tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. a conversation with bill bradley. he is out with the new text about ideas for solving america's biggest challenges. it is called "we can all do better." we remember music icon and donna summer. she joins us here on this program for the occasion of for first new collections of songs and almost 17 years. we're glad you have joined us. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where

walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: i am pleased to welcome bill bradley to this program. he is out with a new text about ideas of how to fix our broken political system. the book is called "we can all do better." he joins us tonight from new york. the title of the book suggested there is a role for each and every one of us as americans to play to make this nation a nation that will one day be as good as its promise.

i agree with you in that regard. i think there is a distinction in the roles that we have played to shipwreck this country and i do not think that everyday people, are as much to blame as others are for the damage done to this country. poor people end up paying the heaviest price. we can all do better. >> i think there is no question that the recent recession and the financial crash was really because of the financial sector. i think that there were five public policy decisions that were made that created the circumstances for the events of 2008 and 2009. one was eliminating the glass- steagall act, which had separated investment banks from commercial banks.

when you put those together, you find the banks speculating with depositors' money. that is not wise. there was way too much leverage in the system. there was also no regulation of derivatives. those are three public policy decisions that were taken, that created the context for the disaster. it created a disproportionate impact on people who have less means and had no responsibility for that kind of speculation. tavis: why is it if we agree on the fact that there is a disproportionate level of responsibility that ought to be born for the mess this country finds itself in during, why is it that the rich and the elite always seem to get off scot- free? the budgets and austerities in debt impacting the least among us. >> i think that part of the reason for that is the role of

money in politics. let's take 2009, 2010. the financial industry contributed $318 million to politicians in washington. the health care industry contributed $145 million. the energy industry contributed $75 million. it should not be a surprise that we got a financial reform bill that was water down, that there was no public option in the health care built, and we did not even get around to doing an energy bill, even though we are spending billions of dollars to autocrats on the other side of the world. there is no question that this is a problem that can be solved, but the reason that people who should be called to be a part of it are not a part of it is because of the role in money in politics. courtesy of the supreme court's decisions that equate money but speech and not limiting speech,

you can not limit money. that is one of the key factors. tavis: we agree that citizens united was a decision that opened up the floodgates. i think we concur on that point. in your book, we can all do better, you go a step further and you are honest about your assessment that the president squandered an opportunity to do something significant and reeled about campaign finance reform. it is not just -- significant and real about campaign finance reform. you are arguing that he could have done better. >> i argue that in president obama, i hope he will get reelected. i will support his reelection. the question i raised was when he came to office, he had so much good well. the country was with him, 70%

approval rating. if he had moved for public financing of elections in his first two months in office, he could've gotten that. it did not happen, i am told, because it did not rank in the top five of issues important to people. of course, it did not. bieber in the middle of a recession. -- we were in the middle of a recession. they were interested in their jobs, their house, the basics. they did not think of this as one of the top five issues. but this is the key to doing something about those top five. i argued that he could have done that. he chose not to do that. a lot was on his plate. he had the most difficult situation for an incoming president since the 1930's, since franklin roosevelt. an economy in free fall, two wars on the other side of the world. i just wish his staff would have

made the point that i just made about how much easier it would be if we dealt with money in politics. president obama illustrates something else. in chicago, on election night in 2008, we made a mistake to believe that a leader can renew the country all by himself. even somebody who touched our hearts as much as barack obama cannot do it alone. it takes citizens and we must never forget the democracy is not a vicarious experience. tavis: both parties are tiedo big money. i am trying to see a way forward. how do we do better? i do not see the way forward. how do you see a way forward on campaign finance? >> the only way we can deal with money in politics, because of theirupreme court,

decisions are right at the center of this, the only way we can deal with it is with a constitutional amendment. federal, state, and local governments may limit the amount of money spent in a political campaign. once we get to that, that we have mooted citizens united and we will not have a circumstance we have now. the point here, we have been there before in the late 19th century. corrupt state legislators elected u.s. senators. they elected corrupt u.s. senators, who were on the payroll of banks and railroads. the people rose up. they rose up and they began a 10-year periods of fighting for

a constitutional amendment that did pass today we elect u.s. senators by the people. and that state legislatures. i think the key thing for individuals to understand is that citizens control major directions of a country takes. in the 1830's, it took a group of citizens to say, slavery is immoral. they were called abolitionists. in the 18 eighties, it took a group of citizens to say, -- in the 18 eighties, it took a group of citizens to say, when and have all right to vote. african-americans have the same rights as everybody else in this country. it is called the civil-rights movement. in the 1970's, it took a group of people to say, we have to clean up our air and water. they were called environmentalists the idea was not born in the heart of a congressman or senator. it came from the people and the

people rose up and they made real changes to make america a better place. i think that is what has to happen today. the real issue here is stagnant and come, not enough people working, not enough in,, and the result is that you find people beginning to doubt all probability, which has been the essence of what this country is about. tavis: since you just ticked off a list of activist movements, you talked in the new text about the two activist movements that most americans would list, if asked to name the two most contemporary movements we have seen. the tea party and the occupy movements. it is your opinion, though, that neither one of them has succeeded. is that accurate? >> i would say that i think the

tea party succeeded more than occupy. i will create the context. tea party had a very specific objective, which was ruled that government. they chose to get involved directly in congressional relationship -- congressional races. in 2010, they elected 43 tea party republicans. in the summer of 2011, when president obama and john boehner had an agreement on the deficit that included taxes, entitlements, etc., and it was the 43 tea party republicans who rejected that in the republican caucus and brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy. when people say, look, things can not change. nobody heard of the tea party in 2009. two years later, they were bringing the country to the brink of bankruptcy because of

their radical views. you saw a republican senator from indiana losing in the primary to a tea party guide to weeks ago. the tea party guys said, the era of confrontation has begun. he went on to say that his idea of being successful in washington was to get democrats to agree to this position. that shows such ignorant about the country. we would not have a constitution unless we had compromised. they do not want to compromise. on the other hand, you have occupy. they called attention to a very important issue -- income inequality. they had a great slogan and a work -- they had a great slogan. they chose not to get involved in congressional races. they chose not to have a specific objectives. they have less impact than the tea party on the system. with that said, tea party was

financed by some very wealthy people who can do that under the current law. occupy had not a lot of money. they had a lot of goodwill, but not a lot of money. the real question is, can we put together a movement that does the things that americans want to have done? one of them is more people working. you mentioned austerity, austerity is not the answer alone. i do not think we need to love deficit reduction in the next year or two, but if we dealt with the long term, we could get to stimulating the economy in the short term. if a company hires an additional worker and does not lay anybody off, the federal government ought to pay 30% of dutch workers cost. and do so for to eat -- of that workers cost. and do so for two years. i also point out that if you

take a look at corporations today, nonfinancial corporations, they have $1.80 trillion on their books. if 20% of that was used to hire people at the median income of $49,000, the unemployment rate would be 5%. why aren't they doing that? if you talk to them, they say they are uncertain. they need a rainy day fund. there is not enough demand out there. i say, you deal with the first objection by doing deficit reduction in the out years. you deal with the issue of not enough demand in the economy by having a massive infrastructure program, a trillion dollars, that will hire millions of people to do 50 high priority projects in the united states. let high-speed rail, new airsick

-- new air-traffic control system. the results of that will be people working, earning good money, and buying things. the companies will say they can sell things because the people now have money. tavis: since we're talking about how we as a nation can do better, and you were talking about the tea party, i wonder what you have to say about the fact that there is this sense that the tea party has tapped into that the govnment is the problem. give me just a taste of your philosophy and how we respond to those who believe that part of the problem in this country, on the left and right, that government gets in the way. >> i do not agree with that. i think government is the collective expression of

boulevard that is, quite frankly. if you look at government, people do want to eliminate government, you take medicine? how did you know it is safe? if you drive on highways, you take mass transit, you go to national parks. it is all bad. you get a social security check, medicare check, you feel safe because you are protected by the defense budget. for people to say they do not believe in government, the question is, what did they want to cut? unless they are willing to lay out specifically what they want to do, you are not to going to have -- they are on very shaky ground. i look as government as being the tool that lays the foundation for economic growth, jobs, and higher pay. without government, i think, for example, where is oil in this

country? you do not know unless you had a national geological survey. what about water? a lot of places would not have enough water to drink if it wasn't for government. the people to make that argument are making an argument that should themselves in the foot. you can have the whole private sector, but the private sector does not have a basic infrastructure, good education, and the programs i mentioned. and you will not have economic growth. tavis: there is one part of the book that you and i disagree on. this is a charitable lead, a generous lead, when you suggest that even president obama's opponents are americans before they are republicans. they are americans before they are tea party years. theoretically, you are right about that.

i am not sure that i am persuaded. it is plausible, but not a persuasive argument. >> i can understand how you have i was saying that in the context of november and december of this year. in november and december of this year, there'll be another debt limit. republicans are signaling they will make its a big battle. if we do not get agreement on january 1, there will be across- the-board cuts. the bush tax cuts will expire, the social security tax cut will expire. the real question is, in bad in trump, can the president -- in that interim, can the president peel off 25 republicans? if i were the president, i would

take 25 or 30 people in the republican caucus that i would identified by virtue of education, background, basic values, notes that the tea party is wrong. they're going along because it is the republican desire to keep control of committees. i would know more about those 30 people than their mothers. i would begin to identify who they listen to, fund raisers, companies, a minister. i would invite them down right after the election, and i would say, your country needs you. i want you to think about this. you can hammer me afterwards, but your country needs you on this vote. this is the package. call them a week later, if they said no comment they cannot, i would call their mother. call everybody.

called into a higher level. when you get a call on the fund that says the president of the united states would like to talk you, there is not a mother or a brother around that would not be a little nervous. i think that might be a strategy to break off enough republicans to make something happen. tavis: this is an unfair question by 20 seconds. you've expressed confidence that president obama is going to be reelected. why are you so confident? >> the race is tightening up, it is not going to be easy. maybe it is my belief in the american people that they will lies.rough a lot of alliethe there will be other stuff like that, but at the end of the day, the american people will say,

who do i trust with my life? who do i trust with my job? who has a view of the world remotely similar to mine? >> the new book from bill bradley, "we can all do better." good to have you on the show. congratulations. >> it is always great to see you. i hope people will be a part of eds. -- of it. tavis: up next, we remember the life and legacy of donna summer. stay with us. the news of donna summer's passing reverberated around the world. back in 1975, she released a 17- minute single. popular music would never be the same. she went on to a string of number one hits that help to

find -- define music for years to come. an album that would turn out to be her last. during our conversation, we discussed how the music industry have changed over the years. how do think the music industry has changed for the better and for the worst? >> for the artist, it is a fabulous. it is an open plainfield's. you have the opportunity to establish -- it is an open plain field. you have the opportunity to establish an audience you had no contact with before. for the record company, not so great. but i think they will find their footing. i think is it -- i think is good for one and not so good for the other. tavis: why do this record? you do not have to do this anymore.

you have made your mark. i heard your song on the radio three times coming to this studio. people are still planning your stuff every day. -- playing your stuff every day. >> i have three grandchildren and i want them to have some new songs. i wanted to have something new. i live been playing the same songs for so long. -- i have been playing the same songs for so long. i felt like it was time. i got tired of it. thing or at a good bad thing -- -- is its a good thing or a bad thing, it is hard to turn the radio on -- you can hear donna summer any time on any station in the day of the week. is that a good thing or a bad thing? it is good stuff. they are playing it so much, you

almost get tired of the old stuff that was good. >> you have to change the channel. tavis: that is my point. whether it is donna summer corp. marvin gaye -- or marvin gaye, it still sounds good now, but you. so much. i wonder if we start to lose an appreciation for the classic nature of the staff. >> people are hungry for what they consider meaty and substantial. a lot of people relate to that music and is attached to so many memories in their lives. they want to have access to that memory again. when they hear the song, ok, i am right there. i am 19 years old and having a

good time. it is all about the moment. tavis: like most iconic artist, her music resonated around the world. in 1977, david bowie listen to a new single from donna summer. brian eno said this is the sound of the future. donna summer went on to great success. despite losing her battle of -- battle with cancer at the age of 63. her rich musical tapestry will survive for the generations to come. good night from los angeles. as always, keep the faith. >> forore information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a

conversation with .billy bob thornton that is next time. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it's the cornerstone we all know. it's not just a street or boulevard, but a place where walmart stands together with your community to make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like u. thanyou. >> be more. pbs. >> be more. pbs.