we get to serve as advance people for gene sperling. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i want to thank al hunt and the phenomenal panel. it is my great privilege to introduce gene sperling, the director of the white house national economic council. gene also is a former senior fellow at the center for american progress where he wrote and he talked a great deal about the connections between innovation, education, insuring that we have an economy that works for everyone. having served in the administration with gene, there is no one in the administration that is more focused on america's long-term competitiveness, not short-term competitiveness, midterm competitiveness. when the president is talking about these issues, china now are important to him -- which are important to him, to the people better dreaming about being the next generation of innovators, gene talks about the policies that can help achieve that from higher education, k -12. maybe

a discussion from gene sperling. on this morning's "washington journal," we will look at the fiscal deadline this year. >> as a country basis at the upcoming fiscal deadline, a look at some of the fate -- of the challenges facing state governments. we will have live coverage from the u.s. chamber of commerce beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span freak. here on c-span, a discussion about bonded for federal services and programs for older americans. it will be hosted by republicans on the senate committee for aging with live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> national economic council director gene sperling says any deal on a must address the debt ceiling issue. he spoke at the center for american progress and answer questions. this is about 40 minutes. now it is my great privilege to introduce gene sperling, who is the director of the white house national economic council and assistant to the president for economic policy. gene also is a former senior fellow at the center for american progress where he wrote "the p

with that, gene sperling. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is intimidating to have already followed your panel. i like much more when you get to be the first person to mention every idea and the panel's save as gene sperling said, now you go after the president's of harvard, glenn hutchins, susan mollen ari, and parter with my wife on issues of child trafficking, a special place in our home. a lot has already been said and since i didn't get to hear all i don't know whether i will be repeating again. let me start by doing economic policy, particularly in this area reminding ourselves what is the end goal of economic policy? you hear a lot of metrics on gdp, growth, productivity as if those were the ends in themselves. they are all means to an end, ultimate goals of economic policy which to me, are we a nation in which the accident of your birth is not determined by the outcome of your life, there's a real chance for everyone to rise? are we an economy where growth strengthens and broadens the middle-class so there's not security for the lo

. >> i want to bring in gene sperling -- nice to see you. >> thanks. i apologize for the fact that i do not control my life for scheduled to much. >> nothing going on in your world. now that we have brought you from the edge of the fiscal cliff, let's talk about these for a moment. you have seen the headlines that say, saudi america. we have this new found richness, new technologies to find energy. i have seen some estimates up to 3 million new jobs directly related to the energy boom. is it real? how unfortunate of a driver will that be for the economy? when you're sitting down trying to figure out what growth will look like in this country, how does a factor in? >> in a few ways. number one, if there's one thing i feel more optimistic than i did one decade ago, i had a book out around 2006 and i felt like, when you are out making the case for why there should be more location as opposed to china and india, you felt like you how the wind in your face. you have great meetings but then they pull your side and say, that's a powerful argument, but we're m

i want to bring in gene sperling who just came in a minute ago. >> thanks. i apologize for the fact that i do not control my life for scheduled to much. >> nothing going on in your world. now that we have brought you from the edge of the fiscal cliff, let's talk about these for a moment. you have seen the headlines that say, saudi america. we have this new found richness, new technologies to find energy. i have seen some estimates up to 3 million new jobs directly related to the energy boom. is it real? how unfortunate of a driver will that be for the economy? when you're sitting down trying to figure out what growth will look like in this country, how does a factor in? >> in a few ways. number one, if there's one thing i feel more optimistic than i did one decade ago, i had a book out around 2006 and i felt like, when you are out making the case for why there should be more location as opposed to china and india, you felt like you how the wind in your face. you have great meetings but then they pull your side and say, that's a powerful argument, but we're m

speakers include gene sperling, harvard university president, and former congresswoman and portugal vice-president, susan molinari. - google vice-president, susan molinari. from the american enterprise institute, join us live, 5:30 p.m. eastern also here on c- span. president obama troubles monday to an auto plant in michigan to merge congress to extend tax breaks for 998% of americans.

with that, gene sperling. >> thank you very much, neera.is intimidating to have followed your panel. i like to be the first person and the panel says, "gene sperling says --" the president of harvard and glenn hutchins and susan molinari, who is down at google and partners with my life on issues of child trafficking. a special place in our home. i know a lot has already been said. i have been herded so i don't know if i'll be repeating it. i like to start by just reminding ourselves what is our end goal for economic policy because you hear a lot metrics on productivity and growth as it those were the ends in themselves. are we a nation in which the accident of your birth is not overly to determine the outcome of your life where there is a real chance for everybody to rise? are we an economy where growth strengthens? are we an economy and a country where people who work hard and take responsibility for their lives can work with dignity, raised her children with dignity, and retire with dignity? those are our ultimate goals. innovation can be

we get to serve as advance people for gene sperling. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> gene sperling also discuss the fiscal cliff and reemphasize the administration's position on higher taxes for the wealthy. this is 40 minutes. >> now it now it is my great privilege to introduce gene sperling, who is the director of the white house national economic council and assistant to the president for economic policy. gene also is a former senior fellow at the center for american progress where he wrote "the pro-growth progressive," where he talked a great deal about the connections between innovation, education, ensuring that we have an economy that works for everybody. i want to say that i am certain the administration -- there is nobody in the administration who is more focused on america's long-term competitiveness, its short-term competitiveness, its mid-term competitiveness. when the president is talking about his vision for the future, america ma

[laughter] gene sperling is now here. gene and i talked last night. there was a holiday can party last night at the white house. at one point i found myself between -- i found myself between john boehner and tim geithner. i quickly backed up. [laughter] but it wasn't up to me to talk to a lot of colleagues on the house side and the senate side, gene and others. i told gene what i was going to say, and then i realized after the fact that i have no idea what he's going to say. so he did a good job finding out what i'm going to say. so i look forward to hearing his comments. >> many i came all the way from the other washington to let you all know my great grandfather died fighting for social security, and i'm not about to let the 2% take away these hard-won benefits from my generation. i'm here for my mom who's a public schoolteacher who spent the better part of 40 years educating our children. she deserves and needs to e retire next year. she's 64. i'm here for darlene, a -- [inaudible] native who receives her life saving blood pressure medication throu

gene sperling at the last minute could not make it. there is a meeting going on right now, which may be productive -- maybe not. we have congresswoman allyson schwartz from pennsylvania, who has served on the ways and means committee in the house and now on the budget committee. she has become a big deal. we are happy to have you with us. >> thank you. gene was summoned a way for a meeting, which may or may not be good news on the fiscal front. i hope this will be less eventful than the last panel i moderated. i was at harvard where they do the debrief every four years with the senior campaign officials of both teams. we were in the middle when all of the power went out in cambridge. we are sorry gene could not be with us. we are glad representative schwartz could be with us, representing a district in philadelphia. i want to have a conversation in two parts that reflect the dual nature of the to-do list the public presented in the poll. when you asked them the most immediate challenge for washington, they talk about the deficit and th

then white house economic adviser gene sperling and republican senator rob portman on deficit reduction and avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. after that we're live with a discussion on the ha tee know vote -- latino vote in the 2012 presidential election and the prospects for changes to immigration policy. and later, the senate's back at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches. later in the day members resume debate on a bill to temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee or t.a.d. program that provides limited insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. a procedural vote on the measure is expected at 5:30 eastern. >> host: well, on "the communicators" we're doing a series looking at the future of tv, and this week we're pleased to have joining us the president and ceo of the national cable and telecommunications association, michael powell. mr. powell, thank you for being on "the communicators" again, we appreciate it. >> guest: my pleasure. >> host: if you would, put on your future glasses. >> guest: all right. [laughter] they're on. >> host: look ahead fi

sperling said, u.eport that we have here house all three of those things, the maximization of oil. it into saudi arabia levels mean we produce 11 million barrels. at the same time, driving down consumption and, fuel efficiency standards, electrification, natural gas, and continuing research and development that sutterville is and was talking about in the hopes we could take a biofuels to fly in airplanes and drive trucks to get them into scaled production that would be cost- effective. if we do all three of those things, we have a real opportunity to change the economic dependency of this country and certainly the national security risks that we continue to have with a black swan events like saudi arabia becoming a state that is controlled like a theocracy like iran or something. >> let's get one more here. smith curious what mr. thinks about the conversation between senator alexander and gene sperling about research and development. the price of plasma televisions fell 20 full and it really was not a

next we're going to hear from gene sperling. obviously in the middle of a lot of discussions going on right now and we're going to talk about taxes or the big broad budget decision. gene, thank you for joining us. >> well, thank you maya for your leng-term leadership on the issue of reaching bipartisan fiscal discipline. we have just seen there is no shortage of passion on this issue. the ultimate end the ultimate test for everything we do in economic policy is whether it meets the fundamental values that make this country great. which are, are we a nation in the action of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. two, are we a nation where the economic growth strengths the middle class and creates more room for the poor and others who want to work their way up? three, are we creating an economy for those who work hard and take responsibility can raise their children with dignity, work with dignity, and retire with dignity. that is the ultimate test. now, i believe there is no reason we should not be able to find c

gene sperling who is -- could not make it today.ely there something going on right now which is productive. maybe not. but we do have congresswoman allyson schwartz from pennsylvania who has served on the ways and means committee in the house and now budget committee and she is in this violent we have going on. >> as i mentioned, may or may not be good news on the fiscal front. i would just as with way of introduction i'm hoping this as a less -- last week i was in hartford -- harbored. we were in the middle of discussing the general election and when all the power went out. we're hoping it isn't quite as difficult as one. we are sorry jeanne could be with us but we're fortunate to have represented schwarz with as representing a dish in philadelphia, and urban philadelphia, vice ranking democratic member on the committee on the ways and means committee. i want to have a conversation, that reflects kind of the dual nature of the to do list that the public can send it in the pulpit on the one hand when you ask them the most immediate

we asked advisor gene sperling on this show. absolutely not. not going to do it. >> why haven't republicans hammered home that theme? david: why haven't they. >> good question. poor unimaginative leadership. david: they're in the beltway mentality how to out maneuver the other guy without thinking about long term implications to us. >> why didn't they define the debate. they knew after the election they knew it was coming up. they go to the sheep and the slaughterhouse and hope they're not sheared too much. david: they don't send themselves to the slaughterhouse. we're going to the slaur house. president says how much new revenue he needs. the most he will get taxing all the rich people assuming they don't move their money to the cayman islands is 100 billion a year. look what happened in 2009 when we went into recession. look what happened to revenues. put that up on the screen. revenues in 2009 went into recession. we lost $400 billion in one year and we didn't regain it until 2011. we still haven't regained the amount we had in 2007 because

i mean, you know, i've seen people like, for example, gene sperling speak at conferences. >> former clinton economic advisor. >> right, he's now obama advisor. >> now obama -- >> and he for example, he talked about middleclass jobs. and you could tell the way he used the expression middleclass, these are, like, people he didn't know personally. i mean, there's this weird -- you've got this big class stratification, where the people in d.c. don't see this, right? >> what's even worse is we now have a close -- in the democratic party it's explicit and my understanding is in the republican party it's pretty close to explicit, pay to play systems. here it used to be that the assignments on the prestigious committees were based on seniority. now in the democratic party, they have a price tag that if you want to be on the head of an important committee, you literally have to kick in a certain amount to the d triple c. >> the democratic congressional campaign committee. >> right. and then the committee controls more goodies that are perceived to be essential to congressmen. for example, they do th

a lot about the poor but in the negotiations, especialfully 2010, the president, his team, gene sperlingnd others were effective in protecting poor people's programs, and benefits, and i think they are going to draw some lines here. the lines are just not going to be identical to the ones two years ago. >> i'm definitely on obama's side and i appreciate the fact there's a difference between getting the work done. do you want the commercial or the job done? i get that. i'm saying at some point, talking about the attention deficit disorder that this nation suffers from in terms of politics, the poor have to have a spokesperson to articulate their viewpoints, a marion wright etleman, someone who speaks about the devastation the poor endured. there's a value in speaking it into existence so on shows like this or sunday morning programs the poor have a seat at the table. >> think of the man with the golden throat a spokesperson on this hour, which i applaud you. >> where is john edwards? >> john edwards. >> getting a haircut. >> if there was an oil painting of john edwards -- the haircut's no

sperling said, they reduce to the payroll tax last year, in 2011, amounting to $108 billion. the not by accident of price of fuel went up and consumed our disposable income in this country. as you can see, the light blue bar, the only way to solve this problem is not to get divorced from the global economy, as canada and norway has showed some it would not make a difference anyway. we need to diversify transportation so that it is not as dependent upon petroleum as is currently the case and this redline on page 9, probably the most important of all, the amount of oil that we can assume per $1,000 of g.d.p. if we can diversify into compressed natural gas and come up with a viable electrification and of trucks and vehicles, those are profound developments which were not possible until very recently. the report that we have here house all three of those things, the maximization of oil. it into saudi arabia levels mean we produce 11 million barrels. at the same time, driving down consumption and, fuel efficiency standards, electrification, natural gas, and continuing research and

jean sperling could not make it today. there is a meeting going on right now which may be could be productive, maybe not. but we do have congressman allyson schwartz from pennsylvania who has served on the ways and means committee in the house and the budget committee. she is in this environment and has gone on to become a really big deal. we are happy to have you with us terry >> thank you. jean was some of the way for a meeting which may or may not be good news on the fiscal front. i am hoping this is a little less a vengeful than the last panel i moderated. last week i was at the kennedy school at harvard were they do the debrief every four years with a senior campaign officials and we discussed the campaign when the fire without -- and all the power went out. fortunate that rep schwartz is able to join us, representing a district in philadelphia

according to my good friend gene sperling and his blog, the estimate to propose to cap deductions will cost about $100 billion in charitable giving over the next 10 years. during the cost involved is $200 billion. if i understand the white house's cost-benefit analysis correctly, in order to have $100 billion of extra charitable giving to charities by the twists of the rich, but the general taxpayer has to give up twice as much or $200 billion. that really does not make the basic test of the cost-benefit analysis. whether giving $180,000 in revenue cost to protect an artificial line or having a cost to the taxpayer of $2 for every additional dollar of charitable giving that the rich people are going to give, the white house's analysis does not meet standard cost-benefit analysis, which maybe is why we have trillion- dollar deficits. there are lots of ways of doing this. capping the itemized deduction gets to the people you -- its revenue from people you want to get it from, and does so in a way that is minimally distorting. it fits in with the approach of broadening the base and of the

with that gene sperling. [applause] >> well, thank you very much neera.intimidating to have already followed your panel. i like much more when you get to talk first be the first person to mention every idea, and the panels say, yes as was said -- [laughter] now it's you go after the president of harvard and you know, hutchens and you know susan, who more importantly than anything else she's done at google or in congress, partners with my wife on issues of child trafficking so she's a special place in our home but so you know, i know a lot has already been said and since i p didn't hear it all i don't know if i'll just repeat it again. we like to remind ourselves what's the end goal for economic policy because you hear a lot of metrics on gdp on growth, on productivity, ect. as if those were the ends in themselves. they are all means to our ends ultimate goals of economic policy which, to me are, are we are nation in which the accident of your birth does not overly determine the outcome of your life or if there's a real chance for everyone to rise? two are

speakers include white house national economic counsellor sperling and former congresswoman and burned mobile vice-president susan molinari. it starts 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. also tomorrow, a look at how u.s. debt, slow economic growth and the retirement of baby boomers could impact the global and economic future of the united states. from the american enterprise institute doug join us live at 5:30 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. >> we are at the new york state museum. this is our galley that is dedicated to the history of september 11 and the attacks at the world trade center. we decided with the gallery to tell the story for the first moments of the attacks using objects from the world trade center site. this is a piece of steel from the south tower. we put it in a place where the public can and should come and touch it. it gives it a real tangible experience. this is a piece of steel from the north towers. this is a dramatically bent piece of steel. this is within 10 floors of the impact of 9/11 on the north tower. again, you can see the openings where the windows would

securities, but along the lines of the fiscal cliff there were a lot of people at this event, gene sperlingthe president, roy blount, a republican senator from tennessee there as well. people are grim right now about where we are on the fiscal cliff. i asked the ceo of fedex, he employs people. he is shipping packages. he cares about the price of oil, price of energy, and he cares about the clarity of what's happening in washington. listen so what i asked him. >> as a ceo, when you're watching the fiscal cliff, how do you make decisions? is it irrelevant to your business if we go over the fiscal cliff? how does a ceo look at what's happening in washington and decide for next year? >> most of the ceos look at the situation in washington with complete amazement and dismay to be frank about it. the problem is the ideological pinnings on both sides of this argument are so difficult to bridge that it's going to be hard for them to get a deal. >> he also said that they're fighting the wrong fight. i asked would you be willing to pay higher taxes yourself? warren buffett says rich should pay highe

earlier today, gene sperling reemphasize the obama registration tax on the wealthy. >> when you think again that we have an economy that is capable of having more winner take all outcomes. progressive taxation is not about redistribution. it is not about populism. it is about a national commitment to pay it forward. those of us who have benefited most from the innovation of the past seven obligation to pay for it to make sure we are giving this generation and the next generation the same building blocks in terms of education research so that they have the same chance to grow and prosper. in that sense, paying down deficits loss still investing is not about borrowing from the future. it is about investing in a more prosperous future. i think that is the overall frame. the processes are not things to be stopped but things to be in braised in shaped toward the progressive values we hold the deer. cambyyou are essentially talking about a commitment to the evidence and accountability. part of having innovation is an ability to test what is working and being able to marshal the forces from

today in our caucus i actually sperling was there and i reminded them that the public auction if they wanted to control the cost of care premium cost then the public option had to come into play. i have not dropped the issue of the public option. it saves $58 billion for heaven sakes. but health care, right now, we have a base to improve on. for the last two years where everything that the president stood for the republicans wanted to tear a part was going after health care and if that would have been successful we would be starting over and in a real hole. we're on our way. it won't work if it is so costly in premiums. so yeah, you have care but you can't afford it. so we have to have competition through the insurance companies. look at me, i'm not running but i'm still campaigning. >> what is the term liberal and the term progressive mean to you? >> it means the same thing. we started saying, i'm progressive right after i was elected in 1992 because liberal was like saying i'm some kind of outlandish addict or something. little by little i started realizing that liberal and progress

according to my good friend gene sperling and his blog, the estimate to propose to cap deductions will cost about $100 billion in charitable giving over the next 10 years. total cost involved is $200 billion. if i understand the white house's cost-benefit analysis correctly, in order to have $100 billion of extra charitable giving to charities by the rich, but the general taxpayer has to give up twice as much or $200 billion. that really does not make the basic test of the cost-benefit analysis. whether giving $180,000 in revenue cost to protect an artificial line or having a cost to the taxpayer of $2 for every additional dollar of charitable giving that the rich people are going to give, the white house's analysis does not meet standard cost-benefit analysis, which maybe is why we have trillion-dollar deficits. there are lots of ways of doing this. capping the itemized deduction gets to the people you -- it's revenue from people you want to get it from, and does so in a way that is minimally distorting. it fits in with the approach of broadening the base and of the least not raising

we did just get some remarks that gene sperling delivered in which he responds to boehner's letter callsointing and says that an accept aps by republicans that rates have to go up is the key to unlocking a deficit reduction agreement. now that's consistent with everything that's happened at the white house since the election, essentially trying to break down republican resistance to raising top rates which is very popular with the american people. however, as i mentioned when we talked in the last hour, are the significance of the republican offer is that they have laid out and taken ownership of cuts to entitlement programs, medicare and social security, that would directly hit beneficiaries, the rising eligibility age, also the reduced inflation adjustments. that is a step forward in these negotiations because it represents them putting something specific that the white house will have to respond to. the president is doing an interview with bloomberg today. i would expect him to respond to those specifics and i think you see the beginning of the possibility where republicans, if they c

but i'll just quickly take you through one that gene sperling and i did a blog post on last week, and it's been the one that i think we've heard the most in the public debate, which is let's take the idea that you could take everyone's tax deductions, limit them to $25,000. if you have more than $25,000 in deductions you wouldn't get to take those extra deductions. it sounds like a reasonable idea. it sounds like most middle-class families wouldn't be affected -- $25,000 is quite a lot. and it's been claimed that it could raise over a trillion dollars. so could you do that instead of what we're talking about? well, then you start to look at the idea. it turns out 17 million middle- class families would see their taxes go up as a result of this proposal, households that make -- married couples that make below $250,000. forty percent of the revenue in this plan would come from those middle-class families. the president doesn't want to raise tas onam thoseies. so you fix it -- you start at $250,000 and now the proposal only raises $800 billion. but it has a cliff -- when your income goes

today in our caucus i actually sperling was there and i reminded them that the public auction if they wanted to control the cost of care premium cost then the public option had to come into play. i have not dropped the issue of the public option. it saves $58 billion for heaven sakes. but health care, right now, we have a base to improve on. for the last two years where everything that the president stood for the republicans wanted to tear a part was going after health care and if that would have been successful we would be starting over and in a real hole. we're on our way. to work.g it won't work if it is so costly in premiums. so yeah, you have care but you can't afford it. so we have to have competition through the insurance companies. look at me, i'm not running but i'm still campaigning. i'm still adamant about what i believe. >> what is the term liberal and the term progressive mean to you? >> it means the same thing. we started saying, i'm progressive right after i was elected in 1992 because liberal was like saying i'm some kind of outlandish addict or something. little by li