if there is a guy -- and administration you compare with the clinton administration, you should compare it with the administration of parting. he loved golf and had a bossy wife. the two along well together when bill goes off to his eternal reward. >> host: you dedicate the impeachment to warren harding. >> guest: i think warren harding, hi am told ronald reagan was called -- pears another iconic republican, it is lincoln. harding is the iconic republican for the clinton administration. i'm surprised no one has picked up that comparison of bill clinton, big lovable lug of a casanova and harding, big and amiable, they were made for each other. >> host: three of your book use the term crackup. why? >> guest: i introduced the term crackup into politics as i recall, scott fitzgerald introduced it into general fiction writing. i introduced it into politics because i see a lot of crackup taking place in american politics. but i am surprised people didn't notice bill clinton really had cracked up. i started that book -- an ended the book with an investigation in the sixtieth birthday party. he

and that was a very reassuring decision, but why the clinton administration-- why? why did you do this to us, bill? why he had to appeal this to the supreme court, and this supreme court is-- you know, i don't know. it's for the psychic friends network. it's really out of my bailiwick to say why he did this. well, the case did, in fact, go to the supreme court to resolve, really, one issue, and it had to do with language in the enabling legislation, the funding legislation, that said the n.e.a. should take into account standards of decency. it was an advisory piece of guidance from congress. and then the supreme court had to decide whether that was an infringement on the first amendment of the constitution. and the supreme court decided... well, the supreme court decided-- actually, they decided, because the statute read "they may take into consideration"-- they could but they didn't have to-- general standards of decency, that that was constitutional and that if the supreme court-- or if they were required to take into consideration, that that would be unconstituti

a guy that you should compare -- if there's an administration you should compare with the clinton administration, i think you should compare it with the administration of harding. right down to the fact that harding loved golf and had a posse wife. bossy wife. the two of them will get along well together when they both, when bill goes off to his eternal reward. >> host: and, in fact, you dedicate the impeachment to warren harding. >> guest: yeah. i think warren harding, i'm told that ronald reagan has called the icon -- if there's another iconic republican, it's, it's lincoln. i say that harding is an iconic republican for the clinton administration. and i'm surprised that no one has caught on and picked up that comparison of bill clinton, an amiable, big lovable lug of a cassanova and harding, amiable, handsome, big, lovable lug of a cassanova. they've both, they were made for each other. >> host: three of your books use the term "crack-up." why? >> guest: well, i introduced the term crack-up into politics. as i recall, scott fitzgerald introduced it into, into, into general fiction writing. bu

>> no, i am proud of the work i did in the clinton administration.one of the reasons that spending was falling as a percentage of gdp was the economy was growing so fast. we had a good fiscal policy that promoted confidence and economic growth. if you look at the projections today, spending and in the future, we are projecting the retirement of the baby boom. we are seeing more people become 65 and climbing their benefits. >> that is my next question. >> i think it is part of the reality of projections that even if we cut spending in the policies we are making as we pay the benefits of people, there will be areas of the budget where spending goes up. we don't want to say that people should not be able to collect their social security benefits when they are 65. that and medicare is driving the aggregate spending levels. we are cutting spending on the discretionary side. >> which is why we are all baffled that you have not tackle entitlements which are driving our long-range projections off a cliff. speaking of the long-range projections, look at the c

the clinton administration engagement, the bush administration also tried a period of engagement and then we've tried sanctions. unfortunately, this has not changed north korea's intentions. now, north korea is the most repressive country in the world today, well beyond cuba or iran or other horrible countries you might think about. and it's a medieval country. they're willing to sacrifice. they have sacrificed one million people to starvation during this period of time. so this is a regime which is hardened. and it sees a nuclear option as its passport to international recognition and also regime survival. unfortunately, we have not persuaded the chinese to go along with us in effective sanctions against uh, north korea, and that's their main lifeline. >> mark, what's your view of the sanctions against north korea? have they been successful in any way? >> well, clearly they didn't stop north korea's nuclear bomb. i think they've certainly helped from a moral dimension. they've certainly created the perception that north korea is a pariah state. they've contained north korea in influ

for them, we're going to take those tax rates down to the same level they were during the clinton administration, when we had unprecedented job growth and economic growth. so that's about a trillion dollars of what paul is talking about is the president's follow- through on the commitment to say our kids are no longer going to pay the bill for tax cuts for the folks at the very top. now, the president's budget reduces the deficit in a steady manner, and in fact he gets to the point where we're no longer adding to the debt faster than plans that paul has put on the table and the republicans have put on the table. >> schieffer: congressman, let me ask you this. how can you really say that the president is serious about this when his budget does not mention social security or medicare, the two biggest items in the budget? aren't you going to... don't democrats are going to have to come to the table and say we're really ready to talk about serious restructuring of those two programs, if you're going to in fact get anything done? >> let's take each of those separately. social security, we're willing

absolutely right in that but i can't remember more people know that than i do probably the clinton administration had the commission when a was 20% to go to the trust fund i thought there was a terrific idea because the individuals taking the risk it is the shared risk of the government, and the way things have gone on the table anymore that was a good idea. >> here's the kind of rhetorical question how the municipal and state pension funds invested in the stock market what models are made for that. [laughter] >> that's important because this temptation to try to think to ease a bit part traces by turning more and larger social security to the other parts of the retirement scheme three devotees because the same problem everywhere we go. people say well, the 401k accounts, we need to have more defined benefit pension savings but then you look at all to defined systems, the same problems to the employer provided systems, state and local systems, social security, you see amazingly similar problems but each is about 1/5 to a quarter underfunded, each underfunded for similar reasons which is that it's

bush presidency and the first years of the present clinton administration there was a great deal -- richard holbrooke who we have mentioned several times wrote on the first page of this memoir about dayton between 1991 in 1995 the international response to this catastrophe was at best uncertain and at worst a polling. why did it take so long for the u.s. and europe together to intervene with decisive force in bosnia? >> well i think first of all let me say, thing from listening to president clinton you all know how fabulous it was to work for him. every day it was exciting and you can see how his mind works and how dedicated he was to what he was doing and it was an honor and a pleasure to be able to work with you mr. president. i think the hard part has to do with the fact that, as he said, that we were so focused on the cold war and fighting the soviet union. the other part is that there had been the gulf war. there had been a war. we had one it apparently at the time in a way that tired of people out, and at the same time, there were a lot of other things going on. i think one of the har

simpson: it was the clinton administration that let these leases. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: we hear about a cozy relationship and that's interesting because when you go back and look at the worst oil spill in american history from british petroleum and bp and why it took this administration to come down on them, we found it was one of the oil company that was willing to endorse the president's crap and trade bill and were ready to make a deal about it. and that's why you talk about cozy relationships, on oh, yeah, that's not enough, this administration helped to oversee these leases, the person who was responsible under the clinton administration for costing this country billions by taking out language that would gotten us the royalties we should have had. but one of the problems we should never lose sight of no matter how cozy the relationship was with the clinton administration and bp and this administration and bp and the 800 hazard

finally, secretary of state madeleine albright went to north korea in the last months of the clinton administration in 1999. president clinton was just about to go himself, and the election was then mooted by the question of whether george bush or al gore had been elected. clinton didn't feel he could leave the country when there was a constitutional crisis, and it all fell apart. and when the george w. bush administration came in, they seemed to have had as a basic policy rule whatever clinton did, do the opposite. but they found what was probably at most a laboratory-scale investigation in north korea of uranium enrichment, and that became a pretext for basically throwing out all of the great framework that gelucci had previously negotiated. and things went downhill from there. and now, finally, it looks like they might be coming back uphill a little bit, but not without north korea taking the step of becoming a nuclear power which is pretty sad and tragic. you know about these points, the limitations on the two size arsenals -- two sides' arsenals. the amazing story of three countries which were

because the ideological obsession of the bush to administration and what two some degree the clinton administration which has been forced to work within those parameters but i think the country is so far down the road lowered down this dangerous road, a fundamental correction was needed and this was understood by people who voted for him. it just wasn't a matter i like this guy or the other guy, or i don't like this sarah palin woman who was funny and kind of cute but terrifying. here was a program that we are voting for that means fundamental change for the country. what is more as we all remember he was elected with a super majority. for the first time in recent memory we have the equivalent of the parliamentary election. the majority can enact with it is selected to do and then take responsibility for it. not the system that we have but yet to again come as we all know it did not work out that way. we got some movement, it would be wrong to pretend that the obama administration does not have they have many accomplishments. but none live up to the campaign. it is not easily apparent. why? if you

i would note that during the last administration has served in, the clinton administration, those tax rates at the longest period of but a rapid growth in the -- in american history. they have not been historically challenging to growth. if you get our news proposals, we have a lot of tax cut proposals that are designed to promote the kinds of investments that we need in this country. we net new revenue. it does not amount to a large amount in 2013. >> i do not know -- where i come from, most of our jobs come from successful small businesses. in wisconsin, drive to any city. there will be an industrial park with 100 or 300 employees. they about taxes as individuals. most of the tops rates are actually small businesses. when we tax are small businesses as rates above 50% in wisconsin, 48% in this country, where countries are taxing their businesses their rates lower than we are, how do we expect to win global competition but to mark how we create jobs when we attack the engine of job creation, small businesses? >> if we look at the taxpayers in that class, the $250,000 and above, and w

all we have to do is look at the clinton administration, say no more. i only say that because president clinton came out last night and told me that i live in a parallel universe when it comes to my understanding of obamacare. and we want to talk about parallel universes for a moment? socialism kills job creation everywhere it rears its ugly head. except for government. it rears its ugly head, and we are witnessing unemployment for over 20 months in excess of 9%. in fact, dallas came out and said the current unemployment is actually at 9.5% and the only jobs that are growing in government when the music stops it is game over. and the game doesn't end very well. we have a real-life example of where the socialistic path is taking us. exhibit a., greece. take a look at greece. here you have people in the streets rioting because they wanted more government. why were they writing? because the retirement age is going to go from age 61 to 63. all those evil bureaucrats. that is the end result of socialism when the demand equation knows no bounds your exhibit b

who was kicked out of the clinton administration, for trying to warn what was going to happen, with our banks and also, i would like to know, how can conservatives talk about freedom and people's ability to do what they want? i don't understand how you can be pro-life and pro death at the same time. >> a lot there, mr. tyrrell. >> i'm not pro death. i'm against capital punishment and against abortion, so i think i'm exempt from this. >> let's go to the original comments about sarah palin and michel bachman and what he saw as a lack -- michelle bachmann and what he saw as a lack of intellect there. >> this is interesting. the conservative movement began in the 1950s. and the late 1940s, as a distinctly intellectual movement. made up of highly intelligent scholars, highly intelligent business people, and highly intelligent ordinary citizens who believe in anti-communism and believed in free markets and traditional values, more or less. as -- and throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it was pretty distinctly an intellectual movement but, by the late 1980s, and the 1990s, and certainly, today, it

clinton was unique. america's relative position was going to decline. the previous administration accelerated that decline with some very poor choices in terms of the places it pursued. one of the other lessons of bosnia and the war's in the balkans is just how interconnected we are as people on this planet. there was a hope on the part of policy makers -- the clinton administration wanted to focus on many -- that we could set this aside he was in egypt. i thought she end richard holbrooke my shared the nobel peace prize. she exemplifies that put what was happening in bosnia and our faces. we saw the people who are being shot at by snipers were not faceless people. they were women in high heels, children. people who looked a lot like us. that is very important. we have this kind of immediacy with egypt right now on the square. i think that is another of the big lessons of bosnia. >>t is a milestone in recognizing our share. blacks this has just been an incredible -- >> this has just been an incredible tour. if you'll join me in thanking this terrific panel. [applaus >> coming up n

cohesive political thread between them. >> you remember all of the conversations during the clinton administration and -- the first and second term, about bosnia and the conversations in europe about bosnia. and frequently, the question that was raised is, you know, that if the world community doesn't do something, history will look badly at them, that these are moral questions if in fact there's blood in the street, and somebody has to be willing to take the lead. >> we're now talking about a vast area stretching all the way from iran africa. bosnia, it was a fairly limited and confined space and intervention was, in relative terms, i would say, a simple matter. if you're going to intervene now in what is going on in iran or in the arab world, where do you start? >> let's talk about libya. that's where the crises is at the moment. >> i think that the predicate is certainly being laid now for applying greater pressure. there's been statements not only by the president, as you mentioned, but the security council. the arab league also has deplored what is going on. there's talk in some quarters and

at the lame-duck clinton administration didn't respond, and the new bush administration didn't respondt because it didn't happen on their watch. and osama bin laden, some and took lessons from the. when they were preparing the 9/11 attacks, one of the things i try to say in the book is 9/11 was a strategic failure for al qaeda. at the time it seemed like a big success. it didn't achieve any of the goals within the organization, but one of the things al qaeda has said many years later is 9/11 was cleverly conceived to get you and i says to invade afghanistan, we believed them to what they really expected was the united states to pull out of the middle east, you know, the saudi regime and the regime in egypt was humble. the lack of response to the cole meant that they thought the only kind of response the united states would do is crispus attacks or perhaps bombing on the train attacks. they evacuate their training camps. they didn't prepare for an invasion of the country. they were surprised by that. and so al qaeda lost its base in afghanistan. they had never come indian they like it.

gap bill and the nafta were both signed over into the wto on december 8, 1995, under the clinton administration by bill clinton. the problem of that was it also went back retro to the year of 1992, and subsequently i said then to everybody which i belong to a very large union who was at that time consolidating with even another still larger union, and in the process i warned them it's going to take about ten years if they turned everything around after once getting into it. so now i'm going to tell you that every year on top of that, since the year 2010, we're going to add another year. but that additional year every year thereafter 2010 will create an actual year and a half of detriment to the unemployment, the gross national product, as well as the treasury. . . guest: it is for that reason that citizens must be involved in the redistricting process. we are so affected by all of the legislation enacted by representatives we sent from the district's we live in. host: let me put one example that was found on page 11 of the brenman report. this is illinois in 2002. in 2002, barack obama challeng

we represented macedonia because the clinton administration asked us to because of what was going on in the the balkins. i'm perfectly glad to look at the clients that i worked with when i was there. let me make this very plain. i'm lobbyist, a politician and a lawyer. that is the trifecta. and i'm willing to have my record in front of everybody. i don't intend to be responsible for what other people did that i have no control over, which is not to criticize them, it is just i have got no way of defending or criticizing the things that i wasn't involved in. >> chris: finally, there was as you well know a dustup involving you, a profile of you in the weekly standard in december when you talke talkedt growing up in the south during the civil rights movement you said i just don't remember it as being that bad. you said you went to martin luther king speak one day. we sat in the cars watching the girls talking doing what boys do and we paid more attention to the girls than the king. question, any regrets about those comments? >> just the truth. i was asked about my childhood. my daddy di

and the administration -- the republican administrations before it and to some degree the clinton administration which had -- which had been forced to work within those parameters had taken the country so far down the road, so far down this dangerous road that a fundamental correction was needed and this was understood by people who voted for him. so it wasn't just a matter of i kind of like this guy better than i like the other guy or i don't really like mccain or this sarah palin woman is funny and kind of cute but absolutely quite terrifying. it was, here was a program that we're voting for that will mean fundamental change for the country. what's more, as we all remember, he was elected with a super-majority in both houses of congress. and so for the first time in recent memory we had the equivalent of a parliamentary election in this country. the parliamentary elections, the parliamentary majority gets to actually enact what it's elected to do. and then take responsibility for it. and it's not the system we have. usually we have divided government here. but we didn't in 2008. and yet again

clinton was unique. america's relative position was going to decline. the previous administration accelerated that decline with some very poor choices in terms of the places it pursued. one of the other lessons of bosnia and the war's in the balkans is just how interconnected we are as people on this planet. there was a hope on the part of policy makers -- the clinton administration wanted to focus on many -- that we could set this aside. he was in egypt. i thought she end richard holbrooke my shared the nobel peace prize. she exemplifies that put what was happening in bosnia and our faces. we saw the people who are being shot at by snipers were not faceless people. they were women in high heels, children. people who looked a lot like us. that is very important. we have this kind of immediacy with egypt right now on the square. i think that is another of the big lessons of bosnia. >> it is a milestone in recognizing our share. blacks this has just been an incredible -- >> this has just been an incredible tour. if you'll join me in thanking this terrific panel. [applause] >> coming

>> i think the biggest failure was the complete turnaround from the end of the clinton administration to the beginning of the bush administration from the invitation to bill clinton to visit pyongyang to george w. bush condemning them as part of the axis of evil. the biggest success was former secretary of defense negotiations on the north korean missile issue which was solved well enough so that general rock was invited to the united states, was hosted by vice president gore and the top floor of the state department and it was proof that sustained negotiation by a high-level americans can work with north korea but we have not given them the high enough level participation and we have not given them the sustained wave of negotiation to be effective in dealing with it. >> to the point where older men and remember how absolutely horrible world war ii was are dying now. do you think we are getting too far away from world war ii so people running countries now and politicians in various countries don't remember how awful that war was and they are getting careless? and we are throwing bomb

secretary of state for near east affairs in the clinton administration. what do you make of the white administration's approach >> guest: they are playing catch-up. that's not surprising. the events have taken everybody by surprise, not only president obama and the white house, but the intelligence community and president mubarak himself. and i think, probably the rest of the world. everybody knew that at some point, all of this resentment would build up over 30 years of autocratic rule. i certainly did not expect this in my lifetime. in the last week, i think president obama has moved from saying that there needed to be meaningful reform to the secretary of state on sunday saying that there needs to be a transition. as you pointed out earlier, frank wisner, former u.s. ambassador to egypt, is over there and positioned to talk to president mubarak. i think, quietly, the message is being sent to him that it is time for him to go. the administration has not come out publicly and said that, although they've come close to it, basically because of a sense of ce

. >> i don't know but i feel like he's such -- everyone -- he was in the clinton administration.i shouldn't have said his name maybe because -- >> jimmy: if you said i'd like to thank my father-in-law who walks around in his underpants it would have been bad. >> i want people in washington to take him seriously. oh, so you're with -- the father, the in-law of the bimbo ago strekt. >> jimmy: you already have a problem in washington because you're playing the good wife who is the wife of the guy -- the politician who had a sex scandal, political scandal and i'm sure they don't love that. >> well, shockingly enough like i get the skinny from my father-in-law. they all watch it sandy berger watches it. i mean they all watch the show but i think it's that kind of thing where the people that my father-in-law knows who watches the show aren't the people who have ever been in the news. >> jimmy: who is the husband character based on? >> it's pretty much a mix but robert michele king really based it on the spitters. >> jimmy: the spitters. >> elliot and selda spitzer. i saw the press conf

robert malley, former director for near east affairs at the national security council in the clinton administration. he now heads the mid east-north africa program at the international crisis group. and michael singh, who held the same n.s.c. post in the george w. bush administration. he's now a visiting fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. welcome to you both. beginning with you, arms embargo. asset freezes. travel bans. what do you make of the international response so far? >> two things. first if you compare the international responses to others in the past it has been extraordinarily quick. that may not feel very good if you're sitting in tripoli and you have to enjoy the continued rule of qaddafi. from a comparative perspective it's been extraordinarily rapid. in part that's because ka qaddafi himself has very few friends. he is now paying the price for alienating his friends. and also because this administration in particular had staff who feel very strongly about this. the president himself and some who work for him and see it as their life mission from preventing what ha

>> well, i think what happened was you saw a very successful administration in bill clinton's administration with security, responsibility, opportunity, all of the things that resonate acrosacross the board in our co. and every organization -- nothing lasts forever. i think they had a very good run i think the d.l.c. contributed a lot to this debate. i think the call of your question is what happens to moderate democrats. this is what i see happening, anyway. and you see this in a lot of the newer elected democratic governors. i think the more recently elected democrats, new generation of democrats, if you will, are fundamentally if not ideological, but entrepreneurial and pragmatic in their approach to governments. so i think some of the tug of war in the party's change, which i think was completed in the large degree, jergsally any-- generationally, anyway with bill clinton, i think those tensions philosophically are not as prominent as they were. therefore, what we're all looking for are the things that work to create jobs to get our people back to work. >> victim of an opportunity? >> vi

administration finds itself now chasing bait events in cairo and alexandria. now that are going back to the speech in cairo. now there are going back to the major speech hill recruits -- hillary clinton gave in doha before the uprising in egypt there now i think the administration is on the right path. but i think they have a legacy of the year and a half where they did not do enough to push for democratic reform in countries such as texting egypt and jordan and yemen, these countries that depend a great deal of american largess in terms of financing, helping their economies and military forces. i think now the obama administration sees itself on the right side of history. obviously these are uncertain times. egypt bnow -- now has begun a long and as a transition period -- anybody knows anything about history will tell you that. and the administration is making its position very clear, but it would like to avoid the charge from the suppose it -- supporters of mubarak and the status quo throughout the arab world that it is intervening in the domestic affairs of an ally, that's it is dictating who should be the leadership of egypt. that is why i have to walk a fine line. host: thank yo

i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of labor and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and large, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal production or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing employment as a share of unemployment is down significantly and that every country. this is what productivity does. it frees up what is required in t

this administration, 40% more rules than brooklyn's -- more rules than bill clinton's administration. people are looking for jobs, and government jobs continue to grow and that is because of the administration and the rules. congress is still 100 members in the senate and 435 in the house. 16% more federal regulators write out the door before president obama came to office. he is absolute right. host: go-ahead. caller: we just had a meeting in ohio with the tea party on this new drilling operation that is going on. this is located on high school property. the damage that is done to properties in pennsylvania and ruined the water system. people of water buffaloes sitting on their properties when they used to be able to go to the tap p and get water. that is one thing. i cannot believe the head -- host: can i ask you something about the meeting? or they opposed -- were they opposed? caller: they were totally for it. there was nobody there that gave them an opposing view on what would happen. the lead the was the head of the ohio oil and gas energy education program, she said the people

he did that at the same time he and the clinton administration balance the budget.e is the man who understands what the challenges are across the state and around this world. thank you for being here with us, secretary rubin. [applause] >> thank you, governor. that was an extraordinary time. there were anti-war forces at work. it was an extraordinary time. -- there were other forces at work. if you look at the short term, almost all forecasters are raising their estimates with respect to economic growth. that notwithstanding, it seems to me there are still serious risks. there are vulnerabilities. and we face a slow -- it is expected that unemployment will decline at a slower rate. in addition, the recovery will be the longest recovery from recession in the post world war ii. period. our country has enormous strength. flexible labor, capital markets, our demographics, our entrepreneurial culture. we have a tremendous opportunity to proceed in the long run in the transforming to a global economy. if we will realize that potential, we meet -- we must meet huge challen

clinton -- >> what happened? >> what happened was, you saw a very successful administration in bill clinton's administration with security, responsibility, opportunity, all of the things that resonate across the board in our country and every organization -- nothing lasts forever. and i think they had a very good run and the d.l.c. contributed a lot to this debate. the question is what happens to moderate democrats? >> yeah. >> and you see this in the newly elected democratic governors. i think the more recently elected democrats, new generation of democrats, if you will, are fundamentally not ideological but entrepreneurial and pragmatic in their approach to governance. so i think some of the tug of war in the party's change which was completed to a large degree with bill clinton, i think those sorts of tensions are not as prominent as they were and therefore, what we are all looking for are the things that work to create jobs to get people back to work and it's that opportunity. >> were they a victim of their own success? i don't know, i don't consider anyone who is successful to be a victim. if president obam

i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of labor and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and large, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal production or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing employment as a share of unemployment is down significantly and that every country. this is what productivity does. it frees up what is required in t

bill was deputy white house counsel and deputy assistant to the president during the clinton administration and served as solicitor general of the state of ohio. bill has published extensively on the first amendment, federal courts and presidential powers and is a leading expert on judicial selection. and, of course, of great importance to the american constitution society community, bill has lent his great expertise, camaraderie and guidance to acs as a member of our board. so now i guess we will hear from makan, then carolyn and bill and their rejections to b-- reactios to bill bauer's remarks and then we'll talk about the state of the emergency. >> thank you, carolyn. first let them thank you for first inviting me here on this -- i think one of the more important topics that we can discuss in a democracy. as where a lot of us have been watching what's been unfolding in the middle east and egypt and this morning in jordan, it reminds me i was 10 years old when i left iran and it eerily reminds me exactly what was going on back then. and not really appreciating it back then. i really think

it extended not only in the reagan administration, but into the clinton administration. remember, by the time we were at the end of the clinton administration, unemployment was at 3.8%, the best thing that can happen to people at the low end of the income scale. >> host: arizona, tony, republican, your thoughts. >> caller: yes, good morning. a couple quick questions. number one, do you feel that the american public really understands the severity of the problem our country is in financially, and then number two, my personal recommendation for the size of our government is to remove the politics out of it and cut the size of our federal government. pick a number, cut the size of the federal government 10% straight across the board. take all the politics out of the request and say all the programs are in place. we agree they are proper and fine, but they all need to be reduced by this figure. >> host: 10% across the board, everything? >> caller: correct. >> host: got it. what do you think? >> guest: thing we would afford the 10% cut. i think really we're paying people in t

and they stayed pretty well evan during the reagan administration, during the clinton administration, during the bush administration when we had the lowest job growth ever, they ran about 7.5%. but the fact is that we are not going to balance our budget by targeting that small amount of the budget. the reality is that when president reagan left office, tax receipts were about 18.2%. they went up a bit during the clinton administration when we had the greatest expansion ever, and in fact people at the highest rate of income tax pocketed more money after taxes than at any time in american history. but right now there are 14.9% of g.d.p. i would say, mr. chairman, suggest that the problem is not one of not investing enough in our country, it's the revenue that we are bringing in being grossly inadequate. and in the historical context we can prove that to be the case. when revenue goes down that low our economy shrinks and it becomes a self-defeating cycle. now, in the environment appropriations bill some of the things we do is to pick out the program that uses offshore oil revenues for l

they were recognized by the clinton administration and have the foreign minister brought here and postede white house. that group was to taliban. history has a way of teaching you a bad lesson if you don't pay attention. many cheered the departure of hosni mubarak. i would have much rather see the departure of mahmoud ahmadinejad out and the end of the rule of iran.heocrats in arou [applause] thank you. a week of america has never proven good for the world. -- a weak american. we must ensure our men and women in combat have clear objectives. the rules of the engagement -- and yet, i do have a problem with granted american constitutional rights to terrorists while we attempt to have imprisoned our own warriors for killing terrorists. [applause] [cheers] thank you. thank you. the dawn of a new america means this. secure our borders and enforce our laws. recognize the emerging threats on the korean peninsula. recognize the threats coming out of south and central america. confront the belligerents who transit freely across borders, killing and promoting an ideology that is anathema to the va

chairman reaffirmed this approach during the clinton administration. in rebuffing requests to regulate cable internet access service, the chairman explained, the fertile fields of innovation across the communication sector and around the country are blooming from the because we've take an deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the internet. there's no crisis warranting departure from this approach. most everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated allegation or speculation of future harm. the f.c.c. even contests that it's done no market analysis. it only selectively applied the rules to broadband providers, shielding web companies. if the mere threat of internet discrimination is such a concern and if the f.c.c. has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like google or skipe be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies like at&t or comcast? instead of promoting competition -- competition, such picking

clinton -- >> what happened? >> well, i think what happened was you saw a very successful administration in bill clinton's administrationcurity, responsibility, opportunity, all of the things that resonate across the board in our country, and every organization -- now, nothing lasts forever, and i think had -- think they had a very good run and contribute add lot to this debate. i think the call of your question is what happens to moderate democrats? >> yeah. >> you see this in a lot of the newer-elected democratic governors. i think that the more, the more recently-elected democrats, the new generation of democrats, if you will, are fundamentally not ideological, but they are entrepreneurial and pragmatic in their approach to governance. so i think some of the tug-of-war in the party's change which was, i think, completed in a large degree generationally, anyway, with bill clinton -- >> right. >> i think those sorts of tensions philosophically are not as prominent as they were and, therefore, what we're all looking for are the things that work to create jobs, to get our people back to work -- >> they were a victim of t

, even president bush during his first year because he got all the largess from the clinton administrationord budget surplus himself, but as soon as his policies got into effect, he changed that very quickly. in a matter of months, he turned a record surplus into a record deficit that we're fighting today. so in conclusion, madam president, any budget debate is going to be about numbers. that's the way it should be. but that's not the real priority, and those figures shouldn't blind us to the real story behind the numbers. our goal and our charge isn't to cut billions of dollars just to say we did. our task is to make our government more efficient, our economy healthier, and our future more secure. our challenge is to do so in a way that doesn't put our public safety at risk or break our roman to seniors. so we need to think about what we're cutting and making sure those cuts aren't counterproductive. we need to pay attention to the quality of these cuts, not just the quantity of these cuts. madam president, after all, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs, but no

what we really got with the obama administration was a clinton white house. with it, we got governmental thinking that is very much 20th- century, very much top-down. even though obama was known during the campaign to have used the internet very extensively, and they produced a fantastic open government directive, getting every single agency to actually comply is very, very hard. there are those who say it costs too much and those who are just lazy because of civil service rules and regulations. so, in vision, i give them an a. >> we have time for one more question. please state your name and title of. >> i am from media bistro. i have a question, taking on the role of the devil's advocate. what do you say to people who say i have nothing to hide? if the police confiscate my cell phone, let them have at it. how do you want people -- people who are not concerned about potential dangers? >> i think they are naive because they may not think today they are in any kind of danger but that is because they are living under the false impression that our free society w

bill was deputy white house counsel and deputy assistant to the president during the clinton administration and served as a list of general of the state of ohio. bill has published extensively on the first amendment, federal courts, and presidential powers, and is a leading expert on judicial experts. and of great importance to the american constitutional society community, with his great expertise, camaraderie, and guidance, he is a member of our board. we will hear first wemeghe -- we will hear first from mehgen, and carolyn, then bill, and then we will talk about the save our judiciary. >> let me thank you for by inviting me to be here. this is one of the more important topics. a lot of us have been watching what has been unfolding in the middle east and in egypt and this morning in jordan, it reminds me when i left for iran, and exactly what was going on back then. not really appreciating get back then, i really think that in my experience, having had the opportunity and the honor to work with in all three branches of government, i think that what we have in america, as far as the judic

>> i think the biggest failure was a complete turnaround from the end of the clinton administration to the beginning of the bush administration from invitation to bill clinton to visit pyongyang to george w. bush condemning them as part of the axis of evil. i think the biggest success was secretary, former secretary of defense negotiations on the north korea's missile issues, which was solved well enough so that general rock was invited to the united states, was hosted by vice president gore on the top floor of the state department. and it was proved that sustained negotiation by high level americans can work with north koreans. but we have not given them a high enough level participation and we have not given them be sustained length of negotiations to be effective in dealing with them. >> it has gotten to the point where older men, remember how, absolutely horrible world war ii was, are dying out. do you think we're getting too far away from world war ii so people who are running countries now, politicians of various countries, don't remember how awful that war was and they're gettin

he was a senior fellow in economic studies at brookings and began his career during the clinton administration as staff economist for the council of economic adviser and a assistant to the president. he was a senior adviser to the chief economist and senior vice president of the world bank. he worked as a visiting scholar at nyu, yale, columbia and a senior fellow at the center for budget and policy priorities at brookings. he has conducted research in a wide range of areas, including fiscal policy, tax policy, social security and monetary policy. he is published in a number of scholarly journals and popular publications. he edited to economic policy books. he earned his ph.d. in economics and a master's in government from harvard university and a master's from the london school of economics. in a time of enormous economic challenge when we just recently are coming out of what could have been a very serious global economic and then faced with the double challenge now of trying to craft an american response to the way the world is changing today and in a way they global challenges creating a co