frederick to a few minutes there. caller: i am a blackmail and live in america. i went to school and learned about black history. states and a lot that has happens to black men in america as a whole. so there are a lot of good white people out there, and there are a lot of good and patient black people out there. so a lot of people do not understand or do not want to try to understand because they have never been suppressed and they have never had to deal with the fear of a cop pulling up behind them and worried about if they are going to get killed on their way to work or get killed on their way to school. this is something people, black

people have been experiencing for years. people need to be educated. white people and other races, because they are so insensitive to the history of black culture. host: center in mclean, virginia. journal." we will take you live to the national press club, looking at democrats in the 2014 election. they will be joined by charles schumer, democrat from new york. we will see you back here tomorrow. >> it is a high honor for us to have senator, democratic policy chair chuck schumer, charles, a key member of the leadership, a series of three speeches, kicking it off today, what they must do to be successful in 2016 and beyond. in the current congress, senator

schumer is a member of the senate judiciary committee and chair of the key subcommittee on immigration, borders and security and citizenship, which will oversee president obama's executive order on immigration. he also chairs the senate rules committee. rolell keep his leadership at the senate's democratic policy chair in the current congress. his committees will be determined as we get closer into the next congress. as a member of the house for 18 years -- and that is where senator schumer and i first that, in full disclosure -- representing brooklyn and queens, was a leading sponsor of the violence against women act and the brady bill. he sponsored the hate crimes prevention act and sponsor legislation that required banks and credit card companies to have greater disclosure. he was the author of the

legislation that it limited barriers to low-cost generic medication. after his reelection, he successfully let -- led the democratic senate campaign majorities in two cycles. following 2006, senate majority appointed him to a position he continues to hold. in 2009 he was selected chairman of the senate rules committee, which oversees federal elections, voting rights and campaign finance. after he was reelected for a third term in 2010, he took on an expanded role as the chairman of the democratic policy and communications center or at my favorite part of the senator biography is that after graduating from harvard college, harvard law school -- and by the way, i only got on a waiting list to my great disappointment. in 1974 ran for

the new york state assembly, becoming, at 23, the youngest member of the state legislature since theodore roosevelt. the nationalo press club, where news happens. i want to thank the national press club staff for helping organize the event today. bill a karen, joanne booz and richard, among others. --you would raise your hand and rebecca vander, my longtime executive assistant, who will be vanna wh white -- the of the eventite. also on senator schumer's staff, matt house, and many of the others who made this event possible today. we will address the controversial issues that are out there, the immigration

order, the health care bill, and whether those will be allowed to stay or whether they will be killed or we can buy -- or weakened by funding cuts. chuck hagel at the department of defense, his new position. these are the new items that are up, but we look forward to senator schumer's speech and he will speak for about 25 minutes, and then we will open it to questions. senator schumer? >> thank you, bob. it is great to be back here at the press club. happy thanksgiving. i hope you are all with friends and family and have a good one. i will start off with a little thanksgiving story. i was born on thanksgiving day, 1950, november 23. my mom went into labor at about 5:00 a.m., and in those days of course things were a lot different. the dad strove the moms into the

hospital, and then the moms -- the dads drove the moms into the hospital, and the moms were whisked upstairs while the dads waited in the waiting room, smoked cigars, and waited for the blessed event. on --'s obstetrician was in a hospital on 29th street and 7th avenue. it has been subsequently closed. in any case, he got to the hospital about 8:00, 8:30, took my mom upstairs, and my dad went to the waiting room. beating -- being the adventurous soul he was, he realized it was thanksgiving, only four blocks from the thanksgiving day parade. he watched it for three hours. at the end of it, he saw a friend of his and they went into a local pub to celebrate the upcoming blessed event. a.m., hen at 11:00

showed up at 3:30. precipitating the first fight my parents had over me. [laughter] fortunately, it did not end things. they have been married for 63 years, praise god. he is 91, she is 86. thanks giving has been a blessed event in our family. the title of my speech is, "a in 2016 andority how to make it happen." the beautiful lady in the harbor holding the torch represents the american dream. if you ask the average american what the american dream means to him, he would not put it in fancy textbook language or academic terms. he or she would put it very simply in saying it means if i work hard i will be doing better 10 years from now than i am doing today. my kids will be doing still better than me.

flickers,f that torch the torch is no longer lit, people no longer believe in the american dream, we will become a different country. and that is exactly what is happening. the light is flickering, has been flickering for over the last decade, and that fact has dominated our politics more than any other. the most salient factor in our political economy is that for the first time in american history, that'll class incomes have been in decline for over a decade -- middle class incomes have been in decline for over a decade, and the grand optimism over the american dream is in jeopardy. the 2014 election results can be explained this way. during 2013, neither party convinced the middle class that they had an effective way to get them out of this morass, that they had an effective plan to create good jobs and raise

incomes. as 2014 began, the parties were in stalemate. to when government failed deliver on a string of noneconomic issues, the rollout of the obamacare exchanges, the mishandling of the surge in border crossers, ineptitude at the v.a., initial handling of the ebola threat, people lost faith in government's ability to work, then blamed the incumbent governing party, democrats, creating a republican wave. ultimately, the public knows in its gut that a strong and active government is the only way to reverse the middle class decline and help revive the american dream. democrats lost in 2014 because the government made mistakes that eroded the electorate's confidence in its ability to improve the lives of the middle class. but that same underlying expectation that government should help make life easier for

the middle class is as strong as it has ever been, setting the stage for a democratic victory in 2016, if and only if we can convince people that government can work and help restore the middle class to prosperity. we are in a much better position to do this than republicans because when economic conditions are declining for the middle class, the electorate instinctively turns the democrats -- turns to democrats. but in order to win in 2016, democrats must embrace government, not run away from it. is republican mantra counterintuitive to the middle class because they know government is needed to stand up to the be economic forces like technology and globalization that push them around. if democrats can create a convincing plan that is both achievable and believable, embracing government is a way to

help the middle class advance. we will roll to victory in 2016. in order to demonstrate that government can work, democrats must proceed down two parallel tracks. first we must convince americans that government can be on their side and is not just a tool of special interests. we must re-energize our vision by making a forceful case when democrats will govern again that we will make government the people's champion, not captive to the powerful. this message has an element of populism. democratic populism does not mean the rabble rousing populism or divisiveness of huey long or william jennings bryan. recognizes that the powerful have much more access and influence over government and specific and strong actions must be taken to curb that influence so government can really represent the average person.

important, even more we must illustrate that government can provide solutions by delineating specific concrete programs that if enacted would actually improve lives and incomes. these proposals must resonate with the middle class so that voters believe they will be attainable and effective, which means they must work politically. they must also be joined by an effective theme so that people do not see specific democratic programs as disjointed pieces but rather as parts of a whole. we must convince the middle class that the only way out of their more asked is by embracing is by af a morass stronger and effective government, not by demeaning or running from it. here should be our pact with the middle class. direct government in a and focused way, we will provide a shield against large forces

that have worked against middle-class families so they have a better job and more money in their pockets. we will have enacted government tot enables the middle class have the tools they need to make your lives better. we will restore a strong and stable economic family -- economic middle class for working families so they can stop worrying about getting by and start thinking about getting ahead. we will helpust be get you moving forward again so that you can be better off 10 years from now and your kids lives will be better than yours. this is more than just a political necessity. we have a strong policy imperative to do this as well. while many may not know it, the nation is on the edge of a crisis. if we have another 10 years of middle-class decline, we will have a fundamentally different country a sour, angry where people of different

backgrounds, races, and economic levels no longer get along, with a government that few of us, left or right, will like. but the political opening certainly provides us with an opportunity. four election cycles of d results have shown us that people are yearning for a political party to offer concrete solutions, only to be disappointed each time. democrats need to fill that void , and even in a world of negativity, exacerbated by a cynical and negative media, we can succeed. forget that the struggle between pro-government and antigovernment forces is not a recent phenomenon. it has dominated our politics for the last 90 years. it has dominated our political economy. during that time, the fundamental divide between democrats and republicans has

been their attitude towards government. democrats believe that an active and forceful government can and must be a positive force in people's lives here and republicans believe government is usually a detrimental force. the less, the better. one simple fact hit me a few weeks ago, illustrating how stark this division is today. the most conservative senate democrat, probably joe manchin, still believes more in government than the most liberal senate republican, susan collins. the belief in government -- its size, it its role, it possibilities -- is really what undergirds our politics and fundamentally divides our parties. over the course of the 20th century, our political pendulum has swung from periods of relative faith in government to periods of distrust. these are the big tectonic

plates. they move very slowly over time, but they have drastic and lasting consequences when they do. they are moving back in a pro-government direction. let's review the history since 1932. a pro-government mentality dominated politics from 1932 to 1980. before 1930 two, fear and uncertainty range. , contendingsevelt with the forces unleashed by the industrial revolution and confronted by an economic calamity of the highest order leaned on the leaders of government to stop the bleeding and pull the country out of the depression. fdr greatly expanded the role of government, stimulating the economy, creating jobs with public works projects, and built a social safety net hinged on social security that lifted older americans out of crippling poverty. these actions, bound together in a new deal, demonstrated to the

american people that government could indeed improve the standard of living for average americans. they bought in, and democrats as the two generations majority party. during that period, even republicans played on a pro-government field and proffered agendas that expanded government. eisenhower built a highway system. richard nixon created a new federal agency, the epa. but by 1980, 2 things happened. first, any party that has been in power for a long time loses touch and goes off track. on crime and welfare, democrats feared too -- democrats veered too far away from the american people. but the most fundamental reason people turned away from had beent is democrats

so successful in creating a stable economic system. people thought i am fine on my own, i don't need government anymore. america had experienced 35 years of continued prosperity, and a persuasive ronald reagan, supported by a republican party with a unique and new messaging tools took that opportunity that they no longer needed -- took that opportunity to convince them that they no longer needed government. it helped undermine the very idea that gave birth to the rooseveltian system. "taxes are going to welfare queens," "you don't need help thosehe government" -- messages found a receptive audience. americans believed that the federal government had become bloated, sclerotic, and ineffective. so ronald reagan was able to shrink a government majority that lasted until 2008.

he could not have said it more bluntly than in his first inaugural. "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." that simple if those defined a thos-- that simple e defined a new era. bill clinton echoed ronald reagan in 1996 when he said, "the era of big government is over." 2008, the reagan era of shrinking government ended. it ended for one reason -- the gap between productivity and wages. -- they beganbe to detach in the late 1970's and early 1980's. they became so large that by 2000, the median income started

to decline. for the first time in american intory, it has stayed decline for more than a decade. between 1950 and 1980, productivity and wages broadly defined -- not just hourly salaries but all salaries -- but productivity and wages went up in tandem at a high rate, creating the golden era of middle-class opportunity. starting around 1980, the two began to separate. productivity continued to rise at a rapid rate, and the economy grew. while wages continue to go up but not at the same rate -- while wages continued to go up but not at the same rate as productivity. globalization began to kick in. by 2000, those forces, private sector forces, not government forces -- that is what globalization, technology, and

automation art -- became so strong, that instead of productivity going up and wages wages started to decline while productivity continued to go up. even in the so-called prosperous years of the last decade, 2001 to 2007, economists were surprised to learn that meeting wages were declining. but it had been masked by the fact that average wages were wagesup because of great at the high-end of the spectrum, leaving the median behind. the reasons is happened can be obvious and opaque. as technology continues to advance, automation supplants employment across a number of different industries. low skilled and even high skilled wage and salary workers lose their jobs to machines. globalization, and enabled by technology, allows businesses and employers total relocate --

to relocate markets have way across the globe, putting downward pressure on wages. while overall technology has many good effects, making markets more efficient, it cannot be denied it puts a downward pressure on wages. over the last decade, these forces have helped cause the median middle-class income to decrease by a very large 6.5%. adjusted for inflation, the median income is $3600 lower than in 2001. caused the in income great tectonic plates beneath our political economy -- pro-government 1932 to 1980, antigovernment 1980 12 2008 -- -- 1981 two 2008 -- to flip again. president obama, when he

campaigned, offer the message that america needed the government again. that they are not fine anymore. middle america -- middle class americans bought into it because they felt in their bones that the deck was stacked against them. govern on ato pro-government mandate because the conditions were right. we felt the shock from the global technological economy that was only an order of magnitude shy of what our country faced in the 1930's, in the middle class was no longer confident they had a right future. democrats captured the house, the senate, and the presidency with a broad mandate to use government to stop the free fall caused by the financial crisis and reverse the middle class decline. the administration deserves a lot of credit for moving quickly and decisively to pass the stimulus, which saved our country from a depression and included several important and politically in tune provisions like the massive middle-class tax cut. in fact, both the tarp and the

stimulus were glaring examples that only government can counter the big forces in our political economy. passing the stimulus was a positive first step that the new democratic majority would go to work for the middle class. but the stimulus was not the bright spot for democrats it could have been for two reasons. first, republicans tried to block it from the very start, in early 2009. democrats were unable to pass as large a stimulus as the economy required. only three republicans would consider voting for the stimulus arlen specter, collins, and snow. while it certainly prevented things from getting worse, it's positive effect did not break through. mistake foras a democrats in congress to make

the bread of the stimulus so wide that funding seemed to be pet programs and not things that would jumpstart the economy. it gave republicans the opportunity to create the impression that the bill was loaded up with pork, which they used to frame the whole bill, even though it was only maybe 5% of it. so, the stimulus, even though it was absolutely successful as a measure to pull our economy back from the brink, was not as successful as it could have been politically in making the middle class feel government was for them. after passing the stimulus, democrats should have continued to propose middle-class oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. but unfortunately, democrats lose the opportunity the american people gave them. we took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform.

the plight of uninsured americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed, but it was not the change we were hired to make. americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care. , consideringnse 85% of all americans got their health care either the government, medicare, medicaid, or their employer. and if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them. the former care act was aimed at the 36 million americans who were not covered. it has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. in 2010 only about 40% of those registered voting. even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely did not, it would still only be talking about only 5% of the

electorate. to aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. so when democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought the democrats are not paying enough attention to me. systemour health care was riddled with unfairness and inefficiency. it was a problem desperately in need of fixing. the changes that were made are and will continue to be positive changes, but we would have been better able to address it if democrats had first proposed and passed both programs aimed at a broader swath of the middle class. had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that president obama wanted to help them. the initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. they would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more

pro-government coalition. then democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation's health care crisis. as it turned out, the backlash to the passage of the health via theof health care tea party movement, which was spawned by the economic crisis and the discontent of 2008. the tea party took great advantage of the democrats and the president's focus on health care and said, this government is aimed at someone else, not you. furthermore, playing on the anomalies of complicated law and implication -- and if the limitation problems with the health care plan, the tea party said, c, government does not and cannot work for you." injury, neither the obama administration nor the democrats in congress paid attention to the messaging of health care.

republicans and the antigovernment tea party filled that vacuum and spent 2010 convincing the average american that not only did obamacare not work for them, not only would a parade of horribles emerge, but they turned obamacare into a general metaphor and falsely convinced the electorate that government would not work anyway. even though the pro-government tectonic plates held and the decline of middle-class incomes still gave democrats and ultimately better argument, the focus on obamacare gave antigovernment forces in the republican party new vigor and life, at least temporarily. the tea party, funded by groups and otheroch brothers right-wing forces, dominated the 2010 elections. movements, that live inside their own ideological bubble, the tea party went too

far on issue after issue. people realized they were extreme, far outside the mainstream. and average americans did not want the dramatic curtailing of government advocated by the tea party, and at this point stream -- at this point mainstream republicans. >> they do not solve middle-class problems. the people gave president obama the democrats another this time democrats offered nobody a is by nation with a new government agenda which would change people's lives and making better. the election in 2012 was essentially a negative one, it was a rejection of the tea party

the election in 2012 was essentially a negative one, it

was a rejection of the tea party extremism rather than embracing a democratic platform. republicans decided to block all attempts. during the first three quarters of 2013, pro-and anti-forces were equally strengthen. neither party got the upper hand. when republicans went to fire shut down the government, tthe ratio the people preferred republicans was up. the rollout was a glaring example of the government's ineffectiveness. it became a perfect argument for the republicans. this went through the summer by cascade of issues. emphasise the negativity of these events. had middle-class incomes been up at this time, a temporary government failures which directly affected very small percentage of the population, would not have had the same electoral impact that substrate of n a decline. out result americans voted those they considered incompetent and gave the republicans another chance. the past six years can be summed up by the middle-class they ration with whom regarded as the incumbent party.

each time a party appeared to be in charge is unable to convince the public that they to ease the ution middle-class decline. they created a sort of electoral whiplash. successive alternating with elections. in 2008, the america's putting democrats. in 2010 they put in republicans in charge. in 2012, they put democrats back in. and now in 2014, with the perception that democrats were empowered the slipped back to the republicans. each case with maybe the exception of 2008 represents a fundamentally negative rejection of the policies rather than the

the vote tic power of of party they voted for. the discontent will continue until one part confesses a middle-class voter that has the vision for the agenda there will accomplish creating good jobs and increasing middle-class incomes. that struggle will be played out on the same battlefield that has dominated political strifesince 1932. versus anti-government battlefield. democrats have a national advantage, to understand why we need to see white middle-class incomes have declined. wider continue productivity of our economy does notresolved in middle-class advancement. it can be described in one

word, technology. a far ows capital to have greater income than labour can obtain. technology allows machines and a good more produce efficiently than workers than, displacing millions of first manufacturing and then service workers. technology allows distribution networks to become more efficient, allowing a walmart or amazon to be created that displaces millions of workers. technology allows companies to locate far from where the markets are and seek lower labour costs. at first, in the southern united states and now oversees. and technology is a private

sector force in a free-market economy. it is primarily the private sector that produces efficiency making them more profitable, by reducing the number of workers they employ and the amount of dollars they need to pay them. let me be clear, this is not a to stop these forces. these large forces, technology, and mation, globalisation, not malign forces. normally make the production of goods more efficient. an attempt to stop these forces will be elected try and stop the machines in the 1900's. what democrats are proposing is or to stop these forces

slow them down, but a figure out way for the middle class to adapt this new forces to be able to thrive. we must create an environment can e the middle-class navigate this new seas. when addressing the question of how we increase middle-class income the republican answer is to give private-sector forces even more power to function without inhibition. answer is fundamentally counter-productive to most middle-class voters. private-sector forces, globalisation, automation, wwhite use this forces even more power? reduce the constraints on overseas, moving

reduce the ability to protect they are hen discriminated, reduce the ability of workers to upgrade the near-term article world, these answers make no sense. not only to most republicans that to most americans. their democrat way is much more aligned with the middle-class thinking. you'd be pushed around by the private sector and you will feel helpless. force to to have a stand up for you. the only force that can give tools to stand up against these forces, they can mitigate the effects that technology great annual income, active and committed government that is on your side. people know in their hearts

powerful private sector forces to price their lifestyle only government forces can stand from. they understand i want taxes are progressive the middle class is better. they understand when workers can bargain for a greater share of the company's wealth, the middle class does better. the only way to achieve those ends our government. left on its sector own cannot. what the private sector pay for highways will it make college more affordable, will in science and medicine? the answer is no.

that does not necessarily mean we always went. when we don't present the coherent government plan, when up working messes easily lose as 2010 and 2014 shows, but we still have a natural advantage. the root cause reason as to why democrats would be party for a generation. important and moredominating than any tactical advantage that either party games. unleashing the private sector not solve the economics, is strong comment on your side well. past elections, a stump

of democrats still shows. deeply conservative states, minimum wage increases have passed and those republicans forced to back off. the latest nbc news poll here are the three most popular things people said should do next year, it is a present congress should provide access to student loans. 75% spend more on infrastructure. 6 to 5% raise the minimum wage. these are all government actions. addicted almost no fallout in the desire for a less active government.

put it another way, two thirds of americans are open to the idea that active government can improve their lives. and the third in the middle i not opposed to government but believe it will never be on their side. the 2014 election was not a repudiation of government in general, just another sign of deep frustration that government is not doing enough to fix our country and the middle class' problems. a democratic pro-government message were not immediately be successful. let me explain, just as the unleashed revolution

forces that were barred new economic order given by globalisation is beneficial for those already on economic peak. look at how productivity, stock market values and corporations have continued to climb as income has stagnated. when the government is seenas working for those whose interest are already in advantage, americans are angry. americans are much more concerned for her governmentworks for undersides or scope. in order to restore belief in it government we have to do in two steps, the first apps to their ce voters we are on side and not with special interests.

we must first prove that the era of big corporate influence over government is over. business and big banks, they may be allowed to seat at the table right now americans feel that they are buying the whole room and read to get out for profit. lobbyist calf ridiculous loopholes for corporations. americans feel government is not working for them. one government fails to prosecute those working in a financial institutionsfollow seems like blatant fraud, americans feel the government is not working for them. less ceo and executive pay taxes on them americans feel that government is not working for them. don't or those of us who

consider ourselves populist, it is necessary to open the door before to rally people to review the strong government program must be implanted. this is particularly true, one third of the american middle now need a pro or anti government would not be opposed, but they first must be convinced that it will be on our side. can then, after democrats convince the middle-class, can we embark on the second crucial step. which will cement the pro-government majority legislation passing that is effectivereversing the middle class decline. that must be a blueprint. is should unite democrats.

death onomy is stacked to for the middle-class towards the wealthy. it offers ur job well a pro-government message that democrats can work even in the deep that conservative states. can follow this playbook, it will work with a traditional part of our base and help those core white voters. who decidedly trended against them occurred in the selection. second step, ss a putting forward a policy for the middle class. what should those policies being how should we decide on them? in the coming weeks and months we will have this debate within government, we

will outlaw what is specific and policy matters we hope to achieve hundred and 40th congress and beyond. like to outline not what policies democrats will build e but how we should our party platform to appeal to the middle class and convince them that government is on their side. they should be five parameters that go democrats, together they form an objective lens. first, we must ask ourselves that this policy directly affect middle-class in the immediate and tangible way. with a lowered expenses in a meaningful way. if we are to fulfil our pact with the middle-class women to collect policies that will make their lifestyles more affordable.

policies must be in that who not what. they will not all involve spending. prevent jobs from going and change labour laws. we have to change the rules of the game to make it easier for the middle class to fight the they are up against. second, the policy should be simply and easily explained. third, it is likely to happen democratic priority should be achievable. there should be more than just messaging bills. four, healthcare

four, healthcare had a small benefit for a small part of

the country. those policies should be considered but should not be core of the democrat platform. fifth, our program cannot be different policies but must fit together in a united message. so people do not see individual pieces but part of a whole. if democrats follow this rubric will create a national path that will convince middle-class americans are in this modern world, government is not only helpful but a necessity. we are more than willing to work with our republican colleagues to meet these criteria. one thing will not have to worry about, steady at the republicans will adopt a positive middle-class agenda before we get it has to do so. instead of focusing on the middle-class, they will spend their time bashing obamacare and immigration reform. to doing anything positive, there will be paralysed. at the new proposals for the new congress. that specific ideas of a positive obtainable agenda revolves around two issues, proving the case and pipeline the medical g device tax. produce 9000 ht temporary jobsin one limited and red part of the country. a good highway bill which they can bring themselves to support would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide decades of economic benefit.

device tax, many democrats prefer is repeal. it may create if you jobs in more industry but funding nih would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. in both cases, the republicans are focusing on the short-term needs of a fuel narrow special interests instead of a long-term benefit. so, our work is cut out for us drink the next year. we do not have to hurry because republicans and neither to able this void. in 2015 we have to show the american people will be ready to govern as a united party. by the end of 2015to win the

and to govern 16 be ectively, democrat must sure three things are in place. that we are prepared to take a special interest when necessary show the average person the government can be on their side. third and hardest of all, we come up with a policy plan focused and easily understood, achievable broad and fit illogic narrative. the moderate and liberal wings must embrace this three strategies. we must have the presidential candidate on the same page. this is our mostimportant mission to encourage year 2015. together, democrat must embrace government. is what we believe in and what unite our party.

it is the only thing that is the middle-class going again. if a runaway from government and downplay it, or act as we are embarrassed by its role. people will go for pale version of the republican view. believe e do not government can develop they will join the republicans and the media will continue to highlight government failures. that leaves the job to week, democrats. it would run away from government, even if people support ideas they will not believe it can work. we are the party that believes in government as a force for good. with a defence of government to faith in our lic

party and our situations, we will be eternally strong fighting for ideas to help the middle class. not holding back for fears of being advocates of big government. beyond the political narratives is a deep vital and subservient imperative for democrats to embrace government the middle work for class began. if government does not deliver, middle-class will be left without the only advocate powerful enough to give them a fighting chance in our modern economy. comes republican vision to pass, wages will continue to decline or even plummet. even as productivity continues to progress.

incomes continue to decline. be harder to ll secure. a republican vision of a government which does not estimate it will invest, comfortable middle-class life will be harder and harder to achieve for most americans. if incomes continue to decline for the next 10 years, people become sour and angry, subject to the spell of republicans. ethnic and economic groups will turn on each other in the way we have not seen in almost a century. the grand optimism that is america will be extinguished. will become a sour, angry people. the he flickering light of american dream dwindles and the love no longer exists.

if democrats embrace and if we convincing the american public, that it does not have to be held hostage by but instead erest can be a strong wind at their backs. if democrats embrace government and make it believable agenda average americans will understand and will make their and income will will win an ly election, will capture america and his imagination for the next-generation. it would can do all that, we will have saved the american and the flaming torch aloft of the lady in the harbour in the city which i am from. thank you.

>> we are going to have to take some questions. a starting this at question, senator. you believe republicans will fail because they're going to the positive middle-class options. but you're saying democrats year because this republicans will block. there a wayin which what you are proposing will actually happen? the f it is not simply republicans will fail because they were block things.

big blicans have allowed private sector run free. the nugget on the way of sending jobs overseas, do not get on the way of letting people have rights and the work. don't do anythingpublic sector to college or go help make better schools. it is a lot deeper than that, when fundamentally saying here not hat their philosophy, simply the obstructions, does not fit our necessities. happen in 2016, we hope that if we propose things that benefits the middle-class, that maybe criteria i laid out. maybe the republicans will support us.

in alaska and arkansas endorsed the minimum wage. he had to, it was on the ballot. the republican leadership realised that pure capitalism will work. can they convince the strong two-party element in their party to do some things with us. that is the question. if they do, we will welcome at. because getting things done for the middle-class is good for us. if they don't, we will pursue and pursue. i believe the internet 16 there reaction we can of saw here. let's to start right there.

>> what about the state state, and the other groups, youinterest mainly talk about the big corporations. have, isem democrats this identity group interest group. where one identity questions more than others. i am a federal official. i think the federal government will set the tone, particularly for democrats in 2016. what i say applies to state governments as well. just as the middle class needs help, there are things these at