expected to turn over. paul ryan, vice presidential, is not going anywhere. he will be the budget chairman again, it sounds like. he will ask for a waiver because he hit his term limits, but it is safe to say it will be granted. appropriations, hal rogers from kentucky, about as old bull as you could get -- prince of earmarks and a reformed non- earmarker will stay, and where health care and energy policy, a committee of jurisdiction there, that chairman will be staying another two years. ways and means, which might see a lot of action with fiscal cliff and tax reform, entitlement stuff, always goes through ways and means -- dave camp, like fred upton. judiciary committee, he will make a bid for the science

committee. he will find himself in competition with james sensenbrenner, who indicated he is interested in that job as well. ralph hall, the chairman now, term limits. transportation and infrastructure headed by john mica, he is term-limited in that role, and there are a few people will have seniority and the either have committee assignments or are not looked upon as viable. it looks like we are passing the baton to a new generation. bill schuster, the son of bud shuster, old transportation committee chairman, he is making a very strong play for the chairmanship of that. that will be just in time for congress to start thinking about another reauthorization of transportation programs, the highway bill, if you will.

there is a short-term extension. they will have to revisit that in the 113th congress and representative schuster will at least have a strong claim to the gavel of that committee. >> i would just tick off two more -- john king, from long island. a three-way contest. candace miller, who would be the only woman on the republican side to chair a full committee, but she is from michigan and their two other from michigan -- >> and another one with intelligence, mike rogers from michigan. a fourth. >> the other mike rogers -- the house republicans have two guys named mike rogers to be committee chairmen.

the mike rogers from michigan, select intelligence, and from alabama, who also wants homeland. and the third candidate is -- i am forgetting. huh? mike mccall, from texas. former federal prosecutor from texas. actually, might be the front runner. i think. it will be interesting to see if we say that in here. foreign affairs is the other one where there will be a contested race. the incumbent chairwoman, she will step down, meaning there will be no automatic women in chairman's role on the house side. ed royce from california wants job and so does chris smith from new jersey, who has a little more security -- a lot more security, but his advocacy for human rights -- fighting human rights is actually a negative among some of his colleagues, so to his record last time he got to chair a committee, the normally obscure

veterans affairs committee, he went counter to republican orthodoxy and kept advocating for spending more and more money on veterans programs and basically kept him out. those are two others. >> i should point out that one committee that also will have the same chairman but will be inserting in the public's fear and possibly over health care is oversight and government reform, headed by darrell issa. he will be there for at least one more term. he has promised robust oversight of the obama administration. >> i am sure he has. speaking of oversight that is one of the few places on the senate side where they -- no, speaking of government -- homeland oversight? >> tom carper is set to take over that panel. joe lieberman is retiring and susan collins, the ranking

republican, is term limits it out, as we were talking about what the house of folks. senate republicans have that same rule. it looks like it will be tom cole born -- tom coburn. he has a reputation for being a finger in the i kind of guy. but he has actually been very serious and a talented group of people work for him on the committee doing investigations and what not. carper is a pretty conciliatory guy. i actually think they will get along pretty well. and both of them will likely be focused on the government affairs part of the committee -- homeland security. i am sure they have a particular interest in that particular subject area. >> what other top seats are changing hands? >> another big one is budget committee. kent conrad is also retiring. patty murray is up for that seat.

we say she is the favorite, and i agree. i do think there is a possibility she does not take it. last time i talk to her people but they told me that she had not made a decision yet. you have to realize, when she took the dscc job back in 2010 when harry reid twisted her arm, almost breaking it, to take the job, she basically got him to get her the veterans affairs panel. and this has been a pet issue of hers for her entire career. she is so committed to veterans issues that i am a little skeptical about whether or not she would want to give that up and do a thankless job like budget committee chairman -- jeff sessions will tell you until he is blue in the face -- democrats have not done a budget in about three years. unless there is a real commitment on the part of harry reid to do a budget in the next year, if he really wants to be serious about that, i don't know what decision she ends up

making. >> she did not have too much fun chairing the super committee. >> this is the other thing. she often takes on these think was jobs. when senator robert byrd was ailing and could not go to the floor and manage appropriations -- patty murray did it. even though she was not the second ranking. all of these people were in front of for but she was the one who went to the floor and manage the bill. the super committee, did that. she did the ds when they asked her. and budget is also a thankless job. i do not know how much more tolerance she has for that. she may. >> it does sort prove the maxim if you want something done, find a busy person. >> she is certainly smart enough to do the job. >> she definitely has earned the right to say no. >> and she may want to.

the next person and line for the job is ron winders -- who i think will take the energy committee because jeff bingaman is also retiring and assuming he does that and does not decide to go for the budget, it will probably be bill nelson from florida who just won reelection. but here is my conspiracy- minded way is going on -- let's say ron wind and decided he really wanted budget and not energy, who would be chairman? mary landrieu -- a complete nightmare for the democrats -- coming from an oil-producing state she is really not in line with most of the party on the issues. i had a conversation with a democratic aide not to long ago where i basically said, so, you guys will do everything you can to make sure it does not happen, right? even if patty murray decides not to take budget, you r will ron widen stay there -- their answer was, we do not think we will get to that point. which is estimated will do

everything they can to prevent mary landrieu from taking the gavel. but she is close. and any other on the republican side. is the republican leadership wincing at the thought about new ranking republican members doing damage to the agenda? chuck grassley, installed judiciary, and orrin hatch? >> i think both of them have established their bona fides over the past couple of years. i think it will be fine. grassley has been enough of an attack dog. same thing with hatch -- that i do not think they will have any problems continuing. do what they are doing. >> hatch, i think, suggested when he was running in his highly contested primary that he would be less of a lucy who see deal cutter than he was for much of his career. >> he also said he knew was

never running again. >> that is true. after he won the state party convention, which is how they do it in utah -- the primary is sort of secondary -- he came out and told us back in august at the republican convention that he was very committed to tax reform, he wanted to work on it. max baucus, chairman of the finance committee, also committed. it could be interesting. now that hatch has said i am not going to run again and he got past that, he could kind of do what he wants to do. he could do the deal maker that he is and wants to be. we will see. it depends on how much flak he gets from other people. >> one thing i wanted to talk about before we go to questions is the overall tone in the house. i would not be surprised, even though the republican majority is a little smaller, and some of the people who boehner lost are moderates and those who would cut deals, there may be people, particularly as a

freshman move into leadership positions -- jim langford is making a bid for policy committee chairmanship, which is sort of a springboard for a lot of people. there seems to be a general calming down among some of but fire breathing. there is potential for some mischief on the floor. as dan neuhauser reported in the house section of the guide, some of the more conservative members of the republican party have contemplated now that the threshold to bring down the bill is smaller they may not even vote for rules. but you also have people who are one year -- only one term in and they have now gone through a disappointing election and they have also seen that there are things they can get done that they feel perhaps they were not able to do in the middle of a

debt crisis negotiation and all of the short-term continuing resolutions. so, the tone in the house, i would not be surprised if it ratchets down a teeny little bit because people with a little bit experience, a few more gray hairs, the maybe willing to take the long view on things. >> i am told yesterday the speaker had a conference call with all the members returning, and new members, and try to talk a little the realpolitik with them, and if they wanted to get off to a good start in dealing with the president next year they need to tamp down some of the most conservative aspirations and team building, and many to realize -- what i thought was interesting as i was told he said they needed to come up with 218 votes for whatever they wanted to do, on their own, and not count the democrats to give them any help.

that is of course a fundamental shift in stated policy from john boehner's predecessor, dennis hastert, whose threshold -- a little more than half. a window that even in this post- election feeling of good feeling where everyone talks about reaching out to the other side and meeting half way, already what boehner's challenges to just get his caucus to get behind him enough that 218 out of 232 would vote for it. >> this is kind of a question for jason -- don't you think in hastert's case, he had more blue dog democrats to draw from an boehner does not. if boehner compromises with the democrats because he cannot get all of his people, he would have to go farther to the left to get the same number of votes.

>> of the democratic caucus is certainly more uniform. less separating the most conservative and liberal than four years ago. that will be a challenge. certainly the democrats, if they chose to wield power in pretty much the only way they can come as a minority party, to not cooperate -- the number of times kevin mccarthy, the majority whip, had to go to steny hoyer, minority whip, saying we actually need this number of democrats to pass the debt ceiling or the short term appropriations bills. you know, the democrats were remarkably amenable to providing cover for the republican majority. and if they truly wanted to wield power they would figure out a way to get something out of that. >> i will ask one more question that sort of goes to the same dynamic in the senate.

you and i were talking backstage about the results -- the freshman, and what it says about where the center lies. just what your thoughts. >> i think it is interesting, the people who won on tuesday on the democratic side in particular, but even i would include dean heller of nevada who won on the republican side, really ran separate from -- not against but separate from the party platform and the president. claire mccaskill, john tester, heidi heitkamp from the dakota, joe donnelly for sure from indiana, these are people who won because they were saying i am an independent voice, i will not be beholden to my party. and i think that you have an opportunity -- whether or not they take it and not is quite another question -- but you have an opportunity to have a new center in the scented.

it would be mostly made up of democrats, unfortunately. but i think it will be interesting to watch all of these people and how they behave, particularly when it comes to tax reform. i think it is one place where they could be tremendously influential and be the bridge that sort of gets it done. >> terrific. ice build think we have a microphone assistance. let's -- i still think we have microphone assistance. let's play stump the band -- >> i think it is stump the chumps. >> anybody closer already have a microphone? >> what do you see the relationship between the hill and the cabinet agencies? committees are usually working pretty well. congressional relations people at the agencies, used the politicals of the democratic side -- but they're usually good

working relationships generally. the ec made changes of the same battles? disability and health committee works well with us -- but across the changes did you see an impact? >> do you work and legislative affairs? >> i am actually in a program office but in large constituency out there. >> i would throw out the notion that i think it is relatively universally agreed on that one of the weaknesses of the white house and the past four years were its dealings with congress. maybe it was not the day-to-day programmatic interaction between the committees and agencies, but certainly at the top level, the president personally developed a reputation of being almost disdainful of the whole care and feeding of congress and did not do a very praiseworthy job

of dealing with members really of either party. did not do a lot of care and feeding of democrats and certainly did not reach out to much to republicans and this is what i hear as one of the stated goals in the performance review for the second term. >> i think, to -- and i did not know exactly what your job is -- in the absence of earmarks, it behooves members of congress and the committees and all of them from both parties to have good relationships with the agencies because they need to, as we like to call it, bookmark things or like to influence the way the money is going to be spent. that does not include putting it in legislation. >> i think you are going to see a little bit of a shift again in the house.

so much of the house committee's relationship with agencies was a bit adversarial, particularly when it came to the health-care law, epa regulations. the oversight and government reform's committee's investigation of atf and department of justice got hot under the caller. but as we entered a phase of a president's second term people seem to calm down a bit. the health-care law is going through another phase of implementation. regardless of how much of their might be a desire among some people to re-litigate some of that, they have deadlines to hit. and there's very legitimate oversight, not just oversight and government reform committee but ways and means and the energy and commerce committee and so forth on this massive new orientation to health care we will have in the country. as it enters the implementation phase in 2014 and in 2015, i think you will see a lot more hearings where you are quite literally saying what is the

progress on this aspect of the health-care law. i think that has an opportunity to be a little less driven from -- the supreme court has ruled and president obama has a second term. it does not mean from the perspective of our own personal feelings that we feel good about the law, but literally there will be legitimate questions about how things are progressing, how the insurance exchanges are set up. that might play out in other aspects of the government as things get more underway in the second term. there is kind of a little cruise control at times in the second term administrations, but it does not seem that the white house is going for anything huge along the lines of the health- care law.

the more nuts and bolts aspects of oversight might take over in the committees. >> rand paul -- >> paul ryan -- >> marco rubio. and 20 others we do not yet know about. no, john thune. >> i it can only think the republicans. i want to see if there were any democrats. >> two senators who were reelected this week, both of them women -- klobuchar of minnesota. spend some time at the convention in charlotte, going to delegate -- -- delegation breakfast, including one in iowa, i believe she echoed sarah palin saying she thought she could see iowa from my house. kristen gillibrand. of course, pent up demand for new yorkers running for democratic nomination for president in 2016 already.

i think the order of precedence is the secretary of state runs, then the government -- governor will not, and neither runs, then gillibrand will run. >> i do not know if i just yet see her as presidential material but she has been mentioned as someone who might be a pick for the democrats senatorial campaign committee for this cycle, which would allow her to build up a huge donor base obviously and raise our national profile. she is certainly a very talented politician. i think she was under estimated when she was first appointed. so, who knows. >> just to echo that, there is talk the senator with the golden resume, rob portman, who has done a just about every other job in washington may run for the republican senatorial committee job in two years, which would allow him to regroup.

he did not become vice president. he still harbors presidential ambitions. he is only 57. and so, if he wants to start building up a base he could do worse than do the same thing we talked about gillibrand doing -- recruiting candidates, get them elected. they are beholden to him. life goes on. >> it is worth noting, too, that the one constitutional officer, president of the senate, vice president of the united states joe biden has not ruled it out. >> great copy from us. when he left his polling place when a reporter asked, is it the last time -- it's sort of assumes -- i guess it is the last time you will ever get a chance to vote for yourself. and he said, i don't think so. it is interesting. very interesting. open -- >> "the new york times" had an

article calling the other fiscal cliff as foreign policy. the shake up on the foreign relations committees -- three of the chair and a ranking member being gone but if senator kerry would move positions it would be a complete clean slate on how often set aside and wondering how it affects the president's ability to build up the top line foreign policy issues, like syria and iran, but also others like foreign aid which has a nice rubber duckie on the catalog today. it helps pay our salaries. >> i think bob corker will be interesting as ranking member on foreign relations. he skipped the republican convention this summer to go to the middle east. and he has been doing a lot of traveling. he is super smart about these kinds of things. i think he will try to mold

himself a little bit -- not completely, like dick lugar, honestly. he will be against the hawks i think on a number of occasions. we did a story recently about him and we had john mccain talk about how much -- how much he respected and although they did not always see eye to eye. but i think the foreign relations panel in both chambers, sense, i guess, the 1960's, just as not had as much as an impact on what the president does as it used to. if kerry becomes the secretary of state, i guess you end up taking what he was hoping to do -- and at the administration level. but it reiterates what i am saying, which is you can't do much until you are in the administration about these kinds of things.

>> i think you made a good point. if i could go back to bob corker also. he is kind of this fascinating character to me. in some ways he is almost non partisan and the way he deals with a lot of people. it may be due to his background as mayor of chattanooga. instead of going to the republican national convention in tampa over the summer, he went to the middle east. some people will use these as publicity stunts -- look at me, i am substantive while others are getting drunk. but at the same time, he is a pretty sharp guy. during the dodd-frank debate two congresses ago, he was actually trying to find common ground between democrats and republicans. he has shown a willingness to work with people, to exercise diplomacy within his own conference. he is not always successful. he has shown himself as a person of substance. with kerry, i agree, it if he

becomes secretary of state -- which, who knows what will happen, who knows what the president's intentions are. i am sure there is a recently defeated senate candidate who would love to run for the open seat, scott brown, if kerry were to become secretary of state. it is true the foreign relations and foreign affairs committee have shown a little less influence as far as how far and policy is conducted. >> always good to use this as a reporting and opportunity. we don't know from our book whether it is menendez or boxer who would take the job -- who would it be? >> i suspect it would be menendez. i do not think to >> i suspect it would be menendez. i do not think boxer wants to give up energy and public works. i doubt she would want to do that.

i think kerry's chances of becoming secretary of state increased when susan rice kind of flubbed her media response to the attack in benghazi, and she was already not well liked on the hill among republicans. recently when i saw former senator chuck hagel say nice things about bob kerrey who was re-running in nebraska, i thought, what in it be an interesting choice for the president to make? someone who was a longtime member of the foreign relations committee and who is very smart and diplomatic, which obviously have to be for the job. that is just me speculating. but for what it is worth. >> i have a question. i continue to be just

dumbfounded that senator mcconnell made the statement about his number one priority to be to deny obama a second term. not that he would think that, but he would say it. two questions -- why do you think it did not get even more play by the dems, and secondly, on the hill, among the republicans, were there people saying why in the world did you say that? it seemed like such an unsmart thing to say to me. >> that was a moment when even i was like, i can't believe he said it, too. but as i recall -- and please correct me -- i am pretty sure he said its suit the conservative crowd, either at the heritage foundation or isn't like that and he may have felt -- obviously it was public and not private -- like the 47% remarks from mitt romney -- he may have felt it would not get much press. >> he did say -- and i am not

sure whether the interview was before or after the heritage remarks, but he did tell the press it was his priority. why wouldn't he? the upset party. but it is sort of mystifying that someone who is the consonant operator on capitol hill -- it is hard he spent any time of the capital not to have any respect -- regardless of your political leanings -- for mitch mcconnell because he is just so good at what he does. so intelligent and really does take along a nerve you of things. who knows why -- there was a lot of euphoria in the republican party in 2010, particularly this time two years ago. as i remember, there were magazine covers that were literally painted red. and people say things when they are feeling kind of goosey.

>> and mitch mcconnell is so smart -- maybe he made an impolitic remark, and i don't know. but he is a man who rarely says anything he does not plan far ahead in saying. it could be -- and it is just me speculating, but knowing him i would say it could be also he was trying to put the president on notice that it was not going to be easy. if he wanted to get anything done, he was going to have to -- he wanted to stake out his ground, i guess, is my points. >> the way i always thought of mitch mcconnell -- and i have not spent much time in the scrums, waiting for every word for him to say something, but the way my mother would describe her father, a swedish immigrant, it was as if he is

paying for his own words. that is when you want mcconnell to say something in this big firefight -- any has gone this way of looking straight through you and smiling and moving one. >> the joke about mcconnell is that half of what he said begins with the phrase -- not to be redundant, but i am not going to comment on that. i can't tell you how many times he said that to me. >> anyone, anyone? >> and question from your end of pennsylvania avenue, hearing and thinking about the cabinet. you talk a little bit about stayed but what are people on the hill talking about changes in other cabinet positions?

>> the republicans are saying there ought to be a unity cabinet. and i am sure there will be at least one republican in the next cabinet to replace ray lahood, who is leaving. but i wouldn't expect many more than that. i also would not expect many of them to come from the hill because those seats are precious to barack obama. just as george bush famously said -- george bush the elder, even though he had great relations with members of congress, having served there, he made a conscious decision not to choose anybody from the hill. >> the parlor game is kind of fascinating in terms of how -- gaming out -- could you take this person from this state and

would it be a special election or a governor who appoints, and is of the governor democrat or republican. i am guessing the white house learned of their election a little bit in 2008 when they took so many prominent democratic stars -- and i am thinking of janet napolitano. janet napolitano, they gave for the worst job in the world, homeland security secretary. it is a thankless job. anything goes wrong, it is your fault. if anything goes right, nobody notices. she is a woman who was enormously successful in my home state, which i know is not easy. coming from arizona. she won two -- one close election and coasted through the second term. she was enormously popular -- she had tough challenges but she is certainly someone who could have been in line to either take on mccain in 2010 or flake in 2012 issue when it. now she is in a position where she might be wanting to move up to the justice department is eric holder retires -- if anybody deserves a break, eric holder would be the first one

from the last four years. or the supreme court. who knows what happens there. that is just one example of where the administration reached into the democrat bench and they raided it -- did not have people to take people like napolitano's place. there are only so many seats you can give up, particularly as we saw this grind out world war i election. two seats in the senate and eight are nine seats in the house. we spent $6 billion in this last election. i would agree to the president might look further into his own associations in the past. it has worked out well in the education apartment with arne duncan, sean donovan at hud, and they look like they are in a for the long haul. >> it will be interesting to see who replaces timothy geithner at treasury.

>> trying to escape. >> he has been trying to escape for a long time. i will be interested to see the type of person the president picks going forward. obviously geithner has caused consternation on the hill and i think senators and both parties will look at the nominee, whoever it may be, very hard. >> obviously, just how these nominations go and how the senate treats them, how much, treats them, will be a good early indicator of what next year is going to be like. because if they start fighting over whether the next night -- nominee for treasury secretary ones -- who knows? says something nice about j.p. morgan, then we are going to be in for a long year.

>> you actually took the question away from me. i was going to ask whether you thought there was movement getting appointees confirmed in the senate. >> i am not sure i understand -- all appointees? >> at our agency and from what i read at others as well, there are people who have been appointed by the president but they have not been confirmed because -- >> i see what you are saying, the confirmation backlog. not everyone, because there's always going to be somebody that some senator or two objects to. but i definitely think that is one place faugh where it is unquestionable that the president -- one place where it is unquestionable the president has a mandate to install who he wants at this point. i think a lot of the backlog in administration posts and the judicial posts is because they

were hoping they would not have to have those people. for example, i still wonder what will happen with the consumer finance protection board now. that electorate has essentially said we one with barack obama again, and therefore you are not rolling back that particular agency. i think you will probably see that actually probably happen in lame duck. i don't think that he will have to wait for some of the appointees for the new congress. i think a lot of them will get cleared quickly. >> federal judges -- there are several federal judges, including famously an appeals court judge to sit on the appeals court in boston. he is from portland and have been backed by both republican senators. he was part of what they call thurmond's rule. >> thurmond-leahy rule. >> angus king, from maine, claiming the party alignment is up for grabs.

his initial request is he would align with whatever party agreed to push for essentially doing away with the current filibuster rules. harry reid made clear he is not willing to go that far. i know still think angus king will align with a democrat. he endorsed obama. >> and he said yesterday he had conversations with him in the past 24 hours. >> and a phone call with bob corker. the point being that this is the kind of thing that i think a lot of freshmen -- king most vocal among them, they will come to the senate and say let us not spend our first months of this silliness of gratuitous

filibuster and blocking a holding everything. let's clear out the underbrush. like you are speaking about, who none of us ever heard of. these are assistant secretaries that one or two senators even care about. >> i think a wrinkle is depending on how much it gets done in a lame duck and how much a new congress has to deal with particularly janet we're february -- if they are still struggling to find a deal on the debt ceiling and find a way to avert this fiscal cliff. if they go right into a problem with appropriations because the current continuing resolution expires in march, it sucks some of the oxygen out of the room. it would be great if they could just get all the homework done right now and go to bed at a reasonable hour, right? but it is not going to happen most likely. and there is going to be a lot of attention focused on these

leftover problems, which there was last year and the year before and the year before. i remember, two years ago during the lame-duck when they made the deal and struck the deal on a tax rates, i thought, oh, no, it looks like we will be dealing -- it means we will be dealing with this right after the election. the more you put that stuff off, the more it piles up and gets more difficult to deal with just the real nuts and bolts part of governing, which is getting the assistance secretary of labor and the regional directors for epa and hhs in their jobs so they can tell -- from a political basis, they can say this is the direction we are taking and what the president has done. it is a problem. it is a potential fix it they are facing. but, who knows, maybe they will give us an early christmas present and wrap up a lot of the

business. >> i remember, chuck schumer and i think lamar alexander who are trying to push to this bill through the senate that would reduce the number of appointees that the senate has to confirm. i do not know if the house will go along with it but it could come back in the 113th. >> on that optimistic note we are adjourned until after lunch break, down the hall to the right -- and we will reconvene in a little bit. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> in his weekly address, president obama urges members of congress to come together and create more jobs and extend middle-class tax cuts. the republican address was delivered by the republican speaker of the house. >> hello, everybody. on tuesday, america went to the polls. and the message you sent was clear: you voted for action, not politics as usual. you elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. that's why i've invited leaders

of both parties to the white house next week, so we can start to build consensus around challenges we can only solve together. i also intend to bring in business, labor and civic leaders from outside washington to get their ideas and input as well. at a time when our economy is still recovering from the great recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth. that's the focus of the plan i talked about during the campaign. it's a plan to reward businesses that create jobs here in america, and give people access to the education and training that those businesses are looking for. it's a plan to rebuild our infrastructure and keep us on the cutting edge of innovation and clean energy. and it's a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. this is even more important because at the end of this year, we face a series of deadlines that require us to make major decisions about how to pay down our deficit -- decisions that will have a huge impact on the economy and the middle class, now and in the future.

last year, i worked with democrats and republicans to cut a trillion dollars' worth of spending, and i intend to work with both parties to do more. but as i said over and over again on the campaign trail, we can't just cut our way to prosperity. if we're serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue -- and that means asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more in taxes. that's how we did it when bill clinton was president. and that's the only way we can afford to invest in education and job training and manufacturing -- all the ingredients of a strong middle class and a strong economy. already, i've put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. now, i'm open to compromise and new ideas. but i refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced. i will not ask students or seniors or middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people making over $250,000 aren't asked to pay a dime more in taxes.

this was a central question in the election. and on tuesday, we found out that the majority of americans agree with my approach -- that includes democrats, independents, and republicans. now we need a majority in congress to listen -- and they should start by making sure taxes don't go up on the 98% of americans making under $250,000 a year starting january 1. this is something we all agree on. even as we negotiate a broader deficit reduction package, congress should extend middle- class tax cuts right now. it's a step that would give millions of families and 97% of small businesses the peace of mind that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. there's no reason to wait. we know there will be differences and disagreements in the months to come. that's part of what makes our political system work. but on tuesday, you said loud and clear that you won't tolerate dysfunction, or politicians who see compromise as a dirty word.

not when so many of your families are still struggling. instead, you want cooperation. you want action. that's what i plan to deliver in my second term, and i expect to find leaders from both parties willing to join me. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> this week, i called for action by both parties on a plan to help our economy grow and create jobs, which is critical to solving our debt. it's also critical to averting the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of automatic spending cuts and tax rate increases that's just weeks away from taking effect. some have said that despite the risks, we should let our nation's economy go off part of the fiscal cliff in january, by allowing the top two rates to rise. they believe that doing that will generate more revenue for the federal government. but here's the problem with that. raising those rates on january 1 would, according to the independent firm ernst & young, destroy 700,000 american jobs. that's because many of those hit by this tax increase are small business owners -- the very people who are the key to

job creation in america. i used to be one of them. this week, i offered congratulations to president obama -- along with an alternative to sending our economy over any part of the fiscal cliff. instead of raising tax rates on the american people and accepting the damage it will do to our economy, let's start to actually solve the problem. let's focus on tax reform that closes special interest loopholes and lowers tax rates. instead of accepting arbitrary cuts that will endanger our national defense, let's get serious about shoring up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our country's massive, growing debt. 2013 should be the year to begin to solve our debt through tax reform and entitlement reform. together, we should avert the fiscal cliff in a manner that ensures that 2013 finally is that year. shoring up entitlements and reforming the tax code -- closing special interest loopholes and deductions, and

moving to a fairer, cleaner, and simpler system -- will bring jobs home and result in a stronger, healthier economy. a stronger economy means more revenue -- which is exactly what the president is seeking. and without a strong economy, we'll never be able to balance the budget and erase our country's debt. this framework can lead to common ground. the president and i had a brief conversation this week and i'm hopeful that we can continue those talks and forge an agreement that can pass both chambers of congress. because if there was a mandate in this election, it was a mandate to work together to do what's in the best interest of our country. and right now what's best is getting our economy moving again and keeping it moving, so we can begin to restore our children's future. it's a great honor to serve as speaker of the house. i'm constantly inspired by the courage and grace of the american people, especially the 22.5 million veterans who we pause to honor this weekend. to them and their families, we say thank you, god bless you,

god bless this great nation that you've served so valiantly. >> c-span invites middle and high school students to send a message to the president. through a short video, let president obama know what is the most important issue he should consider in 2013, for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. the video competition is open to students grades 6-12, and the deadline is january 18, 2013. for complete details and rules, go online to studentcam.org. >> president obama will participate in a ceremony at the two of the unknowns following by -- followed by a remembrancer money. our live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> next, a look at education

priorities in president obama's second term. scholars and policy leaders from both parties talk about the impact of sequestration, charter schools, and education spending. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> good morning, everybody. please take a seat and get prepared for a great event. welcome to aei. i am research fellow in education policy studies here. we appreciate everyone coming out. i know it has been a quiet week in d.c., so we are glad to give you an excuse to get out of the office. to the senate, the 2012 election

looks like $6 billion later and not all that much has changed -- to the senate -- to the cynic. the president won a second term, though with a slightly smaller coalition than last time around. republicans maintain their majority in the house. democrats picked up a couple of seats in the senate. that looks pretty much the same. while the political situation looks largely the same, policy challenges loom on the horizon. the long-awaited this go? set to take effect on january 2 would lead to some -- the fiscal cliff set to take effect still very much in flux. luckily we have this panel of experts here to help us understand where matters stand. i want to point out quickly that we had planned on having

representatives from the administration here to add their perspectives to the discussion. first, we have someone from the white house domestic council, and then from the department, but the administration has asked that staff not comment on election returns or on plans for the second term. they are unable to make it, and we have refrained from putting an empty chair on the dais, since that did not work very well the first time around. but in their absence, i'm sure we will still have a very spirited discussion from a diverse set of perspectives. we are joined today by the resident scholar and director of education policy studies here. he is the author of too many books to mention at the moment. next to him is kristen solti

sanders -- soltis anderson. her research focuses on young trends and education policy and thus a political talk show. to her left is a reporter for "education week," who covers federal policy, congress, and the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. that must have been an active beat for the past couple of years. she also is the author of the very popular "education week" blog "politics k-12." next to her is representative john boehner's assistant for policy. to her left, both politically i believe and figuratively -- [laughter] is the co-founder and partner in

bellweather education, and he also writes a weekly column for "time." before we get started, quickly, please turn yourself-- your cell phones to silenct. it is also being live tweeted. we will also do about 10 minutes of q&a at the end of the moderated discussion here. if you have questions at the end, please raise your hand, identify yourself by name and affiliation, and most importantly, please ask a question. that is our number one rule here. i wanted to get started with a quick lightning round with our panelists, and by that, i mean three quick questions. please keep your answers brief if possible. three questions for each of you. what was the biggest surprise on

tuesday? that is the first. who was the biggest winner on tuesday? and then, the last is -- what word or phrase will describe the next four years in education policy making? let's start with rick. >> [inaudible] >> mike on. >> one out of eight romney voters went down ballot and chose not to vote for the republican nominee for the state representative of instruction in indiana. we can talk about what that might mean. second, the biggest winner, dennis van winkle. i mentioned tony bennett got taken out. second, they beat back three major ballot initiatives in idaho that and when the guts of the republican reform package from last year. and california in prop b 30

voted to raise sales taxes and- income taxes to fund education -- prop. 30 voted to raise sales taxes and high and income taxes to fund education. tammy baldwin was one of the half-dozen most liberal democratic members of congress according to "national journal," and she will only be the second most liberal new senator in the democratic caucus with elizabeth warren coming from massachusetts. these are folks who are going to restore very much an old time kind of union use it to the democratic caucus. a phrase that captures the next four years -- chaotic with little money. [laughter] >> for me, the biggest surprise, i think, was that mitt romney was able to win independent voters by five points but still lose the election. that is a real function of the

way the democrats brought sort of that same turnout model to this election that they brought in 2008. even though republicans lost independents by eight points four years ago, making a swing to go up plus five and then lose the white house was a real wake- up call for republicans that there just are not enough of them anymore. the biggest winner was data -- both in terms of polling data -- the pollsters got it perfect despite a lot of criticism -- and the other reason why i say data is i think you will be hearing a lot in the coming weeks about the incredible data operation that the obama campaign ran. google project and our wall -- narwhal it get a chance. it is a sophisticated targeting campaign where the obama campaign is going to find you if you ever even thought about voting for obama at some point in your life. they were going to find you and get you to the polls.

you were going to see the republican party trying to build a data system. the word for education policy is going to be -- i want to say "change," but what is ironic is that this election was one where a very frustrated electorate sent almost all of the same people back to washington. i do not necessarily mean that policy changes are going to be big, but i do mean that implementation is going to be happening in classrooms and in schools across america. things are going to feel a little bit different. you are going to see teachers adapting to teaching standards, so i think you are going to see a lot of on the ground change in -- and people beginning to adapt to that. >> i think the biggest surprise -- i think rick took mine. it was definitely tony bennett. the second biggest surprise was those ballot measures in south

dakota and idaho, definitely not what you consider liberal states. cutting down paper performance, devaluations, things like that. obviously pushed back not just among democrats, but among republicans for those ideas. the biggest winner -- i think rick took mine again -- it was the unions. in covering the whole campaign, what sort of supplies -- was sort of surprise, i would not say weather, but i was surprised by what a big issue education funding was in the race. partly because mitt romney put paul ryan on the ticket, and i think that obviously put a spotlight on his budget. but we saw -- those of us who live in the d.c. area -- politicians going at each other on education funding cuts. an mitt romney saying he would not cut education funding, despite everything that the obama campaign was throwing at

them. i am sort of surprised that became an issue at all. in terms of the next four in terms of the next four years, i would say a lot of noise, but not a lot action. >> thank you. i would probably have to agree. one surprise, being in the speaker's office, we were surprised with the turnout in the senate. a winner for us in the house is the repayment of the republican majority, -- repayment of the republican majority, and seeing many members come back. i would agree on a lot with alyson klein and kristen soltis, much of the reform will

be at the state and local level, grass roots, implementation of waivers and raced to the topic and patients here in washington. >> so, i think you will hear a fair amount of consensus. i would agree on the national surprise in the demographics of the elector it. you could see that in forecasting monished digit models, -- models, but there was a debate about changing demographics, and one part of the debate was that you still had to compete, and there was the assumption the republicans would, and that has not happened. that will have profound implications and consequences

for politics. in education, the biggest surprise was tony bennett it is -- tony bennett. it is ironic that the defeat of a republican is the most ominous sign for president obama. in terms of winners, nobody said the big winner was barack obama karen unemployment is high. the economy is sluggish. -- obama. unemployment is high. the economy is sluggish, but he won a relatively convincing election. if you go back and this seems like ancient history, but if you go back to 2009, iphone two days, there was a cover story in the "the new york times magazine" about the teachers

union's last stand. it was about how reformers had checked mated the teachers' unions. the big story is obviously that is not what happened and they came roaring back. the latest story is the republican-on-republican violence. you saw that in idaho the -- , s.d. and all of that leads to the other big word that would describe it, and i would say that is uncertainty. you have a pro-reform and anti- reform colliding. the anti-reform folks are not just on the left or the right. i am not sure how that will place out. on twitter, it was the same from the usual suspects as it was

monday. i say uncertainty because it is not clear how leaders rise above that, or with a left four years repeat the last -- the next four years repeat the last four years. >> so, what are the second term priorities for the obama administration in the education policy? will they push the direction they pushed early on, the raced to the top, or will we see more of what seemed to take hold in the campaign, the promise of 100,000 more teachers and smaller class sizes. which barack obama will d.c., rick hess? -- will we see, rick hess? >> wanting to keep in mind, from the first term, there was remarkably little statutory

action from the administration. we saw a regulatory things. gainful in plymouth, the push on waivers, barring -- employment, the flesh -- pushed on waivers, but they will have grown on spending of 12%, less than either term from president clinton or president bush. we are looking at a $1 trillion shortfall. assuming they get a deal done and taxes goes up, that does not create a big flow of dollars. honestly, i think that is where the president is standing. when you listen to the signals that he gave and secretary arne duncan dave talking about 100,000 teachers without making it clear where the money would come from.

the secretary avoided mentioning race to the top. given that the teachers' unions can make as possible of the case as anyone that they were pivotal in the three most narrow states, colorado, ohio and florida, it will be interesting to see how hard the president wants to push on the reform agenda going forward. >> i have a slightly different take about the teachers union. union membership is sexually way down over the last decade or -- is actually weighed down over the last decade. this election, it was only 18%, and 42% of union households voted for mitt romney. i see them becoming a smaller part of the democratic

coalition. the latino vote is a bigger part, and i think there is intention. nonwhite voters say my kids are going to terrible schools, and something needs to be done. there will be a conflict between folks who have an interest in the status quo and those that say we need resources allocated in a way that is benefiting students in the classroom. the white house and democrats will have to deal with that. >> k-12 had a lot of play in the first term, and now it is higher education. funding will dominate the beginning of the new congress. there is a shortfall in the pell grants. student loans are going to double later this summer. we talked about latinos being part of the coalition. youth voters were a huge part.

if half had stayed home or voted for mitt romney in the swing states, he would be the president. i think higher education will take priority. i think they want to keep weight for planes and not discuss reauthorization because they did not -- waiver plans, and not discuss reauthorization, because it did not like where it was going in the last year or so. >> i will echo with kristen soltis said in the composition. you saw that in where the -- where the president had the state without much trouble. i think there is a second idea to understand what happened

tuesday, and it is on the state issues, the union's flexed their muscle. labor is a smaller part of the coalition, but around the country, you saw in indiana, conservatives and teachers union members voted the same way on tony bennett. in idaho, reforms championed by a republican, and it was voted down. did i mention this was idaho? the same thing in south dakota. places where they decided to go and have a fight, they did well. what this means for the president, these were all issues the president his support of. in indiana, teachers were upset about evaluation, and republicans about common core.

these are also things that jeb bush has championed. you have centrist reformers that find themselves on a political tightrope on both sides. in terms of how much the administration could do in a second term, it creates real challenges. more generally, sometimes conventional wisdom is right. something has to happen on the fiscal cliff. the dow plummeted yesterday. something has to happen on immigration. it is overdue. maryland voters showed it is not that reelected. and, to the earlier point, people responding to the changing demographics, those are the two issues i would pay attention to -- the fiscal cliff and immigration.

>> andrew kelly makes a point. jeb bush was out there. we have seen that death has not gotten traction with -- we can see that that has not come traction with tea party republicans. in idaho, when we talk about tension over school reform, we tend to think about it against the teachers union, and what you see in idaho is republican legislators generally feel supportive of distance education, digital learning, value-added merit-based pay, but you do not get the sense from people doing republican organizing that this is something they are thinking or

talking about. when they vote on it as a single issue, they feel it is not what they want to do. we like our teachers, our schools. one thing that is pointed out by the indiana and idaho situations is there is much more of a challenge in terms of building a coalition on the right than has been presupposed. >> the republican party is turning to a more default position the other thing tuesday was a repudiation -- position. the other thing that happened tuesday night, was a repudiation of the moderates approach. >> kathryn, you could weigh in on this republican-on- republican violence point. is it your sense that your party

is at a move away from the george w. bush education style? >> yes, i would probably agree. earlier this year you might have seen the education work force committee moved bills that did not come to the house floor, but it was a different policy, giving states more flexibility to determine how to educate students, consolidation of programs, greater funding, focusing on career and college readiness, but not endorsing a common core, and a focus on teacher reform. it was a little bit -- folks talk about backstop, instead of the final goal. there have been complaints about

no child left behind being too prescriptive. if you look at the bills that came out of committee, it looked very different than now child left behind, and i expect that to continue in the 113th congress. >> in congress, republicans have a reasonably good night, and members are looking at how romney and obama ran in their district. you have a large caucus on both sides that is not feeling pushed from constituents to take on ambitious education reform, particularly in the tea party, there is, in fact, pressure to do the opposite. and those are districts that mitt romney had handily. >> on the point that republicans have taken this default position, kristen soltis, but

wanted to know, which side does the american public side with education, and is that an indication that there might need to be a shift in priorities? rick hess and i have been somewhat critical in the past. i would like to hear your thoughts on how the american public feels and then have rick hess weigh in on an alternative republican agenda in the next session. >> in general, people think very pessimistic. they think schools in america are doing poorly, but schools in their neighborhood are great, for the most part. they default to supporting things that they could clearly said it would help by students. when you talk about something like class size, the parent

could envision my child getting a better education if there were 20 kids in the classroom instead of 28. one of the problems is that a lot of the reforms in the reform community on both sides is that a lot of reform is tough to communicate in terms of how directly impacts a student. how does performance pay mean a student gets a better education? concord, how does that lead to better education in the classroom? you see gravitating to smaller class size, more funding because it is easy to get your head around the impact on your child. i do not know that the public is set against reform, but we

need to do a good job of explaining why process changes lead to a system that leads to better student outcomes, and that is why in idaho, people are voting for things that will make a difference for students. >> did you want to jump in? >> sure. i think one thing you could add to what kristen soltis observed is that the things that touch your kid are things that teachers like. class size reduction is a two- for. the politics lined up neatly. we have seen that for more than 20 years. structural reforms -- charter schools, accountability systems, merit pay -- if people believe their kids are getting short-changed, it is much easier

to get them to believe that they need to make major changes and they should not trust the education authority. one of the challenges we see in idaho, indiana, and even committees with low performing schools, most do not think there schools stink. most people, most of the time, think their kids are well served. they like their teachers and schools. so, reformers have an uphill climb. they have to convince these people that these seemingly radical, risky changes are worth doing. i think it is easier to do when the schools are objectively troubled, when your only graduating 40%, 50% of your kids. it is easier when you indicate racial disparities, and when you have money geared on

specific communities. we have not done that in the suburbs. you could argue that you see racial disparities in even high- performing suburbs, but most of these folks like their students -- like their schools and teachers, and you're telling them to blow up something they value. if you are going to build a coherent agenda, it has to take those concerns seriously. for instance, what you saw during the republican primaries was this embarrassing kabuki theater about abolishing the department of education, for instance. michele bachmann would say i want to abolish the department of education, and then tea party would vote for steady funds for title one and student loans. you need a vision of what state government can do, what can federal programs do, that are

actually going to respond to real, practical concerns, and both parties have done an abysmal job explaining that to middle-class and suburban families. >> i think the troubling state of the economy has offered an opportunity to reformers. you do not just at unemployment were people lose their job and then find another one. the average length of unemployment is over 40 weeks. long term unemployment has people saying maybe there is a skill issue. they are linking education to the economy in a way reformers would say we need to get to the level of other countries. i think people are beginning to get that. one way you can see that happen is in 2000 education was the number one issue and after september a lavin it went on a downward -- september election, it went -- september 11, it went

on a downward slide, and it is on the second tier of issues. jobs in the economy is number one. trilling that his health care, deficit spending, and education. the tough economy has elevated the failings of the education has an issue, and given us an opportunity to save our schools are failing. you think your kids are getting a good education, but when they get to college, and they cannot pass remedial classes, suddenly the failure of the education system that had been more silent in their lives becomes more real. this is an interesting moment for reformers to push. >> let's shift gears and talk about congress and reauthorization.

in 2010, we asked about the probability of the fta getting reauthorize. it was like 10%, so they were pretty accurate. [laughter] alyson klein, you say a-12 will be downplayed -- k-12 will be downplayed because the administration did not like the direction. what is your sense of where they start? >> i would love to know for sure. i spoke to the chairman yesterday and he said we are going to put up the bills again. he said there would be some weeks. he was not specific. it does not sound like he is backing down when it comes to the teacher evaluation peace in

his bill that is a big difference between the house bill's and where senator alexander, who i am pretty sure will become the ranking republican on the senate health committee, want to go. so, republicans are already having an internal war. i do not know if the bills will be sustained from last year. those had huge push back from the civil rights community, including people that represent students with disabilities, an important constituency to senator harkin. if you have parties that are divided like this, you need and the administration to say this is a priority and we want to make this happen. if the administration cannot say this publicly, but my sense is

they do not want to see reauthorization. they do not like the direction for the sub group of students. they are worried about that. they will wait until well waivers get as much traction as possible before they pushed on something. if there is going to be reauthorization in the next two years, he will because the be because state officials, governors and -- it will be because state officials, governors and cheese are upset and they lean hard on congress to make a happen. >> on the waivers point, i would be curious to hear your tape to the waivers act as a galvanizing force to get the republicans -- take on the weepers act. will they be a galvanizing force, or a relief valve where they left off frustration and

let congress off of the hawk, kristen soltis? ?> -- off of the hook >> there are two parts. republicans and democrats are frustrated with the decision to use the waiver and many believe it is not under their authority to do that. there is a certain frustration. as the administration announced last fall, they would proceed in this direction because they could not wait for reform, and you saw the educational work force committee proceed with a markup on its bills. they put some of the floor. a final package was moved out of committee last february. there is concern about the waiver. there was a document out of the majority leader office about an

imperial presidency, and one of these points was highlighted. yes, there is certainly concerned about the waiver process. we saw last year dubliners and state chief's coming to todd -- governors and state chief's coming to congress, and as soon as the state's started seeing the waivers, we stopped hearing from them. this summer, we received a letter from nga, but i feel like in my personal opinion that was late. we needed that last year, and nobody applied for a waiver. [laughter] you did not have this huge capitalist -- [indiscernible] [laughter] thank you.

we did hear this complaint from 2002 to the present, and states are being innovative, and we are thinking outside of the box with education, in pointing evaluations and stock -- such, -- employee evaluations and such, and in my view, often we need that pressure and i think some of that went away. >> andrew rotherham? >> the anecdote that always tells me why we are where we are, two years ago a democratic senator told me that they were given a free hand to rewrite the law, it would still not go far enough to satisfy the other side. that is the logjam. in washington, it is easier to

stop things than start things. you have people concerned about undoing the accountability and alyson klein talked about the populations, special lead, minority and so forth, and there was no way they were going to end up in a position of authority after the election, but they can still stop them. anyone who went to high school understand that institutions are set up to stop things and make them hard. i appreciate but kristen soltis said, but truthfully it is like someone telling you you are punctual and well-groomed when

they do not give you a job. education is a distant second. despite these big disagreements, there is not pressure to build deal with them. when you say your issue is behind the economy and jobs, and you are behind the health care, and the deficit, which are big issues, it is nice, it makes you feel good, but we are an afterthought. coupled with where the states are, that is legitimate, but that is where we are. frankly, if you saw what happened in some of the waivers , i think people who have concerns that getting the federal government out of the way on accountability, what that would lead to -- we've seen what the states think are realistic

and ambitious targets. there is quietly consensus that it is outrageous and we ought not to let that happen for awhile it was a blocking consensus -- happen. for a while it was a blocking consensus. >> three things to add. one, what we can actually agree on, last summer there was this embarrassing pander fest around stafford loans. this is what members and the administration found ground on, kicking the can and free stuff. when i say we cannot find common ground, i think there are

different but legitimate ways to look at this. if you the to the education trust, it is legitimate to characterize what is getting talked about as a rollback. it is fair. on the other hand, from where i stand, it is undeniable that no child left behind was horribly designed, and in. in piece of accountability in which -- and a horrible -- horribly designed, and lacking accountability. it is not a question of what the federal role be, but what are useful and constructive federal accountability systems. i think that as we got lost along the way. what this means is given the way it was characterized by

katherine haley, there is not a lot of urgency, which means it will be less fun to be at the department of education bennett was at the last four years. the last four were about race to the top, reform efforts, and the next four will be holding people speak to the fire. everybody is out of compliance -- feet to the fire. everybody is out of compliance on race to the top. i am going to be curious to see what the department is able or willing to do about any of it. >> i want to respond. we do not need to argue about the accountability, but if it had been reauthorize, we would be having a forum on what the next reauthorization would look like.

that is how late the law is it was never designed to run for a decade without modification. if you look at where states are relative to where they were, this is all about growth models, and there was only one state able to do that. the law is becoming a caricature of itself. that has less to do with the architecture of the law than the fact that it is so over due and out-of-step with everything that has happened in the state. i think the second guessing, against that backdrop, obscure'' the actual reality on the ground -- obscures' the actual reality on the ground. >> rick hess says congress is great and kicking the can and

free stuff, so i want to talk about sequestration and the fiscal cliff. they have supposedly tied their hands here. there are differing opinions as to how important this will be on the ground for districts and schools, and how important it will be in washington. katherine haley, how are you on the house side thinking about solving this fiscal cliff, especially given that it is a lame duck session, difficult to get people to focus in the next couple of months? what is your strategy in the house? >> yesterday, speaker boehner had a press conference and outlined a framework. his first request was asking president obama to lead

americans, not as republicans and democrats, but as the president of the united states leading congress. he also put in place a little bit of the frame work. it is not the intent of the house to let the cuts take effect on january 2. it is significant and genuinely sincere. it is about 8.2% to education programs. some of them are delayed based on the omb report to the next school year, but for the most part, it will be very difficult. it is not the intent of the house, who passed numerous bills in the last year. speaker boehner said yesterday, he'd like to address the fiscal cliff and -- with taxes and the

sequestration in the package, but things that could be signed into law by the end of the year, but reforms that would overhaul the tax code and bring in additional revenue that would offset sequestration. that is the position where speaker john boehner intends to lead. the president and the speaker spoke yesterday. i did not know how that went, but i am sure it was a cordial conversation. that is our intent, work with the president to avert the tax increase and the huge spending cuts. >> rick hess, i'm curious katherine haley, given the time frame that covers typically moves on, is it even feasible that they could act before

sequestration? >> congress has an incredible way of acting very quickly. if you remember the budget control act, or the appropriations bill, we came to the brink many times, but in the end, congress did its job. it will be difficult and probably painful, but at the same time we will have to see the attitude of members when they return. >> andrew rotherham, to your question, one of the reasons i personally found the last couple of months of the presidential debates disheartening was that it struck me that neither can it wanted to speak honestly to the american people about where we are at, or start to educate and prepare voters for the difficult

decisions that need to be made. harry reid said they are happy to talk entitlement reform, but social security is out of the mix. i do not know what the hell that means. if you remember "bob woodward -- bob woodward, the book about the speaker put the negotiation -- speaker put the negotiation with the president, -- speaker's negotiation with the president, president obama was not willing to put the affordable care act on the table. as i understand it, from the speaker, they want revenue to grow from a tax structure, rather than increases in taxes anywhere in the code. given where we are, that the president won while promising to avoid hard choices, and congress

is back where it was, and if anything with a few more members that are inclined to spend money rather than cut spending, it is hard to see a scenario where they agreed to do anything other than to ignore sequestration, borrow the money, flat fund programs with the excuse to the economy is rough, put it off until 2013, and 2014, and we will be here at the midterms having the same conversation about when he stopped dumping this on our children. >> -- we'd stop dumping this on our children. >> there is this conversation about taking our medicine and making hard choices, and on the eve of making those hard choices, we are talking about undoing it.

what happened yesterday, put it in real terms -- if you have $1 million in the market, you lost $25,000 at least, and that is on top of the $25,000 you lost trying to elect mitt romney. [laughter] you are in a really sour mood, and you will want to see action. that is one push. most american people are not in the situation of having that kind of money in the markets, but people want to see action. you have members of congress that were elected on a pledge of not raising taxes, and that is fine with the people that elected them. rick hess laid out one set of courses. you have katherine haley on the other side. when i'm look at the senate races, i see a story of really bad republican candidate

recruitment, and really good democratic cabinet recruitment, good fits for the state and the electorate. i do not see a fundamental change where people want to make a deal, and those people grew exponentially. i think what you potentially see is a punt, and if you are a betting man, and if you live in maryland, you are now [laughter] you would bet on punting. >> alyson klein, what is your take on sequestration? i think the best scenario is a framework of the deal in the lame duck, and then we spend the next six months filling in the

details if we are lucky. the good news for education is that it is a big deal, but not as big of the deal as it might be for other programs. the cuts for title one do not hit until next school year. districts are already planning for the cuts. i am sure it will put pressure on them, but is something they might be able to cope with in the short term. what will eventually happen is we will at least fully fund or keep a flat funding. i think the district that could get screwed are the impact a district, because a lot of them are very dependent on military

bases, native american kids. they are sympathetic district. it is hard to take money from soldiers kids. the optics of that look bad. i think most school districts will survive on the six months, we are trying to figure it out. it will be harder on the military bases. >> so, just to follow up, the notion that it may be is not as big of a deal, in your work with states and districts, our focus prepared? is the threat credible of a serious reduction in federal funding? >> i think there are two questions. are they taking it seriously, yes, and i think alyson klein is spot on. do they think is credible? now, they see this movie a lot.

you see these -- hear about these education cuts, and if you move away from the rhetoric, education has had a spectacular run since bill clinton was president, and the recovery act hardly hurt. you could argue with the money was well spent, but in terms of federal outlays, it has been substantial. i think what alyson klein said, it is a small part of the budget, so we like to get excited and pretend we are at the big game, but we are not. this is double a. so come you have that issue. the one place i would keep an eye on is pell grants. they have become like the pac- man, quietly in the budget. i would pay attention to that -- quietly in the budget.

i would pay attention to how the reform the grants, what are creative ideas to address the cost issues and achieve that goal? i would pay attention to that as a place for something interesting to happen. >> just in terms of where it will fit on the agenda, you picture folks playing the penny table in the corner, but that will also be true substantively. iran will probably come to a head in the next 12-to-18 months. that will concentrate attention. whatever happens with sequestration, there is also the focus on getting the economy fired up, and getting a job creation high and sustained. education is not likely going to get more than lip service.

frankly, we're going to be dealing with the implementation of the affordable care act heavily. that will sit on the same senate committee. i think there will be a lack of adult supervision at the department of education, and a lot of what will be followed through is what secretary duncan and his team proceeds, but interacting with state chiefs, which is more -- which is where the interaction will be. >> we have learned a lot about implementation over the course of federal policy. i am actually more bullish on what to expect from them. i think the point made it is worth repeating. kristen soltis give us the issues and where people are, but something always happens. you would not have said a terrorist attack would be the

catalyst for a landmark education deal. that is what makes this interesting. things will always surprise you, and sometimes in ways that you do not expect. >> i want to stick with the education funding question more broadly, as i think about it at the state and federal level. starting with kristen soltis, where is the american public's appetite for education funding? in california we see the victory on proposition 32, suggesting the public is ready to spend their own money on education. where is the public appetite on public spending on education at this point? >> in general, the frustration around the level of debt that america has taken on is very high. the fact we have run $1

trillion deficits for the last four years has people frustrated, and people watch this debate to to figure out how to stop doing this. when it comes to education funding, it goes back to our dollars spent in a way that i feel i can see the benefit. you talk about chopping the federal government. what does the federal government spend money on? that is the challenge in watching the presidential debates. people talk about cutting spending, but nobody says what they want to cut, because everybody likes something. you would upset that person or that group. for education, it is parents that vote reliably, and they feel that $1 less for education is $1 less for my kids. that is why education funding is

viewed differently. reductions in education funding argued today negative impact to have a negative impact. -- to have a negative impact. across the board, it does not have a clear effect. >> also, people have no idea what we actually spend on schools. they tend to while we under- estimate it. there was a great pool question, "would you prefer the the federal government spend money, and you had a choice, reduce spending, or uncool the schools -- or on schools?" 60% said reduce the deficit.

30% said spending on education. in 1996, when bill clinton was president, it was almost a complete and first. that speaks to the level of anxiety. they might not understand the difference between the two, but they understand there is a big problem that is out of control and they want to see it addressed. regardless of what happened tuesday, that will play a big role in politics going forward. >> i agree. previously, when the debt and deficit was not as big of an issue, i think cuts to education would be more controversial. i think people are starting to get that everything needs to be on the table. the big changes how to get more efficiency out of the system, more bang for our buck? people do not want to see the quality of the education system to get worse, and people

understand it needs to get better in a serious way, but at the pot of money to go to schools is not growing. i think voters are realistic that is not going to grow. so, to the extent that reformers can focus on ways to use money more effectively, that is a good way to have a conversation about keeping education on the right track, even given scarce resources. >> we have not talk about the state, and the pension issues are enormous. the fiscal cliff, for school finance, if you are thinking how one decade or two decades, the fiscal cliff is not what you should pay attention to.

there is a slow problem. there is a longer-term, structural problem. >> at the same time, in this murky virginia race, and george allen was going after tim kaine, somewhat implausibly, for not being as committed to spending state dollars on education. it did not work, but nonetheless, the mitt romney in the debate said we're going to do and across the court -- across the board except for education. in california, voters voted for the quarter of one penny sales- tax increase but even though, arguably, california has been in not getting their fiscal house in order, they voted to raise taxes on higher income earners

to avoid a shortfall. we saw the collective bargaining reforms in the package on wound with majorities in a red state. i think you are right, andy in that what matters is a benefit squeeze we will see 20 years out, but i am not sure leaders have stomach for tackling this, and voters get squeamish because it is not really feel like what they want to do and they like teachers, so why do they want to pick fights? >> in illinois there was a proposal to change how public pensions -- some of the sweeteners in public pensions and illinois law requires a supermajority. 66% of voters voted for that,

but it did not pass. there were a substitute teachers that were able to get a pension. things like that got under people's skins, but people were not able to process -- topos -- undo it because of structural issues. there are not believers at the disposal. and you will see that in more and more states. >> alyson klein wanted to jump in. >> i just wanted to talk about how hard it is to cut education funding, which is why i think the title one will be ok after sequestration. i would be much more worried about smaller programs in the department's, the ones that are still left.

i think consolidation programs doomed them before, and probably will do them again. i am curious to see come up with the majority that democrats have in the senate, the sea, which it i'm curious to see, with the majority did -- i'm curious to see, with the majority the democrats have in the senate, they would be easy targets. >> in places like california, they have cut the budget, and it has been really hard for schools. they're cutting to the bone out there. and what they spend on schools, you talk to the leaders, and there are crazy situations. we laugh about that, california, you know, but that shows that these cuts at the state level will not necessarily be driven

by voter appetite or courageous leadership. they will be driven by circumstance. californians dictate their preference for -- preferences, but it will force hard choices over time. san jose and pensions. pensions were consuming over 20% of the budget, and a democratic mayor said we have to fix this or we could not provide basic services like fire fighters and police. the voters did, but those are situations forced by circumstance. i think we all agree it is hard politically but circumstances can force you into that. >> hiking circumstances can set the table. i think wisconsin is instructive. if you think about at 10, scott

walker's reforms, in dialling back collective bargaining, they left in place existing agreements. what you saw in states that complained that their hands were tied was school boards and superintendents rush to reissue contracts. milwaukee public schools, for instance, cost to itself hundreds of millions of dollars it could put into construction in classrooms instead to pay retirement benefits and health care. part of what will happen is there will be a structural squeeze, but it both very much come down to what leaders actually do, and what decisions they make about steering the ballot. >> i just saw the c-span camera man laughing, so this must be a boring conversation.

let's move on. [laughter] >> this is a big game, but i must be some kind of replacement referee. let's go back to tony bennett, and what it means more broadly. was it a bad night, or is this a foreboding trend? >> it was a foreboding trend. mitt romney 1 indiana with 54%. it was a reliably read state. won. pence, still on tony bennett still got the same votes as rick murdoch. tony bennett, in indiana, a former basketball coach, with big money, a record of

accomplishment, and he ran even with murdoch? it is astonishing. what happened is some of the reform agenda andy bed and i celebrate, it does not connect with suburban voters, and they do not get excited about the value added and merit pay. the other interesting piece that should be taken seriously by would-be reformers is that common core really blew up in indiana. you saw a bunch of tea party style conservatives voting the same way as teachers' unions in a perspective measure here. what has happened, i would argue, when you talk to back bench republican legislators in states like indiana, is they have come to see the common core

as one more obama initiative, black cash for clunkers or the affordable care act. -- like cash for clunkers, or the affordable care certainly due to the fact that the democratic national committee platform writers who are people select it by the obama reelection team chose to celebrate the leadership in the democratic national platform. on shows they backed that secretary duncan and the president like to speak this project it also shows that secretary duncan and the president -- it also shows the secretary duncan and the present like to speak about this. right now those people need to deal with the fact that this is seen in many red states as an

increasingly partisan issue. >> do you want to weigh in on that? >> i.t. -- it reminded me of the markup on the bill where you saw republicans teamed up with the union to get rid of a teacher evaluation and get more flexibility on this pit these two extremes and not trust each other. their views on spending are so different that i think it's a been a while to figure out that they are not that different when comes to policy. i do not know with the actively worked together in indiana. i think for a long time we had

this coalition where republicans and democrats are in the center and working together. we have these are on the extremes, we get very different policy. >> this was organic. there are too big issues, a teacher and valuations and reform about teachers in general. this happened to be two of the obama administration's top priorities. republicans won the state. the democrats showed up. they reelected it from it out there. democrats were there. that was a factor in tony bennett's defeat. republicans have a lot of angst about the common core. alan keyes voting on a resolution that is -- aleen

keeps voted on a resolution that is against common core. that is a big deal. that pushed back is the thing to wastch. note how left behind, who did not vote for it? people on the far left or far right. it reasserted itself and indiana. that is the biggest moment in this election purity have a lot of folks that will be on ballots the next couple of years. fe are paying attention to how much risk they will want to pay for the president's agenda. it is important. >> in indiana with the public was uncertain and voted against this evaluation correction is one of the best way is to try

to build public support, trying to win teachers. there is a tougher audience on this. when i talk to teachers about coming court to know what it is, it is not just something that has been gossiped about. they are excited. they look at it and say this is good. this will get them on track. it is clear to me what i need to do. there is a way for them to really liked it. you began winning teachers. that is how you begin winning parents. a lot of parents judge whether they support or oppose policies based on what their parents or can teach them carry i. that is how a lot of parents get their thoughts changed about policy.

teacher evaluation may seem a little tougher. there is a way to show teachers what is in it for them rather than just label everyone. there are a lot of ways to construction and evaluation systems are getting them constructive feedback that will help their students. if you're framing it were you will have been the better, there is a way to get teachers on board by showing them how they can grow. can grow.