i think the obama administration administration -- and i keep my interactions such as they are members of congress suggest to me that they simply don't understand that putting people into space has nothing to do with explaining the universe wasn't major. >> steven weinberg, nobel prize winner community professor, author of several books including this one, "lake views: this world and the universe" this picture on the front of the book is his view of lake austin from his boat back. he joins us here at the university of texas. >> thank you.

where are you in hindsight on the decisions the administration ended up making starting with the bush administration, continuing with the obama administrationted with the bush administration. did go with the obama administration. both administrations were in favor. we don't call it a bailout here. we call it the bridge loans. we have a quaint idea that we actually pay back the government. those of us from michigan, obviously the auto industry is our lifeblood here so we were supportive of the bridge loans. >> you think the rhetoric is too heated that what was done for gm and chrysler? you said we don't call it a bailout here. a lot of republicans running for president call it that. >> you know, i think in that case i would say obviously they all think there should have been more of a private sector solution, not a government solution. but i would say that ship has sailed now. the auto industry is coming back a bit. i think now we have to look at the kind of policies each of the candidates are putting forward to focus on how we go forward not only for the auto industry but manufacturing in particular. all the auto suppliers, et cetera. i do

but the occupy wall street movement is as i think as much a criticism of the obama administration the obama administration's chief of staff that is the vice president for g.q. .

. >> how committed is the obama administration tovoa compared to previous administrations? >> i in the new guy. i have been hired during the term of president obama. in my sense is, warm support from the administration to what we are trying to do. again, i have not had much time yet to really learn the nuances more complex answer to that question. my sense is the favor what we do. they understand it. i am very supportive of that. he is a great american and a very wise person. he was at one point president of cn and and i was working for him then to. >> what do you think is the most subtle place for voa does in this world? >> we debate among ourselves. which is it -- which is more important, to have more people were more key countries listening? obviously we want to both. you have to find your place on the continuing. on the one hand, voa is effective in africa. if we had a bit more money, we would want to spend it to try to build an audience for their. we may be able to do that. i am hoping we can in the coming years. there is a real hunger for what we are offering and afric

administration, to the obama administration. in the campaign of 2008 if you look good candidate barack obama's website on economic policy there was a paragraph that was kind of to the glory of the free market. and my view is this is something which inhibits liberals and progressives from having a clear idea of what needs to be done now is simply ties their hands behind their backs and allows them to be beaten up by conservatives for not being true believers when in fact for the most part they are not. >> another school of thought when it comes to economics is the keynesian school of economics. do you agree with the general principles of how that works? >> i did a graduate studies in cambridge at king's college which was cannes college. i identify quite closely. he was one of the imaginative figures of the 20th century economics and the person who broke the mold in terms of thinking about how to deal with a cataclysmic event like the great depression. so it's impossible not to be drawn into the orbit into the context of his time. keynesian economics as we see them today have all the answers to the pressing problems i think they don't actually. i think we need a substantially more strategic approach and in particular the message has been folder and watered down so it becomes a question throwing money at the problem at the pump spending aggressively, stimulating. i detest the term stimulus package. i think a was a public relations catastrophe and a very bad choice of framing for an economic strategy. so i think we have to go far beyond that. but still it is better than the alternative. >> what do you mean far beyond? >> speaking in very practical terms we have to ask what are ever major problems we have a problem of joblessness 14 million who are officially unemployed and another ten or so who wouldn't come to the labour forces people had a vast problem. we have people who the american middle class has been wiped out of its houses largely because of the practice of fraudulent mortgages forced on low-income people in the last decade so we have a problem of foreclosure and essentially impoverishment. we have an energy problem and a climate problem and infrastructure. if you think about those issues you recognize we need to have a strategy that plays out over ten or 15 or 20 years, sets a framework in which the private economy and the public sector can work together and that's what i think we need that goes beyond to say both the conventional conservatives and keynesian. >> where does government spending for all? you mentioned you don't like the term stimulus and throwing money at a problem is not necessarily the solution. >> things will cost money. i don't think we should shy away from public spending but we shouldn't pretend we are going to put money in the economy and everything will be all right in a couple of years. businesses know when you do that that in two years' time when the public money is being withdrawn the markets won't be there so they won't come in and invest. you need to establish a framework that is going to carry us forward for a substantially longer period of time. >> a fundamental restructuring of the economy? >> sure. the conditions that gave the great boom of the 1950's through the 70's and 80's cannot be reproduced. we have discovered the west texas oil field for example. we have offered in a very different world. we are not the dominant power that we were in the 1945. >> where does the tech boom fall into your theory? wouldn't it be like discovering the west texas oil field? >> we wish to read a was a very ambivalent event that gave a period of prosperity at the end of the 1990's, tremendous period of enthusiasm and hope whichever be shared, but we are now in what he might call the destructive phase of the creative destruction cycle. what we see is the effect of the adoption of these technologies on all kinds of industries and newspapers and book publishing and retail sales on finance and it has to consequences. it makes things much harder to control. the financial sector and its credibility is damaged by the ease with which you can slice and dice mortgages for the simple and sell them to the investment community. and it just reduces -- it cuts back on many jobs that were there before. so you have to be thinking very actively about what kind of work people should have and how to create the institutions that give them that work. >> professor, what about limiting executive salaries? do you think the government should have the right toward the ability to limit how much executives make? >> i will take that into parts. first part is banks. i think when you have banks which are near insolvency and where they are threatened to drain the insurance fund's the taxpayers have put up the government has every right to replace those managers with people who are paid considerably less and who will do a better and more conventional job back to the basics in banking but who are not in a sense trying to just enrich themselves. in the case of corporations more broadly it is a little more difficult. the runaway executive compensation package has done a lot of damage to the great american corporation. it's basically created a class of chief executives who are not linked to the company and who have a lot of incentive to cut costs aggressively and in many ways to act against the long-term interest of the corporations they run. but that's a problem that has to be managed by the corporations themselves moving away from the stock options packages as the court of the executive compensation would do a lot it seems to me to help on that. >> why? >> because you don't want companies basically acting as the wall street analysts boosting their share of prices of the end of the year so that the ceo gets a big bonus. you want them planning strategically. he won them to be at the position to operate over a five or ten year horizon to be able to think ahead. for that you need someone who will be around for a while not intent upon getting his last $5 million, $10 million. >> james galbraith is the author of the predators state along with seven other books including some textbooks. he is the lloyd bentsen share of government and business relations and professor of government here at the university of texas. at boston former is a character actor of the joint economic committee for the u.s. congress to read some of his books include created on equal the crisis in american pay and unbearable cost greenspan and the economics of empire. as a public policy example what do you think about how the obama administration interactive with a car companies with gm and chrysler to bail them out as we say in the colloquial? >> they help preserve the company's and transform them and go through the bankruptcy process and i think the was appropriate. but we now have a same approach should of been taken to the large banks. certain ones should have been taken over under the authority that the government has under the insurance corporation's authority basically and restructured and downsized. that sector is too big and it is not serving any useful purpose now which is a part of the reason we are still in the doldrums. >> what is your relationship to john kenneth galbraith? >> he was my father. >> how many of his ideas to you think they share? if he were around today what would he be saying about the current economic situation the u.s. faces? >> my father's great contribution was an analysis of the american corporation generally and its power in the economy. that power has been greatly weakened through a continui

obama administration. a memo prepared by republicans says the obama administration urged solyndra to delay announcing employee lay-offs until after last year's midterm elections. solyndra received half a billion dollar in 2009 it filed for bankruptcy more than two months ago and laid off more than 1100 workers. tomorrow the energy secretary is scheduled to testify about the solyndra investigation. >>> another major bank is making cuts. citigroup considering plans to cut 3,000 or more workers to control expenses. 900 of the cuts in the securities and banking division. citigroup has notified some employees who will lose their jobs. lay-offs could take place in the next year or so. >> chase bank is scraping three bank fees it had been testing in various parts of the country. among the fees a $10 and $15 monthly checking account fee and $3 debit card fee. >>> home sales rose last month prices -- [ unintelligible ] nearly 6500 homes were sold in the bay area in october. the median sale price was $350,000. down nearly 9% from october last year and the lowest since february itch the report says sales for more expens

administration, to the obama administration. back in the campaign in 2008, if you looked at candidate barack obama's website on economic policy. there was a paragraph there that was kind of to the gloryies of the frequent and it inhibits liberals and progressives from having a clear idea of what needs to be done now. it simply ties their hands behind their back and allows them to be beaten by conservatives for not being true believers when, in fact, the most part they are not. >> so another well-known school of thought when it comes to economics is the keynesian school of economics. do you agree with the general principles of how that works? >> i did my graduate studies on cambridge. i'm a member of keynes college. i identified -- keynes was one of the great imaginative figures of 20th century economics and a person who really broke the mold in terms of thinking about how to deal with a cataclysmic event like the great depression. it's impossible not to be drawn into that orbit if you read him in the context of his time. do keynesian economics as -- economists as we see him today, have all the answers to our present problems, i don't think we don't actually. i think we need a substantially strategic more approach and keynes' message has been vulgarized and watered down and it becomes a question of us throwing money down, priming the pump, spending aggressively. stimulating, i detest the term stimulus package. i think it was a public relations catastrophe and very bad choice of framing for an economic strategy. but so i think we have to go far beyond that now but still it's better than the alternative. >> what do you mean far beyond that? >> speaking in very practical terms. we have to ask what are our major problems? we have a huge problem of joblessness. we have 14 million who are officially unemployed and another 10 or so who would come into the labor force if people were hiring. it's a vast problem. we have people who -- the american middle class has been wiped out in its houses largely because of the practice of fraudulent mortgages that were foisted on low-incomed people and we have a problem of foreclosure and the problem of impositivishment and we have a climate problem, we have a decaying structure. if you think about those issues, you recognize we need to have a strategy that plays out over 10 or 15 or 20 years, sets a framework in which the private economy and the public sector can work together. and that's what i think we need that goes beyond, as i say, both the conventional conservatives and the vulgar keynesians. >> but where does government spending fall in there? you mention that you don't like the term "stimulus" and throwing money at a problem that's not necessarily the solution. >> right. well, things will cost money. i don't think we should shy away from public spending. but we shouldn't pretend that we're going to put some money in the economy and everything will be all right in a couple of years. businesses know when you do that, that in two years' time, when the public money is being withdrawn their markets won't be there. so they won't come in and invest. you need to establish a framework that's going to carry us forward for a substantial long period of time. >> fundamental restructuring of the u.s. economy? >> oh, sure. oh, sure. the conditions that gave us the great boom of the 1950s through the '70s and '80s cannot be reproduced. we haven't just discovered the texas oil fields. we have to operate in a very different world. we're not the dominant power we were in 1945. >> so where does, for example, the tech boom fall into your theory? i mean, wouldn't that be like discovering the west texas oil fields? >> we only wish. the tech boom is a very ambivalent event. it gave us is period of prosperity at the end of the 1990s and a tremendous period of enthusiasm and hope which everybody shared. but we're now in what you might call the destructive phase of a creative destruction cycle. what we see is the effect of the adoption of these technologies on all kinds of industries, on newspapers, on book publishing, on retail, on finance. and it has two consequences. it makes some of these things much harder to control. the financial sector -- its credibility is damaged by the ease with which you can slice and dice mortgages, for example, and sell them to the investment community. and it just reduces a -- it cuts back on a great many jobs that were there before and so you have to be thinking very actively about what kind of work people should have and how to create the institutions that give them that work. >> professor galbraith, what about limiting executive salaries. do you think that the government should have the right or the ability to limit how much executives make? >> i'll take that in two parts. the first part is banks. i think when you have banks which are near insolvency and where they are threatened to drain the insurance funds that the taxpayers have put up, the government has every right to replace those managers with people who are paid considerably less and who will do a better job, more conventional job, perhaps back to basics in banking but who are not in a sense just trying to enrich themselves by whatever means. in the case of corporations more broadly, i think it's a little more difficult. the runaway executive compensation package has done a lot of damage to the great american corporation. it's basically created a class of chief executives who are not linked to the company, and who have a lot of incentive to cut costs aggressively and to -- in many ways act against the long-term interests of the corporations that they run, but that's a problem that has to be managed by corporations themselves. moving away from stock option packages as the core of executive compensation would do a lot, it seems to me, to help on that. >> why? >> because you don't want companies basically acting as the had maidens of their wall street analysts. boosting their share prices at the end of the year so that the ceo gets a big bonus. you want them planning strategically, you want them to be a position to operate over a five or ten-year horizon to think ahead and you need someone who will be around a while not someone who's intent on getting his last $5 million, $10 million and getting out. >> james k. galbraith is the author of the predator state along with seven other books including some textbooks. he is the lloyd benson chair in government and business relations and professor of government here at the university of texas at austin. former executive director of the joint economic economy for the u.s. congress. some of his books include created unequal: the crisis of un-american pay, bush, greenspan and the economics empire. as a public policy example, what do you think about how the obama administration interacted with the car companies? with gm and chrysler to help -- to bail them out as we say in the colloquial? >> well, they helped preserve those companies and transformed them. they did go through a bankruptcy process, and i think that was appropriate. but we now have companies that otherwise would have folded up taking down with them vast networks of suppliers and they have a chance now to prove themselves in the marketplace. i think that's sensible, defensible practice. i don't agree that the same approach should have been taken to the large banks. they should have been -- certain ones should have been taken over under the authorities that the government has, under the deposit insurance corporation's authority basically and restructured and downsized. that sector is too big. it's not serving any useful purpose now which is part of the reason we're still in the doll drums. >> what's your relationship to john kenneth galbraith? >> he's my father. how many ideas do you think you sh

obama administration. a memo prepared by republicans says the obama administration urged solyndra to delay announcing employee lay-offs until after last year's midterm elections. solyndra received half a billion dollar in 2009 it filed for bankruptcy more than two months ago and laid off more than 1100 workers. tomorrow the energy secretary is scheduled to testify about the solyndra investigation. >>> another major bank is making cuts. citigroup considering plans to cut 3,000 or more workers to control expenses. 900 of the cuts in the securities and banking division. citigroup has notified some employees who will lose their jobs. lay-offs could take place in the next year or so. >> chase bank is scraping three bank fees it had been testing in various parts of the country. among the fees a $10 and $15 monthly checking account fee and $3 debit card fee. >>> home sales rose last month prices -- [ unintelligible ] nearly 6500 homes were sold in the bay area in october. the median sale price was $350,000. down nearly 9% from october last year and the lowest since february itch the report says sales for more expens

really kind of matching up its rhetoric with right there obama administration wants clearly they've got something that the obama administration thinks is of value because they renewed them and they still exist so. you know it's interesting too i want to go to you know we've got a lot of coverage here on this show in terms of what secretary of defense leon panetta has been saying when he calls this a doomsday mechanism because trigger michael into a fact and there's so much concern over our safety in america that you never really hear about the fact that it's probably going to get better and it's probably going to hit and shins and you also didn't hear that at the latest g.o.p. debate at c.n.n. house which is focused on foreign policy here something and it romney had to say. this is talk about what they're cutting with the first three hundred fifty billion not the next six hundred which is coming down the road the first three hundred fifty billion dollars they cut the stuff the f. twenty two the delayed aircraft carriers the stuff the days navy cruiser the system they said long range air force bombers are going to be built the

. >> guest: how critical is the obama administration to voa compare to previous administrations in your experience? >> guest: well, i'm the new guy, and i've been hired during the term of president obama, and my sense is warm support from the administration for what we're trying to do, but, again, i have not had much time yet to really learn, you know, the nuance, more complex answer to the question. my sense is they favor what we do. they understand it. i'm very, very supportive of and pleased that walter isakson is a chairman of the board of broadcasting governors. he's a great american, and a very wise person, and he was president of cnn at one point, and i was working for him then too. >> guest: what do you think is the most federal place for what voa does in today's world? >> guest: actually, interesting question there because we debate this among ourselves. which is more important? to have more people or to have certain key countries listening? obviously, we want both. you have to find your place on that continuum. on the one hand, voa's enormously effective in africa, the contine

obama administration chose pakistan over its own american citizen. mr. speaker, it would be wonderful to know why the obama administration made that decision. in any event, on december 10, 2009, mr. kahn was arrested by united states marshals in his office in washington, d.c., and held without bond for five months. remarkably, persons in mr. kahn's position are barred from fully defending themselves at extradition hearings. for example, mr. kahn was barred from presenting evidence to impeach the allegations against him. mr. kahn fought extradition until it became clear that the severe evidentiary limitations may it impossible for him to defend himself. on may 13, 2010, the united states government forcefully handed mr. kahn over to pakistani authorities at john f. kennedy airport in new york. he was bound in handcuffs and leg chains. with the obama administration's administration's historic act, he became the first american citizen every extradited to pakistan. the one concession the united states state department received from the new pakistani regime was a promise mr. kahn would be fairly treated under pakistani law. while anyone hearing t

still open and the obama administration which criticize military commissions has now given into right wing fear mongering decided to keep using them for good. the obama administration is also signed a formal detention policy to hold certain detainees indefinitely i never let them see a day in court the obama administration has also decided not to prosecute anybody from the bush administration for the torture and other atrocities that were committed and to be honest we don't even really know if people aren't still being tortured it may not be americans that are doing it is jeremy scahill reported a few months ago we have proxy prisons set up in somalia where detainees are not treated so kindly all cia black sites in afghanistan were shut down we still have secret prisons across the country that are now just being run by the military and special units and instead of capturing and torturing as an overall strategy we now have been in ministration that has decided to focus on killing so the legal business never has to get their way. as you know that killing is extended to taking out an american citizen and we're all a lot without any due process so while president obama

administration the obama administration's political future basically hinges on the future of the e.u. is there an awareness in the public the wider public and is there in the fact of communication of this message i don't think so i couldn't agree with you more there in the sense that i don't feel like people understand exactly how bad it is but is that because the system itself and the way of the eurozone is organized is so hard for us to comprehend you know that there is no central treasury there which by the way seemed like a crazy idea in the past now it's going to be floated around but you have seventeen different governments all have to come up with their own decisions you know how do our lawmakers first start to understand that on their own and second try to communicate that to the u.s. i think you've hit the nail on the head and that's that the system is very complex in europe you have a council president a commission president a european parliament president and a president of the rotating presidency of member states that's for presidents europeans themselves don't even understand the system it's very difficult for us to understand it and for congress to understand it if europeans themselves don't really have a relationship to this this body that is really governing them but so is it fair to say that the worse and we are seeing a little bit of this sniping back and forth in the obviously the obama administration telling europe to hurry up they're not exactly loving it because our economy is kind of in the gutter as well but you know who's in the worst situation i guess or who's more fault i think that's a valid question and the one way that i would spin it is this what happens in the united states with the debt crisis and with the failure of the super committee to come to an agreement does not put it. the question the the solubility of the united states as a union what's going on in europe right now really brings into question the viability of the eurozone going forward we're talking about an existential crisis for the e.u. and the united states we're not talking about that investors are responding to that they're actually buying t. bills as irrational as that might seem to some people but they're getting out of the european markets and that's sending a much a signal of a much greater crisis on a much larger magnitude but what about our institutions when you say that they're necessarily sound

the obama administration punts. the administration routes for the controversial keystone xl pipeline, so a final decision will be delayed until after the 2012 election. they will conduct the 12 to 18-month study. the $7 billion pipeline project would bring oil from canada to refineries in the southern states. environmentalists warn it could contaminate the water supply. but the labor department says tell create jobs. the president supports the search for alternate routes. there you have t. coming up, did the unemployment rate in michigan just go up? the answer from someone you might not expect, is next. re's . the ts love it! [ male announcer ] it's endless shrimp today at red lobster. as much as you like any way you ke, all for $15.99. offer ends soon. my name is angelarapp, and i sea food differently. that make kids happy. and even fewer that make moms happy too. with wholesome noodles and bite sized chicken, nothing brings you together like chicken noodle soup from campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. ♪ imagine me and you, i

weakening trend for quite a few years i would say since the end of the bush administration beginning in obama's administration why because we're printing more and more dollar bills and we're really only country that has that ability and privilege to print more money when we need to and the natural consequence of course is that we can in the dollar as far as being competitive or not being competitive i think. a lot of that is a structural problem in the u.s. you have high wage. protectionist sentiment from different sectors of the economy and and it makes it hard to compete on a worldwide market you know in the past we were able to compete when we will be compensated with increased productivity when the productivity is not increased by the wages continue to increase and it's very hard. to be competitive george we talk about that competition from the brics nations but it really china actually the main player at the moment it's one of the most stable and prosperous economies and i mean all we really seeing china is now the major player in the global economic. well you know i think that made me a little exaggerat

talked about generalities, talked about an option, a military option that both the obama administration and bush administrationbout what are you going to do, particularly given our experience in two neighboring count countries, iraq and afghanistan, over the past ten years and the fact the military is not enthusiastic about a military option on iran and is concerned that this is not just a one-strike deal to eliminate some facilities, suspected facilities, but might actually have long-term repercussions that haunt the united states in many places in the middle east and beyond. >> well, we are still calling it the department of defense, aren't we? we don't call it the department of war anymore, do you? don't you have to build a case for u.s. interests, not that we don't have an interest in our ally, israel, we have it as much as with any other country. isn't the department responsible for defending the united states? can we just attack another country that hasn't attacked us at all? sorry, forgot we did it twice. your thoughts. >> i agree with you çcompletel. this is where the pentagon is deeply concerned abou

let me put hit the way, the more sanctions put on iran by the obama administration than any other administration of the country was assassinated. there was a bug, virus put in the computer system. i am here to tell you the c.i.a. did that. i think our intelligence community has been working with israel to set that program back a number of years. if it's this far along, thoug though, us also believe that barack obama would be the first one with the israelis to ache out -- >> eric: the u.s. force or -- >> bob: both. >> eric: last night i spoke to the deputy speaker of the knesset. the speaker of the house in israel. he said all options are left on the table. if israel decides to go, how does the obama administration react? do they say hey, we have our support, we'll help you? or say you are on your own? >> andrea: they absolutely have to help them. there is a question of what they say publicly, versus what they do behind the scenes. we absolutely should support them, based on what obama said with sarkozy on the hot mike. israel is nervous now. also on the past action of the obama administration. i

obama administration? there must be an enormous amount of pressure coming from israel for the administration to say something or perhaps do something. what do you think is most likely? >> i think the obama administration is fanning out across the world to try to shore up support for their pressure on iran. whether they can get another united nations security council sanctions is questionable given the attitude of russia and china, who are worried that if the security council adopts another sanction, it could lead to a military action. they felt burned by the libya case where the security acouncil did one and it was used to oust gaddafi. i think it will be looking to put further pressure on iran and cut it off from the technology that has supported its nuclear programs. >> thank you very much. the russian space mission to send a probe to one of the moons of mars is running into trouble. it was launched on tuesday. the engine failed to file your. failed -- to fire. international aid agencies say money is running out to help millions of people affected by the floods that devastated large parts of southern pakis

administrative costs. it depends on what you are talking about specifically. there are any deficiencies in government, duplications of services, duplications of work. part of what the obama administration and administrations prior to this administration have tried to do is to reduce some of that and create more efficiencies and have federal managers and federal workers work to reduce waste, however small it may be. that is an initiative that is ongoing. whether that produces serious savings is also another story. host: in texas. mark is on the line. caller: i wanted to talk about federal law enforcement. i am with i.c.e. i want to talk about how much of a sacrifice the agencies at the border make. a lot of us are from that region. we are moving our families down there. we are at gf-12. we work weekends and all holidays. you really cannot compare. when we get into these arguments, people need to understand that people work until 4:00 and go home. federal law-enforcement workers make a big sacrifice. it hurts the overall morale of these guys who do not follow politics when they see something like this. they think they might lose their jobs or get a salary cut. we need to separate federal law enforcement fro

administration. do you find the level of support in the obama administration to be the same? >> it is essentially the same. the support comes the way the appropriations come. this administration has stayed at the same levels will be prior levels. there has been no difference. historically, international events have not been influential. we would like to have president obama come on our air. we are not holding it against him. we have had people in the white house and people in the industry come on. we have the state department on all the time. we have had secretary clinton on numerous times. they treat us like any other organization. i do not want special favors. if i get special favors, we will lose audience. i want to our and our credibility. >> brian conniff runs alhurra sand radio sawa/ . >> former white house chief of staff, rahm emanuel will be the key note speaker at the -- live coverage tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern. p.m. eastern.

obama administration was. i wouldn't say necessarily red faced but the obama administration looked at the situation both in bahrain and saudi arabia and essentially didn't give them necessarily a green light but did want them to sort out their own issues which is why i'm to come back to it the report is a very positive step forward it's behove a nice sorting out of the whole range situation ok i want to if you can i'd like to go to you the last one in the program here do you still see that the. could still blow up because nothing is really resolved this report. yes i think that that's certainly the case it's my view that you can keep people down you can repress them you can deprive them of their rights only can only ever be a temporary phenomenon and ultimately the people of that country will have this or do have the same aspirations for democracy as elsewhere we can't see how that will unfold as we can't see how it will unfold in egypt or syria or anywhere else but things are in change things are in flux and democracy and popular representation is the way that it's going. we'll see where it goes for the people of

administration left office and the obama administration came into office. is that your understanding? >> that is my understanding. >> was it ever your understanding that the solyndra application had been rejected during the previous administration or that the application was somehow on the shelf only to be revived by the obama administration? >> no, quite the contrary. the career folk in the department of energy in both administrations felt this loan was at the head of the lien of the ones we should be looking at and it was progressing according to the procedures. >> i thank you, mr. secretary, i think it is very important to clarify the record regarding the history of the loan guarantee and to put to rest some of the statements that were made that contradict that record. i'm happy that we have the e-mail and the documents that, i think, clearly show that this was something that was proceeding and was recommended to proceed when the bush administration left and handed this over with these career people that i yield become my time. thank you. >> all right. the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for your generous tim

weakening trend for quite a few years i would say since the end of the bush administration and beginning of obama administration why because we're printing more and more dollar bills and we're the only country that has that ability and privily to print more money when we need to and natural consequence of that of course is that we can ng dollar as far as being competitive or not being come i think. a lot of that is a structural problem in in the us you have highways it is. certain protection sentiments from different sectors of the economy and that makes it hard to compete on a worldwide market i say i attribute a lot of that make it to the mistake all it takes to run up to the two thousand and twelve presidential election it's really unfortunate because if they see it differently they could it was recognized that inviting chinese investors into the u.s. would be good for the u.s. would be it would be helpful to the u.s. local economy to be so i don't welcoming and so hostile to chinese investment it's actually against our own interests they're all seems are trying to outdo each other in the anti chairman just

. >> host: how committed is the obama administration to voa and public diplomacy compared to previous administrations in your experience? >> guest: well, i'm the new guy, and i've been hired during the term of president obama. and my sense is warm support from the administration for what we're trying to do. but, again, i vice president had much -- i haven't had much time yet to really learn the nuanced, more complex answer to that question. my sense is that they favor what we do, they understand it. i'm very, very supportive of and pleased that walter isakson is the chairman of the board of the broadcasting board of governors. he's a great american and a very wise person. he was, by the way, at one point president of cnn, and i was working for him then too. >> host: and where do you think is the most fertile place for what voa does in today' world? >> guest: you actually raise an interesting question because we debate amongst ourselves, which is more important; to have more people or to have certain key countries listening? and, obviously, we want both. but you have to find your place on that continu

obama administration was under a lot of pressure on two fronts. one, do we give them more money, and if we do, what control do we require over them, general motors in particular. the bush administration gave bridge loans which can't them alive long enough for the obama administration to decide should they stay alive. and i think they did an extraordinary job on the task force of boiling down to the essence what needed to be done. general motors, for example, much like alan mulally come into, steve rattner our ron bloom coming from his background, looked at this attack could gm have so many divisions, so many cars that are not selling, so many unprofitable models? for the longest time gm was reluctant to give up anything. we don't want to give up saturn. we don't want to give up on it. the automotive task force force them to make our decisions which were the right ones. gm is a smaller company now add a more profitable, more effective company. so i think in a compressed time frame and the pressure that the task force was under, they really distilled the needs of the companies, what had to be done. if, in fact, taxpayers are going to put up more money, some hard choices have to be made

administration, the obama administration's own prediction, we are looking at very high unemployment through the elections. we are looking at sluggish growth. growth, but sluggish growth. what do you see for the cities in your capacity speaking for the u.s. conference of mayors? what's going to happen to the economies in these cities? >> just so you understand who the conference of mayors are, we represent about 89% of the gdp in the country. if you just took new york, chicago and l.a., we're roughly the size of france. about a $2.5 billion economy. if you took the ten largest cities in the united states, it's roughly the gdp of china, little less, about $5 trillion, they're $5.9 trillion. we'd be the third largest country in the world. as the cities go, so go the nation. that's why we're here today, because l.a.'s not waiting on washington. we recognize that there's gridlock there. we believe that they're failing in their responsibility, that they're actually committing malpractice by failing to fix this economy, by failing to respond or work with the president in as many attempts to work across the aisle on initiatives that have been supported by democrats and republicans both. so what we're doing here is we're working -- we're focused on a self-reliant program that creates jobs but we could augment that and accelerate that if we had a partnership with the federal government. >>> coming up, more with mayor villaraigosa. has president obama kept his promise to the latino community? and what are the president's prospects for re-election? >>> antonio villaraigosa is mayor of a large and overwhelmingly democratic population, and as spokesman for america's mayors, his voice on national issues matters to washington. we asked for his take on the nation's capital starting with the work of the super committee. what do you most fear the super committee might do? >> allow for just automatic cuts. >> that's your worst-case scenario is that they did nothing and they automatically came. >> i think the best thing to do is to make the tough decisions. we've got to address some entitlement reform. there's no question about it. it is not sustainable going into the future. >> social security, medicare, medicaid -- all of those. >> all of that should be on the table. but we also, importantly, got to close tax loopholes and we've got to promote tax fairness. >> in general, from your 3,500-mile vantage point, what do you make of how washington works? >> i think it's more partisan than i've ever seen. it's always been a partisan place. >> do you think that the democrats are blameless in this? >> no, of course not. no, look. they're not blameless. you know, there's too much in the way of orthodoxy. there's a failure to understand that the country's evenly divided, and when it is evenly divided in the way that it is, we've got to have a balance and we've got to have a mix, if you will. >> you were an early supporter of secretary of state hillary clinton when she was running for the presidency. do you sometimes look back and think she'd have been better at this? >> i've never been prouder to support a candidate than i was supporting hillary clinton. but that was the past. the fact is, president obama ran a great campaign and he won and under very, very difficult, difficult circumstances. he's had -- he's done a great job, frankly. a yeoman's job when you think about that we've had the worst recession, we almost went into a depression. he's got a tough job and a tough road ahead. he'd be the first one to tell you the road ahead is not easy. one of the great things we have going for us is that people see the president as someone who reaches across the aisle, he tries to work with the other side. he sometimes gets criticized by his own party for doing it. and the other great thing we have going for us i think is that the economy is going to start to turn around, maybe not as much as we would like, but is going to start to turn around and finally the candidates. when you have, you know, a candidate who's been on all sides of every issue over the last few years, another candidate who can't finish his sentences and thinks social security is a ponzi scheme and still another candidate that thinks the best way to fix the broken immigration system is to electrify a fence on the border and put crocodiles on the rio grande. >> he did say he was kidding. you don't think mitt romney is qualified to be president? i think that any of the republican candidates are going to give us a run for the money. the fact is this is going to be a very close election. there's no question about it. but i think everything points to president obama getting re-elected for the reasons that i've said. >> because the numbers -- no president with the kind of numbers that even the white house expects to be having a year from now -- 9% unemployment rate or at least around there, still a sluggish economy, this is a very tough environment even for a guy who hasn't somewhat alienated his base, and we all expect them to come home, of course. but nonetheless, this looks like a very tough re-election for him simply because it's going to be very hard for him to argue his record. >> i acknowledge it's going to be a tough road ahead, but if president obama was relying on numbers and past performance, he never would have been elected president. he defied the odds. >> so you're looking for an election miracle. >> no. i'm looking for a re-election. >> an economic one. >> i'm looking for a re-election for the reasons i just stated. >> let me ask you about the latino vote, which was in large part very democratic in the last election. we've seen some slippage in the polls. i want to read you something that the president said during his campaign. "what i can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that i strongly support and that i'm promoting." that hasn't happened. in fact, the president has deported a record number of undocumented workers. he sent more folks to the border for border patrol from pressure from the right than any other president before him or at least higher levels from before. there must be some disappointment within you that immigration reform -- and by that, i mean comprehensive immigration reform -- has not happened. >> let me just say a couple things about that. first of all, president obama doesn't have a vote in the congress. >> no, but he can push something. >> and he has pushed immigration reform. he has supported the dream act. he is unabashedly in support of fixing this broken system. now, having said that, i'll also acknowledge that the secure communities program does not work. it was fashioned to focus on serious criminals who undocumented. we know that the vast majority of people more than 400,000 of the 700,000 who have been arrested and are facing deportation were not criminals, not felons. in fact, some of them were victims of domestic violence and crimes themselves. so, i don't have to agree with everything this administrationo support president obama. i unqualifiedly support him. but i also known disagree with some of their proposals. and that's one of them. >> and then what's next for antonio villaraigosa? what do you do in 2014? >> you know, i'm not focused on anything except for finishing my job. >> but you wouldn't rule out elected politics down the line. >> no. >> this is not the end of your elected career. >> i'm operating as if it's the end of the road, but you're right. i love public service. it's an honor to be mayor. i love being speaker of the california state assembly. and i'm not going to rheaume it out. but i'm not focused on it either. >> mayor villaraigosa, we thank you so much. >> thank you. >> appreciate your time. you have a noisy group here. >> yeah, we do. >>> up next, our "sound of sunday," and then "fareed zakaria: gps." [ multiple snds ng melodic tune ] ♪ [ malennounc ] at northrop grumman, makthworld a feplace. th's value performance. northr gruan. >>> time for today's "sound of su

that was continuation of the obama administration's of the bush administration policy which you pointedut was to try to bring tension around the iranian government. to bring allies together. to sax the iranian government to cause it enough pain to change its behavior on its nuclear program and as you rightly indicate that has not changed very much at all. >> laura: the china factor is something that needs to be discussed because every time we go to china and we say we really need your help on the sanctions stuff. we really need tough sanctions, china basically says it's good in theory but we'll get back to you and then china has thwarted the serious sanctions all along because they make an enormous amount of money on the energy sector in iran. is the china factor not an important factor at this point. >> i think it's a terrifically important factor. i also think in this case it's likely that the russians are on the chinese side of this question. you obviously have the permanent five members of the u.n. security council. and if you have two of those members that aren't willing to budge,

part of what the obama administration and administrations prior to this one have tried to do is reducee of that duplication and create more efficiencies and have federal workers look for places where they can consolidate and reduce some ways, however small it may be, and that is certainly an initiative that is ongoing. whether that produces serious savings is also another story. host: we have set aside a line for federal workers this morning. call from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about federal law enforcement. i was a border patrol agent for three years, and i wanted to talk about how much of a sacrifice agents at the border make. a lot of us are not from that region, so we are moving ourselves down there. we work midnight, swing, day hours, weekends, all holidays. you really cannot compare -- when we get it to these arguments, people need to understand that there are issues dating from offices in washington where it is assumed people work at a clock to 4:00 and then go home, but they make a big sacrifice. it hurts the overall morale of these guys who do

this is rick perry and what he thinks about the obama administration's intelligence gathering. this is the administrationhat killed osama bin laden. ç >> here's the other issue that i think we'd failed at, that is in our ability to collect intelligence around the world this administration in particular has been an absolute failure when it comes to extending the dollar and supporting the cia and military intelligence around the world to be able to draw in that intelligence that is going to truly be able to allow us to keep the next terrorist attack from happening on american soil. >> cal in the world does he come to that conclusion? >> is nonsense, the intelligence budget has gone up significantly. we have killed all but -- all the top leaders of al qaeda already. >> the record is very strong. crystal ball, how does he know that we have not collected good intelligence? there are scores that the other administration was not able to accomplish. >> there is absolutely no proof and his completely baseless assertion. there were lots of attacks on obama, but they were all vague, he's not a leader or believe in