i'm curious to see the cnn poll, it is early, he got a lot of publicity in the last month, is that a high water mark or does he keep going off? who would be stronger? i think one of the younger and fresher faces whether it is rubio or cruise in the senate, scott walker, chris christie in the governor's mansion, bobby jindal, and others as well. republicans have a lot of young talent. we had romney and mccain in the last two cycles. the younger candidate has won the popular vote in all six of the presidential elections. really, you're better off with the younger candidate host were. that is the rule today. yung, change, reform. cruise is a little more conservative, rubio is center-right.

all the normal things that get debated in the primaries. i think it is a pretty good presidential field. jeb bush would be formidable. if one of these guys beat jeb bush, it makes them more formidable. like obama beating hillary clinton in 2008. you should go find him the first day their back on generate fifth and find out what they will do. the former governor of florida was kind of a mentor to rubio, came up to the state center there and a fantastic campaign that one in 2010. if rubio would announce an two weeks, i think it would be impressive. he respects jeb bush, he likes jeb bush, but he is not yielding to the older guy. it shows a kind of populist on rubio's part. this may be typical of republican primaries to think that is impressive, rubio things he could do the job and jeb

bush has more donors but rubio's supporters have gone off to jeb bush. more of an uphill climb, but most presidents become president have had uphill climbs, like clinton in 1992, president obama in 1998. if a republican beats jeb bush it could help him in the general election in the way beating hillary clinton helped barack obama in 2008. >> new jersey governor chris christie at 13%. ben carson at 7%. 6% each, mike huckabee and rand paul of kentucky. what is your read of the rest of those? >> huckabee is a good politician. i have -- i think newer and better is younger -- newer and younger is better. the great thing about huckabee

is the narrative that he speaks to middle america. he criticize wall street in 2007 in 2008 and it made him somewhat unpopular interpublic and primary. i think he is right, though. huckabee had a populist tone and a sense that we're worried about their wages and not just wall street. i think that is a very important part of the message. i would expect huckabee to influence the rhetoric and the policies. then -- ben carson was a very retinal man. these people who had never been elected run in both parties and then they do not win. they are symbolic candidates and they get the vote taken a lot of votes. mccain, pat buchanan in the past. i kind of assume that is what happens with ben carson, that he

does not actually when the nomination, but an offense back in august of last year, our readers and mostly republicans and primary voters, i would not expect. we did a formal poll, very formal, so it does not prove anything but jeb bush, marco rubio, ted cruz, a lot of them loved and respected and liked in person. he is an impressive man. it is such an unusual moment. so many people are so sick of washington. i would not be totally surprised if someone gets up there and gives terrific speeches and people say, you know what, if you are a fantastic neurosurgeon who has saved a lot of lives and has lived an exemplary life and is come up with a tough background, maybe it is not the craziest thing in the world. ultimately it does not happen.

history would suggest it is not usual. eisenhower was the commander of allied forces, world war ii, kind of a big job. ben carson should not be underestimated, either. host: new jersey, maria is on the line, a democrat. caller: yes. host: go ahead. you're on the line with bill kristol of the weekly standard. caller: i wanted to inform you i noticed you said 40 something times, that has been quoted by other politicians and it is not true. these people have the same name as reverend al sharpton. it just so happens i was listening to rachel maddow the other day and she quoted this, that these evil have the same names as famous people we have heard about for years.

but they are not the original people. they just happened to have the same names and they just signed the book. if i went there, i would sign the book. it is just a name. i think you need to stop saying that al sharpton has been there so many times. it is not the al sharpton we all know and love. >> i will double check on that and i have not seen that challenge. people have confusion sometimes and say some of their names. certainly al sharpton has been there several times and there are photos of president obama with him. the mayor of new york embrace sharpton, with sharpton at city hall after the incident with mr. garner. it is fair i think to say that he has been given a lot of credibility by democratic leaders.

he is a major talk show host, i guess. he claims to be a big leader of civil rights, but people in that movement, but i think it is fair for people to say that sharpton has been legitimized and some of his past bad behavior overlooked by some democratic leaders. host: our last call for bill kristol is a steward on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. when john boehner was ushered in, i remember him crying and telling his story about how he worked at his father's tavern and relates to the joe american, and i am a disenfranchise republican. i do not have a reason to vote for your party. i want to do it again and i did it for years and years, but there is a major problem with optics. there is so much internal strife and the party. i do not know what they stand

for anymore. if you look back in the summer, we are confronted with isis, which i heard described as a threat to world wide security. what does congress do? they leave the president dangling to deal with it. they were more concerned about campaigns. so they are captured giving their comments and criticizing what obama did single-handedly to help secure the country. if this is the way they will continue to operate, what chance do you have of taking the white house in 2016? >> i think a good chance honestly. congressional parties are usually a bit of a mess. it is hard to govern in congress, especially when you only control one branch. you can criticize speaker banner and it was held i harry reid in this -- in the senate, but we

lay out a coherent agenda. if you look at democrats on the hill in the old days republicans on the hill, pay off and a lot of fighting. one person's fighting is another prison's healthy debate. house members, when i visited with them and spoke with them sometimes, there are a lot of interesting issues about how do you help working-class americans and how do you reduce the tax on labor. they should have more proposals and not fewer. you write articles and say, this and that, would you be correct? marco rubio has a different view about how to reform the tax code, but that is fine in my view. the limit to what republicans can achieve then the presidential candidate jeb bush or marco rubio or anyone else, ted cruz, one of the

non-politicians, will have to lay out a coherent agenda. i think romney in 2012, i agree with the caller in this -- in this respect, the economy's not working, obama bad elect me, i do not think that is enough certainly in 2016, when no one who is in office is on the that -- on the ballot. both parties would have to lay out the agendas. hillary clinton is a democrat. obama has been in power for six years. democrats controlled the senate and the last four years. what is their agenda to help working-class and middle-class americans? it is as much a challenge for hillard is in as a republican nominee, but it is in a way healthy, both of them would have to explain domestic i'll see foreign policy has been covered a lot. everyone else will win that

debate, which is good. hawkish foreign policy and one of the things they will be able to say is they would not have let isis grub as they had. anyway, that is why we have primaries and a lot of people running. it is lysander is said, do not narrow the field immaturely. let's have a lot of candidates and a healthy debate. we do not quite know which would be a better presidential candidate, and let them lay out their ideas. that is why i think the next years will be interesting. host: >> more now from this morning's washington journal with a look at how liberals and progressives might proceed now the democrats are in the minority both in the house and senate. >> washington journal continues.

host: a week away from the start of the congress and republicans have one of the largest house majorities as well as control of the senate. here to talk about how democrats talk about reality, a special correspondent for the daily beast. thank you for being with us this morning. when we look to see what is a reasonable progressive agenda given how huge the gop majority is, what does it look like to you? >> pretty much nothing to me. democrats will be in substantial majorities. republicans now have a nine seat advantage. what position does that put them in? they cannot realistically pass anything. they can filibuster and play the role the republicans played in the early years of the obama administration, so the

republicans will be in a position where they have all the things the house was able to pass that mitch mcconnell now bring to the floor, but i do not inc. they will get any farther than that. if a few of them do, there is a likelihood in many cases that the president will veto them. >> we will see republican legislation, is that it? >> i think that is about the size of it. i did a piece in the summer interviewing 15 to 20 people, republicans and democrats on what they thought might happen when republicans took over, and there was not much optimism from people on either side about what could get done. if you people talked about the possibility of corporate tax reform. there are trade deals and the transpacific partnership obama is interested in that republicans like and liberal democrats do not. it is something that may happen

there. if you google made mention of some form of immigration, but i do not think that is likely. >> we can all agree this is not the position the white house loves to be in. guest: he changes his focus to foreign policy, tries to make sure his isis policy works, so to speak. he tries to get his nuclear deal with iran. and in terms of domestic policy there is just not much for him to do anymore, just hoping the economy gets better and the wage numbers get better so people feel we really are in a recovery. host: our guest is michael tomasky of the daily beast. the number --

we will start off our calls this morning with ronald in george on the democrats find. -- democrats line. caller: you were a big proponent of the iraq war? guest: no, i was an opponent of the iraq war. caller: my call was for mr. bill kristol earlier. i was wondering if he was willing to accept any blame or can you name one out of the iraq war. guest: well, i will pass it along to him. host: he is no longer with the spirit on ohio, the republican slime. caller: -- republican line.

caller: yes, do you republican line. caller: yes, do you think actually born in canada? guest: i think he is right, but his mother was american. so he is eligible. as for john boehner, a lot of speculation was whipping around some months ago about whether he would throw in the towel and whether he would outlast the obama presidency. that speculation seems to have died down. i think he is probably in there for a little while. the conventional wisdom is maybe he is not interested in being the speaker and being in congress for the rest of his life, but there are not any real serious challenges to him right

now. >> given the wide republican margins we have talked about right now, how relevant are democratic leaders in the house and senate now? >> they are leaders so they are relevant, but their relevance has been diminished. control what goes to the floor you control what senators do and do not vote on. u.s. considerable but not total control over the number and kind of amendments that can be attached to legislation. harry reid's power is diminished. he is up for reelection. people might remember in 2010 he faced the challenge, a serious challenge for a little while. and he pulled away at the end. that is six years ago. he will be up in 2016. there's already a little

speculation about what might happen if he did not seek reelection. host: i want to talk about democratic leader pelosi a little bit as well. there were a lot of questions from members of the press. should she step aside? do they need an infusion of fresh blood given they are older and have been around for a little bit? what about her power now? guest: i think she has got a pretty good handle on the democratic caucus. well respected. a good manager of the caucus from everything that i hear. i do not think she is going anywhere in the immediate future. if we start talking long-term and get to after the next

redistricting in 2020 and the democrats looking at a serious shot of recapturing the house, i think it would be time at that point for the democrats. >> carol is on the line for democrats. >> my concern was the election that caused us the senate, but my thing as well is republicans always talked about what the democrats are doing and what president obama has done, they do not get any credit for things that are going on good in the united states right now. everybody can see that everything this man tried to do with everybody, it was not just for the blacks or brown's. it was for everybody. the republicans, they all said no. even though we lost the senate, this is going to be a two teller right here.

do you know that everything they put up against president obama look at how things are going. don't you know they have done everything really, they are treasonous, what they have done to the united states. it is like they wanted the united states to go down just for him to look that. it is the people that is really hurting. the thing is, you have got to hold the truth to the power. the republicans did not do anything there they keep talking about jobs, jobs, the health care, they talk about everything but they have not done anything there at they got the senate. let's see what they do with the senate. >> i think there have been times when republicans have pretty much intentionally obstructed economic progress in the country in order to hurt obama and tried to make him a one term president. i think that is true. certain democratic all decisions said that publicly from time to

time. there are more who would say it privately. you know, they have been uniquely obstructionist. the number of filibusters and closure votes, the voting studies of political scientists who study the votes as scientists do, all members show both parties do it but republicans do a lot more than democrats. so i think there is something to what the caller says. at the same time, there are a lot by this administration that yes, republicans will not give them credit for but i think a good chunk of americans do. >> he go to washington where elaine is on the independence line. >> the reason i'm calling is there are a couple of things i want to ask you about. the gdp, it went up quite a bit. i wanted to know if one of the

reasons there was such a jump in it is that now, because people have to buy health care, that all that purchasing went in to estimating the gdp which, if you force a person to buy something, then it is not really something they're doing willingly, which would affect the gdp quite a bit. the other thing i wanted to know is how you think the democrats would respond to lindsey graham ryan for president. guest: i do not really study the correlation between these things. i would be surprised if that were true because at the end of the day, not many people really have had to buy health insurance

, given the said and surprise of the country. i would doubt that would affect gdp that much. lindsey graham is an interesting subject. largely for foreign policy, and largely -- rand paul of course is a quasi-nation, guess you'd say. lindsay graham is a neoconservative foreign-policy hawk. he is genuinely concerned. i think his party is going in the paul direction. he wants to be a counterweight to that. i do not necessarily see him as a first tier candidate. but, you know, i've been wrong about these things many times. host: brandon from north

carolina on our lines for democrats this morning. caller: happy new year to both of you. my question is, in 2016, in 2012, president obama he was willing to get the hispanic and african-american vote and the women's vote, so do you think the same thing could happen in 2015 with democrats? guest: i take it he means because the candidate will presumably not the african-american, will there be that intensity of support. not quite, but i think pretty close. if the candidate is hillary clinton, the clintons have a long record of support for and from the black community, civil rights causes, and things like that. i do not think they will lose

much of that support their the latino vote is arguably a little more up in the air depending on who the republicans nominate and what kinds of positions the republicans take her jeb bush talks more pro-immigration game than others. but i do not see the party at all in congress over the next two years. then throw in the cuba move that obama made. you know that is very broadly support among latinos and even cuban-americans below the age of 65 are very broadly supportive of this. i would expect, if you asked me to put my marker on one spot or the others, i would guess today that the support for the team -- for democrats for latinos would be high as well. it is worth pointing out that democrats win the women's vote

and they lose the weight women's vote and they win among african-americans and latinos women substantially. i think clinton can come closer and maybe win. host: if hillary clinton wins she is the first female president of the second clinton. talk about what her advantages are and realistically, when do you think she would go for it, if in fact she does? guest: i think she probably will, sometime early next year she even -- i think she will start sending the stronger is the most. her advantage is, 18 of the last 21 years, she is the most admired woman in america. she has got her detractors, a diva -- a decent approval rating but, you know, a lot of people in the country do not like her, but more do.

she can make inroads into the independent vote. and she did as a candidate in new york. on the downside, you know, as bill was saying, i watched him on the segment before me, the younger candidate usually does when. she will have to come up with ways to compensate for that. she will need to come out with some policies and ideas that appeal to younger voters. >> suggest maybe she comes out early. my question is, by waiting so long and everyone is watching her every move, though she heard her party by not going ahead and saying look, i am running, this is what i guess this is what is happening, or at least saying,

she is exploring a run? guest: i do not think so. it is still pretty early. we keep pushing these things forward, we journalists, but we are still two years away. there is time. if she decided not to run for it every in, that really throws the party because as much debate as there is about her, and people in the elizabeth warren wing are not crazy about her and so forth, almost everyone is counting on her to run because when you get past her, the democratic -- is pretty thin. host: let's go to tom in ohio independent. caller: my thought, and i'm pretty sure this will be right in the 2006 election, it will be about 19. that is about food, the availability of food, the cost of food, quality, and ricky.

as you already know, it is either the 37 or 38 month in a row, we have had less food in the pipe line than we have had in the month previous. we are producing food in the same rate we did in the 1950's, when the population was a lot less and we're probably double that now. a few reasons why. east of the mississippi the 2012 and 13 of 14 seasons were mainly due to cold and wet weather in the spring, we just never could get cross out of the ground, and with greatly temperatures running 7-9 degrees colder than normal we are still

in serious problems. my question to you is, what is any presidential candidate going to do to provide food for the people in the united states? guest: i do not know. i did not know some of the statistics you cite here it in general, you know, while i am sure you're right in all the facts that you cite, i do not think this shortages in the front consciousness of the average voter right now. maybe by 2016. who could predict what the issue will be in 2016. it could be part of the country -- a could be a country 5% of americans have not even heard about today. host: it is inevitable on both sides of the aisle, and yet you have written a piece and your answer is not hillary clinton. talk to us about that he's a little bit. guest: i said elizabeth warren

because of the intensity and the passion she inspires among her followers are millions of americans would walk through a brick wall with her. clinton has had my -- moments of inspiring that passion but i think at this moment, warren is our -- arguably more powerful. i read the column after the recent weekend in the senate where she voted against -- what a my forgetting? you know this better than i do. host: i think financial regulations. guest: right. she really made a stand and there is a wine wing of the party. people are passionate about her. i do not think she will run for president. host: if she does not run to do

you think people will, and i use this -- will people be able to suck it up and vote for hillary clinton, if they are so passionate and motivated by the idea of president elizabeth warren? guest: it is not just her as a person their passionate about. they are passionate about the issues she emphasizes and the way she is able to talk about them. to answer your question, i think hillary clinton will have to make serious overtures to those voters and it will have to be more than a few sentences and speeches. will have to be real policies she will have to adopt to show the voters that she hears them and that she can change and that her views are a little bit different than they were in the 1990's, and that she is responding to this very real desire among the democratic electorate. if she does that, they will vote

for her happily. host: are there other democrats we should be watching as we are going ahead to 2000 seen? keep pushing further and further ahead? guest: that is a good question. among the democratic residential contenders i do not quite know and i do not think anybody quite knows where he will be to hillary clinton's left and right . he is to the left a bit on sentencing reform questions where he took a leadership role where he is in senate it he will probably be a little bit to the right on certain cultural political questions. depending on how he purports himself on the debate stages, he has the ability not to win the nomination but to influence her

and influence some directions she takes. bernie sanders is likely to run as a democrat. he is still thinking whether democrat or independent. he will maximize influence if you runs as a democrat. -- he runs as a democrat. he will get that spotlight and be able to highlight those issues. martin o'malley has been a successful governor of maryland but he is dinged here lately by the bad rollout of obamacare in the state and the loss of his -- those are the main ones where looking at in terms of -- host: our caller is robert in

atlanta, georgia on the democrats line. caller: good morning. it has occurred to me for a long time that the most progressive thing these progressives could do is do whatever they can to preserve social programs for those who actually need it. there has been a lot of middle-class into those programs, people who don't need them but get them nonetheless. i'm annoyed when i see organizations like aarp -- whenever a suggestion to do anything to preserve or protect social security, raise taxes are raised the aid, the entire liberal organization freaks out. that is highly inappropriate productive and economics don't

work. if you take a clearheaded look at the economics of those programs, the amount of the budget they are consuming now they will fall flat on their face and harm the people who need it while those who should not necessarily be fully benefiting from it keeps sucking it. i would like your comments on that. guest: entitlements are a big fight within the democratic party. especially social security and medicare. a centrist wing of the democratic party wants to deal with republicans come a mice with republicans on these issues -- compromise with republicans on these issues.

the liberal wing is dead set against those things. this is a big fight within the democratic party and something to watch if clinton does run where she comes down on social security and how to deal with it. social security trust fund is in a lot less trouble than the medicare trust fund. problems loom in the near future . social security, that is not true. my own policy preference is that i think the payroll tax cap should be raised. we stopped paying taxes at $115,000. if that were raised, a lot of fiscal problems would go away. i have seen many polls were people preferred that, when given the option majority

choose raise the payroll tax cap . that is in theory. once it gets that -- to that building, it's a tax increase. eventually, our political system will come around to considering an increase or a change in the payroll tax. host: flat rock, north carolina. republicanrobert is on the republican line. caller: i was just wondering if he thinks any of the democratic senators might support the republican agenda in congress. it takes 60 to override. is there anything that will move forward? guest: there are a handful of democrats from red states who feel that pressure from home.

there are a few others. this election wiped out a lot of democrats from red states. the pickings are pretty slim there in terms of the number of democrats who have a clear home state benefit from voting with republicans. it's a voting issue. there may be some issues where the 54 republicans will get together with a handful of democrats and hit that 60 mark. i don't think it will happen very often. host: a particular policy issue health care. the republican congress will focus on chipping away some parts of the affordable care act.

what did democrats do -- what should they do when that happens? guest: there is not much they can do. they should defend it and defend every element of it. the one thing, there will be some come from i saw on the medical device tax. -- compromise on the medical device tax. there are democrats from states where they manufacture medical devices. they have talked about looking at that. that will probably be changed without a huge fight. other stuff, i expect a big fight. i don't expect anything much to happen. barack obama is going to be tell anything -- veto anything.

the biggest danger is from the supreme court which may decide by june that it's done. host: something i've heard a lot of liberals are scared of what the supreme court could roll back in 2015. guest: i think of the supreme court and longer terms. even in terms of the next president. it looks like, there is speculation about ruth ruth bader ginsburg. she says she is not going anywhere. the next president, they will have a lot of appointments. i don't want to wish ill on anyone but look up their ages and so on. there could be 2-3-4 appointments to the supreme court under the next president.

that could really reshape the court. potentially, president clinton could create a liberal supreme court majority. that is going to be a huge fight going forward. in the short term, the biggest deal is this obamacare case that the supreme court decided to hear and only decided to hear so they could take a whack at the bill. host: could take up cases that deal with same-sex marriage, freedom of speech, political conservation limits. in those cases come back in 2015, what can that do for progressives? guest: it will galvanize progressives to some extent. if the supreme court somehow

decides against same-sex marriage, that will galvanize liberals to a great degree. i would be surprised to see the court do that, but it might. on campaign finance issues, we have a clear signal from this court that they are going to wipe away as much of those as they possibly can. that will galvanize liberals but that is not a big voting issue for a lot of people. the main thing it will do is permit many more millions of untraceable dollars into the campaign system, which republicans are better at taking advantage of the democrats. host: priscilla in texas on the independent line. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: my question was on immigration and the way it is being handled now.

i don't agree with it. because the president has two years left, so he is doing this to get the country in an uproar. i don't think he should be making any decisions at this time. he should have made them when he first came in our when acorn helped him get in. i feel that he had very little experience on what he is doing now. guest: he would say that he tried to do immigration leverages lately many years --

legislatively for many years. the republicans in the senate passed an immigration bill that had a path to citizenship, but it passed with substantial republican support. ever since, it has been at the house. the truth is, john boehner could have brought that bill to the floor any day and it almost certainly would have passed the house with 180 democratic votes. a lot of republican power groups wherefore it.

united states chamber of commerce was for it. it could have passed any day that john boehner would have let it come to the floor but he would not let it come to the floor because he was afraid of the right-wing base out there and his tea party caucus inside the house and how they would react. obama was patient on this issue. now, we can debate whether he overstepped the bounds of executive authority or not by making these announcements that he recently made. but he waited a long time and he gave the republicans a chance to do compromise legislation which some of them in the senate did. host: chris is on a republicans line in florida. -- our republicans line in florida. caller: i think it is going to be interesting to see if hillary clinton does run, how

progressives will try to rally around her. she is the darling of goldman sachs. she has not served herself well charging $200,000 plus to college students for one hour and say it is going to the clinton fund. the new york times did an expose on that clinton fund and there was a lot of black holes and sloppy accounting practices. she has criticized president obama. she is more of a foreign-policy hawk. guest: he raises a fair point. on the foreign-policy question i don't think she is a neoconservative. i have written about this. she is a more hawkish liberal interventionist than barack obama is. i don't think she is a neoconservative.

i think she can finesse that one. on the goldman sachs question this relates back to what i was saying earlier about the signals that she will have to send, not just symbolic signals, but real policy signals she is going to have to send to progressives in the democratic party to show that that is not what she is. host: i want to ask you about one of the biggest stories of 2014. the outrage over the killings of eric gardner and michael brown. does this become an issue in 2015? guest: hard to say whether it becomes a presidential campaign issue.

if there is another incident in the heat of the campaign, it certainly would. these are understood to be mostly municipal and local jurisdictional issues come although presidential candidates are probably going to have to talk in general terms about the relationship between the police forces and african community. -- and the african-american community. host: let's go to the york any that is on outline for independent -- anita is on outline for independents. caller: you mentioned the ted cruz could run for president. you don't acquire citizenship to run for president. you may acquire it to become a citizen but in order to be able to run for president, you have to be born on the soil.

you have to be born on the soil. canada has not been taken over yet. guest: this latin is above my pay grade. i have read many places that cruise is eligible to run for president could people should look it. people should look it up. host: a couple of tweets on the topic of hillary clinton and elizabeth warren. another tweet from laura -- guest: they do and the bench has

been filled -- they are down. that is where you get your presidential candidates, from the governor's. they need to rebuild in a big way. host: austin, texas where alex is on the line for democrats. caller: earlier, he mentioned rand paul as a non-interventionalists. it was too vague a term to throw out there. can he explain why he is against non-interventionalistsm?

it is a heavy-handed and very loaded thing to say. i would like him to explain that thing for me, please. guest: he has given speeches on this subject here to a major one pretty recently that i recommend you google and find and look up and read. he is certainly not a neoconservative interventionist. he has spoken of how we need to have a much larger footprint in the world, military footprint in the world. he is very skeptical of military intervention. too much u.s. engagement in global hotspots. he said this many times and in many ways. i can tell you, i think paul is a shrewd politician. a very serious candidate to win

the republican nomination. he will have a big fight on his hands with the republican establishment which does not support his approach to foreign-policy and they will be trying to stop him because of it. host: clark in new jersey. independent line. caller: i'm listening to you speak about elizabeth warren. she is coming out of nowhere. a law professor. somebody is propping her up. she is a farce, a big phony. i know when i get off the line you are going to -- you will say whatever you want to twisted around to be. -- twist it around to be. i will give everyone a website.

google "frontline" the episode called "the warning." she was the head of the committee to find out who was responsible for the economic collapse of 2008. i don't know how she got appointed because she was not an elected official. she never mentioned who was responsible for it. never said that. she covered it up. the people responsible for it was the clinton administration and this happened way back in 1998 and you can go right back and see the hearings and you will see she never mentioned that. you have to know that she was ahead of this committee first --

the head of this committee first. you as a reporter should be saying this. guest: i don't need to be told what my job is. elizabeth warren got appointed by democrats in the senate to have that committee. it is not unusual thing. a often applicable from the private sector to head these probes. she got appointed because she earned it and started out the rp and worked her way up -- very poor in life and worked her way up. that is her curriculum, hurt qualifications -- curriculum vitae, hurter qualifications. she did say who was responsible. she talks about the deregulation

of the banks under clinton and places partial blame on that but lismore blame on more recent characters -- lays more blame on more recent characters. host: rod in florida on outline for republicans. caller: i would like your guest to explain for me what social justice in america would look like. how would i recognize it when it arrives? guest: it's not going to. the main thing i would say is less economic inequality. nothing is everyone to be perfect but less economic inequality, which is really -- has really spiked crazily in the last 30 years in this country. for a lot of concentrated reasons. it's not the evil republicans fault. there are a lot of forces at

work that contribute to the problem. it is much, much worse than it was. i would argue that in this country's golden era of growth and prosperity at the end of the second world war, until the 1970's, one of the reasons for that prosperity is that we had a lot more economic inequality and equality helped growth, helped prosperous middle class which was able to go out and buy refrigerators and cars and washing machines and keep this bridge was cycle of production and consumption going -- virtuous cycle of production and consumption going. that would be my main thing. that is something i want to see our political system do more to address. host: our last call is no in jacksonville florida on the democrats line -- noah.

caller: you won't believe what just happened. i heard something that made me say "wow." i was born and raised in florida , a segregated community for almost -- for most of my life until i served my country proudly and i have no regrets. with that said, i was going to ask you about something you wrote about. elizabeth warren. i have been circumvented, ambushed. if you read the constitution -- i want you to correct me on this if i'm wrong because you are a learned person. if i'm wrong, you tell me. the constitution itself, the way

it's preamble is a pledge of social justice. i will let you answer me -- there is so much more i could have an wanted to ask. would you think i was right in thinking the preamble is an instrument for social justice? guest: it is. thanks, by the way for your kind words and reading my prose. it is and that is the idea of this union. of course, the constitution endorsed slavery and counted slaves as the bits of human beings so the legacy is obligated. -- as 3/5 of human beings.

as we have overcome this legacy, we have come to understand that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is supposed to reach all citizens of all colors and backgrounds and economic stations and so forth. that is the point of this whole enterprise. that is why we do what we do. there are many of us who think we are still come as much progress as we've made, quite a long way away from that ideal. host: we will leave it there.

your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets all on " traditional" starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern -- all on "washington journal" starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the 114th congress gathers in on tuesday at noon eastern. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. you have the best access, the most extensive coverage anywhere. have your say as events unfold on tv, radio, and the web. there will be 45 african-american members in the house, including two republicans , including the first-ever african-american woman to serve in the house. the said it have two african-american lawmakers.

next, energies with the energy secretary and the ceo of southern energy company. just interviews with the energy secretary and the ceo of southern energy company. the event was part of the washington ideas forum hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. [applause] >> welcome mr. secretary. tough act to follow secretary kerry, but i'm sure we can do it. let me start with a question i think you probably get a lot and that secretary kerry probably gets a lot which is -- what is the harm in doing keystone?

>> i wanted to get into the question of corporate tax reform. there's a lot affected by the issue of weather corporate tax rates should come down and targeted breaks should be given up. you promoted so many energy credits and r&d credits and stuff like that. is there a cost to not using tax credits, the tax policy as incentive for behavior? >> let me broaden to in general the tax policy set of incentives we have to accelerate the transformation to a low-carbon future. make no mistake about it -- the president has made it clear that we are committed to going that direction, so let me give you a couple of examples. first of all, this is not in the tax world, but the department of

energy has rather enormous loan guarantee the authorities. we have $40 billion left in play. we intend to continue the great success with that portfolio over the last years across the energy spectrum from fossil to renewables and efficiency. on the tax side, as -- senator wyden for example now chairs the finance committee and is hoping to advance significant tax reform, but specifically energy arena -- let me give you a good example -- master limited partnerships are an area where there is an enormous amount of equity in the market but for historical reasons, it is restricted to fossil energy. if we could broaden that out to a across-the-board, these would provide excellent new vehicles we think, for attracting more private capital into a clean energy future. >> would you oppose getting rid

of the tax incentives that exist for renewable energies? >> we clearly support the extension of the current tax credits. we especially support having predictable incentives. as you know, for example, with wind with the production tax credit it's all solutions over time directly impact the ability of firms and customers, for that matter, to make investments, so we need -- i do believe we need to extend those renewable tax credits. we need to do it in a way where there is predictability on all sides. >> you have a quadrennial energy review coming out in january. what have you learned about the nation's energy infrastructure in the course of putting that together? >> perhaps it's worth saying a word about what it is, since it is a little bit of inside

baseball but, yes, what we are doing -- it's different in execution, i might say to the quadrennial defense review in the sense that in energy, it's really a whole government exercise because the equities in energy are so broadly distributed. we are working across the administration -- that is an important point. secondly the first u.s. focus is, specifically, as you said, on u.s. infrastructure. we have seen enormous challenges to our energy infrastructure over the last years, mainly, a set of regional challenges. for example, new england, the absence of a natural gas infrastructure has led to enormous spikes. we had the issue of the polar vortex and propane in the midwest. we had the issue of oil i rail for lack of infrastructure. that is what we are looking at. what we are finding is -- a

little bit of a preview -- what we are finding is that the level of investment in the infrastructure we need going or word is not out of line with what is happening already. it's the issue of how do we direct it, how we help guide it to a way that supports the kind of clean energy future we seek. how do we introduce the right information technology into the electric grid, for example? those are the kinds of policy recommendations will be coming out with, but in some sense, what we're seeing already as it's not an issue of the level of investment he cousin that has come up dramatically already in the last years, especially in response to our new energy situation. >> this is the direction? >> yes it's how we guided towards having the transactional capacity toward supporting a clean energy infrastructure which may include distribution.

how do we guided to be resilient against what we expect to be increasing bouts of extreme weather, against cyber attacks, against physical attacks against geomagnetic storms? there's a whole set of risks, so we need to invest in this infrastructure in a way that supports clean energy and provides resilience against a broad-threat spectrum. >> we're told you are and all of the above energy guy, and i want to ask about that because there is i think a promotion of natural gas. republicans attacked democrats saying there is a war on coal certainly be traditional infrastructure. is that true? >> there is no war on coal, but make no bones about it -- there is a fundamental commitment that starts with the president on moving to a low carbon future. what we mean by all of the above

is within that constraint, we walked the talk. we make major investments in developing the technology and lowering the costs for using all fuels in that low-carbon world. what does that mean for coal? it means we have deployed $6 billion to advance the kinds of integrated coal projects that involve capturing the carbon dioxide. most of them -- six of the 8 -- involve using that carbon dioxide to enhance full recovery so it provides a valuable product that lowers the cost. we have a solicitation right now for our loan program -- $8 billion for supporting fossil fuel technologies, including coal, that reduce emissions, so we are working really hard to get those technologies developed, deployed, demonstrated so that everybody

understands what the path forward is for coal in a low carbon economy. they had just add a few other things -- we also in the carbon context have to keep in mind that this requires a global solution. we all know -- we use somewhat shy of a billion tons a year of: the united dates. the chinese are at or near 4 billion tons. india is building up. we need to have these technology solutions that are going to be applied globally. >> u.s. ban on crude oil exports -- do you think that is something that will be lifted? >> there are a number of arguments, obviously, as you well know on that, and we have made it very clear that within the administration, it involves

multiple agencies -- commerce department of energy etc. -- that first of all, there has been no policy change. we do export products -- of course, oil products, and we are examining the whole issues around the increase in oil production in the united dates. how do refineries matchup, etc., which will influence the response on exports, but again i want to create -- i want to take a look at the context. this discussion, generally speaking, is happening without the context of we still import 7.5 million barrels a day of crude oil. we are, on the other hand -- we have become just in a few years a substantial exporter of oil products, so we are exporting a lot hotter, and we are still major importers of crude oil.

i think those are very important considerations in addressing the question you raise. those facts also emphasize something else very important -- we remain linked to the global oil market and global oil prices through imports and exports. >> sounds to me like you are not excited about the idea. >> let's just say we are evaluating all the factors, and i think when -- perhaps the arguments are a little bit over ventilated at the moment. >> sounds like a keystone answer. [laughter] >> you decided to go there. >> earlier, you mentioned the loan guarantee program. i think the first chapter of the program, the word cylinder would probably be the first word. bring us up to date ont th loan guarantee prodeployed $30 billion,

roughly speaking, again, across the energy spectrum, including, by the way, i believe the next speaker in terms of nuclear projects. the portfolio has been a major success. let me give you one good example -- in solar. in 2009, the united states had zero utility scale portable tape project. by the way in 2009, going back to the financial discussion, debt financing was not exactly easily available. the loan program stepped in and provided that support for five projects. successfully. today, there are 17 projects greater than 100 megawatts of photovoltaics completely with private financing. that's the model of what we want to do -- get this kick started

accelerate deployment, then have the private sector takeover. now, have there been failures? yes. solyndra is a default. the portfolio has had a numeral fall -- 2% default rate. i don't know of any other portfolios that have this kind of success rate. it's very easy to find the 1, 2 3 projects that have defaulted. it's a 2% default rate. assuming we find and have a great pipeline of interesting projects, we intend to deploy them. >> i do have one last question for you -- is there anything that we can get it done or they targeted opportunity if you're dealing with the chairman lisa murkowski on the senate energy committee next year as opposed to the chairwoman mary landrieu? >> first of all, when it comes

to the climate action plan which is our main guide to what we are doing in the energy space supplemented by energy security concerns and obviously driving the economy through the new manufacturing programs etc. we are exercising all of those programs through existing executive authority. we will continue to do that. >> so you don't want to deal with the senator? >> we have a good relationship with the senator. i think it is very well known that we have worked very well across the aisle and across both chambers. that will continue and we have continued as as world to aggressively pursue our programs with our executive authorities. >> it's a pleasure speaking with you. thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> thank you. [applause] >> next we have the chairman president and ceo of southern

company. next spring a new coal-fired power plant is being erected in the pine woods of oral mississippi. -- rural mississippi. tom fanning has called the money $5.5 billion counting a bitter pill to swallow. but with these high costs come higher returns. most of the plan's carbon dioxide will be captured and carried underground where it won't impact the client -- acclimate, not the client. tom fanning is here to talk with the atlantic steve clemons of clemons up a costly road he traveled to the first-ever u.s. power plant be designed to include commercial carbon capture technology. thanks tom for coming. >> thank you so much margaret. >> tom, thanks for joining us today. we don't have a lot of time. we have to get right to work. did you like ernie moniz? if he wasn't fabulous would you

say that? >> absolutely. no, listen, he's great. he's an action oriented guy smart, comes from a great background, dynamite choice. >> the reason i want to interview you hear is i heard you gave a talk in asp in a couple of years ago in which you talk about carbon and ways to deploy that. you just opened this mississippi plant at margaret mentioned but beyond that you are taking things to china and i'm interested you are one of the big power guy is and you also deploy your energy among the lowest socioeconomic constituencies in the united states. i'm interested in how you get smart energy choices when the economics are not necessarily their.

>> there are a lot of issues -- >> you have seven minutes. >> it is so foundational. when i took of the national security i cochair that effort when i think about the challenges in the economy we see right now come a 46% said they got the constituents that i serve, they make less than $40,000 a year and of the energy budget is relatively inflexible. we think about all the other challenges we face and our ability to balance clean, safe affordable energy for their benefit is in or miss. we are the only company strategy for those companies is cool cause it is super cheap. >> when you say what is the strategy, we've got to balance those things.

we are a little bit smaller but similar to australia. this is a big company. but we have to do is figure out ways to make all that work. it isn't just clean or affordable. we've been able to do that. we are the only company in america during the proprietary robust research development. we developed our own technology to essentially consumed low grade coal with a carbon footprint less than natural gas and we take the co2 and in this case. >> is that what is in the project? >> that's what we are working on right now. >> so how do you turn it into the timber project? >> we pay to have china absorb the projects. >> in fact what we have to do is build a full portfolio. if you want to see the whole thing the idea is we need nuclear dominant solutions in the world. 21st century we manage the co2.

natural gas, energy efficiency. the technology that we are talking about in mississippi which has had its challenges we signed two agreements in china. china could use 30,000 megawatts. it is impractical to believe that the rest of the world of a lot continued to consume whole. we have to find ways to consume a responsible way. when you think about the nation like portland which probably has a vast majority of the energy produced by low grade coal, not only is it high gas prices but here in the united states we have the 4-dollar gas prices right now. china, poland and the geopolitics. these ideas can make a lot of sense. he is the nuclear guy. and after fukushima how do you deal with the public after

fukushima to deal with this constant concern that nuclear wireless may help with carbon in the air and climate nonetheless it is creating other spinoffs that just undermine our health and safety. >> let me just say this, the nuclear guy. building a responsible call. i'm the full portfolio guy. southern company is the only company leading the renaissance in america, building responsible coal. one of the largest players in solar and one of the leaders in energy efficiency shall we say ambition and courage to continue the path of nuclear in spite of fukushima.

one of the things you must know is that the technology that we are deploying in georgia is the safest and most liable nuclear technology on the planet today. further, the circumstances -- >> how do you know that? >> because the design is different. they couldn't get the water where it needed to be in the time of an emergency. the major design difference in those relatively old technology. the new technology.

it essentially has the water right above the reactor. you don't even need an external power source to get the water where it needs to be. the power of gravity. newton's law will deliver it where it needs to be. so it is much more resilient. secretary is a great guy and if you believe carbon is important to the nation's future, nuclear is a dominant solution. there's only three kinds of -- the company that must go forward must have three characteristics. it's got to have scale. $14 billion over ten years. you better have scales because you can't set up the company. you have to have the highest level of financial integrity. you know that you will go through the world financial market. you better have staying power.

third, credibility of other nations. nuclear is no business for beginners. >> we have covered a lot of terrain in seven minutes. it's one of the areas i would step back and look at and i would have liked to have a whole other component on his china. when you think about the various efforts, you might look forward to the impact. nothing works unless you give china and india in a big way. how does it work in just a snapshot and is there the capacity to absorb the killer technology something that fundamentally changes their choices in a systematic way or do we all just think? >> this is why i am the portfolio. the numbers are so big no single killer act will solve the problem and they have an

enormous issue to deal with. they have growth and they have environmental issues if you've ever been to beijing you have seen it. you have trouble seeing several blocks away. so, the point is the chinese with all of their scale and growth have to think about ways to allen's this clean, safe reliable obligation. i think there is a very clear place for this kind of technology solution -- solutions, not rhetoric -- to have a place in the chinese future, and i think we can help. >> just to wrap up we are out of time. you've been someone that's been border say and take away all of my goodies. you've got them billions of dollars of taxpayer money you give that up for the lower tax rate. what do you need to be to make

it work to invest in the r&d. president obama take this stuff away. >> here's my point we don't want tax policy deciding the goods business practice. get rid of all of the tax preference items. they've been around since the 80s there's no production tax credit and is not to our benefit. -- here is what i would propose -- get rid of all the tax preference items. get rid of all that stuff. gives you a 25% tax rate. still some accelerated appreciation -- i'm in. >> there you are. thank you so much. >> thanks. that was fun. >> this year is the 10th anniversary of "q&a" and to

market decade of conversations we are featuring one interview from each year of the series. today, nancy gibbs and michael duffy talking about the presidents club, their history of private and public relationships among modern and former presidents dating back to herbert hoover. tonight at 8:00 on c-span remembering celebrities who died in 20 18. tonight, actor and comedian robin williams, poet maya angelou, and ruby dee. as the new year approaches, we are asking what you think were the top stories of 2014. several hundred people have left responses, including joanne, who writes --

you can go to our facebook page, leave your comment on this year's top stories. >> the commissioner of the national hockey league and the owner of the washington capitals recently sat down for a conversation about the future of the nhl. they talked about technology in sports the nhl's annual winter classic, and efforts to bring the winter games to the nation's capital. the washington capitals and chicago blackhawks play in the winter capital -- winter classic tomorrow in washington, d.c. >> good afternoon and welcome. i'm an adjunct professor at the george washington university school of media and public affairs, former international

bureau chief with the associated press, and the 107th president of the national press club, the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our professions future through our programming with events such as this, while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speakers, those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speakers, as well as working journalists who are club members. and so if you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending, so it is not necessarily evident of a lack of journalistic objectivity if you hear that applause. i'd so like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the hash tag #npclunch. after our guests' speech concludes, we'll have a question

and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our it is time to introduce our head table guests. i would like each of you to stand briefly as your name is introduced. from the right, the coach of the national press club division champion softball team, who also happens to be a reporter for wn ew fm. the deputy political director for every voice. jonathan, the washable -- washington correspondent, a former national press club president, and a former coach of the championship winning national press club softball team. jason anthony, strategic partner at pure channel and a member of the national press club broadcast committee. pat, the speaker committee member who helped organize today's event.

i will skip over the guest of honor while i introduced the rest of the head table. the washington bureau chief for the buffalo news, chair of the speakers committee, and a former national press club president. the u.s. navy retired and the other speedy -- speaker member who organized the event. the national hockey league vice president for media relations. the freelance writer and the head of cardin communications. and the national association of homebuilders, communication manager, and a member of the national press club newsmakers committee and an ice hockey referee for the past 25 years. [applause] you know, the hockey league commissioner gary bettman and the washington capitals owner are with us today to face-off

and speak about the face of the national hockey league and the upcoming winter classic, which will be in bc for the first time. esther bettman -- mr. bettman has been an nhl commissioner for two decades. he led the expansion of the nhl global reach with six teams added, bringing the total to 30. he has navigated, including the cancellation of the 2004-2005 season. we have the ceo of monumental sports and entertainment, which operates the washington capitals. he has several other interests supporting charities, with an interest in military families. we are interested in hearing

details of our guests, detail from our guests that they can share about the winter classic on january 1, when the chicago blackhawks take on the washington capitals at the national stadium. we are also interested in hearing about other issues facing the nhl and professional sports in general. we are pleased our guests have brought with them a stanley cup, which one day perhaps will reside in washington for longer than the length of this election.

please join me in welcoming. -- welcoming bettman and ted leonsis. they will have conversations between them, and at 1:30 we will start the q&a. the chairs are yours. thank you very much. >> i want to give a shout out to the canadian ambassador to the united states. it's great to have you here. [applause] he happens to be a big fan of hockey and was very interested in the jets returning, so it's great to have you. let's talk for a second about what the stanley cup means to an owner in the nhl, and without attempting to embarrass you, we have a discussion about where we sat so you would be further from

the cup at this point. what goes through your mind and your bucket list? what does it mean when you are an owner and you're thinking about the cup? >> i think it creates lifelong memories for every member of the community, to be able to craft and build a winning sports team and win a championship. it's a bit of immortality for people, so i am involved in lots of businesses, but there is really no higher calling than to have the collective psyche of all the people in your community in the palm of your hands. there is also no bigger risk and danger of disappointing people on that, because scratch any individual, especially in a sports crazed town, and you will find an export -- expert who can do it better than you, so i am going to the to try as hard as i

can with the cap scum the wizards, the mystics to make a team as good as the community we serve and to bring a championship here to d.c. [applause] >> let's take a step back. you bought the capitals in 1999. you subsequently acquired the wizards. what was going through your mind when you said, i want to own a sports team? i want to own the capitals? i want to be a hockey owner? >> i had a life reckoning when i was a young person and ended up making a list of things to do before i die. it was amazing looking back at the sports.

i grew up playing, and we developed a rink, and it reminded me as the young man of leaving school at 3:00 and going and playing roller hockey or basketball, and it became so central to the person i became wanted to be part of the teams trying to accomplish something collectively, so sports played a big role in my life. i wrote down, own a sports team, win a championship. all of a sudden you have the opportunity to do that, and i initially passed when patrick approached me to buy the caps. i was married and had children

thought it was a lot of money. i thought it was a lot of work. i frankly didn't want the notoriety and the spotlight, thought that would be a tough environment, because i knew what i would get into in running a public trust. i went home that night, and my wife said, what's new? i said, somebody tried to sell me a hockey team. she said, what did you say? i said i passed. i gave for the reasons. before i went to bed, she said what if you get 99 of the 101 things done before you die. how will you feel? i love you. i have to buy the team. it's been a family endeavor family labor of love. the commissioner has been great in teaching us how to do it. it is really funny as an owner.

we take stupid pills. >> no, really? >> you think because you have been moderately successful in one field that you know what you are doing instantly in sports. now that i have been in pro sports for some time, i see it. we laugh together. here comes the new owner. i know what he is going to say what he is going to spend, what he is going to do. the leagues are very, very responsible for creating an environment where you can not do a lot of harm, but you can do a lot of good. and, i'm very grateful to gary for coming here today, but i am really grateful not only for the guidance and what he has done for the league, but he gifted the winter classic to d.c. this has not been considered a traditional hockey market.

we have been working night and day to craft a great team, to build youth hockey, to connect with the consciousness of the community to make them fall in love of hockey. we have been fortunate that we have a good team, superstar players. we sell out every game. when i saw the winter classic, the very first one on television, i literally sent an e-mail to gary before the puck dropped. i said, i think i'm in love. [laughter] this is the greatest visual i've ever seen on television. it looked like a snow globe. to see so many people outdoors

at a hockey game -- i pretty much spent the next several years every day saying don't forget about washington. >> actually, i don't know if i would call it a gift. it's like the kid who for christmas gives his parents his list every day for four years and is going to throw a temper tantrum if he does not get it. [laughter] that is an overstatement. ted, as you know from following the wizards and the caps, is a passionate owner. he says it is stupid pills. i think your passion when you first come into buy a team is something that drives you in ways that you would not have any other business because no matter what business you buy, you would never as passionate as buying a sports team. what is it like day to day being an owner? how high do you get on the wins,

how low do you get on the lows? does it affect you in ways you never imagined? >> it can be wearing. it can be joyful. the social responsibility of owning these teams -- they are small businesses. i have run really big businesses. employed hundreds of thousands of people, companies that go public and create a lot of value. you own a sports team and there are hundreds of millions of dollars. we employ hundreds of people. yet, because of the media -- i'm here for the press club. i could come to the press club weekly, i think, because i own sports teams. when i was president of aol, you would not give me a sniff. [laughter]

right? we'd launch a new piece of software that would do $4 billion in revenues in its first year and you would get a write-up like this in "the washington post." and, we trade a third line player and there are columnists writing about it, there's news and ap. so, sports has become such a defining element in all businesses. when you look critically at the demography of our country, 65% of our population is now coagulated around 32 big cities. that phenomenon continues. it is one of the reasons that

d.c. has become a magnificent place to work. great kids come to our universities. they're introduced to how great the city is. they want to stay here. they get jobs. the ip and innovation stays here and it starts to feed upon itself. there are very few iconic institutions that define a major metro area. it is universities. we have georgetown, george washington, american, catholic maryland, on and on. it is iconic real estate. no one has iconic real estate like washington, d.c. the monument -- just go down the mall. it is public space. manhattan was unlivable. watch "gangs of new york" if you want a reintroduction of what manhattan was like until they built central park. we have got the most iconic gathering space. "i have a dream" speech was delivered here. for my kids, it was walking from virginia to go to the first inauguration of president obama. fourth is a defining business community.

silicon valley, hollywood, wall street. this is the federal city where we were created to be the people's city. last is sports teams. you close your eyes and think chicago and you think of the blackhawks or the cubs. you think boston -- you think montreal, you think of the canadiens. here we have the most important economic and social centers and sports teams play this pivotal defining role. that responsibility can be daunting because it can only be one team that wins. that means there are 29 losers every year. [laughter]

it's true. business is not like that. you can take a company public and create billions of dollars of value and wealth and have the number two or number three market share and you are a success. you can launch a product that is as good and has some features that are better and you are a success. in sports, you lose the seventh game of the stanley cup in overtime and you are the loser. >> talking about cities and economics. one of my pet peeves is you get these academic economists who will tell you that sports teams don't have an economic impact. arenas, the publicly financed, have no economic impact. i happen to think that is

absurd. talk about the verizon center, formerly the mci center, and whether or not it had an impact on washington, d.c. >> it has had a defining impact on washington, d.c. mr. pollin was a visionary. very brave. he also structured a deal that was not a great deal with the city, but it led the way for the city to see how great the economic impact would be and that is why we have nationals park and the baseball team. basically, when i went to georgetown university as a student i was told to enjoy the campus, enjoy georgetown, go to the mall, but whatever you do, do not go anywhere near 10th street. 10th street was adult bookstores, drug dealing prostitution. now it is the shakespeare theater and the national

portrait gallery. i don't think verizon center can take all of the credit, but it certainly can take the credit for being the first pioneer to believe in the city and to allow this development to go around it. today, within a mile each way of verizon center, about 12% of the city's tax base is generated. so, we have been named washington business of the year several times because we bring 2.5 million people into the community. guess what? they come into washington and it has become a living infomercial about d.c. the first couple of years, nobody was coming to games because they were afraid of the

neighborhood. somebody finally came to a game and said it was safe and nice. there is lazy thinking in reporting everywhere. not that the media would ever do anything. >> nobody here. >> certainly, nobody in this room. some would say unsafe, downtown can be unsafe. washington is the safest city in the world. [applause] it's not unsafe. we held a concert for half a million people and a game for 20,000 people at the same time. not an incident was reported. mostly because we have nice people but also because everybody kind of knows there are probably more cameras and

more interagency cooperation in this community than any place on earth. and so, the economic benefits are important and they show up in stacks. we have the most phd's of any community in the world. we have the most fiber and bandwidth of any community in the world. we speak the most languages of any community. 170 languages are spoken in d.c. 20% of the population is foreign-born. almost 80,000 people have moved back into the city. there was this trend of people moving out of cities. baby boomers. they all moved back. so, just go around nationals park -- i just drove by today as we were dedicating the playground.

there are more cranes up here than any city on earth. people used to brag about beijing and shanghai. that is happening here. this is the greatest place. i think the first pebble that was thrown into the pond was the belief that downtown could be thriving and safe and be a place for the creative class. that is a central role we play in the city's economy. >> you touched on technology. your background from where you really made your money was in technology. talk about the intersection at this point in time of technology, sports. what this over-the-top stuff is that people are talking about and why you started the monumental network.

>> technology's like oxygen. we all better get used to it. we are living in this world where these phenomenons of moore's law and the network effect where the more people i communicate with and they communicate with and we create these networks, the more productive we become. those are two self-evident theorems that our generation and the next generation are privvy to. there is more technology being introduced on an annual basis than 50 years previous. i worked on my first computer at georgetown university. in 1976, there was one computer on campus in the registrar's office. my iphone 6 has more computing power than the whole campus had when i was a junior. that is unbelievable progress,

right? it costs $500 now to do that. we have 6 million mobile subscribers around the world and 3 million people connected to the web. by the way, we in the united states have less than 300 million. we are now less than 10% of the world's internet traffic. we cannot claim that anymore as our resource because the internet is so ubiquitous and available. it will activate creative classes all around the world. young people -- it's fantastic. thousands of flowers blooming. it is what we imagined. it is also a huge threat to us and our competitiveness. there is no field that is not

being transformed quickly by technology. sports is going to be no different. we have a lot of work that is going on in being able to algorithmically study performance of players, how we market our teams, how we deliver information. algorithms rule. we teach our children math and mandarin. i see right now that everything is an internet device. you've got your fitbit on. i have already done, for those counting, 10,500 steps today. [applause] >> i ate that many calories. [laughter] >> and so, i really do see we will be big data generating

machines. our physiognomy, our vision. somebody interviewed me outside in the hallway wearing google glass. your glasses, your watch, your wallet, your belt buckle -- it is all going to be connected. you will have cameras on you. that will be tremendous for sports and athletes and the data it generates. the way we deliver information is changing dramatically. right now, there is a couple of million homes that pay for cable. there are 6 billion homes that pay for some kind of a mobile subscription. it is a huge business to be connected to television. sports is proving to be the only programming on pay television that can convene in real-time large audiences of people.

that is very counter to if you asked 10 years ago to somebody what is more valuable -- produced television or sports. i saw this five years ago. my daughter was a freshman in college. she came home with some girlfriends and they binge watched "gossip girl." i remember walking downstairs and asked what they were doing. they were watching all four seasons of it.

i asked what network it was on. she said, apple tv? she did not know. was paying $1.99 to watch what was on free television on the cw. you can't do that with the game last night. sports in real time has this unbelievable power and it has become the economic driver on primetime television. i think eight of the top 10 shows were nba, nfl shows. we helped launch a cable network with the nhl and nbc sports. the list goes on and on on how important the programming is but i want to bring our content around the world. to do that you'll hear a lot about over-the-top networks. it is being able to deliver content, programming. it probably will not be live games to devices. you should be able to see

highlights, interviews communicate. if you are in india, china russia, if you don't subscribe. there is a whole generation right now of young people who may not get cable. i have two children who both just graduated college. neither one of them for the last 10 years has had a home phone number. they live in apartments. they don't have a home number. can you imagine our generation?

your phone number is your cell phone. my son when he went to college did not get local cable. he said, i have my computer. i have slingbox. you have cable. i have an xbox, netflix. not really sure i need to pay those dollars. they talk about cord-cutters. you will hear that phrase. the next generation will be never on. they will never have subscribed to a newspaper. i have "sports illustrated" following me today. that was the first magazine i ever subscribed to. i paid and i would wait for it to come.

i would read every word of it. my son does not subscribe to any magazines. he has never filled out one of those cards. he reads everything online and most of it is free. there is going to be a whole generation that will not need tethering, they want it over the top. i will get as much as i can for free and very selectively will i pay for some things i see a lot of value in. >> i thank our guests of honor for this new formatted conversation. mr. bettman, you have a future career as an interviewer. perhaps, "meet the press" will consider you. [applause] >> truth be told, i used to have a radio show. >> first, i have some questions for mr. bettman and then mr. leonsis. mr. bettman, how does a national hockey league choose venues for the winter classic and where do