>> hawley: i don't know what... i'd have to go look at that report. >> stahl: you can't tell me, can you, that... that you have a chart that shows failure rates going down like that? >> hawley: well, i can tell you that our results have improved. knives and guns do not present a huge problem for us now. we're very, very good at those. and completed i.e.d.s-- we're very good at those. the small pieces, we have to continue to work to get at even the smallest pieces of an i.e.d. >> stahl: t.s.a.'s solution has been to invest even more money in checkpoints, adding a new layer of state-of-the-art technology. >> suspicious object detected. >> stahl: like these $200,000 advanced x-ray machines that highlight suspicious objects for the screeners in red boxes. and to put an end to one of the most intrusive, some say creepy procedures-- wanding or the pat down-- this new hi-tech investment, the whole body imager. it's been nicknamed "the peept ,"au bert seec tse ighhreu r s auseotheararing for bombs. rifo p gencys vaupedroisr

he signed this smoot-hawley tariff -- >> host: was that unprecedented where a president with -- one of the interesting things we should talk about is the kind of underlining political economic assumptions of the 20s and 30's versus now which have changed substantially even if policies haven't. was it on her love for a president to call business leaders together and say i can't do this legally yet but i want you to not drop wages. i don't want you to fire anybody, had that happened before? >> guest: it was last heard of. when you look at this crash you see and distinction to the early crash at the beginning of the decade which was sharp contraction. so on and plymouth changes, everything very fast, and in that contraction they more or less left the economy alone so this was different. >> host: what happens is if there is a crash the business this are quite shut down and might reduce wages and fire people but they do what they can -- >> guest: he didn't like that compromise, not to harp on that, he also signed a bad tariff would send a terrible international -- this is where i -- it was

after the great depression, after the mistakes of smoot-hawley, in the post-war era, we used those lessons to shape american trade policy that shaped american trade policy for half a century, for two generations. it does seem to me there are lessons we may want to draw from the great recession to shape policy going forward. one is, we have to have a trade policy that supports a sustainable current account deficit. our current account deficit of 5% to 6% of g.d.p. was unsustainable and, as herb stein used to say, things that are unsustainable aren't sustained. we had a crisis. we're now moving towards a current trade deficit of 2% to 3% of g.d.p. most economists believe that's more sustainable, so we have to have a trade policy that supports that. i would be the first one to point out, trade policy is not the main way to support that. there are all sorts of other ways: currency policy, domestic policy. trade policy is not on one element. but that should be one of the framing policies. the goal should be to have a sustainable current account deficit. it doesn't have to be zero but it should

after the great depression, after the mistakes of smoot-hawley, in the post-war era, we used those lessons to shape american trade policy that shaped american trade policy for half a century, for two generations. it does seem to me there are lessons we may want to draw from the great recession to shape policy going forward. one is, we have to have a trade policy that supports a sustainable current account deficit. our current account deficit of 5% to 6% of g.d.p. was unsustainable and, as herb stein used to say, things that are unsustainable aren't sustained. we had a crisis. we're now moving towards a current trade deficit of 2% to 3% of g.d.p. most economists believe that's more sustainable, so we have to have a trade policy that supports that. i would be the first one to point out, trade policy is not the main way to support that. there are all sorts of other ways: currency policy, domestic policy. trade policy is not on one element. but that should be one of the framing policies. the goal should be to have a sustainable current account deficit. it doesn't have to be zero but it should

it's not that they are protectionists in the sense that they are going to out and push for smoot-hawleytariffs but he does face at least in the helps a group of congressmen who really think that we ought to have of a wholly new trade policy and think that the president actually was on their side when he at least -- part of his campaigning and certainly in the primaries that he also espoused this cause. i would just point out to you that the relatively new democratic working groups in the house. the so-called trade-working group which has 60 odd members. the populist caucus. a you been in ofhese members, by the way, were elected in 2006 to 2008. 60, 65% of the new democrats who came in after the 2006 election had run explicit on antiglobal platforms and when they talked with pelosi they could say, you know, we didn't hide what we stood for. the other thing -- the other point politically i think is important, they often were in districts that were -- that had been previously republican districts, who were marginal districts that pelosi and the leadership wants to hold onto to. so they hav

democrats who said they won't do it unless there is a carbon tariff that would repeal the smooth-hawley. they are fractured. they were 30 votes short. they said, nancy pelosi, you failed. sit in the corner. we'll send rahm emanuel up on the hill and they squeaked it through 219-212. so when that pressure comes from the white house on the senate side, when they said it is a loyaltyy vote, we need to have done our work, putting enough grassroots pressure and say sorry, mr. president, i can't do that to the people of my state. i need your help. now we have all been accused being a front for the insurance industry and the energy industry. industry isn't fighting these fights. they have said, the energy industry, we can live with cap and trade. the white house budget director said in march if they give the cap and trade allowances for free, this would be the biggest corporate welfare in history. you know what they did? gave 85% of the permits. this year, according to the white house's own analysis, the biggest corporate welfare program in history. why would they be funding our efforts to sto

democrats who said they won't do it unless there is a carbon tariff that would repeal the smooth-hawleytured. they were 30 votes short. they said, nancy pelosi, you failed. sit in the corner. we'll send rahm emanuel up on the hill and they squeaked it through 219-212. so when that pressure comes from the white house on the senate side, when they said it is a loyaltyy vote, we need to have done our work, putting enough grassroots pressure and say sorry, mr. president, i can't do that to the people of my state. i need your help. now we have all been accused being a front for the insurance industry and the energy industry. industry isn't fighting these fights. they have said, the energy industry, we can live with cap and trade. the white house budget director said in march if they give the cap and trade allowances for free, this would be the biggest corporate welfare in history. you know what they did? gave 85% of the permits. this year, according to the white house's own analysis, the biggest corporate welfare program in history. why would they be funding our efforts to stop it. they're f

after the great depression, after the mistakes of the smoot-hawley, in the postwar era, we use thoseican policy for two generations. it does seems there may be lessons we want to draw from the great recession to shape policy going for. one is we have to have a trade policy. that's a horse a current sustainable deficit our current deficit of gdp is understandable. we had a crisis. we are now down, we're moving toward a trade, a current account deficit of two to 3% of gdp. most economists believe that is more sustainable to we have to have a trade policy that supports that. i would be the first one to point out trade policy is not the main way to sport that. there are all sorts of other ways. currency policy, domestic policy, trade policy is one element. but that should be one of the framing concepts. the goal should be to have a sustainable current account deficit. it doesn't have to be zero but it should not go back to five or 6% of gdp and if it does we are in trouble again. to do that, i would suggest that we need to think more about reciprocity and ballads and benefits in trade ag