captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: president obama put finishing touches on his plan to withdraw 33,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill on the "newshour" tonight. margaret warner previews the president's speech from the white house and we get analysis from ruth marcus and bill kristol. >> woodruff: then, we examine the obama administration's record on climate change as former vice president al gore criticizes the president's failure to take bold action on global warming. >> ifill: from rhode island, paul solman reports on the risk to retirees and taxpayers alike

when billions of dollars from state pension funds are tied up in the stock market. >> we'd be asking people, do you want to pay higher taxes in order to avoid taking the risk in the stock market? i think most people would say no to that. >> woodruff: and we continue our collaboration with "the economist" magazine to highlight the art of filmmaking. tonight, jeffrey brown talks to "my perestroika" director robin hessman about children growing up as the soviet union fell apart. >> for every individual, it was a complicated process and still is today. there are many conflicting feelings on the changes and the effects of those changes on their everyday lives. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i mean, where would we be without small businesses? >> we need small businesses. >> they're the ones that help drive growth. >> like electricians, mechanics, carpenters. >> they strengthen our communities. >> every year, chevron spends

billions with small businesses. that goes right to the heart of local communities, providing jobs, keeping people at work. they depend on us. >> the economy depends on them. >> and we depend on them. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. 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. >> ifill: it's been nearly ten years since the u.s. went into afghanistan after 9/11. now, president obama is ready to

talk about the way out. he'll do so tonight, from the east room of the white house, at 8:00 p.m., eastern time. the president's prime time speech will focus on how to begin to unwind american involvement in the longest war the nation has ever fought. there are about 100,000 u.s. troops now on the ground in afghanistan, including more than 30,000 added during last year's surge. it's widely expected mr. obama will announce tonight that 5,000 will head home this summer, and an additional 5,000 will leave by the end of this year. another 20,000 would depart by the end of 2012, effectively ending the surge. tens of thousands more would remain. but democrats and republicans in congress have increasingly called on the president to accelerate the pullout. democratic senator barbara mikulski of maryland: >> i want him to meet the deadlines he set and explore all avenues and options to accelerate the withdrawal, i think it's time to bring those

troops home, the money back home and the jobs back home. >> ifill: that sentiment is fueled by rising public opposition to the war's costs: with more than 1,500 americans killed, more than 12,000 wounded and a tab of a billion dollars a month. but house speaker john boehner said today that too quick a pullout could be dangerous. >> we're getting there, but we've got an awful lot invested there concerned about any precipitous withdrawal of our troops that would jeopardize any success that we've made. >> ifill: at the same time, commanders on the ground maintain that gains achieved in the past 18 months remain fragile and reversible. a spokesman for the afghan defense ministry appeared today to endorse the gradual pullout. >> the afghan national army is capable of filling the gaps which will be created as a result of the withdrawal of these troops in some of the

places, with the manpower it has. >> ifill: that sentiment coupled with the recent killing of osama bin laden may give the president the domestic support he needs to exit afghanistan sooner, rather than later. margaret warner joins me from the white house now for a preview of tonight's address. margaret, in a policy sense, a political sense, the military sense, what is the context behind tonight's speech in >> the context, as you pointed out, gwen, is the military one on the ground. just to put this troop withdrawal in context, president obama has essentially more than tripled u.s. forces in afghanistan from the 32,000 there when president bush left to 100,000. so this year's 10,000 withdrawal will barely nick that. by the end of next year, he'll be back to from t pre-search level, that will be twice as many as president bush had. what play surprise people

tonight is the pace of that withdrawal next year, which is that the president will announce that, in fact, those 20,000 coming out next year are going to be out by the end of the summer or by september at the latest. that means they won't be there, all of them, through the full "fighting season" as military commanders add hoped. >> ifill: is this intended for an international audience or is it intended for domestic audience here at home? >> well, both, gwen, which is the needle he has to thread. and hi had a hard time, as you'll recall, in his west point speech in 2009. he is going to try to say the u.s. remains committed to afghanistan and pakistan and the fight against al qaeda and at the same time that this withdrawal is for real. so he's going to say that, he's going to couch that by saying that the effort has had great success, actually, and both reversing the momentum, that is the initiative is now with the u.s. and afghan forces, not the taliban, as it was in early '09. that the afghan security forces

themselves are getting trained up and they'll be able to take on more and more of the responsibility and most of all he's going to emphasize the number one mission, which was to take out al qaeda and the threat to al qaeda to americans has had huge success, especially through use of drones and special forces taking out senior leaders of al qaeda and its affiliates not just in afghanistan but in pakistan and, of course, osama bin laden being example number one. >> ifill: so is there military buy-in on this plan? >> well, nobody's saying anything publicly. but military commanders made pretty clear over the last few weeks, we've seen it played out in the papers that they wanted... that these gains are, as you said in your setup, still reversible, still fragile, that they wanted to have as much of the surge force on the ground through the end of next year. and that that was the heart of really cementing this counterinsurgency strategy.

so i'm told that this is within the range of recommendations. certainly that general petraeus has suggested but it's not the optimum recommendation in his view. >> ifill: you said this would bring us back at the end of 2012 to pre-surge levels. what happens to the rest of the troops still on the ground? are there any plans that are going to be announced to bring that number down as well? >> i believe he's going say that over the course of, obviously, the remaining two years, they will come out but there will be no specifics. as you know, the u.s. and its nato allies and the karzai government at lisbon last november agreed on a glide path that by the end of 2014 in the combat operations, the leadership and the force fighting taken over would be taken over by the afghan security forces. so he's expected to say that still is on train, but not put any specifics on that. >> ifill: given the stress that's currently on the economy, i said? the setup it was a billion dollars a month in afghanistan. it's actually $10 billion a month, in cost in afghanistan. is this the decision being made

or is the white house saying this decision is being made because the mission is complete or because it's just costing too much now? >> u.s. officials are frank to admit-- and western diplomats also-- that cost is a huge factor here. this war was costing just... not just but $43 billion a year when president bush left office, it's now tripled that. and the time of real deficit stress and reduction is difficult to sustain. and so white house advisors who were pushing back against the military commanders said, you know, we can't just have the appearance of a drawdown, we want some real drawdown. >> ifill: margaret warner at the white house for us tonight, thanks so much. >> woodruff: now, for a look at the politics surrounding tonight's address to the nation, we are joined by ruth marcus, columnist for the "washington post" and bill kristol, editor of the "weekly standard." good to have you both with us. so, ruth, let me start with you. the announce system expected to be 10,000 troops out this year, another

23,000 out next year. if that's what it is-- we expect it is-- what is the reaction, do you think, going to be from congress and especially from democrats? >> unmappyness, actually, with not having the pace be quicker. not every democrat, but a remarkable number of democratic members are saying, hey, $10 billion a month, where's the jobs? what senator mikulski was quoted as saying in the opening. and it's also surprising that they're being joined by a number of republicans including perhaps not quite so sew siff rousely, some republican candidates. the president is under a lot of pressure. >> woodruff: bill kristol, what does it look like from the republicans? >> i don't believe many republicans believe we should fight this war to win it. everyone understood there should be some drawdown. people were resigned to all 33,000 surge troops going out by

the end of 2012 12-and beginning of the 2013. the president is going to announce they'll be end of the summer of 2012, before his reelection date... >> you're conceding his reelection? (laughs) >> well, before the date which he stands for reelection. and i regard this as really... i think the only reason you could say why did he pick the end of the summer? every military commander says give us the 2012 fighting season. we need to consolidate the gains in the south, go to the east and deal with the threat there is that we've barely begun to deal with. if you want to drawdown, fine. now he's drawing down in the middle of the fighting season. there's going to be troops rotating out or divisions not coming in to fill in in june, july, august of 2012. there's no military rationale for this and i think he will be blasted by those republicans-- and it's most of them-- who believe if you're going to fight a, what you should win it. i think some republicans will say if you're not going to fight to win it, why don't we get out faster? what are you going to tell the divisions going in underresourced at the beginning of 2012. >> woodruff: so nobody will be

throughout applauding what the president is doing. he's going to be hit from both sides. >> i think sound of the applause will be muted because there is a lot of questions about what winning it means in this context it's not going to be the "mission accomplished" banner. there is some argument from democrats that i think is wrong that with getting osama we have accomplished the mission that was never what the mission was supposed to be, certainly not as defined by president bush or president obama. and at the same time i do have questions about the timing. i had expected it to be at the end of the year and.... >> woodruff: so you're saying that six-month period will make a difference? >> well, who knows? rough you have from the middle of 2012 to the end? >> i think surge has made a difference in some areas. it's allowed the iraqi security forces to get stronger. it's outit had taliban from key regions. you still have a government that's not really a government, certainly not a government we can rely on.

another season would help that. i'd like that hear the explanations. >> i would put it this way. david petraeus thought it would make a difference and the president will have to explain and his people when they testify on the hill are going to have to explain why he didn't accept the advice of a commander who has given his all to this war who at the president's request stepped down from a higher fogs assume command who's going to the c.i.a., who's been incredibly successful and who cares a lot about every american soldier and marine at risk there and why he overruled david petraeus to go with what seems to be an arbitrary date for this drawdown. >> why don't we wait to hear from general petraeus? because it's not entirely clear whether he's with the program or the extent to which he's not with the program. >> woodruff: but in terms of the politics with this, bill, some republicans-- there is john mccain-- who's saying, yes, stay a lot longer and there are republicans who are saying no, it's time to bring the troops home, let's spend this money

back here in the united states. >> sure there are and/think a lot of them... some of them will say this is a reasonable decision by the president. he will get more support than we've indicated in the sense a lot of people want us to draw down and this is about as fast as he could sponszbly draw down without simply saying "we're giving up, forget about that surge i announced in december of 2009, you guys win." even though the surge has had a great deal of success. so i think he'll get some support of those who want to go out and there are republicans looking at the polls and costs saying "let's get out." but i'm worried as a republican who supported the president, i'm worried republicans will say "if we're not fighting this to win, if the president of the united states is not following the advice... the best military advice of the commanders on the ground, why are we going to have 70,000 troops there? if you want to do a counterterrorism strategy that doesn't require 70,000 troops. >> woodruff: how much does the president need to say tonight about the overall mission? we heard margaret say he is going to talk about how we've made this progress against al qaeda. tan jill results, we've got osama bin laden. how much more does he need to

explain about the long term vision, mission? >> a lot is the short answer to the question. he's got a public that is overwhelmingly not with him on this war. and overwhelmingly thinks it's a bad idea and wants everybody to come home, comb home more quickly than i think most people would be responsible. so he needs... he talked about in the december of 2009 and we didn't really talk about afghanistan again. people don't know why we're there at this point. people don't know what we can reasonably expect to achieve at this point. he needs to explain fundamentally what that goal is and how his kind of slice the salami in this thin and slightly odd way is going to get us there. >> woodruff: help us understand, bill, what the pressures on r on this president right now. because we know they're coming from several different directions. >> you talked to the white house and had a briefing call this afternoon, there are all these pressures and the cost pressure and the amount you'll save by accelerating the p it is $2, $7,

$7 billion, i don't think there's much pressure. i think the president has a huge leeway. there's zero chance this congress-- either the republican house or democratic senate-- would cut off funding for war for the remainder of his term. if tse he said we need to leave 90,000 troops there... he can take a lot of pride what n what he announced in 2009. he made a tough decision. he increased the forces. it's by all accounts remarkably success wrfl the sturj went, the south. it now needs to go to the east. i think he's making it harder on himself by not taking a position that's a full "let's win the war position." it's not a success position but it isn't either what the doves in the democratic party and some in the republican party would want which is let's get out of there as soon as possible. he could end up in a very bad middle ground. >> woodruff: just quickly. >> either that middle ground or a sensible middle ground. that is his instinct to split differences and sometimes that

works well and sometimes you end up with some carvings from both sides and not a lot of cheering. >> woodruff: but whether he had as much running room as bill is saying we'll see. you all will be back with us later tonight. thank you very much thank you. >> ifill: still to come on the "newshour": a report card on the administration's environmental record; state pension funds at risk in the markets and growing up as the soviet union fell apart. but first, with the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: nato is showing the first signs of a possible split over the mission in libya. italy called today for a halt to military action. foreign minister franco frattini said the fighting needs to stop, to allow access for humanitarian aid. he also said civilian deaths from nato air raids should be investigated. france and britain rejected the appeal. the british insisted the alliance is holding strong. a security court in bahrain sentenced eight top shi-ite activists and opposition leaders to life in prison today. the court action stemmed from pro-democracy protests this past spring.

we have a report narrated by jonathan rugman of "independent television news." >> reporter: this was the pearl roundabout, the symbol of bahrain's largely shia uprising against the sunni monarchy. >> we want freedom! we want a true parliament! >> reporter: but there was no revolution here. it was brutally quashed. today a military judge in battle fatigues sentenced 2activists to long prison sentences, eight of them to life. guilty of plotting to overthrow the government with foreign help, presumed to be from iran. all but one of the guilty men were from the island's shia majority. hassan mushaima, a well-known opposition leader faces life in jail. and his son ali was given 15 in bahrain's shia villages, more protests after today's verdicts. this one was contained by police.

last night, protesters were calling for the royal family to be overthrown, despite promises of national dialogue due to begin on the first of july. how can you have dialogue says this leading bahraini refugee in london who in absentia today was sentenced to life. >> these despots and regimes and tyrants, when they are throttled by the will of the people they just throw out such statements but they don't really mean it. >> reporter: next week sentences are due to be handed down on scores of doctors and nurses who treated the wounded. they stand accused of inciting revolt. >> sreenivasan: the shi-ites sentenced today will have 15 days to appeal. in china, renowned artist and dissident ai weiwei was released from jail today. he had been arrested in april after strongly criticizing the ruling communist party. ai returned to his home in beijing late at night, but he said he was on probation and could not talk. state media said he confessed to

tax evasion-- something his family had long denied. police in northern ireland are blaming an outlawed protestant group for two nights of sectarian rioting in belfast. it started late monday, in the run-up to a holiday when protestants march across the region. armored police vans filled the streets tuesday as hundreds of masked rioters threw bricks, fireworks and gasoline bombs. at least three people were shot, but none of the injuries were life-threatening. the city of minot, north dakota began to flood today as a bloated river poured over its levees. at the same time, thousands of people poured out of the city for the second time this month. even before the souris river the river threatened to engulf bridges and roads, cutting off whole areas and forcing some 11,000 people to evacuate minot by nightfall.

>> sreenivasan: nearly 500 north dakota national guard soldiers were on hand to help, providing traffic control. time was of the essence in one neighborhood where the only road in had already been inundated. >> the first time they came by they said a levee had been broke that the dike had been compromised. so, we needed to get out as soon as possible. >> sreenivasan: the souris, which flows from canada into north dakota, has been bloated by heavy spring snowmelt and rain. earlier this month, the river than an inch shy of the historic flood that swamped the city in 1969. 10,000 residents were evacuated, then allowed to return only to be told to leave again. >> about two weeks ago, we had a big crew here, moved everything out, and then started moving back in this last weekend. now we're moving it back out again. >> sreenivasan: on monday despite warnings, some held out, sandbagging through a downpour in a last ditch effort. >> you don't know. it might be enough to save one house, two, even a whole

neighborhood. you don't give up. >> sreenivasan: the u.s army corps of engineers was working, too, trying to shore up flood defenses where it could. but it may all be for naught. forecasters project the souris will reach an all-time high by the weekend, eclipsing records set in 1881. and, it's not expected to recede until mid-july. the federal reserve has dialed back its growth forecast for this year and next. the central bank announced the lower estimates today. it said some problems-- like supply chain disruptions from the japanese tsunami-- should begin to dissipate. but fed chairman ben bernanke said other problems could be around longer than anticipated. >> maybe some of the headwinds that have been concerning us like weakness in financial sector, problems in the housing sector, balance sheet and deleveraging issues, some of these headwinds may be stronger, more persistent than we thought. >> sreenivasan: also today, the

congressional budget office warned that the national debt is on pace to exceed the value of the entire economy by 2023. the report came as congressional negotiators are struggling to craft a sweeping package to cut the deficit. and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lost 80 points to close at 12,109. the nasdaq fell 18 points to close at 2,669. federal regulators have given a new safety endorsement to silicone gel breast implants. the food and drug administration reported today there is no evidence they lead to significant health problems. it did acknowledge that many women will have to have the implants removed within ten years, when they rupture or cause scar tissue. the f.d.a. review was the first since sales of silicone implants resumed in 2006. they had been banned for 14 years over concerns about possible links to cancer and other illnesses. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: now, to the politics of climate change.

former vice president al gore, writing in an upcoming edition of rolling stone magazine, takes president obama to task in an article titled "climate of denial." mr. gore writes: "president obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change..." he goes on to argue that the president "...has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks." gore's article has forced a largely internal debate into public view. we get three takes on that, from glenn hurowitz, who works on environmental issues at the center for international policy. daniel weiss, the director of climate strategy at the center for american progress. and ken green, who studies environmental policy for the american enterprise institute. glen hurowitz, is al gore right? >> he is right. unfortunately environmentalists got the sense that president obama was not fully fighting for the climate and for the urgent environmental needs that we have during the debate over climate

legislation when he cut side deals with the oil industry, the coal industry, the nuclear industry without getting anything in return in terms of a commitment to support a cap on pollution or investment in clean-energy jobs. that was rumor that he was seeing other people but we really got confirmation when he embraced a broad agenda of drilling for oil offshore in the gulf, now looking to do in the very sensitive ecological areas in alaska. we saw it when he opened up huge areas for coal mining in wyoming it's about 30 times the amount of coal mining as clean energy that his installation has installed. he's also stalled clean air act that will have benefits and are aimed at protecting public health like mercury, smog and soot so there's been a real series of attacks on the environment coming from the obama administration and i'm happy to see vice president gore

take a leading edge on this. >> ifill: you any president is getting a bum rap? >> i that glenn is looking at the glass seeing it one quarter empty when it's really three quarters full. president obama has done more to reduce global warming pollution and other toxic pollutants than any other president. we've gotten $90 billion invested in clean energy as part of the recovery package which created tens of thousands of jobs. we have the first improvement of fuel economy standards since 1987 that will save close to two billion barrels of oil and reduce global warming pollution by nearly another billiontops. where we've been disappointed is in his inability to help get 60 votes in the u.s. senate-- a supermajority-- for a program that would reduce global warming pollution and remember this took place in the midst of the worst economy in 80 years. there's never been a major environmental law passed with unemployment above 7.5%.

unemployment last year and the year before when he was trying to pass this law was, you know, a fair higher than that. >> ifill: ken, are we even having the right argument. >> i agree a little more with dan here. i think president is getting a bum rap. i wish he'd been less active on climate policy but i think it's clearly a pre-election... >> ifill: why? >> i think a lot of policies have been bad and will portend worse for an economy already barely in recovery and is staggering along in its recovery such as letting the e.p.a. regulate greenhouse gases. i think it's clearly a political move to set the stage, the left environment stage, for the 2012 election. they're taking out the position on the environmental side, al gore being the leader of that position to draw the debate in that direction. i think we'll see that throughout as we approach from election you'll see that on both sides of virtually every issue, staking out the extreme to make the medium look more reasonable. >> ifill: should there be a political calculation involved in this? >> if there is a political calculation involved it argues

very strongly for standing up to the polluters, investing in clean energy and programs like reforestation and public land protection. the reason for that is... >> ifill: something you said the administration isn't doing. >> something which the administration has not been doing enough of and in many cases i disagree ken. it was disappointing to see him not fight hard for climate legislation but what really hurt was using his administrative power to open up vast areas for new coal mining. but i think reason where politics comes in is environmentalists are really disappointed about what president obama has been doing and they're now up for grabs. they won't turn out for polls or we'll see what happens on the republican side but the reality is it's going to be... the number-one thing that will decide this selection if economy and if president obama isn't making sufficient investments in clean energy and ecological restoration he's not going to be able to generate the economic growth and job creation that we need. every dollar invested in wind

power and solar panels and reforestation creates two to three more jobs than investing in fossil fuels. >> you're missing the point here. the difference between president bush and vice president gore can be measured in inches. the difference between those two and the republicans can be measured in miles. in 2008 president obama and then senator mccain had essentially the same position to reduce global warming pollution. in the coming election, it's very possible that the person running against president obama is going to deny climate since. they're going to deny that a problem exists let alone have a solution to solve it. that's a huge difference and that's a very unfortunate. in my view, that's something the media ought to be focusing more on rather than vice president gore's disappointment in the fact that president obama isn't giving enough speeches about global warming. >> ifill: and to correctly characterize his argument, it was more of an attack on the media for not making the case than an attack on president

obama. >> 98 scientists here, two scientist there is against saying that doesn't happen and they both get equal time. >> ifill: are we having the right arguement. are the climate skeptics being given too much? too little? no attention. >> we're beginning to have right argument, which is interesting. you have to "new york times," an environmental reporter seriously upset over the fact that the u.n. i.p.c.c. intergovernmental panel on climate change let a report on renewable energy be written by the sierra club. this is a huge scandal of unprecedented proportions. and some of the environmental left reporting community are furious. are livid over what's been done and the discrediting that's going happen to the entire u.n. environmental movement. so i think now we are beginning to have the right debate. it's no longer oh there's only a few cranks and a few people with tinfoil hats. there's a real problem with the politization of climate science and now if we have that debate >> but ken, that politization has occurred on the right. the national academy of sciences released a report two months ago that found that 896% of all the global warming studies that have been peered reviewed by

scientists were all pointed in one direction. increased... >> again, it take two sides... >> increased emissions are leading to global warming and we've seen the story that was on right before here. the flooding in minot, north dakota. it's the exact kind of affects that scientists told us for years we were going to see and now we're seeing extreme weather in 2011 and 2010 that is record-breaking. >> ifill: glenn hurowitz, you're never going agree but let me ask it this way. how much of this, whether you believe there should be government action or not, should have the public clamoring to change? how much can they stomach? especially at a time of economic stress? >> well, i think the public needs it and... >> ifill: we also need broccoli but we don't all like it. >> that's true. but i think what vice president gore was saying in the article was that it's hard for just the environmental community to stand up against entire republican party, against the fossil fuel lobby with all their money. there needs to be leadership the white house. historically that's how we've

made environmental progress to pass the clean air act, to pass the clean water act, to protect public lands and national parks and without that kind of leadership we won't get the agenda we need. and in terms of just day to day putting bread on the table, like i said, revitalizing the economy means investing in clean energy. it means investing in ecological restoration. and in order to do that, we're going to need leadership the white house, that's how it's been accomplished in the past and i hope president obama realizes we're in a new economic paradigm where the country that wins the future is going to be the country that wins the... fill still that realistic? >> absolutely. and that's what president obama has been say bug more importantly has been doing. in addition... >> ifill: as much as it should? >> as much as we have been able to accomplish with... congress has blocked him because of a wall on opposition from republican senators. >> ifill: that's why i asked whether this is realistic. >> it is but politics is the art of the possible. there was just a survey released by yale university a couple

weeks ago that found overwhelming majority of americans-- include a small plurality of republicans-- all support action to reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming. it's not a question of the public. it's a question of off political party, the republicans, it's the only major political party in any western democracy that is denying climate science. that wasn't true four years ago or three years ago. in fact, john huntsman, newt gingrich and tim pawlenty all did ads saying we must reduce global warming and now they're all appealing to their hard right of their party. >> ifill: ken green is shaking his head. >> with all respect this whole language about the new green economy is silly. if you look at the experiences of the countries in europe that have tried it they have found it economically unsustainable and are now backing away from subsidies. california, a world leader in environmental quality, everybody agrees that, look at their job situation. look at their economy. this idea that by renaming it, we're in a new paradigm, a new

paradigm where gravity is less than it is, my scale would thank me but you can't declare it by fiat and final words. >> ifill: i have to ask you a brief question. what would you like to see the president do? >> i'd like to see him focus on getting people back to work. unless economy is prosperous people are not able to afford environmental protection. it's when people feel prosperous they will set aside forests and protect streams and the air. when people feel that they're not doing well they put aside environmental issues. if you care about it you want us to be prosperous. >> i think the number one thing he has to do is enforce the laws that already exist and use his tremendous administrative power to implement protections against america rishgs against soot, smog, and especially carbon pollution. he has the power to do it, he can do it, he should do it as fast as possible so we can clean up the air, protect people's health and save the planet. >> ifill: realistically what would you like to see? >> all of the thick which is glen says will create jobs according to studies by universities. issue fuel standards so cars get 60 miles per gallon by 2025,

that will create jobs, save millions of barrels of oil. set a new ozone smog stan dhard will protect public health, save kids from having asthma attacks during the summer. >> ifill: daniel weiss, glen hurowitz and ken green, thank you all. >> woodruff: next, questioning some basic assumptions about public pensions. cities and states around the country are pushing to overhaul or make changes to pension plans. this week alone, there are big votes in atlanta and new jersey. tonight in his third story from rhode island, economics correspondent paul solman looks at the debate over how to calculate investment returns for that state's troubled pension fund. it's part of his ongoing reporting effort: "making sense of financial news." >> i'd like to call the meeting to order. >> reporter: rhode island treasurer gina raimondo, a democrat, presiding over the board that runs the state's $7

billion pension fund. >> we're still about a billion dollars off where we were before the market crashed when we were at $8.4 billion. >> reporter: the fund is now billions in the hole, in part because of past investment assumptions that proved too bullish. >> what we're trying to do is set the most probable scenario that we believe will come to play based on the data that we have today. >> reporter: the question here is one confronting states across the country. what's a realistic rate of return assumption? the answer could mean higher taxes, lower pensions, bitter politics. >> i'm going to ask you to please put the politics aside. i know there are pressures. i feel these pressures myself. >> reporter: like most states, rhode island invests about 60% in stocks. but over the past decade, the market has barely budged. consultant allan emkin. >> the 2001 tech bubble and the credit bubble in 2007, 2008 over those two periods you had a 70%

cumulative loss and effectively over the whole period the equity market generated zero. you had a lost decade. >> reporter: since most of the other 40% is invested in low- paying bonds, the hired experts told rhode island: get real. drop your assumed rate of returd from the current 8.25% to 7.5%. problem is, the lower the assumed rate of return, the greater the official underfunding of the retirement plan, the more that taxpayers or workers must contribute to make up the shortfall that would arise from a more sober assumption. public employees, who make up almost half the board, were unhappy. said retired engineer michael boyce: >> and quite frankly i'm not going to vote for 7.5% >> reporter: that's because

dropping the rate of return assumption would force the state to come up with some $300 million more a year to replenish the fund-- a huge hit to angry taxpayers or their new scapegoats, state employees. so board lawyer michael robinson, pushing to cut the rate assumption, targeted workers like boyce. >> if you were to act contrary to the recommendations of your expert without a sound and considered basis in fact would really constitute a breach of your fiduciary obligations. >> if i follow mike's rationale i would guess that we shouldn't even have to be here because if the actuary says 7.8, do 7.8. >> no, no, not at all mike. >> i have the floor please. i'm taking offense at almost being told that i better vote to what exactly he said. >> reporter: richard leecht, state director of administration, sided with the experts. >> while reasonable people can

differ, past experience shows that we should be a little, a little more on the cautious side and i will vote yes. >> reporter: but, some economists say even a 7.5% target is far too high. >> they should be using something like 4.5%, because over any period there is no guarantee whatsoever that the portfolio of stocks and bonds is going to produce enough to pay the promised benefits. >> reporter: finance professor zvi bodie says to earn more, pension funds have to make risky investments that could fail, in order to pay for benefits that are guaranteed. so why not invest it all in safe us treasuries which have been paying about 4% to 4.5% lately. that way the pension fund will also be guaranteed? >> those are long-term obligations which are going to be paid for sure, pension

benefits are just like that. >> reporter: by contrast, bodie points out, stocks are subject to all sorts of risks. imagine the reaction to, say, an act of nuclear terrorism; a tsunami that drowns new york: a meteor barrage that signals a killer asteroid attack. okay, hollywood scare films may seem ridiculous for pension planning. but, says bodie, back in 1989, when the japanese stock market peaked, the disaster there since would also have been utterly implausible. >> you and i both remember in the 1980s how everyone you talked to thought the japanese economy was overtaking the u.s. economy. 22 years have gone by since then and the market in the u.s. is up. the japanese who were supposed

to outperform us, the market is now roughly a quarter of what it was. >> reporter: so what about a japan-like catastrophe? we asked pension consultant emkin. >> could it happen? yes. is it likely? in my opinion, no. do you plan for the worst possible event, or do you plan for the most likely event, or do you plan for an average? >> we can't plan our lives as though we're going have a complete economic disaster. >> reporter: economist dean baker echoes the consultants, and makes the case that you hear from unions too: 7.5% is the least a state should assume, because its pension fund is eternal. >> governments are in a different situation from individuals. we as individuals are all going have finite lives. the market has its ups and downs, so it might just be the case we plan to retire in three years and it turns out, bad news for us, the market just fell 20%. same old governments are going be there indefinitely. >> reporter: moreover, says baker, if you play it too safe,

you're probably investing more conservatively than taxpayers or pensioners would want you to. >> most people in their own investments, certainly anyone who has a 401(k), they want to take some risks. and it's a little perverse if we say, here you could have an individual taking risks with the stock market, individuals knowing that things happen, that you're going to have to retire at a certain point in time, and on the other hand we have the government that's going to be there in principle forever and they can't take the risk. that would seem very perverse to me. >> reporter: but the government entity is taking a risk with its taxpayers' money. >> there's no way to avoid that. we'd be asking people, do you want to pay higher taxes in order to avoid taking the risk in the stock market? i think most people would say no to that. >> the stock market has been misbehaving. >> reporter: but professor bodie says that if pension funds don't make their assumed rates of return, the taxpayers will be in for a shock and higher taxes at that point. >> if things don't work out taxes are going to have to be higher on the next generation of taxpayers to pay the current

generation's pension benefits. now, i'd say that's fine as long as everybody knows that is the risk that is being taken but of course nobody knows that. right? >> reporter: treasurer raimondo wants to steer a middle course on risk. at a women's shelter she helped build, she explained that cautious investing is expensive: taxes rise, services get cut. but at the other extreme, over- optimism could mean failure, and an empty till when retirees are due their money. >> because i care about state employees i want to make sure their pension is there for them and because i care about all of rhode island, including the women who are here, i want to make sure that state can afford and have enough money left for all the other services that we need. >> reporter: back at the retirement board meeting, the vote on lowering the assumed rate of return.

>> treasurer raimondo. >> yes. >> richard liecht. >> yes. >> roger boudreau. >> no. >> michael boyce. >> no. >> reporter: by nine to six, the board cut the assumption to 7.5%, low, compared to other states. >> on the basis of what we've heard from our financial advisers, it was prudent to assume 7.5%. having said that, if we keep benefits the same and the investment return comes down, the taxpayer will pay more. >> reporter: in fact, the board has since voted to hike taxpayer pension contributions by 50%. the lower rate of return and the higher contributions go into effect next year. raimondo says the fund is still in crisis, however, and it continues to place most of its bets on stocks like pretty much every state in the union. >> woodruff: you can watch the previous stories in paul's series on his "making sense" page on our website.

>> ifill: finally tonight, a film about the soviet union's past and russia today. it's part of the economist film project, a "newshour" collaboration with "the economist" magazine. together, we showcase independently-produced documentaries that take us places we don't ordinarily go. jeffrey brown has more. >> brown: the story of the collapse of the soviet union has been told many times, but not the way it was in "my perestroika." here we get the point of view as five muscovites talk about the changes they lived throug from 1970s childhoods filled with communist-era propaganda to their adult lives today as they make their ways-- some successfully, some not-- in the new russia. the film maker is robin hessman, an american who lived in moscow in the 1990s. welcome to you. hi. >> brown: why did you decide to

tell this story this way through real them? what were you after? >> i lived in russia from '91 to i 99 and there were extraordinary changes that were happening everyday. when i moved back to the states at the end of '99 it seemed that despite the fact that the cold war had ended and my impression had been that that entire decade there has been a lot of free-flowing investigation to the states it still seemed that none of my friends back home had really any idea of what it had been like for ordinary people. they had seen the gangsters and oligarchs and destitute people and short news clip bus it seemed that there were no opportunity for them to hear that real voices of the more quote/unquote ordinary people and the people i had lived there with. >> brown: and what did you want people to know about what you experienced and what has happened in russia. >> well, that's ate very complicated thing to make that transition. there's no one sentence conclusion to take away to make

about the soviet union to russia to their striving toward communism to the capitalist world. i have the feeling that it's lot simpler and people like to have kind of the one-sentence take away, but for every individual it was a complicated process and still is today. there are many conflicting feelings about the changes and the effects of those changes on their everyday lives. >> brown: there's five main characters. how did you find them and who are they? >> well, the five main characters, there's a married couple who teach history in school 57 in moscow. and there's a former punk musician who's now in a punk bluegrass band, a very free spirit. >> brown: who would have thought right, the soviet union to russia, right? >> and there's olga, who was a single mother who works for a billiard table company and she rents out billiard tables to pub and a casinos all over moscow and the fifth is andrei who sells expensive french men's

dress shirts. when i started filming he had three stores and by the end he had 17 stores over russia. and they were all childhood classmates growing up. one of the things i thought about as i thought how to approach telling the story of a generation-- and this generation, in particular, i should say, is very interesting in that they straddle both worlds. they had completely normal soviet childhoods and they were just coming of age when gorbachev came and they graduated from college the year that the soviet union collapsed. so they were not assigned a job in a workplace for the rest of their lives and they all had to navigate this new world with no models to follow. >> brown: all went in different directions and some successfully some less so. here's a clip. let's look at this clip. this is four of the five talking about their... looking back at their childhood. let's run that. >> ( translated ): if you look at newsreels from the early '80s they talk about the great successes building socialism though by that time no one really cared. but we were still kids and at

school they were trying to turn us into upstanding citizens of soviet society. >> ( translated ): yes, sure, lenin, the party, pioneers, you wrote a red tie on your neck, but were you thinking about lenin everyday? of course not. >> ( translated ): i don't understand who could have enjoyed it. it meant you had more responsibilities, you had to hold meetings with your group, decide what kind of community service you were going to do. it was so much extra work. but on the other hand, i suppose it was actually a good thing because these kids... i mean all of us, we were always kept busy. >> ( translated ): working together, working with friends, is always fun and interesting. especially today when not only

your class and not only your school but the entire country is working together on communist cleanup day. >> ( translated ): well i was very obedient at home, but out in the world this obedience of mine turned into conformism. i was a straight a student and a good child and, of course, i was a perfect pioneer and sometimes it got pretty ridiculous. >> ( translated ): pioneers! to struggle for the goals of the party in the soviet union, be prepared! >> ( translated ): i remember once when i was it will it will television was on and i heard the first notes of the soef credit national anthem. so i stood up right there in front of the t.v. screen and gave my best pioneer salute while the soviet anthem played. what a nightmare! it was just awful. but i was completely overwhelmed with emotion. what was there to feel so emotional about? i have no idea.

>> ( translated ): somehow by eighth or ninth grade it became clear that people all around you were saying things that didn't correspond at all with reality. because by then the system was all together in such a crisis that everybody knew it. so you saw with your own eyes that they say one thing, do something else and what was really going on was something all together different. >> brown: that's great, because you see the contradictions of their lives, right? the enforced conformism which in a way was quite comforting. then you have luba laughing about... what did she call herself? a perfect pie here? >> it's true that also we got the impression that it was a lot more... that it was something very flight ng and for these kids growing up it was in a sense like the scouts. it was really kind of a normal part of their everyday life that they didn't question and to a large extent they didn't think

about the politics of it. it was what children did. >> at the same time her husband at the end is saying there was a point where you could see that the system just... there was no "there" there. or there were bigger problems. >> certainly, as he got older. and one wonderful difference between the two of them is for lubya... her family would listen to the voice of america with the faucets running so the neighbors couldn't hear and he was pretty much aware of the sham exterior before some of his other classmates. for lubya it was pashg and glas most under gosh check that in her 18 everything was told that she was taught. it was a shock. she did go through the most profound ran the diggs during the changes. >> brown: i want to ask you professionally as a filmmaker. what do you look for in trying to tell a story? what does it have to have? >> well, with this kind of story where so much is based on the

characters, the five people of the film, you look for... you look at them and are they good storytellers? are they pope? >> they're the storytellers. >> they really are and the story is made up of interviews and conversations with them. i tried very much to make them very informal. it feels more like sitting at someone's table but it's also me observing them as a fly on the wall. so i first found the couple and from there met their childhood classmates because people in russia were together it was the same 20 or 25 people from first grade through high school these people have had an enormous shared experience. >> brown: they tell the stories and then you have to weave it together and this's where you come in. >> yes, along with the editors. >> brown: the new film is "my perestroika." >> ifill: "my perestroika" airs on the pbs series "p-o-v" on june 28. check your local listings. and you can learn about "the economist" film project or

submit your film at film.economist.com. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: president obama put the finishing touches on his plan to withdraw more than 30,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. he will lay out the plan in a nationally televised speech tonight. the city of minot, north dakota began to flood, as a bloated river poured over its levees. and the federal reserve dialed back its growth forecast for this year and next. chairman ben bernanke said some of the country's economic troubles may be more persistent that anyone thought. and to hari sreenivasan for what's on the "newshour" online. hari? >> sreenivasan: there's more about "the economist" film project and "my perestroika" on the art beat blog. and see how investment assumptions affect state pension funds across the country in an interactive map on our making sense page. plus, amid concerns among educators about a high school drop out crisis.

hear from students in washington, d.c. and new york city about why kids quit school. it is part of our student reporting labs project, in partnership with radio rootz. all that and more is on our web site: newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on thursday, jim lehrer interviews outgoing secretary of defense robert gates about the troop drawdown in afghanistan and more. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you on most of these p.b.s. stations at 8:00 p.m. eastern time tonight with live coverage of president obama's afghan policy speech. we'll also stream the speech live online. and we'll be back again here and online tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

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