i want to start about the reagan administration because it's hard to think about a great deal of national level discussion about the role of the presidency in foreign affairs and domestic affairs. i commit that the reagan administration stood for the proposition that a vigorous executive can play a in the country in domestic and international affairs. on the domestic affairs particularly given john's comments, many of the leading cases that we talk about in the block that you probably discussed if you take a block are about the reagan administration and state farm. these are cases where the white house is trying to reflect a particular philosophy or approach to how the law should be implemented and not everybody in the country agrees with and as justice rehnquist said in state farm reflects a degree of democratic legit masy and an interest they have in implementing the laws in a different way. how he asked could we not expect elections to matter. we expect it to flow from the president and that is not something that goes back to the reagan administration and it goes forward that was allud

i want to start with the reagan administration. i submit to you that the reagan administration stood for the proposition that a vigorous executive could play an important role in the country in domestic affairs and international affairs. i would note on the domestic side in particular just to emphasize that given john's interesting comments many of the leading cases that we talk about that you probably discussed are about the reagan administration. state farm, costco, those are cases where the white house is trying to reflect a particular plosfy, a particular approach to how the law should beismented. an approach that not everybody agrees with as justice rehnquist says in his concurrence state farm re-elects a degree of democratic legitimacy. an interest that the administration has in implementing laws. how justice rehnquist asked can we not expectation elections to matter when the administrative state does its work. we still expect legitimacy to flow from the president. it goes forward into cases like the free enterprise case which

she was a woman in the reagan administration. one of the early meeting of the national security council, these men with their power ties and power suits, and she said that in this white house where they were meeting, she saw a mouse creep across the floor, and she said at that point, i thought to myself, that mouse has as much right to be here, as as much power in this room as i do. and she was treated as a woman, you know, in the early days at the u.n., too by these diplomats but she quickly, with her wit, unspokenness, outspokenness, vigor, she made a name for herself, and she was salty. she really cam came at them with everything she had and was witty and would say things like -- she'd tell her assistants, today somebody -- one of these diplomas came up to me and said, you know, the u.n. is the world in microcosm, and she says, no, kind of a wc fields aside, in my worst moments i fear this is true. and she said this is the glass house where everybody the throws stones, and she -- her first -- kind of characteristic. she was sch

in a very clumsy way i guess stories being particularly at the end part of her tenure in the reagan administrationfirst of all, she was a bum and. she is a feminist. the so-called feminists fully hated her because she was involved with reagan. she was a legitimate feminists and they kind of relied on the movement to do the thing she'd done as as a sole practitioner. she was always really hurt, even though they were your denunciations that she didn't accept aaron c. one of those role models looking for successful women. naomi wolf didn't have any children. i'm a one man without a. she said that according to jean. a female impersonator. she couldn't believe that. and you know, she was always kind of a woman in the reagan and industry shame. one of the early meetings that national security meeting. all these power figures and power ties and power save. she said that in this white house room there were meetings. she saw a mouse creep the floor. she said at that point i thought to myself, that mouse had as much right in a sense to be here in this much power and in the service idea. but she was treated

in the in the reagan administration in this whole idea put forth by david stop. and his finance or his a budget director about starving the beast that by cutting taxes cutting taxes cutting taxes that they could then create a scenario where reducing the revenue to the government which is where the tax dollars go then gives them the platform to argue for cutting social programs which is what conservatives have been wanting to do since the great society of lyndon johnson not even going back to roosevelt's new deal programs so if you go back to the eighty's and start from that premise that this is that cutting social programs because look at what the report what the republicans are even proposing now what will offset the defense cuts or will shift the money from the defense cuts over to wear to the domestic side entitled to that entitlement programs so this is a scheme that has been that was put in place thirty years ago was my question i mean this has been tried before aspects of what you're saying right now are one by a different name before they were called reagan

i do know in the reagan administration, actually, the reagan administration had a number of criteria which he had -- which had examined individuals. but competence in the individual area that someone might be involved in, loyalty and commitment to change even in terms of policies. we speak about change. commitment to change was the reagan criteria. >> if you were xh in charge of personnel and what you would consider a need for a strong presidency what comes first, ability or loyalty to a president? >> well, i think that i would have to say that first of all, i would want someone who understands the constitutional system in the sense that the president is the one who has the executive power. and so if a person understands that, he will realize that while he should be loyal to a president, he should not be so blindly loyal that he would accept anything a president might ever do. i think it's important for som some -- for an aide to a president for example to advise the president. if there is something that is amiss or wrong, or if there's a policy a i greemt to raise it very frankly. i

shtrietotati rymsy guess, toward particularly the end part of her tenure ithe reagan administration. rst of all, she was, s was a woman and e w wi cal m, and the second wave feminists really hated her because she was involved with reagan but she thought she was a legitimate feminist and they were illegitimate feminists to kind ofrelied on a moment to do the thgs that shhad on a sorti. shs always relly hurts even though she was bitter and denunciations of them that they did not accept her and see her for what she was, which is one of those role models they were always looking for for shsag n bh both. who didn't have y children said, of me, i'm a woman without a. according to jeane and gloria steinem calls me a femal imon. co'tiet. d u know, shwas always a kind of woman in the reagan administration. she had a national security meeting and all of these power fires th tir wer esn shsains eu shug a mouse creep across the floor and she said, at that point, i thought to myself, that miles has as much right in a sense to be herea uch power ane trd woman, you know, in the early days at the u.n

eliot the war which pitted leftist guerrillas against a right wing government backed by the reagan administration ultimately left over seventy thousand people dead in that tiny nation the vast majority of violence a un truth commission later found was committed by rightist death squads and the military which receive us training and six billion dollars in military and economic aid and enjoy his death squads were financed by members of the salvadoran oligarchy and had close links to the country's military death squads kidnapped tortured and killed suspected leftists so who were the oligarchy who owned and ran el salvador according to al it one of the most prominent families was the desoto family and mitt romney recruited for their members to provide much of the initial funding for bain capital elliott writes for members of the disloyal family were among the original bain investors or limited partners in the country in the company the globe reported their relative and one time business partner landed isolde was an important figure in el salvador. at family was a big part of the ruling elite of the c

i come out of the reagan administration. reagan gave people something to vote for. never forget, the election in 1980 was a referendum on jimmy carter's record. and the american people knew that was a record of failure yet until september, jimmy carter was ahead in the polls. he was ahead 15 points in the spring. because people weren't sure about reagan. but they knew they didn't want carter but they had to make sure there was something else there. but there is a timing to that, larry. there is a timing to that that's very important. and right now, we are seeing people who think the economy is much worse than obama tells them, that they know that this health care plan, obamacare, that valerie jarrett, the president's number one adviser said on the radio, we'll get it any way we can get it. which means, we'll get it without admitting to the american people it's the largest tax increase in history. but all of those things, the american people know are hurting the economy, making it harder to create jobs. and as kay bailey hutchison wisely said a while ago, they underst

the giants a going for their first in atlanta since the reagan administration. esident had his one request. >>> win just one for the gipper tim hudson didn't get the bisector killeen down physical of the giants madison baumgartner allowed three hits in seven innings but two of them left the yard baumgartner has given up eight runs in his last five stars the braves beat the giants 32 to avoid that sweep. bill nicholson's called paul nicholson shot at 3 over 73 at the open tiger woods is still looking for that 15th major and he's in good shape after a three and their 67 was shot back. adam scott had five birdies on the back nine and finished with a 664 to tie and take a one-shot lead. there are some notables were mcelroy and bob watson are in that group tiger and three under 62 old tom watson how but john daly at two over par? number five top 53 johnson has a read on this yes he did. the cubs beat the marlins and the have won five of six in number for the brown throws off the back and scores united states beat great britain by 40. 9 days thing to do is your ally. t

we had -- i mean, one of the important things about the reagan administration, and reagan was not a hands-on micro manager the way jimmy carter was. but the people that he tended to appoint knew what it was about. i mean, they knew what reagan wanted. they got -- i worked in the nixon administration. you could not get up in the morning knowing what the heck it was the president wanted. because i don't know if he knew. he may have, but he didn't communicate it anybody. so people went to work. there were studies at the time how many political appointees went bad, bad in the sense they weren't pursuing any kind of a unified, you know, way of looking at things. if you worked for ronald reagan, you knew. i mean, you knew -- you might mistakes. you might go bad. you might be captured by your agency. all the things that always happened in a bureaucracy. but you didn't have to get up in the morning and say, you know, i wonder what the heck it is that this president is all about. and what you want is a movement that is led and run, and we're down through it, they know. they know what it is that they'

host: what happened in the reagan administration of the vote this time? t: what we have seen since then is a lack of enforcement continue. the recent cases in the obama administration -- as with the at&t-t-mobile merger. it is just stopping a bad situation. i would not call it major enforcement. host: you can ask her questions about it by calling us. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0005 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. you can send us an e-mail -- cspan@journal.org. you are on. caller: she almost hit on what i was going to ask for. in 1997, i started a business -- in 1977 i started a business in the united states. it goes back to what you are saying in the first segment about attaining wealth in the united states feared and when she said the laws changed in 1977 on a borrowing money on stocks that you were buying, they wanted you to have a larger reserve in it. and that knocked out almost all of the politicians, because when and sell it, you nucellus i only have your profits left over. it really knocked out the whole -- private owned bus

the time, the administration recognized the purgative of the government to decide upon this benefit form. in fact, the consumer services testified before this committee when questioned about the gas benefit rules, that the reagan administration did not -- the s.n.a.p. program, it would be a breach of faith to support the puerto rico plan, simply because it chooses a different benefit form. after all, puerto rico is given the charge to develop a plan with minimal restrictions imposed by usda and puerto rico knows better what is feasible than those here in washington. i also started a petition to this amendment, mr. chairman. there was no hearing on this one. our -- there was no consultation. usually, a member from a particular district would introduce something that affects that district. here we have, you know, this committee making a decision for puerto rico without consulting the resident commissioner or with the government of puerto rico. and it just -- you know, to dub this amendment -- this realization is to harm the people of puerto rico. and i urge members to reject this amendment. and i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any additional requ

there were no regulations and monsanto actually went to the i believe it was the bush administration history was the reagan administration ok and so we'd like you to regulate it was this all about what have you see monsanto has not been a very popular company for decades because of continually lying about the toxicity of their products so they figured if the government gave a rubber stamp to it and it looked like it was the government approving it then they were kind of off the hook and in the next decade they got what they wanted a rubber stamp that meant nothing but it gave the illusion that the government was regulating g.m.o. so. how so will the person in charge of policy at the f.d.a. was michael taylor monsanto's former attorney he had been put in that position because the white house under the first bush administration instructed the f.d.a. to promote biotechnology and so they brought in michael taylor to be in charge of the policy claims that the agency is not aware of any information showing that g m o's are significantly different and therefore no testing or labeling was necessary that's the actu

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

some years an organization that he established upon leaving the national security ranks of the reagan administration because he knew a voice like this would be needed in washington, the center for security policy, the lead editor of an important book called "the report of team b, the threat of sharia." he'll be signing that afterward outside as well, and most recently the author of a remarkable online course to wake up america as it is now minutes to midnight with that threat of islam. please welcome back for the third consecutive year with a compelling important message that will rivet you and i hope move you to action, our friend dr. frank gaffney. [ applause ] >> thank you. well, you've had a full afternoon as my friend john says. dr. coburn said he would prescribe prozac after his address. after phil's i think morphine is probably in order, and you may be wanting cyanide after mine. actually, that's a joke. don't do it. we need your help. i'm going to race through about probably 25 minutes worth of material in 15 because that's what i've been allotted, and i don't want to steal a minute from one

all those cases you mentioned was where the reagan administration was -- executive power to try to pull back the expansion of federal regulation of the economy and society. as opposed a different kind of president who might use their regulatory power to expand as fully as congress would like. so i wonder whether we can distinguish between those two kinds of presidential power in regard to reaction to congress. the second thing, i think you're quite right, i think it's quite right that all presidents have responded to this phenomenon doing things as mentioned in the last panel, trying to agency wide and i think it is h in that respect are a response again, as to the presidency becoming excessively involved with tex accumulation of the legislative policy. it's just an effort to try to control it. i can totally understand it, i think it's done in the wrong way but i can understand why presidents do it. i thought it was interesting, i i admire his effort, as judge griffith was saying, every federal side of the convention as a panel of presidential power. also ever presidential society -- tr

american had to get a specific waiver if they didn't grab my recollection is that it was during the reagan administration that they just started with the granting those waivers and it just wouldn't stop doing that no actually. obama's actually been pretty good about it there's no waivers and there were problems actually george w. bush was doing waivers clinton wasn't doing waiver has become very partisan or interest but there's no rule it's a price differential so you buy american and last it's x. amount of percentage more expensive that's the waiver but in this agreement he would have to treat products coming from any company so a chinese company in vietnam in this agreement as if it were american for the sake of our tax dollars so instead of having the tool of taking your tax dollars and reinvesting them in the community either as we have with technology after technology to create a market for the new energy technologies i mean fuel efficiency the first thing we do is we approach standards with higher fuel efficiency then it went into the pop private sector wants to create the market so as a policy too

he's from southern california he also worked under the reagan administration he also fought in afghanistan you know with the mujahideen so this is really really interesting his perspective on things he has a really interesting perspective on afghanistan goes against a lot of people in his party he says the u.s. should have been out. a long time ago he says we have no business being there and really wants to work to decentralize the government of afghanistan it was a long conversation an interesting one especially with someone who's been in washington this long and all around the world really has really understands what his view on the policies are even though some of them are very controversial now it seems like this congressman is it taking a very hardline approach when it comes to china at the same time we're seeing this shift within the u.s. in terms are in terms of our military strategy from the middle east to the age of pacific region so in a way i mean is this just china doing its own thing and just kind of you know signifying this global geo political power switch you know we're see

medical costs since so many people in that state don't have health insurance and during the reagan administration reagan pushed for a mandate that if you show up and i help in a hospital emergency room you must be cared for so in other words if you're sick stay the hell out of texas other than the e. ours a state that republicans in congress want to emulate when it comes to health reform but that's not all today's obamacare vote means it also means that republicans are we've four months to go until the election. fully committed to crashing the economy to give mitt romney a better chance of winning the white house in november that's because repealing obamacare will kill jobs as a center for american progress found if republicans succeed in repealing the affordable healthcare act than two hundred fifty to four hundred thousand jobs will be lost every single year over the next decade not only that medical spending will increase by one hundred twenty five billion over the next decade making our deficits worse and family health insurance premiums will increase by two thousand dollars dropping more and

so, the reagan administration definitely kind of finalized this, set it in stone. but it was something that crossed party lines. what we've seen since then is kind of lax enforcement. and it's continued. the recent cases that the obama administration has stopped, you know, the at&t-t-mobile merger, i'd say that's just stopping a bad situation from becoming horrific. i really quent call it rigorous enforcement by any means. host: we're talk about the state of entrepreneurship in america. your research conducted at their firm, you can ask her questions about it by calling us at 202-7347-001 for democrats, 202-737-002 for republicans. you can send us a tweet and an email. first call for you comes from pensacola, florida fment this is frank on our independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, when she almost hit on what i was going to ask her. in 1977 i had started a business on wholesaling overstock material from factories in the united states. so it pretty much goes back to what you were saying in the very first segment that you showed today about attaining wealth in the u

administration with the republicans. by 1980 -- there's a year that also passes but by 1984, with the reign of the reagan administration, the rising tide of conservism and because the democratic party not oppose these policies, black folk are getting very impatient of the. they're feeling they're being taken for granted by the dem contrary creak party. there are renewed discussions from the same players in 1972, the new players because there's a new crop of black elected officials who are mayors in cities like philadelphia, chicago, washington, dc, and so people -- jesse jackson is raising the banner of independent black politics. it's our time now. we want our share. and so what we have here is a split that -- we'll see later on, among those who think that this is a good strategy and those who go with sort of mondale or the regular sort of white liberal democrat. and ironically enough, most black elected officials, most members of the congressional black caucus are opposed to jackson's candidacy but there's a rising tide of black ac timism in the community. and what we have here is the idea of using the black vote, his

the caymans and switzerland or some place else. i'm not putting it in here. >> i know you say that, but when ronald reagan was the president. three quarters of the reagan administration was 50%. >> astute professor of economics. you know that no rich people paid that rate. that there were all kinds of tax dodges that you could get around and that were true into the gifts, into 60's, into the 70s and into 80. >> lock how much he wants to cut them back. >> to broaden the base. i agree. >> 60 to 65% to state and local. >> no. no. >> all of the tariffs that come in for obama care are enormous. >> take the cap off the payroll tax my taxes go up another 5%. it's really insane to do that to people -- >> -- look how much of these -- how much of their income they are paying in taxes. it's not actually higher. congressional budget office the same report you were citing. >> right. >> show people are paying the lowest share of their income in taxes that they paid nor -- if the percentage of 5% are handling 65% of the tax burden, come on. >> that's only the income tax. that he was not counting the penalty tax. >> on their kahunas, proposals that could go sky high across the board

administration from the republicans. by 1980, and there is a year that also passes, it but i 1984, he was the rain of the reagan administration, the rising tide of conservatism, and because of the democratic party not opposing these policies, lack folk are getting very impatient. they are feeling that they are being taken granted by the democratic party and there are renewed discussions, some of the same players in 1972 but new players because there is a new type of black elected officials, mayors in philadelphia, chicago, and harold washington was selected the year before. jesse jackson is raising the banner of independent lab politics. it's our time now. we want our share. than so what we have here is a split that we will see later on among those who think that this is a good strategy and those who go with sort of mondale or the regular sort of white liberal democrats. and ironically enough, most black elected officials, most of them in the black congressional caucus are opposed to the jackson candidacy but there is a rising tide of grassroots activists. jesse gets a majority ed the black vote but hardly among white voters

first of all, i've been involved in this treaty for a long time, way back during the -- the reagan administration. this treaty that was actually first negotiated back in the 1970's was -- was defeated for a variety of reasons. and a lot of people are saying that the -- that the reasons that reagan opposed it at that time have been answered and that's just flat not true. ambassador james maloney, who renegotiated the lost treaty during the reagan administration stated -- and i'm quoting now -- "all the provisions from the past that make such a new world order outcome possible, indeed likely, still stand. it is not true, as argued by some and frequently mentioned, that the u.s. rejected the convention in 1982 solely because of technical difficulties with part 11." that's the seabed mining portion of it. "the collectivist and the redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core." and they're still there today. i think it's important to recall what happened in 2004. in 2004, when the republicans were in the majority, i chaired the committee called the environment and public works committee

at the same time, in the reagan administration, coming out of carter's bad years, what was the growthate at that time? >>guest: we had growth rates in the 9 percent range on a quart early basis after 1983, when the tax cuts took effect we had growth rates that were chinese growth rates. just wonderful. none of that has occurred with regard to president obama. bill clinton had great growth rates. but he was a great president. i voted for bill clinton twice, as you know, and he did a great job. and reagan was a phenomenal president. kennedy was a great president. president obama is the problem. and bush wasn't very good, either. >>eric: now, president obama and bill clinton for a second. i heard a speech, make last thursday, where president obama said, bill clinton, we have tried the policies and they have worked and president obama wants to latch on to bill clinton's record. is that fair? >>guest: what does he define as worked. if obama's policies have worked, what would a failure look like? it would be a tragedy. bill clinton, he got rid of the retirement tax on social security. he pu

she tried to particite in, you kntortarvery clusy wyo e paof h tenure in the reagan administration. e -- i mean, first of all, she was a woman. and she was always -- jeane was a feminist. the so-called feminis with a pital m, tco bee as iveit reagan. but she thought that she was a legitimate feminist and they were illegitimate feminists who, you know, kind of relied on a vement to do the things she had done as a sole practitioner, you know? aughter] d shwas waeahu th wa bn ncon tth they didn't accept her and see her for what she was which is one of those role models they were always looking for for successful women. i mean, she said, god, you know, wit uterus. she said that, you know, according to jeane. and gloria stein numb calls me a female impersonator. e couldn't believe that. i mean, and, you know, she was waysyou ow ndf n hee nitiyoow e helyet s had a national security council meeting, she was sitting there with all these men, these power figures with their power ties and power suits, and she said that in this white house room where they were meeting she useeo fr. ane att poin

want another year or president administration from a republican. 1980 and, you know, there's a year that also passes, but by 1984 with the, you know, raven of the reagan administration, rising tide of conservatism, and because of the democratic party not opposing these policies, black folk are getting very impatient. they are feeling that they are taken were granted by the democratic party. they are renewed discussions from the same players in 1972, but new players because there's a new crop of legislated officials in philadelphia, chicago, washington elected the year before, and so jackson is raising the banner of up dependent black politics. it's our time now. we want our share. what we have here is a split that where we fill will sit later on among those who think it's a good strategy, and those who go with the regular, sort of white liberal democrats. >> host: right. >> guest: ironically enough, most black elected officials, most members of the black caucus are opposed to jackson's candidacy, but there's a rising tide of grass roots activism in the black community. there's a majority of the black folks hardly among white voters, of course, and so

privilege has to be envoeked by the president then the justice department relied an opinion from the reagan administration which is that you don't prosecute once the executive prufl ledge i-- privilege is invoked. the justice department made that opinion. >> does they think it's right to ignore the house's siding to holder in contempt? >> we made clear that we think the actions of the house were political, that they were not based in fact. you go back to that issue here. the fact of fast and furious. it was a bad procedure to run guns to mexico. it started in the bush administration in the regional office. the attorney general didn't know about it. when he learned about it he stopped it because it's wrong. he's given all of the information to congress to understand what's happened up until that point. there is now a fishing expedition for documents that get well beyond finding those facts. >> i am going to move on. we do have to point out the fact that that in february of 2011, two months after the border patrol agent brian ferry died it was the justice department that sent a letter to congress denying th

and, then the justice department relied on an opinion from the reagan administration, which is that youon't prosecute once executive privilege is invoked and the justice department made the decision, as has every administration. relying on the opinion. >> chris: does the president think it is right for the justice department no ignore the house's citing of holder for contempt? >> i think that we have made clear that we think that the actions of the house were political, they were not based in fact and you go back to what is at issue here. the facts of fast and furious. it was a bad procedure to run guns to mexico. it started in the bush administration in the regional office. the attorney general didn't know about it. when he learned about it he stopped it because it is wrong. he has given all of the information to congress, to understand what happened up until that point. and there is now a fishing expedition for documents that get well beyond finding those facts. and every administration... >> chris: i'm going to move on, but we do have to point out, the fact is that in february of 201

even if we were to get the second recession, the last time the recessions started in reagan administration, started the british stock market boom the next 20 years and get out of that-- the scenario, come on, jonas, if you're a student of history you know something, think about it didn't have the regular leagueses that we do know, the tax regulations, and the fiscal cliff. look, guys, the facts here, entirely different times 20 years ago and gary b, talks about nanotechnology and that's when there were entrepreneurs, and people are villains if this he start their own businesses now. >> and tell me, tell me one business or in a business owner that's watching the show to write in, i want to know who is actual there actually able to start a business without the regulations and worry about extra taxes and actually hiring, i don't think they're out there. >> and this is easier to raise money as a small business? >> i spoke to about 2500 of them today, all right? en they have not enough employees, not enough time, they have not enough resources because they're growing like lightning. so, don't t