get the clinton administration part 3. if you feel it was such a crisis and panic at that time as many say it was coming out of the calamitous bush administration into the tar, bringing in a team of rivals as obama talked about, all you had was larry summers and tim geithner. both of them have their control over the policies that led to the crisis. in my mind, that opened the door to the tea party. it opened the door to right-wing populism. people saw in this white house favoritism towards goldman sachs and the banks. the problem was the left populism has not emerged until now. for too long, many felt with the bomb in the white house that things would be sorted out. that is where movements become important. every administration in modern times has had to deal with insurgency's or movements on its left and right. reagan in many ways was a movement president. i say that with contempt for what he did in damage to this country. you need to see the pendulum has now swung. the tea party in many ways has lost a lot of this mojo be

administration? >> there were several years of surpluses, congressman. >> okay. so clinton reduced spending relative to gdp, he contracted our entitlement obligations, he turned in budget surpluses during his final years in office. bush, on the other hand, increased spending relative to gdp, expanded our entitlement obligations, and turned in major budget deficits. it seems to me that if increasing spending, increasing our entitlement obligations, and turning in major deficits toward the path of prosperity, we should be in the golden age of the american economy right now. let me ask you this question. how does this recovery tract with the reagan recovery? senator phil graham has estimated that if the economy tracked under the obama administration as it did under the reagan administration, as you recall reagan inherited double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, mile long lines around gas stations, interest rates at 21.5%. graham estimates that if the economy tracked today as it did under the reagan years, at this point of the administration, there should be 16 milli

during the clinton administration. the average over the clinton administration's eight years was 32.8% of the total income tax burden was paid. under bush it was 36.7% and then the top 1% paid 40.6% which was a larger share than the entire bottom 95% of the -- now, again, you're saying that's not quite enough. that's not a fair enough share. >> senator johnson, the root cause there is the tremendous wealth accumulation by a few. and the fact that our middle class has not -- has not benefited. >> we have a very progressive tax rate. that's why when we have recessions we have such a falloff. it's not fair enough that the top 1% paid here than 40% and paid more than the entire 95% bottom part of the income tax. >> i think it's fair that we are in a situation where we need deficit reduction and that reduction should come in part through revenue. the president is proposing $2.50 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue in fair share and that the wealthiest 2% should pay their fair share and we should have no tax cuts on those und

i was inexperienced speechwriter and worked in the clinton administration for years and i know richard. i'd been in meetings with him and i worked with him kind of on the fringes of some of what he had done but i never actually had to deliver a written work to him for judgment and so knowing that he was widely referred to as the bulldozer i approached this task with a fair amount of trepidation to skill myself and gave him the drafting of course i was prepared for the antics and fireworks and this is the worst thing i've ever written but i quickly discovered was that there was no better person in the world to read a speech and i really started realizing richard holbrooke thinks in speeches and he was my favorite person to have read a speech thereafter and i was very fortunate to be able to work with him not just on that particular speech on several subsequent ones while i was in the state department. derrick anderson and the with a lot of input, and i think this is really a colavita conception of this book between kati amstrup and samantha because after richard passed away last decembe

the last clinton administration -- not clip torn, bush administration appointee, jim glassman, who did an excellent job. and then we had an appointee by the obama administration, judith mchale. the seat is now essentially empty, there's a place holder in it, and tara sonenshine is awaiting confirmation. what happened with the beginning of the effort in the bush administration was not promising. charlotte bierce's effort amounted to as its highlight -- not the only thing they were doing because we continued our broadcasting and radio -- amounted to putting together a series of television ads showing people in the middle east that there are arab-americans who prosper here, who are happy here. this doctor would be shown, that pharmacist would be shown, this person, that teacher. and american lives in dearborn or southern california where they were not discriminated against, and where they were living fulfilling lives in the america, the land of opportunity. broadcasters around the middle east didn't want to show them because they were propaganda. also more important than that, when they w

number three burbles are where they were at the end of the clinton administration in. we are right back there. sometimes we have to be aware that they will be an act with that awareness to address themselves and if we do that you could have a greater acceptance marrow is the lack of the acceptance for those or not persuade double i will be delighted to take your questions and answer anything i can or rather hear your comments instead of answer questions. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] but american music? you mentioned bonanza and in dallas, a tv has been very important and american movies introduce the world in a way and do you have a comment on that? veba the hof of soleil the spreading of culture and the nervous way that is disruptive so low that sheaf not be happy with the new music that comes but they're not happy in particular because how desirable it is for the vast majority of the population. the american brand is the strongest brand in the world especially when it comes to mass culture. europeans will stand strongly on their claim to high culture but they

think the obama administration, as was the situation with the bush administration and the clinton administrationnd the senior bush administration have followed the right line on this. in particular, this administration over the last two years with regards to a round. i do not know of one individual who has had responsibility for intelligence in any serious way in the middle east or israel who has said an israeli strike in iran would be the best solution and we ought to look seriously at that. this is i think an example of an international community coming together with sanctions, tightening. that is only one part of this. inside iran, there is great uncertainty. their inflation is 20 or 30%. iran is not a monolithic power. ahmadinejad says things but make no sense, but you have a different power bases within iran. it is my opinion and the opinion of most people in this administration that a military strike in iran would be a terrible mistake because we do not know what the consequences would be a. we could unleash a terrible armageddon in the middle east. you look at all the options. i do not th

>> later in the show, economist laura tyson, a former clinton administration official. she will come in and put today's economic numbers in perspective. >>> turning back to nevada which holds it's g.o.p. caucus tomorrow, the latest poll from the las vegas review, mitt romney is leading with 45% and former house speaker newt gingrich is in second place with a distant 25% and in third place, rick santorum, 11%, he is in missouri and he is followed by texas congressman ron paul with 9%. on campaign trail today, gingrich slammed romney for not being conservative enough and despite being way hind in the polls, dinning rich said if mr. obama is the big food stamp then romney is the little food stamp. what does that mean anyway? all of the latest on the republican snipping in nevada we head to las vegas. political reporter joe gerassali. welcome inside the war room. >> i am there? >> i am grad to have you here i know you have been on the ground reporting. i know that you have been meeting with people, especially who have been affected by the foreclosure crisis. i am interested

. >> you have to remember during that time in the clinton administration was very tied into mexico'sealth. the casino industry was one of the industry there has. clinton administration made a multi billion dollar loan to help clear a financial crisis of their own. there is the potential there was an interest in building legitimate businesses in mexico. >> greta: thanks very much. >>> this is a fox news alert. there is breaking election news, rick santorum is the winner of the minnesota republican caucuses. santorum has won the missouri primary and we are awaiting results from the state of colorado's. we'll bring you more information as we have it. g.o.p. candidates are launching a scathing attack. this time it's not about the jobs or economy or bu what is it? start guessing. it's coming up. r science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three y we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love ience.

not met before, they are the negotiators that have been working on this going back to the clinton administrationhe people will be the same but we will try to read based on what they say whether they are in the continuity policies or the change of policy or maybe sq%ei+ all. >> how valuable is the carrot of food aid that the u.s. has? how desperately does north korea needed the assistance that the u.s. could give them? >> i have talked to a number of the groups that have gone through north korea and they clearly assess there is a need. there is clearly a need that lost there is clearly a need there. the children are -- there is clearly a need there. the children are starving. a bit of donor tilt has set in in the international community for giving north korea food for over a decade. -- there is a bit of donor guilt that has set in. >> there is the fear that north korea might outsource their weapons to another country. is this the same situation? >> this is still as much of a risk as it was a few years ago. there have been more things put zpóoñ#dwz~ resolutions that make it to proliferate. this is

progressive policy institute where will marshall worked, was created to develop ideas for the clinton administration. the reinventing government and were adopted by the administration. the clinton's success means that there was a public -- republican defeat. after the 1992 election, you have republicans saying what are we going to do now? a couple of new banks were dubbed -- think tanks were developed. how are we going to respond to the new clinton administration? prs used this cutting edge of technology of fax to distribute their memos around the capital. this was ground breaking stuff. one of the memos about the health care bill was credited with bucking up republican congressman to oppose the clinton health care proposal. eventually the proposal was defeated. in 2000, as we well know, the republicans won the white house again and the democrats were on the search for a new think tank. they came up with this idea of cap, designed to be a political organization focused on new media, bloggers, tweeters, ets. -- etc. cap has led many republicans to think about what are we going to respond. there is th

and then a few years after the clinton administration started, the center for american progress. he has been with the center throughout. he took a leave to be the head of president obama's transition team. then he came back to the center and was president before i elevated. his brother and sister-in-law are involved in progressive politics. they worked on the dukakis campaign in california. they also worked a fair amount in pennsylvania. and now they are a lobbyist -- and now is a lobbyist and has a thriving lobbyist company. >> has he been on the hill for a while? >> yes. in the early 1990's and in the arly 1980's he worked for senator on the agriculture committee. senator culver. and he worked for,. >> and he is now with you all? >> yes. >> who are some of the other fellows you have that we might recognize? >> matt miller is a senior. he writes on "the washington ."st quote they are all brilliant thinkers. we have a full roster. eric alderman is a senior with us. there it is much more liberal. we consider ourselves progressive. we are central on some issues and particularly lib

i just checked and we gave north korea during the clinton administration over $1 billion in fuel and food aid as well as money we spent building their light battewater reactor. and, of course, they violated their agreement they made. i only reason i bring that up is i hope if we start a dialogue with them we realize that their history is one of -- that they certainly can't trust. and even though kim jong-il is gone and we have a new leader, there i think it's extremely important that the state department get everything written in blood, so to speak, to make sure that we're not shaft at the end. recently dom donovan and the chairman of the joint chiefs went over to visit israel. and the tone of the reports that i received and, of course, all this isn't in writing. but the tone was that they were urging israel not to take any unilateral action as far as an attack on iran is concerned. and i know that recently they said that they certainly weren't going to involve so to speak the united states to give us some sim ambulance of separation from that. why doesn't the administration give com

culpability of the clinton administration and the agenda. but, in popular culture, you know, i think that you can get at a broader truth about history in a well-crafted story that you can kind of excuse some of the facts that maybe were truncated and poetic license. kind of quickly, you know, i thought oliver stone did a good job with nixon. i think that had a poet ick truth about nixon. i think that stands up. i think "jfk" was a travesty. they had a equal number of mistakes. >> michael, you i read quoted that howard zen's history of the united states represents a simplicity propaganda of american history. which startled me. not that i disagree. i was startled to see it. >> i have taken some flack for that from my left. quite a lot, actually. we will begin another discussion about a different kind of history. he was not really a journalist. >> and also not an historian? >> he was an historian who was trying or teaching a version of history to my mind was simplicity, but also romantic in a way which, i think, verges on almost falsehood. he u

asks t wealthy americans to go back to paying that tax rate that was in force during the clinton administration. if they take a lopsided approach and further slash invests in education, and science and research and infrastructure and they do slash the social safety net in that they cut $700 billion from medicaid that goes to help people like the vulnerable seniors in nursing homes and they do ask seniors on medicare to carry the entire risk of rising health care costs. that is their choice. but that is not a balanced approach. and i think what we see here in the president's budget is a responsible approach that takes that balanced approach to dealing with a very serious problem. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you for the opportunity. >> my pleasure. mr. zients, the table is yours. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee. thanks for having me here today to present the 2013 budget. as the chairman said before i joined omb three years ago and i feel i'm in a good position today to talk about the president's budget. but before that, i spent thmore than 20 years in the pr

the big jump and dramatic change, however, has come in the last decade during the bush and clinton administrations, when, as i mentioned, for the first time in history, intrasession recess appointments had exceeded intercession appointments by a 5-1 ratio. if the olc opinion is accepted and practiced and as dogma, there is nothing left to the senate's confirmation authority. remarkably, and tellingly, i believe, the olc opinion asydously avoids any decision whatsoever or discussion of the appointments clause itself. all of the framers debates over the general power of appointment. those debates, however, were heated, contentious and revelatory of their awareness of the importance of their decision as to how and where they were going to invest, control over the appointing power. the recess clause, however, on the other hand, was adopted by a constitutional convention without debate, which strongly suggests that the framers thought that the clause would not affect the meticulously developed scheme of checks and balances of the general appointments process, which requires action by both the president

what i could say that was different and i remembered i had some of the first meetings in the clinton administration on commercializing the internet. we thought it would be used for e commerce, we did not expect a premier vehicle for attack. we thought if we made tools and information available, if we freed up encryption, people would voluntarily secuprotect themselves. we were wrong. we made the same mistakes when it came to infrastructure protection. the cyber protection varies and usually it's not enough. there's a limit on the governments and companies to cooperate and share information, in any case we need a coordinated defense. we finally did not expect to face world class opponents as you heard from some of the ea y earlier testimony, even mid-range with access to world class tools. we under estimated threats and legal obstacles and i would like to point out that congress roger's bill would be useful if we could get it passed in removing some of the legal obstacles that hamper ourability to provide an effective defense. the big telecom companies are pretty good at securing themselves but the

but are negotiators who have been working on this on the north korea side going back to the clinton administrationreally. so the people will be the same but we'll tried to read based on what they say and what positions they take whether there is a continuity policy under this new leader, a change of policy, or maybe there's just no instructions at all for all we know. >> how valuable is the stick -- is the carrot of food aid for the u.s. how desperately does north korea need the kind of assistance the u.s. might be able to give them? >> i've talked to a number of n.g.o. groups and they clearly assess there's a need. it's not as bad as the mid 1990's when they went through a famine but there's clearly a need there. the children are starving, mothers are starving. the north koreans know this and want the food assistance. and there's really nobody else giving it to them now because a bit of donor fatigue has set in from the international community from giving north korea food for well over a decade now. they clearly need the food and the obama administration is leveling that to make sure they can mak

in public service serving with bill clinton and serving as secretary of the cabinet of the clinton administration. currently, he's a partner in the inte93 law firm bingham mccutcheon but his interests go beyond the legal field. he is public spirited serving on boards as diverse as the national fish and wildlife foundation, the ford foundation, the supreme court historical society, and the ethics advisory committee of the u.s. olympic committee among many others. "newsweek" magazine named him one of the 100 people to watch in the new century. and we have the opportunity today to hear him share his advice on the legal issues surrounding the eisenhower years and the men who shaped them. following mr. marshall, we have dr. charles sanders, an associate professor at my alma mater kansas state university. dr. sanders received his undergraduate degree from louisiana state university, a masters in education from north georgia college, another master's degree from the united states naval war college, and a ph.d. from kansas state, where he has been teaching since 2001. his research is centered on military

failur, we propose to l the bush tax cuts for the top 2% of ere they were at the end of the clinton administration, the combined of the proposals would generate the roughly 1% of gdp and revenue. a better way to do that is through tax reform. that would lower rates and broaden the base. and if you meet the other tests we have laid out in the president's principals you could generate a reasonable amount of revenue and allow a fair and balanced deficit plan and have something better for economic growth, you can do it either two ways but now we have a problem because we do not have this muc debate now, we need to start doing the foundation laying. >> one of the sort of frame works that we all seem to have bought in to around here is that the notion that at the end of this year, we ought to have the payroll tax go back to where it used to be, 6.2%. it seems to me that if we are concerned about reforming the tax code, it would make a lot of sense to find a way to continue in the future, in future years with a lower payroll tax as an incentive for more people to be hired in jobs and i know we have ourse

when we came in, russia was very bad, invade in '08, russians were upset about nato, clinton administration, upset, wide variety of -- very upset with the withdrawal, even if it was legally fine. and part of the obama approach has been to improve relations with russia, not to just be a good guy and get along better but for very concrete objectives. because on the nuclear side, the american position under obama is that the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other country and their use by terrorists, nuclear terrorism is now, in fact, the top threat, top security threat to the united states. it's not the threat of 3,000 entry vehicle exchange with the russians or doing this with the chinese, it's the fact nuclear weapons will be acquired by the united states, more hands with nuclear weapons likelihood they will be used in south asia or middle east or east asia or that they will be stolen, obtained in some way by nongovernment groups, some of whom have, as we saw through 9/11, willingness to die in support of their goals. so the obama objective has been to bring the russians and chinese more

the united states has had what we call a strong dollar policy since the clinton administration where that certainly boosts the value of the consumers of the united states. it makes it better for you when you are trying to get a hotel room in paris or something like that because there is a favorable exchange rate. it actually hurts our manufacturers. unless we have a dollar that is valued in a real way, we will be at a slight disadvantage. we have seen a dollar decline against a basket of currencies, slightly. that obviously improves the fortunes of the united states. we have seen administrations going back to the nixon administration and the gold standard and getting the u.s. oft gold standard and the plaza accords intervening to make the dollar more competitive. they have done it in a way where the dollar can still be traded on the open market. it is not the classic definition which is what china does. they are not supposed to do that under their obligations to the international monetary fund. we have not held them to account yet. >> one last call from laurel, maryland. hi, richard.

you're not asking them to go back to paying the same rates as they were during the clinton administration when the economy was booming. then you got to find it somewhere else. and what that budget did is took $700 billion out of medicaid. mr. chairman, it replaces the rising cost of health care costs on seniors through a plan that ends the medicare guarantee. and it slashes important invest ams in infrastructure, education, science and research. so those are the choices we have. and, mr. secretary, i know you're going to elaborate on the plan that you have. i think it's a good plan. it's a responsible plan. and it's a balanced plan. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're going to agree to disagree. >> chairman ryan, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the chance to talk to you about these important questions. i'm going to talk about four things just briefly about the economy and the challenges we face there. then a bit on the near term imperatives on growths and jobs. i'll lay out the broad element of our strategy and then talk about the contrast between where

bush inherited an administration from the clinton administration. we have gone from budget surpluses to deficits. in fact, this past year, a budget shortfall of $1.3 trillion. how did we get to this point? according to the "new york times" the tax cuts and war spending and recession and growing government programs all contributed to the nation's debt and deficit now reaching $15.5 trillion. in 2009, shortly after being sworn into the office of president, barack obama speaking to the joint session of congress with this pledge. >> and yesterday, i held a fiscal summit where i pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. my administration is going line-by-line to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. it is a process that will take time. we already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. [ applause ] >> that was february of 2009 as the president promised to cut the deficit in half. one note, by the way, tomorrow, we'll have a conversation with alan simpson. he is the chairman of the commission of fisca

wealthiest of americans to go back to paying the same top rate that they were paying during the clinton administration, a time when the economy was booming. and that balance is what our republican colleagues have objected to. this is a question of choices. if last year's republican budget is a sign of where we'll head this year, they take a lopsided approach, further slashing investments in education, in science and research and infrastructure, which are critical drivers of the economy. and they do slash the social safety net in that they cut $700 billion from medicaid that helps people like the vel nurable seniors in nursing homes, and they ask seniors on medicare to carry the entire risk of rising health care costs. and that's their choice. but that's not a balanced approach. i think what we see here in the president's budget is a responsible approach that takes that balanced approach to tealing with a very serious problem. and with that, mr. chairman, i thank you for the opportunity. >> my pleasure. mr. zinst, the table is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the committ

this got up to the level of -- the top level of the clinton -- i guess it was the clinton administration. and there is a time -- i think it's in, like, 2025, this has to happen or idaho will no longer be obligated to receive this waste. so this is -- this has implications. the fact that we're just letting this thing go on and on and on, i think, is a big mistake. and i was here. i voted for this to go -- to do it at yucca mountain, and i think that's the law of the land. it hasn't been changed. i think you're going to wind up -- i can't believe the courts are going to sustain your position. so you better start looking at these alternative -- you better start figuring out how you're going to get yucca mountain moving forward. you just can't declare something at the executive branch that's no longer the law. you have to come to congress and get the law changed. that hasn't happened. >> well, that was another very important recommendation by the commission, that it really is up to congress if congress wants to change the law, and we would be willing to work with congress to do that. and we

the other points i'd like to make in 1993 during the clinton administration the justice department filed a legal brief in court before the district of columbia that unless a recess lasted three days a president could not make an appointment more than three days. the third point i'd make, then solicitor general elena kagan acknowledged before the supreme court the senate may act to foreclose the president's recess power by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. presidents have not in recent decades made recess appointments during intrasession recesses lasting fewer than three days. so there is most recent opinions and precedents set by those who would likely support philosophies of this president who acknowledged what this president is doing is wrong." to speak to what the gentleman from virginia mentioned, this should be about appropriate powers of the executive branch. it should not be about republican or democratic philosophies. it should be about the country and what is good for the country. i believe all of us in the legislative body as w

necessaritors court these big donors, call them pejoratively donor maintenance something that the clinton administration built a huge base of some of these big donors who were more than willing to write seven and sometimes eight-figure checks in the case of billionaire financer george sorosors insurance magnate peter lewis who wrote these huge checks in 2004 to the predecessor of super pac 527 groups that spent $200 million trying to defeat george bush and elect john kerry as president. well, that unsuccessful experiment and massive outside spending also left something of a bad taste in many democratic large democratic donors' mouths. so you add to that the discouragement that they received from president obama and his surrogates from giving. they have rather a lot of work to do to get these folks off the sidelines and writing those same types of checks to these super pacs. >> ken vogel, the timing of all of this because as you point out and we heard last week from chuck schumer, he wants to hold hearings because he claims republicans certainly know what's going on between campaign committees and the su

folks at the very top, top 2%, to go back to the same tax rates they were paying during the clinton administration, a period of time where we saw very rapid job growth. and so the president takes a balanced approach. now, i heard our republican colleagues today bashing the president's budget i'm looking forward to seeing theirs because if theirs this year looks like theirs last year, here's how you they deal with the deficit. they gut our investments in education, in our kids' preparedness for school thanks gut our investment in science and research and the drivers of innovation, and they gut our investment in infrastructure, our roads, bridges, highways. they gut all that. what else do they do? they totally shred the social safety net. they just wipe it out. they cut medicaid by one-third, over $70 billion. these are funds that help vulnerable seniors in nursing homes and many others. they, of course, end the medicare guarantee. they say to seniors, you know what? we're projecting rising health care costs. you're on your own. you have to eat them yourself. and so the question is not whether we re

is 18.2%. >> uh-huh. >> and do you have on hand what federal revenues averaged under the clinton administration as a share? >> that was shown earlier. i think right around 20%. >> 19%. so we have 19% under president clinton. 18.2% under president reagan and now 15.4% under president obama. that's not the picture some of my colleagues are painting here. i've heard my republican colleagues commenting this week that with this budget, the president will increase spending over the course of 11 years by 62%. do we know how much president reagan's increase in spending was over his eight years in office? >> that was higher. i actually do have that data with me if my team can just hand it over. i'm sorry. let me follow up and get you those specifics. >> my information is 69%. >> that sounds correct. >> how much did president george bush increase spending for his eight years in office? >> i believe even higher, but it sounds like you have the data in front of you. >> my information is 89. >> yes. >> my point is, for what has been deemed a tax and spend presidency it seems to me that president obama is cu

>> guest: i focused principally on europe, and you may recall that the first term of the clinton administration was bosnia, the balkans was coming undone. so i basically did everything but the balkans because anyone who touched the balkans disappeared into a black hole. so i spent a lot of time worrying about the european union, trade relation, the enlargement of nato and dealing with the emergence of central and eastern europe from the soviet bloc, trying to make sure that that transition went well. >> host: and this is the coffer of charles kupchan's new book, "no one's world: the west, the rising rest and the coming global turn," published by oxford. thank you, professor kupchan. >> guest: thank you very much. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org, or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> host: well, a former state legislator who's spent a lot of time in the news in the 2010 election cycle was sharron angle of nevada. she has a book out, and it's called right angle: one woman's journey to reclaim the constitution. sen