for long you've been told as their director of cbo and make it responsive to the congress in a non-partisan manner. in the first place, you've got to figure out what that means and choose very clear. she brought people together to talk about how will we know if this has been a successful organization but then she had to go out and hire people and find these people who she thought could work in the organization that would realize this kind of vision and that was an extraordinary thing to do. she was there for the two terms and that has made a difference that she was there for eight years so by the end of the eight years it really was relatively well-established. however, it was still possible the second director could come in and change things. the second director was a republican and his name was rudy. alan greenspan of the time called him a republican alice rivlin and he behaved that way. that is he came in and he pretty much reinforced the things she had said and once that happened then the next director that followed him and did pretty much the same things they were sort of off and runni

. >> non-partisan, not endorsing candidates >> -- endorsing candidates, getting the right to vote andne they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as the 1920's. in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same. [chanting] >> we have the right to vote. >> whether you are marching for a cause or voting in the next election, make your voice heard. thank you for watching.

this is a non-partisan research organization. earlier, we spoke to the leader of the green party, and she said she was devastated by the decision of the government. what do you think of the announcement, that 24 hours after these talks -- >> this was not a surprise as the government has been signaling for some time that they were going to be pulling out of kyoto. but the timing is a surprise. they basically released this news on the day -- the opening day of the climate conference. and within hours, of the settlement -- the minister stepped off the plane, at 3:00, and within two hours, he held a press conference and made this announcement. >> the environment minister says that it will be harmful, and very costly to the country, at about 13 billion u.s. dollars. how do you think that they came up with this assessment? >> the way that this works is that canada has a target -- of - 6%, on an annual basis. we are up around 700 megatons, and you have to make this up over the five years. the penalty for non-compliance, if you were to g

to what has been done by the energy commission with regis, which is a nonprofit entity that is non- partisan, neutral, and they can go in and look at it in a very factual way to certify whatever the environmental attribute is in question. supervisor kim: it will not be competing entities that are able to monitor the same types of things. it is more that it'll be a different entity that will monitor a different attributes. >> yes. supervisor kim: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members, as shown on page 7 of our report, this is in table one. as the department has indicated -- i should say tables one into the, the cost to the puc would range annually from $4532 to $32,545. as the department has also indicated, this allows the puc to enter into other similar agreements in the future to track environmental attributes without obtaining a court to revise our approval. any additional cost would be subject to annual appropriation approval by the board and would only allow the puc to enter into other agreements up to $2.5 million dollar

that is why the non-partisan independent congressional budget office says that scaling back those war funds from the out years does lead to real deficit reduction the way they count it. what i am saying is that this will be part of the conversation. >> we have time for about two more questions. >> i know that it seems far away, but two things of budgetary significance happened. bush tax cuts are set to expire and cuts will be triggered because the super committee was unable to come up with a plan. do you think there will overturn that's a cluster? do you think this is an issue that this congress will be able to solve or -- overturned that sequester? do you think that is an issue that this congress will be able to solve? >> if you just undo the sequester, automatically, the deficit of the united states increases by $1.20 trillion. we do not want to do that. we should come as a congress, come up with a balanced plan to reduce more than $1.20 trillion from the deficit. but i certainly oppose the idea of increasing the deficit and not looking for offsets. i do think it makes sense to find

management, and from austin, and aaron smith, co-founder of the group called yun invincible, a non-partisan organization based on issues facing young americans and a cnn.com contributor. aaron, it's your generation. millennials, ages 18 to 30. how do they feel about this shifting, this shifting situation for education? it costs more. you're not guaranteed a job but you know you need it. >> there's tremendous concern out there. we know that as young americans that we need that education to get ahead. there's huge benefits from getting a college degree, but as you mentioned, the price of going to college is going up faster than inflation. it's going up faster than even health care, and unfortunately, the policy we're putting in place, like slashing aid to higher institutions at the state level and cutting pell grants are exactly the wrong policies that are going to make it more affordable to get an education. >> bring you in. the ability to go to college was a milestone for an individual and for a family. you know, has that milestone, the price of that milestone, changed, and how do we convin

. >> that doesn't sound non-partisan. wouldn't a millionaire's tax, wouldn't that have paid for it and wouldn't the fact that you guys wouldn't even threat go up for a vote, an up-and-down vote, doesn't that really make the american people wonder what's going on here, congressman reed? >> see, al, that's very misleading to the american people. >> well, straighten me out. >> we had a vote today that clearly -- clearly rejected the senate's proposal. the record is clear. we rejected the senate proposal and said we've got work to do. going to conference and i'm one of the conferees and we'll have the debate in an open and honest fashion, we're still here in washington working while the senate has gone m.i.a., missing in action. >> your solution, let me get it right, is despite that there are environmental concerns, we want an oil pipeline, we want to drug test people that get unemployment insurance, we want to do all of these things before we will give the people in your district a tax -- a tax break extension. this is alrea

the non-partisan factcheck.org turned up congressional testimony from just two years ago in which theormer speaker said he would still support cap and trade for major polluters if accompanied by incentives for nuclear power and so-called clean coal. also in the debate there was this from mitt romney. >> let's not forget, only one president has ever cut medicare for seniors in this country, and it's barack obama. we're going to remind him of that time and time again. >> keeping them honest, that's not true either. again, according to factcheck.org, the 1997 balanced budget act which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by president clinton called for $112 billion in cuts over a number of years. recently national public radio spoke with joe antos, a health care economist for the conservative american enterprise institute. when it comes to medicare, he said, "we've had a series of cuts year after year, decade after decade." so governor romney's statement also fails to fit the facts, that's the republican side. the president for his part, recently talked to "60 minutes" and that

politicsinstereo.com where we've brought together top reporters, analysts, bloggers on the left and right and non-partisanes and put them together side by side by side in a three-column format where people can get political news from different perspectives and see it all together. >> the point is on a local level, you gave a great example when you were telling me about this. if you want to follow what's going on on the ground in nevada, whether it's that senate race and you see a great column tweeted in a paper and you wonder, well, is that columnist normally left or right, that's sort of the one of the ideas here so can you help sort of the junkie that isn't a regular reader of "the las vegas review journal" or "las vegas sun" know that this guy is a reporter, a liberal columnist or conservative columnist. >> that's right. not only is there a national page but state page where there's a window into that state's politics. in nevada john rals ton in the center. on the left is steve sebelius and hugh jackson on the right. orrin johnson and e. crumb and immediately you can tell what perspective they are comi

the non-partisan politifact.com rates it only half true.peaker gingrich is not a registered lobbyist. true. however, this washington you can be a lobbyist in nm every way except in name. according to their research on lobbying law you can do almost anything a registered lobbyist can do except meet more than once per quarter with a lawmaker or staffer on behalf of the client. you can, however, advise the client on which lawmakers to meet and drop your name with. you can tell registered lobbyists who to see and what points to push. then you can have one big meeting with a lawmaker you're trying to influence to seal the deal. this apparently is what newt gingrich did on behalf of freddie mac for that reported $1.6 million. now, according to bloomberg news speaker gingrich worked with mitchell delk, freddie mac's chief lobbyist. delk told bloomberg that gingrich provided "counsel on public policy issues." when this first came out gingrich said freddie mac had hired him in his capacity as a historian. you a historian. there are other instances t

we thought we'd look to history for an answer-- visiting landmarks of new york with non- partisan taxfessor alex raskolnikov. first stop: a memorial to world war i, which the u.s. entered in 1917, soon after the federal income tax began, with rates from 1% on a net income of up to $20,000-- today's half a million or so-- en route to 7% on all earnings above $500,000-- today's $11 million or more. higher rates on the extra or marginal income; thus the term "marginal tax rate." in 1917, given the expensive war, congress jacked the top marginal rate upward. >> and by the way, the phrase "soak the rich" emerged at that time, too. >> reporter: the new top marginal tax rate of 77% applied only to income starting at a million 1918 dollars. the average rate for the very rich, however, was only 15%. >> 15% average rate means the wealthiest americans paid 15% of their overall income in taxes. it's not nothing, but it's not 77%. >> reporter: but 15% of your total income. that's not soaking the rich, is it? >> well, it depends on your perspective. compared to zero, which is what these people paid

. >>> think the topic of must-see tv is a non-partisan issue.arently people pick programs on the basis of their political proclivities. find out which shows top the list on each party divide. that's next in the sideshow. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. ♪ [ male announcer ] sometimes, a hint is all the wrapping a gift needs. is that what i think it is? ♪ [ male announcer ] the lexus december to remember sales event is here, but only for a limited time. see your lexus dealer for exclusive lease offers on the 2012 is 250 and, as a gift from lexus, we'll make your first month's payment. i'm an expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. massmutual is owned by our policyholders so they matter most to us. massmutual. we'll help you get there. [ man #1 ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airpla

. >>> think the topic of must-see tv is a non-partisan issue. think again.pparently people pick programs on the basis of their political proclivities. not surprised here. find out which shows top the list on each party divide. that's next in the sideshow. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. let me tell you about a very important phone call i made. when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... wi

this is a non partisan think tank that began in little over a decade ago. i think it is a neat think-tank. it is politically independent. we have republicans, democrats, and independents working there. it was all about bringing younger people into the policy of discourse. oftentimes you would stay there foron one year and go and do something else. it was so interesting to work there. it brings a lot of journalists in. i'm not a journalist. they work on policy issues and then go back out. it helps to write about these in a more popular press. it is funded by the major foundations. no partisan agenda there. there's a lot of incredible work coming out of there. i don't think the transaction tax is the right way to go. the arguments against it have always been, it would slow down how quickly we can make trade. that may not sound like such a bad thing after the big crisis which just went through. most of the people who will be taxed will be the those saving in their pension funds and this would increase the cost of saving that way. it is not a preferred tax. it