from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. there was another round of debt reduction talks. wall street makes a comeback now. the jobs picture for every day americans remains rather bleak. first up, a conversation with former federal reserve vice chairman alan blinder on why jobs and need to be at the center of the debate. actress rose byrne is here. we are glad to have joined us, economist alan blinder and actress rose byrne coming up right now. >> every community has a martin

luther king boulevard, this is a cornerstone we all know. this is a place where wal-mart gathers with your committee to make everyday better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and answer, help tavis improve financial literacy and remove obstacles to economic empowerment one conversation at a time. nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] tavis: alan blinder is the former vice chairman of the federal reserve and a former member of the council of economic advisers for president clinton. glad to have you with us.

>> nice to be here. tavis: i was struck by your piece in the "wall street journal," where you tried to focus the conversation now, so much conversation about deficit reduction. so much talk about the debt, so much talk about a variety of economic issues that we are grappling with at the moment but in the middle of all of this we have lost focus on any conversation about jobs. can you tell us what you were trying to get across? >> i think that is right. to me, it is amazing. if you ask any politician what the issue is, they will save jobs, yet we seem to be ignoring it. as you said, deficit, debt ceiling, things like that. lots of proposals that would kill jobs rather than create jobs. this is a paradox, in a way, but

a very sad paradox. tavis: what is the correlation between deficit reduction and jobs? how many american people will end up taking this on the chin? the white house will clearly compromise on something. >> history suggests and there are some exceptions to that which i will come back to, but history suggests that deficit reduction which means cutting spending or raising taxes or some combination, reduces jobs, it does not create jobs. how could you get around that? the most obvious way countries have gotten around that is with expansionary monetary policy. their central bank lowers interest rates and that puts back as many or more jobs than the deficit reduction took out. we cannot do that. we have interest rates are around zero. that is not an option. the other way is a kind of

expectation all or confidence- building merkel that markets get so galvanize, bond rates false and that creates more jobs than deficit reduction took away. -- bond rates fall and that creates more jobs. that seems pretty unlikely. i don't think that you would want to bet on this. tavis: the reality is that they are spending over one trillion dollars in money and they have not been convinced to put that money back into the economy. if you are suggesting that deficit reduction most often means that there will be less jobs, that is not the answer to the prayer with regard to motivating them to get off of that better than trillion dollars that they are sitting on a pin to the point of this is that if i am hearing you correctly. -- with regard to motivate and

them to get off of that better than a trillion dollars they are sitting on. that is the point of this if i'm hearing you correctly. >> the talks on deficit reduction have not come out. one detail is important which is the timing. if you look for the one proposal, this carefully delays the start of deficit reduction, serious deficit reduction until the economy was stronger. i am hoping that whatever deal, if there is a deal, that is made now, will have the same property. if it starts to cut right away parent if it cuts $200, $300, $400 billion a year, that will help. tavis: what i hate about conversations like these is that people do not want to assess blame. i am not of that mind-set. someone should be blamed for a

lot of conversation. where do you place the blame for a lack of conversation much less the lack of will? >> i hate to sound partisan. you have to place more of the blame on the republican party. they have been against everything that would create jobs. they were against the stimulus program. they are still against it. i think that they have stopped calling for a repeal because it is almost over anyway. they are against tax increases which is pro jobs, although some one to ignore the arithmetic. you remember the compromise that happened last year, president obama got a cut in the payroll tax in return for extending the bush tax cuts. the cut in the payroll tax is what the republicans gave reluctantly is a job creator.

this helps to create jobs. this is a continuation of the bush tax cuts. to be honest, i think you must put blame on both parties. some members of the democratic party are calling for job creation, job creation, but not enough. not enough, frankly. tavis: the republicans have no point at all about the fact that we have to cut spending at some point? hard choices need to be made. deficit reduction is a real issue that as some point we will have to grapple with. is that not a legitimate concern? >> that is absolutely legitimate. my only concern is that we not try to do this while we have a weak economy. if you look at the long run budget projections, no one can see what will happen 10, 20 years in the future, but that does not mean that they will be better than the cbo projections.

they could be worse. if you look at those projections, it is clear that spending must be curtailed very substantially and frankly, this is mostly health care spending. > -- tavis: you did concede that democrats bear responsibility. what does barack obama therefore not being as aggressive, focused, having the kind of linear look about jobs, jobs, jobs? >> i think i agree somewhat with your implicit criticism. i detected a criticism in the way the question was answered. i think you are right in the way that from the beginning, while he did push the stimulus bill, which was very important and absolutely appropriate, president obama's attention has been scattered among many different things, including the

health care reform, which was a very good thing to do. it is not like these were silly running off on tangents. nonetheless, when he came into office, we were in a jobs catastrophe. even now, i think we are in a jobs emergency. that focus on jobs, jobs has not been there. this is not like he has been doing bad things. i would not say that at all. most of what he has done has been good. but, there has not been a sharp focus on job creations. tavis: your colleague at princeton paul krugman has been much tougher, has he not? >> he has. i am much more favorably inclined than my colleague. tavis: you have raised the stimulus three or four times in this conversation as the best thing the administration has done. paul krugman and others have suggested that it was never big

enough from the start. the white house cut a deal and they thought they could get through even when they controlled both houses of congress. >> right. a couple of things. let's remember that it barely got through. there was not a lot of margin. that is related to the second point. i am sympathetic as a peer of economists to the notion that it should have been there. -- i am sympathetic as a pure and economist. it did not look obvious that say a trillion dollar stimulus could have gotten through the congress even though both congress is had democratic majority. -- both houses had a democratic majority. the number kept changing. it was 787 and now it is estimated to be 850 as more data came in. this is not at all obvious that we had gotten bigger.

what is obvious is that we could have made it better. this is lost to history now, but you might remember in return for almost no republican votes, no matter what it was, the president gave over about 250 billion, about 1/3 of the stimulus. this was in the spirit of compromise. that part of the stimulus was very poorly targeted for job creation. in terms of the stuff that was really working on jobs, we were down to about 500 billion, which was certainly too small. tavis: i read your op ed piece and i agree with most of it. i appreciate that you put pen to paper to write it. you did talk about unemployment across the board which is sitting at better at 9%, what

you did not mention is what we say to the african-americans who are better than 16% unemployment. they make up the most loyal part of the president's base. in new york, 42% cannot find a job. you don't want to talk about detroit. you thought you detected some criticism. let me be blunt about this, this white house has not said anything specific about those people who are catching the most help in this economy, they just happen to be african americans. they could be white males or white women but they happen to be african americans. what do you say to those who are catching a motel in this economy, sir? >> it is not a coincidence. black americans have as long as we have had data, have always had a higher unemployment rates than white americans. this is unfortunate. this has roots that goes back a

long time. this goes back to jim crow, slavery, inadequate education for black people, a lot of them living in ghetto areas where prospects are very poor. they get a worse education. many many things that are deep in our history that blacks have head is had higher unemployment rates. -- have always had higher unemployment rates. the black unemployment rate is higher than the white but no one is having super high unemployment rates. i guess, except young black males, which have really always had it. one -- when the unemployment rate is high, you have an absolute catastrophe in the black community and especially in some of those very poor areas

that you have mentioned. yes, if we could get the national unemployment rate lower, then the fall in the black unemployment rate, history suggests, would be more than proportionate to the fall in the white unemployment rate. that would be a good thing but it is not sufficient. there is a long agenda in this country. tavis: i raised that issue because i do not ever as long as i am sitting here what those persons who are catching the most help to get made invisible in this conversation. -- i.t. not ever want those people who are catching the most -- i do not ever want those who are catching the most hell to be invisible in this conversation. what are we doing to create

jobs? >> we are getting desperate now. we are trying to get on this train that is moving toward a tax rebate for large companies that have made profits overseas and don't repatriate them because they don't want to pay a 35% tax. to get on that train and allow the sharply-reduced tax rates but only to the extent that they increase their payrolls. that means to hire more workers or pay their existing workers more under the social security limit which is about $106,000. you could create a powerful incentive by doing that. tavis: economist at princeton professor alan blinder, thank you. up next, "damages," star rose byrne.

rose byrne has had a very busy year in film "damages has just kicked off its fourth season. here is a scene from "damages." >> chris sanchez was in charge of the unit. he is willing to give eyewitness testimony against the company. >> what does he say happened on the mission? >> he is concerned about the potential consequences of testifying. he would like to be certain that the firm will support the case. >> how many other cases have been brought? >> almost 60 and they have all been dismissed. >> this is a very compelling case. >> are you sure that mr. sanchez will cooperate? tavis: speaking of damages, you have done some damage this year.

i would like to share with you -- i don't know if your accountant tells you this stuff. in case they don't, let me tell you. this is what you have done this year, "in cities," is regarded as the biggest profit making film of the year. -- "insidious," is regarded as the biggest profit making film. it cost $1.5 million and it made $89 million. "bridesmaids," has brought in 228 million. "x-men," has brought in over 300 million. >> thank you so much. tavis: you are having a great year.

what do you make of the fact that all of this stuff is out in the same year? >> that is really ought. you often do jobs that never come out. it has been really lucky. that is one of those random things. i was working back-to-back last year. tavis: when you have that kind of success which is almost unprecedented, is the new season like a letdown? what is "damages," at this point? >> i love television. i am a big fan of television. for me, the show has been home. i like working with glenn close. i was also exhausted because i had worked solidly. in a way, it was nice.

it was like coming home again. tavis: 1 people -- one thing that people like about "damages," is that the entire season is built around a story line. what is this year's team? >> it is loosely based on blackwater. we get embroiled in a wrongful death suit against a company that is run by a compromise in character. -- my very uncompromising character. we did a lot of research before we did it. they could push the content even further. if you thought it was dark before, it tells the story in a way that we make more realistic. tavis: what is the difference

for an actor when you are doing a series where every episode is different verses a series like "damages," where is this entire story line all the way through the season? is there a difference in style and preparation? >> this is really the most experience i have had on television the way the guys right -- this is really the most experience i have ever had in television. the way the guys right is different. they have different actors come in. this is a little bit like the on known every episode. you're not quite sure what will change. tavis: is that fun, exciting? does that scare you? >> it is scary. i have learned to embrace the process. they always make you look like you know you're doing in the editing. tavis: what do you make of it?

does it mean anything to you that you're going from fx to direct tv? >> ultimately, it was the same atmosphere on set. it was the same sort of thing. if anything, it is like a new experience. this is we launching a show on a different network. this is the same style and you can push the content. on a personal level, it has not been that different. they are really behind the show in a way that i suppose it's like we're going to a new place. tavis: i started by talking about a banner year you have been acting. you had asked whether or not lend clothes had been here. she has been here. -- you ask whether or not glenn

close has been here. >> she is a great leader of our show. she is graceful and passionate and she would like to be as good as it can be. everyone rises to the occasion. it does not feel like a television show. it feels like you're making a film that is broken up into 10 episodes. that just makes you better. she raises the bar so everyone really steps up. she is a team player. the hours on the shows are the tories. you can work up to 17, 18 hours a day. -- the hours on the shows are notorious. she never complains. tavis: i have had a thousand actors over the years. they have talked about the long hours in television and i get that living in here in los angeles, of course. to the average american, the average american is not want to

work 17, 18 hours a lot. that happens a lot in this business. how do you process this working at that level of intensity? >> hard drives -- drugs. [laughter] tavis: ok, that answers that question. that is a lot of drugs. >> that is why i am not seeing any of this money. [laughter] tavis: that is a lot. >> this is like a marathon. you start. you get used to it, you just. you have a different lifestyle. you really don't go out as much. i can probably be a little bit grumpy. you are like a submarine, you go down and your surface later.

the crew are really the ones that do the heavy lifting. they are there from dusk until dawn. tavis: i can hear people typing already. if you can make the kind of money that glenn close makes, you can work 17 or 18 hours. you hide it well on "damages," it is clear that you are australia. how did you get here from australia? >> by boat. tavis: you are full of one- liners today. [laughter] >> i'm sorry. tavis: go ahead. >> slowly but surely, i came over a while ago. i did "troy," when i was 25. that was a huge break for me.

in australia, we have a lot of american television. "damages," has been a huge part. tavis: if the fourth season is anything like this excess she has had this year, this will be a great season for the entire season of "damages," on direct tv. rose byrne, glad to have you here. >> thank you so much. tavis: take your bow out of here. -- boat out of here. >> [laughter] tavis: join me next time with the conversation with john tender grass and a performance by niki jean. >> every community has a market the king boulevard. this is a cornerstone that we

all know, this is not just a street or a boulevard but for wal-mart to gather with your community to make every day better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and answer, nationwide insurance is proud to join tavis in working to improve financial literacy and remove obstacles to economic empowerment one conversation at a time. nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television]