tv [untitled] May 19, 2012 3:00am-3:30am EDT
had to contain a meaningful amount of food contained by the dietary guidelines. i think it's unfortunate that congress required the ftc to do a cost benefit analysis before that report committed to congress. the children's food and beverage advertising initiative moved substantial until the direction articulated. but we weren't about to -- it made it impossible to do a cost benefit analysis, because either way we were caught. how could be project the implementation of voluntary standa standards, and how could we predict what impact that would have on the health of shirns and adolescents as they became adults and how could we fix the cost of that. if we actually did a cost benefit analysis, we would be
accused of doing something we didn't have to do and, thereafter, moving toward a regulatory approach. these were voluntary standard and only regulatory standards needed to have such a report. on the other hand, if we submitted a report, it would be attacked based on the faulty subjections that under lay the -- the reasoning in the report. so we were stuck, and it's -- chairman liebowitz said that -- in a congressional hearing at least for the time being that report was -- that we weren't going to do anything further with the report. >> but competitive foods is yet another issue. >> competitive foods, let me say, that we were talking about partnerships earlier in the federal government to an earlier question. happily, the healthy hungry free kids act had a very echeck particular and interesting group of partnerships, and among the
partner participants that i highly value in a particular way is that of an organization in this town called mission readiness, an organization of retired military senior leaders, admirals and generals, and i think in excess of $250 million of them, they successfully lobbied the hill and lobbied the senate agriculture committee, the original source of this. in particular to make sure we had the authority, unprecedented authority around competitive foods in all schools across the country. and they did so, because they recognize this was a public health challenge in this country, something like 27% of young people, male and female, who would be in the typical age cohort to join the military, are ineligible, because they are so seriously overweight and at the weight of the nation last week, bill and i, the panel we were
part of, a fizz who is in charge of the -- all of the health facilities across the world for active military, pointed out a statistic that i was unaware of, that something like 24% of military personnel, who were actively in the military, are not allowed to renew their -- to re- re-up, so to speak, because they were overweight. we have to tray some very broad, robust, can't be weak in terms of impact, and i consider the competitive foods directive we have as just as important as the school meal regulations that we've already promulgated and so we've been working very hard on those, and want to make sure they are, in fact, will become both the law of the land and
will basically significantly alter the food environment for american children. most of the schools i visit are brought to our attention as leaders. for schools that i happen to visit for another reason and when i see some of the competitive foods being offered to kids at the same table, with the school meal, you know, it just doesn't work that way. you wouldn't do it in your own household, or it shouldn't work that away we're very anxious to move forward with that. we have a mandate in that regard, but we know it's -- it's going to require the support of people in this room and beyond that as well. >> so while chris gets to the next question, i would like those of you interested in the whole question of mission readiness, next week, if you want to have another conference to go to, national journal has a conference that will be next
wednesday, at union station. a summit, looking at this very issue of readiness and obesity and what effect military readiness, what effect that is having. >> my name is meg booth. i'm with the children's dental project. i'm here because we work on prevention of dental disease, which is the number one chronic condition of childhood, and in the youngest kids, before they enter school, it's the only portion of kids that have an increase in dental decay. the rest of kids, we're seeing a decrease because of water floor addition and different things. we are trying to enter the nutrition world and cross paths, especially when it comes to pregnant women and those under the age of 3. i wonder if you could answer a question. you are coming up with guidelines for kids birth to two. and i was curious if you have tried to engage the dental community at all, because they
are trying to focus in on prooechgting tooth debay because it's so diet dependent, and we would love to engage in how to join the nutrition world in those efforts. we cannot do it ourselves. and i think the 0 zero to two is the only place we can start other than pregnant women, to do primary prevention. i'm curious what the guide lines might be. >> very early in the process. we've basically just outlined our framework to work both again with hhs is the lead agency for the dietary guidelines, 2015, which will govern officially ages two and above, but by agreement, we'll subsequently release died guidelines for 0 to 2. i saw within the last week or so the outline of the work plan that has been devised with hhs and with the center for
nutrition policy, promotion, and i think engaged undoubtedly cdc. and there are a whole series of consumptions as this is developed to really to hear from the academy of pediatrics and dental community and other nutrition and health organizations. tint as much i am told. there isn't as much science on zero to two or three. when we see a child two or three with sugar sweetened drinks and i've seen this at federally qualified state centers, when i was a health experience. i think there will be broad consultation with groups like your own. >> think we have another question here. >> hi, i want to thank both of you for sharing your update on
the initiatives, and i can tell you from new york state, i've witnessed some great progress with the school equipment grant, farm to school. we even had a healthy food, healthy community fund for store development, with the healthy food financing initiative is very similar to. i would like to push the envelope, being from new york and a yankees fan. i wanted to ask about the dod fresh program and the concept of turning that into cash in lieu or a voucher program, similar to the fresh, ffmp, the farmer's market program so students have the option to purchase fresh local food of the highest quality they can get their hands on, at a more efficiently, quicker, and handle it within their own districts? thank you. >> thank you very much for that. the dod, which she is referring
to, the dod, we have a contract to purchase fruits and vegetables for both the school program and also for feeding program on indian reservations, about 100 -- exexcess of $100 million. the question, can we cash out a portion of that to allow local schools to purchase more fruits and vegetables, either locally or on their own. the short answer is no. and the reason i say no is this. most schools that that -- the representation are what the dod fresh program represents as a portion of school purchases. as a fraction. it's under 20%. where a school can spend the money that we give them. $277 per people in whatever way they wish. they can use that about, buy it all locally. over use a portion to buy usda
commodities. we had that question in another state, up in that region of the country and our answer was we don't want to weaken the leveraging we have trough dod to add our money to their purchases for military bases independents. by pooling our resources, it has an effect on price, and to the extent we start cashing it out, we lose that margin, but we understand when very sympathetic to schools wanting to do more local purchasing, if that's what you're interested in. use some of the money you get from us or from private paying students to do that local purchasing. >> so i think we are just about out of time. one more question? >> one or two more. >> hi, you talked about whether
eating healthier is more expensive than -- or like the cost of that. and i was wondering, i think eating healthier can be just as inexpensive, if you know what to do. but i think a lot of the food knowledge has been lost and cooking knowledge has been lost. what are you doing in terms of food education and ed pating people on how to know what to do? >> i think the study i referred to, just released yesterday or the day before, by the economic research service, encouraged people to look at it. very compelling, they look at costs by calorie, by volume, by portion, and timeliness is another factor in all of this, but they -- they point out fruits and vegetables among food groups are the least costly and the economist i know at the briefing i was at, compared the price, the number of calories in a doughnut versus a medium sized banana, and the banana being less expensive than that doughnut and far healthier for
you. and there are a number of very practical messages sort of that way, but i want to say on that access to healthy foods, we're very mindful, and bill referenced this in his remarks. very mindful of the access question. i know that in the food stamp or the snap program, about -- in excess of 90% of food stamp recipients have access to supermarkets or spend part of their benefits at least once during the month at a supermarket. so -- but we also know that a vast majority of stores that are able to process those benefits are small stores. i go to a 7-eleven routinely in maryland, but i see a few bananas, but by and large pretty lean in terms of healthy food. part of of our effort is to -- what we're thinking about the
depth of stock, to me would be a step forward, not the silver bullet. but certainly a step forward, and also the healthy food financing initiative that's been referenced to try to deploy more or to encourage more supermarkets in poor areas. but it's also education. educating, using the collective resources in education. i mentioned in my remarks, we spend about $1 billion a year, if you add it all together, the center for nutrition policy and the wik program. snap for education people in the food stamp program. the feeding program on indian reservations. all have nutrition education components. jerry mann, senior policy
advisor, he is reaching out at our kr request to cdc, indian health service, a variety of sources in the federal government to say what are we doing, all of us, collectively, what do we know, and are there additional ways we can really have an effect in terms of nutrition education, i personally am very enthusiastic, if you can't tell, about the my plate. the message is fairly simple and actionab actionable. not the food pyramid, wonderful for professionals, but not so practical for the average person. the my plate or mi plato, make half your plate fruits and vegetables. pretty basic. and i've seen in in a number of schools i'm visiting where in the health sciences programs or classes, the teachers are using that outline, that template, and having the kids write in, fill in the quadrants so to speak,
and the more we can reinforce this. we talked about food culture, understanding that is, again, one of the tools i think is a powerful one that's right before us. >> i guess -- i think we -- i think we are out of time. chris, are you coming up for a couple of last remarks? >> i just wanted to thank both of our speakers and thank you for tennesseeing the fo iattend conference and we'll see you next year. [ applause ] next, april papal with former senator alan simpson and
philadelphia mayor michael nutter on congress and the federal budget. then a senate subcommittee hearing on financial institutions too big to fail. and the costs of hiv and aids medicines. >> this is c-span3. with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedule and see past programs on our websites. and join in the conversation on social media websites. >> when people are saying to him don't take the vice presidency, right now you are the most -- you are a powerful majority leader, don't take the vice presidency, you won't have any power, johnson says power is where power goes, meaning i can make power in any situation, and in his whole life, nothing in his life previously makes that
seem like he's boasting, because that's exactly what he had done. all his life. >> sunday night, the conclusion of our conversation with robert caro, on the passage of power. volume four in the years of lyndon john. his multivolume biography of the 36th president. sunday night on c-span's "q & a". >> former senator and co-chair of the federal deficit reduction committee, alan simpson, joined by michael nutter, discussing financial challenges. this is about an hour. >> i didn't hear that. >> first time i've been to the right of you. i do want to begin with you. i haven't been here for the entire morning, but i heard the last couple of speakers and i've been interviewing a lot of people on the budget issues on this week and "good morning america" over the last week, and
you must feel a little like the pope these days. of everyo everyone feels the need to kiss the ring of simpson/bowles. >> kiss something. >> even if they don't adhere to everything you've laid out. i want you to talk a little bit about what you're hearing when you go out in the country and try to lay the ground work for support. what you are hearing back from people of what they expect, what they want, what they need, and what they understand about the problem. >> this -- first, thanks to pete peterson and michael for this this is a great forum, and i'm always proud to show up. i knew pete years ago when he was talking about social security reform. wrote a book, wonderful, dear man. very dear, dear person in my life.
erskine bowles, just superb. he is the numbers guy. i do the color. let me tell you what we found. erskine and i might say pull up a chair, we don't do bs or mush. and people are thirsting for that. and you don't give them bs and mush and when somebody gets up on their behind legs running for office says i'm here to tell you, we're going to save everything and we're not -- we're going to save precious medicare and precious medicaid, and precious social security, and precious defense, they are phony. you can't get there unless you are messing with the big four. and the biggest of the big four is medicare and no need to go any further and call it obama care, call it elvis presley care, i don't care care. it can't possibly work under any
scenario if you use your brain. well, what do you mean by that? well, it's got to take care of preexisting preexisting conditions for somebody three years old who will live to be 60. one person in the united states weighs more than the other two. you've got obesity. you've got diabetes a and b. you've got people who choose to do booze and cigarettes and tobacco and designer drugs. and a new disease is discovered every month. who the hell do you think -- and then a guy that could buy this building gets a heart operation for 200 grand and doesn't even get a bill. what the hell is that? i mean, use your head. and 10,000 a day turning 65. now people hear that, and then another final one is this. and then you can fire away. if anybody believes we're hauling out the defense budget, the only thing hollow is their brain, because here is the statistic. we spend $750 billion a year on
defense. and the top 14 countries on earth, including china and russia combined spend $540 billion. run it through your head again. $750 billion for us. $550 billion for the biggest 14 countries on the earth, including russia and china, and you're hollowing out the defense budget? the drinks are on me. this is where we are. how many contractors do you have on the defense department? it's quite a range. what is it? it's between a million and 10 million. that is a hell of a range. and that's where we are. social security now will go broke three years faster. as of the report last week, and we haven't heard a peep out of the aarp. these guys are monsters. are there patriots in here? really quite irritated. anyway, that's it.
>> okay. that's your case. and the question is what do you hear back. we all know that medicare is going to be a problem in the future. the costs continue to grow. but don't take away what i have now. we all know that defense spending far exceeds what the rest of the world spends. don't leave us the least bit vulnerable. when you get push back, what do you do? and what are the two or three numbers figures, figures, arguments that seem to make people understand everyone is going to have to contribute to this? >> well, the escape hatch is i'm rad to do something as long as everybody else will. that's the escape hatch. it's done with smiles and graciousness. you know, i'm ready. you're not ready for any of that stuff. and you have the realtors, you
know, being the housing in america. what is a million dollar mortgage, you know, interest deduction. send them the 500,000 and give a 12.5% nonrefundable tax credit. it helps the little guy. but what people really understand and when everybody is talking about this and say i'm ready to do something, the hypocrisy and idioy says i don't want to hurt the little guy. it will come from people who loan us money. and the market will respond. and they'll say we want more money for our money. and at that point, invasion will kick in and interest rates will kick in. and the guy that gets hurt the most is the little guy. >> let me bring that to mr. fishman. as a chairman of travelers, i guess you're deep in the bond market every day. i know this is an imprecise
science, but how much time, and everybody has been waiting for this. how much time are the bond markets going to give our federal government for addressing this? >> i suspect less than most people think. you ask the question what are the couple of numbers that get people's attention. put out a couple. total federal revenues last year from all source, $2.3 trillion. total spending $3.6 trillion. so we spent 1.3 to 2.3 more. in 2020, social security, medicaid and medicare simply based on demographics will be a trillion dollars a year more than it is now. it's going to grow from about $1.6 trillion last year. these are round numbers. you round trillions. you spend a lot of time doing comas and points. in $20202.7 trillion.
i suspect the time we have to deal with this is shorter than most people would observe. the principle beneficiary by the way, or certainly a principle beneficiary has been the u.s. government. another amazing statistic. $15 trillion of debt. $12 trillion held by the public. $225 billion of interest costs a year right now, that's the same number it was when we had $5 trillion outstanding because rates are down so low. you put the rates in today that they were when debt was $5 trillion, add a half a trillion dollars to the deficit we sit on today. so simple stuff. i get confused when people talk about debt as a percentage of gdp. but tell me we've got in essence of a fixed cost of a trillion dollars a year coming at us in seven and a half years and we're going to march our way to it, that scares the devil out of me. >> how is it affecting the decision-making of you and your peers? at the top of corporate america? >> the reason we got started in this, we got a company to run, is that we started asking
ourselves three, four years ago how are we going to plan for the next ten. i think that's what good business people do. we sat down and we said what's the outlook? and the best we could get to was that if we didn't do anything it would be awful. and if we actually acted it would be difficult for a few years but get better. and i think and i do speak to other ceos until there is some clarity and by the way, i don't think there is one solution. i think there's 50 solutions to this. the only one that doesn't work is the one we're doing now which is nothing. until there was some clarity, most business people are hunkered down. we're trying to figure out how to run our businesses so in a sluggish growth environment, i don't know the difference between plus one and minus one by the which way, but in that kind of low growth environment, how does your business do as well as it can? >> cutting costs as close you can to the bone. >> right. do more with less. how do you not put more people to work and manage until the
economic outlook in the immediate term. again, i recognize the fiscal cliff in january 1, but that isn't how you run a business. you look over the intermediate term. you look at that now, until you see some action and a plan to make it better it just looks problematic. >> simpson-bowles is one plan. i want to get to mayor nutter in a second. but let me ask one more question to you. i heard the president express his frustration about simpson-bowles, especially about the way, frankly, the financial and the corporate community has reacted. they all press him he believes to endorse simpson-bowles, yet when it comes to the tax increases called for, particularly those on the business side, business runs away. >> yeah, i can only speak for myself. we're in. as a matter of public policy, economic outlook we sign up for that in its totality 18 heart beat. >> across the board? >> you bet. when you start breaking it into pieces you can't put it back together again. this is a matter of priorities and choices. we can do -- we're the richest country on the planet.
we can do any hundred things we want. the only thing we can't do is everything and that's where we are at the moment. so you get a bipartisan group to sit down, wrestle with the issues, fight the good fight, come wake up something that works, how can you not as someone interested in the long-term, how can you not sign up for it. >> if you ask me, listen to a lot of people what's the one word that almost everyone can sign on to would be balance. the idea that everyone is going to have a share and a stake in this. can you sell that at the local level? >> sell this, and people bought it, because it was real. it was honest. in september of 2008, before we really knew what was going on, i announced to the public that we had a minimum of $450 million, five-year plan deficit, much like jay we actually planned for the future. we have a five-year plan.
we have a financial oversight entity. the next month in october i told them that it had grown to about 650 to 850. two days after president obama was elected, two days later that thursday, i stood up and said we have a $1 billion five-year plan deficit, and here is what we're going to do to solve it. and i used the words, this is a shared sacrifice approachment everyone has to put something on the table. we stopped our business tax reduction program, we had for 13 years. started under mayor rendell. suspended it. cut a variety of services, looked at every possible thing we were doing. cut back, we did not lay off thousands of people because i didn't want to damage our ability to provide core services but there are a bunch of things that we were doing that we said we can't do these anymore. and we did temporarily raise taxes as well. we closed ultimately $2.4 billion