>> the recent improvement in the economy?it is partly the fact that we had this very sharp decline in the latter part of last year related to the financial crisis. that caused the big buildup of inventories. very importantly, as i discussed earlier, we seem to have gotten -- done a -- achieved a good deal of progress in stabilizing financial system. that has helped restore confidence. final demand is beginning to stabilize. we still had a very bad first quarter and we may yet have a negative second quarter because of the need to work down those inventories. but because the financial markets are doing better, because there is more confidence in the economy, in the financial system, as those inventories work down, we should begin to see a modest increase in growth. i would put the internal dynamics of the economy, in terms of inconvenient toirz and so on, as being part of it. i also would like to give credit to actions taken by the treasury, the fed, the fdic and the congress to help stabilize the financial system. >> thank you

one of the great strengths of our economy is that our economy is so flexible. will the of this earlier that many other countries will because we adjust quickly. >> you alluded to this idea that there is a silver lining associated with this. is there a several mining and that american consumers have to get back to some older values? >> you do not won any family to go through this to learn the basic lessons of learned -- of living within your means. i think it is a healthy process. if we are careful in making sure that as the fix the crisis, we are laying the foundation for a more productive economy. we will have a more stable a sustainable growth in the future. that is what the president is trying to do. we want to make sure we are making investments that will improve energy efficiency and improve infrastructure so that the basic foundation of the economy is more stable in the future. these are healthy adjustment in behavior. i think people will be focused more on what they do than what they earn. i think that is the healthy thing. >> you mentioned health care a

economy. peter morrissey \ ici is an ecos professor. how was the economy doing? guest: it is in serious conditions but the statements of the obama administration. it will take a long time to clean up the mess he inherited. not all the issues that got us into this mess have been adequately addressed. i expected the american economy to grow at a sub standard level for the next few years. we will pull out, but we will not be growing at our potential. we will be growing at 2.5% as opposed to 3.5%. that is significant. the labor force grows at a percentage point a year. productivity rose at 2% each year. if we do not grow at 3% a year, unemployment goes up. we are facing a long time of high unemployment in the united states. we have not corrected the fundamental structural problems because in this mess. the banking system is not being adequately addressed. the obama bank regulation program says either we continue as we did or take this package that the treasury's separate -- treasury secretary has come up with. he is destroying one agency in creating two new ones. it

the european union's economy is larger than our economy and they have more people than we do. now, i don't think that they are ready to replace the united states as the global superpower, either economically or in foreign policy or military terms. and part because, as we discussed, they lack a common fiscal policy. they cannot act as one point when it requires spending. and until you have the power, it seems to me, you cannot really play a leadership role in the world with the united states does. host:, nations in the eu and common people? guest: over 400 million people, 27 nations. but the original number was 7, i believe. 1957. there was discussion about growing the european union. some of the balkan states will probably be joining sometime soon. huge controversy in europe, of course, about whether they should admit turkey. turkey would like to join and in europe would not like them to join. host: any advantage to allow turkey? guest: i think the economic advantage in europe, and a sense it would increase competitiveness within the european union. very active, aggressive, co

thank you for all of your calls and comments on the economy. when we come back, the federal reserve board meeting in washington today and tomorrow. what is next for fed policy? the perspective from john taylor. and in the next hour, senator john mccain and linda douglass from the white house and finally bob schieffer from cbs news all ahead this tuesday morning, june 23. "washington journal" continues. >> july 4 weekend on "book tv." discover unfamiliar side of the nation's first president as we are live from george washington's mount vernon estate historian and author on the ascent of george washington. join our three-hour conversation sunday, july 5, live on "in debt." >> how c-span funded? >> through donations? >> i think a little bit from the federal government. >> stuff like that. >> may be from sponsors? >> it might get some government funding. >> viewers? >> how c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative -- no government mandate, no government money. >> there's

the economy. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the economy. i am a bit pessimistic about that. it just does not look like things are shaping any here in clinton. we are not getting anywhere with jobs. we don't see any new jobs coming and every new month it looks like the job market is just going away. so i would hope that something will be coming down the pike, particularly for georgia, pretty soon. but i am just not feeling good with the unemployment. host: what do you do right now? caller: well, i'm unemployed -- well, i retired, but still trying to find a part-time job. but i do have three children that i am really looking out for. host: before you got laid off, what did you do? caller: i worked for the government. host: thank you for the call. of the economy and whether not you think it is heading in the right direction. the headlines this morning indicating mixed signals for the economy. and in terms of the poll ratings, the story from inside politico. eroding confidence in president barack obama's handling of the economy and ability to c

really of boom and bust economy. and at one point been unemployed rate of 33%. in 1990, they had a plight to get rid of the general. they pull back immediately from this model. what we have seen in chile for the last almost 20 years now is a system based on manufacture, producing. is not perfect. they still have any quality. they start issues but essentially while the rest of the world were cutting money for education, they were deregulating the labor laws. chile was doing the exact opposite. they doubled the money they spent on education between 1990 and 2004, i think. deregulate the labor. they went back and regulated labor markets more than ever. at least in 2004, i think it's still true, the highest minimum wage in south america. they spent more money on transfer of technology, how they created the salmon industry. the government invested money to the salmon farming research and they employed 100,000 people. so this is the point i'm trying to make which is that, you know, you -- globalization is not inevitable. w

economy. he is also author of the chicago school which is a wonderful book explaining how things work in hyde park and watched the chicago school of economics is really all about. we have known each other for years and am proud to say i have read both of his book's pretty carefully and i reviewed this one favorably for the to do not too long ago. he is a special guy coming he is a ph.d. in economics who then became a journalist who then became a businessman and he went into work for a couple of very large companies in belgium or he is from and went back into journalism review's editor of trends magazine which is dutch language but their equivalent of business week and very timely and important magazine. then he got the entrepreneurial bug and started his own think tank, we would all love to do that and he managed to by giving corporations to give him the money without obligating him to support their point of view or to work on their behalf so he's an independent thinker and he's got a good bus

economy. >> the banks are getting healthier. 10 of them want to return their federal money. why cannot lending at the level they had hoped if they are healthier? >> there is more credit available today than it would happen in the absence of this capital. a dollar of capital is about $8- $12 of lending capacity. if you had a dollar short of capital, he would have a dramatically less capital in the system. but remember, this is a crisis borne in part of the fact that particularly households around the world took on too much debt. our economy rose to extraordinarily high levels and we're having a recession that is deeper in part because people are having to go back to living within their means and they will have to pay down their debt. that's a healthy process. but it means you'll see less demand for credit flowing and demand falling as people live within their means and are less vulnerable in the future. that's a healthy process, but it means you will see a slower recovery than normal. >> elizab

we have an economy facing enormous challenges. because of the magnitude of the pressures by this crisis, because it they are trying to move quickly wald the crisis is still ahead in people's minds, we do not want the crisis to set in. we're trying to move very quickly. >> i am trying to get you to make some news. what are you going to get rid of in this plan? are you going to get rid of the office of supervision? >> this is a challenge for you. the president is speaking on wednesday and testifying on thursday. i do not want to get ahead of the president. i am trying to focus on the course objectives. we want a system that is more stable and resilient, protect consumers and investors better, better tools for managing future crises. we can do better than that. our system is a great strength for the american economy. it does a great judge. we need to do a better job of making things more stable. >> but switch subjects. the toxic assets buying program, is that debt? >> not at all. when the president came in, we had a financial system

this is on the economy and whether or not you think the economy is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction. in terms of the poll raiting, eroding confidence in prison obama's ability to control spending has caused his -- eroding confidence in president obama's ability to control spending. this is a sign of political weakness just as he needs most leverage on capitol hill, but his approval ratings remain comfortably high by historical standards. richard is joining us from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. it is interesting to me that when our economy became involved in this crisis the words we were all hearing was 5% of people are unemployed. instead of saying one -- instead of saying 95% of the people are working for a living. we needed to save, we did not need to spend money and build things. or ignore the people who had jobs. i have heard people on c-span say i know a lot of my people in detroit used to be working and now nobody is working. the reason nobody is working is the businesses are losing money. they are losing money because the 95% are terrified and

for other parts of the economy, like the t.a.r.p. investment in banks, or some of the longer term holdings of the fed, it may take a few more years. but i would say that four or five years from now i would hope that we would be pretty much as a government -- will be pretty much out of the financial markets and that things will be operating on a more normal basis. >>

he said after president reagan broke inflation and we got the economy on a soundtrack, the economy grew, mr. president, about 3% a year. and inflation was about 2%. he said, what i'm worried about is, what we're going to see in the next ten years is inflation about 3% and growth about 2%. that's not good. you want your growth to exceed the inflation rate, and so i don't know what'll happen. i can't predict it. we're going to have less money to spend on the things we need because we're going to have to be paying out a huge amount of known interest. those are real concerns. this matter is not going away. i believe the american people are becoming more and more attuned to these matters. that's what the tea parties were about and other things, a sort of spontaneous reaction by the american people saying, what are you guys doing up there? surely you know this isn't the way to handle america's business. so i would just say, i'm going to continue to report on things that are developing. surely we'll begin to see shom improvement in unemployment rate and maybe some economic growth in the weeks

all these things that have driven this economy and made it the envy of the world. i just don't think that we want to go down a path or stay down a path that gets us deeper and deeper into ownership of the private economy. so, mr. president, i'm going to be in the next day here, introducing a piece of legislation which we will be introducing and filing tomorrow which addresses this issue and which provides an exit strategy for the government, for the federal government for the taxpayers to begin to get out of all these ownership interests that they have in the american economy. and i'll be -- have the opportunity to talk here on the floor more about that at a later time. but i wanted to just this afternoon, as we begin the debate and which is sort of -- which has sort of captured this city and the congress and the administration, and i think very soon will engage the american public over health care reform and the new taxes, the trillions of dollars of new revenues that are going to be necessary to finance the proposal that the new administration has for health care

i am optimistic about the economy. i know that i am young and don't have many responsibilities, but it is frustrating. host: good morning. caller: i'm a first-time caller. host: glad to have you been caller: obama has only been in office for little over five months. everybody wants him to try to do something it took bush eight years to mess up. now all those people complaining now, why were they complain when bush sent those jobs overseas? and that the way things are going with unemployment is that bush administration put those things in effect. they're just happening now because there's no way that obama could be blamed for losing as many jobs as have been lost in five months. host: we have talked about the climate a little. here's the from page of the times this morning. obama opposes trade sanctions and a kind of bill. the effort shift to senate after the house victory. the right that the president acknowledges initial targets for reducing emissions of up by the house were quite modest and probably not satisfied to

the probability that the economy is close to turning his different than it was a few months ago. growth will likely be bought -- positive in the second half. we will decide when the boldness tense. over time as the economy moves to sustainable growth, the fed will return to its traditional policies of setting the funding rate and will reduce the balance sheet in an orderly way. how will they do this, partly on their own. many of the liquidity programs provide short-term loans. these will mature quickly, and the balance sheet will be shrinking. this is designed to be unattractive during normal times, and most attractive to the people who need them during unusual times. as the ceased to be useful, they will no longer be used. some programs are being used less. and we will see this continue. a significant portion of the balance sheet may not be shrinking at the important rate -- and we need tools to be used solely monetary policy can be free calibrated. we can be as creative on the way out as we were on the way in. we can be creative with liabilities the way that we have been with t

it is also about building our economy. this bill is expected to bring in 1.6 million new international visitors each year, and since international visitors, as i've noted, spend an average of $4,500 per person while they're here, this is a huge boost to our economy. that money from overseas coming into our economy, into our towns and cities, into our small businesses, that's new money. if they're not going to come and spend it here, they're going to go to one of these other crssments they're going to go to the bahamas, they're going to go to australia, they're going to go to south africa. that's new money coming into our country. the u.s. travel association estimates that this bill will create 40,000 new jobs and economists at oxford economics expect the bill to generate $4 billion in new spending and $321 million in tax revenue. just as important as how much it will generate is how much it will cost, which is zero for american taxpayers. this bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer. it will be paid for by a combination of p

the economy is finally showing some signs of stabilizing, and that's encouraging. but despite these short-term glimmers of hope, i've become more concerned about the longer-term implications of our economic policies. on the fiscal side, the treasury is issuing record amounts of debt, over $2 trillion this year alone to support record government spending and record deficits. meanwhile the federal reserve has injected an enormous amount of monetary stimulus into the economy and has even started purchasing longer-term treasury bonds in an attempt to lower borrowing costs and further ease financial conditions. this can be a dangerous policy mix. the treasury is issuing debt and the central bank is buying it. it gives the alarming impression that the u.s. one day might begin to meet its financial obligations by simply printing money d we all know what happens to a country that chooses to monetary its debt. it gets runaway inflation and a gradual erosion of workers' paychecks and family savings. there's an increased discussion in the financial press about the negative co

it gets the economy moving again. instead of communities having to come to washington looking for money, the money gets restocked. simply because of the payment of the taxes. vote for h.r. 2751. this is a real stimulus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. sutton: thank youing madam speaker. at this time, it's my honor to yield to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. kildee: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2751, the consumer assistance to recycle and save act. this bill will provide incentives for the purchase of new, more efficient vehicles. helping to revitalize our auto industry, preserve jobs, and clean up our environment. the need for this bill could not be greater. as we all know too well, our domestic industry has been suffering a prolonged downturn and our families are

we see the capacity for innovation to make our economy stronger and for innovation to exploit our economy's weaknesses. we are called upon to put in place those reforms that allow our best qualities to flourish while keeping those worst traits in check. we are called upon to recognize the free market as the most powerful generative force for our prosperity. it is not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions. this is a difficult time for our nation. from this time of challenge, we will pass those ideals and values that have allowed us to lead the global economy and will allow us to lead once again. we will sell more americans leave -- live their own dreams. these reforms are some important for this reason. i look forward to working with leaders of congress and all of you to see these proposals put to work so we can overcome this crisis and build a lasting foundation for prosperity. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [applause] >> reaction to the president's announcement on fina

>> back on the economy, mr. president, people are criticizing thr recovery plan, specifically, there are reports in the "washington post" that say that the african-american unemployment rate will go to 20% by the end of this year and you had your chairman of economic advisers say the target may come next year if nothing changes. why not target intervention now? >> first of all, we know that the african-american unemployment rate and latino unemployment rate are consistently higher than the national average. and so if the economy as a whole is doing poorly, then you know that the african-american community is going to be doing poorly and will be hit even harder. and the best thing that i can do for the african-american community or latino community, asian community, whatever community, is to get the economy as a whole moving. hold on one second. let me answer your question. if i don't do that, then i'm not going to be able to help anybody. that's priority number one. it is true that in certain inner city communit

economy is a huge economy, the biggest in the world and you have the reserve currency. at lot of people are almost fighting to have dollars and their central banks so as long as the rest of the world believes that the people of parade this money, the federal reserve keep their heads, there is trust in the dollar and you can have that kind of relationship between amounts of dollars moving around in your economy and not getting into a bankruptcy situation. when the trust falls to the ground i will have a problem and you have a run on the dollar which will diminish the value enormously at that point in time. like for example in the '50s and '60s. >> geithner has said and when he was a member of the new york fed didn't have any real power to do certain things that would have favored the financial crisis. and lately elias' spencer has been saying that the fed does have a lot of power but it did not have the political will to exercise it and now there have been all these reports about the fierce lobbying effort that the banks and financial institutions are exerting on our pol

caller: yes, and not very optimistic about the economy. with this stimulus package that the democrats pretty much forced down our throat and did not allow anyone to read before they passed it >> we will leave this morning's "washington journal" to go to the white house briefing which is just beginning, live, on c- span. [laughter] >> re, sometimes those things that happen in bubble boxes come out of my mouth. >> and a question -- michael jackson from friday to today and then the letter over the weekend -- >> i do not understand. >> friday, when you're at the podium, you told us he was anticipating the question about michael jackson. >> i was surprised that nobody asked one. i do not think you were there friday. >> i was. >> with chancellor markell? -- merkel? >> no. >> i did not expect you to ask a question because you were not there. >> anyway, then your statement -- your stigman use said -- you said you did not lead us into believing -- and sunday we find out there is a letter. all the information from friday and saturday, the question w

we want their economies to prosper.ave people there hundreds of millions in shocking party, but we don't want them to have to leave their villages, and leave their communities, leave their language group and proud themselves into megacities to make crapper us to buy and wal-mart. to get above a dollar a day. we think that in china and in india they should be able to have local sustainable economic development powered by clean energy where they can grow and prosper and we want to have the same thing in america. in the americas we want to not just the united states but all both north and south america for people to be able to have sustainable communities because we have responsibility to that act latin american doesn't have the kind of economy that is human wealth and natural wealth would indicate. it is selling some way for to put start -- smart billion beautiful people in america or a lot of minerals and resources so the reason people want to come here is because we have not let those economies prosper in here and and w

there are efforts suggesting the economy may bottom out in coming months. financial market conditions have improved. some measures of manic factoring activity have stabilized, and some data related to housing construction are less negative. however, measures to prevent foreclosures are not working well, and redefault rates are very high, with more loan-loss is to come. business investment has collapsed, and the commercial real estate continues to be under stress. consumer spending is weak. exports are falling, as many of our major trading partners are also experiencing recession. i continue to be concerned about the administration's unrealistic economic assumptions which were the basis for the president's budget proposal. "the economist" magazine called these assumptions dangerous because they understate the true cost of the administration's deficit spending and debt accumulation. unfortunately, according to the congressional budget office, administration policies will triple the national debt to a level of 17.3 trillion dollars by 2019. this avalanche of g

if i could just turn to the economy more generally. when you are talking about the economic policy, you are talking about keeping unemployment below 8%. yet last week you acknowledge that unemployment is likely to reach double digits at 10%. do you think you we need a second stimulus package? >> not yet because i think it's important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first in this is. i think it's fair to say, keep in mind the stennis package was the first thing we did. and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. at that point nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like if you recall, it was only significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy tanked. and so it's not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go. i think it's pretty clear now that an employer will end up going over 10%. if you just look at the pattern. because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and star

this is going to hurt the economy. well, here we are several years down the road, this has made both of our economies stronger. isn't this a great success story in new mexico? mr. heinrich: absolutely. and always better to be the leader that's creating jobs than the state or country that's following and watching those jobs go someplace else. mr. connelly: i might add to the point you're making, mr. polis. in my state of virginia, for example, we have a gubernatorial election going on now and one of the candidates has talked about, drill now, right off the shore of virginia. maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't. but the wind power potential off the shore of virginia dwarfs any he estimates of what possible oil and gas reserves there might be offshore. and could create jobs and could actually make virginia an enormous net exporter to the northeast and the midatlantic of a renewable source of energy forever. mr. polis: colorado's in this boat and new mexico, too, we are blessed with some natural resources, with natura

economy.just last friday, the house of representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation that will finally open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, make a clean energy a profitable kind of energy. thanks to the members of congress, this bill will create new businesses, new industries and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on american people. in the months to come, the senate will take up its version of the energy bill. i am confident that they also will choose to move this country forward. we have gotten a lot done on the energy -- on energy in the last six months. even as we are changing the ways of using energy, we are also changing the ways that we use energy. one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways of making our economy stronger and clearer is to make our economy more energy efficient. that is something that secretary chu is working on every single day. we know the benefits. in the late 1970's, the state of ca

economy more energy efficient. that is something that secretary chu is working every single day to work through. we know the benefits. in the late 1970's the state of california enacted tougher energy efficiency policies. over the next three tech aids, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. and today, californians consume 40% less energy per person than the national average, which over time has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. think about that. california, producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy yoong at a much lower level than the rest of the country. that is why we took significance steps in the recovery ack to invest in energy efficiency measures, for modernizing federal buildings, for helping american families make upgrades to their homes, steps that will safe money. that is why i have asked the secretary to lead a new effort at the department of energy focusing on more efficiency standa

signaling expectations that the global economy may just had bottomed out. i'm encouraged by the marginal improvements like consumer confidence but even this good sign is accompanied by a sobering counterpoint increased consumer spending that yet to translate by actual spending of consumers of businesses or businesses rather, families are saving and i don't blame them. they see that more than 1 in 4 unemployed workers has been unemployed for over six months. and that the median duration of unemployment is now 14.9 weeks, a record high since the series started in 1967. the cumulative effects of the recession seven conservative months of loss totaling 6 million jobs have left these ordinary, very hard-working americans in on precarious footing. when the person is laid off the person experiences, quote, income shock. this is a vast understatement. now unemployed families must work through any savings they have accrued to pay bills and continue to feed their children. and then as home values fall and mortgages go unpaid, they're suddenly looking for foreclosure

taxpayers and of course contribute to the economy. similarly advanced battery research is desperately needed to essentially bring the solar industry in the united states to that next step. what we lack in solar right now is the ability to really store the sun. and if we could have a breakthrough, again it's not rocket science, if we could have a breakthrough in advanced research so we could extend storage capacity so on sunny days we could store that energy on overcast days, nuclear weapons climates that aren't as warm as say the southwest where our friend, mr. heinrich, comes from in new mexico, we could absolutely transform the solar industry and make it a practical, either slement or alternative, for households and business all across the united states. what could that do in terms of job creation and reviving the manufacturing sector of the united states? an almost endless return on a very wise investment of dollars. mr. tonko: if i might, to the comments -- two of the comments made by representative connolly of virginia, i thank h

just as you will ask me if the economy has bottomed out, right? if you are asking me if in december you can make all the accurate projections in terms of what the numbers are going to look like in february without having the data from january, i would say that is pretty hard to do. >> your taking questions from us and keep from critics about the jobs that are being created. there was a new point about the president's numbers on the economy that are slipping. i think the disapproval rating on the economy has gone up 12 points since february of. do think there is a danger of a credibility deficit on the issue of economy? >> we're focused on the implementation of the recovery plan. we're not focused on the latest polling. the >> can you responded to the republicans who say we should take the stimulus money and not spend it if the government is starting to show signs of progress? >> is that is what they're saying? they think we're showing signs of progress? >> they think recovery is happening and that we're coming out of the worst of things as the pre

can you see any argument that this would boost the economy? guest: 1 of the things they say, christine roemer, she said it would increase the labour force and productivity if everybody had health care. it is hard to imagine that we will get a lot more out of it. let's talk about the 45 million. if you look at the 45 million and you break it down, there are a lot of wealthy people in there. they just used to pay. there is a lot of young people opt out of the system. it doesn't affect how they participate in the economy. there are a lot of undocumented immigrants. that is an important public policy question. are we giving them health insurance cards even though they are on document? -- undocumented. i think it will come down on the side of the fact we have a democratic congress. if you get down to who is uncovered, it is about 10 million people. i don't know how spending two trillion dollars to ensure 10 million people will make the u.s. economy any more effective. the u.s. health-care system is broken. i don't know that the statements that we n

isn't that what helps the economy and regulates our market? would adopt -- offering an option that would cause competition. host: we have an argument from susan goldman along the same lines. whereas the competition been for 40 years? guest: that was part of my campaign was to reform health care. and everybody knows it is broken endeavour one knows it is not affordable. -- and everyone knows it is not affordable. the shot that she took of ronald reagan, if you look it up, you will see that when he took office in 1981, unemployment was in double digits, interest rates for a 21% and inflation was double digits as well because of the excesses of the previous years. we went through some tough times and then went to the longest time of economic growth in the history of our country. i'm very proud of the record that ronald reagan had, not to mention winning the cold war without firing a shot. we want to give every met -- every family refundable tax credit so they can go across state lines, which they cannot now, and shop around for the health insuran

the economy is worse there. north dakota with the lowest unemployment rate has received about $26 per person, so apparently those contracts are not going to the states that need it the most. that is consistent with the review by the associated press that points out recently that states are planning to spend 50% more per person in areas with low unemployment than areas with highest unemployment, to quote the ap the trend in the analysis runs counter to expectations raised by the president that road infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan with trade jobs in the areas most devastated by layoffs. does your analysis show high on employment states, the ones that are struggling most, that there has been an impact from these stimulus dollars? is their anything, again, going back to your numbers is their anything here that confirms or denies this type of analysis? >> we wouldn't be able to tell. >> the reason i ask and i do think it's important to go to the numbers is people back home really are

century's global economy. that's what this legislation seeks to achieve. it's a bill that will open the door -- door door to a better future for this nation and that's why i urge members of congress to come together and pass it. the last issue i'd like to address is health care. right now congress is debating various health care reform proposals. this is obviously a complicated issue but i am very optimistic about the progress that they're making. like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. it will not add to our deficits over the next decade. we will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system. some of which we've already announced. we will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. we simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. we need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses and our government into greater and greater debt. there's no doubt that we must pres

we will discuss the economy in federal reserve with

the economy has been terrible every time. i am not sure -- the economy can lead voters, but it will not necessarily mean he will become president. he has a weaker organization supporting him. a lot of students have come out for minorities. the revolutionary guards are very well organized within the country. over the last few years, they have restructured themselves to really monitor internal security and expand their presence throughout iranian towns and villages. in every village and every hamlet, the guards are present. i think that if they get the command from top down, i think that is a very strong possibility. >> and wish you would like to call the iranian election a week in advance, i respect your opinion on that one. i think this is a terrific discussion. i think you. [applause]

they contract the economy. that's why everything here rests on confidence by the american people going forward. just answer the question, how on earth can people be confident about this economy unless we fix that which caused this wreck? that which steered this who into the ditch and is now causing 550,000, 600,000 people every month to have to come home and say, i lost my job. they are cutting back at the office or the plant. so this economy has, in recent years, been an economy with an orgy of speculation, an unbelievable bubble of speculation about a lot of things. and at the same time, almost unbelievable oversight difficulties. that is, negligence in oversight by those who the public has hired in fell agencies to do the oversite of what was going on. so we wake up one among and we discover there is -- wake up one morning and we discover there is literally tens of trillions, yes, hundreds of trillions of dollars called c.d.o.'s and credit default swaps and all sorts of strange names, very complicated with u

i get it what's going on and so forth with the economy. if we go down this road subsidizing these chambers of commerces, it will never stop is my fear. and we've got to stop spending what we're spending, not to mention not spend more. i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to respond to my friend on the other side, who indicated that on my website that the item of san jose state university was not on my website. mr. campbell, i have a copy of my website here. and so i'm going to tell you right now that it is on the website, has been there. and so, when you make those kinds of accusations, i think you need to double-check what it is that you are going to be saying. and to the idea of $180,000, although it may be small, what about this? by 2025, it's estimated the global warming kinds of weather damages in terms of energy costs, est

do you think that has a negative effect on the economy? >> my understanding is that they'll be given to consumers? >> no, to various industries. >> if you give it to the industries but prices reflect the cost of the permit, it's basically money given to the industries. the tarkt targets will be as aggressive. the point i'm trying to make is the revenue from auctions will not be there because the permits will be given away to the firm. >> it's true, if the permits are given away, you don't get the money. >> and therefore, if there's not an off setting rebate, do you think that has negative effects on the economy? >> it could. but again, my understanding is that these permits, which have different effect in terms of spending, but to some extent goes against the promise of the policy, which is to reduce energy consumption. >> i think a lot of the us would question the logic of requiring it to be passed to the consumers because it counted against the whole notion of the program. let me ask you one final question. do you think it makes sense we

the economy effects. look over through year 2030 and you have a cumulative costs nominally of $25 trillion. just for taking that off g.d.p. if you made the assumption that g.d.p. was going to grow at 3%. g.d.p. might not grow at 3%. that's not a guarantee either and you might have a green economy that generates so much value that the eight tenth of 1% outweighed by something else. it's a big number even though it seems small and i think it's an important point. the other main sort of area that i think we have to remember is that we're sort of yo-yo dieter which is it comes to energy here in the u.s. we binge and starve we crash and starve again. starvation diets break down fat and muscle. the problems if you starve long enough it's easier to get fat and harder to get lean. energy firms are doing that right now. they are going through one of their crashes. they are cutting everything. new capacity in the future and spending for operations now and that leaves their infrastructure vulnerable to greater depen

we were big fans of what big club-- bill clinton did on the economy. we did the wealth former-- welfare reform. he bones the budget by 2000. i would like to see more of bill clinton and barack obama's policies burkle one of the things that concerns us is that the democratic party is not the new democratic party and the lager. it is an old democratic party. and that the democrats talked over and over about how this is a new, new deal. this is the last thing i will say and then i will turn it over to arthur. we have a chapter in the book about the great depression and this is one of the things that is so troubling to me, is that we can't even agree on what happened in the past little on what we should do in the future. if you look of the new deal, just look of the objective evidence in we debate our friend robert reich tulis secretary of labor, and a good guy. he keeps talking about what a great success the new deal was. he talked in the book about what really happened during the 1930's. in fact of, by 1940, the only statistic that will give you about th

with the growing economy. so an open trading regime, which facilitates the flow of goods and services is certainly a key element conducive to growth in the developing world. but particularly in this situation of an -- an economic and financial crisis, retaining openness to trade and economic interconnections is one of the keys to pulling countries out of the slump that they are facing at the moment. it's also sometimes important to remember that these interconnections are not a zero-sum game and that they build prosperity in both ends, you know. for instance, our federation of indian chambers of commerce and industry has just done a study which shows that indian investment in the u.s., foreign direct investment in the u.s., which in recent years has been more than american foreign direct investment in india has directly created 30,000 jobs in the u.s. economy. this is in the last few years and many more jobs indirectly. and similarly, the confederation of indian industry has done a study which shows that the p

we want to american -- jump- start the american economy. just over 100 diet -- days, the recovery act is over -- just 100 days old. has created job creation in every state in this nation. more than $11 billion in highway funds, highway construction funds have been made available, for a total of 3000 + projects across the nation. i am pleased that today's report shows some signs of increased. there is some direct signs, that what we are doing is having an impact. it is an encouraging sign. i want to make it clear that there will be more setbacks on the road before we get to recovery. we still have a long way to go on the road to recovery. that is why on monday the president and i will be announcing our plans to wrap up the recovery act over the summer. -- lee willramp up the recovery act. getting health care costs under control, and a clean energy future to build this new economy on. together these initiatives will not only sparked job growth today, but we are convinced they will serve as a platform for an economic growth for tomorrow not ba