tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 7, 2010 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
>> a short break in the gathering of perfecti of the fue conference. we wilreturn when they return from rick. >> c-span, the public appears content is available on public, television, radio. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, in youtube. sign up for the scheduler e- mails @ c-span.org. >> congress returns today. the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern for general speeches.
live coverage on c-span2. the house returns tomorrow and will consider a number of bills. later this week, letting that fha raise mortgage rates. president obama makes his first high school graduation speech as president and southwest michigan this evening. he will speak to kalamazoo central high school. we will have live coverage of that event here on c-span at 7:00 eastern. while we wait for the progressive conferenced while they are having lunch, we will look at congressional races from this morning's "washington journal." coversr congress druckeroll call," --
david drucker covers congress for "roll call." clearly the oil spill -- what impact will this have on what congress wants to get done? guest: i want to find out if harry reid's call to his committee chairman over the memorial day break that he wants the kennedy bill on the floor before everyone hightls it, if that will be a reality or whether there be a flurry of activity around the climate change bill beginning today. most of us in washington consider that bill or anything like it, dead. remember, the house passed something like last year. it was very politically toxic for those democrats in the midwest. we felt all along that it would be very difficult for the president to get this to his desk, and ven what occurred for over a year on health care.
with what happened in the gulf, though, i am wondering if now we will see fresh momentum. i personally don't tend to see it happening. but clearly harry reid in the senate wants to see it happening. unless the house wants to do something new in terms of a new bill, they will wait for the senate to pass their bill. then we will see the two sides will get together. host: the call to his committee chairs, the fast track the climate change legislation? guest: it could. or it could mean i want everyone to look at it to see where you have areas of jurisdiction and let's discuss it. one phone call this not mean immediate action. it could mean that it is back on his agenda. host: david druck will talk about a week ahead in congress, the energy bill, and a whole lot more.
more specifically on bp, before congress left, at least half a dozen, maybe a is there any specific legislation that will emerge on this? guest: i would not be surprised. i think there will be a lot of grandstanding, hearings. people will find out whatever they can, if they have any committee or subcommittee that gives them any regiono that problem. i think they will be very active because i think they will want to show leadership and some people might find it either politically necessary or advantageous. especially being in an election year where they are looking to get out in front with something positive on how you can show voters that government in washington is not so bad. host: before they did leave, the house and senate were trying to finish up a couple of other issues, that package of tax and benefit extensions and also work on the supplemental spending bill, the war spending for iraq
and afghanistan. how quickly they have to get it done? guest: i think they clearly want to get the things done before they leave for the july recess. those are clearly on the table. i expect to see both of those thgs finished, for sure. don't forget, financial regulatory reform goes into conference committee. it is a major piece of the president's agenda. both harry reid, the majority leader of the senate, and house democratic leaders, have been trumpeting this as a major triumph. they feel it is somethi they could sell at home in the fall campaigns. they will get it done before the july recess -- host: financial regulations. guest: before it breaks down, it is possible. host: ther was -- about the discussion in the conference committee on financial regulations, a big push on financial -- consumer protection. what are you hearing about what is going to survive?
guest: i think the one item of the two bills that is most in danger of being dropped or changed or what have you is the derivatives regulation ption, particularly the measure that was championed by agriculture chairman blanche lincoln and the senate. there is a chance she could lose her run off tomorrow. and that derivatives regulation measure that she fought for, definitely out. and lot of people don't like it. if she wins, it could still be out. the consumer protection agency, i would like to see who will win out. i believe the senate's version is a little more moderate than the house version. in the senate in this house and the federal reserve. i just tend to think the senate version will win out. but the real drama, i think, will be around derivatives regulation portion and blanche lincoln and the work she did being thrown out the window.
host: we get a daily and weekly rundown of what is ahead in the u.s. house, for the majority leader and the wit. nowhere in there is there a mention a bill that deals with fiscal year 2011 budget resolution or any sort of budget appropriations bill. when my house and senate gets started on a budget for 2011? guest: next year, maybe? host: resolution before the election? guest: i don't think so. the house at least will have a lot of trouble putting together a budget resolution. democrats are split. blue dog democrats, fiscally conservative democrats from a lot of republican-leanin states and house districts who want a lot more budget savings, spending reductions, fiscal measures, then the liberal democrats who are a majority of house democrats are not enough to pass something. republicans are not -- it cannot count their votes as be ailable.
host: are they better off going back to contestants saying we did not pass this huge -- or saying we did not do what we were supposed to do congress, which is produced a budget. guest: my advice to them if they asked me -- and they want -- is go back empty-handed. if you go back with a budget that is worded or perceived to be too much money and not taking to account the increase in federal deficit and national debt, i think that could be more politically toxic to democrats. simply because in my 10 years covering politics and 20-30 years of kind of just paying attention, i have never seen deficit and debt issues as big as the are now. the only people with a plan of people don't get to spend the money. this is the rare case, in my opinion, where voters are engaged on this issue and actually care. host: "the philadelphia
inquirer" headlines, associated press story, and now of work on the hill. kerry, this -- good morning. on the independent line. caller: i think it is time for clean energy in america. this oil disaster, it is bad for both the environment and it has been bad for aong time when we byrne carbons. i think coal is bad, both when we burn it and the disasters. i think nuclear bad because of the waste and it is way past time for change. guest: i think she clearly represents a point of view in america. the difficulty with going immediately to clean energy is i don't think technologically there is a way to just turn off fossil fuels and turn on an undeveloped an unknown technology. there are different parts of the clean energy sector that are being developed, that are being refined, and brought to the
fore but even the president recognizes before this disaster in the gulf hits, when he was approving more well and gas drilling leases, that while he clearly -- and we know he clearly wants to move to a clean energy industry in terms of energy that americans consume -- he knew it could not happen overnight. especially for an onomy with 10% unemployment, it is not something that could happen tomorrow. just one last thing. i noticed she was not in favor of nuclear energy. if democrats and republicans are ever going to compromise on fast tracking any type of clean or green energy legislation, you are going to need to have a strong the clinic component in there because of that is what is going to take to get republican votes -- have a strong nuclear component. host: asked about what impact the bp still hasn'ended to legislation. we want to take a look at some of what he had to say.
>> what we need to do is passed and energy comprehensive policy that prices carbon and begins to move america to the future so we can get into the marketplace. we will have less pollution, better health, better national security, better competitiveness, increased ability to provide our own national energy policy and we will create millions of jobs. . to put a premium on the price so that it makes it financially reasonable to pay for new green energy technologies. i think when unemployment is high, it is going to be very difficult to get congress to approve such attacks.
i do not think anybody wants to head into the fall campaign after a summer where gas prices spiked, especially if they spike because there was a new tax or people feared that a new tax was coming. >> good morning. caller: it is good to see you. it is nice to see you in the studio. i appreciate your input. appreciate your inpuwhatever c-span has done. my comment is amazement at the political ineptitude of the democrats. they have no sense of exploiting a situation to their manager even when they have moral superiority. whenever there is a crisis she is always out there with the president. host: you are calling on the democratic line? caller: i am a democrat.
it amazes me that even when the democrats have moral superiority the republicans always find a way to the run- down and issue. senator lugar is holding a press conference to put out his own blueprint on the energy situation. just another opportunity for him to get ahead of this issue. the democrats will sit silent. the republicans exploit the situation to their own advantage, it is amazing tme. sarah palin is th most vocal out there and more concerned about this by next door. host: thank you. guest: i understand his frustration. when every party is in power to the level that the democrats
are, it is almost a curse. a problem you want when running for office is trying to be able to implement policy in this town but it is difficult because so much is being thrown at you. democrats are finding out what republicans found out a few yes ago. if you own everything in town it can be very difficult to get things done. you're voting base does not understand why you do not accomplish everything that you said you would accomplish. you say elect me to the house, the senate, we will deliver. republicans, democrats, they always find out that minority in our constitutional republic always has a decent amount of power. on top of that you have crises thrown at you tat you did not plan on when you laid out the agenda. your constituents do not always understand why with all of the
power that y have you cannot deliver. host:he caller mentioned that the senator from indiana is holding a news conference today to talk about energy legislation. we will be covering that today. we will show you comments about energy legislation in a moment. oklahomaity, james is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i am calling about the energy legislation and this disaster with bp. they are not technically prepar to do the offshore drilling. if they are not willing to drill a hole in martha's vineyard, these problems can be dealt with. guest: the only people willing to allow drilling are the states and people that lived in the
gulf of mexico region. people in that region have embrace of the energy economy as it exists today. it has produced a ton of well paying jobs. texas is still based on the energy economy in large part. the only thing i would point out is that we have a lot of deep water drilling in the gulf that has occurred because it is harder to do shallow water drilling. harder to get those approvals. the deeper it goes the more difficult and dangerous that it gets. there just has not been a desire for drilling off of the maine coast. host: yesterday john cornyn was on "abc news" talking about energy legislation and the impact in his area of the
country. >> we need to be careful. rather than getting a grand slam home run i would rather try to hit some singles and develop nuclear power, battery technology that will help us deal with environmental concerns. let's look to divert more of our demand to natural gas. it is american and much less of an emissions problem and other forms of energy. host: sounds like h is opening a door on some kind of coon ground on nuclear energy. guest: i think that the democrats were smart in trying to do something bere the election, anything. what they would do is try something gradual. much easier to get the votes they need, particularly in an election year. looking back at thentire agenda of the president,
politically it would have been much less polarizing had he not gone big and played small ball. i understand that he and his supporters felt that big things were needed. we might find out that that was exactly what the country needed. but if you want to get something done without a lot of yelling and screamg, try something small. host: boston, democratic line. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask about the stimulus package. was something not put in their about them having an energy proposal? also, obama was elected to do big things. that is why people voted for him. i think that you have downplayed the other things he has not accomplished.
health care, education, and energy. i think that people get the wrong ea about the stimulus package. much of that money wen to the states. they did whatever they wanted without money. that is the fault of the state, not the federal government. host: she talked about money in the stimulus for alternative energy. guest: i do not rell an amendment. there was a weather is asian motion -- weatherization lotion. the administration's problem with the stimulus bill is that it was sold as keeping unemployment from rising above 8%. unemployment quickly went to 10%. not necessarily the esident's
fault. presidents get blamed for this all the time, but this has been his problem there. the media has clearly not downplayed education, buto far e american peoplare not sold. clearly this administration voted for the president to do big things. people think thathey understand what they are going to do and what they want. some of the people just wanted a democrat and not a republican. once the agenda really came forward in light of current events with the economy, clearly the president was saddled with a mess. they want leadership. they wanted someone to fix the economy, not necessarily everything depth he said he
would do. george bush sometimes misunderstood his mandate. so did bill clinton. this is nothing unique to president obama. i think that he is just dealing with the strains of government in a time of crisis. host: the financial regulations bill, there is word that the white house wants to get it done before upcoming g-20 meanings -- meetings. what is the timeline that the white house is looking at? the spokeswoman said that the president was looking forward to discussing the financial overhaul. is that at all practical? guest: democrats really want to get this done. they have got the votes and they feel that this is the one big thing, speaking of big things on
the president's agenda, they can campaign on that they think will " pay off. host: you say that ththing to watch tomorrow in arkansas is if she loses that runoff there in arkansas that the derivatives to the financial regulation bill goes out. host: i -- guest: that is a real good chance, i think. yes. host: independent caller. florida, good morning. caller: technoly as far as drilling down, we would like to propose thatsomeone really rethk geothermal. build a boiler plate. something on the scale of the hoover dam but very small. use that technology to get down to where we have free >> the name of the meeting is
>> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. please welcome the co-director of the campaign for america's future. [applause] >> good afternoon. have you had enough to eat? i want to thank -- this will not be the only time we will think the members of local 25 of unite for taking care of us today at this hotel. [applause] thanks for lunch. on behalf of all of our partners, i want to welcome you to america as a future now. as you well know, this conference used to be called take back america. for many years now everyone of you in this audience has been
working hard to take back america from the special interests. we also helped to develop a progressive agenda that barack obama ran on and one on in 2008. -- and won on in 2008. here is the question for debate, how is it going? after three years of trial and error, what do we say about the evolving relationship between barack obama and the progressive movement? we have invited to smart leaders -- two smart leaders to have a friendly debate about lessons that should have been learned. then, everyone in the audience gets to participate as well. some of us thought this would be easier than it actually has been. obama won with a huge mandate for change, and strong
majorities in the congress candidate obama's agenda was our agenda. we all know that power concedes nothing without a fight, and the special interests mobilize to stop progressive change. even the phrase take back america has now been appropriated by the key party reactionaries. they are the shock troops protecting corporate power against any kind of reform. who do not get me wrong, we have accomplished a lot. -- do not get me wrong, we have accomplished a lot working with barack obama's, but as many speakers have said, the corporate interests have put their stamp on are every bit 3 install on other priorities. we confronted the worst economic crisis and are longtime --
lifetime, and prevented another great depression, but with unemployment still obscenely high, too many in congress are giving up on job creation for budget cutting. you can say the same about every one of the fights we have been engaged in. two years ago our friend robert cutlener wrote a book called " obama's challenge." it is the idea that barack obama coming to power in the moment of crisis would be a transformational time. progressives know we need a powerful moment, but many in the heart of hearts hope that barack obama would leave that movement to stand up to the corporate interests. faleery sumners, and timothy
geithner, and rahm emanuel do not see themselves as part of the movement, and we often see them as part of the problem. i urge you all to read his newest book, "a presidency in peril." here is the question is for debate, is this obama's problem or is it ours? what can present rigid what can progressives do to make sure that -- what can progressives do to make sure president obama does what is necessary, and how do we make sure that the guys behind obama on the cover of the latest book you not botched the opportunity for a new american renaissance of a better future for all americans? to give you our first perspective on this, let me introduce d'arcy burnearcey ber.
she ran for congress and 2008 from washington state, and while she was doing that she organized 58 other house and senate candidates to campaign for responsible plan to end the war in iraq. that was unveiled at this congress. two plays and central -- she plays an essential role in helping the progressive caucus because there are real force for change. please welcome her. [applause] >> when i was approached about talking about this, i thought i really have the ec side of the debate, saying that progressives have to do what ever it takes to make this president do the right thing.
and having listened to the panel of people that preceded peake, i continue to think i have the ec side in this crowd. i am not here just to make you comfortable in feeling like you are already doing all the things you need to be doing, and that we as a movement are on the side of the angels because we are not doing enough. last summer bill clinton was a keynote speaker. he was in the middle of a speech about how everyone there should support the health care bill regardless of what was in it because it was so important to the obama presidency. in the middle of the speech when he was saying we should not be picky at the details, someone stood up in the crowd and demanded that he answer a question about "do not ask, do not tell."
his response was to say that the reason he had made "do not ask, do not tell" the policy was because progresses had not been there to pressure him to do the right thing. he was getting so much pressure from the right and no pressure from a left that he felt like he did not have any choice because he did not have the back of he needed from the movement caught -- back up he needed from the movement. our country was founded on the radical proposition of a government by the people. one of the underlying assumptions is that we will have an adversarial system in which you will have an aggressive advocates from both side of any debate fully engaged in the
fight. theeway that congress approaches their fight is all about that at the serial system. and-- adversarial system. we are not advocating for our side the way that they're right is advocating for their spirit and i sit in offices of members of congress and listen as a phone calls come in, and there will be 10 tea party phone calls to everyone of hours. the right has built this infrastructure that provides information to members of congress through lobbyists and think tanks. we have not done enough to counter that. we have a president who was fundamentally a consensus
builder. there are times when being a consensus builder is a very constructive thing. we need to ask ourselves what choices are we giving him for where to build a consensus when we do not fully come to the table. when the choice is between what the blue dogs once and the republicans want, we have a problem. that has been far too often the case. it is not our job to make this president or his administration comfortable. [applause] it is our job to make them do the right thing, even when that is extremely uncomfortable for them there are two very distinct
ways that the obama presidency can be undermined. one of those ways is the way the republicans do it, by trying to keep the administration from accomplishing anything, but the other equally important way to undermine the presidency is to let them do the wrong things. when shhe, a mere weeks before e oil spill, called for offshore drilling -- by allowing that to happen, quite frankly the environmental community did him in a tremendous disservice. [applause] now, i am sure this does not apply to anybody in this room, but there are a lot of people in washington, d.c., who think that it is more important to get invited to white house cocktail parties the and it is to actually call this
administration accountable. you will be glad to note that there are those of us who have not been invited to any of this cocktail parties and do not plan to be, because this is not a spectator sport. we as a movement have our hearts and the right place -- in the right place, but far too many of us after the election in 2008, there were far too many of us who said our job is done, our job is not done. and this is going to be as frustrating fight. it isn't hiring fight. it is an uncomfortable fight for everyone who was involvvd. -- it is a tiring fight. i have a 7-year-old son, henry, and every night i go home to him and had to answer to him for what kind of a country it is we
are building. have i done everything i could to make sure that what was happening in washington was the right thing, even when it was uncomfortable for me, even when i kiss off my friends. have i done everything i could? we were talking about the third economic revolution. i agree completely. we are in the state at tremendous transition in terms of how economies and societies function. i take partial responsibility. but that change has a natural tendency to have well and power ecru in the hands of a very small number of people, and right now the fact that progressives have not fully engaged in the fight is accelerating that process. barack obama is right about a
lot of things, but i will tell you something he is wrong about -- the corporate problem is the right solution. [applause] if we as populists do not counter that, who will? we had a revolution to escape the idea of hereditary aristocracy, to found a country in which in theory all persons are created equal, and i wonder every day, the reason i go to work, whether we can preserve that? what is this idea t of governmet by the people and for the people can be preserved? that is our job and the job at the people in this room. it is really true, if we do not do it, who will?
we have to make him. the best thing we can do to support barack obama is to make him do the right thing. [applause] >> thank you. now i am proud to introduce the winner of last year's citizen leadership award and. [applause] as you all know, she is the executive director for the center of community change -- he is the executive director for the center of community change. and he is an organizer. he is also an electoral -- and intellectual.
he has are real power to bear in the fight for health care reform, jobs, racial justice, and you know the big march down on the mall on immigration reform? she was at the lead. please welcome him. [applause] >> first, i want to sit think you to roger and -- to say thank you to roger and bob. [applause] i also want to appreciate darcey who is a magnificent leader in this progressive movement. i thought about this debate, and reflected on the fact that i have been arrested at the white house for criticizing the
administration for the lack of leadership on immigration reform. i have been an early in a consistent critic for the white house on that figure to articulate a big enough and bold in a solution to our country's unemployment crisis, especially in communities of color, and i wondered if they might be thinking over as 1600 pennsylvania avenue, is this the best they could come up with to defend us? we agreed pretty much across the board. i want to make a couple of points that i hope will be provocative. first, we have achieved much more in the last 18 months and progressives typically give ourselves credit for. the change is woefully inadequate given the level of crisis that our country faces in the scale of the crisis that the world, france, but we do
ourselves a deep disservice by failing to acknowledge the magnitude of our accomplishments. second, the important question before us in the time we're about to enter is not what the obama administration does or does not do, it is whether we can mount and create and inspire the kind of a movement that can create a cycle of transform it progressive change in this country. the key difference between the 1930's an 1960's, areas in which we want to express its gains, and the 1970's an 1990's, years of enormous disappointment leading to a conservative backlash, was not so much whether we had better leaders in the white house, it was that we had stronger, more vibrant social movements on the outside. whether president obama turns into a transformative the leader, or a disappointing
leader like bill clinton or jimmy carter is only partly about how you response to the crisis our country faces. it is mostly about what we do. let me pick up the first point about what we have achieved. i confessed to feeling somewhat puzzled about how much we have collectively accomplish in the progressive movement and how badly many of us feel about it. if you think back, what is the policy scorecard during the last 18 months? we have achieved legislation to cover 4 million additional kids with health insurance, including 400,000 legal immigrants. the economic recovery package, bill is in sufficient -- bill insufficient and lot large enough. we achieve health care reform that extends coverage to more than a 4 million people and
provides basic protections against insurance company abuses. this has been a progressive dream for over a century, and we finally have won it. it also represents a major step against inequality in our country, and will make a huge difference in the lives of the poorest people in the country. we seem to be poised to win financial reform legislation. each of these wins has significant disappointments, but let's keep in mind when we consider the disappointments that the aero a change in the country has been going in the wrong direction for a very long time. not just during the bush years, but also the clinton years, which brought as well the reform, nafta, and punitive crime and distribution bills.
it is true that there have been a lot of major disappointments. the failure of major of legislation. the employee free choice act. four major public jobs initiatives to address the unemployment rises in the country. the fact that even with the most major environmental crisis of our lifetime congress continues to snooze on energy and climate change legislation. all of this is a disappointment, and i completely agree with darcey that when the administration fails to lead or maintains policies from the last administration that we have an obligation to speak up, speak loudly, and be critical. i would said the defensiveness of the administration about the critiques they have received from a progressive community has portrayed a poor understanding of the importance of the independent movements to
achieving anything significant in our country. if you believe my arguments that the change we have achieved is larger than it appears, it is also true that we have a big challenge ahead of us. the issue in my view is not mainly president obama, it is us. the central election of american history is that it takes a big, vibrant social movements to get anything major accomplish. abolition, women's suffrage, none of those victories were fast or easy wins. none of them were delivered on a silver platter by a single political leader. it required passion and power and intensity from below, in each case over many decades. the problem is that in this time we have not seen enough progress of mass movements.
there have been some very encouraging signs of life with demonstration and wall street and washington and all over the country, but it is true that the largest populist uprising on economic issues in the country, the most ovisible, have been on the right and not left. that is a problem we have to take responsibiiity for an assault. i want to give an historical example to illustrate the points i am making. and when he was senate majority leader, lyndon johnson did everything in its power to water down six the civil rights act of 1957. he cowtown to the seventh southern democrats. -- southern democrats. costs fast forward to the 1960
-- he roused congress and the country to action in the famous speech where he reaffirmed we shall overcome. that speech would never have been delivered unless there had been a civil rights movement that had made the moral case and force the country to take a hard look in the mirror. presidents do not create more wrote urgency's, social movements do. the progressive movement in my view has a lot to learn from today's emigrants right movement. this year alone more than 1 billion people have marched in cities around the country demanding justice, demanding an immigration reform bill and demanding the president stopped deporting half the million hard- working families each year. there has been no wave of civil disobedience, resolutions around the country. there has been direct action at
the white house. i was arrested on may 1. some of the marginal people in our society have the courage to go into the streets and take action and put their bodies on the line and demand change. that is what it is going to take to keep progressive momentum going over the next few years across a range of issues that we care about. last point. i'd think it is critical that progressives have a sober and realistic view of the nation we live in. i remember in all of the festivities when the president was inaugurated, the sense of euphoria you felt in washington and all over the country. it was justified, but the problem is that the election of the president was interpreted as a sweeping mandate for fraud and progressive change in the country. i do not think it was.
i think represented a rejection of failed policies and bankruptcy-of and openness to something different but the country is still significantly divided and there are large numbers of people who hold what appear to us to be very contradictory opinions who are up for grabs. that is why organizing and recruiting new people to our movement, not just mobilizing existing active this is the critical ingredient that will determine whether or not we win the future. progressives who think the country region who think it is only banker on politicians are in our way have one point of view. -- progressives who think it is only one view of a politician have one point of view. we celebrate victories along the way, even as we acknowledge how much further we have to go. thank you very meant.
-- very much. [applause] >> i am going to give both debaters two minutes to some of. >> everything he said. [applause] [laughter] >> it iit is clear the elections of 2008 were not sufficient given the crises we face. and there is a very large sets of very important problems, but underlying it all is this tremendous transition in the way the country and the economy operates, and everything that implies. we will make the world knew in
our lifetime. there are not that many generations of people who have an opportunity to do that. we do not have a choice about whether we will do it or not. the only choice that we have is whether we are going to engage inand light so the world that we create is one in which every child has a better chance at life than what their parents did or one in which we have a new aristocracy and everyone else is trying to figure out when congress is less rigid going to let their unemployment benefits expire again. that is the choice that we have. i completely agree that we have got to create a real movement in this country. it is not enough for us to elect one man and expecting to fix it. it is our job. [applause]
>> everything she said. it is turning out not to be a very exciting debate. [laughter] the only thing i would put into the mix is that we're probably entering a time now where it was no longer be possible to win legislative policy changes without winning the argument in the country. my own view is that on health care reform and on the recovery package we won the policy, we lost the argument. those things are still things we can influence in terms of how they play out in the coming months, but that is not likely to be the case with smaller majorities in the house and the senate and a resurgent conservative movement in the country. it is incumbent upon us to win the argument and build the power that it will take to win the next transformative changes in the country.
this second point i would make briefly is that it really does matter what we fight for. our job is not to come up with the piece of legislation that can get the 60 votes in the senate and olympia snowe is not the test of what is moral legislation in this country. our job is to make the moral case in the country for what is right thing to do and to build a constituency that can move the goalposts in the country. [applause] hollen > now we are going tot everyone involved. to manage the next process i want to collop gloria cottall ua totten.
they are really a grassroots operation. gloria lead us to the next level. [applause] >> thank you. this is your chance to get involved. i will have a hard time calling unpeople because of the with the likes are. we will spend the next 20 minutes having discussion at your table about this great debate. you guys should have been more controversial. is it us or is it him? that is the key question. 15 or 20 minutes. then we will take your comments and questions and have an interactive discussion from the floor.
we will bring you live coverage of that here on c-span. congress returns today from its week-long memorial day recess. the senate gavels in today. they will vote on nominations at 5:30 eastern. live coverage on the c-span2 channel. later this week, letting the fha raise mortgage rates. president obama is making his first high school graduation speech as president in southwest michigan this evening. he will speak to kalamazoo's central high school students. the event is not open to the
public, and hundreds of people do have tickets. we will have live coverage here on c-span. it gets under way at 7:00 eastern on c-span. a look now at helicopters loading sandbags in venice, louisiana. the bags will be used to block passes between the barrier islands in an effort to present this bill from reaching the coast. the man who is overseeing the government's response says the cap on the damaged oilwell is not keeping up to 462,000 gallons of oil per day from leaking into the gulf. thad allen said the spill response involves thousands of individuals. . .
that my job today is the fight pirates but that is a large part of what you do. guest: it is. not myself, there are lots of people who are consumed with contemporary piracy. by and large we try to deal with crosscutting, pressing issues without any other bureaucratic home. piracy counterinsurgency issues. ples without residence in the state department in terms of bureaucracy. host: wheyo are dealing with issues like piracy you are obviously working in tandem with the pentagon, correct? guest: yes, but also internal to the department we also work with the bureau of economic ergy affairs. we work with boeotian of
environmental science and reonal bureaus we're in this case piracy is a pressing iue. crosscutting in that there are lots of different activities going on. humanitarian aid toastern africa is being terribly undercut by the pirates. host: why has it somalia become a pop -- focal point for piracy? guest: first there is a lack of governance in the country itself. piracy has been going on since the third boat was built thousands of years ago, but by and large in the contemporary world many of the nation's with many maritime interests have the wherewithal in their government to deal with their own
nationals. that is not the case in somalia. i hesitate to call it a government tre in somalia. they are trying very hard to deal with citizens in carrying out these attack, but they cannot do it. you need governments to deal with piracy. you need international collaboration, which we have to a great extent in the international communi to deal with piracy as a pnomenon. but countries in the region are not as strong as we would lik denn to be in terms of dealing with regional aspects of the problem. -- we would like them to be in terms of dealing with regional aspects ofhe problem. it is very difficult to tell who is doing what in the maritime environment. there is so much tffic.
it is very hard to get a line on who the legitimate fishermen are. it is a complicated issue. ht: he said in a web chat last year about the difficulty -- you said in a web chat lastear about the difficulty with dealing in countries like somalia. "international investors are not likely to invest in a country with criminal gangs that threaten thr investment, making somalia less attractive as a place to invest." sounds like a vicious circle. guest: it is. e one thing i would like to stress is that the greatest victims of this pirate activity are the people themselves. the ships that were targeted were those with humanitarian aid that were destined for people
who are literally starving to death. host: because they were easy marks? guest: partly because they are low and slow in the water. heavily loaded, not heavily guarded, early not armed. those were the initial victims. the pilots that attacked those ships are diverting and humanitarian aid from the people that need it. international shippers have invested heavily in commercial zones. they cannot rely upon thr cargo getting to the place it eds to be. it plays badly in need development, these countries need international aid and a tourist industry. they have been badly hurt by a pirate activity. longer it goes on the more desperate these people get. the more urgently need aid.
the less inclinedhe international aid community is to try to put humanitarian agents in those areas. host: you can your position at the state department after 30 years as a captain in the naval reserves. what was your primary role as an officer in e navy? guest: i enjoyed it very much, loving the sailors and the ships, loved the sea. but i enjoy foreign affairs even more. i think that most officers are frustrated by that aspect. but i enjoyed it. i stayed in the reserves for as long as i could but 32 careers -- 32 years as a long career. host: we have callers waiting to discuss maritime policy, piracy specifically in some cases. california, good morning.
caller: yes, i think i blame you guys for allowing this piracy to go on for so long. do you remember the drug war? ransom, ransom, ransom. you need to go there and aggressively and get them out of the way. i just do not get it. it bothers me, these opinions that are being discussed. host: your suggestion is that the u.s. navy should intervene and attack the folks who are conducting this piracy? caller: get together and stop it yourselves. guest: we share youroncern with pirate activities.
there is a powerful international coalition in the area trying tontervene and stop pirate attacks. the issue of going into somalia to try to take out the pirates is much more complicated than you might think. for all kinds of reasons. a couple of things. paying rans fuels the fire of piracy. the u.s. has a longstanding policy of not paying ransom and we encourage others to do this as well. commercial shippers have a legitimate interest in taking care of their crew. this isnot a simple issue. this is also not tripoli in 1846 where the united states navy can unilaterally declare war on a subset of the population. the world has changed a lot since then. i would like to point out that the contact group's for piracy
in somalia are working very hard to try to limit the impunity of pirates, capture and prosecute pirates, putting an end to this very destructive process. quest will -- >> we believe this now to return to the progressive conference where attendees are returning from a 15 minute break. this is live coverage on c-span. >> we want to take the great debate to the next level by [inaudible] >> i think it is a pretty clear
that mr. barack obama is compromised on everything that is progressive and even sabotages progress of things like single payer health care. he also sabotaged glass- steagall, which would have been an intervention into wall street. he is bought and paid for by wall street and not doing anything about british petroleum. i think is apparent that if he is not going to do anything to expropriate the british on this to are polluting our golf, he should just step down. thank you. -- polluting our gulf, he should just sat down. >> i am with people for the american way. i agree with our panelists as we talk about the progressive movement stepping up to the plate to polish politicians to do what we want them to do.
too often, we rely on them stepping in and making the right decisions based on what our needs are instead of making sure we build the type of infrastructure necessary to publish and take the momentum from great election cycles and actually having infrastructure on the ground where people can plug in, use the of light -- use the energy they had during the election cycle to make sure our voices are heard. also to push republican legislators to do the things we need to do for them to be successful. a lot of what has happened during this administration is there has been a lot of right wing obstruction. making sure we have boots on the ground in those districts and communities where we have republicans representing in making sure we hold them accountable to things like immigration reform and other issues that are backlogged. give some of our democratic friends some backbone in order to move forward.
>> thank you very much for the generous mention of the books. i have to say people are much more eager to read and buy a book that is selling cautious hope than one that is selling benevolent exasperation. the first book did much better than the second, though it is not over. let me try to respond to something that was said earlier. why, given that obama has accomplished so much, do we feel so bad? i think the answer is the piecemeal things he has accomplished do not add up to a sustainable winning politics.
everybody in this room and millions of other people are working their hearts out to build a movement. but you cannot build a movement between now and november. if he does not do more on jobs and mortgage relief, and full of things that affect regular people where they live, it all goes down the drain in the midterm. then the moment is loss and crazies takeover. that's why we feel so bad. the tight low -- a tight rope that some of a progressives what is as follows -- we criticize tim geithner, the oil companies, wall street, everybody but obama. because we feel a little bit do you see about criticizing obama. -- feel a -- goosey about criticizing obama.
we play an inside game and outside game and don't have that right yet. we have to hold this administration accountable big- time not just for peace deal things but deliver -- but to deliver a politics that is sustainable so that it does not get short circuit in before it has a chance to get started. we have to redouble our efforts to rebuild a movement. if you look at things a the past 50 years where we have made progress, gay-rights, women's rights, civil rights, the rights for disabled people, every one of those was the result of a movement. if you look at the areas where we have gone backwards, economic justice, that's the one where we did not build a strong of movement, notwithstanding the heroism of the labor movement. my only conclusion from that is that as powerful as racism was and as powerful as sexism was and as powerful as contempt for gays and lesbians was, wall street is even more powerful and
we have to be stronger than wall street. we have to tell it like it is with our president. [applause] >> let's go over here. >> i am representing the gathering for justice. all lot of the work we do in the communities we work with are really below the grassroots, non-traditional leaders, undocumented mothers in arizona, the recent parolee or the young person in juvenile hall. all of these people are doing social justice work and might not look like a campaign, but might be in the relationship their building in the neighborhood, in the mother's circle or the youth group. my question to the room is how do we include those people in this conversation? how can there voice come into this boys of policy and business suits? the work is happening on the grassroots, but how do they hold
obama accountable? the gap is so wide that as people are not being seen and the voices are not being heard. how do we bring that into this room and hold obama accountable? [applause] >> i am proved that green is green. i am out in the field in texas and nevada and oregon bringing brainpower on line to serve america. i'm putting money into clean oil, raising algy. i'm working hard on what we call the tent millennium of man and it's time we start restoring this planet. it is up and running and has been up a couple of months. you can get on the site and learn about real green things
that are creating jobs and people are having success across the country. but there is more to it. bill, asng to style a opposed to the comments that this movement would not be the place to create a legislation, we want a bottoms up bill that by the end of this year will restore ecosystems, the forrsts, rangelands, and restore our grid so we can get green power instead of relying on a coal and gas. we want to run a campaign that will put the bill into law pad a lot of land and spend money on restoring the oceans, restoring the eco in the economy. that is the basis of that word -- it means ecology and that's the natural resources is so degraded that it's hardly
useful. we look forward to working with you on that and thank you very much for your efforts. >> >> i am with beyond nuclear, which is an advocacy group. that is beyond nuclear, not beyond petroleum, don't throw me out of the country at. what i would like to know, being a group that does actually call our congress people, some of whom are not very evolved and it seems like a very few tile occupation. i'm sitting next to somebody who has to call cantor, so you can now imagine what kind of thing goes job that is. i would love to hear some more specifics, not just about what we should do. a lot of us are aware but what we should do, but how to do it? my issue is anti-nuclear. we have mr. emmanuel and people
like that surrounding obama and we try to get into energy planning meetings and everything possible and the door is basically closed. they do not want to hear from us and it's not what they want to hear. i would love to hear more about the movement building ideas that can create change on the ground and will make people in congress feel uncomfortable because they want to keep their jobs and will let obama hear from us in a way that is not blocked by his many advisers, none of them agree with us. [applause] >> i am with american income life and want to speak briefly about corporate interests. i represent the corporate interest. it may not be the one you are thinking, it may not be wall street or the fact had bankers, but there are so many
progressive companies who believe in the social contract who want to respect workers' rights to organize and who believe in economic justice and shared prosperity. i would challenge this group to systematically make and start to include progressive businesses at a local level, a regional level come and at a national level to be partners in the conversation with our progress of partners. i say that because we have money and you have people. together, it is what will win the conversation in america. i look at financial reform and employee free choice as to examples. when we spoke out and organize 1700 businesses to speak out, it changed the conversation. with main street alliance and the shared prosperity spoke out
in the chamber and said consumer finance protection agency does not harm small business, it changes the conversation. as we build capacity to win the conversation in our neighborhoods at a local and state level, and then went policy battles at a national level, we cannot do it without a business with of reason and responsible corporate partners. i would challenge the progressive movement to start to include it systematically, not only for our money, but for our voice and sharing that with you. >> thank you for your leadership in that sector. >> i'm from the national community reinvestment coalition. sometimes it feels like we're concerned about pop culture but we spend all our time talking about celebrities. from awhat i took away
conversation -- our orientation is a much toward the white house and those in power with good reason we forget to actually go where culture is being created. we would be talking about these things if we were into pop culture. much of the conversation at our table focused on how do you play the inside game and the outside game but also how do you move away from whiping votes around a particular piece of legislation, which i think many organizations get caught in the trap of and set out a clear vision and set of principles around which you are going to compare any piece of legislation that comes along? i would say that around financial reform and economic justice matters, we one part of the policy and i think we still
have the opportunity to win the debate and continue to win the debate. thanks to bob cutler has been working on this issue for many years, that's an area where progressives can continue to put a lot of energy and emphasis and still win the fight. >> thank you. that gives you the last word. thank you, everyone. we're going to go almost immediately into the next session. i will ask you to hold your seats and we will bring the panelists up and i will do it quick introduction. i'm sure you will be excited to hear what they have to say.
>> please take your seats. we are about to begin the next session. thank you. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the next analysts who probably need no introduction. this next session is called "driving reform, defeating resistance." we are thrilled to have with us markos moulitsas daily kos daily and ilyse hogue from
moveon.org. markos is the founder and publisher of daily kos, which is the largest political community blog in the country. i'm sure very few of us are not familiar with it. he will soon be the author of his third book, due out in september called "the american taliban -- how war, sex, sin and power bind g hottest and the radical right. -- bind jihaddists and the radical right per "is a columnist, author and critical voice for the progressive movement, reaching millions of folks every day. please welcome markos. [applause] >> it that afternoon. -- good afternoon. you may have seen me yesterday morning on "abc's this week."
i would like to apologize for not water boarding liz cheney. you think it's a good idea, i think it's a good idea, but the producer nixed the idea. i made my name being a blunt commentator, not just talking about republicans, conservatives, but also talking about problems within our own internal movement. i want to talk a little bit about that and a little bit about how i got into this game and how things are changing. the story really is -- it is a positive ending, but the beginning is more harsh than it is. i began eight years ago, in 2002, which is a lifetime. think back to 2002, when we were not allowed to criticize bush on anything. it wasn't a question of criticizing him on foreign policy, but any issue.
criticizing him was showing weakness, showing division, showing a divided america and the terrorists one every time we criticized george bush. it was a very difficult time. i started daily kos not because i thought was going to become a big incredible community. at the time, and as such thing existed. this was when joe klein was the paragon of liberal thought in the media. [laughter] he told us that anybody who is reasonable knows that his top -- anybody who knows is saddam hussein is a threat to the international community because he has weapons of mass destruction. those were our liberals. they did not exist. for somebody like me who began the site and quickly filled an audience, i realized there was a definite market niche that was not being filled. people wanted strong, progressive voices and they did not exist.
that didn't mean there wasn't a progressive movement that time. this is the beginning problem. people like me would look out and see the environmental movement and the women's movement and labour and so on and there were all in these little segmented silos doing their thing. we were divided and the conservatives were united and we were getting our asses kicked. there's no way to sugar coat it. everything we've looked at showed the what we were doing was not working. the people who were in charge of those organizations did not seem to understand that the world was changing and they needed to evolve. by world is changing, i'm not talking about -- talk about a conservative movement that billed itself as a unified, cohesive, holistic movement starting in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. so 30 years into this, you think we would start getting their hands that may be being in our own silo's was not working. but it wasn't coming from within
our movement. in the late nineties, you had the rise of the first truly, holistic, progressive organization which was moveon.org, which was started because of the impeachment of them moved on to the war and gradually moved on to basically the entire progressive ser. you saw the blogosphere come up. it's very professional now and looks a lot different. at that time, it was very amateur and we were small and nobody paid attention or took us seriously. but we were group -- but we grew and we were holistic. the news of the democracy alliance command and to organizations cropped up that are funded by new donors. the center for american progress, media matters, so forth. these organizations or holistic in nature and so there was progress. we were starting to emulate what the right wing had been doing in starting to have a sense of life and hope that maybe things would get better. 2004 came and we lost.
that was a good thing. at least for our movement is a good thing. it was terrible for the country. i almost killed myself. it was terrible for me. election in 2004 was my son's first birthday. i thought that was going to be a sign of good luck. instead, i was trying not to cry as i sang happy birthday. it was a bad, bad day. good thing he was only one and will remember it. but the problem was, had john kerry one, it would have sent a signal to the existing progressive in the structure that things were okay. it was a question about one time but of george bush winning in 2000. this showed that an unpopular president winning and pot -- waging unpopular policies had beaten a candidate who talks a lot, but john kerry is a fairly impressive person if you can get
him to shut up. [laughter] normally does not a bad problem. but they destroyed a war hero. they were able to take a president who was unpopular and had him when fairly easily. there may be is a problem in our movement. 2006 rolls around and we are looking at we're going to take back the set. we're fighting hard. the environment is in our direction. we look at a prime pick up opportunity in rhode island. a republican senator -- we were going to take him out. next thing you know, the environmentalists were backing him. the women's groups were backing him because he votes with them on certain issues. that's fantastic, but we won that set up by a single seat. had he won, if half the progress of and had tried to win, james and half would have been chair the committee in the senate.
-- james ibhofe would have been at the chair in the senate. it was not just the republican party. the gauge in the primary in connecticut that year. joe lieberman, list of the progressive movement back him because he has been good with us over the year. how did that work out? i don't think any to tell you guys. [laughter] in illinois, another congressman represents the chicago area district, we tried to primary him because he was terrible on the issues. but labor back into the hill and we don't have the ability to single-handedly go against a heavily labor-backed candidate. it turns out he was the only democrat in a blister to vote against the health care law. so time and time again, we have been shooting ourselves in the
feet. things startere getting better. thee seeing an interest in old line progressive groups, realizing we have to take the more holistic approach to politics and we have to hold people accountable, it does not matter if they are republicans. there are a lot of bad democrats in congress and we have to hold them accountable. [applause] because of that, we are going to win on tuesday. we're going to take out blanche lincoln in arkansas. i'm excited because it is an unprecedented alliance between the net roots, labour, and we finally have realized we have quite a bit of power to rally
small dollar donors, activists, people who have resources and expertise to run campaigns and get-out-the-vote operations and realize that we have to hold people in washington d.c. accountable. as a matter for right on the issue. doesn't matter if we are right on public opinion. in washington d.c., they are immune to reason, they are immune to public opinion. look at the comprehensive immigration reform. it polls that 80%. 75% among republicans. and they are too afraid to touch it. the public option had at the support of 65% of the american people. they were afraid to touch it. we have to realize they are immune to certain things. they are not immune to losing elections. that is where we actually make them hurt. [applause] moving forward as a practical policy, we have to focus on the
electoral component. everything else we're doing is fantastic, but that's important it the amplifies everything else you do. once they start worrying about their jobs, they start worrying about what you have to say. they know of that make you happy, they have to contend with you and all your friends in these brodeur, ballistic progressive movement next time election time rolls around. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. now i would like to bring up ilyse hogue. for five years now, she has mobilized moveon.org's 5 million members to shape political priorities that have impacted every issue area that the progressive movement, the holistic progressive movement cares about. prior to joining moveon.org, she had a number of corporate accountability campaigns trade she is an incredible leader and
an important political leader at this time in our fight. thank you. [applause] >> its great to be here with you guys today. and i want to start by telling this story -- i know it's a story have heard over and over but i'm going to tell it anyway. tomorrow, in addition to being the day we're going to take blanche lincoln down, it is the 50th day that the oil continues to flow into the gulf. the 50th day. 11 people are dead, thousands of fishermen are economically devastated, and ecosystems beyond what we can and imagine, will take decades to rebound, if they ever do. everyone is calling it a disaster, right? president obama has called a disaster. every elected official is blowing each other out of the way to call it a disaster. even the ceo of bp, and he can
take his foot out of his mouth is calling it a disaster. but there's another word i want to talk about -- is the word spill. i have been rankled by that word because that's with a 3-year-old does with his milk. a spill is what happens when a cargo truck hits an icy patch and rolls over. this was not a spill. this was a calculated gamble that bp took with the help of our government for the last several decades. [applause] it was a calculated gamble the american people lost. it was no accident. this was a betrayal of our democracy made possible by decades of a relentless lobbying, a revolving door between case street and our government, and a willingness -- between k street and our
government and at bp and other corporations like it to pay fines for admitted legal violations. in the case of bp, both environmental and safety laws. do you know why they're willing to pay this finds? because they are a drop in the bucket compared to the profits it will make it they do not change their ways. in the last five years, bp paid $373 million in fines. $373 million in fines. think about what that could do for education, clean energy, jobs, homelessness. they paid $373 million in fines without thought and that's nothing compared -- sorry, that is much more than they had to pay for lobbying. of which they paid $60 million last year. they made in the first quarter of 2010 $6 billion.
with 400 -- what is $400 million over the course of the year when you are making $6 billion? they got a waiver on the the rig that exploded. through lobbying, they were granted a waiver. people in our country, even non- violent drug offenders in some states get put away for life after three strikes. bp had a 760 strikes. it makes you want to run a bill called 761 strikes and you're out. could anyone in congress stand up for that? this did not happen by accident, nor is it an anomaly. bp, goldman sachs, bank of america, i have taken to: d. bp disaster wall street under water because it is an example of the
corrosion of our democracy. i stood up here last year and spoke to you and said there is a false dichotomy in the age of obama between the insiders and outsiders. our responsibility was not to beat the door down, but take the door off the hinges and smash the windows out. so there was no more inside and outside. i'm here to tell you that i was wrong last year. i was wrong. there is an inside and outside. it is our job now to actually call what is inside inside and that is democracy ruled by a corporate elite. those of us who cannot afford lobbyists, who are paying the price for what decades of corporate influence in our government have done, we are on the outside. we will continue to be on the outside until we demand every single politician that is elected in washington d.c.
choose whether they are going to be on the inside or the outside. we ran an ad last week that said president obama, you did not create this problem that led to the bp disaster. but you can end it. i believe that we can. the reason we can is some of the stuff markos talked about. there are three reasons -- the first is because we want it. because we did everything we were supposed to do. we mobilized the resources to take back both chambers. we pulled out every stop and created unprecedented campaign from the outside to let barack obama president in a historic election. we won. we played by the rules and we got the small donors and went door-to-door. yet we are still facing some very insurmountable problems. that means it's going to take more than one election.
more than democratic party controlling all of the chamber's in order to fix our democracy. we also know that it is time because we fought close to obama for the health care bill that passed. that's a real victory. but what we learned from that is that it is fighting to and mail. it is fighting to and nail. -- it is fighting tooth and nail. it is getting people out in the cities and towns every week to pass a bill. members kept coming back week after week. three months became 6 and 6 became 9 and kept fighting. they learned and we learned together that she can win when you come back and keep fighting. finally, the reason now is the time to do this is because we have no option. there is too much steak. if we do not call what is inside inside and what is outside outside, we will become
characters in a story that we know to be false. we will become part of a narrative that says we need to change course because president obama overreached and was too liberal. because the tea party had more strength than we did. here is something -- you think t partyers art as a distraction? they are dangerous. when they get racist and spat at our congressman and do things that are completely outside the bounds of what we believe our democracy to be about, we have to call a moderate. we absolutely have to call them on that. they are the distraction. the corporate interests that have ruled washington for decades would be so happy to watch progressives and tea party years ago at in this election so they can continue with business as usual. the third reason we are going to do this is because we have no option. there is to much stake. i have great news. i walk around and listen to all
the commentators say the base is depressed, apathetic and complacent. i have the privilege of representing 5 million people in every district in this country. we are not apathetic. we are not depressed. we're willing to get out and fight for the people who fight for us. [applause] what they mean when they say the base is depressed is that no longer can they count on us for a solid democratic vote. we're getting more sophisticated, not all democrats are created equal. that is not depression. that is sophistication. that's how movements grow. that is where we are now. i want to give a shout out to the woman over there who said i have to speak for the business
interests -- this is not an anti-corporate critique. this is not an anti-business critique. there are great corporations and lots of social innovation happening that actually going to help us confront these issues. there are small businesses that help us pass the health care law. this is anti corporate- corruption. an anti-corporate corruption argument. [applause] here is what we need to do. we're not going to win this thing in the next five months. we're going to win this thing over the next five years. we're going to start right now and the think we need to remember, no. 1, we are not here to be satisfied. i did not see the health insurance companies won a one concession after coocession in the fight say that's great, we won't take any more, that's great. yet, we do that because we are
so stuck in the mentality that came from eight years of george bush that we are afraid to ask for more and -- in case it is too much. that's not our job. we are not here to be satisfied. what a bill is introduced, saying after decades of lobbying, though well companies had its liability cap at $75 million and we're going to raise it to $10 billion, we should say that's great, we will take it, but they should pay every penny they arrow. why should there be a cap on liabilities? -- on the liabilities. we are not here to be satisfied. we're going to call out the impostor's and go to the mat for the people who are in elected positions or who are trying to be elected to are the real deal. right? we're going to call out the impostors. we're going to call out our own.
if we do not call out our own, we are seeing the mantle of populism to the other side. if we're not out there saying blanche lincoln is no populist, and the two-party is to say the democrats stand with corp. said we are your savior. -- the tea party gets to say democrats stanhope corporations. tuesday, when there is a run off and arlen specter was defeated, had reporters coming to be saying this is anti- incumbent energy. the pendulum swings and this is what happens. we have to be able to say to them, absolutely not. if this is anti-income and energy, how do you explain the fact that alan grayson record- breaking fund-raising quarter?
this is because as a sophisticated movement, we recognize who is with us, who is going to washington d.c. to shake up the system, and stand with us and who is not. we are going to take the impostor's out and go to the mat for the people who are the real deal. [applause] finally, we need to get out and organize back to basics. i met somebody who said we need more progressive and the structure in the field and that is absolutely true. we do. but i will argue that infrastructure will do is no good until we get back to the core organizing principles of what democracy is about. who heard ed rendell go off a couple months ago about the democratic party having lost its soul? we need to be willing to say what is really going on. we need to tell stories like the
one i started this speech with an order for people to understand why they're with us. during the health care fight, we kept saying those people think this is about socialism or they don't want the public option, the cdo score is too high. markos was one of the only people out there saying they hate government. we need to get a party to make sure it we say government is there to make sure you get a fair shake. [applause] non-corrupt government actually becomes a tool for justice. we need to go back to basics and tell people what is what. politics will follow culture. somebody said we got to into the legislative leaders and i totally agree with that. we fought for the public option, sending the case had made that we needed health care reform. we-at our peril and we cannot
afford to do that again. -- we did that at our peril. there's a campaign called the other 90%. which is sort of an oxymoron. how can 98% the other? 2% of washington d.c. is corporate lobbyists. they have been working their asses off to fix the system so that 2% of americans reap all the benefits and the other 98% get left out. if we can go out and shake up the existing narrative that this is left verses right, at t party verses progresses, if we can't go out and say 90 percent of us -- 90% of us are not having our first -- not having our voices heard because we have not held elected officials accountable and have left corporations run wild, we will organize with success. then, we will be about to keep up with the need to build infrastructure to help people
join us in the fight to defeat the corporate insiders said that the folks who were with us can help level playing field we can get a fair shake. thank you very much. [applause] >> we do have about 50 minutes for questions. we're happy to take a few questions. i will open up the floor to the audience. >> and good afternoon. thank you for keywords. i'm with the national committee for responsive philanthropy. where the nation's watchdog organization for grant makers and advocate on behalf of non- profits like many in the room who do advocacy and organizing to use research and members to
get you more funding. i was wondering, you spoke a lot on the importance and nuances of encouraging progressives to work with government and push them even when they are our friends to do what is necessary. that has been the common theme throughout this morning in the afternoon. i was wondering if you could speak about the role that foundations and grant makers can do and how does this to advocate an organized can encourage that. >> neither of our operations take foundation funding, which added to the great luxury. we believe deeply in the small donor model. at the same time, foundations will play a critical role in social change happening. the only thing i tell my friends
in the foundation world is i always think everyone -- and foundations are not immune to this -- they're looking for the silver bullet. this group did this and it was awesome and let's fund everybody to do this. i advocate an ecosystem approach to social change. the most diverse ecosystems are the one -- are the ones that thrive. funders can survey the entire landscape and save -- and say what is missing? usually there is a niche that is missing. connectivity -- there have been some great models. there was some amazing things that came out of it but the ecosystem approach instead of living all in one direction. >> first of all, i will take the
money. checks, credit cards, cash. cash is good. my biggest problem with foundations is the notion that they want to fund programs. they want to fund -- is a programmatic approach to funding. i believe strongly that talent, people are what should be funded, and a matter where they go. support our best talent because what we do is listen to the private sector and the republicans don't. they keep theirs stashed away in think tanks and other things and networks fantastic because when they need these people, they contracted out. i would like to see more individuals funded as opposed to programs. [applause] >> other questions? >> i am a fan of both of your organizations. >> i am a fan of view, billy. >> i want to know what you'd
think success looks like in this election? and in the next two years after that and in the next five years, which you spoke about? it's a simple question, but what is the goal post? what does success look like? >> at the daily kos, illinois or in the minority, armada was more democrats. once we were in the majority, armada was better democrats. success in november, at this point, we're fighting a defensive battle. the climate is against us. we have an administration that seems more worried about inflation and jobs reports. it is challenging and thankfully bt backers are giving us a lifeline and we will take -- thankfully the tea baggers are
couple of seats, the majority, but a few seats. we need to win the seats in contested districts. we need to win some progressives. there are purple republican districts where there are real progress is running have a shot. we need a balanced tally. the second is disrupting the conversation. we need to make the selection a referendum on corporate control 90 party politics or obama overreach. -- corporate control on the tea party politics. it sounds silly, but out of the gate in 2009, how long have we been prepared to have an honest to god energy policy in this country. it was a surprise that we were taking of the energy policy. we cannot afford to make the
same mistakes when it comes to the economy and when it comes to corporate reform. we need to have the legislative platforms ready. >> i just want to interject on the types of districts that progressives can bring in or not win in. they elected 375 candidates. we are in the districts that are 42% into the 55% democratic. these are the quintessential swing districts. they're winning in those districts because they are connecting with voters about what matters most to them. let us not concede any ground on the types of districts that progress can win in. you already did. >> he made a statement about getting rid of -- you and made a
statement about getting rid of certain democrats that are not up to par. basically, not going after the 41 republicans who vote in a locked. >> i know, it is not either or. >> it seems to me if you have a democrat voting one way 90% sign of the time the republicans not voting with us at all, we need to put pressure on getting some of those republican bonds out of office. they have been there too long. >> i do not think anyone is suggesting is either or. >> if you use your energy to cut down on the 90-10 democrat, where will the energy come to take on the entrenched republicans? we need to go into republican districts and sure the people in the district that they're voting
against their own interests. >> you have a lot of energy. >> let him respond. >> these people have been taken advantage of it since the civil war. this is a country that when and fought for mr. plantation owner. he was tricked into giving his life. we need to let him know that he is a fool. >> like he said, we need to stop looking at energy as a finite resource. when we are telling motivating stories and when we are building momentum, we will find that we have an expansive ability. the other thing is this narrative that we have to tell. it is one way to get out of that. it is either doing blanket defense on on -- on democrats as
a matter what we do or nothing. if we are telling stories of corporate interests and their pollution, that is all the republicans mostly, right? all of them. that includes a handful of democrats who have chosen to stand with them. it works in all of those districts. it does not exclude republicans. >> no one was more to do more on that in washington, d.c. blanche lincoln is the only one who can hold the district. in two dozen sex we kicked by republicans out of the senate that same year. we can do of the above. when we do make gains against bad democrats it energizes us and makes us feel that if we're making progress. now we will take on republicans.
after tuesday, i am moving into a general election mode. early 2012 it will be a target rich environment. >> down here. >> at thank you. i am a state representative from new hampshire. i wanted to say that the best way to get money out of politics is campaign finance reform. [applause] since we have term limits for our president, why do not we have term limits for the senate and the congress? [applause] two terms for the senate which gives them 12 years and three terms for congress which gives them six years and then we can get rid of some of these bombs. >> i think the limits are undemocratic.
what we are seeing in places that have term limits is that the people -- the elected officials are not there long enough to learn the ropes. you have these horrible bureaucratic consultant types that control and run the legislature. in is the opposite of good government. >> let's go back here. i see you. you are next. we have time for one year and one there. >> i am with the associated students of colada. being a normal person to activism and politics, i am really intrigued about being prepared and having a unified platform. my question is there a form for something like that? i have been to a couple different conferences, meet up, or retreats, but nothing that is a single issue that sets the
progressive platform for energy than setting a progressive platform for education. this includes people who work in the fields who are affected. is there something like that. if there is not, is anyone working towards something like that? >> a dear god, i hope not. get a bunch of liberals in a room and decide on a platform it is scary. we need to talk about broad values that do not get into the nitty gritty. when to establish those values, the details will flow from the values. opportunity for everyone, equality, justice, and so on. you can talk about those things. a green economy. people who do need to have that out work with the legislatures to make that a reality.
the last details, the better. hit people in the heart and not in the head. >> i agree with markos. we do not believe agenda setting should come from the sea -- come from washington, d.c. we believe it should come to washington, d.c. we will be doing another one about corporate reform very soon. if you are on our list or another allied organization, we hope you will participate. at the same time, we need to say these are our values. we are entrusting them to you as elected leaders. the need to figure and how to implement them well or you will be held accountable because we put you in office. there are examples of that working. one woman in the room helped lead an organized service candidates around the idea of the responsible planned war in
iraq. not because a liberals tried to figure out how to end the war but because these people unanimously said we would only let people who are committed to ending a war. the candidates got together and said, here is how you do it. >> we will take one last question. >> thank you very much. i am with the opportunity agenda. thank you very much to mention values. we are a values driven organization. what i wanted to ask you to is -- i am sitting here with my friend of four years. i really wanted to ask a question that i think will drive the election and our progressive agenda going forward. i would like to know from the two of you, how do you plan to handle the issue of race?
race is a subtext of a lot of conservative policies. they do not talk about it head on. they use coat -- code words as "unelectable." i will broaden it up a little bit to talk about the difficulties or if you have any ideas how to add progressives -- how progresses can talk about race in the age of obama. thank you [applause] . -- [applause] >> i do not think we have a magic solution. race and code words around racism have been used against them for a long time. we only know how to call in and out when we see it. we need to actually save that certain things in our democracy
or rigid are acceptable. they have made it easier. we needed the tea parties to raise our ugly heads to make this easier. we have no solution other than to call it out when we see it. issues that actually take on race, like immigration, did you see the instance where the press got school board asked the teachers to take over the kids based on the murals so that they were white? we respond. we are committed to continue to do that. we also recognize that part of being a progressive is putting values first. equality is one of the core values. if we are not out there with everything that we do, we are on the losing end. >> on the affirmative side, part
of the movement is realizing everyone benefits within our coalition from certain policies whether it is comprehensive immigration reform. whether it is job creation, green technology, or so on everything has to be broader. and we need to lift a society which helps everyone. when you look at republicans and have a nominee for senate in kentucky saying that the civil rights act is a bad idea, i do not even know what to say to that. i just need to point it out and watch for the public and try to muzzle the guy. it is an interesting topic. in my last book it was about effecting change through technology. most of my examples where relation to raise -- were
related to race. it is a taboo in this society but is still one of the biggest drivers of change. when the topic comes up, things happen. and in kentucky, we may actually win the senate seat, a democratic "we" because of this. it opens up opportunities for us to progress in a way that we can if we are good. >> thank you. thank you very much. and for our panelists. [applause] >> we have a 15 minutes and then we will break. 15 minutes.
>> c-span, our content is available on television, radio, an online. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for our schedule other emails at c-span.org. >> you can see pelican's being cleaned at the burke rehabilitation center in the breezy enough. president obama and a number of top federal officials were briefed on the oil spill this morning by admiral palin who is overseeing the tragedy. -- admirabll thad allen.
raising mortgage rates. live coverage on c-span. president obama makes his first high-school graduation speech in southwest michigan this evening. he will speak to kalamazoo central high school. it is not open to the public. people have tickets to watch the live broadcast. we have coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight, efforts to expand broadband in the organ and how expansion would affect them. also time warner's recent restructuring announcement and what it means to their customers with their executive vice president. >> the communicator's -- >"the communicators." >> each of these books have a unique contemporary feel.
to order, go to c- span.org/books. they are a great idea for father's day. >> in a speech on the economy today, british prime minister cameron said the previous government is responsible for the current debt crisis. he said spending cuts will be needed to reduce the deficit. an emergency budget plan is said to be read -- revealed on june 22. following his remarks, he took questions from reporters. this is 40 minutes. >> the open university in part- time education in general, we believe, plays a critical role in assisting with the recovery. as we come out of the recession,
you are a real engine of change. it provides the rescaling the business's needs. we contribute directly to social inclusion and social mobility by bringing thousands of people into higher education who missed out on the chance to go to university when they were 18 work are being held back in their career ambitions by some form of disadvantage. we provide quality higher education, cost-effective leegue, at scale in more flexible and innovative ways always making the greatest use of technology. there is a huge potential to make as a truly knowledge base and high skills economy able to compete effectively on the world stage. we look forward to a new funding system that includes a
potential. i am thrilled that the coalition government's place to review the support of part-time students. prime minister, welcome back to the open university. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much for that introduction. thank you for welcoming me and my team here today. today, my speeches about the deficit, debt, and the financial problems that we face. at the same time, we must never take our eyes of the need of building strong economic growth in britain, growth in which our universities and perhaps the open university in particular should play a huge part. the knowledge based economy is the one of the shooter. and leave realizing it is not just about young people's skills, the open university has had a huge gold plate.
it is a privilege to be here this morning. i have been in office for one month. i have spent much of this time discussing with the chancellor, government officials the most urgent issues facing britain today. that is our massive deficit and our growing debt. how do we deal with these things which affect our economy, our society, and indeed our whole way of life? the decisions we make will affect every single person in this country. the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years. it is precisely because these decisions are so big it, they will have enormous implications, because we cannot afford to get them wrong that i want to make sure we go about the urgent task of cutting our deficit in a
way that is open, responsible, and fair. i want this government to carry out its and's unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that tried to strengthen and unite our country at the same time. i have said before that as we deal with the debt crisis we must take the whole country with us. i mean it. georgia's board has said that our plan to cut the deficit must be based -- george morrison has said our plan to cut the deficit. tomorrow, we publish the outline. they explain the principles that will underpin our approach in the process we intend to follow. this includes a process to engage and involve the whole country in the difficult decisions that will have to be taken. today, i want to set out for the country some big arguments that form the background to the
inevitably painful times that lay ahead of us. why do we need to do this? why is the problem even worse than we thought? why are the potential consequences and the consequences of inaction more critical than feared it? there are simple reasons why we need to deal with the country's debt. first, the more the government borrows the more in has to repay. the more it has to repay, the more lenders worry about getting their money back. the more lenders worry, the less confidence in our economy. second, investors, people winning us this money, they do not have to put their money in britain. they will only do so if they are confident if the economy is being run properly. if confidence in our economy is hit, we run the risk of higher interest rates. third, the real human, everyday
reason that this is the most urgent problem facing britain is that higher interest rates hurt every family and every business in our land. they mean higher mortis -- higher mortgage rates and unemployment. instead of your tax is going to pay for things like schools, hospitals, and police, your money that you work so hard for it is going on paying the interest on our national debt. that is why we have to do something about this. the argument that we consistently made urgent action to start tackling the deficit this year has already been backed by the bank of england and the treasury's own analysis. it has been made more urgent still by the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone over the recent months. the global financial markets are no longer focusing on the
position of the banks. they want to know that the government's that are supporting the banks of the last 18 months are taking the actions to bring their own finances under control. this weekend in south korea, george osborn received backing for the actions we have taken. people and other governments around the world or -- have to the dangers of dealing with their debts. britain has to be part of the international mainstream as well. we are clear about what -- but we must do. we have been clear about how we must do it. as the deputy prime minister has said, in a way that affects our most vulnerable, in a way that unites the country rather than divides it, in a way that demonstrates we are all in this together. we should be clear, too, that these problems do not disappear overnight.
i think people understand that the debt crisis is the legacy of the last government. exactly the same applies to the action we will need to take to deal with this. now we have had a chance to look at what really has been going on, i want to tell the the scale of the problem that we face. we have known for a long time that our debts are huge. last year, our budget deficit was the largest in our peacetime history. this year, according to the previous government forecasts, it is set to be over a r gdp, our national income. today, our national debt stands at 700 and -- 770 billion pounds. it is set to double to 1.4 trillion pounds. that is some 22,000 pounds for every man, woman, and child in
our country. we knew this before. the independent office for responsibility will send out independent forecasts to show the scale of the problem. for the first time, people will be able to see a truly independent assessment of the nation's finances and the size of the structural deficit. this important innovation has been noticed around the world. i believe this will help restore confidence in our fiscal framework. what i can tell you today and what we did not know for sure before, in fact what we could not know because the previous chancellor of the exchequer did not make the figures available, is how much the interest on our debt is likely to increase in the years to come. we have looked at the figures. based on the calculations of the last government, in five years' time the interest we pay on our debt, the interest alone and not the debt would just the interest is predicted to be
around 70 billion pounds. that is a simply staggering amount. no one in the previous government refused to publish this piece of information. let me explain. today, we spend more on that interest payment due on running our schools. 70 billion pounds means spending more on debt interest and we currently do on a running our schools in england plus on combating climate change plus everything we spend on transit. interest payments of 70 billion pounds mean for every single pound we raise in tax, 10 pence will be spent on our debt. not paying off the debt itself, but just interest on the debt. does that what people work so hard for their hard-earned taxes are blown on interest payments of the national debt. think about it another way. corporation tax raises 36
billion pounds a year. all of the money from all of the tax from all the profits of every single company in britain if they just paid a little bit more than half the interest of our debt. that is how serious this problem is. what a terrible,e e on that is how bad things are. this is how far we have been living beyond our means. that is the legacy our generation threatens to leave the next unless we act. no one can deny the scale of the problem. the scale is huge. what makes this such a monumental challenge is the nature of the problem. there are some who say that our massive deficit is just because we have been in a recession and when growth comes back that everything will somehow be ok. there is a flaw in this argument. it is a major one. we have a significant deficit
problem way before that it -- way before the recession. much of this is structural, a problem built up before the recession caused by government spending planning to spend more than we can afford. and has nothing to do with the recession. growth, or a return to growth, will not sort this out. this is the crux of the problem we face today. the previous government really did think they abolished. and bust. the economy would keep growing and spending. the truth about that economic growth and the tragedy is that it was based on things that could never go on forever. their economy was based on a boom in financial services which accounted for one-quarter of all corporation taxes. this was unsustainable. financial-services was partly an illusion from years of low
interest rates and cheap assets like houses. that economy was based on a boom in immigration which come at onh of our economic growth. this was unsustainable. it is possible to keep bringing more and more people in our country to work while at the same time leaving millions of people on welfare. that economy was based on a boom in government spending which some budgets doubled or tripled in a decade. in the end, someone has to pay for all of that spending. when the inevitable happened and the boom turned to bust, this country was left high and dry. we have a massive deficit that threatens to loom over our economy for a generation. the problem we face today is not just the size of our dead but the nature of it. the fact that the roots of the
present situation blessed deeply in the profound practices of the last decade. this is brady economic failure of the previous government is laid bare. -- this is where the economic failure is laid bare. we are publishing information about how all of your money is spent. we shine a spotlight on where the waste went. is a scandalous site deceiving go department for pensions increased spending by 20 billion pounds and give some families as much as 93,000 pounds in housing benefits every year. the ministry of defense for the last 14 major projects which are 4.5 billion pounds over budget. the department of health has almost doubled the amount of managers. the treasury that sanction all of this because it published growth forecasts was far more
optimistic in independent forecasters. look at how they did all of this while at the same time they did so much damage to the fundamentals of our economy. it is a fact of life that 8 million people are economically enacted in our country. they allow our country to become far dependent on the public sector. there were far too high style to a private sector that has now shrunk in size to in level lot seen since 2004. nothing shows this to more than the fact they kept racking up spending even when the economy was shrinking. by the end of last year, our economy was 4% smaller than in 2007. if you look behind the headline figures, you see why we face such a crisis today.
the private sector of the economm was shrinking in the public was continuing its expansion. with the job losses, pay cuts, reduced working hours, falling profits, for those in the public sector life went on as before. since 2007, public spending has risen an extra 120 billion pounds in three years. while private sector employment fell 3.7%, public sector rose. it has been like a tale of two economies. a private sector bust and a public-sector boom. there is a problem with this splurge. they argued more spending with support the economy can be in forgetting that if you stop to
that you ramped up spending even further that will undermine confidence in investment rather than encourage it. everyone else in the economy was starting to pay the price. we are all paying the price because the size of the public sector has gotten way out of step with the private sector. we need to try to get this back in line. it will be much more painful and if we kept things in balance all along. the final part of the legacy of the fact that the money the government put into the public sector did not make it dramatically better or more efficient. while the cutbacks that are coming are unavoidable now, they previous money was spent wisely instead of assuring the public sector with cash at a time when everyone else was tightening their belts. that is the overall scale and nature of the problem.
i want to be equally clear about what the potential consequences are if we fail to act decisively and quickly to cut spending to bring our borrowing down and reduce our deficit. if we do nothing, there are three possible scenarios. the best case scenario is that we pay it increasingly punishing amounts of interest on our ebt, dozens of billions every year without paying the debt off. that huge drain on public finances would have been money that could have been spent on improving and a chess, giving our children a better indication, investing in infrastructure. i would describe this as dire, and progressive, a bad outcome. that is the best case. if we fail to confront our problems, we could suffer worse, a steady, painful erosion of confidence in our economy because today almost every major
country in the world is focusing on the need to cut their deficits. the g-20 has called on the country's to get a grip on their public finances. this means they would demand a higher price for taking on debt, interest rates would have to rise, investment would fall. if that were to happen, there would be no proper growth. there would be no real recovery. there would be no substantial new jaws because britain's economy would be on a slide to decline. of these outcomes are nothing less than disasters not just for our economy but for our society, too. our vision for britain is more free, fair, and irresponsible. even more worrying is the example of greece. a sudden loss of confidence and a sharp increase in interest.
that me be clear. we are not as bad as greece. our underlying position is much stronger than theirs. are week -- we now have a government, that are would argue, that has the ability to deal with the problem. let greece stand as a warning of what happens to countries that lose their credibility. thankfully, this is a warning to focus the into it -- the focus of the international community. we need to take immediate and decisive action. we have completed a spending review to save 6 billion pounds of public spending. we have a new independent office of budget responsibility. it will send out independent forecasts so that never again can this country slip into
another massive debt crisis. our actions have already been noticed around the world. i am a glassg-de20 -- i am glad the g-20 endorsed this. this is the sober reality i have to set out for the country today. the legacy left by the last government is terrible. the private sector has shown -- has shrunk in. interest rates and payments in five years' time could end up being higher than what we spend on schools, climate change, and transit combined. the legacy we have been left is so bad that the measures we need to deal with that will be unavoidably tough. people's lives -- and this is vital, people's lives will be worse unless we do something now. the cause of building a fairer society will be set back years unless we do something now.
we are not alone in this. many countries around the world have been living beyond their means and they, too, are having to face the music. i make this promise to everyone in britain. you will not be left on your own in this. we are all in this together. we will get through this together. we will carry out britain's unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that strengthens and unites our country. we are not doing this because we want to. we are not driven by some. or idea. we are doing this as a government because we have to. we are driven by the ruth that unless we do something, people will suffer and our national interests will suffer, too. this government will not cut the deficit in a way that hurts those who most need help, in a way that divides our country, or in a way that undermines the spirit of our vital public services -- freedom, fairness
car responsibility. those are the values that drive this government. those are the guys that drive our efforts to drive down debt and turn this country around. -- those are the values that drive our efforts to drive down debt and turn this country around. britain and all of us will come out stronger on the other side. thank you for this thing. -- thank you for listening. [applause] now, we have some time for questions. >> you say we are all in this together. does that include the right wing of your kapadia -- of your party? >> it includes everyone. the government signaled that we are all in this together by saying we would start with
ourselves. ministers should take a pay cut. ministerial limousine should be cut back. we need to make sure parliament costs less money. yes, it does mean that we need to carry through tax policies, some of which we inherited from the previous government in terms of rates of tax as part of the picture. in terms of the capital gains tax, people understand we need to raise additional revenue from the capital gains tax to pay for the increase in tax allowances to help the underpaid and help protect the people we want to help most this time. i think people also understand. if you read any of the things written by anyone who is concerned about tax, they understand this massive leakage of revenue that takes place will have a very low rate of capital gains tax and a high rate of income tax. clearly, it would be irresponsible to make -- to
allow that to take place. we need to get our deficit down. how many people understand that? i hope that will be an answer the people nick? >> thank you, prime minister. you say these cuts will affect our whole way of life and they will affect every individual. yet you still have not spelled out in the area you are looking for which would be painful for people. when will you start to do that? when ministers make comparisons with canada, they blew up and made redundant tens of thousands of people, they cut benefits. is that what britain has to look forward to? >> we have the proper process to do this, a process with a budget on the 22nd of june. this will set out spending of the next three years.
i want to see a proper debate take place that involves as many people as possible that will lead to actual spending reduction being sent out and what the consequences of that spending reduction are. i want us to go about this in the best way possible to take people with us. i was speaking to the canadian prime minister about this last week. while they do stand as an example then sorted out a debt and deficit crisis, the great morning they give is that they put it off for too many years before they did anything. the problem they have to solve was even worse for a time they got around to it. seeing the figures as i can now see them, understand the warnings which have been made before and and made again today, that we should not put this off. we need to get on with this. we need to take people with this. there will be department of
decisions. it will inevitably means some difficult the syrians over big areas of spending like pay and benefits. we need to explain this to people. i firmly believe that government is about acting in the national interest. it is in our national interest to try to take the country with us as we do this. if this is the right thing to do, we must be able to convince people that it is the right thing to do. in the long run, i think what we will be able to take people to a brighter economic future. >> you see people will get a sense of what this might involve within weeks? >> there will be difficult decisions in the budget. there will be discussions over the summer about public spending and public spending changes that need to be made in
different departments. as i said, these will be relatively open discussions. once you start opening a spending envelope, it is something the last government did not do. they did not have any totals. once we do that, people will see the sorts of choices that we, with them, will have to make. >> thank you, prime minister. i spent the last week looking over the books. policy announcements will be made in the budget in the due course. the approach we are sending out today is the right thing to do because there has been irresponsibility from the previous government and the way they handled the puck -- handle the finances. we need to have responsibility. that is the point of the agenda. what we are seeing today is that if we do not take
responsibility, what are the consequences of that? the 70 billion pounds we spend on debt repayments, for example, that is money we cannot spend on other services? when you look at all of the other options, no matter how painful but we might have to do might be -- what we might have to do might be, we need to do it. >> sky news. you say you want to engage in the end of the whole country in this very painful process. it sounds good. it sounds like it might be more than a talking shop. how will you convince people that you will listen and act on what they want and do not want to happen? >> that is what this should be about. we, the politicians, had a duty to explain to the country the nature and scale of the problem. i tried to do that today and explain what happens if we do not do anything.
we could take the easy course and enjoy. -- being in office. the consequences would be very bad. there needs to be a discussion about the priorities, the things we need to protect. what are the difficult decisions we could take and to involve people. there is not any money. it is a good idea to take people with you, have this discussion and debate about education spending, whether we are spending this on transport, and for structure, capital spending. all of this. at the end, obviously, we have the spending review. inevitably, we are going to make a lot of decisions that people will not agree with. we have to make the big decision which is the need to reduce
spending and get the deficit under control. that is the right one. once we do that, people, even if they do not like the individual decisions, because all these are hard choices that we can take the people with us. the alternative to doing nothing is to pretend this will all be cured by growth would make things worse. that is what we are trying to do. laura? oh, i am sorry. the gentleman there. >> is there a danger talking about things being forward? you seem to be talking down on the british economy which could be taken unfavorably by the markets. you talk about uniting the country. is there a danger you will not unite the country? >> i think there would be a danger if we had not, as you say, already taken action. we are not just writing in government saying, "oh, this is all terrible."
we immediately had in many spending round and reduce the budget. we sent a very strong signal that this is a government of recognizes the problem and resolve to take action to deal with the problem. i think what i set out today and is a very calm and clear analysis on how bad the problem is and what the consequences are of not taking action. people will judge by what we have already done and they will judge us on the budget we announce and the spending figures we announced for the rest of the problem. but that is i think what people will want to hear. is there a danger of uniting people against us? this is a very, very difficult thing we are trying to do. i went to address the piers in the house of lords before the election. i remember looking around the room and there were these great figures of the past.
no one in this country has had to deal with an 11% deficit before. why? we have not had one. yes, there are great risks and difficulties in dealing with this. to me, the challenge of statesmanship is to take difficult decisions in the national interest because it is the right thing to do. you have to try and take people with you as you do that. what is clear to me is an even easier way of uniting the entire country against us which would be sitting back and waiting for the realization to grow that britain's economy was hopelessly in debt, interest payments were eating up all of the hard-earned taxes, and that the government was just too weak and feckless to do anything about it. we have to act. we need to convince people this is the right thing to do and do our best to take them with us for the difficult decisions. that is what this is about.
it is not meant to be easy. it is incredibly difficult. no one has done this before. we need to do our very best and i believe we can. we have two parties together actually facing up to the3 does that come to this judgment. we will carry this through together. laura. >> bbc news. if the situation is so much worse, is it time to take the difficult positions as you suggest and look again at protecting budgets about sending billions of taxpayer pounds overseas? clearly everything should be up for grabs. if the public sector has gotten too big, how much smaller should it be? do you have any saying what kind of sharing the economy and should be? >> i do not think an ounce in some preconceived share for the
economy, i want the economy to grow and get the private sector moving. that is what needs to happen. in terms of the areas we have looked bad, there are good reasons for them. we were looking at how we want this country to be. the nhs sends a message that yes, we have to take difficult decisions. yes, there are programs that have to be cut. yes, there may be things the government did in the past that they cannot in the future. when it comes to the services that everyone wants to be there and provide the best the possibly can, we will protect those. as we take these difficult decisions, it will funded nhs will be there for you.
-- a well funded nhs will be there. britain has built the place in the world about sticking to our word on our aid commitments. this is a generous, compassionate company. even when things are difficult, we still send money to other parts of the world when people are living on $1 a day or less. the way you can look in the eyes of the french politicians and others. sometimes you might not say britain is not engaged enough, but when it comes to policies we make we stick to them. we stick to them on behalf of the people who are living in incredible poverty with huge difficulties. i think this is the sort of country that wants its government to continue being compassionate in that way just
as the people in our country are compassionate in that way when it comes to the other events were people get so generously. it will help us to make the moral argument about what sort of country this is as we deal with the incredibly difficult decisions that we have in front of us. that is what the coalition has to do. it is going to be a very, very difficult task. i believe it is a task to help bring us together in this common endeavor to make sure that at the end of this five-year period, the end of the spending round that people will say we sorted out our problems. we paid down our debt, we found our way in the world again. we started to grow again. we had an economy about jobs and things that we want. that is what this is about. yes, there are difficulties. we will come through it together, and in the end we will come out stronger.
it will be something that britain will be able to show to others in the world and be able to say we did this. it needed to be done, we did it, and we did it well. that is what the challenge is about. thank you very much for coming. thank you to the open university. thank you. [applause] >> this congressman held a town hall meeting in bakersfield, california. it is part of an initiative chaired by congressman mccarthy called "americans speaking out." he heard from his constituents.
>> thank you all for coming to our town hall meeting tonight. i like to call the "america speaking out." on and kevin mccarthy. the district is quite big. it goes from lancaster to ridgecrest to san luis obispo. we only touch water two times at tied. to start our meetings, i would like to call up angela in prayer. angela, come on up. you can stand if you like. >> if you will join me in prayer please. our heavenly father, we thank you for the blessings you have given us especially this great
country where we can meet today as free citizens and freely express our thoughts. we ask that you give our elected representatives strength, courage, and wisdom to do the things and to serve the people. most especially at this time we as to protect those men and women putting their lives at risk so that we may continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty our forefathers and vision for us. in your holy name we pray. amon. . -- envisioned for us. i would like to invite brian to lead us and the pledge. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands,ne nation under god, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, brian. you can be seated. >> thank you for coming out tonight. i know it is a busy night. lots of aduations. tonight is a town hall meeting we normally do, but tonight is a little different because it is called america speaking out. we want to bring greater accountability to congress and a power of the citizenry to. i am going -- empower the citizenry. i am going to show you how to do that. i feel very honored you have given me a right to represent you, and i think one of the most important things you can do is have that communication. i do meetings were you can take the call. we do town hall meetings on a
regular basis. all the networks covered if lives. in those four years in washington, i think each year we learn something new. we learn we need a lot more accountability these last two years, what has ppened in washington reminds me of 5 o story. rememb that story of the 85- year-old gentleman who was married to as wife more than 50 years. he had a heart attack. he wakes up in hpital and says, you have always been there for me. when first got married, you stayed with me. when i could not found another job and had to join the military, you join the nur's corp. when i got wounded, you were there to care for me. when i started a small business, you were there for me.
when we had children, you raise them. i had this heart attack. i wake of, and you are right there. i am beginning to think you're bad luck. people put the blame somewhere else. my wife has a lot of differences from me. that is very for the fifth, but for me to be able to run for it -- very productive, but for me to be able to represent you, i need to hear your opinion. we may not agree, but they have a right to express this, and i would like all of the information i can get, so tonight, i want to walk you through somethin new, because
as we progress, i would like to bring out america speaking out. this is a new program you can get on the internet, so any time you can give an idea. you can be in anybody's district. it does not matter if you're registered to vote. would you would see if you go to the page, you will not always see my page. there will be different things. it tells you in the top collin how to use it where you can submit an idea. you can vote on somebody el's idea, and you can debate ideas. it is from your own home. the next category you can s. you finthere are five different categories, but there are others within.
american prosperity, fiscal responsibility cos, american va. you go inside and some nifty ideas and debate them. this is how easy registration is. you give your name. all you do is party affiliation. you can take your avatar. i had to kick myself 20 years ago. if you go to the next one, this is what you will find. you got a thumbs up or a sums' down. -- or a thumbs down. you can search by what is most
recent, whatever has the most votes. you can give a simple vote. sayingou really liked the idea and you express your idea and want to get people to vote on it. you can click the facebook emblem and send it to all your friends on fay's boat that have not participated, -- on facebook that have not participated, or if somebody put something you find this respectful, the software tries to take out any vulgar language, but there is a symbol of the beginning you can click to police ourselves. we are protecting everybody as we go. if you go to the next slide, you said we would believe in competition. you get points the more you participate, and as you go through, you will continue to get more badges.
if you go to the next slide, we are building the platform so you can have phone applications. and not well you are driving, but may be why you are walking, and u can submit that. i have always wanted to tell my member of congress they should have done this. that would haveeen a better idea to save money. that is a new approach common and that this part of america speaking out, to take the 21st century, and let the people have a greater voice. that is part of what tonight is as well. i go back and forth each week. when i am back and forth you do not have to wait. i want to talk about one topic,
and we are going to go to the town hall. i believe this is the greatest concern no matter what issue we haven't. -- we have had, the amount of debt we are accumulating. it is something we all have to understand. the united states is on a path, the trajectory growing beyond any time we have had outside of world war ii, and if we ignore the problem, it cannot be ignored forever. i personally believe within the next four years that as only time we have to adjust its. otherwise people are going to make the decisions for us. otherwise, it is going to be very painful as you recently heard last week we went over 15 trillion dollars inebt, and
part of that if you break it down, if you break down who owns the debt, i would think that is important. if you borrow money you want to have the best tes. you want a good relationship, because they have all leverage if you are borrowing money common rigid borrowing money, so if we look, it is $283 billion in 1973 of 5% of fat was told by foreign countries fear a gun in 1990, our debt increased -- 5% of that was held by foreign countrs. in 1990, our debt increase. in 2010, theotal debt was 8.4
trillion dollars. who owns that tibet -- that the debt? number one is china. they own 11% of our debt. japan runs 9.7. a group of oil exporters, 2.8, and all the other countries combined owned 18. when you see is growth. the dollar was not always the low currency. -- the world currency. prior to world war ii, the pound was world currency. there is a lot of reasons why the pound switch to the dollar. there's also a ory right after world war ii. they would send a lot of money
on the war. who do they come to for their loan? who are their best friends during the war? america. they asked for $5 billion. we told them known. we went-and said, is 2% interest. there are a lot of concerns syria there are other factors, but when you are in that situation, you have to except other terms. why would we ever put ourselves in a position to except terms we do not want to except? when you start to get to a point
where more than 50% of the debt is owned by a country, they are going to have a say whether we want it or not. this is obama's budget because he is the president and he laid out the current budget. if you look at the side ofhere deficits are going to go, that means you already have the amount of debt you have today, and you have to keep borrowing pretty much as long as the eye can see. think foone moment if you take the first george bush, think of
all the debt and why we had to add that money. we have to become a nation. there were a couple of wars. we went through a great depression. we went through highways and water systems and air ports. think of everything we built. we went through a couple of world wars. and we went throughietnam, korea, katrina, and others. if you combine all that debt for everything we invested in, we are going to take all of that and double it in five years, and what are we doing? are we building new bridges? are we accumulating? that is too fast acculation of debt. if you go to the next slide, this is based on gross domestic product, and it is a percentage of your debt. if you see the beginning of the
red line, that is 2010. you see the trajectory. if you go back to world war ii, that is the highest it was. we were at 100% of gdp during one -- world war ii and. we were building ships and airplanes. we were fighting to save the world. we new ones that ended we no longer needed that my ships, that many planes, that large a military. you notice it went down. there is no end in sight, and that is why we have to have the varioua very serious conversati.
they put the budget together what it needs to be. instea of saying, this is how much money we have, we have to prioritize what we can, so the death -- some things we are not going to be able to do, and that is why we have to fundamentally make a change. no one in this room is not somehow insted in the market. you are somehow invted, maybe the place you work invests in the market. if you notice the market drop, it is bad upon ts. banks could not borrow money, so the european union had to draw them out. why? this was over 100% of gdp. there is an acronym that as portugal, ireland, italy,
greece, and spain. they are close to the breaking point. if you look at g.d.p. and put america in with the trajectory of where we are going, we are very close to where it should be. the imf recently said in 2015 america will be were greece is, and it will actually be worse. the president put together this debt commission where there are people on both sides of the aisle. the recently had an economist in. he took the entire amount of deaths from governments and others. -- of debt from government and others. his numbers came out when he said you hit 90%, you lose 1% of growth. you may thin 1% is not enough, but if america is projected to
only grow at 3%, you're losing onl1/3 of your entire percentage abroad. in march they had over 18% unemployment. you needob growth. before we had our town hall, i wanted to givyou exactly where rearm. i believe this is an biggest crisis before us, and we cannot ignore it. we want to do a lot for everybody, but there comes a point when you cannot do anything for anyone, when you get this high a debt. you may have two kids. we have connor and meghan, who is 13. i look back and said, how big was the budget in 1994 when conner was born?
the entire budget was only 1.4 trillion dollars. do you know what the deficit is? somewhere between 1.3 trillion dollars and 1.5 trillion dollars. we are now borrowing the amount of our entire budget. what more have we done in government bowman -- done in government? if i take $1 out common and how much of that does the federal government barrault? 43 cents. think about what the interest rate will be. interest rates are a little lower now, but it is going to come to a point for the interest is going to be greater than almost anything else we spend, and that is going to take away a lot of options, so as we move forward, if you have ideas -- my
first job was in the market. remember when we use to bring bottles back and get a refund? my job was to go get those bottles and bring them back. you always have a little suggestion box, so when someone came in and had better idea of how to improve, you put it in, and that is what we have to make -- suggestion boxes. we have a suggestion box 24 hours a day. you get a better idea of doing it, because we are all in this gether, and i am a firm believer that the idea should be the strength of the day. too much what i shannon th -- too much time in washington is spent trying to find the a idea of the party. that is why this is different. it does not ask for pty ideas. e idea should win, and the idea should be debated.
kyle is on this side, so if you have questions, raise your hand. we will take somebody to come down here, and i am here to listen. if you have some input, i will try not to take a long time. i am trying to improve. come on down. come on down, and andy will be here. go-ahead and state your name for everybody. >> [inaudible] i am going to ask your opion. escargots -- as far as what they give to the private sector.
[inaudible] i feel like we should do the same thing. we should pay for it as we use it. we understand that people are trying to fix it. we need your help. >> those questions are twofold. the pension issue is a tremendous issue. we made promises to a lot of people, but you're not going to be able to have it, because they are under-funded. the other thing is energy and dependents. i think boone pickens has done
an excellent job of educating the country about where our money is going and who is spending is based on energy. if we could be energy independence, we would be stronger because that money is invested in america, and one type of technology will not get us there. technology continues to improve, but what is so unique about where we all live, we are one of the largest in wind, one of the largest in solar. we have geothermal, and we do our part when it ces to oil. we produce 10% of the oil in the nation. our oil costs more, and you get less money for it, but if you're buying it someplace else from another country, are we finding of problem? we have to look at it. how can we protect the environment where we control our own destiny? let's go over here.
you are looking toward trouble. [inaudible] internet is a charity needs to be dealt with. [inaudible] the american disabilities act needs to be upgraded. i guess that is set. >> you have a couple points in there. this bill on the gulf as a tremdous problem. we have to cap it. and we of down for a number of days that the oil is coming to
the coast and we have to be able to protect that. a hurricane season is coming as well. they have preparation time to be able to do that. they have been working for quite some time to protect the march. you come backwith the skippers and picked up, you have greater protection. ford of what i fin out, they were telling me the story where the continually fight to work with the locals. he picked up the phone and called the president, and he said that the president was busy. the president has not call them bad. they cannot wait it. they are small parishes tried to
do that and that is not right. a couple of different questions as you could do. when we look at this time if you have toook a lot of different ways, much like any other crisis. you need have -- we -- make sure that you have the ability to fly but make it the safest and it never happens again for there are a lot of questions that have to be answered. how much and how fast did they approve something without looking at the changes in the diagrams? as the questions that have to entered for your water the checks and balances, where the protections as we go forward? it that we might have a microphone that works? >> but another try. the first is how to save some money. i took the granddaughter to the welfare office and you might want a look at the cars that they own and how much money they are going to get in the welfare. i like the cars that they have
when they're getting welfare money. and half of the welfare workers, i'm que sure that it is overloaded. if you do that, then you will have a load that they cannot handle and it will be more selective on their they also give money to. but i would take a look at eir cars, because they have a lot of nice cars. another thing i would imagine about the oil spill. but me go back about 40 years. i worked for the telephone company, and by 1960, the new york telephone company was falling apart. when those guys came back, that horror story to tell about how one guy would go out and it uld be on the job calling the test board, that would put him on old and he would sit on hold for eight hours without doing anything these guys were not doing their job. when you have the oil spill down that, you got two people who are not doing their job.
first you have bp, and then you have you guys as well. you did not say that they were not doing their job. you have to make sure that they are doing the right job. ere's a lot of close calls and that is because these people are not doing their job, he fda has a lot of, they have all are free calls. that is scary. >> if you have em written, put them in the suggestion box. >> let me get one. >> ok. [laughter] >> here is e more. our government wants to do everything for us and they cannot do everything for us. let's take seat belts. i think seatbelts are good ea but all was a bad job.
we need to be able to take care of ourselves. helmets on motorcycles, the motorcycle riders get banged up and then don't have money to pay for. child seats are a good idea but i do not think it should be a lot. the was a mexican couple that came here, she was holding the child in her lap, they had a wreck. the child died. they wanted to put her in jail because she did not have the kid in the car seat. that is terrible. we kill many dogs and cats because people cannot take care of them themselves produced a mercifully drown them and shoot them but now you can do that. the government can do it. we've been talking 14 years and nothing has happened. if you turn it over to the private industry to was to make some money, it will go. [laughter] it is a long page.
>> and congress, we have a time limit when we talk. let'keep everything to three minutes. is that fair? >> one more thing. i like to see you guys, democrats and republicans, think that this is not a super bowl. the are no winners and losers. you work for ross. please work together for us. [applause] >> i will tell you this. the last thing you said, i agree with you. there were few other things in there, i thank you for your opinion but i do not agree with them. but the one thing i would tell you -- if you ever come to d.c., call my office because i will give you a tour. the symbolism there. that capital, and i'll show you my favorite monument -- the stairs from the first floor to the chamber. it is made of marble and it is worn out.
as you walk it, if you do not lose whatever party affiliation that you have, you never going to. i make a point of walking those every day because it brings you back. if you come, i can show it to you. let's go right here. >> [inaudible] and it really irritated when i get a vote -- when i go to vote [inaudible] you're supposed to know our language. at some point, you should be able to get to the ballot box. i've been disabled since 1983. i love to be working. everyone on ssi lost $100 a
month last year. and people are on fixed incomes. they're going to take everything back away from you. [inaudible] i realize that it is got to come from somewhere. there are other things. i'm not saying anything in this welfare. -- i danced up -- against welfare. >> thank you for your comment. >>-janice, and allied both comments and i did. i would like to share about arizona. [applause]
i am also an animal lover. by night -- animal control. we have a problem here. and our borders. it cost over $52,000 to incarcerate our prisoners who have a much better life style and my wonderful, wonderful veterans that i see on our streets. [applause] iknow that someone on the east coast came up with a very inexpensive material to withstand hurricanes so they can build homes there. why don't you build prisons in e desert east of where i live, in the mojave desert, and i also heard that instead of all t expensive cars correcting -- protecting the parameters, that put those lovely sweet stocks that are dangerous and it only
cost $300 to fe them. it did not cost all of those expensive cards. if you would build the inexpensive buildings, postcards and outside, you could also run dog runs along the border pretty would not cost very much at all. all you have to do is feed the dogs. [applause] >> animal control, prisons, and some of the ideas you bring up, one of the highest cost are our state prison. state prisons that have to be reform, health care, the way that they get treated in health care is fundamentally different than you are right. some of these challenges are dealing with court decisions. but i will continue to take those down and work on those and be able to come back to you. yes.
>> thank you for holding this town hall meeting. >> is that microphone ? go ahead and talk loud. just talk loud. >> [audible] i'm running for city council and e board. allied to say this, kevin. you're in the leadership back i washington this country is hurting. i think that this country, if we don't pull together and work together, we're going the loses country that we all love. so i say this to say that we need -- you can be a different party but you need to work togetherfor the benefit of the country, because we put you guys there anyou have to get beyond the partisanship and start working together so that we can save this country, because as you know we are in bad shape.
we do not have time to be fighting with each other. i am looking for you all to go back there and work together and put your differences aside and try to get something done for the people. >> thatery respectful. everyone has a difference of opinion. martin, i thank you for your comments and i do agree that i get frustrated someone dislikes an idea just because it comes from one side of the other. and that is what americaspeakingout.com is all about, gives the power back to the people. over tim it will change. when i w a freshman, i found that people even where you sat on the floor or in committee, it was based on what party were in. so i got together with freshman democrat from colorado and i said, why don't we have a dinner, we would only fight our friends.
so we did this dinner were you start out with not taing any politics because we had been there for eight months. we were all about the same age, concerns about the family, how are we going through. and there are a lot of this that we might get somewhe. let's find ways that we can agree to rashly do well for this country. lots of times in leadership, they try to push to a different way. i will tell you, from one perspective on both sides of the doubt, we should be able to stand up and say no bill comes to the floor that had not been that -- out there for 72 hours said that the public can see it and that people can read it. [applause] a strata fix your microphone. >> i think you also for having this town hall meeting. i like to speak on social security. it started in the 1930's, it has
gone all the way to the day, and it is pretty much bankrupt. next year, the baby boomers born after 1926 are going to get the benefits of social security, and when they get in there, it's like the ponzi scheme. the people better paying into the system are not born to be about on the benefits for the people that are getting the benefits. it is a horrible problem. i do not know what the answer is but that by itself will bankrupt this whole country, the social security. and one other thing, the one that your graphic that you had. the at money is paper money. f --iat -- fiat is paper money. i happen to be a gold bug, but i wish you cld consider going back to it that somehow, so that money but have some value instead of the printing press. >> you bring up social security
which is right. when social security for started, there were 40 people working to pay for every one person. your life expectancy was less thanhen you started to receive it. and it difficult to was, america made a promise and the numbers will not pan out. have to do something about it. today there are three people to pay for every 13 pretty soon we will adopt a person to be a bullet go through. but for the first time, it was about 1.5 years ago, more money started going out from social security and ashley started coming in. and it is depleting faster than it thought it would. you cannot ignore it much like you did today. and that is the place where people have to come together, not make a partisan issue, because it does not matter, and ashley have an honest debate and a place to find real solutions. i thank you for that. >> aike to "a question.
where you stand on arizona's law? do you support it? >> i do support it. i support eras onslaught because if you read the bill, it's not much different than what the federal government are a hazard. the difficulties in side arizona, the kidnap capital of the nation is not in new york or s angeles, it is phoenix, arizona. there sat there and watch the federal government lacks the protection of that border, and almost a funnel directing and. they havasked for the help. janet napolitano when she was governor as for that. they haveatched an action by a rancher, who would help people the needed water, get murdered. so when you look at the arizona
people waiting patiently for the federal government to act, they cannot sit back and ignore the problem that they are having three baby disperse a great debate and we need to have a debate, but a state cannot sit back when they have the murder capital, they have the right to protect their tizens. it is only enforcing the laws that are already on the federal books, and the federal government will not do their job, we are a nation that has been able to grow by immigration. my family came here from ireland and from england. we have a problem when it comes to immigration. one, the system does not work. you cannot get through it rapidly and honestly. two, we have no border protection for other nations do. and i believe and i think even during the time of the financial america. make that investment? beuse you believe in the role
flop. regardless of who you were, the law still fit. if treated people fairly. we create a generation of breaking the rule flock to come here, you will break down society. so we have to have an honest debate about this. and that the state has to act because the federal government will not come of the federal be honest and state but do their job. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. i would hit three things very quickly pared i support your idea of a tour. second, on earmarks. and third on the oil spill. very quickly, my son and i went back and arranged a torres. because the premier terms of mount vernon. he got to lay wreaths at george
washington's tomb and i got to say of prayer. and looking at the tomb that he designed, he was not ideas. -- he was not a deist. and the debt relation, where the king had sent out agents to keep out the substance of the people, and compared that with the 159 new agencies in the health-care bill sent out to eat atur substance, a lot of the progress as do not think that that relation of independence has anything to do with the constitution but it is the philosophical base. on the oil spill fund, i had a failed company called bionational. we had a top microbiologists and we had ever array of micro organisms that could be on your body as we speak. we grew them in for mentors to
do specific things. we were quite successful and some oil cleanup -- in some oil cleanup. we put on a proposal on the exxon valdez and other beach oil spills. the state of alaska told us we have the best proposal but we did not have the resources and no encouragement from the bureaucracy at the time. secondly, on the huntington beh bill, we had helicopters out spraying a chemical all er southern california. we had prepared a soup out of our stock that could of been sprayed on that oil spill. it would of taken care of that and we proved that it work. however the guy on site was all for it but then we got a call from sacramento st., no way, those bugs will mutate and if the world. they gathered all of that crap up and put it into the toxic wastes dumped in kern county.
mark -- i listen to mark would have been today and he said that the epa has all but rules agait any microbiology remediation, even though louisiana state university professor says that nature will take care of this in time. our process would excel or it that whole cleanup and they desperately needed. not that i could provide it anymore but i simply know how to do it. except a find out that the epa -- the epa is totally against any biological remediation. >> we have a lot of oil expertise. maybe it is not offshore, on ways to clean it up. this is an unbelievable problem. and it is a tough situation. we should learn from it. so of their ways to clean it up, i will make sure that it
will pass on to the correct authorities. let's go right over here. >> i'm going to bring up something that i brought up three years ago factor for the july meeting that you had and that is, if our government wants to be relevant, it is going to have defected doing just five things first and nothing appeared that is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. if they do not do that, it will become irrelevant and it is that way already to a lot of people. my question is -- i am not seen much out of either party to indicate that they understand that. if they do not understand that, maybe we ought to let new people into our congress. >> i thank you for your opinion. i appreciate your opinion and continued to eress them as we
go forward and hold people accountable. each member is to hold their office however they did. i had a news crew asked me about, is this using government money to allow people to come and express their opinion to you? and i said, yes. they thought somehow that that was wrong. [laughter] and i said come only in washington could theyhink it is wrong because you allow people to express their opinion to you. i mean -- yes, but you are republican. and anyone in the room can be anything that i want to b they have to live in the district and they can express whatever they want. i tried to hold different kinds of ways. on a computer to the telephone to a person. whatever worst best to you because it may be a better member. i appreciate you coming out. >> first of all like to than
you for the townall and america speaking out, i think it is all great. as an american of mexican descent, i like t thank you for your support of enforcing current immigration laws. it is something we need to put pressure on the federal governmento do. any measures we can take to do that are very powerful and i detest the racially charged language being used to describe as arizonas loss -- arizona's walaws. i am a college sophomore and it is very tough -- the university of redlands, i am home for the summer. >> when you know, let me know. >> it is really troublesome for
people my age to get jobs. i think there are a lot of issues about that, especially in california, our minimum wage is $8 an hour and it is hard for someone who i on skilled and unexperienced in employment to ashley have their labor valued at $8 an hour for my parents own a bit desperate for them to pay someone $8 an hour, it's got to be someone who knows what they're doing. our public schools do not provide and education necessary. i took the most advanced courses possible and i honestly felt like i school was more a day care than any failed. our schools caot offer courses that actually teach us how to listen -- live our lives and get out in the real world. this is a major problem to affect generations to come. we need action to fix this problem now. is there anything that you can
do in the next session when republicans gain the majority hopeful it? because this is a problem. >> you raise a lot of issues. was that the redmond study, before00that they cannot read the report, the greatest threat to america was an attack within our own country the might and this was before 9/113 di know what they said was the second greatest threat? the lack of the basis of math and science. >> nai, we spend a lot of time helping our children with their education and working on it. -- judy and dii, we spend a lot of time helping our children
with their education and working on it. this is a global economy, and we need to be able to expand it. i believe accntability brings more back. that there are a lot of great teachers out there for children had a lot of great teachers. there was wanted day helping my son steady for the chemistry thought of. that is going above and beyond, a few extra hours. we're good financiall to be able to do it, but people are willing to help. i think this country straight is the future generation, making sure our education system is the best, and we have to raise the bar. >> a lot of focus on national security issues. i've supported questions for you. thank you very much for your excellent leadership in these difficult times.
the national intelligence estimate has placed china as our largest for it for the next foreseeable future, five years. do you support the sale of the f-22 fighter to japan? >> to japan or tie 1? >> to japan. that is technology that we chose not to deploy to many of our allies. secondly, china is going to launch their first manned mission to the moon this nate. very little is talk about it. our space program has been affected by that deficit of budget cuts. china will have the high ground. they do not agree with the non- proliferation position in space. they have not signed that. what is your position also with regard to a draft if we need that in the next five or 10 years? would you support a draft? many of our troops overseas are
on their fourth tour. i know that you know that. the resources are being taxed to the max. >> i did not see the need for the draft right now. i toward afghanistan and iraq. we have the highest educated, best trained troops since 9/11. we're think we falter is that we did not all sacrifice to get it. our men and women in the military made their sacrifices. we were told to go shopping again. difficulty is that we have been at war longer than we have ever been in the history of america. we he to make sure that they have all the training and ability to do it. i do not see the need for right now. that would have to be addressed at the time. i think we are well trained there. >> you do not supported draft if we needed.
on north korea and taiwan, it either south korea or taiwan is china, what should be our or response? >> we defend them. isn't it an interesting thing how we had this conversation about that? who owns the most amount our debt? china. in the last year, there was one point in march or february word china did not own the most amount of debt,apan did. why did that take place? during the month of february, we followed through on our agreement to sell the weapons to taiwan, where we had a three communicates of understanding, and we allow the dalai lama to come to the white house and visit the president. he had a walk in the back door
but he was honored inside the capitol. do you know what time it did? they sold some of their debt. they became no. 2. what effect did this have on you? if you are borrowing $1.3 trillion, there is all local office in downtown washington, d.c. that sells all of our debt. i've gone to it and witnessed it. you go through and if that anytime someone does not have the confidence in buying america's dt, its 30 seconds before the worldould know. has this ever happened? it happened in the u.k. a couple of times. an interesting thing -- when china sells the debt, say you have a car that you are trying to this cell, if you're the only person with that car, you have a better market. but what if someone else is selling their car at the exact same time? it would probably have to lower
price. what is the oosite here? we have to raise some much you pay and interest so that it cost to the us. did they decided that they needed more money? did they do it for foreign- policy reasons? it goes that to us except in terms that we would never accept before. not all battles are fought by person to person with weapons. financial battles happen often. how are we trying to isolate iran? for the actions that they are doing? why would we ever put ourselves in that situation? that is why when you bring a foreign-policy, it go even further to also the debt issue when it comes to farm policy as well. in a few short years, we will pay more on our short interest in you pay for our national defense. that is the difficulty that we have. we will go over here next.
>> thank you for your question. the probl and arizona is not so much enforcing our borders. i'm concerned about border security for the problem is that within moments of signing the bill into law, the governor said she would not know how to profiled an illegal immigrant, and it is legalizing racial profiling did the police did not know how to do it. [applause] absolutely, ma'am. and to perpetuate this idea that we can legislate bridges -- racial profiling, and it does not just be too race or ethnicity, but also in the air force where we are now openly racially profiling people of middle eastern descent, when in fa people -- the gentleman who
flew his plane into the irs building, he looked very much like you. and i do not think that that is right. we should not do that. i don'tthink we asamericans are that on imaginative or on created that we cannot find a better way. and for your the say, except in terms that we should not force feeding our constitutional right just for the sake of -- for putting our constitutional rights just for the sake of drug trafficking, there is a better way. and thank you for your comment. and i know at a three-minute limit. the reason that china has the resources to buy debt from a dozen other countries abad, not only because their public education system is more advanced but that we buy things from them that we should not at lower cost, like baby formula with high traces of lead from it. and because the fda does the
regulate that,e continue to buy that and they pay their work force nothing. they pay a very small work force hardly anything. anyone that does not work -- work within that, they go out to the land treated as a free market utopia. everyone else can go out like at. i think that contributed and i agree with the added gentleman. it is hard to did you mention that the federal government -- i'm sorry be talking so fast. i hope you can write that down. the federal government was slowed at. what it sounds like -- when i talk this out, it that you want the federal government to regulate, to use these taxpayers' dollars to regulate a private industry, which is what british petroleum is, a bailout is what you're suggesting and you know as well as i do that as in the exxon valdez, i am sorry.
i'm thinking faster than i am speaking. they were required to say -- millions of dollars right afterwards. what they ended up paying after appeal and upheld an appeal was something like $20,000. so you're going to pick up the check. that is what you're saying, not only should we pick up the check but that the federal government needs to do it faster and they are causing not only economic problems but environmental problems and food and health problems, for the people who live along the coast of louisia. i'll let you go. >> i appreciate your comment. but it is corrected. i never set anywhere -- and if anyone thinks i did, please pointed out to me, where we will pick up the tab for british petroleum. british petroleum will pay for everything that they caused and every problem that they cause. [inaudible]
president obama had not called back that because for louisiana to act in regulation omarsh wants to go up and put a burned out. u.s. environmental protection is now, but can they go out and protect it from coming to the land? you have to get a waiver to be able to do that. i don't but the federal government should sit back and not act. we can act now and send the bill. if we wait, iwill be a bigger problem. i am not one for sitting back. in the arizona law, you don't go on profile, but clarify it with the amendment. a person cannot be pro ball -- pulled over and that's just because of the col of their skin. you have to have reasonable suspicion to be able to go in and search by car if they think there's something inside of it right now. this is the uniqueness of america. we have our checks and balances. but when i say that the american
government has a responsibility, i will tell you one thing. not only in national defense but the responsibility to protect the borders. the idea of the state having to do it, they only had to do it because of the actions of what was transpiring because the federal government was not acting. is there more that has to be done when it comes to immigration and checking the borders? yes. when we -- would we not admit that the immigration system is not working? if we are a nation of immigrants, why would we have a system that does not workers are why is it to date that i can send a package from ups or fedex and the contract at any point and i can go online and know where it is that, but i cannot go inside immigration and fill out a form and they know where it is at and where it is going? a lot of people want to look and see ere it is going. they're things that we need to
reform. but the state cannot reform that part. arizona does not have the responsibility there. when i say that the federal government, they do have the responsibility and have to look at those reforms at the same time. [inaudible] >> when they hear you say that, you supported that, they would vote you out. you would beut immediately. that is their reason why the leadership does not want them to have the vote. is that because they support it. [unintelligible] >> the great thing about america -- all right. let's be respectl to one another. everyone has their opinion. but what i would say, i watched arizonas lot take place in the frustration over the years.
i also watched a rancher get murdered. waiting for the federal government act when it would not. we do have the 10th amendment, anin one respect, i respect the 10th amendment but i also from the perspectihat anyone has the right to vote, but i want a nation that is protected, i want this nation to be able to grow, but i also want the rule of law. and i appreciate your comment. [applause] >> while i believe that america is a very proud nation, we cannot continue on this social services place that we ran feared we're going to have to create a tax and come face -- i
taxed income base in order to support the social services. [unintelligible] i el that it is taking jobs out of this county. >> you are referring to a bill on the senate floor. >> it paid $25 an hour, way above the $8, but not $50 an hour. i had an experience that at that wage, i was able to educate my children, i was able to stay off public assistance, i was able to prepare for my retirement. i feel that every american should be able to be able to be
allowed to produce an be self- liant. some of these regulations that everyone is talking about, i think they need be tied to the unemployment if the unemployment rate is down around 5%, then you get picky about who you hire come out what you do, how you do it. if this unemployment is near 18%, we need to back off. first of all, you do not have many people doing those jobs like carmen the environment or -- harming the environment or small business does not have chance to grow and stride. everyone who is a public servant, i appreciate the job that you are doing. but you're not producing.
and we need some producers. we've got to grow it, with that the mining, but that a manufacturing, we ha got to produce it. and by the time that we do those things, then we can export some things. and the other thing i have strong opinions about his 60% of all the oil that is import in california, which does not always come from friendly sources, is not taxed. so local producers have no incentive to reinvest in kern unty. they are going to take their reinvestment dollars, especially if we do away with it a point -- the depreciation allowance and various other things, and they're goingo another state. what that is in the american soil, it is not california.
california is bankrupt. need to keep every job that we have got and create four more everyone that we have. >> shias referring to something inhe oil industry. if you wipe out the domestic oil industry, you're still going to put gas in your car. let me give you a few startling statistics. california has 12% of the nation's population. we are 32% of the nation's welfare population. we get 25% of our entire budget from 144,000 people. that's a state of 36 million. you cannot sustain that if you are a well creator, we push you out. but we will ep you assistance
in encourage you to come. let me put this into a different context. look at tiger wos. he is a good golfer. he could have gotten a scholarship at any college. a justice stay close to his parents went to stanford rebel day that he left california was thday that he went broke. -- that he went broke. -- that he went pro. you cannot sustain that if you do not have a job creation base. 70% of all new jobs are created through small business. would you look at the small businesses in kern county, and you put a tax on it, you'll get less of it. and that will not help corporate cafornia would get more -- and that will not helgrow.
there is a lot of that regulation on the books. we can do things smarter and wiser and be at greater protection to the consumer and the environment. and have a prosperous state. i think we have to think logically about this. i'm not going to cut anybody off but i ask you to short because it is already 7:15, and c-span is covering this. if i told you, half the guys would put on makeup. go ahead. [inaudible] >> i appreciate that one under%. -- 100%. i like to know what you think
we concerned citizens can do to get our country and our state back into some kind of stability. there is enough anger and hatred to go round. i do not hate anybody but i think that arizona has a right to their lot. -- law. i am not against mexican people or other people. the word illegal means something to me. i am old. [laughter] i am old, and i was taught that words mean something. i want everyone to be able to have a kind of like that i've had all these years. i am afraid my children and my 16 grandchildren are not going to be able to have that kind of wonderful country that i grew
up and read what can i do? >> what can you do? you are doing part of their right down. we're having a great, respectful conversation. and all have differences of opinion. but that is what the founding fathers devised for our government. you should be able to have helped the debate, but at the end of the day, find a solution. i think we have to hold our elected officials accountable not for rhetoric but for solutions. we should reward people for creating solutions not for punishing one side or the other. and i am thankful that we've got all different spectrums here on idea if ideals is what we decide at the end of the day should be our strength, we will have a much better form. because a lot of challenges in this country. remember that n' it is the second one free it started being built in the civil war not even knowing that this
country would stay together. but they made big so that all could see. i believe that our best days are in front of us. is a common message from a common man and that is what we're doing tonight. the more we engage -- and i understand our frustration. america is having real challenges 0 we have frustration. but at the end of the day, let's find a way to come together. >> i am with united way of current accounting -- of kern county. it's about helping people by supporting programs around health and education. i'm asking for your assistance are around our income, and one of our programs. in kern county, we have several frustrations that are giving services to our family. new america foundation but an article of $37 million being
left unclaimed by our families here. th is money that does not stay in kern county. we are trying to help our residents reclaim what is already theirs. we are shown since 2003, 140% increase of people coming to our centers. it is not just about volunteer income tax anymore. we're also serve in financial institutions, opening savings account, channeling them into our other programs and educating them on how to save for emergencies. we've seen a spike with the need to have that program here. the president's budget request proposals an increase of $4 million. 2009, we have our first appropriation of $12 million, and we have over $1.6 billion in federal tax refunds nationally on all through our programs. what we're asking you today is
to ask for an appropriation of $35 million for this grant program for the fiscal year 2011, or at the very minimum, to keep that level of funding at the current state, $12 million. that is what i'm here that day to ask. >> l me ask -- thank you for a being here. i cannot but that amount of money. i will seriously look at it. i am going to look at where our resources are and prioritize. if it makes the criteria that it is theest use of money, we will be after it. i believe that the program that you use is very good and it is helping citizens. >> we found out this $37 million on the table, it affects our business people. that is revenues that is lost with our businesses.
it's an estimated000 positions in job losses. >> i don't think that that microphone is on. [laughter] >> give him youright. rich and -- mic your -- give him your mic. >> i am not an immigrant, but i believe that arizona has the right to enact its own law except when it violates civil rights. ienounce that law right now publicly. mr. mccarty, you said cannot speak? you said that they're better solution.
01 immigration center has given you 80 rating on your soup -- -- report card. i am asking you to date first r real solutions do you have the size border enforcement? >> i think we should reform the immiation process itself. that is broken. if you have to wait in the system for seven years, it is not working. so first and foremost, i would support the borders. how would reform e press itself so that it is efficient grid and a 21st century, you cannot process something faster? i would suppo the idea of making sure you have labo coming and with agriculture, but i could also make sure that when people come and work, they go back, keeping their word of what they are providing to the need of where it is going. i think those things are very doable and i think that would be a very strong start.
much like when we talk about health care. i think we would have had for under votes if we had dealt with preexisting condition, tort reform, and buying interest policies aoss state lines. you may want something much larger and more costly. all and cumbersome. why don't we find a place that we agree and start with that instead of keep dividing everybody further? >> i agree. >> someone that is racially profiled, that is wrong. we have the court system and i would be the first to be able to defend them. and that is why i am proud to be an american because the -- we have the role of law. they change the amendments on it as well. from the same aspect, i think they are punishing the wrong set jubilation when we try to look
good arizona. the federal government should not sit bacand criticize because they are the only what they can change it. exactly right. >> in 2008, republicans did not do very well with the latino vote. a lot carried two-one over john mccain. what would yo party due to address the concern, because current count is 50% hispanic? >> i will address them the same way i would at dress anyone create a country they can believe in, create jobs, create an education system. that is th best way that everye is treated fairly. that is the most honest way to approh any way we go about doing it. i would not want to sit back and say that someone is going to produce something just for an election.
the power rest with the people. they put it on long to the guys who are elected, and every couplef years we get to address that. that is how i looked at dealing with the currency to wish him. the best thing we could always do is be held accountable. i come before you with my votes and any opinion that i have and have answer your questions. we have to respect each other based on the principle to find a solution. i appreciate you coming. thank you. >> i am with united way and i wanted to talk about one other thing to consider supporting. the 211 system. i don't know if you are familiar with it. >> the floods and others, because for 11 gets back log. -- 411 gets back lot. it was very successful. i cosigned on the legislation. >> that is all we're asking for.
for the benefit of everyone, it helps match people with resources and services that are in the community. we do have that line here. it currently covers 80% of the country bird we are asking for support on a chart 21 want to get full coverage on the country so that people can access the benefits that are availae. many resources are provided by faith based groups as well. >> i served on the board when it first came in. >> we have done number of points of access with the committee agreed we wanted ask for your support on that legislation. charity and i supported it. thank yo -- >> i supported it. thank you.
>> thank you for the opportunity to for dissipating in this this evening. my question, probably on hot- button issue, is that -- both of my parents came to the end of the state's over 60 years ago. ey came and work of the system legally as soon as they came on to the soil. they pledged their allegiance and their lives to this country. i'm very blessed to be able to be here as a citizen of this country. and understanding why people would want to be here, why do we have a system a provision within the constitution that allows individuals, especially individuals who are here illegally, regardless of their country of origin, the color of their skin, whatev, why just because they have children who are born here, if the are not
citizens, if they are here illegally, why should those children and maybe secondarily their parents as well be entitled to the benefits and rights of this country when they are not here as legal citizens? legal residents? >> we have different legislation based on anchor babies. it is an interpretation that some people have. some say it was created four different time in america when we were divided about equality for one another. it is a debate that will continue to transpire and that debate that will happen inside immigration as well. >> d c that to bethe key to any comprehensive legislation or immigration reform that would come about, and is it something that you feel like you could stand behind? >> i think it is something that we would have to address.
. >> dec that is being key to any kind of comprehensive legislation or immigration reform that would come about? is it something that you feel like you could stand behind? >> it is something we will have to address. uerstand why it people desire to come. now you create a larger problem, that if the child is born is a citizen and the other person is not, think of all the confli that is created. is it an incentive for someone to break the law just to get here? what ratr costs and effects of that? it gs back to can you create a process that isonest and open if someone can get through. i believe at the end of the day, it will be addressed. >> we get some of the charge you are talking about, lot of the expenditures are a social welfare programs and things like that that have just grown exponentially. we are no longer in a position where we can just do everything for everybody.
mitt>> border states get affected differently than other states in the country. they are not reimbursed as far as the federal government's responsibility. >> >> would you getting your degree in? >> spani. >> you have a lot of good professors out there. >> i have a binder here with some information and some contact information from a group. halli don't know if i n give it to one of your aides and give it to you.
its just for you, with some contacinformation i want to give you. i want to ask you a question garding immigration also. i am glad to hear that you officeobviously it is a very long process. even if you wanted to come here legally, it takes forever. if your passport expires, i ought takes a long time to get things done. i am glad to hear that you like to refm that process. but to touch on the dream act, of blue and will open a which for people that do not understand what it is, it goes into helping students. as a student myself, iave seen of waws tons of students come to this moves will both moves are country. their parents brought them when they were two years old. they had no choice in it. they did not try to break any laws or do anything. they came to this cotry and became just as american as anne else, learned english, studiethe constitution, done
everytng it needed to do. many of them went to college. one of my best friends is undocumented. when he gets done with his degree, there is absolutely nothing out there for him because he has no u.s. citizenship, even though he has been here since he was very young. he has no opportunity. he wants to be a u.s. citizen, but there is nothing he can about it. can the dream act be one of the solutions you are talking about, to help some of these students that don't want to do anything wrong, make the country better, and have a college education? they are very skilled in their trade. can we not put that in as a part of the solution in the emigration problem? >> i have a couple of different opinions on this. as an individual that is here illegally, are they getting benefits that taxpayers are paying where citizens are not?
>> n he pays for his own education and is paying out of state tuition. >> we want to encourage the best and brightest to compete inside our college system. i think it'something we can debate and talk about. do i have the perfect solution for it? off the top of my head, i don't think i do. we can address it, but it goes back to a system. if you teach a generation that we are a nation of laws, but it is ok if you break it because we are going to allow it, you cannot sustain that. so there ii a way to do it properly. if we had a process system that allowed it to process, i think we could probably get ere. until then, is something we will have to debate. i don't ha the direct answer. maybe you ha some ideas for me. >> i graduate next saturday. >> congratulations. [applause]
>> thank you, mr. mccahy. i believe that the beginning of your presentation is the most important. if this country does not get their budget squared away, we are going to crumble. all of these other issues we are discussing will be moot. i believe we need to get back to basics. the budget should be what the dollars available are. we should arrange our budget according to that. also, anyone who is rais in a household knows that if you have credit, the interest ll kill you we need to pay down our deficit. also, it has only been touched on once tonight. one of the ways to do that is to create and maintain jobs. if we don't have the jobs, we don't have the taxes to pay the deficit or the budget. also, that being said, in regard to jobs, i would like to know what your position is in rerd to hr-173, which
maintains six-state meal delivery. if you suprt hr-173, you will go a long way in preserving over 50,000 jobs across the nation. there is a bill before the congress from the postal commtee reducing mail delivery to five days a week. there is also the bill 173 which supportsaintaining six- day delivery. the have a pition on this issue?
>> the bill has not been before my committee, but i like the idea of the male being there six days a week. i think the postal department needs to be more modernized. they have come along way, but there is a fundamental difference that there is a way we can change something. how my wife and i pay our bills are different today. we pay a lot of them on line. how we buy our movie ticts. things may change as we go forward. i have not gone through it enough to steady the ramificatis on both sides. a more efficie way to do it -- this is another pressure the government. when you listen to people, they said the only way to do it is to raise more money. could we make the system more efficient and actually lower the cost of that?
what we first have to say the stamp has to go upn price? is there a way to do it differently? there is a differentay to communate with congress and hold them accountable. itas not been before my committee yet, but i am glad to look at it. i agree wholeheartedly with you. job creati should be number one, and deficit reduction. >> congress is the one who decides whether or not to increase [unintelligible] >> i am one of the three registered democrats in kir county. [laughter] there were four up, until my husband died, and it gets lonely up there.
many of the issues that are being discussed here, immigratioand so forth, were issues that came up over the past 10 years in congress. over the past 30 years, they would get started, tlot would get boyle, and then they would drop it because it was in their political interest to it. there arthinking of theext election. i have hea here tonight people asking about the welfare department, and after being a retired social worker 40 years, i can say at i never drove that expensive a car. i would say that the staff or under some big difficulties right now. but i have heard peoe expss concern about our veterans. i have heard people express concern about many different issues. you y are becoming a
welfare state. i want to know from you, what are going to eliminate? we are going to have more and more veterans coming as the afghan war goes on and on and on. iraq is still not settled. their constant boiling points coming up all over the world, so there'll be more people to treat and more people need he. our unemployment rate is astronomical, if there was some center that blocked unemployment benefits for a while for people who are struggling. so i want to see what you would eliminate, and i want to know that there is some hope that the animosity, the rancor, the petty bickering that is going on because they are so worried about the 2012 election, there is some hope for ending at. americans are suffering. they are sfering. many ous pay our taxes, and we want to do all we can. what would you eliminate?
would you do away with ssi? we eliminate social security or veterans' benefits? >> no, i would not eliminate any of those. in the last two years, discretionary spending in the federal government has grown by 82%. how many small businesses grew by 82% in the last two years? i promise i would find one penny out of every dollar the government has and find savings. i would fundamentally redirec how you create a budget. i am a firm beever in structure dictates behavior. he the create a structure where you give all the committees in congress to go out and create a wish list, i will give you every difference study and every revision, every different funding mechanism for every single district to somehow get reelected, and then you go and say yohave to gethis much
money and borrowed is muchore. what i would fundamentally change would be to say this is all the dollarwe have. now you goack to committee and prioritize. so it woulknock out and eliminate some of the waste. then i read start a national dialogue, much as how we started the debate today. this is the deficit, this is how much we are borrowing, and how to be changed? i would tell line by line. we could probably do it in this room. we are fairly respectful of one another. the one thing that unites us all, we are all americans and we all want this country to do best. i would make the investment. when you put priorities down, i think we make a commitment when it came to social curity. we made a commitment long term, too. there may be some changes in the system we have to provide. we also made a commitment in the system as well. i would not expand government into all these private sector
jobs, because i do not believe that is getting a return on investment are making the united states as competitive. i would not expand the federal government the way it is. i would simplify the private sector to grow. >> the issue is that right now, there are so many americans that are hurting. you are talking about a plan that is going to take a long time. i don't know exactly what your dget is, but i do know there are a lot of families in this country right now that are worried out next week's groceries. thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming, and thank you for your question. i do underand america is hurting. do we ignore the long term in the short term? the greatest thing someone can do in america is be able to create a job. ifhey have a job, ey can be
able to prosper with the next generation. if you bird and that next generation with debt, they will not have t opportunities that we have 3 gb burton that next generation. -- if we burden the next generation with debt, they will not ha the opportunities that we have. we are well past 7:30, so i will take this question and then come and answer everybody's question individual. i will stick around as long as you want, if you are shy about asking questions. >> thank you for having this forum. we really appreciate being able to voice our opinions and get feedback from you. one of the first things i want to bring up that has come up a couple of times this as a citizen, it is our duty toead the laws and understand them
and not take someone else's work for what they say. i think that is the main problem with this arizona law. everybody is hearing what the other side is saying, this is what it means. if you read the bill, there are so many checks and balances in it, there is no way could happen that way. i am not saying human beings are not going to miss manage it. that could happen, but we have laws to manage it. first and foremost, before you make an opinion, make sure it is your opinion and not somebody else's. it is the government'duty to prott our borders. one thing i wanted to bring up, i am a veteran of the united states army. one of t problems we have with our soldiers and why these wars take so long is because rules of engagement have changed. they have tied their hands. some people are waing into hot areas without ammunition in
their guns. that is just ridiculous. you wonder why this goes on and on and on. in wor war ii, we had a war where there is a beginning and end. ever since then, it is police actions and no one ever wins, and no one really knows why we are there. one of the main things we nd to do is address the rules of engagement. we have untie our soldiers' hands, and a lot more of them will come back home. [applause] another thing, high school amican history. the first two years of school, what did they deal with world history? this is america. not to mention, when they do hit junior and senior year, the books that are put out there have been gone through, so much history of our founding fathers has been taken out, that they are not even getting the full measure of what this country is all about. they need to know who we are. that is another thing we need to address.
[applause] the other thing is tax breaks for small businesses. that is what will bring jobs back to the country. there are more and more taxes being raised. every time you turn around, they need more money, so they raise more taxes, which puts more businesses out of existence, which lays more people off. and we have more people going on help. how many times are going to extend benefits? it is getting ridiculous. we are in 99 weeks, and is growing. that is the main thing. we have to get back to creating jobs, and not temporary jobs. they are going to come up with these 500,000 jobs, which are census workers that are going to die off in a few months. we need real jobs. those are just my opinions and things i wanted to bring up. >> thank you for that.
one thing i would tell you, the military -- as i said earlier, they have made the ultimate sacrifice, more so than ever before. we are just coming of memorial day. this commuty is very patriotic. one thing i am working on, ther are a lot of men and women that a not coming back, and some are coming ck not hold. we cannot ignore that fact. we have to be able to give them the treatment, from a lot of different aspects. i am afraid that when people areeaving, they are not being reened properly. they are young, strong, an they do not want to admit they have a problem. later down the road when they alize they do, we have to be there for them, but actually screened them earlier. it will cost less, and we will bring them back sooner. that is something i am fully engaged in. small-business -- many of the know the story, i started when
i was 19 in my first business. i applied for a summer internship program with matt local congressman, and he turned down. today i have a job i could not get an intern for. 70% of all jobs are created for small business. that is what we have to focus on. that will bring people back. we have to knock away this regulation. you brought of taxes. just think in your own life. just think for a moment what we pay. when we get up in the morning i take a shower. i pay tax on the water. you stop to buy water or coffee, you pay tax. op to get gas in your car, you pay state and federal highway tax. the first two hours to work, you pay a tax. you pick up the phone to call your family, you pay tax on that too.
i've paid in airplane tax, will car tax, hotel occupancy tax. i pay cable tax. we put enough money away to leave for our children, and the govement comes back with inheritance tax. we are taxed from the moment we wake up until the end of the night. he should be able keep more of what you make, and more people have the dream. they have turned off the air to try to get us out of this place. thank you for coming. thank you for your opinions. i appreciate it. we may disagree, but i want to continue the dialogue. i think in this room, we could come togetr and actually find solutions. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> congress is back this week from recess. on the floor are negotiations about the largest rewrite of financial regulation since the great depression. the white house would like to see a final bill before the president heads to the g-20 meeting in toronto later this month. fallout meter -- lawmakers will meet this thursday to discuss the bill. some key questions remain like how to regulate derivatives, complex instruments that were at the center of the complex -- of the financial crisis. the other question lawmakers have to consider is whether fees paid by bill taylor's when a credit or debit card is used. automobile dealers are hoping to be excluded by the new consumer
protection agency oversight. on the floor this week, the senate has a tax and benefits bill which provides -- revives expired tax breaks. the senate is live on c-span2. in the house later this week, members consider letting the fha raise mortgage insurance rates. and they're back to o'clock eastern on c-span. former senate majority leader, special and viccoria kennedy, the widow of ted kennedy, are expected to be named cochairs of the $125 million campaign. you can read more about this at politico.com
the prison will be holding a town hall meetings with senior citizens in maryland to discuss the new health care bill. you can see live coverage tomorrow at 11:40 eastern on c- span. president obama will be holding eight health care town hall meetings with senior citizens in maryland tomorrow. >> no candidates in this race has given to voters in new hampshire or america more opportunities to ask questions and to see what he is made up. >> visit faces to see every day. if see some of their early television performances of over 160,000 hours of video. it is 25 years of political history where you can search for way by several different criteria, all available free online. >> joining us from our studios in new york, andrew mccarthy who
is a senior editor with the national review. book, "the grand jihad: how islam and the left sabotage america." andrew mccarthy, you had written previously in your previous book about threats from islamic jihad. why did you return to the topic in this book? guest: the first book was about the difficulty of trying to use the criminal justice system to address what is really a national security problem. the ideabehind this bookwas to get deeper into what the national security problem is, and try to explain that it is more extensive than just terrorism. host: you used the phrase, "the grand jihad" in your title. what does that refer to? guest: it's drawn from a 1991 muim brotherhood memoranda and. the brothhood, which is really the front of islamist ideology,
founded in the late 1920's. in the memorandum, the brotherhood refers to its work in the united states as "the grand jihad" which is designed to 7 touch the united states from within -- which is designed to sabotage the united states from within. host: is the muslim brotherhood a u.s. founded organization? guest: it is a worldwide organization tha was founded in egypt in the late 1920's. interestingly, it was founded very much in reaction to the program to suppress islam from society in turkey. the idea was that the problem in the muslim world was not enough is onlam. now it is a worldwide
organization. host: you wrote about the religion of peace fantasy. what is your assessment? guest: i do not think it is really a religion. it is a comprehensive social, economic, political, and legal movement that has spiritual elements. it's really an ideology that aspires, not only to dominate the world, but also to govern the details of daily life down to a very granular level. host: our guest is andrew mccarthy until about 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will take your tweets as we.
the subtitle of the book, "how islam and the ft sabotage america." how do you see the left in the u.s. aligning with islam? guest: i am talking about islamists, which is not the entire muslim world. when i'm speaking about the left, i'm speaking about the hard left. it's not really a hypothesis that they may work together. they are infected to work together. for example, the cter for constitutional rights, which is a radical organization begun by the attorney in the 1960's, has represented al-qaeda and has been at the forefront of their representation since the 9/11 attacks. the council on american islamic relations has teamed up with the aclu in litigation against, for ample, the patriot act.
it is a leftist program. there are many historical examples of the two working togethe the communists, for example, and the round worked together -- and iran worked together. this is not really a hypothesis. i tried to explore a phenomenon and try to get to the bottom of why it happened. host: you're critical of president obama and his bowling to the king of saudi arabia. you wrote that saudi arabia is the cradle of islam. host: how much different is the president in that gesture
different from president bush and holding the hand of the king, or in other presidents being very deferential to the saudi kingdom? guest: the fragile is one thing. i do discuss the handholding. american presidents do not bow to foreign dignitaries. it was a bold missed judgment on thpart of a president to bow to this monarchs, who has bankrolled -- his kingdom has bankrolled the islamist ideology, which is a broader threat to our society. when i say that it is a shared dream -- some people have asked me if i think president obama wants to impose that law, no.
the islamist movement and the hard left today have a common obstacle. obama is targeting that in his domestic program, as well as some of his foreign policy. of course, it's the main obstacle to the islamist mbition. host: let's hear from our c-span viewers. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to have your guest to address this particular islamic fascist propaganda line. i could not get over the number of people this morning in colwho called. if they were not anti-semitic, they were absolutely ignorant.
the fact is that the saudis -- it has been building in this country and all over the world. their propaganda line is very simple. their religion is better than any other. they want tompose sure real law on all places. spain is part of the hegemony. they believe spain as part of their hegemon obviously, we see this constantly. you have this myopia -- you have this ignorance that they believe that islam means peace, when it means submission. host: he used the term sharia law, as well. what does that mean? guest: we have talked about jihad quite a bit.
some people say is an always, everywhere combat operation. others want to revise it to mean something benign, like an internal struggle for personal betterment. it is not either one of those. jihad is the mission in islam to spread shari law, the islamic legal and political system. it's not simply a set of prnciples, but a fool purpose s -- full purpose system. it's deemed to be the necessary precondition the mission of jihad is always to spread sharia law. it can be done 5 lead. -- it can be done by lviolently.
it is proceeding on many fronts far more extensive than terrorism. host: next, at joe on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. when i saw you on this morning, i thought it was very interesting. i've been giving a lot of thinking recently about the fact that even before world war ii, the middle east in germany were very copacetic, very together, in their approach to their control and how they approached government. i just recently talked to my aunt in england last week about this. so many of the people just flowed into england from all over, bringing with them all
different versions of the islamic belief. i think it has created an enormous problem. i do not see it changing for this country. i think there is a hit an element here that really worries me for my grandchildren -- i think there's a hidden element here that really worries me for my grandchildren. no matter what style of the aisle yo're on, we have somethinto take to heart here. i would like to hear your comments. thank you. guest: i think islamists and leftists disagree on a wide variety of suects. i do not want to trivialize th is. there are big picture items that they have in common did they are both authoritarian in nature. both authoritarian in nature.