the discussion will focus on efforts to protect birds and the effects on economic competitiveness in north america. you can see that live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. we have more live coverage later today with a look at and religious minorities in nigeria. the westminster institute hosted the event and it starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. today is primary day in wyoming and alaska. cheney who is facing a primary challenge, today. if former vice president's daughter is expected to win her race, even though kentucky republican senator and presidential candidate rand paul has endorsed one of her seven opponents. republican congresswoman cynthia lummis is retiring. stay to c-span tonight for election results. 2016 busspan campaign

is in chicago at the national conference of state legislators asking elected officials what issue is most important to you, your district or your state. >> i'm from the northern part of louisiana and the most important thing in our state is education, by far. all of the things that were top of the bad list and bottom of the good list is because the lack of education and we need to ana better job of starting early childhood education and going forward. ryan, from the u.s. virgin islands, and the most important issue in my district right now is having the united states grant the virgin islands a right to vote for president elections. we are currently allowed to vote in the democratic and republican primary nominations.

more americans and comment have died from the u.s. virgin islands per capita than any other state or territory under our flag and we think it is right to have those represented by the votes. >> one of the most important issues to me is the economic issues and jobs, and part of the problem of people that are impoverished all over this country is that they don't have a voice that works. i am a union member and a strong advocate for having that voice at work. we need to strengthen and enforce our laws, and encourage people to organize and have that voice. i am the state representative from colorado springs, colorado and the most important issue to me, right now is criminal justice and criminal justice reform.

we have been working in colorado on modifications to the criminal justice system to incorporate restorative justice, a way for people to accept responsibility for what they did, and repair the harm. >> good morning. i have the good fortune of representing the great state of louisiana. i am proudly supporting hillary clinton to become the 45th president of the united states. i believe secretary clinton has all the essentials necessary to ,ead us in such a time as this in addition to a fast level of experience. she also provides an outlet so that we will be able to touch -- tackle all the necessary evils of the day. >> voices from the road, on c-span. the foundation for defense of

democracy hosted a discussion on u.s. israel relations with former middle east on billing dennis ross -- former middle east -- about thed relationship of the two nations since the truman presidency. how it has evolved and how it can change depending on who becomes the next president. this runs about an hour and 15 minutes. >> i would like to welcome everyone to the conference room. i would also like to welcome those of you watching today's event on c-span. today's panel discussion is discussed -- is called from

truman to obama, the past, present and future of u.s. israel relations. i'm honored to welcome the dream team for an event of this kind. it is my pleasure to welcome ken stein, who is among the country's foremost scholars on the israeli-palestinian conflict. he was my professor back in the early 90's at emory university, where he has taught since 1977 and still teaches, today. i learned a great deal from him. i'm also pleased to welcome ambassador dennis ross, who has watched the relationship evolve as a senior u.s. government official, across several administrations. i called him a colleague when i worked at the washington institute. he recently wrote a book called doomed to succeed, which documents a history of the u.s. israel alliance.

moderated discussion is john, who has watched this alliance evolved over several administrations. i ask you to turn off your cell phones or set them to vibrate. we want to make sure that today's event is not interrupted. welcome, and thank you all for joining us. >> thanks to all of you for coming, especially to 10 and dennis. jonathan referred to his long relationship with ken and maybe this is like bring your work -- or mentor to workday, because dennis and i actually go back a long way as well, from my time as a graduate student at stanford. i think dennis may regret this, he actually got me my first job in washington which was also at the washington institute, as

well as my first job in government, working for him at the state department on the policy planning staff. i blame all of that is the reason i never finished my phd. back then, the world was much simpler, when all we had to do was deal with the collapse of the soviet union and the reunification of germany, it was very easy stuff. through all the years, dennis has really been a good friend and a source of a lot of advice and wisdom, and it is great to have both him and ken here. the purpose of the discussion is to try to take stock of u.s. israel relationship, looking back, looking over, provide some context for what is certainly among the most and i think people can make an argument that it may be the most important bilateral relationship and american foreign-policy.

particularly opportune time to do so given that we are approaching the end of one administration and we will be watching the inauguration of a new and different president of the united states, may be a very different. we will see. us who have followed relations between the u.s. and israel, the past seven and a half years have certainly felt like a very stressful and double to us time. it has also been a paradoxical time. on the one hand is the president frequently telling us and not without good cause, security and intelligence cooperation between the countries has never been stronger. it appears we are on the verge of successfully completing a new andear mo you -- ammou --

mou. at the same time, the more visible relationship between our government has consistently seemed very fraught, lurching from crisis of confidence to another crisis of confidence filled with degrees of than him and insults and mistrust that have 1 -- let supporters of israel kind of aghast and stunned. there have been real and fundamental policy differences as well, most strikingly in the clash over the iranian nuclear deal. an issue many in israel saw as existential in terms of their security and survival. where their interests and concerns at the end of the day appeared to end up taking a backseat. adding to the growing sense of gloom has been a lot of public

statements like the one attributed to ben rhodes, the president's assistant and his profile in the new york times magazine marie explained that the iran deal was intended to create the space for america to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like saudi arabia, egypt, turkey and israel , with one bold move, the article went on the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale this entanglement from the middle east. in light of all this apparent, i want to start with both by asking you to assess just where you think we are in the relationship. how should we think about these past seven and a half years? how do they fit in the historical evolution of the relationship that both of you has -- have spent so much time studying? hiccup another temporary

in an upward trajectory between our countries, or is something more fundamental at work? why don't we start with ken? the context of 70 years, i think it is fair to say that this is one of the most israelit times the u.s. relationship has lived through, but there have been others as well over the last 70 years. reagan and carter were pretty bad. we had times when secretaries of state have been pretty angry and maryland in their anger against prime minister's. -- pretty angry and pretty in their-- virulent

anger against prime ministers. seems the reasons israel to stay as a primary objective of american friendship is the middle east as a region continues to change and churn. back in the 50's, one of the reasons the u.s. found itself attached to israel was because of the cold war. not because the state department or people in the 40's liked it. as the region continues to change, and israel continues to remain stable, israel remains of aircraft character -- an aircraft carrier or a viable friend, even with all of the stuff that goes on the need the surface. how many times can a secretary of state, and the last 30 years, say we oppose settlements or settlements on obstacle to peace

or settlements don't do anyone there is thisyet incredible strategic relationship, which sustains itself. if israel were not the only reliable friend that the u.s. had in the middle east on a regular basis, it might be a little bit more difficult for israel, but at the present time, given where the middle east is headed, i think the relationship is pretty strong and prime ministers and presidents go, they don't stay forever. having written a book entitled doomed to succeed, we know the ending. the thrust of the book is that you have ups and downs and there will be differences, but there is something fundamental that has drawn us together and the essence of that is what can was saying -- is what ken was saying. carter, but also

reagan in many ways, they were in a word -- they were a were spent. diary, that -- the rock personality clashes and clearly, that has been the case of this administration, there are other parallels. one of the parallels eyesight is actually between bush 41 and the obama administration, where there is a kind of public dissonance between the administration and the president , as there certainly was between george h.w. bush and as there was, even then, over the settlements issue, and you have seen a kind of parallel with president obama, president obama as i note and you said in the introduction, he prides himself

on his commitment to israeli security, which is genuine. what he has done in the level of cooperation on security and intelligence really is above and beyond what we have seen before and in some ways, it is driven by what ken said. the realities in the region have created that. it is not just that it is unprecedented, we have had individual crises in the region, before. we have not had this many crises at the same time. in 2011, toy back assist egypt would be enough, but we are looking at syria, which is a humanitarian catastrophe. we are dealing with the struggle within a rock, there is a proxy war in yemen, there is what we see going on in egypt, there is lydia, all these things taking place at the same time, and they reflect a reality that is

unlikely to change in the near term, there is a struggle over identity and who will control and defined it. for the next 20 years, the middle east may look like this, but then there is israel. israel has a set of institutions, a separation of regularly scheduled elections were the loser access the outcome enemies that whatever his difficulties, it will find a way to manage and it will be fundamentally stable in a time when the region is not an when the u.s. needs someone can count on in the region, there are differences, there are i think some interesting signs that we should talk about, in terms of what it think are some of the demographic changes, the political attitudes that are changing, as well but

fundamentally, you look at israel and what they represent, and the u.s. is going to need someone that can rely upon -- someone who it can count on in terms of basic stability, and that will be israel. theou mentioned some of changes in the u.s. and i wonder if i can get both of you to comment on what you think is the significance or lack thereof of things like the boy cat -- the boycott or whatever occurrence anti-israeli sentiment and particularly among the enthusiastic supporters of bernie sanders, and just the overall cultural and generational shift that at least some people see happening, particularly in the american

jewish community, do you see them potentially having a long-term impact on the future of the relationship, and is history offer us a guide in this regard? >> they will if the u.s. government does not take a firm attitude or position on a particular issue. i don't know how many times susan rice set it at the u.n.. she also said at the -- as a national security advisor, and so as samantha powers, that we are not going to allow israel to be isolated. i don't care how many speeches you read, it is the same phrases over and over again. if the u.s. backs away, and allows an issue to go through and something to be passed, and it becomes troublesome. the u.s. still has to do a job orthe u.n. and not allow bds unilateralism by the

palestinians to come to the for and become part of the political process. the obama administration has been consistent with that, as have others, and yet there will be -- they will be more than happy to be angry with israel about issues that matter, the disagreement over iran, weapons procurement and how much and how soon. those things seem to be part of the norm in a relationship that has gone on for 25 to 50 years. look at how many times the israelis and the american -- and the americans have disagreed over the use of words. in dozens ofes situations, and the argument continues and they still come back and you still have defense ministers and chief of staff coming in and out of washington on a once a month basis. it does matter what the united

states does and says. takes that as part of the relationship, but i don't think it takes it for granted. >> there are a couple of dimensions to this. one is the dimension that ken was talking about. we will have differences with israel, that is a given. the question is how we manage those differences. if we choose to highlight the differences, it gives space and license to others who feel they have to be even more antagonistic or they have to be tougher. when the u.s. takes a tough position on a issue, europe usually ends up stronger on that, so that can feed things like bds, even if that is not the intent. currents, ahere are

,ot of the sanders supporters given the debt -- within the democratic party, i think have grown up in an atmosphere where there is a narrative about the israeli-palestinian conflict that has emerged. the palestinians have been very good at making themselves the victim which does not mean that they are not a victim. they have increasingly made being a victim a strategy. the problem with making that strategy is it guarantees you will always be a victim. that narrative has taken hold , oryou see it in europe there is a certain acceptance that this is the sum total explanation of the conflict. palestinians are a victim and somehow the israelis are the victimizer. you see it on some of the campuses, here. bds on a number of campuses has

acquired a kind of saliency. you see it increasingly with efforts to identify with others who feel oppressed. you will see justice for palestine go on campus and go to every other group and they will say you are oppressed, we are oppressed, and there is a kind of oftentimes instinctive support for that without looking at what is the character of this conflict? i took part in the debate almost two years ago for brown, and it was actually with gnome chomsky -- norm chomsky. the question in this particular debate was does american support for israel prevent peace, and for a lot of people there, that was taken as a kind of given.

i went through every proposal from 1930 72 today and asked who was prepared to accept it and who rejected it? by doing that, i demonstrated that in almost every case, the who actually accepted the proposals and it was the palestinians who rejected it. thatn't doing that to say tells you the whole story of this conflict, but if you're going to try to suggest that somehow the israelis are the only reason there is no peace, the historical evidence suggests the opposite. part of what has to happen is, we who are committed to resolving the conflict need to tell a story about it, we who believe in a strong u.s. is really relationship have to tell -- the israelis have to present

themselves in a way that also says here is what we are doing to try to promote peace. whereets back to an issue settlements had been an issue and it turns out it was not the carter administration, but the ford administration that first notifies them a certain way. -- identifies them a certain way. one of the things i would like to see the israelis do is make their settlement policy consistent with a two state outcome. way to remove the one issue that creates a kind of vulnerability, that makes it easy for the palestinians to present themselves as victims and makes it easy to deflect attention from what they are doing to promote to states -- two states. the wrist something here that

you cannot wish away, there is something that you cannot just deny, but it also has to be put into context. >> can i say something about the comment about ben rhodes? i never met him, but the comment made by someone in the white house that they are not particularly pleased about the in israel supporters behave the general public is not new. during the debate for the f-15 sales in 1978, they trotted out a bunch of people trying to make the case that the f -- f-15 sales were a defensive weapon and a couple of people went out across the country and complained that it was just not the case, anything but a defense weapon. >> f-15s to the saudi's. >> to the saudi's, and the egyptians and the israelis.

members of the jewish community showed up and members of the carter administration. couple of jewish leaders stood up and said this is not a defensive weapon and he stood up and pointed his finger and said you have to decide, are you choose or american and he was angry, not so much at someone disagreeing with him, but that someone was interfering in the process of making foreign affairs and foreign policy, and he did not enjoy that. policywho were making that favored immigration, russian immigration that might have an impact upon his ability to make foreign affairs. i'm not surprised that ben rhodes said it and i'm not surprised that bureaucrats say it. no one likes a speed bump put in their way, so it is natural.

maybe you are not supposed to say it in an interview, but it is the normal behavior when someone gets in the way, you would love to throw a pass 100 yards down the field and not have a defensive back. >> october 1981, ronald reagan giving a press conference, and this is during the time of the cell to -- sales of the saudi's and he says it is not the business of a foreign country to make american foreign-policy. that is a statement that was made in public, and people don't remember ronald reagan being tough against the israelis because it was a transformative administration, but there have been differences over these kinds of issues and it is interesting every time an american president decides a particular issue is important from the standpoint of american national security, the israelis

have been on the other side, every time the administration has heated. it was not just their 15's, it was not just the long guarantees, and it was not just iranian sanctions or a joint comprehensive plan of action. we have seen this repeatedly over time, there can be differences. what is striking is that every single time, when we have had one of these fundamental differences, afterwards, the relationship has actually improved. it tells you something, it is easy for everybody to look at the differences of the moment and say that it, the relationship will never be the same. every time in the aftermath, it improves and you have to ask yourself, why is that the case? some people say it is just politics, but it is because there is something fundamental about having shared values and also shared interests and where

in the end, israel is the one country you can count on in the region. ourn 1969, it was said interest in the middle east should not settle on israel alone. let me say frankly, our friendship in the -- 1969. gotten out from secretary baker's choices, but we won't go there. i do want to talk about something that has struck me because i felt very personally involved with this in the first time you brought me to at a time in the 90's when there really was no u.s. israel strategic relationship to really speak of and when i look at that history of what the conversation in this town was

like, both when you dealt in terms of the think tank community, the policymaking community and also inside of the government, where you would run across a fast majority of people ,orking on middle east issues with no relationship to his real in their entire careers, almost nobody talks about it anymore, dominated the conversation about the middle east in particular and the notion that israel was in fact a strategic liability and somehow alex ross a run america's that as we try to advance our interest in the middle east was kind of the currency of the day albatrossmehow an

as we tried to advance -- around america's neck as we tried to advance our interests in the middle east was kind of the currency of the day. some of the strongest defenders of this relationship because they know the region is so volatile and they know that there is so much there they can rely on in terms of -- in times of stress and instability, that whatever the political arguments are, that at that level, the relationships had just been completely transformed. sense, the strategic cooperation began in the reagan administration. the first few years were maybe the lowest point of the u.s. israeli relationship, from the time of israel's founding, and it was because there were a series of surprises and it was because of the siege of beirut.

reagan comes back to his instincts and also george schultz becomes secretary of state. of schultz and of ourin the aftermath in 1983being blown up and the marine barracks being blown up in october of 1983. they come back to what they think is fundamentally, who can we count on and who is a threat? what emerges from that is an architecture for cooperation, militarily and intelligence wise. builds a set of personal relationships, institutions are made of people and overtime, the reason it exists this way is because from that time on, service to service relationships have been developed.

looking at who are particular threats and problems, and they see who the counterparts are and who can help deal with that, they create a kind of nexus and it lives from one administration to the other. you can have differences at the political level, and they can have some potential effect, but they don't shake this underpinning that has happened over the past few years. why we another reason face threats from the region, we will not be able to insulate ourselves. las vegas rules do not apply to the middle east. what takes place there does not stay there. you are dealing with these threats and who is in a position to help you identify those threats create a set of options to counter those threats and create this kind of logical array of cooperative relationships and it has grown out of that. >> personalities really matter.

it really matters who is president and who is prime minister and who their advisors are. it matters in this relationship. >> it colors the atmospherics of the relationship, for sure. atmosphericsto the of this in, the one that stands out is bush 41. yet, bush 41 did an enormous around -- anonymous amount -- enormous amount around israel. -- that have shaped the reality of the relationship. >> let me turn to the peace process and the role that it has , almost the outside role it has -- in theisrael israel u.s. relationship.

i suppose since at least kissinger's time, the issue has waxed and waned depending on wanting us with -- what else was going on, but i am more struck by just how this just won't go away, that virtually every single administration at some point really feels the need to tryingor the brass ring, to achieve some kind of breakthrough on a peace process, and i experienced it in the last days of the bush administration when secretary rice made such a big effort and made it her top priority at a time when iraq was completely hanging in the balance and really the only thing our arab friends wanted to talk about was iran. peace process this administration, i was struck back, because you're right about it, the middle east is kind of

coming apart, dictators are falling right and left, conservative monarchies are deathly afraid that they will be next and the iranian nuclear threat is still all out there. of president goes in may 2011 in the battle of all this to give a speech at the state department. it was actually billed as a speech about the arab spring. i think it is called something, the wind of change. lo and behold, one of the headlines, the next day, there about the president making new demands on the israeli-palestinian issues, that israel needs to return to the 67 lines with some of justice -- adjustments, but it was striking given everything else happening in the region. the region kind of unraveling with no possible connection to the palestinian issue, and yet the president felt compelled to return to this issue at a time

when nobody thought any real progress could be made and did so in a way that caused a real degree of friction with the israeli prime minister and i think there has been some of that as well, the secretary -- secretary kerry's initiative, he syria is melting down, chemical weapons are being isis is just about to emerge and breakthrough in iraq. he spends the first year in office really devoted, traveling more than any other place, between jerusalem and it is all quite shocking and it makes you ?onder why is this the case what explains this? can it be changed and should be changed? 2011,was actually may 19, and then he gives a speech on

may 22 which reinforces what he says in the first speech. the key parameters he was and he explains what that means, but the interesting thing was, it was his arab spring speech. i want to touch on this because i do write about it in the book and i look at it at the time, and what is striking is for about four months, we had been talking about giving the speech, and we had a lot of discussions with the president, and in the final -- before he finally makes his decision to do the speech, a couple of factors come into play. several of us make the case you need to make two speeches. if you want to give a speech about the peace issue, that is fine, but if you introduce it

into -- do you want me to speak up? if you give the speech, even if it is a minor part, 90% of the speech is about what is going on in the region. the last 10% is on a peace issue and they say look, it does not matter if you get three sentences on the peace issue, that is going to be the headline, and not what you want to say about the arab spring. go back and look at the speech, because it is very strong on the there -- on the arab spring and we discussed this for three to four months. sure enough, the reason it is one speech is because all of this -- all of his domestic political rivals say the country does not care what is going on over there, it is only the economy here. your image is you cannot give

two speeches on this because you need to be focused on domestic issues. it is one speech because the itestic side of the house -- tends to unfortunately drown out what was actually a very good speech, i think, on how we are going to respond to the changes taking place in the arab world. the second part of your needion, why is there this to address this issue? one of the things i say in the book is there has been a premise. there are three assumptions embedded in the national security bureaucracy. what is that if you cooperate with the israelis, it will cost to the arabs. distancene is if you are suffering israel, you will gain with the arabs and that is not true.

as i note frequently, as someone who spent the last 30 years of his life trying to solve this problem, it may seem odd that i'm the one saying you don't have to look at this issue as a game changer in the region. i believe he should try to deal with it for a lot of different reasons, not because it is going to change the region. it was not change the region, but it is embedded in the psychology of every administration that if you can solve this issue, you will transform the region. you will still hear people say that today. stop a bomb into syria, it is not going to suddenly make isis disappear or make a rock hole -- make iraq whole. it's not going to do any of those things. it would be great if you could

demonstrate that an intractable conflict could be resolved. it is worth dealing with this issue, but for the right reasons, not because it is going to suddenly transform the region. it is very hard to change that psychology. if you asked me why this has such an enduring effect, i would say it is because there is a sense of changes in the region and the most interesting thing -- if this is the case, how come those in the region don't look at this as their main preoccupation? gulf, what are they concerned with? >> sovereignty and integrity. >> what they are worried about is security and survival. if they thought this issue could

affect the security or survival, they would be addressing it. they have enough -- they have other more immediate concerns. sensens this built in that this is the game changer, this has been a very difficult thing to remove from the psychology of almost every administration that has been there, from truman until today. a point about dates and another about the palestinian issue. atone who takes a look reading arabic newspapers as i try and do on a regular basis, you look at editorials and you looking to the last three or four months, what you find is palestinians criticizing themselves for not being able to step forward and have any say whatsoever in shaping their own destiny. they are angry at their own leaders, they are angry at israel and their strategic

advantage they have been able to gleam from the u.s. -- from greece and cyprus. there is a old knee of writing which is a complete disconnect from what people think sometimes. people are actually reading newspapers or they are deciding let's not do it anymore. it's not because i live in atlanta that i'm saying it. the second thing is, obama's choices of date for this 2011 presentation was rather unique, because if you look at the book, camp david, part of the first chapter and he details the four years of a president and goes all the way through bush two. it says presidents do best when they talk about the conflict during the first or second year of their term, never in the

third or fourth. it is just not done. obama did. was 77,as 82, carter they are generally done in the first six months of the administration, trying to get something going for over, which suggests to me because he did it , it indicated just how deeply -- he was to try to make something happened, it eats at him, and that is to a third point. president elected with one point of view, easily during their four years will change that point of view before they leave. just because someone is elected on this or that platform or this or that principle, once they get into office and they see what the reality is, they are much more likely to change and shift and sometimes, in very dramatic fashion. >> i know we are supposed to go

to q and a. i want to add one thing on the timing. of the reasons that the president feels he has to give this speech is that he is about to go to the g20. he gives the speech and he flies off. determined to- is ont of present an initiative the middle east and the president feels he has to give the speech before his flight is out as way of preempting what french are going to do at the g20. you have a unique set of circumstances that will explain the timing of a particular speech. in this case, one speech instead of two and the need to preempt and have us be the one to shape approaches as opposed to having the french do it. >> i do want to get one future question in and it does touch in

part on obama. what do we expect in these next few months? this has been something he has talked about, that he really wanted to try to achieve, something on this. ,e has made several attempts this seems to be a man who wants to get done unfinished business. do you think something will happen because we do have another french initiative hanging around out there? deal with that and then going forward, both of you, and quick, top lines of what that memo looks like to the next president when you are advising him, what needs to happen in terms of putting the u.s. israel relationship in a good place and how you talk about iran. i don't think of the

president has any great interest in wanting to launch any day diplomatic initiatives on the israeli-palestinian issue. pick between now and the end is going to the on national security and the middle east and isis. that sometime before the next demonstration comes in, he may will give a speech where he chooses to layout parameters. that -- he does not think the israelis are the palestinians at this point are other willing or capable of doing anything, i think he feels that if he could lay out a set of principles for how you can resolve the conflict, even if neither side can accept it, over time, the rest of the international community and the israelis and palestinians will realize these are the only parameters that will work, and it will be a legacy that he can leave and have a benefit.

i do think there is a potential for that. >> would you recommend that? >> president's giving speeches at the end of their term do not have a big impact on anything. idea washe original could you have that become a security council resolution with those parameters? if he were to give such a speech , it would be balanced in terms of the parameters, meaning he would address israeli needs as well as palestinian needs. i don't think you can produce a security council resolution that can address both sides. you can produce a council resolution that will be specific on what the palestinians need and can be precisely comes to borders and when it comes to the , and then when it comes to refugees, it should be a

resolution of the refugees, and when it comes to security, there should be security arrangements. the securityo council, something very precise on what the palestinians need and what the israelis need, and that actually will make things worse. administrationhe is going to make a big effort because they realize that is the likely effect. in terms of your question on what should we -- i think the key point to the next president of the u.s. is really relationship would be on the substance. you will immediately address something important to the when all but also gain of our traditional arab friends if you make it clear that you are going to focus heavily on making sure that the joint

comprehensive plan of action is enforced and you will make it clear that if there is any violation, you want to work out now understanding what the price would be and you would like to create a joint implementation committee. i think israel may have proposed this agreement, but now it has a greater stake than anybody else in making sure that it is fully implemented. if you take advantage take advantage of that, and make a suggestion on producing a set of contingency planning discussions on how to contend with iranian threats in the region and make it clear this something you appear not only to do with the israelis, and a number of the arab states, immediately send a message you get the nature of the iranian threat, which would be important not only to the israelis, but to

our traditional arab friends as well. in addition, today, you don't a back chate between the president and the prime minister. i don't remember the last time that was the case, so we established that. i think there will be a strong impulse on prime minister netanyahu side -- prime minister netanyahu's side. i expect the next president here will want to show that rings are also on sound footing. >> i wonder who that could be, that back channel. thoughts about the next president. i think if hillary becomes theident, she will be among

least experienced individuals who has taken the position since lbj in terms of washington experience. i would imagine she knows the use of language, she will be a lot more careful about what words she uses in terms she uses. i would suspect -- suspect product indications will be an issue as some presidents have been. president that is going to be elected knows that the middle east will come bite them and they will have to react to it, which means you will have to appoint people who are not loyal, but actually smart people . people who get you elected are not necessarily the people you should be serving. >> we go to the audience. if you want to direct a question to either of the panelists, that would be great. >> my name is rachel.

thank you for having this panel. my question is for both panelists. can you talk about your predictions over the next four ?o eight years the democratic party mentioning that in late june, the senate appropriations committee advanced a bill that -- that included amendment -- included an amendment that would authorize local governments to disengage from entities that engage in bds. a majority of democrats on the committee voted against that amendment that was supported by aipac. tim kaine is associate closely with jay street and he did not attend prime minister netanyahu's speech. president bill clinton is not known for having close ties with netanyahu and was seen to be not

so subtly campaigning for him to not be reelected. what the you think will happen? , not thethis on bds broader security relationship. i would urge you to read my book because you might learn more about bill clinton if you did. that -- i would be surprised if you did not see a general support to deal with the to support more general legislation to counter boycotts. if you have the governor of new york who was talking very loudly and proudly about what new york was doing with regard to that, i think this is a kind of bipartisan issue.

i don't see it as a partisan issue, and it should not be. -- one of thehink most important things for israel is to be sure that it remains a nonpartisan issue. israel cannot be a republican or democratic issue. it needs to be a bipartisan issue, and you will see more of an effort made on israel's part democratsut more to and also more to some of the communities that historically don't necessarily have any kind of real historical ties to israel. i think the u.s. congress will take a stand. i don't think it is something that will just the -- just go

away. second, bill clinton is not running for president, hillary is, and i think it is a terribly important distinction. if you take a look at her speeches, given in the last six or seven years, wrote as secretary of state and afterwards, one sees a distinctly positive attitude toward the state of israel and a two staple -- two state solution . very apparent in her speeches, even when she was secretary of state, on different occasions, she said the u.s. will not impose or pressure israel. say that when you're outside of office and what you do inside of office are two different things. i think it is important for us to understand that if hillary clinton is elected, she is the president.

>> i am a former director of aipac and i was struck by dennis 's statement that every time there has been a crisis in israel relations, afterwards, relationship -- the relationship had gotten better. it has been a year since the jc since do you think that that time, when israel objected ,o it, in a very public way that there has been any improvement in the relationship? fundamentally,k the personal relationship between the president and prime minister -- i don't think they but john surma it

off by saying, and i think it is true, we are likely going to see concludedmou between the u.s. and israel, and that will be significant more than what was in the last year -- the last 10 year mou. ,hen you look at after the f-15 granted you have cap david, but after the f-15 in the carter administration, you get the assistance to israel, it gets institutionalized for the first time, of 3 billion a year. after the debate, which is a very tough one, then you end up seeing the joint political military group established under the reagan and strategic cooperation. if you look at bush 41, after the differences on the long guarantee issue, you still get

the long guarantee provided, and you will look at what was done in the administration to ensure that are established with countries that have never existed before on the one hand and what is done in terms of the effort made to ensure that it goes to israel. in every administration where we have seen the fights, the aftermath we have seen a change for the better and i would say -- veryincluded significant resources, another indicator. not the personal relations always changed by the fundamentals of the relationship seem to become more rooted. this gentleman right here. seems to be on, good. i am dan with cbs. this is directed at dennis, have

you minimized or understated the importance that an israeli-palestinian deal would have, if it were a great deal well implemented with the u.s. and the eu and the arab gulf states contributing to investment funds, what a big win it would be and could change the u.s. image in the area that we are involved in something positive. secondly, with this inrecedented set of crises, a bizarre weight may be the israeli-palestinian deal would be the easiest thing to do, a structure where everyone already knows the framework and you have to screw in the last screw. i wish it were just the last screw. [laughter] yes, who i think it would have positive effects,

absolutely. do i think it would make a lot of what is going on -- today one of the things we have not talked about below the radar screen a level of israeli cooperation with the sunni arab states that has never existed before. i collect refers to israel as the first sunni jewish state. -- my colleague refers to israel as the first sunni jewish state. if you had a piece you could make all of the private cooperation that is mostly only limited to security, you could take it and apply it to the water problems. the one country in the area that's -- all since water problems is israel. -- climateproblems change, jobs, likely to be an

additional contributor to conflict, a very positive thing, what a change the american image in the region, it would help, what is fundamentally change it -- there would be other reasons we would see there would be problems that would still exist. .t would improve it for sure what it helped the israelis in europe -- absolutely. it would have a lot of positive effects including in the region. would it make all the problems in the middle east go away -- no. the question i was asked is why did the issue have such an enduring hold for presidents that felt the need to make this a priority? the answer was there was this embedded belief that this was the core of all the problems in the region. leaders have heard this over and over again. not the saying it is core of the problems in the region but it could make a major contribution.

one of the things i said but not just any region but beyond. take something completely intractable and showed that it is not. it would have a huge psychological benefit but it is not going to suddenly make every problem in this region go away. right here to decide on the front row. -- to this side on the front row. >> my name is amanda with the israel project, thank you force the king. -- for speaking. after the negotiation with john kerry you had a packed that said the negotiations back fired that some said and produced a dangerous outcome. going forward in negotiations, is that something that concerns you, just by having negotiations we can create a worse situation?

way,s: let me put it this when there is no process, the situation gets worse. when you have negotiations that fail that tends to be a reaction to that appeared there is a lesson for diplomacy, that is do not produce your choices to only two. if we cannot solve everything, we will do nothing, that is a guarantee for nothing. in the middle east we have seen when there is a vacuum the worst forces phyllis appeared there should be did -- the worst forces fill it. the solution is what you can practically get done. it is fine to have ambitious objectives but do not highlight those objectives and make them the expectations because you cannot achieve them. then you do create a situation that is worse.

a that someone could interpret the premise of your question to be, negotiations if they are not going to workout out they will make the situation worse, when there is nothing going on what is happening is there is a degree of hopelessness. now on each side you have a complete loss of believe. the israelis and palestinians today do not believe anything can happen. to makingntributing it harder to do anything on the one hand and making the situation far worse on the other. word anddennis use the another book, what you do in your negotiating processes. important terribly for the next president to understand that just because the white house or the oval office gets involved in the negotiations does not necessarily man there -- does not necessarily mean there is a

conclusion at hand. parties have to be willing to take chances and risks and if you do not have that, it does not matter what happens in washington. >> my own experience with this playerot being a primary , there is a tendency to believe that if you do not have either the oval office or the seventh floor of the state department engaged, the process is hopeless and nobody takes it seriously. engaged, itget them sucks up all of the oxygen in the room and makes it very difficult for anybody else working on really big strategic issues that might lend themselves to the application of american power and diplomacy, it makes it difficult to get the time and resources and attention. gentleman right here. >> channel 10, israel.

in knowingnterested the bottom line. for both of you, can we expect any peace initiative under two scenarios, one is with president trump and the other is with president clinton? >> i have no idea what a president trump would do. i have no idea. if there was a president clinton, i think she would commit her administration to working on the issue. there is a big difference between working on the issue and suddenly raising expectations that peace is just around the corner here it goes back to what i was saying. we have to address this issue.

the question is how do you address this issue? there is a range of activity between doing nothing and saying you will solve it. now, myds to be done own sense, i am not saying this is what a clinton administration would do at this is my sense, work at several different levels , find a way to restore believe. can you change realities on the ground so that both sides again to feel that a sense of possibility, today at neither side believes of a sense of possibility. you would do to reestablish a sense of possibility. if both sides said they committed to two states, maybe work with each to take steps to demonstrate policies that would manifest a commitment to two states. you have to bring the arab states into this. today the palestinians are to weak and divided.

think -- they viewed negotiations today as a concession. on their own it is difficult to do anything but they still need to be involved. there needs to be a way to create arab involvement. you need arab state cover for the israelis also appeared the israeli public says what can we possibly get from the palestinians? whatrab states need to say can the israelis do through the palestinians, what kinds of concessions can they make. the israelis leaders need to know what we get from the arabs if we do that. cover forpresent palestinian so they -- so they can negotiate and create concessions and they rationalize for the israelis that they will make these moves, what they can get in return. do the arab states had enough

bandwidth to be involved given all the other threads in the region? i do not know the answer. you do not probe that in a public way because you will drive everyone where they cannot do anything. you do it in a private way and work to see what would it take to get them involved. what would you need from the israelis? from the arab states, what would you be prepared to give to the israelis? we need to think at different levels what to do on the ground and what you can do to bring the arab states into this? the stuff of launching a big public initiative. doing something that makes it clear you will be involved is different than watching a big public initiative. that is what i would suggest. would get you to the big one. i have no clue.

[laughter] whatever it is i cannot say it in 140 characters. >> says that this is the greatest deal of all time but boy it would be terrific to get it done. would you try and soften that instinct? >> send them all to atlantic city. >> he said they would be neutral. -- you -- he said you have to be neutral because that is how you have to be. it is true that there is a conventional wisdom that mediators have to be neutral. like most conventional wisdom's, addressing something but most conventional wisdom's are wrong. when the united states has been conflict, we any have almost always been not mutual.

in ireland, there was a perception that george mitchell going in was not neutral because he had a historical relationship. with holbrooke in bosnia, he was seen as being close to the muslims. the point is, when you are a mediator, by definition you cannot achieve the now come if you do not address the needs of both sides but the idea that we will be neutral, i gave a speech in gaza in 2005 before the israelis withdrew to several hundred palestinians and i said, i know you do not like to hear this but the united states will always have a special relationship with israel, that is a fact. that does not mean it has to come a your expense. gave theve -- when i speech, in the bush term, i said in the last four years the united states has not then a mediator, are you better off?

i the time they had lost 4000 people to the second intifada. offne said they were better when the u.s. was not involved at all. we were note time, involved, nothing prevented the europeans from playing or the russians from playing this role but they did not and they could not because they did not have the kind of relationship that made it possible. having a special relationship with israel is not inconsistent with producing peas, it may be a prerequisite to producing peace but does not exclude the fact that you have to address the needs of both sides. it requires quiet movement on the ground. arab-israelin negotiation requires a measure of pre-negotiations. the narrowing of differences. whatever the framework happens

to be. you cannot run right into it. 15 ore that creates what 20 years ago was called confidence building measures or tensing reducing initiatives. things that are interlocked. people see what they get and what they are receiving, a certain degree of movement. it severs down -- severs down people tensions. at some point if you say we reach a certain point, let's move to another level, what that has to do with is how you fine-tune it moving forward. >> one more question. we are almost out of time. >> i have a question for either andker, going back to mou broadening the scope, what are your thoughts regarding the level of aid america's gives in relation to the overall u.s.

foreign aid? others will say it respectively for the next several years we need to be increasing this whereas the current one will not see enough. say that therely is a great irony. it is true that we obviously provide a lot of assistance to israel. irony is that it is there is because support for israel that it ends up helping contribute to the overall foreign assistance budget. those who helped press for this are helping to produce a foreign assistance budget. if you are really interested in trying to preempt the

possibilities of conflict, a lot cheaper to be putting money into the right kind of developmental assistance band dealing with the consequences of instability that produces complex so i am a supporter of foreign assistance support of the israel has been a driver for the larger foreign assistance budget. >> we are over time, this is been a terrific the ghost -- discussion. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] we will see you next time, thank you. >> join us later today for a look at welfare reform efforts,

it has been 20 years and president clinton signed the proposed reforms into law, the heritage foundation looks at the issue today at noon eastern live on c-span. later, a look back at 100 years of the migratory urge treaty, the discussion will focus on efforts to protect birds and the effect on economic competitiveness in north america , the wilson center host and you can see it live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. more live coverage later today with a look at ethnic and religious minorities in nigeria, the westminster institute host the event at 7:30 p.m. eastern. news from capitol hill, the florida times union reporting that democratic congresswoman karine brown is due back in court today to announce her defense team. she and her chief of staff have been indicted on 24 counts of fraud. the article notes that this will be the third hearing on determining who her defense team is since july 8.

three years after a supreme court ruling overturned part of the voting rights act courts across the country have struck down a number of state laws saying they discriminate against specific groups of voters. saturday night, c-span's issue spotlight looks at voting rights and the impact on the 2016 election. we will feature part of the 2013 supreme court oral argument in shelby versus holder. there is a congress look at whether to restore the voting rights act and a discussion on whether the voting rights act is necessary. here is what the presidential candidates have to say. of these voter ids, a lot of places will not have them, what does that mean? you just keep walking in and voting? a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchised people of color

andeople -- poor people young people from one end of the country to another. spotlight onissue voting rights saturday night at eight: p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. now it is a discussion on hillary clinton's economic ginger what she and bill in michigan last week, we will show you as much as we can until the heritage foundation on event on welfare reform gets underway at noon eastern. >> our first guest is andy greene at the center for american progress, management director. a little bit about the center for american progress. guest: it is a nonpartisan nonprofit think tank that develops progressive ideas to help move the policy conversation and frankly advance the public interest for middle-class americans. is onehe think tank part

thing and you have an action fund, what is that? guest: it can participate in partisan electoral conversations . we do not endorse candidates, we work with any progressive candidate of any party, any stripe, we believe it is important not just to put out ideas but move them through the political process so there can be a result. big: your organization as names, john podesta, mrs. clinton previously, do you have a formal tied to the clinton campaign? guest: not a formal tied. a lot of individuals who have a long history with secretary clinton. there are members of the organization that work with all different candidate but it at this point, given that she is the democratic nominee, the progressive standardbearer, a lot of folks cheering for her. host: mrs. clinton laid out a

plan as far as her uploads, taxation, could you give our viewers a sense of what she is proposing overall? guest: trying to address the challenge of the middle class over the last 20 years or 30 years, they have come under a number of different pressures, wages and incomes have largely not grown. there it was exception in the 90's. skyrocketed for big-ticket items like childcare, housing, higher education. and the middle class are feeling squeezed. 2008has been aggravated by financial crisis that knocked the socks off of the american middle class families. we have come out of that through record numbers of job creation, 50 million private sector jobs created in 77 months. she believes and we believe that

more needs to be done, not yet up for unemployment, a lot of people are part-time who would like to be full-time employed. putting out policies that would boost employment and raise wages so that people can share in the benefits of economic growth, investing in infrastructure as a major part of her plan. i can come back in greater detail about that but highlights, proposals to make sure that children of middle-class families can go to college without being burdened by debt and for the lower and lower middle incomes can go tuition-free. making sure that companies are sharing the profits they make with their workers. through tax incentives to make sure profit-sharing suretunities, making unions are stronger so they can bargain for that, raising the minimum wage, making sure do not ship jobs overseas. host: the mechanisms for that,

taxation, for those upper income earners, highlight what she is proposing. guest: a number of things. her plans in contrast to the plans of donald trump are largely paid for so we are not adding materially to the federal debt. she believes because middle-class americans continued to be challenged, even though they got a tax cut under president obama and record low tax rates, still be burden of on taxation should fall those doing very well and she is proposing policies like the buffett rule, making sure those making millions of dollars in income are paying the same rates as their secretaries because of the differences in the types of make make.le a capital gains or ordinary income. proposing a surtax on the very wealthy, a 4% surtax.

so they pay their fair share. various types of financial transactions tax, a bank leverage tax, other taxes that will go towards making sure the burden is on the wealthiest. of thinking, if she can achieve the tax proposals to the upper incomes she can find everything else she is proposing for the things you are talking about? would-- guest: yes and i point out that these are investments in the economy that benefit everyone, the wealthy are asked to pair their fair share, corporation, we just put out a report that highlighted large big businesses, $10 million revenue or more are not paying corporate tax through a big loophole that over 10 years, the same amount of money, $800 billion in lost revenue was appropriated for the tarp rescue in 2008, really about closing those type of tax loopholes that

will enable her to have the investments that not only go to help the people who directly receive them, the workers that toe construction jobs but go increased productivity economy wide and increased demand that will create the demand for the products that the wealthy at -- and corporate -- that they should share with their workers. host: if you want to ask him fortions --202-748-8001 republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independence. donald trump does not agree. his economic advisor talked her plan. reduction standard

that will take a lot of people off the tax rolls and reduce the taxes for others. you will end up with a reduction in income taxes for most americans. i think that will be stimulative. i need to emphasize and point out that a lot of job growth and wage growth comes from small businesses. one of the major threat of this program is to get small businesses operating debtor and that creates a rising middle class income. the real median income which is the 50th percentile, the middle of the income sector has been going down in this recovery which is unprecedented. a primary goal of the economic program is to get -- having a little bit of problems that initially that was about the proposal by donald trump appeared what did you think?

guest: it is the same type of trickle-down economics we have been hearing from the conservatives for years. it is the same type of proposal that got us the bubble in the financial sector in the financial crash. that's all millions of jobs moved overseas, that's all the wealthy and 1% have record amounts of corporate profits go to them as opposed to the middle class. i am not impressed. if you look at who largely benefits from his tax plan, it it is folks like mr. trump and willd his family directly benefit, proposing to repeal the estate tax, it it applies to .2% of taxpayers, not to percent, .2%. percent,

taxes.not released his another part of his plan is lowering the business tax, the corporate tax to 15%. it would be a double loophole from the type i just spoke of a couple minutes ago so that those who are getting the fruits of economic growth would enjoy even more. we have learned the lesson that if the economy is to grow we need to make sure the middle class has cash in their pockets to go to be small business and buy products and services. and we can all share in productivity in the benefits of the economy. guest: first call is from justin in akron, ohio, republican line. go ahead. caller: i hope i can set the tone to expose this man for his silliness. talk about old proposals, his

trickle if there is anybody listening to this guy who thinks that corporations paying higher taxes is going to create more jobs, you might as well go back to bed and put your head in the sand or wherever you came from because this is the biggest bs line you will ever hear and these guys on the left are good at it. they talk about investments in infrastructure and investments in education, it is such nonsense. everybody knows we spend more on education than everybody else, but we have democrats running the schools and they stink. everybody knows we have democrats running the cities. baltimore, milwaukee, look at the situations these people live under. host: justin, thanks. guest: a couple of thoughts. when president obama took office in 2008-2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. it was nearly 8% decline in the gdp.

middle-class families have seen their wealth and their ability to send kids to college devastated by the financial crisis. meanwhile, during the succeeding years and the years running up to that corporate profits were at record highs. if we look at the evidence of who benefits when corporations are lightly taxed or regulated, and who is harmed, it is quite clear that ordinary, hard-working americans, the middle class do not do well in those circumstances. they do better when it is broadly shared prosperity, when the minimum wage is going up and when those who are enjoying the benefits of the economy can give that back. and they, themselves reap the benefits of a rising economy.

host: this is michaela. florida, independent. caller: i have a comment and two questions. not really trying to focus on the last caller. i am a history teacher and seeing companies over the centuries dumping their social safety net responsibilities onto the government, which increases our tax burden to take care of the rest of our country, but if we were to invest in education and have the brightest, most advanced workforce, i think you would see companies flocking to our shores, regardless of the tax burden they would incur because we would have cutting-edge, highly educated workforce that would compete with tech giants like korea and other countries around the world that we see their products flooding into our country. also,stion would be i living in florida, i think that

green jobs are important and that should be a cutting-edge deal we should be getting into. i was at hillary clinton's rally, i heard her propose expanding solar. when i was in washington state, i saw wind energy, and i think that is something we should be investigating. what are your thoughts on that? caller: guest: absolutely. you are absolutely right. over the past decades businesses have reduced the benefits they provide to workers, whether it is pensions to provide a secure retirement, or other aspects of the social safety net, and government, states, localities, they and families have had to pick up the gap. that is why secretary clinton has proposed increasing and expanding social security to make sure that it does more to

help those who have certain gaps. at the same time, certain proposals to improve retirement security to so that people canp have low cost saving plans and more needs to be done on that. and donald trump is not offering plans to address that. i would highlight a couple of things about green jobs and investing in education and research. that is the kind of proposal that we at the center for american progress have been pushing for a number of years. secretary clinton has been calling for a much expanded investment in all of these areas. i would note that if you look at the u.s. economy compared to its worldwide competitors, the economy is growing and doing better than europe, much better

than japan. china is a different case, but our corporate tax rates are actually modestly higher than them. so it does show that companies are coming to the u.s., investing in the u.s. and continue to see strong economic growth here because of the strength of the u.s. workforce, the strength of the u.s. science and technology. we need to do a lot more to make sure the corporations are not using loopholes to paying their fair share, we can show the strength of the economy, even while everyone is paying their fair share. host: next is alan in pennsylvania, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. the question i have this morning is, we need true income tax reform, and i was wondering

would you support a fair tax? i think it is in the house. it has been in committee for quite some time. hr 25. this is a consumption tax, but if you look into this, this would be a step in the right direction to truly reform our income tax situation that we have. i will take my answer off-line. thank you very much. thanks. i have not seen that particular bill. i am familiar with some consumption tax proposals out there. the one thing i would say is we have to be careful because consumption taxes are regressive. that means that the burden falls heavily on those who do the most consuming, which tends to be lower income families and even middle-class as a percentage of their income. and those that are currently paying an income tax or capital

gains tax would potentially see their tax burdens lightened, heavily. lightened significantly. i would be has its going towards that direction and we have to look at things like the buffett rule in making sure capital gains taxes don't have loopholes like the interest loophole where certain investment fund can avoid paying the capital gains benefits that they reap from those funds. important.ty is very host: a summary from the columbus paper on the plan says it 4% surcharge on households earning more than $5 million a year requires families to have an adjusted gross of $1 million to pay a 30% tax rate and also a -- limiting of deductions. make the case that is not a lot to take on at one time.

the question is who is it hitting, and do they have the resources to absorb that? this is not hitting middle-class americans. it is not hitting 99% of americans. we are talking about the 1%, maybe the 2%, but we are talking about folks who are doing very well in this economy. host: such as? who are these folks? guest: buffett himself has said that he thinks it is scandalous that he can pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is the impetus for things like the buffet role which is saying if you are making your money by capital investment, by investing in the stock market and in companies, great. that's fine, we want capitalism to work, but the nature of your income, we want to make sure that if it is your job and you are reaping benefits from that income, that you are not treated

any differently from somebody who gets up every morning and is a teacher or a firefighter or goes to work whatever they do and earns their money from labor. from that type of income. because our tax treatment is different for those two types of assets. and to enable folks in the middle class to invest in the stock market and earn a return and be able to be taxed at a more modest rate. but we can't let that be abused by those who are solely doing that as their source of business. i really think that is the key. host: our line for democrats, robert from illinois. caller: i want everybody to understand when president obama took office we were shucking jobs for the hundreds of thousands. mitch mcconnell comes on and says our only job is to keep him as a one term president. they did not help this man one time. trickle-down has never worked. it won't work. all companies do is take the

money and workers get smaller wages and what happens? they take the money overseas and bank it in there where they are making millions in trillions of dollars while we are sitting here with nothing. it is pathetic to sit there and listen to these people saying it always works. it's never worked and it will never work. i cannot understand that anyone would vote for a billionaire that says he wants to cut taxes for the people in his tax bracket. it is pathetic, it is nuts to listen to these people that say donald trump is the best thing that has happened. it is not the best thing that will ever happen. i live in southern illinois and i remember when we pay 20% interest, small farmers were getting thrown out when reagan was in office. it was pathetic to watch how many small farmers in this area had to go bankrupt because of

stupid economics like reagan, bush. this is pathetic to listen to this country. the man is worth billions of dollars and will not put his tax returns out. host: thanks. guest: i have to largely agree , but the one thing i would add . nothing to really add, i think it says for itself. the one thing i would add is we have got to make sure that washington, d.c. and the political process it was, is -- process is responsive to the public interest. in recent years, we have seen large lobbying campaigns and increased ties between the largest companies and politicians who benefit from those ties. i personally think it tends to be on one side of the aisle more than the other, but washington needs to be responsive to the real economic challenges this

nation faces. we need to have a much more robust conversation about the real pain that americans continue to feel. guest: lafayette, indiana, republican line gerard. ,caller: extra taking my call. the guy you have on tv says he is nonpartisan, but he is obviously partisan because he is advocating for hillary's plan. another thing is you were talking about how the tax system is not fair and that there were loopholes. they are not loopholes, they are the way the law is set up and people take advantage of the law. if i walk into mcdonald's with $100 in my pocket and you have $50 in your pocket and mcdonald says they will charge me $20 for this big mac and charge this guy $2 because healy has $50, corporations might pay a lower percentage and rich people

might pay a lower percentage but , they still pay millions in taxes. if it is supposed to be for infrastructure and defense, they are not over utilizing it, to provide jobs and people think it is not fair. how is it not fair when one person pays millions of dollars and some people pay zero? guest: a couple of thoughts. i want to be clear, the center for american progress is nonpartisan. i am here speaking on my own personal views and there is also an affiliate organization that does engage in more partisan parts of the conversation. it is really about the particular work that we are doing. on the loopholes and inductions -- and deductions aspect, you are absolutely right. there are reasons why the tax code has deductions for certain things. if you are running a small business and you have a cost for pens and paper's and the

computers to run the business, you should deduct those from your income. there are other very reasonable deductions to make sure the tax code works. the point we are trying to make at the center for american progress is that those deductions and tax principles that are supposed to work for ordinary americans are not taken advantage of interviews because the rules not being written tightly enough and the best example i come back to is the pass-through tax rule where large businesses, over 70% of them are wall street investment firms, are not paying any corporate tax. zero. and because of that over $800 billion of revenue, over 10 years is lost. that is money that could be invested in infrastructure and defense, it

could be invested in science and education. and a wide range of other priorities. those are a couple of funds i would make. host: when it comes to mrs. clinton's proposals, she still sees things like mortgage interested options, childcare deductions those kinds of , things? guest: she is proposing an extension of the childcare tax credit. so donald trump's childcare tax proposals are very largely benefit those who have very high income and high childcare cost. secretary clinton is instead proposing, and it is built on a proposal the center for american progress has put out, a tax credit that enables up to $14,000 that goes toward lower income, middle income families to help them provide that support that they would not otherwise get if it was solely a deduction.

host: texas, independent line. caller: how are you doing? the reason i called is on the sending're not companies to other countries because of high taxes. employees.o pay the hour in making $20 an the factory. when this and that to mexico, the one employee -- over in they might pay two or three employees for that one employee in america. this in the same company for the same amount of people over to korea or whatever. here in employee over

$20 an hour they pay them in china. it is not really about the taxes that they are complaining about. the use that as a scapegoat but , it is the employees they do not want to pay. , many times he has said american workers are making too much money and they need a pay cut. flashback and he will say they needed pay cut. it is not about the taxes i -- like like i was talking about. when a person makes $10,000 and pays $5,000 in taxes, so a person paying $10 million paying the same it works both ways. $5,000,host: curtis, thanks. guest: the caller hits an important point is that we live

in a world of globalization, and you think of what life was like after world war ii, the soviet union and china and india were walled off from western global trade. europe and japan were devastated by the war. america was a manufacturing superpower because we had just won the war. that lasted for 30 years, but the interceding 30 plus years, the world has changed dramatically. china and japan and europe have returned to full strength. south korea, the other little dragons in asia have all joined the global trading regime and in the last 20 years china is on the scene, eastern europe and other parts of the world have opened up. there is much more competition for labor, for companies choosing to go to lower labor costs.

i think one of the challenges we have to deal with in the world is that we can't put up walls. we can't close our borders. it would be devastating from a national security and foreign policy perspective. we have to make sure that americans are not competing against folks that don't provide labor practices and don't have basic environmental practices and frankly, export led industrial strategies that required that provide large subsidies to companies to move there. secretary clinton has been talking about a national manufacturing strategy to employ enforcement.e she opposes tpp and trade deals that would produce jobs ship , jobs overseas. she is proposing plans to reinvigorate manufacturing clusters or cores in the u.s., which depend upon community colleges, research and

development infrastructure and , really benefit from a positive cycle of investment and growth. there is a lot to be done to address those challenges. host: from kentucky, republican line, charles. hello. caller: mr. green and the progressives -- he has mesa many statements that i think reasonable thinking citizens would disagree with. the first premise from the left and the progressive is that the government owns all the economy and any money that they give up in the way of tax benefits is stealing from the government. my view is we own our money and any money that the government takes from our labor, they are taking it from us. an example of that is his proposal that -- with the death tax. he wants the government to inherit wealth from a family,

and that family made that money, they pay taxes on it while they were earning it and it certainly belongs to the family. so many things -- people like to put out the job growth under the obama administration. my recollection of history is that the jobs remained stagnant for the first part of the obama administration. then when we elected a republican congress, job growth took off. he complained about the middle class being squeezed as cost increased. yet increasing in regulations will cause cost to increase and he was to regulate the economy more and more. he sees that when a business or individual is not paying taxes, that is money that the government could use the spend. when a person can save money on their taxes, that allows them to invest in goods and services that they want.

host: charlie, thank you. a lot of points. let's address them. guest: this is a great debate and i'm pleased to be able to have it. i think that the evidence and history is on our side, but i respect to be able to have this debate in america. it is extremely valuable. let's focus on what the caller calls the death tax, which i call and historically has been called the estate tax. this is a tax that applies to .2% of americans. it is extremely generous in the amounts that are completely excluded. the vast majority of americans will pass on their full inheritance, their home, stocks and bonds, other treasured assets to their family, and that is correct. those are family assets. what we are talking about our estates of multimillions of dollars. $10 million or $11 million and

above in most cases. we are talking about making sure that we don't have a landed aristocracy in this company -- country. something that thomas jefferson and george washington and the founders of this country still -- felt very strongly that we did not want. there was a strong sense that we landot want any type of accumulation of wealth, and if we want to make sure that we don't see continued elections where it is the wealthy and the super pac's that can spend $500 million in one congressional race, $200 million in another race and so on, to appear to buy democracy. and i don't think they always 60. but even the effort and the challenge and burden that puts on hard-working americans to be able to make sure their voices are heard in washington is extremely important.

i am strongly a believer in the importance of making sure that inherited wealth does not accumulate and a small set of hands in this country. if i can make another point really quickly. he mentioned the role of the gop congress in affecting job growth and economic growth. if we look at the record, when the gop congress took over, we were beginning to turn the corner, but they instead of investing in infrastructure and job creating stimulus and job creating investments, they hit -- engaged in austerity. they harmed job creation and the economy, and it was only in the last year or so when they began to somewhat walk back on that, having seen the risks and the obama administration negotiating

pretty heavily to make sure they did walk back that we finally felt the real turning of the corner by this economy and we are now seeing 200,000 plus jobs created on a monthly basis pretty consistently. a last point about regulation and i think this is a pretty important one. this economy is fairly lightly regulated if you look at it compares to countries around the world. compared to europe or japan. we don't need those types of regulations. we have a different type of system. there are some core areas where we do need regulations. those areas are the environment, health and safety, financial regulation, because we see the cost to working families and the economy when those regulations are not in place, when they are not strong enough. we just cannot afford to repeat that. host: from georgia, jeff on the

democrats line. you are up. good morning. caller: good morning. i think what the united states needs is a real good class in economics called supply and demand. money drives the demand. if the public does not have any, you can make all the supplied -- all the supply that you want. the biggest thing that drove the companies overseas was not taxes. it was labor cost. you can't pay a person $7.25 an hour and expect him to buy a car. you can't pay him $7.25 an hour and expect him to feed his family. you don't want to give him welfare or handouts, but then when you get these devastated areas you want to send in the , police and beat up everybody's

jehead. it is not taxes or material cost, it is labor. we have a high standard of living. we are used to it and we will have to keep it up. so they can do all they want, until the labor comes up, and that is where minimum wage comes in. when the labor comes up, you will sell more goods. i will hang up and take you -- host: sorry about that. go ahead. guest: i really agree that we have to focus on the demand side of the economy, and certainly supply is important. but the challenge we have experienced is that demand has not been there. there are a number of policies to try to address that. the american reinvestment act, the stimulus in 2009. but it is widely recognized as -- it did not do enough and when president obama proposed to

increase that, republicans in congress stopped that. it is about increasing demand which is why secretary clinton , and the center for american progress and others are proposing investing somewhere between $250 billion and $500 billion into infrastructure because we do need to increase demand, and infrastructure has the benefit of increasing productivity. the caller is right about the $7.25 minimum wage. that minimum wage has not been raised, has not kept up with the cost of living changes. to live on $7.25 an hour is extremely difficult. we are better off with our small businesses, for the economy overall to have middle out economics and a minimum wage that is double or higher than that. so that folks can have money in their pockets and can spend and invest.

host: you for the argument from those employers that say it will affect how to people they can hire, or i can get technology to replace because of those increases. guest: technology is an interesting question. in terms of the employer not hiring folks, i think the evidence to date is that it has not happened because when you look at the states and localities that have raised the minimum wage, we have seen unemployment declined. that is more people are going and getting jobs because they believe they can actually earn a fair return on their jobs, and with more people having money in their pockets, employers find there is more demand for their content services. best goods and services. they can bring on more employees. the cost of labor for most businesses is actually pretty modest compared to the wide range of other costs. technology and automation is a real challenge. there are many businesses that are just investing in

automation. not because of the minimum wage, but just because that is the way to have a better product or a way to be more efficient and more productive overall. you can't stop the march of technology, but we have to make sure that when somebody does have a job and they are out there working every single day, that they are paid a fair share. host: our guest is the managing director of economic policy at the center for american progress. winchester, indiana, independent line. mark, go ahead. caller: ok. the reason the economy turned the corner was gas prices. that put more money in people's pockets. the clinton global economy is why wages have to come down in our country because in order to have a global economy, it has to be -- our standard of living is