chamber of commerce and aei itself. in the past around teacher pay and the importance of reforming teacher pay, and i would say that i think, i think it's too often we make a distinction between older organizations and the things that they have done and this newer crowd of organizations. because i think some of the issues tevi has raised really have occurred in a variety of organizations. center for american progress has never fired or let go a person because of ideological incoherence with the organization. that has happened at aei with david from. we have never, we have never come you know, we have a wide variety of thinking that goes from the center to the very last. and we separate that, and one way that we thought that was critical for center for american progress to be great was to have a good rich debate on particular ideas. we don't write or read ever before. we don't have a team that reads every report. we do choose where different teams that have different views, we put those out and explained why they have di

that has happened and aei. we have a wide variety of thinking that goes from the center to the very left. one way we thought it was critical for the center for american progress was -- to be creative was to have a debate on ideas. i do not read every report. we do not have a team that reads every report. we do choose when we have teams that have different views to let them put them out. i believe at the end of the day that ideas are the most important things. we believe in it and we have a view of being progressive so we try not to be doctrinaire. when the facts change around policy, we knowledge that we were wrong, on occasion. we want to put ideas front and center. that is the most critical element. >> first want to thank all the panelists for there really thoughtful remarks. i really appreciate the responses. there is a danger to having a moderator who knows more about the subjects than all the panelists because he has been at it longer. the best known person on the panel is usually the least prepared. that

ben's a visiting scholar at aei at the research institute. he's also an associate in the intelligence community associations program of the office of economic analysis, bureau of intelligence, and research u.s. department of state. he has other prestigious credentials listed in his bio that are listed in the package, i will let you read that on your own. and if we can cue up ben's presentation, he will commence. >> thank you. >> amazing how quick these computers are these days. ben, the floor is yours. >> thanks, ken, and thank you for all your time today. that is the title of the talk as well as the monograph that ken showed you a few minutes ago. there we go. anyway, the talk is based upon that monograph, which is summarized in three energy and outlook columns that are available on the aei website that you can look at later today if you choose to do so. what i'll talk about today are the three inherent problems afflicting solar power. why is it that renewable power has so small a market share. about 3 1/2 or more 3.6% of the market in 2010?

[laughter] charnel has given many important talks at aei. in 2000 when he received the institute's irving kristol ward. this is his for the bradley lecture. his first, delivered in 1994, a few years after he joined aei in 1990, looked at the arguments that they had made on the bell curve. the second explores the themes in his book human accomplishment, his elegant overview and our progress in the sciences. his 2008 lecture look at the mess our educational system has become and asks fundamental questions about what education is for. last year he gave a preview of coming apart as he was writing it providing some intriguing clues about how america is coming apart among class lines and the consequences of the separation. there are many echoes in the new book of the 1984 book, losing ground pitting it was published in september, 1984, in an early 1985 "the new york times" attacked it in an editorial. while the editorial page of "the new york times" is yet to be in on coming apart, "the new york times" today ran a very generally positive piece abo

that has happened and aei.ve a wide variety of thinking that goes from the center to the very left. one way we thought it was critical for the center for american progress was -- to be creative was to have a debate on ideas. i do not read every report. we do not have a team that reads every report. we do choose when we have teams that have different views to let them put them out. i believe at the end of the day that ideas are the most important things. we believe in it and we have a view of being progressive, so we try not to be doctrinaire. when the facts change around policy, we knowledge that we were wrong, on occasion. we want to put ideas front and center. that is the most critical element. >> first want to thank all the panelists for there really thoughtful remarks. i really appreciate the responses. there is a danger to having a moderator who knows more about the subjects than all the panelists because he has been at it longer. the best known person on the panel is usually the least prepared. that is no

. >> he is a scholar at aei who just wrote a book called coming apart, about this class division whichs not just economic, it's social and cultural. >> he makes the same point you just made. you should notify him that? without knowing it you made the same point which is a corroboration! [everyone talking at once] >> john -- >> brad wilcox on this for a long time. >> john, the triumph of the counter-culture morning working class white folks the rate is way over 40% mock hispanics, or hispanics it's 51. among african-americans, it's 71%. among the poor it's pandemic. the valuables of the counter- culture with regard to family and marriage and divorce and pre-marital sex and all of these things are triumphing in the culture and in society and we're seeing the consequences of it now. some of us feel it means coming apart -- [everyone talking at once] >> do you think the state should be involved in marriages? why do we have the requirement of registration is needed for the state? >> i think the jude joe christian idea of family and children of enormous benefits to the society and can form t

i'm working on a paper on that now for aei. let's see. the labor intensiveness argument, i've never seen any data on that. i've seen a lot of assertions. it did you want matter anyway. why doesn't it matter? well, let's suppose that we had a policy that we dig ditches not with heavy equipment, but instead with shovels or if we channel milton friedman with spoons. the labor intensiveness of ditch digging would go up and a lot of jobs would be created. would that be a good or dumb idea? well, there's no -- that question answers itself. there's no analytic difference between inefficient ditch digging and inefficient electricity generation used as tools in the pursuit of expanded employment, green or any other color. none. and i don't have time today to talk about the european experience with respect to renewable power and employment, suffice it to say it is not salutary. okay. let's see, the eia projections, future natural gas prices have collapsed in the last -- just in the last year because of the fraccing and all the rest. that means that

we have word from herridge foundation and aei had it as well, 55% of americans paid any income tax to. because there is a lot of angles. how did we get here in the first place? take a listen to what president obama has been telling us the hast couple of years. >> everyone gets a fair shot and does their fair share and plays by the same set of rules. americans who afford it should pay their fair share. it makes sense for those of us who have done best to do our fair share. the american values of fai fairness. of fairness and responsibility. we expect everyone to do their fair share. everyone is doing their fair share, everyone engages in fair play. everybody does their fair share. build an economy everybody gets a fair shot and does their fair share and takes responsibility. everyone is playing by the same set of rules. >> dana: now we have an election year debate, how much do we have and how are we going pay for it? how many taxes? i think we should add in how should we wholesale reform the tax system. do you think when people think that this statistic, 55% of americans only ones payi

klein ki who is described as now a recent aei but prior to that a health care executive, and this is what his chart looks like. if we can put that on screen with our camera about the trends in annual percentage change in health care spending from 2000 and 2010 you can see that going down. he's saying that the growth of national health expenditures has been declining for a decade, driven by better medical care and consumer choice. he gives an examples of why, suddenly a $5 generic drug might work just as well as a $50 branded one. people are concluding that going out of network for an extra $100 out of their pocket might not be worth it. it also turned out that a nurse practitioner at an urgent care clinic can spot an ear infection for $30 a whole lot faster than an emergency room physician can for $1,000. examples of ways people are finding economies in health care. >> i don't know about his chart. i know health care is incredibly expensive. but some of the things he cites are some of the things that we really need to be doing. in vermont there's an effort to get a single-payer healt

never at aei, i have never seen anyone hired fired, a paper buried because some donor was upset. >> we have a policy, a very clear policy, that no corporate or individual support will support individual research for this very reason. i do think it becomes a challenge for folks but we are clear that no paper is written because of a contribution. >> in the article i of mentioned this incident and i don't know what happens but i do now that norm was at aei and the things that he wrote in pursuit of the health care bill were much more damaging to the republican cause then anything that was said by david. i just those see that as the cause but again i was not in the room. "she could have asked david -- >> you could have asked david f rum and i think he would have a different view. >> on the point on tenure, i was thought that meant never having to say you are sorry. what i want to ask is that there has been a very good discussion. you have highlighted a lot of issues. eventually you have a shoutfest between the left and right on issues on a panel. do you have any suggestions on how you reso

uw aei m merica !/'s 0 i aanfcan. ne#p!nwñ voic i axanp arican.b voi: : am0 an ererican. bts voe: i axm an ameran ews now" -- front-runner. for the first time a national poll shows rick santorum leading his republican rivals in the race for president. >> why his popularity surge may not be good news to the gop. of course looking for a white house victory this fall. it's tuesday february 21st. >>> what are those for? >> oh, come on now. you know what day it is. >> good tuesday morning. it's fat tuesday. i'm paula faris. i was going to say fat faris just to go with the -- everything's fat today. >> happy mardi gras. fat tuesday, everybody. i'm rob nelson. thanks for joining us today. rick santorum's poll numbers are going up as he addresses social issues and also questions the president's religious beliefs in a way. conservatives are rallying behind santorum. he's doing great in the polls. all of this ahead of the big arizona and michigan primaries set for a week from today. so why is the gop so worried right n

. >> senator, arthur brooks from aei, i have a question for uf. is -- the devil's in the details, we've got to have specifics about the growth policies. if you are talking to the presidential candidates, which i know you, what are the two or three specific growth planks in their platform so we can realistically talk about escaping from this mess? >> honestly, arthur, i don't think you can start a discussion about economic growth without reining in federal spending. we know there's a correlation between spending and debt as a percentage of gdp and economic growth and we're losing economic growth and that means fewer jobs every year because we're maintaining such high-level spending and debt. but i think you also have to make the business tax rate competitive. you can't have a 35% tax rate and be the highest in the industrialized world and expect that your economy's going to be competitive. that's one thing that i think all the presidential candidats s need to be talking about is tax reform that broadens the base and lowers the prat and gets us more

american enterprise institute discussion of the republican presidential candidates, beginning with aeiing on why he believes rick santorum will end -- will win the next primary. >> the case for sandor rahm rests around etiology, demographics and demographics. -- ideology and demographic. the republican party is not as conservative as the media would have you believe, but still, in most states, about 1/3 of the people who show up at republican primaries or call themselves conservatives are not of the tea party variety -- in republican primaries. you do not see overwhelming majorities in favor of that. nevertheless, there is that base of people who are extremely conservative, extremely angry and what someone who will both give a principal challenge to president obama and a spirited one. they are firmly against romney. they are determined to pick someone who is not romney. that is one of the reasons you have seen so many lead changes. right now, rick santorum is the newest anti-romney. that will provide a base for him in michigan. even if he is not to win it will be substantial. given the

i never at aei or any other institute seen anybody hired fired, a paper buried because a doner was upset. >>i would say we have a policy -- clear policy that no individuaoll support will support individual research. it becomes a challenge, you do not make that kind of commitment. we are very clear that no particular paper is written because of a contribution. our foundation is different, but the fund issues are brought in fund research. >> two quick points. i agree on the donor. . in the article, i mentioned the david frum incident i the dow that the things he wrote in terms of democratic parliamentary procedures in the health-care bill were much more damaging to the republican cause than anything david said. i just do not see that as the cause. i was not in the room. >> we have about two and a half minutes. i am going to try to get in two more questions. >> i will be very quick. on the points on tenure, i always thought 10 year meant never having to say you're sorry. --tenure meant never having to say you are sorry. what i would like to ask is, does the panel have any proposals on how y