russia relations and former reagan administration official he told me why these old restrictions make no sense today take a listen. for several administrations and. presidents of have you know certified that russia has been in compliance with immigration there was nothing no longer. immigration free immigration out of russia and in addition to that russia is no longer a so-called non market economy which is what it was under the soviet union and so the language of the law you know applies to russia that no longer exists really opposed to the old soviet union when there was you know things like central planning you know nationalization of industry and private property no price mechanism so it was a non market economy and that's that's the precondition for the amendment to go into effect first so you've got no market economy and then you have to be imposing an undue restrictions on the immigration to the free travel of people immigration people right and now you and me more than one that's already missed out on your words but all the reasons that you give are good reasons for why that m

you know as a reagan administration official who was you know really supported me very strongly and i work actively in the kind of the you know the anti soviet kind of policy in the closing years of the cold war you know i now have a very different view of all this kind of thing i think that you know russia is no longer the soviet union and i think russia you know needs to be brought into the into the european family of nations and i think these kinds of old restrictions you know just make no sense right and if you are not literate and if i'm wondering if you have any other examples of where these outdated policies with cold war thinking are still in place to the detriment of you know current reality well and current relations between the countries. it was it of course i mean you know under president obama and i think even as a republican and a regular like myself i think i can say that you know the you know in favor of what obama has done obama has tried to to reset relations with russia and i think that's a good initiative and i think that's reflected in the arms control treaty that

from washington we'll talk to talk more about this i'm joined now by the former reagan administration official paul craig roberts joining us live there in the states thanks very much indeed for joining us well as we're reporting today many people are saying could syria become a new libya could we see foreign intervention there next do you think. yes i think that is the attention of the united states. the documents leaked to wiki leaks show that the united states state department has been financing. syrian opposition groups and the and washington has certainly taken a much stronger interest and syria and in libya it took in bahrain or saudi arabia or egypt or the other places where protests broke out. in my opinion and. when american interest in libya was to clear china out of the mediterranean and towards them from their libyan all investments and i think syria is targeted because of the large russian naval base in syria and so the united states. which was caught off guard by the protests and confusion and major learned it can use our protest. to the chinese and the russians from the

explain how we got here and what the future has in store as paul craig roberts is a former reagan administration official and joins me right now from kalamazoo to florida dr roberts thank you so much for being here and we've known for quite a long time that china was supposed to overtake the u.s. economy so it's not completely news but i think the estimate those are the estimate that it's going to happen in five years i think is a little bit surprising especially considering the fact that just a decade ago the u.s. economy was three times that of china what happened during the past ten years that brought us here and we can't lose discordia nerd you can really move to china you look improve cheap labor and chile move i'm sure when you move jobs i'm sure you move the gross domestic product for sure so essentially sure. crappy. wall street and american manufacturers move to large. the american economy to china and that's the main worry first actually you're saying that we have nobody to blame but ourselves but ourselves and that we should be surprised that we were at this point or the united states

and joining me for more now from panama city florida paul craig roberts former reagan administration official thank you so much for joining us now i want to ask you what you think it's really going on is nato failing here are the rebels turning on them is nato losing faith that they can get this done militarily endows as often as the u.s. wants us to very good question i think it's even broader. you know if you look at this whole libyan episode it's quite different from the other protests in the other arab countries and first of all it didn't break out in the chapter city like all the others it took place in the eastern part of libya where there. has been asked and best ones you measures will find out you mentioned china you actually believe that the united states is trying to conspire against china with their actions in libya how do you figure well i don't know exactly what i believe but that certainly comes to mind chatter here is according to their own reports fifty large scale that are energy and construction investments in libya and john is relying on africa for its future energ

it's a problem that had its origin in the reagan administration, when the state hospitals were closed and when most of the responsibility for this was sort of delegated down to the counties. it is clearly a big problem for san francisco. we work very hard to manage it. we still provide more mental health services than any other county in the state. we provide more substance abuse services than any other county in the state, by a huge factor. and we clearly realize that there's additional need that needs to be met. no question about it. >> [inaudible]. >> the public health department doesn't work alone on this. and as a fantastic job as they are doing, we're also doing it with the proper level of law enforcement, working very closely with our police department and to make sure, you know, a lot of people aren't making good judgments on the street. you know that. that's part of that whole challenge of mental health. so that's why i've been carrying out support for the community justice center, the community justice courts, get the folks on the street to actually force them to make a deci

my feeling is that in college, especially during the reagan administration, i thought that the democratic party in the united states had essentially vacated the left. and fused i think a little too much with the political right. there had n. my opinion, been insufficient advocacy for people who were left of center. and so that reality, coupled with the fact of the growing environmental crisis and denial that this country was going through and in seeing the inspirational movement of the green party's blossoming in europe, especially germany, i went to germany in the late 1980's. i spent time with the green party of germany in the parliament over there, learned everything i possibly could. came back to california. i was 1 of 20 people who co-founded the green party here in california. i have been a member of the green party, co-founder, for about 20 years and then less than two years ago i decided it was time for me to shift directions and i became a democrat. >> looking back a few years to your campaign for supervisor, what lessons did you learn from that experience? was there anything tha

oberstar: but even a decade after it was enacted, the reagan administration came in and cut the grant program to a loan program. and funding diminished over a period of time. now, we still have 1/3 or more of the nation's streams and lakes that don't meet the standards of the clean water act. we have to advance the cause. that is the big challenge ahead of us. you just don't think of raw sewage in waterways in a developed country, and yet, that's what we have, and not just in pittsburgh, but all over. narrator: pittsburgh is situated at the confluence of the allegheny, monongahela, and ohio rivers. these three rivers are vital for industry, recreation, and drinking water. and each year, billions of gallons of combined sewer overflows discharge directly into those rivers. hecht: we're now having to face the consequences of the choice that was made to put in combined sewer systems. narrator: in 1994, the government adopted a combined sewer overflow policy to reduce csos nationwide. cities with combined sewer overflows now face an enforcement action called a consent decree. under a conse

syria there's a hidden agenda from western influence and indeed i was talking to a former reagan administration official who told me a little earlier that the u.s. . has got its eyes on syria because it was actually like to undermine russia's influence in the region as we know moscow damascus have been very close allies for decades and russia has a large naval base in syria do you see any element of truth in that theory. who are not of the moment i think that the americans will be very conscious of the fact that any pressure they put on pro syria today will simply force syria towards more traditional allies such as iran and as you mentioned russia a country which has been able to take advantage of the fact that the europeans and americans have largely shunned syria over the past ten years and that is allow them an opportunity to forge cultural economic and political links so i don't think the americans have that on their mind i think they're far more concerned with shoring up their traditional interests in the region and syria always as has a sort of jannah space honestly represents both sides

no there is it like ok for instance if you look at the reagan administration when the rich and more tax rate jumps lower from being wealthy they were more jobs out there has been a rich and penalizing you for being is not the solution in fact if you want to as you said everybody under thousand dollars or more at a hundred percent rate butyl the gable to run its government for forty five months but what is the solution well the solution is that i believe in budget cuts we've got to put america first i mean i know it's hard to see what happened in japan but for a has become secondary to the needs of america well at that i mean the biggest problems are you know some of the biggest chunks of the budget are entitlements and defense spending when you cut defense spending on hold this in spending i believe in actually because and still keep the same amount of weapons because i'm alive. worked in the defense industry for harris corporation with government contracts under still palmer programs for weapons in the eighty's and i can tell you the ways that they put in there i mean you could look li

spender well joining me to discuss all this from panama city florida is columnist and former reagan administration official dr paul craig roberts thank you so much for being here dr roberts now if president eisenhower were alive today what do you think he would make of our enormous military budgets the close ties between washington the pentagon wall street and the like. well he would recognize it is a huge waste of resources and now his production his warning was correct. democracy now takes second stage to the allegorically private interest and the military security complex is the most powerful these interests and these laws have no national purpose system only in order to create profits for the armaments industry and has no other purpose the idea that the united states threatened by afghanistan or iraq is uncertainty and no sane person can possibly believe them well and even china which would be the strongest rival i guess the united states we spend six months as times in our military on our military as that country so do you think if these massive budgets are coming out of fear or right i mean

know that when i was a kid now i'm not sure at what point of change i think was during the reagan administration it was a crime for example for example if i open a bank account or you know went to the doctor the dentist or whatever for them to ask me for my social security number he used to be that our social security numbers were absolutely private and corporate you know you know what i'm talking about right. yeah i do not anymore you get so scared of everything you do it you know even if you log into you know your horizon company to ask you for the last four years so scary number have time to verify your identity right and this is this is to be your social is your unique identifier that's right you would use that for most secure financial transactions if someone got your social security number which is readily available these days they can are one step closer to stealing your identity why now give them that push why not give them your username you know steve smith username password you know all son to have access to your whole life well to take that to take that analogy just a step further soc

johnson and all the way up to and jimmy carr all the way up to the first four years of the reagan administration you had we had basically no deficits from george washington until ronald reagan he blows apart taxes on rich people and and david stockman comes right out and says oh well we're going to do this to create a crisis so there won't be any money to fund democratic programs so you know you've got to do in a ski saying it right in the wall street journal to santa clause three democrats in santa clauses was so scary for years we got to figure out if he had a cause and i got to be santa clauses cut taxes who cares if there's a deficit it'll put the rich the democrats back to the wall it has worked perfectly what you guys are doing and i think it's going to bite you when you say you guys i'm not a republican i'm an independent and the republicans are part of the problem they started this problem in one thousand nine hundred six when they turned away from the tax try tried one hundred eighty six well when they reagan national deficit he had two recessions and he got us out of the second recessi

perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor so here to discuss it with me is former reagan administration official and chairman of american freedom agenda bruce thanks so much for joining us here and writing first of all of honest office of legal counsel released on our end of this week where basically they gave their legal explanation for why they think it's fully within the president's powers to conduct this type of limited intervention without congressional approval so why can't everybody agree on this on the legality here because obviously you disagree with them well the memorandum style by the office of legal counsel is an arm of the department of justice and what's remarkable about the memorandum is that it doesn't cite anything with regard to the language of the constitution the constitutional convention the ratification debates the federalist papers that amplified on the meaning of commander in chief stating as the founding fathers understood commander in chief men you could leave the army in the air force at the time and it was described as an inferior power to even governors who

doing with the drug war we brought in coast guard into the caribbean and then i under the reagan administration we shot off that route they decide to go through mexico you know through the pacific or submarines involved so that. the hydrophone a mythical creature where you cut off one head into texas takes its place i'm also curious too because the undersecretary of defense for counter narcotics basically said that central america is facing this increasing violence is increasing drug war because of the progress that they've made in mexico and colombia and the success there who really sees it as a success there you know what progress please tell me maybe charlie sheen winning i don't think we're winning this is it's. it's a really sad way to present your failures i think there's nothing that suggests to me that fracturing these groups which is what our tactics or to break up these these drug trafficking organizations into smaller groups is going to produce any different result and in fact it lowers the barriers to entry usually usually if you have a large profit organization the small fry don't

. >> i was director on the joint staff from the second reagan administration. i run the community learning and information network which deals a lot with national guard. i've been wondering how you feel about all of iraq going on today because they're moving around a lot of pieces of the network organization, moving forward monuments, and moving this over, and this is like changing the wings on an airplane in flight. how does it appear to you from -- >> it appears awfully tough. i realize that we are in pursuit of the promised land of a better footprint. but boy, it is tough on people. my missile defense agency is moving to huntsville. my defense contract management agency is moving from one place in virginia to another place in virginia. so you're asking people who are part of, get back to the previous question to part of the solution here and who need to either relocate or you're going to have to find somebody else. to do that job. aberdeen is a beehive of new construction, a lot of stuff moving and so forth. i think it is true that a third of the department

then segwayed into a love fest with the audience as reagan ticked off the list of his administration's achievements, supporters were prompt today reply, "usa." to untrained eyes and ears, this spect call resembled spring steven's own ledge jind dare -- general -- more savvy onlookers recognized the irony in the president's attempt to cloak himself in the popular rocker's reputation. why should a republican cold war era and conservative family values advocate try to ride the coat tails of a working class hero rock star, a sympathetic chronicler of serial murders, laid-off autoworkers turned criminals and nostalgic losers? and so i go on to, you know, talk about the 1984 was the year bruce springsteen's "born in the usa" album was released with the best-selling single from that album, "born in the usa." and there's a big juncture between, of course, the chorus and the verses of that song where the chorus can be taken and was taken and appropriated as the patriotic affirmation the verses told the story of a downtrodden vietnam vet. and so there's a lot of, a lot of commentary on that, and

before that he was in the reagan administration in the department of health and human services and the office of personnel management where we have a close look at a program we all have -- this people consumer choice. and purchasing their health insurance. robert moffit, i welcome you. one of our valued co-authors we are speaking to each other. we started out very much in the same place and proud to have worked with all of you. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank my colleagues for this wonderful collaboration. and wonderful staff in new york for the harpercollins publishing tuned. they did a truly great job. i would be remiss if i did not extend my sincere appreciation for house speaker nancy pelosi. she told us it was important to pass the law so we could find out what was in it. hands the book. it was one of the most profoundly prophetic declarations in american political history. we are finding out a great deal. in the book, what we decided to do was look at a bunch of different things. one of the items we focused on reclaims being made on behalf of the new law. from the b

actually, the answers were there in the 1960's and 1970's before the reagan administration, when we were investing in education and family-planning. corporations were also being told, you pay your fair share like everybody else, and that investment was happening. the answer was there. >> i came from poverty and i became a lawyer and went to one of the best law schools in the country. it is because of the investments that were made. >> investment by government or corporations? >> government and corporations. we are going backwards, not forwards. >> and you don't see the family unit or individuals as able to compensate. your say more responsibility has to be taken by government and the private sector. >> i believe that is correct. we have resource issues up the wazoo. we need others to come in, and i think we need that investment to happen. >> i agree with the speaker that we have a criminal justice system that is out of control and exacts an enormous cost in communities of color. spending on welfare programs has gone up nonstop since the 1960 's. safety nets have not proven very effective

. >>> you would have to go back to the reagan administration to find out the last time the as played straight extra inning games. it happened in chicago today. wearing a cheese burger hat. >> this is the worst looking hat i ever saw. i bet you get a free bowl of soup you buy a hat like this? >> scoreless game in the 4th. godzilla's second home run of the year. chicago comes back. 9th inning. bases loaded. cliff pennington. base hit. one run scores. here comes coco crisp. he scores and the game is tied. all this from a team batting just .186. a base hit to center. that brings home connor jackson. hustles around. the as finish the nine game road trip with a 5-4 record. it is a darn shame that the kings didn't get that arena built in sacramento. the city should have coughed up the money and kept that team in sacramento. >> yes. >> one of a kind stadium, isn't it? arena? >> like i said they needed one. >> where are the kids going to play the state championships now because that's where they play them. >> maybe right here in oakland. right? >> bring it on. >> they kind of had a north, sou

[unintelligible] you all remember david stockman, the budget director during the reagan administration. he finds it unconscionable that the the republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, could believe is good public policy to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. it increases the tax breaks for the top 2%, because when you lower the top rate tonk, you'reg to be hitting middle-income tax payers to pay for the brakes at the very top. i listened earlier to the chairman of the committee, chairman ryan, when he was asked why they continue the tax breaks andthe folks at the pretop, he said that was necessary for economic growth of. the facts tell a different story. what this shows is that tax rates for the top income earners -- during the clinton administration, a period of rapid economic growth in which 4% gdp growth, compared to what happened when you provided the first tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top. he felt it very strongly, only 2.1% real gdp growth during those years, even though you had the lower tax rates. the point is there are

back under the reagan administration, the theory of trickle-down economics was developed. the idea was, people at the top make as much as they can and that will trickle down and help everybody else. and the man who was largely responsible for that policy under the reagan administration, david stockman, his dugget director said it last year, i find it unconscionable that the republican leadership could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. that was last year when they were debating whether to return to the clinton-era tax rates. the clinton era which resulted in the most impressive decade of job growth. they want to double down on that. they don't want to go back to the clinton-era tax cuts, but cut it even further. and their theory is by cutting the tax rate by 10% more on the wealthiest people in this country, that they will create more jobs. where do they get this stuff? the only source they have for that theory is the heritage foundation. the heritage foundation was also the group that said if we cut taxes in the bush administr

before that he served in the reagan administration both in the apartment of health and human services, and also at the office at the office of personnel management where he really had a good close look at a program that we all have thought actually a model that is as consumer choice. and purchasing their health insurance. bob moffit, i welcome you as one of our again, valued co-office. the fact that we are also speaking to each other shows we start a very much in the same place and really proud to have worked with all of you. >> thank you very much, grace-marie. i, too, would like to thank my colleagues for this wonderful collaboration and the wonderful staff in new york, the harpercollins publishing team. they did a truly great job. but i would be remiss if i would not extend my deep appreciation, sincere appreciation for house speaker nancy pelosi. she told us that it was important to pass the law so we could find out what was in it, hence the book. it was one of the most profoundly prophetic declarations in american political history. we are finding out a great deal. in the book wh

that case was made 25 years ago during the reagan administration. you just can't do that.n don't tackle any cuts in terms of military and, more over, don't raise any type of revenue from those at the top. you just can't. and, leslie, you talked about the issues you were going through in your personal family with medicaid, i believe -- guest: medicare. caller: you're absolutely right. people look at those issues, they personalize it and say this doesn't make sense to my family if it doesn't make sense in that regard, from a national standpoint it doesn't make sense. you just can't cut certain things. do you have to raise revenue, but there has to be some cuts. i agree with that. the complexity of the republican party is trying to distance themselves from the tea party that is too conservative. and i think, jamar, you're right when you talk about the congressional black caucus. they have to be a little more balanced. they have to. but what's going win this election is those who are in the middle. and i think obama is doing the best he can. he was dealt a very unfavorable han

or -- news on the environmental policies of the reagan administration. even on vacation, my father would steer the conversation is back to politics. there are times when this habit becomes a no win. -- when this habit becomes annoying. it was not one of his in gearing quirks, but what did find him and was the reason for his infectious happiness for being alive. when you see the world as one big classroom where you can learn something astonishing every day, every day brings a new source of joy. for that lesson, i say to my father, thank you. speaking of luck -- speaking of young bird journalists, have the pleasure of introducing a journalist from the generation who came after him. david had a big heart for anyone with a note pad. he loved you colleagues more than he loved gwen. her intelligence and insight or out is to my father even before they became colleagues. insight were obvious to my father even before they became colleagues. he faithfully watch her show on the weeks when he did not appear as a guest. the entire broder family is grateful to her for

in washington," that under a balanced budget amendment, not a single budget of the bush or reagan administrations would have qualified as constitutional. in fact, the only recent administration which would not violate the requirements of a balanced budget amendment would have been president clinton's and that would have been for only two of his budgets. if president reagan's budgets wouldn't qualify is this something we should even be considering in this congress? i don't think so. i've listed a few and certainly not an exhaustive list of arguments against the balanced budget amendment. the truth is, the federal government is quite unlike fiscal practices of businesses and families and states, even though we keep hearing the argument, the federal government needs to balance its budget like i do at home. the federal government needs to balance its budget like our families do. the federal government needs to balance its budget like the states do. but contrary to popular myth, except in times of war and recession, the country has a conservative record of keeping deficits actually in line. it's when

why did we run up deficits in the reagan administration when one person could have stopped it in its tracks or the george bush i administration when they could have stopped spending in its tracks? because we bought more than we paid for, $2.4 trillion. during the clinton administration, what happened? well, we had divided government, constrained spending and we constrained cutting revenues so we were able to pay for what we bought. during the bush administration, the second bush administration, we spent some $2.4 trillion more -- we bought that -- more than we paid for. every american knows if you do that, you are going to run deficits. that's how we got to $4.8 trillion of deficit. as the gentleman will argue that if we only adopt this program, we'll bring down deficits and will grow employment. well, that's the argument you used in 2001 and 2003. you didn't do either. in fact, employment disappeared. the worst employment record of any administration since herbert hoover, so that the arguments you made in 2001 and 2003 that this would magnify employment did not prove to be the case.

saw projects built across america not the trickle-down theory that didn't work during the reagan administration and the second push presidency. and my question is and i can't help but ask, why would we revisit that scenario again knowing we are crawling out of the recession and growing private sector jobs to the tune of two million in just over a year? why would we disrupt that progress? i ask, why would we disrupt that? i think it's great we are bringing this information to the forefront and allowing it to be exchanged with the people we represent who have expressed anger about the burden, the unnecessary pain that has been placed upon their households on modest income means. mr. garamendi: the chart that we shared a moment ago is next to me and it shows that which are seeing a middle class in america that has seen very, very little progress in the last two decades and instead, an enormous shift of wealth and income to the top 1% or 2% of the nation, 256% increase in income to the very wealthy. it trumps all of the income gains by the rest of the economy. those at the bottom saw 10%, 11% incre

we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the '80s under the reagan administration. at a time where i don't have to tell you or this audience where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we'd been sitting here a few months ago, and you asked me what's going to happen in the next couple months, i would not have put japan and libya at the top of the list of countries i'd be sending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that just speaks to the unpredictability that's out there. the tragedy and the loss of lives in japan. while there was great focus on libya, at the same time we had almost 20,000 troops and i think 18 or 19 ships in support of that humanitarian assistance and disaster relief for weeks at a time. so the demands, i think, will continue. we just have to be pretty measured about what we're going to -- what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. i've been in a hollow military before. i won't lead a hollow military. i know -- i know what one is and what it can and can't do, and i think it would be particu

we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the 1980's under the reagan administration, at a time when i don't have to tell you or this audience, where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we had been sitting here a few months ago, i would not have put japan libya at the top of the list of countries i would be spending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that is the unpredictability. and the loss of lives in japan. while there was focus in libya, we had 20,000 troops and 18 or 19 ships in support of that humanitarian assistance for weeks at a time. so the demands i think will continue. we have to be pretty measured about what we are going to do and not going to do. i have been in a hollow military before and i won't lead a hollow military. i know what one is and what it can and can't do and i think it would be particularly dangerous in the world we are living in now to hollow out. however we get to our future, it must be hole. and you talked about cuts in personnel and that's out in the 15, 16 time frame, maybe 14 right no

relax, but more often as a springboard for abusing us on the environmental policies of the reagan administrationr public education or the application of alternative energy programs. a bench during our personal conversations, my father would eventually steered the conversation back to politics. i must tell you, honestly, there are times when the said it becomes very annoying. but as time passed, i came to appreciate this, not just as one of his enduring court, but perhaps as what most defined him and fuelled his infectious happiness at being alive. when you see the world as one big classroom in which you can learn something astonishing everyday, everyday brings a new source of joy. i say to my father, thank you. speaking of young journalist, i now had the pleasure to introduce one of my father's favorite journalists from the generation that came after him. he had a big part for anyone with a pen and a pad, but it is fair to say that he loved few of his colleagues as much as c love gwen ifill. our intelligence was obvious to my father even before they were colleagues at the washington post in the

that topic with lawrence corp, a senior fellow and also former defense secretary under the reagan administration. we'll be right back. today we go to oklahoma to talk to our third prize winner. >> hi. >> so why did you choose funding for the americans with disabilities act for your documentary? >> initially what i was doing my research, i found that it is an issue that affects my community directly and it hits home in the classroom with different students who need a little more help in terms of their learning or the, like gaining new independence inside and outside the classroom. >> how have you been affected by the act? >> it's a great equal lidser. it does affect the way that i learn how teachers teach students. >> and how does it affect your school and community? >> it helps students realize just because you have a disability doesn't mean you're less intelligent. and having these technologies with the americans disabilities act inside of the classroom just kind of helps students show their true potential. and it doesn't leave them behind. >> why do you think it's important that the federal go

weapons against the soldiers and to their shame i think the international community and how the reagan administrationho did essentially nothing to punish that down for his egregious crimes. the regime decided that its international agreements going to allow saddam hussein to use weapons of mass destruction against iraq and the most developed mass destruction and then they started the nuclear program but they did it this time secretly. they kept it from the international community. they kept it from everybody because they were worried that israel would do to the program what it had done to iraq had recently syria. by the time they learned of this program it was already a fairly difficult program. we can talk much more detail about this. we don't have time. i need to stop, and the short version of it is that many of the same problems that have existed between this regime and the international community existed between the shah and the international community. one difference with the shah is trying to solve them in the context of the npt and the access to international law and not in defiance of the int

[unintelligible] you all remember david stockman, the budget director during the reagan administration. he finds it unconscionable that the the republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, could believe is good public policy to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. it increases the tax breaks for the top 2%, because when you lower the top rate tonk, you'reg to be hitting middle-income tax payers to pay for the brakes at the very top. i listened earlier to the chairman of the committee, chairman ryan, when he was asked why they continue the tax breaks andthe folks at the pretop, he said that was necessary for economic growth of. the facts tell a different story. what this shows is that tax rates for the top income earners -- during the clinton administration, a period of rapid economic growth in which 4% gdp growth, compared to what happened when you provided the first tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top. he felt it very strongly, only 2.1% real gdp growth during those years, even though you had the lower tax rates. the point is there are

. >> there was a story where a former chairman of the fcc was doing something under the reagan administration that president reagan did not like, or some of his advisers did not, so they brought in all of the movie studio heads who did not like the proposed regulation, and all were in the oval office. the president says if i could've gotten a meeting with you if -- when i was an actor, i would not have to go into the political world against the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. -- world. i guess the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. you cannot have that kind of situation now? now the you know that it is -- what it is like to be the chairman of the fcc, knowing very thing you know, would to a taken the job again? [laughter] >> yes. the issues that we have talked about, they're very, very important for the country. they're both interesting, exciting, and if we get the right, they will really matter to the economy and ordinary americans. they're things like digital text books that we did not talk about triplex digital text books -- the idea is that -- talk about. >> digital text books, i

we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the '80s under the reagan administration. at a time where i don't have to tell you or this audience where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we'd been sitting here a few months ago, and you asked me what's going to happen in the next couple months, i would not have put japan and libya at the top of the list of countries i'd be sending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that just speaks to the unpredictability that's out there. the tragedy and the loss of lives in japan. while there was great focus on libya, at the same time we had almost 20,000 troops and i think 18 or 19 ships in support of that humanitarian assistance and disaster relief for weeks at a time. so the demands, i think, will continue. we just have to be pretty measured about what we're going to -- what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. i've been in a hollow military before. i won't lead a hollow military. i know -- i know what one is and what it can and can't do, and i think it would be particu

during reagan's administration, there was the c.i.a. agent that delivered 20 tons of c 4 to libya. he was found guilty and later on he was found innocent. that should be an issue. that should be brought up more than this birth certificate to me. my dad was in the cuban missile crisis in puerto rico. there are things that are dangerous in the world and the birth certificate isn't one of them. >> no, i still scratch my head and people still want to talk about it. i scratch my head. but it's out there and hopefully it will finally be put to rest. bruce, thanks for the call. >> one thing i would like to bring up on jobs. >> oh, yeah. >> hello. >> go ahead. >> my family is from michigan. my grandfather was a treasurerer of wayne county in 19 70 and he was in the state legislature. i have seen michigan destroyed, the auto industry destroyed. a lot of it was that reagan came in and jobs were brought in our country down to the south and the union, ford and chevrolet and others were destroyed up there. i can take that, those were destroyed, jobs were brought in our country. but now when mil

dropped during the final days of the toomey carter presidency and then revised during the reagan administration as far as what was supposed to happen to determine who would not have to shore up for work. in the last few days, a lot of -- show up for work. in the last few days, a lot of information has started to come out. but there are very detailed questions, especially for people in the washington area because a government is the industry, really. you have an incredible number of people, hundreds of thousands that have their jobs tied to the federal government. i was in a taxicab yesterday were the guy said, if you close the museums, who will i drive around the city? certainly, a lot of museums will be open, and some -- some government installations, like engraving and printing, but the most popular attractions will not be. it is a confusing process. we are told that today, you know, managers with direct reports are supposed to have meetings and they are supposed to go through the mechanics of this and those people will learn their fate as to whether or not they will have to show up to work b

really to relax but more often as a springboard for musings on the environmental policy of the reagan administrationntarism and public education or the implications of alternative energy programs. .. >> speaking of younger journalists, u now have the pleasure to introduce one of my father's favorite journalist from the generation that came after him. dave had a big heart for anyone with a pen and a note pad, but it's fair to say he loved his colleagues. his intelligence and insight for obvious to my father even before they were colleagues at the washington post in the 1980s, and the friendship they developed deepened over the years even though glenn went to work for competing news organizations. later, my father looked forward to his aday appearances, and faithfully watched the show on those weeks he did not appear as a guest. the entire broder family is grateful to glenn for delivering a eulogy today. we can think of no better fitting one to do so. >> okay. i have a card. thank you, matt, and thank you to all of the broders, and thank you for inviting me to speak here today and allowing us to borro

that case was made 25 years ago during the reagan administration. you just can't do that. and then don't tackle any cuts in terms of military and, more over, don't raise any type of revenue from those at the top. you just can't. and, leslie, you talked about the issues you were going through in your personal family with medicaid, i believe -- guest: medicare. caller: you're absolutely right. people look at those issues, they personalize it and say this doesn't make sense to my family if it doesn't make sense in that regard, from a national standpoint it doesn't make sense. you just can't cut certain things. do you have to raise revenue, but there has to be some cuts. i agree with that. the complexity of the republican party is trying to distance themselves from the tea party that is too conservative. and i think, jamar, you're right when you talk about the congressional black caucus. they have to be a little more balanced. they have to. but what's going win this election is those who are in the middle. and i think obama is doing the best he can. he was dealt a very unfavor

we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the '80s under the reagan administration. at a time where i don't have to tell you or this audience where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we'd been sitting here a few months ago, and you asked me what's going to happen in the next couple months, i would not have put japan and libya at the top of the list of countries i'd be sending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that just speaks to the unpredictability that's out there. the tragedy and the loss of lives in japan. while there was great focus on libya, at the same time we had almost 20,000 troops and i think 18 or 19 ships in support of that humanitarian assistance and disaster relief for weeks at a time. so the demands, i think, will continue. we just have to be pretty measured about what we're going to -- wha we're going to do and what we're not going to do. i've been in a hollow military before. i won't lead a hollow military. i know -- i know what one is and what it can and can't do, and i think it would be particul

. >> there was a story where a former chairman of the fcc was doing something under the reagan administrationent reagan did not like, or some of his advisers did not, so they brought in all of the movie studio heads who did not like the proposed regulation, and all were in the oval office. the president says if i could've gotten a meeting with you if -- when i was an actor, i would not have to go into the political world against the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. -- world. i guess the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. you cannot have that kind of situation now? now the you know that it is -- what it is like to be the chairman of the fcc, knowing very thing you know, would to a taken the job again? [laughter] >> yes. the issues that we have talked about, they're very, very important for the country. they're both interesting, exciting, and if we get the right, they will really matter to the economy and ordinary americans. they're things like digital text books that we did not talk about triplex digital text books -- the idea is that -- talk about. >> digital text books, is that going