if even greenspan--who are you to dispute what greenspan says? i would simply say -- he is making $150,000 a speech. pretty good racket. we have found the flaw and it is you. how could you have a housing bubble? a lot of people have said -- prices that are not sustainable, this is a scent of subjective las vegas. there's no getting around it. some people say this is a psychological phenomenon. people become attached to a particular kind of investment or asset. i don't mean to discount psychological explanations. once the bubble gets going it feeds on itself. the order is sometimes mixed up because if it had just been psychology the market would have put a damper on that because where would you have gotten the credit to keep investing in housing? if there is unusual activity prices go up and if you had a free market in making interest rates would go up to say we are run out of things to bend. maybe you should rethink this. when you have a soviet commissar running interest rates, he can create all this new money and put it in and keep interest rate

so that is what greenspan has done. recently beah greenspan in tears on television saying this crisis goes to show that there is a flaw in the free market that he had never noticed before. of course it means a lot when a guy like this people falsely believe is a free market guy because of his ayn rand days 40 years ago he's still the free market by today and people say if greenspan says there is a fault who are you coming you mortals who are you to dispute what he says? i would simply say to greenspan not that he's listening she is of making $150,000 a speech pretty good racket going but i would say to alan greenspan we have found the flaw and it is you. [applause] >> with all the fed how could you have a housing bubble? a lot of people have tried to say these bubbles and the bible i mean that prices unsustainably high we can't possibly stay that high and this is a sensitive subject in las vegas but there's no getting around. we have to talk up this. there's some people who say this is a psychological phenomena. people

write it takes a while, greenspan had the job for 19 years. it's hard to measure the to imagine bernanke doing this job 19 years more and i sure that is good for the country frankly. the federal reserve policy committee is when a fully stocked 19 people, the presidents of 12 of the regional fed banks and seven governors including the chairman in washington, and the chairman can only go so far without the committee behind him and there are a number of people in the committee who then and now if you do too much to help the economy you get unwelcome inflation and the fed ought to err on the other side and there are also people very uncomfortable with the way bernanke used the fed money whether it is bear stearns or joseph aig -- >> host: to much bailing out. >> guest: too much bailing out. he had to work hard to convince them that this was really one of those once in every 50 years events that require once in every fifth year medicine and some of them are still skeptical. some of them think it was a mistake and had for instance had he not been wi

the five policy but to be different than greenspan. i call him in the book to be the un-greenspan come to elevate the committee in the institution over the character of the chair and. i think actually that was a bit naive but it did help him build consensus that the fed so when the time came for him to exert strong leadership, to push people to do things they were not entirely comfortable with, he had acquired their trust. i think in the beginning he seemed kind of awkward in public like nervous when he was speaking his hands would shake sometimes. >> host: yes. i actually was with him recently when he gave a speech, and i commented to him afterwards you seemed very relaxed compared to a couple of years ago and he said i've been doing this a lot. >> guest: right. i think that, so he grew into the job. i think we are kind of lucky that this crisis didn't hit in august 2006 when he had been in a job six months. he did have a year to get used to the fact. i don't think anybody can ever appreciate just how much power you have put more frig

different and greenspan. i call him in the book to be the un-greenspan. to elevate over the character of the chairman. i think actually that was a bit naÏve. but it did help him build a consensus at the fed. so when the time came for him to exert a strong leadership, to push people to do things that they were not entirely comfortable with, he had acquired their trust. i think that in the beginning he seemed kind of awkward in public. >> host: i was with him recently when he gave a speech and i commented to him afterwards, you seem very relaxed compared to a couple of years ago. and he said i've been doing this a lot. >> guest: i think, so he grew into the job. i think we're kind of lucky that this crisis didn't hit in august 2006 when he had been in the job six months. he did have a year to get used to the fact that -- i don't think anybody could ever appreciate just how much, how much are you now, but more frighteningly, how much every word you utter can move markets around the world. i don't think people ap

one was alan greenspan. i contacted him multiple times with multiple sterling recommendations from friends of his. and each time i was told he was too busy to talk with the. once, the secretary told me he would get right back to me. and a day and a half later i got an e-mail saying that he was very busy right now. and he couldn't talk to me that the other one was leonard. >> okay. up there in a purple shirt. hi. will wilkinson of the cato institute. jennifer burns, you had mentioned at one point in your talk that nathaniel branden was responsible for part of the system of the systematization of rand is explicit philosophy. and i've always wondered to what extent objectivism as a system, new, delivered as a complete coherent whole, how much that was a product of nathaniel branden and how much of it was a product of ayn rand? is branden the paul to ayn rand's jesus? [laughter] >> my understanding is that rand had her system pretty much set, even before she met brandon. i mean, there's a lot of people who matte

>> i will say one thing about greenspan. in 1963 he contributed an essay to the object of this newspaper against antitrust regulation and he argued businessmen who must have their long-term interests at heart have to be honorable and maintain their reputations in order to succeed. i heard him i don't know whether anybody else did what track the statement last october before the congressional committee. almost word for word and it was interesting to me that he kept that idea for so long. >> i would say greenspan was a member of the collective which was the small group that gathered around new york in the 1950's. he had an unusual place in the collective. he was struck by her philosophy in a way like many of the other people i described in the book. but rand treated him with an unusual amount of respect she actually provided a lot of research that went into atlas shrugged in terms of how the economy works. he was older, successful. she did have the ability if you start on your own 2 feet when you interacted with her to kind of

those responsibilities, first by alan greenspan at the fed -- and, by the way, while alan greenspan was at the fed, mr. bernanke was at the fed at the same time during that period of time. the responsibilities are to supervise the banks, to deal with predatory lending, to address some of the scandalous behavior of some of the brokers in the subprime market, and yet they did nothing. all of this went on under their noses. the question for me in dealing with mr. bernanke and other oth, how many times do we have to learn the same lesson? i've been here at a time when the savings and loans collapsed in this country. it wasn't surprising why they collapsed because we had a bunch of folks who used the savings and loans as a big piggy bank. the savings and loans were actually gathering deposits from around the country and they were like roman candles, just taking a small little savings and loan and turning it into a big institution with lots of deposits overnight and then guys like mr. milken were parking junk bonds ensured by the american taxpayers and things collapsed and it cost hundreds an

and this idea comes from alan greenspan. in 1984, before he was fed chairman, he was on an economist panel after the continental illinois rescue. and he said that banks should hold against the losses depending on the type of liabilities that they have. >> do any of the regulators currently have the power to implement the kinds of solutions that you are abdicating? >> well, they -- in the '80s, paul volcker had the power in a convincing clout to convince the fed's to put the old borrowing limits on the junk markets. in the '90s, alan greenspan had so much clout in congress that they took his word for whether unregulated derivatives needed to be regulated or not. so in effect, the fed has been a systemic risk regulator for two decades. where they had a discussion, sometimes they use it properly and sometimes they didn't. where they didn't, they have plenty of gravitas to go to congress and asked for a. so it's not a matter of not enough power. it's a matter of failing to recognize that we need these consistent rules. >> imt in

he basically followed greenspan's policies. he was one of the architects of the credit bubble. he made the argument back in 2003 and 2004 that we should keep interest rates low, that the real problem was coming from china to have an excess supply of savings of that was why interest rates were low. that was the rationale the fed used for keeping interest rates too low for too long. i.t. cause beckett they have bubble from which everything else flowed, so bernanke failed i believe but i think he did pass the final. once they realize the entire financial system was in danger he basically through the rule book out the window and tried a whole series of what for the fed were quite controversial things. the idea of reducing interest rates and pumping money into the economy, that was just dandridge vet practice but all these special lending programs that he introduced, which actually turned out to be quite effective, they haven't been tried before so i think he did a reasonable job of preventing wholesale calamity and they think the other phase and i think he deserves, did a good job

he basically followed greenspan's policies. he was one of the architects of the credit bubble. he made the argue ament that you should keep interest rates go, the real problem was coming from china, and that's why the interest rates were low. that what is the rational the fed used for keeping interest rates too long, kept mortgage rates down, caused the speculative bubble from which everything else flowed. so bernanke failed the mid-term but passed the final. once they realized that the entire financial system was in danger, he basically threw the rule book out the window and tried a whole series of things. pumping money interest the company -- economy was standard practice. all these special lending programs he introduced, which actually turned out to be quite effective -- they hadn't been tried before so he did a reasonable job of preventing whole sale calamity. so you would say, it's 50-50. the reason i think he deserves re-appointment i think he is actually repentant for the past mistakes and is determined to introduce regulations. i think he wants it to be his legacy as th

he supported green-- greenspan's philosophy of deregulation and self-regulation. he advocated for basel ii and what was basel ii? basel ii was the same to the largest banks in america you can set their own leverage ratios. what did that results in? that resulted in things going to 30-1 leverage. now if you invest money 30-1 in an up market is a killing. and you make all kinds of money. but when you are at 30-1 leverage in the market turns down, you blow up immediately. now, there is not an analyst in america who could tell you add any moment when the market will go up and in the market will go down, but they can tell you that it will go up and down over a period of time. what goes up must come down. there is never going to be a steady upward climb forever. so, if you about 30-1 leverage you were going to make a lot of financial institutions very very happy because they are going to make a lot of money until the market turns down. well, bin bernanke said lose the leverage requirements that paved the path, that set this fire that burned down our economy. ben bernank

and chairman greenspan sold it to greenspan put. whenever wall street geared of bush, alan was there. but you went even farther than that. when you bow to political pressure of the bush and obama administrations come and turn to the fed into an arm of the treasury. under your watch, the bernanke put became a bailout for all large financial institutions, including many foreign banks. and you put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government spending handout, cheap money to your masters on wall street. which they used to rake in record profits while ordinary americans and small businesses can't even get loans for their everyday needs. now i want to read a quote to you, mr. bernanke. that's a floating slip, believe me. here's a quote. i believe that the tools available to the banking agencies including the ability to require adequate capital and ineffective banking receivership process are sufficient to allow the agencies to minimize the systemic risk associated with large banks. moreover, the agencies have made clear that

calledhe greenspan put. any time the f chairman said something, thearket saw that as goonews and took off. we have just the opposite th th administration. y time this administration comes out and says somethi about what they plan to don thfuture, the market tanks. and it tanks n only for wall stet but for the rest of america well. i think that's very teing as whether wherethis administrati is going to bring us with wall street d well. woodruff: what do you think the tanking ofhe market represts? who do you think is taing? >> i think it's responding t what the ainistration is prose. thsecretary said he wants stability, a youd i a youd ifedp with a greatuestion, saying the rket looks for stability in thearketplace, and will this do is? and heissed the answer-- or he didn't give an answer. the maet would want stability if ty know what the game plan is, th know what the rules are today, and they calive with them and go rward. wellwe saw the administration me out early on in this year the spring or summer of is y

greenspan and so many others who promised us they were interested in being regulators. and the list goes on and on and on. let me go back to 1999. we were told in this chamber -- and i was here then. we were told american has to modernize its financial system. for if we don't, the europeans and others are going to win this debate and win the economic competition. so we have to modernize. the things that were put in place after the great depression were probably important after some point but no longer necessary. we now have mr. greenspan protecting us and oh and it's a sophisticated system. so we need to be able to compete. what we need to do, they said, is we need to have a financial modernization system to allow very large holding companies to put together all of the financial systems, investment banks and commercial banks and real estate and securities operations. and, by the way, if we can do all of that, we can create one-stop financial shopping for the american people. now, i stood on the floor of the senate at great length in 1999 and opposed this. i know it's a

greenspan finally admitted he was wrong using that. now he resurrected and we are starting to apply some of those formulas. so what i am asking you in terms of resolving this creating more jobs and giving more things, is that a way out of? >> okay. yeah, we have gone through a cycle in which markets reign supreme and always get it right. so, the pendulum has swung now in the other direction which we need if not more regulation we need a better regulation or have to enforce the regulations we have so they are not just curiosities and paper. in terms of creating jobs, i mentioned earlier my concerns about a gradualist approach towards dealing with a banking sector problem and i reiterate that. it is not an abstract thought. help me out on this. you have a bank that if you have bad debt it's like if you are an individual and you have bad debt you haven't written down or taken the hit, you haven't taken the loss any new borrowing and lending is going to be curtailed because you have that overhang. you're carrying that albatross. we are sti

greenspan would say.itution be both re-aired by some people and have disdain from others? >> guest: that is easy. when times are good and things are going well, people like them. when times are bad, as they have been, people say look why is the public angry about what the federal reserve is doing? they don't like the bailouts. they don't like the fact that they are dancing money for example to the general motors acceptance corporation called g. they don't like the idea we with man's money to general motors and chrysler. they don't like the idea that they spend hundreds of billions of dollars to aig and a say, why are they giving all this money to the bankers and the people that made the problem and nothing to us? >> host: professor there seems to be distrust of the federal reserve so can you explain how the board is set up, who serves on the board and how these regional banks are set up? some dew this institution has the secret society. >> guest: hardly. it is a lot more transparent than it used to be. in

greenspan would say.how can this institution be both revered by some people and have distain for mothers? guest: that is easy. when times are good and things are going well, they were great and people like them. when times are bad, as i have been, people say, look, why is the public angry about the puppet of reserve is doing -- they don't like the bailout. they don't like the fact that they are advancing number, the example, ford general motors acceptance corp., they did not like that we advance money to general motors and chrysler and hundreds of billion dollars to aig. they say, why of giving all this money to the bankers and the people who made the problem and nothing to us? host: professor, there seems to be distrust of the federal reserve. can you explain how the board is set up, who serves on the board and how the regional banks are set up? some of you this institution as a secret society. guest: hardly. it is a lot more transparent than it used to be. in the history of central banking, up to certai

greenspan's quote -- alan greenspan who came to congress after the fact, after the collapse. and heed said, well, i made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their own equity in the firms. his point was, we don't need to regulate. we don't need to oversee anything. self-regulation will work best. they'll be just fine. leave them alone and they'll come home. well, what an unbelievable tragic mistake by the chairman of the federal reserve board. i made a mistake in presuming that self-interest -- self-interest were best capable. it's a suggestion that somehow, you know, capitalism works and count need any regulatory oversight at all because the free market is best left to its own devices. the free market is the best allocator of goods and i'm a big supporter of the free market. i also understand like any other area of competition, you need a referee, someone with a striped shirt to blow the whistle when there's a foul. you need a referee. you need regulation. th

greenspan would say.ow can this institution be both revered by some people and have distain for mothers? guest: that is easy. when times are good and things are going well, they were great and people like them. when times are bad, as i have been, people say, look, why is the public angry about the puppet of reserve is doing -- they don't like the bailout. they don't like the fact that they are advancing number, the example, ford general motors acceptance corp., they did not like that we advance money to general motors and chrysler and hundreds of billion dollars to aig. they say, why of giving all this money to the bankers and the people who made the problem and nothing to us? host: professor, there seems to be distrust of the federal reserve. can you explain how the board is set up, who serves on the board and how the regional banks are set up? some of you this institution as a secret society. guest: hardly. it is a lot more transparent than it used to be. in the history of central banking, up to certain

greenspan doesn't do it. he's just there. they go to the wishes of the big-time government, they're overseeing the whole ball of wax. bernanke, who weather he's not or not -- host: who specifically are the people that are overseeing it then? caller: sorry? host: who specifically is overseeing it? caller: the bigger government. you know, they sat there over this thing, to think that they all didn't see everything that was going on, coming with the crash, to sit there and make these bailouts of billions and billions of dollars, and all the sudden they can pay all this money back within a year, were they hurting as bad as what we thought? host: so in your mind, it doesn't matter who heads the sned caller: no. someone else is coming in, and the stock market will do just like -- as soon as they hear this, starts dropping 400 points in the last two days. you know, as soon as they get somebody else in there, it will be the same puppet. host: joe, go ahead. caller: well, i think mr. bernanke is doing a great job, except he's not work

days called the greenspan put. any time the fed chairman said something, the market saw that as good news and took off. we have just the opposite with this administration. any time this administration comes out and says something about what they plan to do in the future, the market tanks. and it tanks not only for wall street but for the rest of america as well. i think that's very telling as to whether wherethis administration is going to bring us with wall street and well. >> woodruff: what do you think the tanking of the market represents? who do you think is talking? >> i think it's responding to what the administration is propose. the secretary said he wants stability, and youd i and youd p with a great question, saying the market looks for stability in the marketplace, and will this do this? and he missed the answer-- or he didn't give an answer. the market would want stability if they know what the game plan is, they know what the rules are today, and they can live with them and go forward. well, we saw the

greenspan is a mess. guest: you are voicing a lot of the same concerns of democrats and the senate share. that is why there will be lots of no votes against ben bernanke. the white house might be wondering if they should have chosen someone else. we're still in the middle of getting out of the mess we are in. the economy is only now back on track. the white house figure the best thing for markets and certainty was to stick with the horse you already have host: you write that ben bernanke is in the midst of fighting for the fed's future on capitol hill. members are poised to cut back on the power of the central bank. guest: well, speaking of the financial reform legislation, the house has already passed the bill and the senate is still in the committee process. there is a strong sense that they want to curb some of the influence of the fed, especially in the senate to. also some of its supervisory powers. the administration's proposal had a central role for the fed. the house cut it back a little. but the

sometimes he even wanted to go further and provide more easy money than chairman greenspan. overwhelming evidence and the consensus of economists to the contrary. and in his efforts to keep filling the punch bowl, which is a term used by chairman bernanke himself, he cranked up the printing presses to buy mortgage securities, treasury securities, commercial paper, and other assets from wall street. those purchases, by the way, led to some nice profits for the wall street banks and dealers who sold them to the fed. on consumer protection, chairman bernanke went along with the greenspan policy before he was chairman and continued it after he was promoted. the most glaring example is it took him two years to finally regulate subprime mortgages, after the fed had already done nothing for the prior 12 years. even then, he only acted after pressure from congress and after it was clear subprime mortgages were at the heart of the economic meltdown. and on other consumer protection issues like credit cards, he only acted at a time -- when the time aproposed for his confirmation to --

greenspan's quote. alan greenspan who came to congress after the fact, after the collapse and he said well i made a mistake in presuming that the self interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. his point was we don't need to regulate. we don't need to oversee anything. self regulation will work best. they will be fine. leave them alone and they will come home. what an unbelievable, tragic mistake by the chairman of the federal reserve board. i made a mistake in presuming self-interest, self-interest for this cable. it is a suggestion somehow that capitalism works and you don't need any regulatory oversight adel because the free market is left best left to its own devices. the free market is the best allocator of goods and services i know of by far behind a big supporter of the market. i also understand like any other area of competition you need a referee. somebody with a striped shirt that blows the wh

. >> it's like greenspan when he talked about irrational exuberance, you're saying there was irrationalt caused a lot of the problems. ed, thanks so much for joining us today. >> thanks, rick. >> speaking of some tough economic times, could it mean the end of story time for many of the nation's public libraries? there are budget cuts and it's forcing some cities and towns to shut down their libraries at a time when communities depend on them for so much more than books. casey stegall is live in los angeles. first, people might react, libraries, everybody does everything on their computer, but a lot of people don't have computers. they have to go to the library in order to get access. >> reporter: yeah. absolutely. it sounds like it is a household name or something that everyone has in 2010, but the reality is, a lot of people don't have their own internet at home or have their own computers. that's why they go to the library. so this whole problem is twofold. unfortunately, 2010 means another year of cuts and layoffs and tax hikes for a lot of americans, as most states head into the new

think about why after two decades of good performance starting with volcker, going through most of greenspan's a deviation? i think it's really trying to do too much if you like. things were working well and if you're doing well you try to do better. >> reporter: try to do better by boosting the economy with cheap money, thus setting the stage for the inevitable bust. >> the busts are terrible and more the boom gets out of hand the worse the bust will be. >> reporter: so it is really true that the higher you fly the farther you fall? ( laughs ) >> in general. ( laughs ) >> reporter: and that, taylor argues, is the worry today: that the fed is again keeping rates too low for too long, fueling new bubbles and a future collapse, this time perhaps an u.s. dollar itself, given all inflationary collapse of the u.s. dollar itself, given all the new dollars out there. the fed, of course, has an answer: don't be ridiculous. if we raise rates right now, says fed chairman bernanke, we choke off the recovery, and head back down toward deflation, depression. >> however, as the recovery strengthens, the tim

and you should play the archive of alan greenspan when people call in to say how we got here.don't understand why you don't play that. caller: -- 9 host: about the current fed chairman ben bernanke, gathers more support according to a headline in "the wall street journal." majority leader harry reid scheduled a vote thursday to overcome a potential filibuster committing the support of 60 senators to pass. final vote would only require a majority for mr. bernanke to be confirmed again. the dow jones newswires survey showed 52 members supporting the nomination while 19 opposed. the others who have not said how they would vote. on tuesday, senator tom harkin, democrat of iowa, and john ensign of nevada, said it would vote against the nomination and nearly a dozen others made known their support. in new poll found the public split. about 18% said they were positive about mr. bernanke and the same share said the negative. of the rest, 19% call themselves neutral and 45% were unsure. cape cod, massachusetts, bill on the republican line. what did she do you want to hear the president

chairman of the fdic, running the fdic, she was one of the early people to go to -- inside to go to greenspan at the fed and say, "look, this is looking rather dangerous. you should -- there's another now dead mr. gramlich who was a governor of the fed, he was raising concerns certainly by 2004, but apart from some people on wall street who started to bet against subprime loans in 2005, that doesn't -- you know, you could say that, unfortunately, no one really raised the alarm when it might have made a big difference. >> in this next clip, mark pittman is a part of it and i know he's died since then, and i'll ask you about that in a moment. but -- and also david -- is it attasani, a mortgage broker. before we show this, where did you find the mortgage broker? >> david attasani was not a mortgage broker. david attasani worked on wall street for a number of firms and he asked us, in fact, not to mention the various firms where he worked, but they all would be extremely familiar to you and, you know, as he describes in the film, some of them no longer existed by the time we went to see him. >> w

greenspan said of our economic strength and our prosperity. this is reality.r the first time in our nation's history, our generation stands to bequeath to our children a nation that is less economically sound, less fundamentally strong, and less secure than that which we inherited. and it's not necessary. we can do better if we act today. that would be an unthinkable tragedy for us to pass on a less strong country. and, really, a moral failure. because we have responsibilities not just to our own people today, but to those that will follow us years to come. and we would have no one to blame. the blame would fall on us. so the numbers tell a grim story. in fiscal year 2009, our government spend $1.4 trillion more than it took in through revenues. that is the largest deficit in our nation's history, dwarfing those of previous years. scaled to the budget of a typical family, the government operated like a household -- this is typical. this is what it would amount to if it were a family. a household who makes $50,000 but spends $83,000. that's how much more spen

ben bernanke, alan greenspan, the bankers that control our economy, they have very little interest ine american people. they are about using large sums of money to wield little influence. and the apathy and the lethargy that the american people are attacking this issue with, they seem more concerned with football scores an irrelevancy that the mass media puts in front of them to distract them. front of them to distract them. the only boat out of office every one of these fakes

guest: only because greenspan was trying to make the case for tax cuts for george bush.ere is no problem with the national debt. everyone who owns a home has a debt. there is nothing wrong with debt. it is a question of is it manageable, if you are borrowing money, would you using it for? it is true, we had a large annual surplus in the latter years of the clinton administration and at that figure away. host: john, what is your point answering the question? caller: do you think we can pull out of this debt somehow? guest: yes. host: john, we lost the transmission. guest: absolutely we can pull out of this. in fact, there is good literature on how to do it. one of the interesting things about the recent history of europe is that there have been a lot of countries that started as eastern bloc countries with a terrible fiscal situations who had to get the houses in order in order to join the eu. so they went through some pretty radical policy changes to fix the fiscal situation and generally found it could have a great deal of success if they followed the kind of recipe tha

he supported greenspan's philosophy of deregulation and self-regulation. he advocated for bozel2. it was to say to the largest banks in america you can set your own leverage ratios. what did that result in? that resulted in banks going to 30-1 leverage. now, if you invest money 30-1 in an up market, it's a killer. you make all kinds of money. but when you're at 30-1 leverage and the market turns down, you blow up immediately. now, there is not an analyst in america who can tell you at any one moment when the market will go up and when the market will go down. but they can tell you that it will go up and down over a period of time. what goes up must come down. there is never going to be a steady, upward climb fo forever. so, if you allow 30-1 leverage, you're going to make a lot of financial institutions very, very happy. they're going to make a lot of money until the markets turn down. well, ben bernanke set loose the leverage requirements that paid the path -- that paved the path, that set the fire, that burn the our economy. ben bernanke failed to protect homeowners from decepti

one who was spoken with bob greenspan and he said in a fact that the short-term deficits were a necessaryincumbrance, they had to be undertaken in order to respond to this cyclical downturn in the economy but the real concern was that these were necessary in provisions for the most part in the real concern of the long-term structural deficit as opposed to the short-term cyclical mets -- measures you have taken. would you agree with that generally speaking? >> mr. chairman, cbo does not recommend the policies with the others do but i think it is a widely held view among analysts that the danger from the budget deficit arises from midst persistent large size, not particularly from having large deficit during this downturn. i said on a number of occasions that fiscal policy poses to central challenges to macro economic stability now. short run challenge a long run challenge, the short run challenge that fiscal stimulus will be withdrawn rapidly over the next two years under current law. as the stimulus package is in a fact and wanes as tax rates increase under current law as the automatic st

backstrom deals it for greenspan to fire. witt. [ whistle ] >> joe: right to dipietro. he'll squeeze. jack hillen the defender. alex ovechkin probably 20 feet at the most in front of him. a rolling puck and it hit hillen apparently in the jaw. almost the lower teeth line. amazingly, the youngster under his own power went to the dressing room, but we have heard reports that he is at hospital now. ovechkin rink wide for green. wraifter that's blocked. moulson floats it down the wing. for trent hunter. wrister deflected by schultz and some 15 rows into the end zone seats. on our toyota league leaderboard, we focus in on alex again. >> craig: look at points per game, 1.63 ahead of sedin. both sedins. henrik and daniel ahead of thornton and crosby. our league leaderboard look at points per game leaders. last year, alex ovechkin 1.39 average over the course of the 79 games. so, he's well above that this year. >> joe: alexander semin on side at the line work brooks laich and tomas fleischmann as streittakes care of things in the new york zone. rick dipietro has come on for dwa

if you don't have enforcement and you have heard some like bernanke and alan greenspan say we reallye should have. it isn't just having the regulation. you have to have a sheriff that is willing to impose that law for it to be affective. we'll continueñr the debate. >> we will. >> i have one question. for the american anti-trust institute which may give a hints what i'm going to ask. you started off talking about privatization and there would be many companies permitted to fail. ok. would they really be permegr to fail? especially if the many companies becomes a few large, countrywide, and a couple of friends. won't we be back in the too big to fail problem or does your solution include some sort of cap on size of the lenders that would be permitted? if not, then aren't you back into the same probable? >> yeah, i think we would be in trouble if we had one or two such institutions that were doing this. once you get to a point where the failure of one or two out of a group of 10 occurs there would be no effect on what is really important and that is the ability to people to finance hom

losing their life savings while wall street fat-cats get their bonuses and even this side of alan greenspan apologizing to a congressional committee for keeping the reins to lose. then came the response from washington which was the least as disconcerting it partially excusable by a pervading sense of panic. by the middle class to the government essentially owns the nation's largest bank, largest insurance company and largest automaker manages substantial part of the financial sector and was declaring winners and losers in massive corporate deals more less ad hoc. meanwhile government spending exploded and lawmakers are busy building new entitlement programs even as our existing ones fall into bankruptcy for. for a moment it seemed as though all this would cause the american people to lose faith in the american economy. last apr scott rasmussen found 53% of americans agreed with the proposition that capitalism was better than socialism. but that moment passed and has been replaced by way of a populist discontent directed as much as government as the market. the defenders of free enterprise

ben bernanke, alan greenspan, the bankers that control our economy, they have very little interest in pursuing a policy that is advantageous to the american people. they are about using large sums of money to wield little influence. and the apathy and the lethargy that the american people are attacking this issue with, they seem more concerned with football scores an irrelevancy that the mass media puts in front of them to distract them. the only way that we are going to get this country back from hardened criminals is to vote out of office every one of these fake people that sit in the house and senate, controlling the interests of the 2% that handle 90% of our wealth her. most of your calls up to 7:45 eastern or so of -- host: your calls up to 7:45 eastern or so. ben bernanke passed to the banking committee late in december and will face a vote in the full senate later this month. "the financial times" writes about which direction the fed is going this year. open-" this year -- "this year the fed will see fighting for its vision of regulation reform, closely allied to that of the ob

instruments, derivatives and -- and collateralized debt obligations instruments and like, even alan greenspan, whether it is -- it is the sanders bill and i'll take a look at that or other approaches, i want us to draw a line in the sand now, and say, we believe in markets. we believe in competition. and we believe in giving people incentives, everybody, a chance to get ahead but we don't buy the idea that if you're big and powerful in the united states. you get to privatize your gains but your losses will be socialized by the taxpayers of the united states. and my watch i'm going to fight that. [applause] i'll have another at some point to do it. i'm going to introduce major tax reform legislation to try to get rid of a lot of the -- the breaks that have gotten into -- interest the tax code. use that to hold down rates and keep progressive. my hope is we could make that bipartisan as well. we started the program with a -- e a little discussion about health. i wanted that to be bipartisan. i'm going to push hard for tax reform around the principles we're talking about today. and stay at it un

financial collapse and retirees losing life savings while wall street back cats get bonuses even alan greenspan apologizing to the congressional committee for keeping their brains to lose. that washington was just as disconcerting if partially excusable by the panic. the middle of last year the federal government owned the largest bay, insurance company and auto maker and managed a substantial portion of the financial sector and was the clearing winners and losers ad hoc. government spending has exploded a and lawbreakers big -- no the entitlement programs even as the fall into bankruptcy. it seemed this would cause the american people to lose its faith in the economy. rassman said all they found only 30 percent down capitalism was better than of socialism but that past. and has been replaced by populist discontent as much fat the government and as that the market. they should not take too much heart from this because it's just people aren't an easy today but it is not into an argument of capital this them or even a coherent case about the emerging contention in washington. we will need to expl

this crisis should help the narrative because i hope this crisis will have discredited the alan greenspan market fundamentalism. i hope this crisis will have set look at the end of the day all you can fall back on his government, that t.a.r.p. and the fiscal package were absolutely essential if the debt negative comes out that this is what -- this society needs that can pave the way for the social consensus that says yes entitlement needs to be controlled, but equally taxes like dat or consumption tax need also to be part of the discourse, and i don't see that to the same extent as i see the emphasis on entitlement. >> you don't see public support for higher taxes? when would you? >> owls i was telling you what struck me about the panel, the medicare panel was that watts of elderly people in this country don't think of medicare as a government program and that is a problem here that needs to be addressed. >> if i could respond briefly, 160 million americans get their health insurance not through medicare and medicaid in this country the tax issue because i agree totally with i believe it

and if you don't have regulatory enforcement and you've heard some luminaries like bernanke and greenspanay we really didn't enforce the way we should have so edison just tabbing regulation. you have got to have a share that is willing to impose that law for to be affected so we will continue the debate. >> we will. >> we have one question over here. >> i am from the american antitrust institute, which may give a hint as to what i'm going to ask you. you start out and talking about privatization, that there would be many companies and they would be permitted to fail. okay, what they really be permitted to fail, especially if the many companies become a few large, countrywide and a couple of friends? won't we be back in the too big to fail problem, or solution include some sort of cap on size of the vendors that would be permitted? if not, then aren't you back into the same problem? >> i think we would be in trouble if we had only one or two such institutions that were doing this. well, well, went to get to a point where the failure of one or two out of a group of ten occurs, there would b

crisis actually should help that narrative because i hope this crisis will have discredited the alan greenspanmarket fundamentalism said at the end of the wicked fall back on government, the t.a.r.p. and fiscal package were necessary. and if that comes up that this is what this society needs, that can pave the way for the social consensus that says entitlements need to be controlled, but equally borrowing taxes like vat or consumption tax need to be part of the discourse. and i don't see that to the same extent i see the emphasis on entitlements. >> you don't see public support for higher taxes? when would you? >> as i was telling you what is struck about the panel, the medicare panel is lots of elderly people in this country don't think of medicare as a government program and there is a problem that's gotten into this that needs to be addressed. >> let me respond briefly. 160 million americans get their health insurance not through medicare and medicaid in this country and i want to tie the tax issue because i agree totally with i believe it was the commissioner. we have a tax discussion and

losing their life savings while wall street fat-cats get their bonuses and even this side of alan greenspan apologizing to a congressional committee for keeping the reins to lose. then came the response from washington which was the least as disconcerting it partially excusable by a pervading sense of panic. by the middle class to the government essentially owns the nation's largest bank, largest insurance company and largest automaker manages substantial part of the financial sector and was declaring winners and losers in massive corporate deals more less ad hoc. meanwhile government spending exploded and lawmakers are busy building new entitlement programs even as our existing ones fall into bankruptcy for. for a moment it seemed as though all this would cause the american people to lose faith in the american economy. last apr scott rasmussen found 53% of americans agreed with the proposition that capitalism was better than socialism. but that moment passed and has been replaced by way of a populist discontent directed as much as government as the market. the defenders of free enterprise

another former fed chair, my dear friend, alan greenspan, said, if they're too big to fail they're too. similarly, marvin king, governor of the bank of england, in some banks are thought to be too big to fail, then in the words of a distinguished economist, they're too big. i urge my colleagues to help me cut down these scound rells to proper -- scound rales to proper size -- scoundrells to proper size. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: anonymous, where are the jobs? this is the question i continue to ask the liberal majority since they persist pushing legislation killing jobs. familiar lesion are hurting. particularly in south carolina where the unemployment rate recently jumped to a gruesome 12.6%. the stimulus bill isn't living up to its name and americans realize it. according to a cnn poll released yesterday, americans believe that half of the money spent in the federal spending plan has be

alan greenspan, the former chairman of the federal reserve, said that the recommendations of senator gregg and senator conrad for a bipartisan fiscal task force is an excellent idea and that he hopes that we succeed. douglas holtz eaken, the chief economic adviser to senator mccain in his presidential bid said this in testimony before the senate budget committee just last year, i am a reluctant convert. i have always felt this is congress's job and, quite frankly, it ought to just do it. that attitude has earned me no friends and gotten us no action. so i've come around to the point where i'm in favor of something that is a special legislative procedure to get this legislation in front of congress and passed. and mr. geithner, the secretary of the treasury said this in testimony before the budget committee last year, it is going to require a different approach if we're going to solve the long-term fiscal imbalance. it's going to require a fundamental change in approach because i don't see realistically how we're going to get there through the existing mechanisms. and david walker, th

underregulation, retirees losing life savings while wall street fat cats get their bonuses even sight of alan greenspanpologizing to congressional committee for keeping the reins too loose. then came the response from washington which was at least disconcerting if partially excusable by the prevailedding sense of panic. by middle last year the federal government essentially owned the nation's largest bank, largest insurance company, and largest automaker. managed a substantial portion of the financial sector and was declaring winners and losers in massive corporate deals more or less ad hoc. meanwhile government spending has exploded and lawmakers are busy building new entitlement programs even as existing ones fall into bankruptcy. for a moment, it seemed as though all of this would cause the american public to lose its faith in the market economy. last april the pollster scott rasmussen found only 53% of the americans agreed with the proposition that capitalism was better than socialism. but that moment passed. has been replaced by a wave of populist discontent directed as much as government than the