captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: president obama called party leaders to the white house for more negotiations today, but there's still no end to the budget stalemate. good evening, i'm jim lehrer. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, we get the latest on the effort to avoid a government shutdown from naftali bendavid of the "wall street journal" and edward o'keefe of the "washington post." >> lehrer: margaret warner examines france's growing role, as it leads the foreign military response in libya and ivorycoas. >> woodruff: jeffrey brown travels to iowa to report on one of the nation's leading literary institutions.

>> people may not be reading as much but they sure are writing a lot. we'll explore that here at the famous iowa writers' workshop. >> lehrer: and we look at a campaign to spread the message-- it's cheaper to educate young people than it is to keep them in prison. that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> auto companies make huge profits. >> last year, chevron made a lot of money. >> where does it go? >> every penny and more went into bringing energy to the world. >> the economy is tough right now, everywhere. >> we pumped $21 million into local economies, into small businesses, communities, equipment, materials. >> that money could make a big difference to a lot of people. ♪ ♪

moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the bill and melinda and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> lehrer: the clock continued to tick this evening toward a government shutdown. with a midnight friday deadline now less than 30 hours away, president obama met again with the main players. "newshour" congressional correspondent kwame holman begins our coverage. >> reporter: for the third time in as many days, the president and vice president met at the white house with the senate's top democrat and the top republican in the house. 90 minutes later, senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker john boehner emerged to say only that there would be more talks. >> we continue to have productive conversations. you should all know they're polite, to the point, but there is no agreement on a number, there's no agreement on the policy issues are contained with this. we are continuing to work toward

an agreement because do believe all of us sincerely believe that we can get to an agreement but we are not there yet. >> so we're going to continue to work to get this done. it's not easy to do, but it's doable. and as i said, we don't have a lot of time to do that. we'll be back here at 7:00 and we hope that that time when we come out we'll have something done. if not, we'll of course have to look forward to a bad day tomorrow which is a government shutdown. >> president obama declined to comment on the status of the negotiations in his only public appearance of the day, a meeting with the president of colombia. the day's negotiations came after a wednesday night session that produced public statements of narrow differences and progress. but but the roadblocks include proposals by house republicans to eliminate federal funding of planned parenthood and, limit the authority of the environmental protection agency

to regulate greenhouse gases. democrats firmly oppose both ideas. the two sides were also still at odds over spending with republicans said to be pushing for $39 billion and democrats offering about $5 billion less. with time running out on leaders to reach an agreement to fund the government through september, house republicans moved ahead today with another short term measure. it would fund government operations for a week but cut $12 billion from the budget except for the defense department, which would be funded for the rest of the fiscal year. but the bill also included policy changes on abortion and other issues, and the administration rejected it. a white house statement said, "if presented with this bill, the president will veto it." the number two house democrat, steny hoyer, said republicans were simply trying to deflect blame, if the government does shut down. >> the president will not sign this bill. why? because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. why?

so you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the government open. why is that difficult? because so many of your folks, unless they get 100%, are prepared to shut down the government. >> reporter: indiana republican mike pence countered that it's the democrats standing in the way of a compromise. >> we are going to pass this continuing resolution. we are going to fund our troops in harms way and stationed all across the world and all across this nation. and if democrats here in washington would rather play political games and shut down the government than support our troops, defend our treasury and respect our values, than i say shut it down. and i'm certain the american people are going to know who to blame. >> reporter: the one-week extension passed on a mostly party-line vote, but it appeared to have little chance in the senate. the president has already signed two stopgap funding bills, including a total of $10 billion in spending cuts.

he has said he'd accept another short-term measure so long as no policy provisions are attached. >> lehrer: and to two reporters who have been covering various aspects of this story. naftali bendavid, congressional correspondent for the "wall street journal." and ed o'keefe of the "washington post." naftali, how close are we, in the real world, to a shutdown, do you think, right now? >> well, it seems like we're pretty close. i mean, as you know, the deadline is midnight on friday and just to give you a sense, the two sides right now can't even agree on what it is they disagree on. the democrats are saying it's these abortion restrictions and these restrictions on clean air regulations that are standing in the way, and if we could just get rid of those, zeed a deal. but the republicans, and speaker boehner in particular, are saying that there are much broader disagreements, that nothing is settled until everything is settled. so for now we can't even agree on what the sticking points are. having said that, there's a certain dynamic where sometimes leaders feel like they have to

go to the brink just to show their own followers that they've done everything they possibly can to win things for their side. it's possible still tonight or tomorrow they'll pull a rabbit out of a hat but there's no question they're playing with fire and cutting it very gross. >> lehrer: if you had to state it simply, what is the democratic argument and the republican argument in each case? >> well, the democratic argument is that if the republicans wouldn't keep insisting on introducing ideology in the form of abortion restrictions and clean air regulations, then, you know, it wouldn't even really be a problem. but, you know, the republican position is, look, we had an election in november. it showed that people want huge cuts in government spending. the democrats are refusing to go along with that. and that's the problem. and, again, the democrats say it's the republicans who are being reckless and want to slash government in all kinds of terrible ways. so we're seeing some real ideological differences. we're always seeing, in some ways, the results of last november's election coming home to roost in a way we haven't really seen before.

>> lehrer: when they say, "well, we can continue to talk and continue to negotiate, "you're also saying if there are ideological differences it's really hard to negotiate ideological differences away, correct? >> absolutely. you know, it's one thing to talk about funding where there's a certain age-old principle you can split the difference-- if one side wants zero and the other side wants 60 billion in cuts you end up with 30 billion in cuts. when it comes to something like whether or not abortion should be restricted, i think people's views are so different that it's hard to reach an agreement. and this is one thing the democrats are saying. they're saying, look, this argument should be about money. that's what this is about. it's a spending bill. let's stick to that. let's not bring in these broader issues. but the republicans really don't see it that way. i mean, they see it as how the money is spent is an important part of what we're talking about here, and if they don't want money spent on abortion that's a very legitimate thing to be pushing for. so, year, there's a cinch difference in world view here that i think is one of the

reasons this has proven so difficult to overcome. >> lehrer: all right, now, ed o'keefe, what tuld actually would happen at the stroke of midnight tomorrow night if in fact no agreement it reached and there is a shutdown? >> let's start with here in washington. the national exphaul all of its monuments would close. the smithsonian institution museums and national zoo would shutter. so would larkz from the statue of liberty, to alcatraz to independence hall to yellowstone national park. pay, if this continues, for federal workers and troops would be delayed, even though they'd keep earning paychecks and of course there's the question of whether or not you're an essential or nonessential federal employee. it's expected that about 800,000 federal workers would be furloughed if this continues into monday. they live all across the country and work for just about every government agency. but, you know, hundreds of thousands, millions more would actually stay on the job because they have essential positions, mostly related to national

security, to some economic security issues, and, of course, the troops would continue fighting overseas, and on their bases here in the united states. so all sorts of widespread concerns and, of course, the longer this goes on, the greater the uncertainty. nasa said today it could potentially delay the launch of the space shuttle "endeavor our." there would be problems with tax refunds, especially for those who filed on paper. the state department won't issue passports unless it's an absolute emergency situation, and there will be all other sorts of examples across the bureaucracy. >> lehrer: who made the decision okay, we're going to close the smithsonian museums, and we're going to close the national parks? is that done for public consumption reasons or is that mandated somewhere? >> it is mandated somewhere. it dates back to memos started in the final days of jimmy carter's presidenciy and refind during the reagan and clinton administrations and they basically say essential government functions have something to do with national security and the protection of

life and property. so if you take that your basic legal principle, that means t.s.a. agents will still screen bags at the airport, air traffic kroirls will still guard the skies. you'll see veterans affairs hospitals still open, and a host of other essential duties across the government. but a nonessential thing that doesn't match that description is something like a national park, the national mall, the zoo community outreach to crime victims at the justice department, and all sorts of other examples. >> lehrer: what happens to the nonessentials who would be furloughed? do they lose pay forever or are they eventually paid-- assuming the shutdown eventually goes away. >> we should hope the shutdown would eventually go away. that's a big unknown question. back in 1995, 1996, during those two shutdowns, all workers, whether they wrkd or not did earn retroactive pay. but democratic lawmakers and federal union leaders are warning with a more fiscally conservative congress in place,

there's a possibility those who are furloughed, the 800,000, wouldn't necessarily get backpay. we have to point out something very important, jim, i think it's troops, those fighting in iraq and afghanistan, those flying over libya, those stationed in south korea and europe, they will be paid for this week. friday is the middle of a two-week pay period. troops in uniform serving in battle will not necessarily receive paychecks on time if a shutdown begins and that's causing a lot of concern for military families across the country. secretary gates today in iraq saying he doesn't like this. he's hoping if onlyinar reason, a shutdown is avoided. but troops will receive pay for this week. anything after this is a big open question. they will eventually be repaid once the shutdown is over. >> lehrer: now, to bring naftali back into this, both of you now, starting with you, nafitalla, all of this, the politics of this are enormous and flip a coin? if this in fact-- in the scenario ed just outlined

actually happens, who pays the political price? >> well you're right, there's enormous political brinksmanship going on here. both parties are afraid of this. they know the situation would be volatile. that voters would be very angry if the government closed not simply because they care about the functions but it would be such a display of incompetence on congress there would be backlash. polls suggest both parties would share the blame but privately both sides believe republicans would get a little more of the blame than democrats. partly i think that's because of what happened when avenue 95 and '96 when the government shut down and newt gingrich suffered more bill clinton. republicans are more critical of government and talk about cutting government, slashing government, so there's a sense if the government shut down, maybe it's something they wanted more than the democrats. but really, the key thing is it's it volatile. nobody knows how it will play out and both sides are worried about it. >> lehrer: what would you add to that, ed? >> i would say you're going to

see all sorts of different things happen if a shutdown begins. and i'm very curious to see whether or not americans shrug their shoulders and say maybe we can do without that or mr. weather there will be real outrage. the fact that tax day is approaching on on april 18. what's to say if tax taxpayers don't say if the government is not running why should i pay my taxes. and the passport situation is not only potentially a problem with joe and jill traveler but business travelers trying to renew passports, that could become a problem. e-verify is used by businesses to verify immigration status. if you're holding you want functions of the economy, which this will do, i think you're going to see a real impact, not only politically but potentially economically. the fact that 800,000 federal workers are going to be furloughed across the country-- remember, most of them are outside washington, d.c. if you're a, you know, lone-earning-- if you're the only person earning a paycheck in your family and your family

is living paycheck to paycheck, you'll feel the impact of that and they'll be sure to blame both president and the congress, most likely. >> lehrer: the economic issue has been raised, particularly by president obama, because he has said this would hurt the economy which was beginning to recover. is that just-- are those just words in an argument or can that be proven? >> well, if you look at the fact that the federal housing administration will have to withhold giving loan guarantees to people trying to buy their first homeland with f.h.a. loans that the i.r.s. isn't going to pay out refunds to people who filed by sending it in the mail, yeah, it's going to have an immediate and potential real-world economic impact. >> lehrer: there is more than about ideology, finally, then, isn't it, neftali? >> well, it really is and it's actually i think two million people that wouldn't be getting their paychecks because both the people furloughed and the people not furloughed wouldn't be getting their money and this is a very fragile moment in the recovery so i think when

president obama makes his point he is making it fair political reason to say the shutdown shouldn't occur but i think there are some very clear real-world impacts this would have. i don't think people are going to shrug their shoulders if the government shut down. i think experience has shown they would be outraged and frustrated, partly because of things like getting their passports which was a real problem for the travel industry, people who wanted to go places but the idea, look, we elect these people. we send them to washington and they can't get together on something as basic as how to fund the government. that's their job and i think people feel very upset if they can't manage to pull that off. >> lehrer: would it be fair to say all 535 members of the congress of the united states know everything that you two men have just been talking about. >> absolutely. one of the amazing things about this is the way they're walking steadily towards this cliff, even though they know that it's right there. and both sides are maneuvering like crazy to make sure the blame goes to the other side should be there a shutdown but they really know they can't escape it entirely themselves

and it's a really curious part of this dynamic that despite that, that each have these political imperatives making it hard to compromise. again, something could happen by tomorrow night but right now it just doesn't look that good. >> lehrer: gentlemen, thank you both very much. >> woodruff: our coverage of the on-going negotiations will continue on our website tonight. that's newshour.pbs.org. still to come on this program: france's growing global clout; the iowa's writers workshop and a push for increased education funding. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: a major aftershock hit japan's already devastated northeastern coast today and touched off a new scare. the quake was centered about 40 miles east of the stricken city of sendai and it triggered a brief tsunami alert. we have a report narrated by paul davies of "independent television news."

>> there have been thousands of aftershocks since last month's earthquake, but this was something else. inside a block of flats, the power fails. listen to the sound of walls vibrating. there was an instant suttles warping. >> if still around the area, please do flee to the high ground as soon as possible. >> reporter: though the warning was later lifted when it was realized there would not be a second deadly wave to add to this destruction. among those who took shelter in sendai was a doctor who had been treating victims of the original quake. shaking and swooning, and i just pulled out a bowl and put it on my head and went under the table to protect my head in case things started falling down.

>> reporter: the aftershock measured a pourl 7.1. it appears to have been just a nasty reminder of last month's disaster. japanese authorities say there is no new damage to their nuclear plants, only to the nerves of those who have learned enough about earthquakes to know when something fees like the real thing. >> sreenivasan: the aftershock also disrupted gas and water service in parts of the quake zone. and, it caused buildings to sway as far south as tokyo-- 200 miles away. rebels in eastern libya reported nato air strikes mistakenly hit their positions again today. two of the rebels died and more than a dozen others were injured in the attack near brega. it would mark the second such friendly fire attack in less than a week. meanwhile, in washington, the head of the united states africa command said the fighting in libya is becoming a stalemate. but general carter ham warned against arming the rebels without knowing more about them. >> not knowing who the ops are. are they trustworthy, there are some media outlets reporting

alliances, need to be assured that the weapons wouldn't fall into extremist hands. >> sreenivasan: general ham also said an international ground force could bolster the rebels. president obama has said there will be no american troops on the ground in libya. and in another development, the news organization "global post" reported today that pro-qaddafi forces have detained freelance correspondent james foley and several other foreign journalists. nato and afghan troops killed a border policeman today, after he shot dead two american soldiers on monday. they had been trainin afghan forces at a base in faryab in the northern part of afghanistan. today's joint operation took place in that same region. the u.s. is willing to keep troops in iraq beyond a december 31 deadline to withdraw if the iraqis ask.

defense secretary robert gates raised that possibility today during a visit to baghdad. he also said the iraqis have to act soon, so u.s. officials can start planning. at the same time, an iraqi government spokesman said the presence of these forces is not suitable for iraq. in brazil, a gunman opened fire at an elementary school in rio de janeiro today, and killed at least 11 students before he turned the gun on himself. aerial footage showed the streets outside clogged with emergency vehicles and family members awaiting news. in addition to the dead, at least 18 people were wounded. china has confirmed it detained the outspoken government critic ai weiwei this week. the internationally acclaimed conceptual artist has been in custody since sunday and human rights groups and other countries have called for his release. but today a chinese foreign ministry spokesman said he's being held for unspecified economic crimes. the spokesman warned other governments not to meddle in the case.

>> china is a country ruled by law. other countries have no right to interfere with chinese inner affairs. china is hadding to discuss relevant issues with other countries based on equality and mutual respect. we hope relevant countries can respect the decision of china. >> sreenivasan: the chinese government has begun a systematic crackdown on dissidents and activists since the political upheavals in the middle east and north africa. the world health organization warned today that more and more infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics. the u.n. agency reported there were more than 440,000 cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis last year. and, diseases such as shigella, gonorrhea and malaria are becoming harder to treat. the w.h.o. blamed improper use of medicines and the use of antibiotics in livestock. it also said a new drug- resistant gene is widely circulating in india and southwest asia and could quickly spread worldwide. portugal has formally submitted its request for a financial bailout from the european union. it is the third euro-zone country, after greece and ireland, to ask for such aid.

portugal has struggled to tackle rising debts amid a political crisis. the government was dissolved last month after parliament rejected austerity measures. on wall street today, stocks fell sharply after initial reports of the latest aftershock in japan. they recovered most of the losses as the day progressed. the dow jones industrial average of 17ed with a lo points to close at 12,409. the nasdaq fell three points to close at 2,796. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: for all the talk recently over the united states being involved in three conflicts abroad at the same time, it's been largely overlooked that another country is equally engaged these days-- france. margaret warner has that story. >> warner: the date was march 19 when france was first to send warplanes into action over libya, enforcing a no-fly zone with air strikes. president nicolas sarkozy announced the action that day at a paris summit of world leaders and diplomats.

>> ( translated ): we do this to protect civilians from the murderous mandate of a regime that, by murdering its own people, has lost all legitimacy. in addition to its arab, european and north american partners, france is committed to playing its role, its role before history. >> warner: france also showed its military muscle this week in its former african colony, ivory coast, sending helicopter gunships to beef up u.n. peacekeeping forces trying to oust president laurent gbagbo. he's refused to step down after losing last fall's election. early today, french soldiers rappelled from a helicopter to rescue japan's ambassador to ivory coast and seven of his colleagues. >> ( translated ): mercenaries took over my residence, but in the end i was saved by french troops, licorne, with their professional work. >> warner: france also remains engaged in the war in afghanistan, with nearly 4,000 troops still stationed there.

but it's the crisis in libya where paris has most visibly taken on a leadership role. president sarkozy spoke out early against moammar qaddafi. and he was the first foreign leader to recognize the rebels as libya's legitimate government to the surprise of some of his allies. in mid-march, he worked with the british to push the u.n. security council to adopt a no- fly-zone resolution, despite washington's initial wariness. >> ( translated ): with david cameron, british and french, we said that we are available, with the condition that the united nations wishes it, that the arab league accepts it, and that the libyan authorities that we want to be recognized desires it, for targeted actions, purely defensive, and only if mr. qaddafi uses chemical weapons or the air force against his people demonstrating peacefully. >> warner: celebrations rang out in bengazi march 18 after the security council authorized all necessary measures to protect

civilians from qaddafi's forces. but the next day, even before the paris summit on finalizing the mission had ended, france launched its initial strikes-- again surprising the u.s. and other nato allies. the mission has been popular in france so far, even though sarkozy's own approval ratings are at an all-time low, just a year before he faces re- election. yet now that the u.s. has handed off the main military role in nato's libya mission, leaving france and britain in the forefront, the libyan rebels are complaining that they're no longer getting robust enough air support. what explains france's military assertiveness on multiple fronts? for that we turn to frederic bozo, a professor of history and international relations at the sorbonne in paris. he's currently a visiting scholar at the woodrow wilson center here in washington and jim hoagland, a contributing editor and columnist at the "washington post." he was the post's paris bureau chief from 1975 to 1979 and

recently was awarded france's legion of honor. welcome to you both. jim hoagland, i'm going to start with you, even though you're the american here. why do you think we're seeing this assertiveness on the part of the french right now? >> well, there are two things-- at least two factors here. one of them is the country. the other is the leader at this time. france is a country that has a past peeg involved in moral affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. so france plays a natural role in that at a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, france still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs. the other part of it is the personality, or rather the temperament, really, of nicolas sarkozy. if you sit down with an interview-- to interview sarkozy it's like sitting down with a bottle of nice nightroglycerin on the couch in front of you. he's constantly in motion,

constantly thinking. people call him sbulsive. i think there's some justice to that description. but he's also a man who takes pride in his ability to manage crisis. he did well in the 2008 georgia-russia conflict when he played a mediating role there. this is a chance for him to show on the world stage that he is a real leader and that, that may help him overcome the lagging popularity that is showing in the polls. his approval rating today is down to about 30%. ask one other factor-- the administration that he heads, has had tremendous problems in the african-- north african countries of tunisia and egypt. >> warner: so professor bozo, what would you to that and how unusual it is for the french to be in three shooting conflicts at once? >> it is. but the surprise in this country is big, i think, because people have members of the iraq crisis of 2003, when france really opposed the u.s.-led operation

in iraq. >> warner: and tried to scuttle at the u.n.. >> yes, absolutely, denied legitimacy to the operation. so people tend to forget, as jim said, france actually has a record of-- both during the cold war and after the cold war. it's a medium-sized power but it's one of those medium-sized powers like britain which has really a global military, much smaller than the u.s. they're able to operate in those circumstances. >> warner: what do you think lines and going to the '03 war-- president chirac had a very different approach. >> and it was a very different context. the vision was based on the allegations of w.m.d., which the french were skeptical of. there was no international legitimacy, no authorization by the security council. in this, the present circumstance, in libya, it's a very different setup. there was, of course, the u.n. mandate. there was a--. >> warner: but, i mean, france

helped push the u.n. to do this. so it wasn't just france said, "oh, okay. we'll answer the call. they were helping generate the call." >> they were because they probably thought it was important. this brings us to the motivations of the move, and of course they are national motivations, domestic motivations, some of them jim has mentioned. i think it's more of a political really, vision that sarkozy is defending. the issue of, you know, humanitarian intervention. but i think there is the more important strategic issue of the relationship between north africa and europe. i think the bottom line is the french, as other european leader victories understood in the past stability came from the status quo. now, the status quo cannot bring stability to the region. transitions can, and helping transition is vital. >> warner: jim hoagland, going back to in january-- first i want to hear your theor bewhy the difference with the iraq war-- but in january, also, if we think about the ivory coast,

sarkozy had a group of journalists in and said a colonial power is not just making judgments of the affairs of a former colony-- they're leading the charge in a former colony. just pick up on all this. >> sarkozy has changed french policy both toward africa and the arab world and that plays in this very importantly. he has actually tried to stay out of intervening in africa, in contrast to many of his predecessors. and the ivory coast, i think, really has been dragged into this. after all, u.n. forces were also striking at the army of gabagal, because they felt endangered. france is supporting the u.n. role there, more than trying to play a neocolonial role there. i think sarkozy would have preferred to pass on that one. >> warner: and the arab world? >> france is, under chirac-- you mentioned jacques chirac-- france saw itself as having a

privileged position in the arab world. it had an arab policy that said we will be friends with the arab regime. one of the first things that nicolas sarkozy did when he came to office was to change that, to say we also want to be friends with israel. we want to be friends with the united states. he's done a lot to renew the american-french relationship. and many arab countries think at their expense. >> warner: professor bozo, when sarkozy says, as he did at the paris meetings, that france is committed to playing its role before history, is he speaking for himself in that sort of sweeping terms or is he trying to touch something in the french psyche. >> of course there is something in the french psyche, as you say. you know, that resonates when sarkozy speaks like he does. the notion that france has a role it play, in a sense, not unlike the u.s. there's a kind of french exceptionalism dating back to the french revolution. this is a country of human

rights, and, therefore, there's a sort of international mission, international order, human rights, all these themes play well in the french psyche, as you say. >> warner: now, jim hoagland, fair to say the way he's done some of these moves has irritate some of the allies? >> i think it is fair to say that, particularly at the white house here in washington. i think there are two important points that need to be made about that, though. one is that the reason you're seeing france taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the united states, are not willing to do it any more, and sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum, to some extent. the two presidents, obama and sarkozy, had a couple of very rough telephone conversations last week about the limits that obama is trying to impose on the american role-- withdrawing certain combat aircraft from strikes against the libyan forces. at the end of the day, i think there's some kind of creative tension at work here that

probably does both sides some good. with obama being quite restrained, obama in contrast to this impulsive, impetuous frenchman that many people see, being the cold, analytical person working for restraint. so he imposes some restraint on whattinateo can do and sarkozy is constantly trying to push the limit on that. it leads to some strained relations. although, interestingly enough, on that march 19 saturday when french warplanes took off, hillary clinton was in paris and had a long talk with nicolas sarkozy. hillary clinton at that point and the state department were much more on the side of intervention than the white house was. and in the course of that conversation, i gather it became clear to sarkozy that he should talk to obama and try to get the americans much more involved than they were, to some good effect, i think, at the end of the day. >> warner: let's wrap up just by-- let me ask both of you-- all right, now the u.s. has

taken its major military assets-- certainly france and britain are providing most of the muscle. we hear the rebels complaining that the airstrikes aren't tough enough, aren't targeted enough and so on. does france have the ability to carry out this role to the end that it sought so eagerly? >> it is a paradox, actually, that nato should be blamed for being too cautious, whereas, of course, the french didn't want to involve nato in the first place because they thought it wouldn't be acceptable for the arabs. so it's the reverks really. i think, yes, they can do this. can britain and france sustain this long term with the u.s. really only in the backdrop? that is a political question more than a military one. >> the french and british do need-- and nato does need-- american intelligence support. awac's needs logistical support. it's getting that. what's changed is the target environment in libya. it's now much more difficult to stage airstrikes.

they moved from the desert where they're sitting ducks-- sitnga tanks as it were-- and they're in the cities which makes it much more harder to strike there and is part of the reason for the american reticence. >> warner: jim hoagland, bowes, thank you. >> lehrer: now, writers, poets, and one of the nation's leading literary institutions. jeffrey brown reports. >> "all the little birds fluttered through our block, cocoa-buttered up in their poom- poom shorts..." >> reporter: a portrait of the artist as a young writer: 23- year-old marcus burke, a first year student at the iowa writers workshop, where his short story in progress is about street life where he grew up, near boston. iowa's a famous place but you didn't grow up knowing about it? >> no, no. god, no. there were no writers in my neighborhood. >> reporter: but now, burke has turned from basketball-- he was a high school star and played in college-- to a different kind of bruising sport: writing and presenting his work in class to

peers and teachers at the country's oldest and most renowned graduate writing program. >> there'll be days that you're like, "wow, i felt that one in the ribs a little." you know? >> reporter: it gets a little rough sometimes? >> oh yeah, definitely. i mean, the truth isn't the nicest thing to hear all the time. >> reporter: it's one of the surprising and counter-intuitive facts of literary life today: even as we hear that fewer and fewer people read serious literature, writing programs like the famous one here in iowa have never been so popular. does it surprise you, how many people send you applications? >> yes! >> reporter: novelist samantha chang is director of the iowa workshop. when we met her recently, she'd just finished reading more than 1,200 manuscripts from applicants for next year's class. so something in these jumped out at you? >> absolutely.

>> reporter: this bin held the work of the lucky 26 who were accepted to the two-year masters program. >> and then something jumps of the page and you think, "oh, my god. i'm in another world. i've been transported." >> reporter: the iowa workshop has been attracting would-be writers for 75 years. first in a small quonset hut on the campus of the university of iowa, then moving into much larger quarters. >> it is a fantastic poem. >> reporter: the program has two departments: one for fiction, the other, poetry with a core faculty joined each semester by visiting writers. and it's been home to a roll- call of literary lights. graduates such as flannery o'connor, wallace stegner, john irving, rita dove and last year's pulitzer winner for fiction, paul harding. teachers, including john cheever, robert frost, robert penn warren and, currently, pulitzer winning novelist marilynne robinson. all passing through a university town that goes out of its way to honor its writers, including special plaques along a downtown

avenue. but, what exactly do they teach and learn at the workshop? samantha chang was herself once a student here, so has seen it from both sides. >> i think i go into the classroom with a general sense that every piece has something good or not good in it, because i think that by someone really working on their strength, they can become extraordinary. >> do you get a sense of why she's telling the story? >> reporter: the heart of the iowa experience is the workshop where poems and stories are critiqued by teachers and fellow students. >> after the dialogue started, i was riveted. >> reporter: but, for as long as iowa has existed and no doubt a lot longer than that, the question has been asked, "can writing be taught?" suprisingly, perhaps, the official answer from iowa is: not really. its website makes clear the

"conviction that writing cannot be taught but that writers can be encouraged." >> we try as hard as we can to take everybody's work seriously, to respect the writer's intentions, to discuss technical and non-technical elements of the work. having said that, i sometimes feel that if i just walked into the room and fed them chicken soup, they would get better anyway. >> reporter: really? >> yes! the elements of, you know, that go into creating a great writer are completely mysterious and nobody really knows what they are. >> reporter: of course, one way to learn is through careful reading. mark levine, also an iowa alum, teaches a poetry workshop, as well as seminars on past masters. here, the odes of keats. he says he works on technical aspects of writing, but there's more, things like character, courage, confidence, and honesty.

>> one of the acts of faith in the exchange between the student and the teacher and other members of the class is to be honest. and the honesty is hard. i mean it's a very, it's a much more emotionally fraught setting i think than other classrooms. >> reporter: whatever one thinks about the ability to teach writing, it's indisputable that what began in iowa, has exploded. 35 years ago there were just 79 writing programs around the country. today, there are more than 800. and that's brought new questions-- what happens to all those graduates? and what's the impact on american fiction and poetry? >> the danger is that there's a certain uniformity that's produced in the work. or that the work is written for critical approval and so tailors itself to whatever the critical trends of the moment are. it's a thing that you want to

patrol yourself for in a creative writing classroom. >> that's the surprise of the story. >> reporter: allan gurganus, the acclaimed author of "the oldest living confederate widow tells all" and other works of fiction, is an alumnus of the iowa program and comes back to read and give master classes often. so what's different from when you were here? >> i think they're healthier. >> reporter: physically? mentally? >> all of the above. they go to gyms, they swim, they don't drink as much. the parties end at 11:30 so they can go home and write the next morning. >> reporter: which is not how it was for you? >> oh, no! >> reporter: gurganus has certainly heard the critiques of writing programs, but says it comes down to something simple. >> they get time and they get readership. time in that two years are free and clear to do the work and to put the work not at the back of their life but the absolute

center of their life. >> reporter: and after those two years, armed with an m.f.a. degree, who knows? gurganus didn't publish his first novel until age 42. >> what's the rush? you know more as you get older, you develop more. your heart is broken many, many times and that is essential to getting your driver's license as a writer. and boy, can we drive! ( laughs ) >> reporter: taking your time, in fact, is another lesson they try to impart here, even as the publishing industry looks for the next big and often young thing. marcus burke says he's already been approached by agents, but he's not biting, at least yet. >> there is a pressure to publish. but at the same time, you only get to come out once. so first impressions are very important. if the work isn't right, you can get charged up for people to look at you. but they aren't going to look for very long. >> reporter: and as everyone we

talked to put it, "if you're in it for the job, the fame, or god forbid, the money, it's probably best to find another line of work." >> woodruff: according to a report out today from the naacp, states are spending increasingly large sums of money on prisons at the expense of public education. its research shows states spend more than $50 billion annually on government-run correction programs. in the last 20 years, state spending on prisons has grown at six times the rate of spending on higher education. and, one in 31 americans is under some form of corrections control. the effort to address the problem, identified in the report titled "misplaced priorities," has attracted a measure of bipartisan support. joining us now is benjamin jealous, president of the national association for the advancement of colored people and grover norquist, head of

americans for tax reform. gentlemen, it's good to see both of you this evening. ben jealous, let me start with you. what do you think is the most important finding from this study, this report? >> our country is 5% of the world's people, 25% of the world's people in prison. and we have too many people in prison. and what's clear is that the policies that have put them there are failing us. we know that there are policies that can make us safer, that cost less, that are more effective, and the time has come for us to actually choose those policies, stop wasting money, stop wasting lives, and stop needlessly break up families. >> woodruff: and how do you know that there's a connection to education, that spending, which is one thing the report recommends, that it's smart to spend less on incarceration and more on education. how do you prove that? >> take it in two pieces. on the one hand we know, for instance, drug rehab, dollar for dollar, is seven times more

effective for dealing with nonviolent drug addicts which are the bulk of people in prison than jail or prison. on the other hand, we also know that if you look, for instance to the state of california-- when california was known to really have the best public universities in the entire world like in the 70s and 80s, they spent 3% of her state budget on prisons and 11% on their colleges and universities. today they're not known to have the best in the world any more. they spend 10-plus percent on prisons and 7% on colleges and universities. so. pennsylvania had a big budget battle a couple of years ago and took several00 million straight out of the ed budget and put it into a hole in the prison budget, and we know when the kids don't get the high-quality teachers and resources that they need they simply don't do as well. >> woodruff: grover norquist, what was it about this that caused you to want to be

involved? >> over the last four or five years, i've been involved with a working group in d.c., conservative, center-right activists who are concerned conservatives have not participated in trying to rethink prisons and federal and state corrections, judicial systems. and over that time this has become a larger and larger part of state budgets. it's become very expensive. a lot of people just sort of said whatever the prosecutors ask for, give it to them in the budget. and when you look at it, you're seeing a lot of people are sent to prison who perhaps ought not to be in prison, in terms of some cost-benefit analysis. again, we're conservatives. i think there are a bunch of people who deserve to be in prison forever. i think there are some people who deserve to be in prison for a long time. i don't get weepy about the whole idea. but we are keeping some people in prison who might be better off in drug rehabilitation or under other kinds of house arrest or other kinds of control other than very expensive

prisons. >> woodruff: and what about the connection to education that ben jellos and others are making that some of that money ought to be redirected to the public education. >> that's indianapolis's study and analysis,. we're taxpayer activists, look at it, and say let's not waste money on prisons and the judicial system if it's not getting us safer streets and safer cities. what we're finding in texas, which has implemented a number of these reforms, their drop in costs and getting less crime. i'm in favor of allowing taxpayers to keep the money that's presently being misspent but that's a separate discussion. wouns save money that's being misspent, whether the government spends it some place else or taxpayers get to keep their own money, we can have that conserve another time. >> woodruff: how do you go about-- so you identify all this money is being spent-- but how do you go about persuading politicians, the public policy

makers, to make a change? >> right now, there's a whole lot of hope at the state level. there are huge budget exprrbz people are willing to ask tough questions. we have people in states across the south, for instance, to sit down together and say, okay, what works? dollar for dollar, what makes us safer? so now, for instance, you see in the state of texas, there are 18 crime bills moving. we have tea party activists and indianapolis activists pushing the same bills. >> woodruff: and yet, grover norquist, i mean, traditionally, anybody who has looked at politics, being tough on crime is generally seen as a good move politically. is this pushing in another direction here? >> what i think conservatives bring to the table is that we have not focused on issues of prisons and criminal justice. we've focused on those things the government shouldn't be doing and said "stop doing these things" and not spending enough time focused on those things government should do but

spending wisely, having cost-benefit analysis, making wise decisions in how you spend. conservatives who have a tradition of being tough on crime speaking to the fact that tough on crime does not mean that everybody spends as many years in prison as possible. not everybody should go to prison. there are other ways to punish people-- fines and restitution and house arrest and other things-- other than prison. and i think that makes it easier to make progress because, clearly, texas is not soft on crime. yet, texas is leading the reforms to spend less-- they just decided not to build four prisons, which they would have had to do because they are incarcerating fewer people now. >> woodruff: how do you know when to draw the line, ben jealous, these are people who should stay behind bars and these are people we need to treat differently? >> more than half people in

prison are low-level, non-crime offenders. we know dollar for dollar drug rehab is more effective for that population. you can look back in the 1960s when the cops in the country solved 90% of the homicides. last year they said cops solved about 60%. the cops are just as good now as they were then but they're focused on something else. so what we're saying, let's get down to it-- look, we want violent people behind bars. our neighborhoods are plagued, but that means the cops have to be able to focus on solving the homicides and spend not spending so much time frisking young black kids, seeing if they have a joint, when that kid really, you know, if he has a problem he should be going to rehab. >> woodruff: and is there evidence out there, to both of you-- i mean, grover on this, too-- that spending more on education is going to prevent young people from ending up in prison? >> we know right now, for instance, that if you just dealt with access to high-quality

teachers, right, and getting high-quality teachers in school means paying them more, usually, that over half of the achievement gap would disappear overnight. that achievement gap is largely a resource gap. you look at the schools in these areas with high incarceration rates, they tend to have high teacher turnover are, low high-quality teachers, they don't have music, and sometimes they don't have recess. we say look it's obvious if you put more money here, just to get these kids up to what the kids in the suburbs have, they would do much better. school would be a more engaging place. they would learn more but you can also see that's where the money has been taken from. >> woodruff: it's a big subject to look at here. and we thank you both for being here with us, grover norquist, benjamin jealous. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: the clock kept ticking toward a government shutdown, as president obama and

lyngressional leaders held morrf triggered a tsunami scare. but there were no reports of new damage and rebels in eastern libya reported nato planes mistakenly hit their positions again. and to hari sreenivasan for what's on the "newshour" online. hari? >> sreenivasan: watch more of jeff's report from iowa, that's on "art beat." and check our shutdown watch blog for the latest developments in the budget negotiations in washington. plus, we talk to john merrow about his new book, "the influence of teachers," and his recent reporting on education reform. that's all on the rundown news blog. all that and more is on our web site: newshour.pbs.org. >> woodruff: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with david brooks and ruth marcus, among others. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> okay, listen. somebody has got to get serious. >> i think... >> we need renewable energy. >> ...renewable energy is vital to our planet. >> you hear about alternatives, right? wind, solar, algae. >> i think it's got to work on a big scale. and i think it's got to be affordable. >> so, where are they? >> it has to work in the real world. at chevron, we're investing millions in solar and biofuel technology to make it work. >> we've got to get on this now. >> right now. ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org