be in national academy of sciences. his groundbreaking work brings him back again. his culture wars' made him a nationally recognized expert on

politics. mo fiorino. or.thank you, govern i had to wait to hear what people would be saying. i will try to draw some threat between this because we heard today. -- france between -- threads between the speakers with her today. most of these we have discussed have been disappointments. there is good literature on this that concludes they do not makeuch difference.

in california, we have those kinds of things. they are like keeping squirrels out of your house our garden, they will find a way in. they will find a way around these rules. if you have more competitive representatives, you will elect more moderate representatives. there is literature on this going back in time. if you are only having nine% choosing their nominees, you end up with the same kind of extreme candidates. it is one of these reforms that is good in and of itself.

the notion that elected officials get to choose their own constituents is perverse. we need to have a more nonpartisan-oriented mission. it will not have an impact on the problems we face. there is literature on term limits. you have to make judgments. that is a negative judgments. california, they move around. they go from the house to the senate, senate to the house. they are always running for reelection. they are always looking ahead. it has made depended on interest groups worse. money is the big one.

the anecdote has been mentioned a couple times. the precise picture -- picture -- procter and gamble spent more money advertising in the year than the entire electoral cycle. it is like how many people are watching rush limbaugh. harvey referred to the in dodge and 80 -- public interest groups as soon one way causation. the process is more complicated. after a congressional election, italic of the top 10 phrases in the house of representatives. in the top 10 races, several of

the people lost the election. everyone else ones by about a 52%. -- everyone went by about a 52%. it is the anticipation of what will happen that make some raise money. donors give to people they expect to win. you do not have a lot of money -- you do not win because you have a lot of money. scott walker and -- the democratic party could have done more money into that race. they made a calculation they would not win. he had a lack of money because they expected him to lose. diminishing returns. the more you spend on something,

the less impact he will kick if you go up. in these swing states, there will be ads that say if obama and romney have a certain amount to run as, that will be affected. they are wasting a lot of the money they spend. the debate on the popular saw it presents the american public is stupid. children learn the difference between commercials and serious stuff when they are four years old. just because she won as, you will win an election is been customary to the american public. -- is on complementary to the american public.

crack appealed to our emotions in a powerful way. craig appeal to our emotions in a powerful way. spending so much time on a campaign funds is not the way to gut -- go in reform. equality is important. if i have been one of obama's political advisers, i would have said, the first thing you do is indict every wall street person you can. make the perp walks. the american public is upset. the people who played by the rules screwed. the people who screwed us are getting bonuses.

from the political side a lot of the toxic attitude is americans are convinced this whole catastrophe is the wrong people who were rewarded are the wrong people who got punished. i sympathize. the tax system -- harvey should address some of this later. labor is not mobile. they cannot take off and go to sweden. international -- we look at these issues. from an american parochial prescriptive -- perspective, we look at a problem and says what about the united states it that makes it a problem? it is crawling around the world. it is growing.

globalization. we tend to focus on things that are minor factors while ignoring the things that are bigger out there, some of which we can control or tried to ameliorate their impact. civil society. we do not have the kind of system that many of the screw up with where you had strong associations outside of government. we grew up -- every town had a rotary or farmers' association. these things have gone by the boards in most communities. we do not have this rich layer

of civil society in between government and the ordinary people. many of these people think there is a tension between governor -- government and civil society. in europe, they have never had this kind of infrastructure. the government are strong. people rely on governments to take care of the problems they face. in philanthropy -- americans give away more than your opinions do. europeans figure that is the government's job. you can criticize us in a lot of ways. the fact that we do not have a better government makes us more self-reliant. tom cronin is an optimist. i hope he is right. the darkest night