the fact that really it's this explosion in in wealth and in national debt all began with the reagan administration and what is the meme the thinking the thought virus that infected our nation with the reagan administration that has left us that we needed to extract or cure. well i think that they did a good job sort of selling the idea that everybody's on their own and get out there and get your own and any increases in taxes on the wealthy is going to kill jobs and hurt the economy and so that monster that drumbeat has been beating pretty solidly and now here we are in this you know we're broke i mean that's sort of the narrative of the republican leadership there's no money we we have these huge debts and deficits and yet the whole discussion about revenue is completely off the table we have to put revenue back on the table which you know there's there's all kinds of interesting grassroots movements percolating like the other ninety eight percent in the u.s. uncut movement and others their message is kind of simple look we don't have to cut budgets first step before we talk cuts let's just resta

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

bill bennett is a cnn political contributor, former secretary of education for the reagan administrationproblem here? are high schools not aware of what's expected in college or do the couric cue la not line up? >> dumbing down of almost everything, grade school, middle school, high school and college. that's the problem. when i toured the country, when i was secretary of education, went to 120 schools, what i found was this -- everybody at every educational level above third or fourth grade, believes the fundamentalal education work was done at the preceding level. therefore they do creative this, revisionist that, special aspect of with who's doing the basic work and a lot of the basic work isn't getting done. when you add to that, christine, the fact that the s.a.t.s have been dumbed down and higher education has not -- does not have real expectations of competency to get into higher education, you've got this problem. >> why doesn't higher education have higher expectations? is it because as long as -- >> it wants bodies. >> as long as someone is paying the bills that's what it's abo

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

it failed in the reagan administration where we incurred $1.4 trillion in new deficits. it failed in the... >> steny, steny. the commission recommended supply side economics. it recommended lowering tax rates. that is pro-growth economics. bowels is saying lower tax rates. >> as you know, i agree with that. >> so we agree with that. >> no, you don't think that revenues ought to be any part of this. >> we think revenues should grow by growing the economy. raising tax rates hurts economic growth. >> schieffer: both of you... >> bob, that's an important point because, with all due respect, that was your argument in 1981. that was your argument in.... >> i was a kid in 1981. >> not your personal argument but kemp's. listen to me. that was the argument in 1981. that was the argument in 2001. both times, we had continuing large deficits. >> the deficit today is the difference today is putting up the spending controls and the tax reform. tax reform for economic growth. >> what you're also doing is... >> i can tell you that.... >> what you're also doing is you're doing it in a pa

values of working people that we go to have in this country for thirty years in america since the reagan administration there's been a steady right wing corporate right wing a sole role in the work in the rights of working people and you know there was a story in the times the other day about the manufacturing jobs coming back to the midwest in this country but the jobs that are being created or pay one third of the jobs that were sent overseas so they have a history of this are our previous loves to sit when it's abroad but if you they don't like this in the home they're made uncomfortable about it by the mainstream press because if that this sense succeeds it's the threat threat to the corporations for whom they work and to the relationship between the call. the corporate powers and the state powers that represented. this sort of consensual seduction that is growing all over this country of the rights and interests of working people it's very well said we're going to take a quick break and when we come back i'd like to get into. some of the back to the sixty's for a moment if we could and some more o

pretty good deal now earlier of joined by dr pollack roberts on this issue he served in the reagan administration i asked him if the tides against the white house may be shifting when it comes to living up to look at as you enter the ministration has its own goals and their independence what mayors say or what the american people think libya is important to the administration because they want to do it china from its oil investments with china has massive all investments in eastern libya and the united states government is concerned by the report recently from the international monetary fund that within five years china would overtake the united states as the world's strongest economy so washington trying to protect its hey jimmy is trying to reduce any independent sources of energy that china has so that's what the libya kind. it was about so you don't think these lawmakers and now that the republicans are doing the fray of bringing up the whole constitutionality issue you don't think they're going to be able to do anything at all to change the policy on in libya and not unless they're willing t

the administration can't come together by august 2nd. >> panic. >> panic. >> gloria, the republicans ought to go back and read the letters coming from the reagan administration to the congress, you can't go into default, don't do this. >> it's a political issue comes up and the party in charge says you can't go into default. i remember barack obama when he was a united states senator by the way, did not vote to raise the debt ceiling. >> they are going to raise it. >> they will. >> short term. but i think the question to mark is, if they raise it short term, does that still leave uncertainty in the marketplace? >> it does. go ahead, quickly. >> go ahead, mark. >> it does. ideally, they would pass the debt ceiling to sufficient degree so we get to the other side of the election, but i mean, the second best is give us a least a couple more months to nail this down. >> we'll have to leave it there. but david stay where you are. we'll ask, is there anything a president can do about the economic situation in terms of unemployment? does president obama have anything left in the tool box to save the economy and of course his presidency is on the line. stay with us.

the administration can't come together by august 2nd and raise the debt creeling. >> panic? >> panic. >> gloria, the republicans ought to go back and read the letters coming from the reagan administration to the congress saying, you cannot go into default, it's way too dangerous, don't do this. >> but it's a political issue. the party in charge says, you can't go into default. when barack obama was a united states senator, did not vote to raise the debt ceiling. >> they're going to raise it. >> they l. >> i think the question to mark is, if they raise it short term, does that still leave a lot of uncertainty out there in the marketplace? >> it does. >> it does. >> go ahead, quickly. >> ideally, they would pass the debt ceiling to a sufficient degree so we get to the other side of the election. but the second best is -- give us at least a couple, three or months to nail it down. >> we'll have to leave it there for a moment. but you guys stay right where you are. next, we're going to be asking, is there anything really a president can do about the economic situation right now, particularly in terms of unemployment? does president obama have anything left in the toolbox to save the econom

right time to take it because we had good equipment, air tanks and ships bought back during the reagan administration in the '80s. the reason the defense budget has doubled and is higher in constant dollars which means setting inflation aside than at any point in our history since the end of the second world war, the real reason is we went to war. we fund tlad war through extra budget appropriations called supplementals to the defense budget. but because we were at war, congress was quite unprepared to take a hard look at the basic defense budget aside from what we were paying for war. and so those costs also cent up at the same time as we were spending money on the war. so in fact we've more than doubled the defense budget over the last ten years. we've done it without serious scrutiny so at this point it is time for scrutiny and much of that can happen without jeopardizing our national security. >> so when the president talks about the 400 billion over 12 years, is that reasonable? or is that not even enough? >> not only is that reasonable, but i would suggest that it may be the best that the penta

we go to richard burt, an assistant secretary of state and ambassador to west germany in the reagan administration. he's now with mclarty associates, a consulting firm. and retired army lieutenant general david barno commanded coalition forces in afghanistan in 2003 and 2004. he's now at the center for a new american security, a think tank. welcome to you both. general, that was quite a broadside, that secretary gates leveled against the europeans, essentially saying they're not keeping up their end of the bargain in nato. is he right? >> i would have to agree with him, and it's great to see him in his last policy speech, probably in this administration, making that point about this vital alliance with the united states. i hope the europeans pay attention. he said similar things a year ago. there was really no reaction right here at the washington national defense. the real question is what will it take to get nato to change its ways. >> warner: how did you see it? >> i thought the speech was, in fact, a little bit strange because i saw a pretty familiar harangue directed against the europeans, an

should all probably hope for the best thank you so much for your time dr parker roberts the former reagan administration official. still ahead here on our team the issue of homelessness is one that we all see on our streets hardly talk about the country as you know the number of homeless students in america is on the rise we're going to speak to just one of them and that. our team is the state run english speaking russian channel it's kind of like algis e.u. . russia today has an extremely confrontational stance when it comes to us. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so. you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here so you saw the part of it and realized everything you saw you don't. charge the big picture of. what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break through get through to convey who can you trust no one. is you know what you do with the global machinery city where we had a state controlled capitalism in school that when nobody dares to ask we do our t. question more. well from warfarin economic woes to the battle in ed

he spent five years as a trial attorney at the department of justice during the reagan administration, including a stint as a federal prosecutor, three years of volunteer judge pro tempore on an oregon county court. the -- this nomination has had the strong support of his home state senators, senator wyden and senator merkley, since he was nominated nearly a year ago, and he's twice been reported by the judiciary committee with signature bipartisan support. i mention that because tra durablely somebody like this would have gone through almost the first day after he was reported. i do thank the majority leader and the republican leader for finally scheduling this vote. but it is unfortunate the republicans objected to considering this nomination when it was reported last year. that meant it had to be taken back, we will to spent the time, the money -- taxpayers' money -- to consider it a second time by the judiciary committee and had it to be reported again earlier this year. now, it should not have taken more than four months since the committee reported mr. simon's nomination for a s

in part, i think that is the fruits of the debate going back to the reagan administration when the reagan justice department clearly had more of an agenda of the kind of people that would like to see on the supreme court. thirdly, i would assert that judicial activism is not dead. we can spend already discussing judicial activism, but whatever it means, we have a general sense of it. the warren court was famously activist. to the extent you see activism now, it seems to be on the core's other wing. judicial activism, i would say, is still with us. if it was a term of activism or animals and, i think it may have passed. -- or at incrementalism, i think it may have passed. is it appropriate to call the court the court of the chief justice who normally leads it? the previous term chief justice roberts was in the majority, something like 92% of the time. that is more than any other justice in the court. justice kennedy holds an important role on the court. kennedy is a more conservative swing votes than o'connor was before. that seems to have made a difference in areas of abortion and race. c

before that he served in the reagan administration both in the department of health and human services and also at the office of personnel management what he would have a good close look at a program that we all have thought actually a model to give people actually consumer choice. in purchasing their health insurance. bob moffit, i welcome you, one of our again valued co-authors. the fact that we are also speaking to each other shares that we start out very much in the same place and have worked for equality. >> 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 your they did a truly great job. but i would be remiss if i would not extend a deep appreciation, sincere appreciation for house speaker nancy pelosi. she told us that it was important to pass the law so we did find out what was in it. ends the book. it was one of the most profoundly prophetic declarations in america and local history. we're finding out a great deal. in the book what we decide to do

in part, i think that is the fruit of the debate that went on going back to the reagan administration, when the reagan justice department had more of an agenda of the people there would like to see on the supreme court. thirdly, i would assert that judicial activism is not dead. we could spend all money -- all morning defining judicial activism. whatever means, we have a general sense of it. the warren court was famously activist in a liberal direction. it to the extent d.c. act division -- activism now, -- to the extent you see activism now, it is in the other direction. in the term that ended in 2009, if it was a term -- if it was a term of activism or incrementalism, i think it may have passed. there is the role of the chief justice. it seems to me history will probably record it is properly called the roberts court. that has been a historical question. is it appropriate to call the court the court of the chief justice who normally leads it? the previous term chief justice roberts was in the majority, something like 92% of the time. that is more than any other justice in the court.

it is a look at his service from the version -- first force administration, and also president ron reagan and -- the first bush administration, and also president ronald reagan and jimmy carter. a but is joining us from tennessee. -- aidan is joining us from tennessee. caller: good morning, steve. i could not have said it better than my federal -- fellow veteran who served two tours in vietnam. i also served two tours in vietnam. secretary gates is, in my opinion, the best defense secretary we have had of all time. he cares about the troops and the service members. he cares deeply about each and every one of them. he deserves nothing but praise. patrick said it so well about so many people -- it does not matter whether they are republican or democrat. any idiot who does not step forward and help the president get out of this financial situation we are in they have destroyed -- they have destroyed the middle class. the only thing they care about is reelection. that is all they are working for. senior service -- that is what the senior senator, mcconnell, from kentucky said. his only intent

street journal," she clearly is not a radical and she is one of the bright lights of the ronald reagan administration in which i was very proud to serve. one of the strong comments she was making was that if there is any nation in the world that really needs nation building right now, it is the united states of america. when we are putting hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure in another country, it should only be done if we can articulate a vital national interest. we need to be doing a lot more of that here. time is short but can you please articulate for us your view of the strategic interests of the united states in afghanistan and how the current military policy can help bring us to and in point in that strategic objective? >> thank you, senator. that is the essential question. as i said in my statement, and as the president and others have said, our ultimate strategic objective is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-qaeda. in the afghan context, we want to ensure that afghanistan never again becomes what it was before 9/11, an area in which al qaeda can reconstitute itself under pr

many years ago we got during the reagan administration, we got david stockman to allow us to do incremental funding on military hospitals. i'm glad the committee has gone back to an incremental funding approach. i think it's the only way we can do these major projects. we all acknowledge the challenge facing the nation today with respect to the debt and deficit and i believe this bill has done a commendable job addressing these fiscal challenges while ensuring that we are not impacting the level of care and benefits that our service members have so rightfully earned. military construction is funded at $14 billion which is $2.6 billion below the 2011 enacted amount and $752 million below the president's request. the subcommittee achieved those cuts through incremental funding of projects and by eliminating funding for several projects that were ahead of need. as ranking member bishop noted this bill makes a strong investment in the defense department schools by investing $483 million for construction and replacement of substandard facilities. i have been a strong advocate for the modernizati

afghan human rights groups have expressed concern about the possible return of the taliban but former reagan administration official lawrence korb from the washington based center for american progress think tank says the u.s. shouldn't worry about the militant group's return. the military always is against any type of withdrawal and they want to slow it down as much as they can president obama has other things then just you know the advice of the military he's got an economic situation needs to keep the support of the american people even our military commanders say there's no military solution you're going to have to negotiate with the taliban and i think this withdrawal more significant than our generals want sends a signal to the taliban that we're not occupiers that you know we're not going to stay there forever and it's a good time to talk to them because this is you know when you have the maximum amount of troops and by the end of this year well you know be down to only ninety thousand and remember even if when obama gets all these troops out he's still going to have twice as many troops as he had w

of several chisholm in nominees during the bush administration, did you look at the historical impact of previous administration, particularly some in the reagan administration, and draw lessons or conclusions about how to work effectively with the senate in the confirmation process and work with those appointees as well? >> just for the audience, i was in the justice department when chief justice roberts and justice and leto were nominated and from confirmed the part of my job was to help look at candidates for the supreme court and once the renominating denominated, help them get confirmed. before we even knew we had a supreme court vacancy we were getting ready just in case somebody retired. i went back and i talked to white house counsel from previous administrations who had been in the ragged administration and reagan had four appointments to the courts, three new appointments -- kennedy, o'connor, and scalia and elevated rehnquist from a social justice to chief justice. all of those, you learn lessons from mistakes that were made. you look at the things congress was interested in den and a lot of issues carry forward. in the case of the

and that's the stance we took in the '80s after considerable debate, the reagan administration assured that we kept that line and that line has been maintained right through the present day including yesterday when the council of economic advisors released a report on inward direct investment that essentially said we're going to stay with that reagan-era line on this and not start drawing new lines in the sand on investment just because their cost of inputs might be different than ours. >> let me see if anybody else has a question. pat, i'll come back to you. ye yes? >> thank you. this is harold. danny and derek are -- you, obviously, have two very different opinions about the chinese -- so my question is currently, which side is more -- has more influence to the white house and congress right now? [laughter] >> and how about 10 years later -- according to your predictions chinese fdi were increased to 1 or 2 billion 10 years later. so what is this thing going to be? and same question from the chinese perspective angle. a lot of chinese enterprises tell me -- has huge concerns about th

he served as assistant secretary of defense in the reagan administration. but when he is in afghanistan, he is just one of the guys. he's right up there with the lance corporal, walking points. i asked one of the marines what was like having around. without a pause, he said that guy has brass balls. we're going to forgo the usual opening statements and get right to the conversation. i'm going to skip the bed set up. we all know the set up. -- i'm going to skip the set up. let's begin with the most significant development this year or perhaps for some years now in the broader fight against terrorism, the killing of a sop of london and its impact on the future of al qaeda. particularly in yemen, where there is a danger of aqap expanding. i would like to focus on pakistan and to a lesser extent, afghanistan. with his recent replacement spending much of his time in custody, with the cia positron campaign eliminating numerous mid-level commanders and new efforts to restrict the cast -- the cash they need to operate, with the idea of peace talks with the governmen

we have people from the bush administration and the reagan administration writing them, and we will post the executive orders to be signed on the inaugural list. they will be there for everyone and they will be part of the last 30 days of the campaign, and if we end up in a debate with barack obama, we will say, here is the executive order. [applause] >> i do not know what most of these orders are going to be, but i know about the first four. the first executive order i will use to eliminate all of the white house czars as of that moment. >> the second executive order reinstates ronald reagan's mexico city policy, that no u.s. taxpayer pays for abortions overseas. the third executive order reinstates the conscious provision from george w. bush, that shows that no person, no pharmacist or doctor can be forced to perform any medical procedure against their religious beliefs. [applause] >> the fourth thing that i would sign says that as of that day, the united states recognizes the capital of countries as described by their governments, and we will move the embassy -- the only place that th

in part, i think that is the fruits of the debate going back to the reagan administration when the reagan justice department clearly had more of an agenda of the kind of people that would like to see on the supreme court. thirdly, i would assert that judicial activism is not dead. we can spend already discussing judicial activism, but whatever it means, we have a general see of it. the warren court was famously activist. to the extent you see activism now, it seems to be on the core's other wing. judicial activism, i would say, is still with us. if it was a term of activism or animals and, i think it may have passed. -- or at incrementalism, i think it may have passed. is it appropriate to call the court the court of the chief justice who normally leads it? the previous term chief justice roberts was in the majority, something like 92% of the time. that is more than any other justice inhe court. justice kennedy holds an important role on the court. kennedy is a more conservative swing votes than o'connor was before. that seems to have made a difference in eas of abortion and race. changes

the u.s. constitution a former reagan administration official paul craig well that says the u.s. is not ready fighting gadhafi in libya but they're not actually fighting a kadafi in libya but in china and russia could be next in line. libya is important to the administration because they want to be a china oriel investments china has massive all investments in eastern libya and the united states the omen is concerned by the report recently from the international monetary fund that within five years china would overtake united states as the world's strongest economy so washington trying to protect its enemy is trying to reduce any independent sources of energy that china has so that's what the libyan conflict is about you see now they're confronting channer in libya and the reason for the trouble in syria is the americans while the russians have the naval base of tortoise they don't want a russian naval presence in the mediterranean so so the americans now are hiding behind arab protests to work against the interest of china and russia. protests continue to rock syria with at leas

martin feldstein, a former senior economist to the reagan administration, says the economy is worse than you think. what is your assessment? guest: martin has been one of the first to say -- to bring the ball on the housing bubble, and he got angry at the fed for not doing something sooner. this is something he has been talking about for many years, and was one of the first to warn about it. i agree that the u.s. economy remains fragile. although we have technically convert -- crossed our previous high w

moktadin part, that is the fruif that debate that when on going back to the reagan administration when the justice department had more of an agenda of the kind people that would like to say. thirdly, judicial activism is not dead. whatever it means, we have a general sense of it. the court was activist in the liberal direction to the extent uc activism now. it seems to be on the other wing. judicial activism is still with us. if the term that ended in 2009 was a term of incrementalism or minimalism, it seems to me that might have passed. it is the role of the chief justice from whom we heard this morning it seems to me that history will record it is called dave roberts court. that is an open historical question. is it appropriate to call the court of the chief justice who leads a but certainly the figures are not in for this term. if there is such a thing, koepp -- kennedy is a more conservative swing vote. the court emerged as the moral and tactical leader. his departure leaves the question, will someone stepped in to fill that void. we have justice sotomayor' and kagan's the recent a

martin feldstein, a former senior economist to the reagan administration, says the economy is worse thanou think. what is your assessment? guest: martin has been one of the first to say -- to bring the ball on the housing bubble, and he got angry at the fed for not doing something sooner. this is something he has been talking about for many years, and was one of the first to warn about it. i agree that the u.s. economy remains fragile. although we have technically convert -- crossed our previous high water mark in overall g.d. growth, -- gdp growth, but the recovery is so uneven, but almost no americans feel that. there is a small upper-echelon of wealthy americans who of recouped their wealth, and are spending, but the rest of america is still struggling to recruit many losses. host: martin feldstein who was a former harvard professor is on the board of the wall street journal editorial board. let me read to you part of what he says in his conclusion this morning in "the wall street journal." host: can elaborate on that point? guest: i agree. he is not necessarily say not raising tax re

americans to clear underbrush in the nation's parks and forests they had a works projects administration which again employed millions of adult americans including ronald reagan's father and the work projects administration built roads and bridges and hospitals and airports look wordy airport in new york the triborough bridge and this generation really ever since ronald reagan was president has been this bipartisan consensus that the federal government should not have any problem jobs programs and i don't think it's just a congress that i think is foolish and counterproductive to the efficiency of a private sector economy i knew certainly here a lot of talk about the private sector but you don't see the political will for anything even remotely looking like what you're talking about that you think could be a solution i want to thank you know for telling us about here on our team that was kind of have me professor of international economic law at chapman university now while the mainstream media today is focusing on don't extract hons court appearance in a manhattan court that the former head of the international monetary fund of course he was there to put in an

the editorial from james baker, former treasury secretary in the reagan administration, former secretary of state in the bush administration the open washington journal." -- in the "washington journal." sammy, good morning. caller: good morning. your the worst terrorist form of identifying -- you are the worst host for not identifying the party of the person calling. is it because you received more democrat callers then republicans? host: there is no reason. do you have a comment? caller: you do not identify the callers. anyway, gates, i think he is just a yes man for the president. like bush, he owned his policies. and when obama comes in he change his policies to go along with obama. and that first caller who called in, he calls about every day. why do you let him call every day? he calls on the republican lines and the democrats. he calls about every day. host: ok, well, we want to thank you for calling in, sami, from jacksonville, florida. and here is a tweet. and next up is david on the internet -- independent line. good morning, david. caller: i agree with the previous caller on a