people that do great jobs and some that don't measure up. i agree with the accountability. i absolutely agree that those that don't do the job should be gone. that becomes as a law nforcement executive very challenging with labor unions and court decisions out there. but if you don't measure up you gone and we should hold people accountable. is a member ofry the president's 21st century task force, the c task force is t philadelphia police officer and police officer charles ramsey. what is your primary goal with -- this task force to the to present president actionable recommendations as to how we can impact and change

perception and reality of states.g in the united build stronger relationships, ake a deep dive into our training and policies that need tpofpforth.ce, and so we have 90 days, which is not a lot of time, but i think we can up with some solid recommendations for the resident and it probably is going to require more work partwards because the easy is writing a recommendation and hard part is implementing something. i'm pretty confident we will be to have something on his desk within the time frame he would like to see it. in your several years in philadelphia what is a policy up ge that you have made there? >> use of deadly force. firing at , automobiles which a lot of banned for years. here in philadelphia we had not

done that. put that in place. that is one that comes to mind immediately as it relates to use of force. we also made revisions in our training. something back in 1998 when i was chief in washington, d.c. d.c., working with the u.s. to help museum officers better understand their role in a democratic society. our recruit through that training in philadelphia. philanthropist here who has supported us in that endeavor. a lot towardt does helping police officers better unique role they have in our society. chief ramsey, richard beary of the international so, the iefs of police is on set with me. i asked him this question. video of what he happened to eric gardner or the tamir rice in

cleveland, what is your reaction as a police officer? caller: well, first of all, when gardner video of the situation it is obviously troubling. i don't know all the information presented to the grand jury. they obviously will access to did by watching a clip on television. ertainly it is troubling especially when you consider a in the ly minor offense first place. but the person was resisting. people have tong realize is taking people into custody that do not want to go is not a pretty sight if you see it on tape. know all the facts and circumstances. cleveland the situation the first thing i thought of is poor tactics up on they pulled right the person, the young man, which traininging that basic

would tell you not to do because take ve no time to really cover, to react, to give commands, to do anything when on somebody.t up that was just not a good situation in terms of the started it offat on a very bad footing. chief ramsey, when can we expect to hear an initial report force?e task >> well, 90 days is what the president gave us. to the ill present president within that time frame. then it is up to the white house when they will release anything or if they will release anything publicly. willure they will but that be their decision, not mine. host: you have been a police for a long time. have you changed your mind, have changed your view on policing over the years? caller: sure. started in 1968 with my career. subpoenince 1968.

his whole notion of community policing. nobody talked about that in the 1960's or 1970's. it ce thought they could do all. have a crime problem hire a few more cops. community was viewed as eyes and ears. the three digits 911 when i started. changed a great deal. and both in terms of the personally, nd me coming to have a better understanding, a deeper it means ing of what to be a police officer and that ur responsibility includes protecting the constitutional rights of people. in n't say i thought that 19 1968, but i certainly do now and have for some time. we all evolve, change and grow. host: charles ramsey, chief of police in philadelphia and 21st century e

policing task force. respond to want to that you heard? guest: if there is anything that law a lot about enforcement it is chuck ramsey. we are happy to have him as because of his -- c because of his experience. if not for law enforcement d.n.a. would not have come about. law enforcement was the driving force to get it accepted in court. so law enforcement is constantly new and innovative ideas. we need credit now and then for we do to make the system better. host: we will take more calls. edith in warren, arkansas, democrat line. caller: good morning, mr. beary. good morning. aller: i'm a grandmother of about 20 grandsons and they were all raised in pass don't know into, california.

pasadena, california. and me as a mother and grandmother we have always in the community. communi d say to any community, get involved. officers r police there. i'm back in arkansas now. see a lot of things i don't like. i saw a lot of things in pasadena. we had a good police department. chief there who was raised with my children. go to city council meetings. get to know to your police officers, get to know your chief of police and community.r i was a team football and many, many ther for years. my son is 58 years old. i'm back in mayberry because i was born and raised in here.sas and i love it

and they have like a macho attitu attitude. didn't like what i saw lap to the young man because you saw video and all of these people are getting paid by our and in order to see what your dollars are doing involved. get involved with your chief of police and got involved with the community police. you are going to have some bad apples. y sister's son was killed in the 1990's by a choke hold and family very bad. but all in all we need the and i think they need better training. warren.hey do here in i see that. o, get involved with your schools, know your community, listening to for

me. you are doing a good job. up.keep the good work encourage all of our communities to get involved, citizens, we are the taxpayers, we vote. i didn't agree with the man in then the because -- lady that came on and said put hite polices in certain communities and black polices -- no, we need diversity. edith. beary. guest: congratulations on 20 grandchildren. i couldn't imagine the with that.ity god bless you for that. your comments are right on the involved with g your community. you need to be involved in the community and need to be nvolved with your local government and with law enforcement. one of the other factors that a don't realize is some of the best advocates for a ost of issues, whether mental

health, drug situations, are police departments. police departments spend a great deal of time and money bringing cates and resources together to make communities better. exceptionally well when the citizens support that nd become part of it and get involved. the more involved the better and better vices delivery of service when you are part of the solution. chris is in brooklyn. hi, chris. caller: hi, thank you. first i would like to say thank you for nypd for making my safe in my city. i saw the whole video. was a street hustler. e was selling cigarettes to underaged kids, avoiding the tax. cuomo sent out a special task force. hat is how the encounter

started. there is one way that it could that is ifvoided and the 46-year-old man stopped his treet hustle and when the paoeeople police said you are under arrest for the 32nd time arrest.under the main continuing everyone has it remember no one wants eric block. on the if you walk out your door and he s out there and has his crew looking at your car, all of a sudden your place is robbed you whistling at women, there are fights that go on and street dner and his hustling friends are at the center of it. nypd.you, i'm sorry the guy died but he he asthma, he knew it and should have just given up and said i will go to jail. i said to the police and encourage everyone to watch the video, he said this stops here today. the police to a fight. he is 46 years old.

arrested 31 times. a convicted felon. game and he took a street stand with the police and black female surgent there who said take him down. down.s why they took him he was a street hustler, i do not have any sympathy. host: chief beary. guest: well, i think that chris the factuallaid out basis as he knows it. about ain as i talked before, law enforcement doesn't get a choice in a lot of matters. when we were told there is an issue and we want you to address it that is what we do. selling ofust on the untaxed cigarettes. years ago when the death rate on our highways was through the trafighway ional hoeu traffic said you need to help us fatality and injury rate down and law enforcement responded. the serious crime and

violent crime starts happening the citizens come to the elected officials say we want you to go out there rate.op the crime law enforcement does a great job responding. unfortunately sometimes bad lhappen when we respond. but these are -- i think that advice there was good. if an officer tells you you are argue rrest the place to and fight about it is not on the street, it is the courtroom. ooperate and then fight it out in the courtroom and you will have no, generally speaking, it the negative contacts. we have this tweet i wish beer eer -r --beer -eer -r - -- that is a state bistate question. t is a lawful command should

abide by it. the keyward being a lawful command. most state statutes elaborate. ost: i think that you kind of said this. do you support body cameras on all policemen? guest: i absolutely do. host: what about the rank and file? view on this? guest: body cameras are great. there are some challenges that nobody wants to talk about and those are the privacy issues. to my house and i want to talk to you about my do my neighbor, something, you really want that information being released? are is also victims that being recorded. so there is a host of issues through.e to be worked the other piece of that is who will pay for that? florida is a public records state, very open public records. has to handle the requests, go in and try to -- go in and redact information

that is private. it's not a simple solution. will it help with transparency? it will. we need to be careful of unintended consequences. sometimes, we jump in on technology really fast, and then we are and what the unintended consequences are. i think they are good. it is not going to change law enforcement overnight. it's not going to happen. host: independent line. you are on with richard beary. caller: good morning. in the aggregate statistic that came from a guest on your program several years ago, he said that every bureau, every department, and every agents has a pervasive -- every agency has a pervasive and stomach -- systemic superiority complex, and i'm not just talking about

the dmv, which we can all relate to. it is beyond a doubt that these people were saying -- those lame, stupid taxpayers couldn't do this task if their life depended on it, so i'm the only one that can get out there and do this. that their attitude. host: who is they? caller: it is basically every bureau in every department in every agency. host: that was a guest on this program who said that? do you remember who it was? caller: i remember you want to host, unfortunately -- you were not the host, on urgently, -- unfortunately, mr. slen. i am hearing the same ego today. host: may be good try in what was said with regard to the -- maybe you could tie in what was said with regard to the macho factor? line of work, you

have some people who do a great job and you have some people who need some help. we tend to be shaped by what we see on tv and in the movies. sometimes, what i've seen, through the 37 years i've been doing this, sometimes, our new recruits think that is the way they are supposed to act, and we have to get that ego check at the door and teach them that, no , you are still a servant -- public servant. 90% of what law enforcement does is service. about 10% is actually enforcement. w and as we train them better, then we see a better product and we see people that that ego tends to get checked at the door. unfortunately, tv and media does have an effect on our employees. host: just a few minutes left with our guest. mike in georgia. caller: good morning.

how are you doing, chief? guest: good morning. soldier in the military till we got injured. we had rules of engagement. when i was in iraq, i was over there with enemy combatants and all this stuff. still, i couldn't take a gun and just shoot one of them and then use as an excuse, i was scared, he might look like he had something. we had to cmj -- had ucmj. we didn't go under the constitution, even though we fought to protect the constitution. i know to the white guy in new york, it is ok to kill somebody because they happen to disagree with being arrested. but what are the rules of engagement for police officers, or are they just allowed to go out and kill our citizens and all we can do is sit back and listen to the police tell us, hey, look, it's a hard job, we have bad apples? no, you have bad apples with

guns, guns that kill people. host: mike, we will get a response. guest: thanks for your service. thanks for going overseas. those are very difficult deployments -- deployments. when it comes to the rules of engagement, there are supreme court decisions that shape that, but, more importantly, state that shoots that guide us -- state statutes that guide us on that. a law enforcement officer who violates the law should be held accountable. i'm not going to argue that point with you, that they shouldn't be held accountable. one of the other interesting things that people don't take is thatount, though, every police officer-citizen encounter, there is a gun. it may not be the bad guys, but there is a gun there. and what we see in many cases across the country, people try to disarm the officer.

there's always concern on behalf of the officer that there is a gun in every confrontation. again, it is training, teaching people the tactics, teaching -escalate thee situation, and i think that gives us a better law enforcement officer at the end of the day. those who violate the law should be held accountable. host: the last call for chief beary comes from gregory in montgomery, alabama. caller: good morning, sir. three very quick points. i'm a military person as well. everyone in the military knows you serve in the military as an extraordinary privilege. i think a lot of police officers need to remember and be reminded that their fellow citizens -- they're fellow citizens with an extraordinary amount of power they wield. i'm an african-american male. it's difficult for me to hear people totally dismiss an experience and say it is not

racist. we should be mindful of that. third and last, there is something on the mentally wrong when you have a law-abiding citizen who is fearful of any -- hing fundamentally wrong when you have a law-abiding citizen who is fearful of any police even when they haven't done something wrong. anybody in our great democracy should be very careful about unchecked power. i just want that -- everyone to know that as we had this conversation. thank you again for your time. guest: again, thank you for your military service. again, it's a huge commitment. the -- i agree. people should not be afraid of the police. and we got to work to regain that trust. it's not going to happen overnight. and i think that we are making the right steps. i think we are seeing the engagement of law enforcement executives across the country. i think that president obama and his initiatives are going to go there. one point of correction, i'm not

a member of the task force. i was there at the white house when they created the task force. we don't know who all the members are going to be yet. that's just a correction. we have to get back to that time where we are not afraid of law enforcement. i also have to tell you, as a parent, when my kids were growing up, i told them about witho handle encounters law enforcement. the law enforcement officer doesn't know who you are, what your background is. some people say we shouldn't have to have that conversation. i think, as a responsible parent, we have to. with people in general, how you deal with people -- our young people tend to do everything electronically. we need to teach them some interaction skills. i do appreciate the comments and, hopefully, we will get that feeling back, where there is trust and we can all move forward in a positive direction. host: i apologize. i put you on that committee. my mistake.

>> also from "wall street journal", a discussion about the effectiveness of the u.s. prison system. this is 50 minutes. journal" continues. host: now on your screen is maya schenwar, the editor-in-chief of the new site called -- news site called truthout and the author of this new book, "locked down, locked out -- why prison doesn't work and how we can do better." --s schenwar, who is she is my sister, who has been incarcerated on and off for the past nine years. host: why? guest: there have been a number of reasons. the overriding element is that she is a drug addict. she has been addicted to heroin and has committed a variety of very small crimes as a result. host: was not tough to write

about in your book? -- was that tough to write about in your book? guest: it was horrifying. at the beginning, i thought there must be a way to write the book without my personal story. i woke up in the middle of the night and thought, i have to write, and everything coming out was personal. that goes beyond my sister, actually. i had a number of penpals in prison over the years. my correspondence with them has become friendship. you guys about, their stories come through in the book as well -- because of that, their stories come through in the book as well. host: what has her experience in prison been like? what has visiting her been like? guest: her experience -- the defining factors have been isolation and separation. it has created a life for her where her main skill set is

existing within prison. i think that is the case, especially for a lot of young offenders who go in and become accustomed to juvenile detention , and that's the life they graduate to, and that has been the course for her. in terms of my family, we've also become accustomed to this life of visiting, constantly waiting for a phone call, going into prison, often being treated kind of like prisoners ourselves. every communication we've had with her during the time she has been incarcerated has been monitored and surveilled. that's the way your relationship lives over the years when you have a family member incarcerated. host: talk about -- you talk about, as a family member, you entreated as a prisoner at times, too.

what do you mean? it is very strange. for most people, it is something you've only seen on tv. you've absorbed these pop-culture experiences. going into the prison, there is a very strong sense of anxiety as soon as you walk in the door, knowing that the people inside cannot get out, that human beings are being caged. that sounds dramatic, but that is just straightforward. as a family member, you feel that identification with the person that you love behind bars. beyond that, there are invasive searches. often, you are held in waiting rooms without a bathroom, without access to food. there are all these procedures that you go through throughout that time of visiting that are similar to people behind bars, including the way that you are able to interact with them. sometimes, you can't even give them a hug.

often, you are behind a glass window and can't reach out and touch them. host: in your book, "locked isn, locked out," "prison tearing society apart." guest: the way that i mean that is not really metaphorical. i try in the book to come back to what are the basics that make us human and make us whole and make us able to live together. a lot of what i'm touching on is the family and the way that prison tears families apart and how that extends to the rest of society. and in some cases, this is very concrete. most of the people being taken out of their families are men --n they are not the prime primary wage earner in their families. there are vast implications for the family.

another concrete effect is on children. many of the children are taken out of the context of their family when a family member is incarcerated. they go into that -- into foster care or kinship care with a family member they don't know well. and foster care is actually a major pipeline to prison in and of itself. most of the people in prison have been in the custody of child protective services. it is just perpetuating the cycle. host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen, divided by political affiliation. you will see those numbers. they are new numbers. i have not quite memorized them. the fourth line this morning is

set aside for those of you who have had experience with our prison systems. you have been a prisoner, you have a family member in prison. you have been a guard in prison. you are an active member of a prison team. go ahead and eileen. we want to hear your stories -- go ahead and dial ini. we want to hear -- go ahead and dial in. we want to hear from you. this is from the sentencing project. you read the stats -- one point 5 million people are currently incarcerated in the million people are currently incarcerated in the u.s., or around that number. this was in 2012. 1 out of every 108 adults have been incarcerated.

38% black. blacks make up 13% of the total population. you describe yourself as a prison abolitionist. what does that mean? what would you like to see happen? guest: i think it means that everyone calling in is going to yell at me but also -- at me, but also, what it means, in many ways, this system is not working. it's not working for any of us. it is not protecting public safety, which is its stated goal. most people who go to prison are rearrested within three years. so, this is not a correctional system. this is not something where -- go in in and thene and then are less likely to do the things that put them in there. it's a system where people go in and then come out and have many fewer opportunities to do the things that will help them move forward and change their lives,

in terms of jobs, in terms of housing, especially for people of color. i think also the fact that prison is traumatizing and teaches a criminal skill set, in ofy ways, fosters this kind atmosphere within the prison and out thatntality coming it is impossible to -- also, this is the main thing that i talk about in the book. prison breaks down human bonds. and those human bonds are the main motivators for people to change their lives. host: maya schenwar, is kayla still in prison today? guest: no. fortunately, she is out. for now, we have a happy ending. this last time she was incarcerated, actually, she had a baby behind bars.

now she is out, able to be with her daughter. that is a positive thing for everyone. in herid kayla, different times in prison, did she ever deserve to be in prison, in your view? guest: i think that the word me isn't quite useful. it's more a question of whether prison was held for her -- was helpful for her. did prison make it less likely she was going to steal perfume from the drugstore? the answer is no. she went to prison and she learned more skills for committing crimes, where to get drugs. she came out, immediately started using those drugs again. her stuck in the cycle where she thought the only thing she could do was be in prison, that that was what she could be successful at.

in terms of its effect on public safety, its effect on her life and our family, it definitely was a net negative. host: how many prisons -- what should prison be used for, if at all, in your view? guest: in my view, eventually society is going to move toward an alternative that prevents violence and that fosters healing for victims. i think that, in the current situation, the best thing that we can actually think about is how can we prevent violence without using prison to the extent we are using it. to me, the most hopeful developments are happening in states with really large reductions in crime, like new york and california, over the past 10 years.

seen amazing drugs and crime using less prison. their prison rates have gone down substantially. new york has reduced incarceration by 26% over the past 10 years and their crime rates dropped more than the rest of the country. in california, we saw something similar. figuring out ways to diverse people from prison or figure out how we can reinvest the funding that goes into prison into things like early childhood education, housing, things that actually first all people doing some of the things that send them to prison -- actually forestall people doing some of the things that send them to prison. host: what was the reason for the success in new york and california? guest: it is complicated. in new york, a lot of it was a shift in the judicial culture and policies that moved towards making decisions to not send people to prison, particularly

youth. so, they were sent into a tall -- into alternative programs, particularly treatment. i think -- i even have some issues with some of the treatment strategies that are used. a lot of them look like prison. they are locking people up. i think it is almost -- sometimes i look at my perspective and i see it as almost conservative. they are spending so much money continuing to lock people up, except giving them a little bit more treatment. but some of the strategies being used have been very effective in facilitating people turning their lives around, helping them recover, really move toward a path where they are not committing future crime. ever gotten help for her drug program, and is she sober today? guest: she is sober right now. and this is something people talk about a lot in recovery

programs, but, for some reason, it doesn't get talked about when it comes to sentencing or prison. people recover when they want to recover, when they are motivated to recover. people have to choose treatment. and when you put a person in a situation where they feel useless or worthless or feel like they're punished and that's their fate, then they are less likely to choose treatment. what really fostered her recovery was feeling like she had something to live for. in her case, that was her baby. she is on her way out. host: maya schenwar is our guest. let me punch that number so we can hear from jessica in indiana. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for having me. maya, i want to thank you for writing the book. i want to address what you said earlier in the program about

when you have family members that are incarcerated and entering those systems. for someone who has never experienced it, even in a low security facility, it is very the peoplel with that actually work in the prison system. it's hard enough to go visit someone that is incarcerated and see them in that position. my expense has been, in the indiana department of corrections, that you are -- my experience has been, in the indiana department of corrections, you are harassed and treated unfairly upon entering the building. i agree that those procedures need to be changed. in my experience, i've been there and at the -- and done nothing wrong and felt like i was a prisoner myself. even being one minute late on a cutoff, to drive from two hours away to see my brother, i was treated very poorly upon entering because i was a minute

late. then you have to go through a total search process. in my experience, i felt it was very harassing when you got that they'veining got more visitors coming through. it just seems like it is a perpetual cycle. thank you for writing the book. thank you for your time. host: jessica, we will get that response from maya. what do you think of the idea of abolishing prisons? caller: i don't know if i totally agree with abolishing prison. i agree with prison reform, definitely. guard --y the especially in regards to drug addiction and alcohol addiction. i do not believe our prisons are serving us in that way at all. host: thank you. maya schenwar? guest: i think in regards to the visiting policies, that's a really good point.

people drive or fly such long distances to see their family members, and that's a whole problem, in and of itself. that prison placement procedures are often -- you go here, you go here. in said a thinking about, how will this person's -- instead of thinking about, how will this person's family be able to visit, because those ties are crucial for how that person will do when they get out. whole set of considerations that goes into whether families are actually able to see their loved ones. i think it is the majority of children who have parents find are -- parents behind bars actually unable to visit them due to distance and due to financial implications of that distance. i want to say one things up -- one thing about prison abolition. it sounds very dramatic, because it seems like the idea is, we

are going to crumble down the walls tomorrow and set everyone free, whatever that means. everyone's mind jumps to the serial killers. i think that we have to think more about this word as a call to develop something new, a call to shrink the system, to move forward with reducing mandatory minimums, the closing prisons, the amount of money we are pouring into prison budgets on the one hand. on the other hand, thinking about developing alternatives that support victims, that help victims heal and help us get accountability for perpetrators that line up with what victims need from those perpetrators in order to hold them accountable and help them heal. host: marvin is in fort bragg, north carolina. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i want to comment on the

prison system. [indiscernible] i apologize. you are cutting out. i'm going to put you on hold. don't hang up. we want to hear your story. we will see if we can get a clearer connection. we will talk to you for just a minute to see if we can get a better connection. next, let's put him on hold. new phone system. i apologize. michael in west linn, michigan. are you with us? caller: yeah. good morning. due to like to ask maya, great medical advancements with withr, with neuroscience, other medical advancements, it is puzzling to me would have made no result -- real,

significant change in dealing with addiction. with the, we deal fantasy-based, guilt-based, 12-step program adopted by our judicial system, inflicted upon the addicted with very little chance of a recovery. now, a solution to this problem could be to have a communcal -- society in a remote area of the united states that these people could live in if they choose to do so. maya? that you'venk definitely hit the nail on the head in terms of the fact that our society deals with addiction in this really backward way that totally focuses on a punitive

mindset, on a way of categorizing addiction outside of the public health concern. all of these other diseases are viewed as things that you can h ave options for, that tyou -- you can deal with in ways that are according to your beliefs and your habits and your preference. and addiction is viewed as a crime, absolutely. i think in terms of looking toward solutions, the key part is the last thing that you said, which was, if they choose to do so. i think we really have to look at making our society healthy for people who don't choose to , thinking about our reduction, thinking about ways of providing health care for addicts, even if they choose not to go into recovery, because we know that the only real way to recover is to choose

and also have the resources to do so. and we have to provide all of those things. host: marvin in fort bragg, north carolina, we are listening. caller: yes, sir. i agree with the prison system do not work. when i do time and i get out, i do not have a job. i cannot go nowhere and get a job. it goes back to the dude that was on the street with the cigarettes. you cannot get a job. that's what happens when you can't get a job. the prison system does not work. -- once are in there you get out, you cannot get a job. you come back, you have to do is legal stuff to live. i can't get a job to take care of my kids. i've got to do something. it don't work. the prison system is just messed up. host: what was your crime that

you got convicted of? bought some old junk cars from a lady that they weren't hers. i didn't even sell them. now i can't get a job nowhere. nobody will hire me. it is a lose-lose situation. host: thank you, sir. guest: absolutely. i think you should write a book, because this is -- this is one of the most basic problems with -- system, that you get out 95% of people in prison get out, and when they are released, they have even fewer opportunities than when they went in. you have, in prison, often, these job-training programs and options for learning skills. you get out and, in many states, you have to say on job applications and educational applications that you are a

convicted felon, and even if you don't, there is a hole in your resume, and you have to account you have tod account for the fact that you might not be caught up on technology. there are all of these gaps that you need to reckon with when you are getting out. so often, people fall back into crime that is really survival crime. way inbout making one's a world that has rejected them. i think that any real solution in terms of preventing harm and preventing violence and helping society become safer and more hole and more healthy -- more whole and more healthy is going to have to think about how can we help people have jobs, contribute to the economy, contributed their families, be able to be active members --

contribute to their families, be able to be active members of society. you've identified the key missing link in the system that is causing it to continually destroy families and communities . host: what is going on in flathead county, montana, that you write about? and why do you make a point of putting it in italics that it is a republican county? guest: so often, people fear this idea of the prison system -- people hear this idea of the prison system isn't working or the prison system is broken. it flips off a switch. they think you are a blazing lefty or whatever. to me, this is not part of the issue. in many ways, the idea of increasing prison budgets and strengthening families is very .onservative in nature

what happen in flathead, montana, is increasingly happening all over the country. this is a county that is a majority republican. they got the juvenile recidivism rate for all of montana -- i think it was 2008 or 2009. flathead county had the worst recidivism rates in the state. they thought, ok, we really have to do something completely differently. what they decided to do was, for all juvenile offenders, they would go through a restorative justice process, as long as the victims agreed to do so, and that meant bringing the victims and the offenders, after some counseling, together in a circle with community members, with family members, with other people affected by the crime, and each person told their story . this means the victim, saying

these are all the ways that what you did affected me and my family, and these are all the harms that you caused and continue to cause with this action that you took by, say, stealing my car or breaking into my house. and the offender has to listen to that, process the implications of their actions. this is something that never happens in prison, by the way. and then the offender talks about, these are the things that led up to me doing this. this is the background of my life story. and also, these are the ways that i'm sorry and some of the things i would like to do to move forward. often, the family members and community members are encouraged to speak. everyone talks about how they were affected and also what they think might be able to happen moving forward. and this isn't the end of the story. what then happens is unaccountability of agreement, where the victims are able to

say, look, -- is an accountability agreement, where the victims are able to say, look, this is what i would like to happen, this is what would help me heal, this is what i think would protect the community and my family in the future. part of that is something the offender might do. also part of that is what the community could do to foster enhanced safety. the agreements they are coming to are specific to the harm that has been caused and to the people who are involved and to the actual support that is necessary for the victim, as opposed to a law that is divorced from those situations and those people. host: have they seen a drop in the recidivism rate? guest: a dramatic drop. now, recidivism in flathead, , for -- flathead county juveniles, is some of the lowest in the state. this has happened within the space of five years. host: next call for maya schenwar. "locked down, locked out" is the

name of the book. bobby. how are you doing? caller: this young lady, she probably has some really good material. i've been in the prison system. from the time i was 19 years old until i was 40 years old. a lot of people don't realize -- if you break down this country and look at what it is, you have a lot of people that can't get jobs, because the simple fact is [indiscernible] people can do background checks. the people are trying to do right by themselves. these young kids go to prison. some of them try to get out and do the right things. they try to fill out an application. it says are you a convicted felon.

we have to put that down there. if i go to mexico or africa or whatever, they don't have those kinds of laws. they don't do background checks. they come over here. for two [indiscernible] apologize to you. the connection is really not very good. we are going to take what you've said and have maya schenwar respond. guest: i didn't hear everything. i think that the question was about background checks and the idea that, when you apply for as a former prisoner, you are dealing with the fact that anyone can see your record. and i think this is a factor that is really interesting, given all the questions that are being raised about surveillance and privacy. as a person who has a felony

record, all of those rights that we think we have are severely diminished. anyone can look you up, see your mug shot, even if they cannot do officiall -- do an background check, they are able to pretty quickly see that you've been incarcerated. when you've been applying for employment, often there is that formal background check, especially in this economy. if you have a choice and you've done that background check and in front10 candidates of you, most employers are going to knock off the candidate they've done the background check on. this is complete we counter to the idea of redemption or second tonces -- completely counter the idea of redemption or second chances. you've done this one thing.

this action defines you for life, even when you done your time or made amends in some way. i think this is something we really have to contend with alongside any sentencing reform or other action that we take on criminal justice, absolutely. host: you are on with maya schenwar, editor-in-chief of tru thout and author of "locked down, locked out. --"locked down, locked out." go ahead and make your comment. sorry. we will move on. you are on the air. caller: hi. host: i have visited. i should know that. caller: it's beautiful. i think i'm going to stay up here forever. my question has to do with

whether we can fix this problem by going with a living wage, right from the very beginning of a person's life, and discouraging the criminal element they get themselves into by not having enough to live on. guest: i love that question. thank you for asking it. i think that one of the things we really need to focus on when we think of this idea of reinvestment, so often, the idea of justice reinvestment means, ok, we reduce prisons and that means we have to increase policing budget. what if we decreased risen budgets and put that money into offering people the money that andncreased prison budgets put that money into offering people the money they need to survive without the crimes that are getting people incarcerated in the first place? i think that's one of the most positive, long-lasting, effective steps we can take to

not only decreasing the prison population, but also increasing the safety and security of society as a whole. host: boring file clerk tweets in -- my guess is he is being sarcastic. "i'm sorry that i burned down your house and killed your pet. please have me and understand. makes perfect sense -- please hug me and understand. makes perfect sense." guest: i think he may not have listened to the first part of the interview. if we -- i think it is the opposite of what should be advocated. i think the question of what happens when someone burns down your house -- we really need to address that with a lens to what would actually support the victim. for example, while i was writing this book, unfortunately, my

computer was stolen and i lost the entire first draft of the book, and it was devastating for me. and i reported it to the police. immediately, and was, like, i hope this person goes to prison, contrary to everything that goes in my book. but after i thought about it a couple of days and the police report i filed didn't go ,nywhere, i thought, you know the money that was invested in whatever happened after i filed a police report or incarcerating people for stealing computers, what if that money went to work buying me a new computer? what if that money went toward facilitating my healing process or my process of getting back on track with my life? what if that money went to work buying that family a new house and helping them -- went toward

buying that family a new house and helping them get back on their feet? what if that money went toward holding the person accountable in a way that would prevent future violence? what if that money went toward supporting that community in keeping an eye out for each other, can -- creating community groups where people support their neighbors and let them know if they saw someone wandering toward their house with, you know, i don't even know what you burned down a house with. but that would be the kind of thing that i would think we would want to think about, a, supporting victims, and b, creating a community culture where that kind of thing is less likely to happen. it's all about prevention and supporting victims. host: maya schenwar, what did kayla's addiction due to your do to youraddiction family, and in the prison system cause or exacerbate your current

relationships? guest: i think addiction is hard on all families. and i think that the way society currently deals with addiction as one of the -- addiction, as out,f the callers pointed is very punitive. it exacerbates anything happening for families. wasthe thing with my family , initially, we didn't really realize that an addiction was at play. we were giving my sister money. enabling her addiction in various ways. it got to the point where we felt very used. we felt like we were always on alert. anytime she might call us from the hospital, from the street, from the police department. she overdosed several times and we got call from the hospital and thought she was dying. i actually begin my book with a

scene in which i get a call from my sister from prison. from jail. she has been arrested and she wants to be bailed out. this is kind of the height of her heroin addiction. i basically hang up the phone. i wanted to be in jail -- i want her to be in jail because i don't see any other option in a society where we deal with addiction this way, and the other option seems to be death. at the time, all i wanted was for her to go to jail and be safe. well, actually, at the time, she was able to get drugs in jail, even doesn't -- didn't help with that. beyond that, coming out of jail, she felt like she had so few options and so few possibilities for her life going forward that, immediately, she went back to drugs. i learned my lesson, in my naïve hope that incarceration would solve the problem. , florida, please go

ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, i have a comment. the person that was on the prison system -- after such a ridiculous charge of [indiscernible] about this.stion i was a victim myself. i would start with something i didn't commit -- i was charged with something i didn't commit. i was treated badly. [indiscernible] out, it was totally destroyed. there is no attorney that wants to do my case. i had to hire someone to fight

for my charge. i work in schools. you have no idea all i have been going through, and i was only one day in the house. my heart goes out to the people who have to stay in jail and for the victims of crimes. of course, there are people who deserve to be in jail, but i don't know where to go or what to do. i was heartbroken. i'm not the same person. i don't like the law enforcement officials. i don't like what's going on in our country. i don't know what to do. i would like to see the information on where to get the book. i'm a writer myself. that is maria in florida. any comment for her? guest: i think that maria brings up a really good point, which is that there isn't this dichotomy between victimhood and

prisonerhood. most people going into prison have been victims of crimes themselves. actually, the majority of people who commit violent crimes have been victims of violent crimes. it is the largest predictor for whether someone will carry out a violent crime in their life. so, many people -- especially women going into prison, have been victims of sexual and domestic violence. the majority have. i think that is something we need to think about. prison is a traumatizing experience. we are taking people who have already experienced major trauma and subjecting them to more trauma. hurt people hurt people. so, people coming out of prison, who have experienced even more trauma, are more likely to do harm in the future. in terms of where to get the book, i think probably the easiest thing is just to go

online, go on amazon, go on barnes & noble. "locked down, locked out" -- it is right there. host: fort meade, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. great show this morning. all, congratulations on writing this book. i'm a volunteer that goes to the prison and works with people. [indiscernible] is that they are too afraid to [indiscernible] -- ager have this feeling lot of them have this feeling where [indiscernible] salaries and other

situations, then against the them, and this is not a good environment. it is not a good way to rehabilitate somebody. i agree with you. this is one thing i talk about all the time. we need to spend less money in the prison system, more money outside, whether it is treatment, training, and then society put trust in to these human beings once and for all. host: what kind of volunteer work do you do in the prisons? caller: i go in there as [indiscernible] -- t of times

i see people all the time outside. they have nowhere they can learn. it is exactly the same situation they came from. host: thank you, sir. maya schenwar? guest: definitely. one thing you highlighted that is really important is how prison is kind of intrinsically adversarial. there's this prisoner versus rdsrd dichotomy, where gua have this total control over prisoners. often, that's an abusive relationship. there are situations that are able to be used in prison that aren't on the outside. it's not just that you go to prison and that's a punishment. it's that you can also be punished within that system in very extreme ways. her example, solitary example,nt -- for

solitary confinement, which, internationally, again and again is said to be torture. even very powerful officials in the united states have deemed it torture, but it continues to be used regularly by guards as a type of punishment within prison. and yes, coming out of that, it is rough to get back on track or to get on track in the first place. i commend your volunteer work. that's wonderful. host: the last call for maya schenwar comes from tony in brighton, tennessee. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i would like to ask one thing. i went to prison for a nonviolent crime. i never saw myself as someone who would go to prison. i was driving on a suspended license. i had a very, located situation at the time -- very complicated situation at the time. i was doing what i could to get by.

i get pulled over and i have to go to jail because i have so many violations. i go in. i asked for my parents to bill me out -- to bail me out. i would probably be on the street if it weren't for their financial health. if it were somebody -- their financial help. if it were somebody who didn't have a support system like me -- when i got out, my mom told me - - she had seen my mug shot on the internet. that my picture is on a private website. there is no information that stupid. how can -- no information that to it -- no information next to it. how can they do that? host: we will get the response

to that. what are you doing these days? caller: my financial situation is stable. i'm really worried about what would i do when i have to go back into the job market when i graduate school. i've never had to deal with this before. i'm really concerned. host: let's hear from maya schenwar. guest: absolutely. i think that those mug shot sites are extremely harmful. they are, in some ways, more harmful even then the background checks. anyone can google you and see your picture. and the first thing that comes up in the image search is that mug shot. and those are often private websites. and the same thing is going on with my sister. i think, occasionally, there are private legal battles. there are lots of things happening on that front on an

individual level. i think depending on the website, there are even cases where you or a lawyer can contact the website and ask for your picture to be taken down. i think some people even change their names. barriers toof the coming out and living in an internet-connected world, where you've been subjected to constant surveillance while behind bars, coming out, your private life is still completely public. that's a major barrier to reentry. host: maya schenwar, what's kayla's reaction to this book? guest: she was the third person that i had read the manuscript. when she was reading it, i went to the movies. i'm so nervous. -- i was so nervous. i thought, well, if she doesn't like it, i'm going to have to throw out the whole thing. she loved it. she wanted her story to be told. she wanted the stories of my

penpals to be told. she wanted the system to be put in the context of the family. really, there are so many people in prison, over 2.4 million and therencarcerated, are these other millions and millions of people that never get addressed, and those other family members and the loved ones of people in prison -- those are the family members and the loved ones of people in prison. everyone in prison knows there are these impacts that ripple out to the rest of society, but it is often not something communicated in the media. that is the thing my sister was most pleased with. then god she liked the book -- thank god she liked the book. host: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] president obama's executive actions. reuters reporter talking about genetically modified foods and their use in the u.s. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the c-span cities tour takes tvk tv and american history on the road to learn about history and literary life. this week and we've tired -- partnered with time warner cable to visit waco, texas. vinyl to beeive the digitized and saved, we began theing over the b sides of 45s. gospel music was not widely heard in the white community. if it was, it would only be the hits.

what we discovered quickly was how many of the b side songs were directly related to the civil rights movement. there are very few databases and none of them complete of all gospel music. the sheer number of songs that had very overt songs like there ain't no segregation in heaven. at the time possessing one of those songs much less singing one was very dangerous in the deep south. singing that sort of song out loud is a risk. the texas ranger hall of fame was set up in 1976 for the 100 and 75th anniversary of the rangers and it honors 30 who have made major contributions to the service or gave their lives under her look circumstances. we have paintings or portraits and it really begins with stephen f austin.

they not only managed to make the area reasonably safe from the settlement and indian raids. when the texas war for independence broke out, they played a major role in gaining independence by staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to develop a strategy. as a result, texas became its own sovereign nation for about 10 years. >> on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span 3. future of look at the the tea party. then president obama announcing his choice for the next secretary of defense. then a forum on the u.s. and global response to ebola.

the heritage foundation how the discussion thursday on the rise of the tea party, its impact on politics, and its future. this is just over one hour. >> i will be the one kindly asking you to make sure you turn off your cell phones before we get started. speaking of which -- [laughter] >> thanks for reminding me. >> welcome. my name is david and i'm the director of the center for principles in politics here at the heritage foundation and i

would like to welcome you to our fourth and final event in the lessons of conservatives from goldwater to tea party. something strange happened in the boston harbor. somewhere between 30 and 100 or demand, some of them disguised as indians, boarded three merchant ships and dumped 342 overboard and in response to the boston tea party, the british parliament passed what came to be known as the intolerable to put the disgruntled colonies back in their place. one year later, the first shots were fired in the battles of lexington and concord. eight years later, the treaty of paris was signed and the war ended. the sons of liberty who had organized the tea party had one. and even stranger thing happened some two and a half centuries

later when the tea party made a comeback. they prefer a thomas jefferson costume and they are not dumping tea and the boston harbor to protest taxes. boston isn't exactly a hotbed of antigovernment sedition. roughly 20% of american adults identify now with the tea party but the spirit animating them remains the same. what madison described as the vigilant in manly spirit that actuates the people of america which nourishes freedom and in return is nursed by it. contrary to popular belief, the modern tea party did not begin on the floor of the chicago merc on february 19, two thousand nine. discussed on the excesses of washington and of spending had been brewing for a while. the bailout had begun in the last nine months of george bush's presidency.

$30 billion for bear stearns. aig and thenor came tarp, a $700 billion bailout for wall street part of bail out gmed to and chrysler. must than two months and his presidency, obama passed the $800 billion stimulus. rick santelli's call to arms on cnbc catalyzed a grassroots upsurge in the tea party was reborn. and then came the intolerable act, obamacare. a constitutional monstrosity who's not -- that is only becoming more and popular as people learn more and more about it. opposition to obamacare galvanize the tea party making it a national movement to be contended with. more than five years later, the

tea party has only grown stronger and it is now one of forces.cipal questions remain about its aspirations and future prospects. it is unclear what they are for. is there a positive vision besides the opposition too intrusive, costly government? how conservative? how libertarian? what sort of foreign policy should it embrace? to shed some light on these we've put together an all-star panel. i suspect you already know them. hayes from theen weekly standard, the author of three books including the

autobiography -- and biography of dick cheney. following him, a senior fellow at the hoover institution, the author of numerous books and a professor of political science who actually understands american politics. michael needham will wrap things the ceo of heritage action for america and this year he was featured in the political 50. they make 600 phone calls and have a member of congress in the fetal position. our panelists will speak for about 10 minutes and then went to open up for questions from the audience. >> thanks to heritage for inviting me here today. 20 years ago i was sitting out in that audience as a young researcher at the heritage foundation, my first job out of everye and i went to single lecture mostly to make up

for the studying that i did not do in college. i found it incredibly intellectually stimulating and i loved my time at heritage. to be here today. i kind of see my role as the dumb, simple journalist to make these guys look good just in comparison of my mere presence in the fact that i won't have anything nearly as profound to say as they do. that means start with the time i had some beers with a top adviser to mitt romney and ring .012 in an airport. party a mood or a movement? the more beers we had, the more heated became.

he said it was just a mood. i would like to think the title i our panel here today means basically won the argument and i can call him to gloat. i don't know many people who can stay in a mood, whether good or bad, for five years, except for maybe paul krugman. i don't know if it counts. he's been in a bad mood his entire life. the debate continues between me and this fellow who is a friend of mine. it's possible we have this debate in 20 years when my teeth are falling out and drinking a beer in a rocking chair, we may not be talking about the tea party as we understand it today, but i think we will continue to understand -- talk about its influence.

it is less a new independent forment than it has been the past five years a reinvigoration, another manifestation of the conservative movement. that we've seen strengths and response to overreach periodically. lecturere of this series, this panel, suggests the main inflection points -- goldwater, the reagan revolution, the republican revolution in the mid-1990's, and the tea party for the past five years. it's are marketable but it remains as influential it does today given the lack of was added media attention, virtually none, and aggressive moves against the tea party. the media loves to talk about the tea party. they like to focus on tea party

losses and the problems that the tea party has caused republicans. todd akin andt others. they don't talk as much about , mikea party victories lee, marco rubio over charlie crist. ted cruz, believe rand paul. huge tea party the reason we are seeing the influence and impact of those every single day. it's far from clear in the electoral context that the "good establishment candidates" that the media are fond of talking on.ut would have even w sue lowden in nevada, i don't think she would have one. they lost for reason. they have no message, no ideas, no passion.

these are the kind of politician fill a to washington to chair, have a title, rather than do a job. become lazy media shorthand like neocon. call everyone in the bush administration in neocon. donald rumsfeld wanted to go wanted tonistan and get out quickly and he was labeled in neocon. mainstream media shorthand for conservatives i don't like. irsas thrived the spite indisputable targeting. it's popular these days to talk sayellow reporters and everyone was targeted. the tea party was not really singled out. didn't you read jonathan weitzman's piece? no one was really targeted.

his first lois lerner statement when she planted the question at the american bar association event. the reason she did was so that she could apologize for the targeting of conservative groups, patriot groups. even the president of the united states in effect apologized and said someone would be held accountable for what he said was inappropriate behavior. we know the u.s. government in the form of the irs, the most feared agency, went after the tea party and yet the influence continues. i don't want to overstate things. we are a long way from the days nancy pelosi was claiming to be a tea party member. remember when she claimed she was the rightful spokeswoman? no one is making that lame. or have been so many stories about the death of the tea party that becomes a little silly. if it were dead, we would not

have to have people reminding us all the time. when somebody dies, they die once. let me just go over very briefly some exit polling about support for the tea party. the same question was asked in each of the elections and you have to account for the differences in the makeup of the electorate. 2010, everyone believed it was the height of tea party influence and 2014, the mainstream media does would be that the tea party is either on its way out or already dead. poll in november, 40 percent of voters said they supported the tea party. 41% said they opposed. that's the height of the tea party movement supposedly. in 2012, 21% said they support. 30% said they opposed. 30% ind they opposed and

2012 and in 2014, 30 3% said they supported the tea party? 36% said they were opposed. what you see is there's not a huge fluctuation and the kind of support or opposition the tea party has had consistently from birth through the most recent elections. i would argue it remains influential in washington because the debates we are having today are largely did hated by the terms of the tea party. i remember listening to npr a few years ago -- i actually do listen to npr somewhat regularly -- and a very good economics writer from the wall street journal -- i don't agree with him on much but he's a very good writer and reporter now at rick kings. the debates over spending and the debt, the gridlock caused has really kept legislators from

doing the kinds of things they were sent here to do, the kind of legislation the country names. it was such an interesting moment. my thought was probably the same thought that strikes you. that is what they were sent here to do. they were sent here to debate spending. they were sent here to debate the debt ceiling, debate the size and scope of government. it's entirely appropriate those are the things we should be debating. that was the message of the 2010 election in many respects. entire ways it was the point, to refocus the debate on different terms rather than going along with all of this perfunctory spending, the rubber stamp of the debt ceiling hikes so legislators could go on to the things they are supposed to be doing. let me just wrap up by saying that it continues today. onre was a political piece the fights in capitol hill right now saying republicans will

struggle as the new congress begins because they may be botched down in debates over the size and scope of government and spending. my argument is -- good. they should be having debates over those things. cameny ways it's why they here. that's the entire problem, much the problem with washington now. we spend too much money and we did it by not debating these things. a romneye i had with adviser came on the heels of booty's attempt in 2012 to tea party voters at an event in michigan to advance the republican primary there. he did not do very well at the in general. there is very little enthusiasm for mitt romney though many tea party voters showed up for him anyways, a mark of a continued influence. does anybody here believe tea party voters want late a crucial -- decisiveferent

vote in shaping the 2016 primaries? it's likely to feature at least a handful or a few very tea party-friendly republican candidates, rubio, crews, rand paul, scott walker. every time i do a list, i forget somebody. lastingthat's the impact, these debates we are having because of the enduring influence of the tea party is not going anywhere soon in part because the obama presidency was premised on restoring faith in government for the expansion of government. that's when he said in an executive order on his first day in office, restore faith in government in order to expand it. that experiment didn't work. it is at a post-watergate low right now and nobody is talking about expanding government other than chuck schumer. with that i will stop.

thank you very much for having me. [applause] thanks, david. i appreciate the opportunity to participate on this panel with two other observers who have direct knowledge of some of the main figures you have been part of the tea party and have kept it going. researchers in academia rarely enjoy such access. they try to enlighten us enough and academics have produced numerous articles on the tea party and many books including tea down by chaired harvard professors on the subject yet there has been one researcher i think you stand out through her persistence, purse variance, her her mannerand also of acquiring information about variousparty especially elements and organizations, how they spend their money, who the

volunteers are. maybe even details of their intimate life and that researcher is lois lerner. [laughter] a matter of great misfortune to those of us connected the medium that her magical work on this subject in reminiscent of the accidental burning of thomas carlyle's manuscript on the french revolution that hers may have lost a been posterity by virtue of a hard drive this function. i do want to echo what was just said that ms. lerner may well have been the highest ranking government official to have fored a formal apology unwanted touching of tea party records. it's been said the apology was given without an severity, that it was a kind of preemptive

apology. if you apologize in advance so as to avoid giving a real apology and then blame it on others, in this case low-level bureaucrats part of the 99% distinct from higher levels part of the 1%. not only low-level bureaucrats but worse, those that operated in this unknown place and called "cincinnati." for those who don't know, that's in his becca stand 30 kilometers southeast -- uzbekistan southeast of teshkesh. it's an unfortunate thing because it makes you think it's organized as a political party whereas i believe it's a movement. that means that it is open, indeterminate

boundaries. take oneparty members position, others take another. there is no central office. it's a movement if you think back like the populist movement, progressive movement, occupy movement. open and porous with different strands and it has all the characteristics, i think, of a movement which is characteristic and characteristic advantages, energy in particular, which it has brought to american politics. to characterize the tea party without malice, i will get to those who do with malice in a minute, but it's fair to populist.t is proudly it spontaneously engages in popular action. it actually dislikes a rigid

organization. it shuns establishment figures of all sorts almost as a kind of prejudice. if you're in the establishment, somehow you are tainted. i would add to that that it is a many ofle to control its own membership being this kind of amorphous movement. what else is characteristic of the tea party? its emphasis upon the unlimited spending, unlimited spending relevant -- relative to government income and intergenerational injustice, this generation, assuming all the advantages in putting the debt off on subsequent generations. and then i would say another characteristic is it tries to connect itself directly to a view of government found inside

the constitution and in the american origins. that's an important element, this connection to the past into the constitution. last couplento the of years, a concern with lawless disregard of constitutional practices. i think in 2014 emphasize mostly the movement toward illegal immigration, executive and administrative overreach. malice me turn to because that's very important. the tea party has served a function for the conservative movement but it's also served an important movement for the last. ofhas served as the symbol do legitimate american politics and it's been used as a symbol of extremism. extortion imaginable has been given to the tea credit --

tea party to discredit it. andown views are cap decide whatever sinister motive one can think of is reputed to be sponsored by the tea party. the tea party spoke of debt, its critics said that it was actually a racist institution or a sexist movement, so on and so forth. openly attacked and vilified from the president openly on down. for what'sst there misguided about the tea party but a further step is taken. the tea party is fundamentally an illegitimate movement. mildlyublican party is illegitimate but that is the soft and flabby outside. the core of the tea party is fully illegitimate and its actions can be dismissed -- here's the interesting point -- anything it does even within the formal characteristics of the

a priori illegitimate. it operates outside of a hyper constitutionality. because the tea party does not compromise in american politics must rest on compromise, any action it takes is illegitimate correct to simply act without regard to constitutional forms. that's been the primary justification of what's been happening not only in washington but in commentary political scientists in washington you have delivered these categories of polarization and paralysis and have gone on to say it's fundamentally incompatible with the good of america therefore extraconstitutional action is justified hence the excesses of presidential discretionary action.

few observations about the accomplishments and problems of the tea party. the first is bringing the national debt onto the front turn her into people think about the problem of the debt. this may be receding a little bit from 2010 when it really was at the center of american politics. that's been lost a little bit. they've succeeded at least in americans aware of it and they've succeeded in putting forward this idea of intergenerational injustice. the tea party reminded us the fact that if you spend today, someone will have to pay it tomorrow. jefferson put in some of his letters, when generation had the right to obligate a future generation without its consent. they succeeded and i think this is really most important here , not sois idea of debt

much at the federal level yet, and we spend too much time thinking about the federal level, but at the state level where you have seen success in the beginning of a movement to control public unions which could said to be at this point its greatest actual achievement. not only taking place in republican states but former democratic states where they see some control is absolutely essential for ensuring that there's funds in the future to spend on other things besides pensions. problems, they have not yet found a way of accomplishing this, the tea party, at the federal level. they have not exercised full power and i think that's led to some tactical blunders, of which we are aware. theaps to achieve part of goal, which they did through sequestration, it could be argued the tea party or parts of it turned its back too much on

defense spending. and now the second comp schmidt has to do with bringing the constitution back in public discourse saying the constitution could be a guide for the thinking of a political another rollgram, of the constitution in the 19th century where politicians would debate on what the constitution allows and what it means absence of the view that it is just a matter of individual rights protected by courts. political parties, movements should not speak of these matters. they brought back the constitution as a popular document and even made it be run on the floor of the house of representatives, to the amazement of the previous speaker. there's a problem here as well. a divisionnk there's of understanding of the

constitution by the tea party. because some parts of it themselves are so oriented towards a libertarian did they imagine if libertarianism is good that the constitution must easterly libertarian. they undersell the role government should play particularly in the foreign realm and they have taken dangerous views on limitations of executive power and the foreign realm as well. the third comp schmidt is to provide starch to the conservative movement the fabric softener of the establishment. you have this kind of dialogue tween the two. the tea party introduces the starch. let's do something. let's not concede. fabric softener for people in the establishment is get along. if the election in 2012 was for the president am a therefore obamacare should be accepted and

no longer questioned. the tea party keeps fighting. we are very much taken up with the deeper question of the control of words and their meaning. compromise is an example. it's held to be good at least according to the establishment so compromise means compromise the position of the president. that is what compromise means. that afterby many all, the founders compromised. this is said by people who criticize the founders for compromising with slavery over compromising with the british. compromise about what? that's the more important question than compromise itself. compromise is not the only virtue.

one should say something in virtue of obstinance see from time to time. finally, the political effects of the tea party since its inception in 2010. the republican party has gained enormously since 2010 in all realms except for control of the presidency. emmaouse, the senate especially governors and state legislators. you lookea change if at what's happened in relation between the two parties. this could be because of the tea party, in spite of the tea party or, perhaps, a little bit because of vandalism in spite of. those have to be confronted when those who dismiss the tea party and its influence, they have to ask the question. again had been

made -- had all of this game been made, correlations are not always causation. question youth a already brought up, very nicely. without the tea party, senator charlie crist, anyone? [applause] >> mike. toit's always a pleasure speak with the man who puts the hair in the heritagae foundation. duringng that steve said the beginning of his remarks is that the tea party is not distinct from the conservative movement and i think that's an important point to think on. common questions is what can we do to bridge the divide between the tea party and the establishment? how do we get on the same page? tea party exists

is because of the genetic flaws existing within a party of limited government. is socialism is you run out of everyone else's money. you see this playing out in the states. how do you balance within a state balanced-budget the teachersf medicaid, unions, education? you were saying that genetic flaw lay itself out. the genetic flaw is you elect politicians to come to washington to give up power, give up the ability to write rules, give up the ability to steer resources toward your constituencies and give those powers back to civil society. until and unless the state of too start sending cincinnati washington instead of john boehner, you will have that insion that has believed limited government and belief in its heart for civil society and the politicians sent to washington forced to follow

through on those commitments. two wings there's going on right now that make the conservative movement stronger than it's ever been. calling it the new right in the 1980's in the tea party more strong. one of them is technological. 83% of the profits from the record industry are controlled by five large record labels and technology comes around to change the model. no longer will these five control every single part. napster, peer-to-peer filesharing and then justin ander gets found on youtube 95 largest record labels in the music industry today have about 23% of the profits.

you seeing the exact same thing happening down the road, 10, 20 years later. we no longer live in a world where the politician can brag about the earmarks he brought home in the era there were not earmarks without some and having read the legislative text and said you are leaving out the other 10,000 in the bridge to nowhere in alaska that was part of the packages that let you ring home the bacon. you no longer live in a world where a member of congress can say i just voted for a farm bill and this is a good thing without somebody having read that realizing 80% of the farm bill is food stamps. great article in the wall street journal during the height of this going back to marlin stutzman's district talking to farmers. while there was some benefit coming to themselves, and the grand scheme of things, the 80% of the bill was food stamps so

you have blown up their technology the ability to read monopoly online the power to explain their voting record, go home and say one thing in their home district while voting differently here in washington. the second reason i think they are different is frankly washington, d.c., is just worse 20, 30, 40 years ago. , an you look at the cronyism government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have, that is not just a steady outcome but a relationship. there's more opportunity for washington to give out favors for the special-interest, the specific beneficiary at the

expense of the taxpayer, the forgotten man, the general welfare and you can see this. congress came back to start their lame duck. it is talking about the action-packed december and everything that has to get done. through thehis framework of an american seeing his median wage of the same as it was when reagan left office, his family collapsing all around, the prices going up whether it's the cost of education, housing, energy, beef hitting four dollars per pound. terrorismt pass tria, risk insurance, the world will end. if we do not pass tax extenders, special-interest handouts, the world will end. we have to pass a trillion dollar omnibus.

given an environment where it's easier than ever to organize we should not be surprised that the conservative movement is stronger. you can tell a lot about his civilization by its pop culture. when you look at the pop culture of the united states you have a "house of cards," popular with that flicks and they say there is politicians willing to murder, lie, and steel for no getting power.an "candle," politicians are willing to murder, torture, and steel for getting power. the premise of "the daily show" is this whole thing is a game, an exercise in coming up with an amendment to turn into a 30 fool the american people into continuing the status quo. you get a sense that washington isn't working to me addressing the anxieties i have. it's exploiting me to take care

of those people and we should not be surprised or for you have the type of populist uprising that we see. go from here? does a very active debate going on in the party right now about what the policy agenda of the future is. enda is laidt aga out in the rnc autopsy. whenever used here someone say there's no disagreement about where we are going, there is a disagreement on tactic. talkingwe need to stop about the social issues. we have to provide amnesty for millions of here illegally. most of the major problems have more they messaging-based approach than fundamental rethinking of what a reform agenda would like. that is the solution of the establishment and it works well for people in washington right now with a status quo that

benefits them and was built to benefit them. the other agenda and the tea party agenda thing, there is agenda, looking at the struggles most americans face out there. with median income stable since reagan left office, with the collapse of the family, the debt spending, etc. does not matter if you don't have a flourishing stable society from which people can prosper. the dynamic and washington, d.c.? how do we change the system that is not broken but a finely tuned machine to make sure that special interests work? how do we instead come up with blowing up the extradition cartel and replaces it with a federalism-based approach?

ted cruz energy legislation that actually speaks to the wage pressures that most people who feel unheard are right to feel unheard and are looking for a party with an exciting agenda to move forward. washington is a finely tuned machine that gives out favoritism, for those of us who want to have an aggressive policy agenda to move in a different direction it's impossible unless we do damage to the status quo. when the tax code is specifically structured to give benefit to those who have earmarks, you cannot have it unless you set some people -- upset some people on k street. unless you want a modern everyion system where person who goes to college doesn't necessarily learn the same exact environment people , you will doford

damage to some of the special-interest in washington invested in the status quo. policies of the conservative reform agenda with an explicit willingness to attack the favoritism is really the only way forward. all of us who are invested in having a reform agenda need to be equally invested in the continued growth and success of the conservative movement, the tea party against the status quo in town. >> thank you. [applause] ask the first question and then we will take questions from the audience. the theme of this lecture series is lessons for conservatives. i'm sure we will have several conservatives watching online or maybe c-span. what advice would you give tea party members were listening to us? >> first i would go to

look atagtion.com and our scorecard. we will say this country by having a well-informed populace, greater ability to find like-minded people that someone in georgia can make an activist in michigan and between the two they can go through and read a piece of legislation and get engaged. you get the government that you deserve. the problems we have is not the fault of the house or the senate but whether or not we are paying enough attention to what's going on to hold our member of congress accountable. theave something called sentinel program, 10 thousand activists sentinels and we trained them to look for. we get several thousand of them on a call every morning. they asked their member of export-import the

bank. they sent the rest to russian oligarchs and you were just for certain -- and the richest australia. approted two days ago to ve it. when you have that well-informed citizen not betting the politician get away with the first answer. "i voted because we are in a foreign district," but is instead pursuing the journalistic responsibility of knowing what's going on, i think you get much better governance and politician to start improving their voting records because they cannot get away with preserving the status quo. >> i'm nodding my head furiously because i agree with that. there's an opportunity now, you

5 controlling 95% and hadit is 23%, and that has a significant impact, technology not just in the record industry but politics and it allows people to be much more involved, -- >> you don't have to go to the library. you can do this in the comfort of your own home. i do wonder you mention justin bieber and youtube. was that a positive? [laughter] i wasn't going to say it but -- that's the short answer to your question. i get that a lot. "what can we do" question at the end of the panel. that's exactly what you can do.

there's no real qualification to be a journalist. you can go to journalism school if you want. you don't have to know anything special. you can go to a town hall and ask a question. you know as much or more than the elected official you're asking. ofarrassed the heck out somebody. in many cases that's a positive thing. >> just briefly, i think that much can be done through the suggestions already made it, but bear in mind, this thing called differentrty has many positions on different issues, different strands of it. you can't just get by thinking that if people inform themselves, called themselves tea party, that we are going to solve many of the problems. if you party people themselves disagree. take foreign affairs. you have the isolationist he party and the