tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN October 1, 2012 8:30pm-11:00pm EDT
remaining justifications under the legislative standard for an exclusivity ban to remain in place. and if -- i don't think the chairman had a choice but to circulate the order that he circulated because, um, this chairman's been very clear from the day he arrived in the office that he's going to run a data-driven, an objective fcc, and he's going to look at, he's going to look at every policy question that comes up, he's going assess it objectively, he's going to make decisions based upon the data, and he's going to apply the law. um, and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order, um, as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts
until 2018. um, and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time we should be treated like everybody else, um, and again if, um, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban in the current competitive positive -- posture of the marketplace. >> what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears have been overstated. i think that the marketplace now is such that the economics of many of these networks require broad distribution to be successful, and, um, you know, exclusivity narrows distribution
by definition. and to get the economic equivalence, um, of a broadly-distributed channel when you enter into an exclusive arrangement results in an extremely large, um affiliate fee. and with the cost of programming being as challenged as they are today, i'm not sure what the appetite is on the distribution side, um, for extraordinarily high affiliation fees. so, um, you know, my own, my own suspicion, um, is that certainly at least for, um, existing, mature networks you're not going to see a lot of market disruption and a lot of fundamental changes in the business model. but that's just one person's prediction. i could be wrong about that. >> host: you are watching c-span's "communicators" program. our guest this week, david cohen, comcast corporation's executive vice president. i'm mcclain -- amy maclean is
editor-in-chief of cablefax daily. >> what do you think of the input in the markets, do you see them as a disrupter? >> guest: well, i mean, certainly right now we don't see them as a disrupter. we, obviously, are watching what they're doing. um, nbc universal's not had any problem reaching with google fiber for the content that google is interested in carrying on the network. um, i -- you know, the expense of the buildout of that, um, of the kansas city experiment, if you will, you know, shows, i think it demonstrates quite clearly, um, the magnitude of the enormous investment that the cable industry has made in building out our infrastructure across the country. and i, you know, i just, i just don't know that i see a business model for the expenditure of
that level of money to build out, um, a national fiber or network. said the same thing when verizon went into the market with fios, and at&t, obviously, thought the same thing since when they developed their u-verse product, they decided not to build a national or even regional fiber network. so, um, we've, you know, we've consistently said and continue to believe that we're not afraid of competition, we like our product, we like our position, we think competition makes us a better company. um, we think it makes us sharpen our focus, improve the level of service that we're providing, improve the quality and the innovation of our offerings and just like satellite made comcast a better company and then verizon and u-verse have made comcast a bettny and forced us to innovate faster and move more quickly, whatever other competitor comes along, we're going to be, we'll be happy to welcome them to the fray, um, and embrace the, um,
improvements that they'll make, um, in our product and service for our customers. >> host: well, david cohen, when you hear the term "tv everywhere," what does that mean to you? >> guest: so, um, i'll give a -- i'll start with the broadest possible definition, and then i'll narrow it a little bit which is for many years, um, we at comcast and amy will remember i talked about this in the nbc universal transaction all the time. people used to argue about whether content was king or distribution was king. it's my view at least for the last few years it's customer who's king, and the customer increasingly is demanding, um, has been demanding their content and what i call an anytime, anywhere place. we don't do appointment television anymore. when i was growing up, you had dinner with the family on sunday night, and you went into the family room and watched "wonderful world of disney" at 7:00. maybe every once in a while for sports, but not for most
programming anymore. and what people want to do now is they want to watch what they want to watch where they want to watch it when they want to watch it and on the device they want to watch it on. and tv everywhere in its roddest sense is enabling the -- broadest sense is enabling the execution of that vision. of giving customers the opportunity to time delay, um, their television watching, watch it on dvr, watch it on demand, start it in the living room, end it in the bedroom, watch it on their, on their tablet or on their smartphone or on their big screen tv. and so in the broadest fanatic sense, that's tv everywhere. if you narrow, if you narrow tv everywhere a bit and you refer to the time warner,ly time warner, but time warner/comcast announcement about a model for a business model for tv viewing and what jeff bewkes has coined tv everywhere, this is about taking the content that
customers pay for once through their cable subscriptions or satellite subscriptions or fios subscriptions or their google fiber subscriptions for that matter and giving people the opportunity to take that tv that they're already paying for and watch it anywhere they want to watch it and on any device they want to watch it without hang to pay more for it. so if you're already paying for your hbo subscription, you can watch it on demand, you can watch it live, and if you're a comcast customer, you can watch it on xfinity tv.com, you can watch it on the xfinity tv app. you can watch it on hbo go, so you can watch it on the programmer's site, on the distributer's site. all you need to do is awe they want candidate, that is prove you're a comcast customer, and you get access to your content on all those platforms and all those devices without paying any additional charge. and, you know, we think -- we thought at the time we made the announcement that this would be
incredibly attractive to customers. i think with to olympics we demonstrated that this is incredibly attractive to customers. the amount of viewing that took praise on multiple platforms of olympic content was absolutely unprecedented, and literally millions of additional people authenticated, um, their presence in order to watch olympic content as a result of the attractiveness of the content. so i think we have, um, developed a very customer-friendly and a very, and a very programmer-friendly model, um, to enable customers to take full advantage of the programming that they like the most. >> host: but does that concept threaten your business model? >> >> guest: actually, it doesn't threaten the business model. it's -- i think the beauty of the concept is that it's fully respectful of the business model. we say your business model, that covers a lot of ground for
comcast. if you say does it threaten the content business model which is a very important part of our business now, the answer is, no, because once you, once you, once our nbc universal customers are paying for the content, it just gives them access to that content on multiple platforms, makes it more valuable for them but protects, i mean, protects us from piracy and theft of the content and really protects us from unpaid views of our content. on the distribution side, that is the comcast cable side, um, it's also appropriate for our business model because you have to be a cable subscriber, um, in order to awe they want candidate yourself and be able to -- awe they want candidate yourself and be able to see the content whether it's on hbo go, tnt.com, usa.com, i mean, all the content requires authentication. and those two things together
preserve for the programmer the significant affiliate fees that cable is paying, um, in order to enable the content to be created. so it's, tv everywhere is not disruptive to the overall, um, cable, to the overall cable tv business model infrastructure, um, in fact, it's a way to insure that the content that will continue to be a significant revenue stream to pay for the content to be produced that people want to watch. >> host: amy maclean. >> what can maybe be disrupted would be services like fete flick or roku, and i know at some point there was talk of the doj looking into online video providers and if there's any sort of anti-competitive behavior going on there. has there been much more there? >> guest: roku is just a device that enables you to view internet content on your television. so roku is a -- it's not a
competitor at all, it's a facilitator of alternative services. um, take netflix, and we could talk about any number of these, um, you know, generally speaking both reed hastings and brian roberts and others in the cable industry have said that they really don't view netflix as being competitive per se, um, with the cable distribution model. they view it as being complimentary. um, and the reason for that is that almost all of the netflix content is library content. it's content that you might have watched at one point through your cable or satellite subscription but that you can't watch today through your cable or satellite subscription. so if you are, um, a, if you are a, um, let's pick a, let's pick a program, um, the be you're a "law and order" fan, special victims unit fan, you've got lots of "law and order: special victims unit" library content on
netflix, but if you want to watch the current season of "law and order: special victims unit," you've got to watch it on your tv when it comes live starting this wednesday, or you have to watch it on demand where we'll have the last four or five shows, um, and we'll have it available on demand. you're not going to be able to watch that on netflix. and so in a way i do think, i do think they're complimentary because if people like "law and order: special victims unit," they might want to watch the old shows on netflix, but they're going to want to watch the new shows on nbc, and if they watch the new shows on nbc, that might remind them, gee whiz, i'd like to be able to watch some of the older shows and go to netflix to do that. if you had reed hastings here, i think he would tell you exactly the same thing. the other side of that, though, is everyone needs to remember in order for netflix to work, you need a broadband connection, and we're not your mother's cable
company. we don't -- now we don't just go and send a guy out to the house and drill a hole in your wall, run a wire and attach it to the back of the television set. we're in the broadband business just as much as we're in the video business. and so, um, i mean, our view is that our broadband business, our broadband innovation has enabled multiple innovative businesses, industries, um, and product offerings to develop starting with google and amazon and ebay but absolutely including netflix, and netflix would be the first person to tell you that they can't be in business, and they can't work without high quality high-speed data connections. and so even if you want to watch netflix, you've got to watch it over our broadband connection. so i think it's a second way in which these are complimentary businesses and products and not really competitive. >> but there's a disconnect where, um, netflix doesn't agree with how managed services are treated, like the xbox live on,
which goes on your private network versus the public internet, and is that something that you're currently -- >> guest: so i don't want to get too much in the weed, but, of course, if you read the plain english of the internet order, the xbox service is not a managed service. so there's probably no disagreement between netflix and comcast or anyone else about the treatment of managed services. it's just that on to points of the way in which -- the opponents of the way in which we're treating video on demand views through your xbox, um, it's explicitly authorized in the open internet order, is not being covered by the order. those are not services that are going over the internet. they're services that are on our private managed network, um, and i think it's very clear, um, both in the negotiations leading to the open internet order and from the language of the open internet order itself, um, that what we're doing is wholly appropriate. i'd also note, and i, um, this
is probably a record for "the communicators," i'm going to quote reed hastings again, um, that with comcast -- remember, comcast doesn't have a byte cap anymore. we have a data usage threshold which, um, actually most of our markets we have nothing. to byte cap, no data usage threshold. we are trialing, um, some consumption-based billing arrangements with the data usage threshold that starts at 300 gigabytes of usage a month, and reed hastings has said that at those levels, um, they would have no impact on netflix anyway. so i think this is more a tempest in a teapot and, furthermore, a tempest in a teapot that's not reflective of the careful negotiations that went on in connection with the open internet order and the actual language of the open internet order. >> host: and, unfortunately, we're out of time. thank you both, i hope it's quicker than three years before we get you back this time.
david cohen, executive vice president of comcast, amy amy maclean, editor-in-chief of cablefax daily, this is "the communicators." >> see the first presidential debate wednesday night live on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up tonight on c-span2, we hear from libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson about the obstacles facing a third party candidate in the 2012 election. then live coverage from denver, colorado, for a campaign rally with republican presidential candidate mitt romney. later, president obama rallies with supporters in las vegas. >> tuesday british labour party leader ed miliband delivers remarks in manchester. we'll have live coverage from england here on c-span2 starting at 9:15 a.m. eastern. also tuesday on c-span2, a look
at what happens to individual taxes if the bush era tax cuts expire. former congressional budget office director douglas holtz-eakin and other economists look at the issue. our live coverage from the urban institute here in washington, d.c. starts at noon eastern. >> every generation through our history has worked and sacrificed to leave a better country to their children and grandchildren and future generations. we, we were then spending their money, we are now even more, much more, spending their money, and we are leaving them a mess that will be a very difficult to deal with, and if we are that weak, just think of who wants to come here first and take us over. now, the last thing i ever want to see is to see our country taken over because we're so financially weak we can't do anything. >> uh-huh. >> and we're moving in that direction. we're on the edge of the cliff, and we have got to start fixing
it now, otherwise we're leaving a disaster to our children and grandchildren in the future, and we could even lose our country. >> ross perot, interviewed by "usa today"'s richard wol on the economy, the deficit and debt and how it's changed since he ran for president in 1992 and '96. find richard wolffe's article in today's edition of "usa today" and at usa today.com. raz perot tonight -- ross perot tonight on c-span at 9 eastern. next, a look at the presidential campaign with libertarian party candidate gary johnson. the former republican governor of new mexico talks about his view of the two-party system and obstacles for third-party candidates. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. >> host: joining us now is gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico, a republican 1995-2003 who is now the libertarian presidential
nominee, and gary johnson, first question. when you look at the major party candidates and this year's cycle, what's missing in the debate and the dialogue? and what do you wring to the table -- what do you bring to the table? >> guest: well, how about truth for starters. the notion that both obama and romney are arguing over who's going to spend more money on medicare when we need to have a raging debate and discussion in this country on how we slash medicare spending because if we don't, um, i believe that we're going to find ourselves in the midst of a monetary collapse as a result of continuing to borrow and spend money to the tune of 43 cents out of every dollar that we spend. >> host: so what are you seeing out there on that particular issue? what's your prescription, pardon the expression. >> guest: well, i oversaw the reform of medicaid in new mexico when i was governor of new mexico. we took it from a fee-for-service model to a
managed care model. we saved hundreds of millions of dollars, we set up better health care networks for the poor in new mexico. i believe if the federal government would have block granted the state of new mexico 43% less money, done away with all the strings and the mandates that i could have effectively overseen the delivery of health care to the poor. i think you apply that same template to medicare, health care for those over 65, get the federal government out of the health care business completely, give it up to the states -- in this case block grants that balance revenu with expenditures -- and that's how we're going to get out of this. we're going to -- giving it up to the states, 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, i think that's exactly what we will have. we'll have some fabulous success, we'll also have some horrible failure. failure will get avoided, success will get emulated. but that's how we're going to find our way out of this. >> host: gary johnson is joining us from new mexico this morning.
he will be with us for about 40 more minutes. we'll put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen as we take a look at the libertarian nominee and his positions and the race overall. you can see the phone lines on the bottom of the screen. gary johnson, there's a recent gallup poll that shows americans are sort of split on the need for a third party, pretty much split. what's your argument for a third party? >> guest: well, in this case i'm going to argue that i'm not the third choice, but i'm the only choice, and in this case i'm on the ballot, will be on the ballot in all 50 states. steve, right now we're on the ballot in 47 states and the district of columbia. we're litigated in the other three. so although there are other third-party candidates running this cycle, none of them are going to come close to what i just said. that said, um, where's the difference between the two? i'm going to argue that we should not bomb iran, that we
should get out of afghanistan tomorrow, bring the troops home, that marriage equality is a constitutionally-guaranteed right. let's end the drug war, let's legalize marijuana now. i would have never signed the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without being charged. i think that's why we've fought wars. i would have never signed the patriot act. i think the homeland security's incredibly redundant. tsa should not be the federal government, it should be airports, airlines, states, knew mispalties -- municipalities. balance the federal budget now. i think we all recognize that what we're doing is not sustainable. i think the day of reckoning is close when we experience a monetary collapse. a monetary collapse, very simply, is when the dollars that we have in our pocket don't buy a thing because of the accompanying inflation that is going to go along with borrowing and printing money to the tune
of 43 cents out of every dollar we're spending. and then front and center, jobs. i'm going to be the only candidate advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the irs, replacing all of that with one federal consumption tax -- in this case i'm embracing the fair tax. i think that's really the answer to jobs, because in a zero corporate tax rate environment if the private sector doesn't create tens of millions of jobs, i don't know what it's going to take to create tens of millions of jobs. it's the answer when it comes to exports bleeding out all existing federal tax out of all goods and services. it's the answer to china. i see manufacturing jobs flocking back to the united states given a zero corporate tax rate environment. are you hearing these things from these other two guys? no, not even remotely close. they're arguing over who's going to spend more money on medicare. romney says he wants to balance
the federal budget, but that he wants to increase spending for the military. well, it doesn't add up. and if we want to believe in the things that these guys are saying, then i guess we belief in the easter bunny and santa claus and by extension the tooth fairy and, steve, i don't think thai coming. >> host: gary johnson is with us, and want to remind viewers we'll a add a fourth line this morning for third-party voters, 202-585-3883 is your line, and we'll get to your calls in just a couple moments. at this point, um, governor johnson, what's the strategy for the rest of the election? where are you focusing most of your time and attention right now? >> guest: oh, right now there's a lot of attention that's being drawn to what it is that i am saying. i'm being recognized now for being at 6% nationally. um, i'll just ask you an obvious question here that has an obvious answer, are you hearing my name six times for every time
you're hearing obama or romney's name 100 times? no, maybe you're hearing my name one time for every 5,000 times you're hearing these guys' names. if i was just, if my name was just being mentioned in line with where i'm polling, um, i think my 6% would be 8% would be 14 would be 18%, i think i'd be the next president of the united states. >> host: let's hear from gary, first call from pittsburgh, independent. you're on with gary johnson, the libertarian nominee. good morning. >> caller: hey, gary. i just want to let you know that i saw your debate about three months ago with i don't remember the guy's name, um, but you really nailed him to the wall. i mean, he looked kind of, kind of stupid. but i want today let you know that i -- i wanted to let you know that i think after reading a lot about the council on foreign relations commission and reading a lot about the democrats and the republican party, romney and obama, i think their campaigns are similar, but
i think that if you read the history about them that they're really controlling both parties. and, um, that's a scary thing, but i really respect your issues, and i think you're very knowledgeable, and i think that independent parties are being played like ron paul. i wish that there was more strength and more voters for you, and, um, i just wish you well, um, as you continue -- >> host: thank you. >> guest: thanks, gary. >> host: gary johnson. >> guest: yeah. i think, obviously, just a comment. when i entered into the republican, um, race for the nomination, um, i thought at a minimum it was going to be really hard to marginalize two candidates on stage talking about the same things, i'm
talking about ron paul and myself. i did not find myself marginalized, i just found myself excluded in ways that are just incredibly unfair. this country wasn't what i've grown up to believe that it was, which was giving everybody an equal shake at this. it's a system that's manipulated, and it's really different than my experience running for governor of new mexico where as a complete outsider running for the republican nomination for governor in new mexico, the republican party in new mexico was very, very inclusive, including me in all the debates, all the discussions, the meet-ups. they made me a part of the process believing that the eventual nominee would be stronger as a result of more voices, not less voices. >> host: venice, california, on the line now. it's gina. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i did have a question, but i
just want to say thank you for running. i was a ron paul supporter, and now i'm a registered independent. i left that neo-con party that's controlled by aipac and the concern. [inaudible] lobby and adl and all that. and, you know, you are right on on all the issues and especially on the war. and i do commend you. my question to you and, also, i want to tell you about you can look up on my friend's page u.s. hijack.com, you'll see all these articles like by phil giraldi who used to work, i think, for ronald reagan, but i just want to tell you -- ask you is there a way, are you doing anything to get into the debate cycle with obama and romney? >> host: we had a similar question, governor johnson, via twitter. what do you say? >> guest: well, right now i'm excluded from the first debate.
the commission that determines who gets in the debates is the presidential debate commission, and guess what? the presidential debate commission is private, and they're made up of republicans and democrats with absolutely no interest whatsoever in seeing a third voice on stage. we have filed three lawsuits to get me on stage based on other third-party candidates who have filed lawsuits. there doesn't seem to be, there doesn't seem to be much hope, but we filed on anti-trust grounds, something that has not been done before. >> host: how much do these debates matter, gary johnson, and what are you looking forward to hearing on wednesday? >> guest: well, the debates are tantamount to my having a chance at winning. without being on the debates, i think that, um, you know, you can just kind of close the lid on being able to win the campaign -- win the election. is winning getting enough votes
to actually cause one of the, one of the other two who ends up winning to actually give more than just lip service to these issues? potentially. so you know what, steve? i view this as a victory every single day, and, um, i'm kind of heartened by the fact that there are so many people that -- i think speaking with a broad brush stroke, i think i speak on behalf of the majority of americans. i think the majority of americans consider themselves if fiscally responsible and socially accepting. i'm in that broad brush category myself. so how does that equate to all the issues that we face today? um, i don't think that either party, i don't think democrats are good on civil liberties which is what they're supposed to be good at, i don't think republicans are good at dollars and cents which is what they're supposed to be good at. and when it comes to dollars and
2009. >> it was interesting to see that happened. it's had an interesting impact don't you? >> interesting -- >> not the solution but i think it was healthy thing to happen. >> that shows that average americans are -- >> everybody is running for office, yeah. >> senator johnson, what do you make of the tea party movement? >> well, initially the whole notion of dollars and cents, we have a balance revenues and expenditures, i think it was all about spending. i'm right in line with all that. just for second, talking about the "occupy" movement. right out of the chute, about the inequality that exists in this country. right on. crony capitalism is alive and well improve don't think republicans know the difference between corporate welfare and free markets, and for that
matter, democrats the same way. the country doles it ounce unfair -- out unfair limp unfairly. i think pink slips get issued to half of washington lobbyists if we do away with the income tax and all the loopholes and deductions with that. >> host: here's a comment via twitter. could gary johnson help obama get a second term? >> guest: well, in four states they have actually put this question. in new mexico and in colorado, i take more votes away from obama in north carolina and michigan, i take more votes away from romney. i'll just say i think a wasted vote is voting for somebody you don't believe in. that's a wasted vote. and i want to make a pitch here this morning. i want to make a pitch that everybody go out and waste their
vote on me, gary johnson, and you know what? i'm the next president of the united states. and based on my resume, there is nothing to suggest that not only can i do this job but i would do a really good job at it. >> host: next call, richard from new york. thank you for waiting. you're on with gary johnson. >> caller: i appreciate what you did with the one debate we mentioned, ron paul there. you and him should have been a good team. the only other choice we have besides ron paul is you. i talked to ron paul on this program before -- down in tampa. but you know? they say the lesser of two evils is still evil and we don't have any choice than to vote for you. the new world order shows, have a north american union, promoting the homosexual
agenda -- ron paul is the father of the movement, and the only choice we have. i appreciate you running. >> guest: thank you. i just reiterate, i support marriage equality. i think that marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right on par with civil rights of the '60s. >> host: john is from illinois now. john is an independent. hi there. >> caller: hi. mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. and the reason why it's like -- the reason why i say that is, our taxes in this country have never been set at actually to be fair. what they were set up for originally was that the rich
were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes, and the working class and the poor were supposed to pay most of -- the majority of theirs in home owners taxes, city and state taxes. and that has been all -- it's got everything out of sorts. my problem with what everybody calls a fair tax is, when you're on a fixed income, and these states are going to have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government is going to have such a lower one, that when anybody that is on a fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator, they cost $400, the lowest one they can buy, they have about $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. and the only ones it's going to hurt is people that are retired,
people that are on disability, and things like that. otherwise, i'm completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul in '88. i voted for paul brown, i think -- i can't remember exactly what year it was that he ran as a libertarian. i voted for ross perot once. i'm a very open-minded person but i watch things very closely. >> host: thanks for calling, gary johnson, any reaction to that caller? >> guest: well, just that i think that by going to a national consumption tax, one federal national consumption tax. i think that really is a lot more fair. i would like to point out that
it ended up being cost neutral over a fairly short amount of time. so, let's use a can of coke as an example. a can of coke sells for a dollar today. in that dollar is 23% worth of imbedded tax. that's federal tax that coca-cola pays. corporate tax, as -- with social security match, medicare, unemployment, all that goes away. no more with holding from your payroll check. social security, medicare, unemployment would come out of the proceeds of the fair tax. so you bleed all that existing tax out of the coke can that sells for a buck. coke doesn't have to sell that can of coke for a buck anymore to make the same amount of profit. they'll sell it for 80-cents. and if you think that coke will sell their can of coke for a buck, well, free market. it's about competition and cola is very competitive so actually
we'll find that selling for 80 cents, end up being cost neutral. and then what would be terrific is to have a raging debate and discussion in this country over how you really implement one federal consumption tax to the best way possible. i would like to point out that whatever we tax, we get less of. so, what are we taxing today? we're taxing income and we're getting less of that. i think at its core it's fair. it would be terrific to have a debate and discussion over the best way to implement one federal consumption tax. i'm embracing the fair tax simply because it gets the debate and discussion down the road. is the prebate the best way to deal with the fact that one tax is going to be regresssive.
the ware the fair tax deals with that gives everybody in the country a $200 a month prebait check. all of us receive $2,400 a year that will allow us to pay the consumption tax up to the point of the poverty level, which avoids then the criticism of it being regresssive. is that the best way to deal with it? maybe not. but that's what we should have -- what we should be having a raging debate and discussion over. >> host: gary johnson, a viewer wants a little bit more from you on education. they write: i agree r agree with some of governor johnson's point but the view of education is backwards. do you want to clarify your education policy? >> guest: well, as governor of new mexico, i was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding school choice. i really believe that to reform education we need bring competition to public education. that said, what's the best thing that the federal got could do to
improve education in this country? well, i maintain it would be to abolish the federal department of education, established in 1979 under jimmy carter, there is anything from 1979 to suggest that the department of education has been value-add? i would argue know. the federal government gives each state 11 cents out of every cool that the state spends but they tell you have to do a, b, c, and d, and here's 11 cents, and when to accomplish a, b, c, and d, it costs 16 cents. so nobody really recognizes it costs money to take federal money. just get the federal department over education out of education. just get the federal government out of education. give education to the states. 6 -- 50 laboratories.
we'll have some fabulous success that will get emulated, failures that get avoided, but 50 different laboratories working on this. i'm going to suggest that, really, we come up with some incredibly innovative new ways of delivering education in this country. >> host: our guest is joining us from santa fe, live this morning, gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico, as a republican, 1995 to 2003. he is currently the libertarian presidential nominee, on the ballot in 47 states and d.c. the is challenging in michigan, oklahoma, and pennsylvania. are you confident you'll get the last three states? >> guest: i think two out of the three. oklahoma seems to be the worst of all. i hope that everybody watching that would be watching from any of these three states, that
these barriers that have been put in place, i think for the detriment of everyone watching. why not have more voices debating and discussing as opposed to fewer? and by the way, it is really, really hard. it is a stacked deck to get on the ballot in all 50 states. something we still believe we're going to achieve but if anybody out there thinks that the system is fair, it's not. >> host: how much money have you raised and spent? any idea? >> guest: you know, we're probably in the 2-1/2 million range and it's amazing i'm polling at 6%. gosh, if i had a billion dollars, i think i would be the next president of the united states. >> host: let's hear from raymond in river falls, wisconsin, independent caller. >> caller: good morning, gary.
i've been a fan since chris hayes introduced me to you back on his morning program, and you've got voters up here in wisconsin. i've tried to show you off to as many folks as i can. i feel we're getting get -- if e getting the exposure of the other candidates you'd be in the polls but you're being naderizeed. >> host: what is that? >> caller: what they dade to ralph nader when he ran for president. gary has great ideas and i think the more people heard them. more people would be supporting him and i was backer of barack obama but gary johnson is real change. i want to know, gary, what are we going to do about wall street and the prison industrial complex and if you see the coming collapse of the dollars i do. the dollars won't be worth 70-cents if something doesn't
change. >> guest: well, i do see a monetary collapse looming. at it going to be a bond market collapse. right now, the federal reserve is -- well, right now, treasury is printing money. the federal reserve is giving that money to the banks at zero%. the banks aren't giving it to you or i. they're buying up treasuries who a closed loop where they can make money with no risk whatsoever. this is not fair. just absolutely not fair, and the inequities go on and on and on. steve, maybe you can help me out with the second part of that question. i'm sorry. >> host: caller, are you still there? i think we lost the caller. i was on the wall street part of it. anything else you want to respond to? >> guest: i was just -- okay. >> host: let's try jeffrey, laughlin, nevada. >> caller: good morning, gary.
>> guest: good morning. >> caller: republicans and democrats on the same side of the code. it doesn't matter if you vote for obama or romney, you're going to get the same outcome. for a guy like you? there's a change we can believe in. >> host: jeffrey, i'm going to offer up a prediction. it's either romney or obama are elected, that we're going to find ourselves with a heightened police state, something that should be rolled back. i'm going to suggest we're going to find ourselves in a continued state of war. military interventions that result in this case hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that i'm going to argue wouldn't otherwise exist but for our military interventions and then offer up a prediction, obama or romney gets elected,
we'll find ourselves continuing to borrow and spend money in ways that are absolutely not sustainable. i think we are looking at a monetary collapse. we just can't escape the mathematics of what we're doing. >> host: is there a question via twitter. they want your take on congress. mr. johnson, what would you do to motivate the next do-nothing congress? you just called both parties corrupt. >> guest: i find it an exciting notion that libertarian president would challenge democrats on what they're supposed to be good at. civil liberties. look, let's not bomb iran. let's get out of afghanistan. let's recognize the marriage equality. let's end the drug wars. let's repeal the patriot act. like i say, repeal the national defense authorization act. this is what democrats are supposed to be good at. how about a libertarian
president challenging them to step up to the plate and in that same vein, how about a libertarian president challenging republicans on what they're supposed to be good at, which is dollars and cents. paul ryan's budget plan is going balance the federal budget in 28 years and it's incumbent on growth built into there is? come on. nobody believes this. everybody understands this has to be mutual sacrifice on the part of all of us and i'll use that mutual. and as long as it's mutual, think we'll all suck it up and fix this. but we're being led to believe we can do nothing or we don't have to do anything and we're going to fix it? no way. or that somehow -- really, growth is going to come out of nowhere? we got zero% interest rates. we're stagnant. le federal reserve.
auditingauditing the federal re. wow, would love to turn on the lights and understand what is in federal reserve balance sheets. how much are they buying up? how many assets are they buying? and whatever they buy, inflates in value and in this case i think that buying up equities, certainly buying up treasuries, because if they weren't buying them, nobody else would be. >> host: one of the earlier calls came up with several points. one of them spoke to foreign policy. touched a little at the beginning but how do you describe your foreign policy? how should america face or approach the world? >> guest: well, just that we shouldn't involve ourselves diplomatically. we should be the shining beacon on the hill. but our military interventions, would we're going in and
determining -- we're replacing one dictator for another dictator? foreign aid is money spent on dictators in foreign governments. it's not spent on people in other countries. it's spent on propping up other governments. here we are funding funding fune insurgents in syria, and a quart of the insurgents are supposed to be al qaeda? didn't we do this in afghanistan? didn't we really ultimately bank role osama bin laden? we haven't learned anything. what we aught -- ought to have learned is military interventions make enemies to the united states of people that are affected by these. these drone strikes? yeah, we hit the target but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in
these countries that were ostensibly we're there to help? we're just continuing to make more and more enemies. it's no surprise that the unrest in the middle east is occurring right now. i would get out of our embassies in the middle east. why are we giving targets to demonstrators that are just looking for targets in the middle east? that is not showing weakness. it's showing we've got some common sense. where is the common sense? >> host: next call from lawrence, new york. eric is on the line for gary johnson. good morning to you. >> caller: yes. good morning. actually, i'm in -- governor johnson, will be voting for you even though i have some differences, but i just want to say we have to get rid of the term "third party." it creates an illusion upon people in this country because
there's more than another two parties. there's -- so forth and so on. i lived also in europe and on continental europe, not britain, if somebody makes ballot access in a country like italy, for example, every single day, whether they if held office or not, whatever their ideas are, from extreme right to extreme left, in the middle, the television stations and the raid joe stations would give time, three times a day to everybody political party and one of their candidates. there should be a law that, you love your nation and you inform the people who is running for political office. >> host: gary johnson. >> guest: flash. >> guest: really, as a statement could i not agree more. >> host: caller, via twitter -- viewer via twitter wants to you
your response about trade. do you agree with nationalistic -- >> guest: i'm not the tariff guy. free market. i think the criticism of free markets for the most part are all of us criticizing crony capitalism. but free market does work and the trade really works. who benefits if china is subsidizing their goods and services to the united states? we are as consumers here in the united states. believing that anytime we can spend less money on goods and services, we benefit from that. who takes it on the chin? who is -- who suffers? it's the citizens of china. if we just let the free market play itself out, these things correct themselves, it isn't to
say that the free market doesn't have its bubbles just like the -- just like a manipulated market. but i think free market is a much more efficient way of dealing with bubbles that do get created. so, no tariff. i'm a know tariff guy. genuine free market approach to trade in the world. >> host: another viewer wants more from you on healthcare. how does gary johnson feel about obamacare? what is your reaction to this and the supreme court ruling. >> guest: a good example of what we need when it comes to healthcare is free market approaches to health care, and health care in this country is about as far removed from free market as it possibly could be. government restricts the choices we have available to us. there's no advertised pricing.
when this whole debate and discussion started up over healthcare, i would not have health insurance to cover myself for ongoing medical need. i would have health insurance to cover myself for catastrophic injury and illness, and i would pay as you good in a system that was very, very competitive. where i had a myriad of choices that it don't have today because of laws that restrict the availability of choices, but that i would have many, many choices when it came to drugs, and that i make these choices, and that the government doesn't make these choices. when the whole debate and discussion started up about healthcare? i had envisioned gallbladders r us, healthcare clinics that specialize in gallbladder surgery at thousands of dollars as opposed to tense of thousands of dollars and this is the kind of innovation that i think would
have been possible. advertised pricing. look, i think we would all pay as you go in a system that was very, very competitive. if we had a myriad of choices, as opposed to no choices. i'm reading where the irs is going to add 15,000 irs agents to oversee president barack obama's healthcare plan? where was the $15,000 that could have been created? government could have blown the lid off of ken. blow the lid off of supply if they choose. >> host: time for another call or two for gary johnson, who is joining us live from santa fe. joe, from cincinnati, a republican. >> caller: good morning, mr. johnson, good to hear we still have some red-bleed paid trottic americans improve was going to vote for mitt romney but i'd like to know what would you do if you actually made it to the seat?
would you consider repealing that affirmative action bill and the civil rights bill? from what i'm seeing right now, it seems like it's just this backlash against the white community like obama has a war against white heritage of something. i don't understand it. >> host: gary johnson. >> guest: well, we should not discriminate, and i think government policies in the past have gotten us to a point where i really don't see that discrimination. so, i'm going to sign on to legislation repealing affirmative action because i think we have moved beyond that. but i'll just offer up a prediction again. obama, romney, we're going find ourselves with a heightened police state, find ourselves with continued military interventions that are going to result?
we bomb iran, we're going to find ourselves with 100 million enemies to this country we wouldn't have otherwise had, and this unsustainable debt and spending, the day is sooner than later, and we all recognize that we have to address it, and yet we're arguing over who is going to spend more money on medicare when we should have an absolute raging debate and discussion over how we have to cut significantly into that program if we're going to have healthcare at all for those over 65. the notion of a healthcare safety net? yeah. but we have gone way over the line when it comes to the notion of who is in need in this country. >> last. >> host: last call from pennsylvania. >> guest: holiday are you? >> host: i'm fine. >> caller: good. listen, i like all your ideas. and i happen that -- i hope that you have the chance -- i don't know if you do but this drone thing is really troubling me,
because we have the drones going over all these countries-but they're going to be put them over us, too. it's not like you can just do something and then it's over. i mean, we're setting ourselves up for something here. >> host: domestic drones, gary johnson. >> guest: you know, i have a feeling that the whole basis in domestic drones is to see what you're growing in the backyard and, gosh, are those marijuana plants in your backyard? and just we're going to add to the -- well, it's the growing police state in this country. it's getting worse. it's not getting better. legalize marijuana. talking about border violence. 40,000 deaths south of the board
morgan. thank you so much for all of your help. that was wonderful. the math now, i understand that we also have talked hilton here, the first baseman with the rockies. [applause] [cheers] you guys have some real teams here. no question about that. and of course, you have your congressman, cory gardner, make sure to get him in office again. and thank you to your great former governor, bill owens, a great friend and man. did you cdd pairs? she must be up there someone
i want to recognize our military champion. we are surrounded by the sites of those that stand up for our freedom. this is a great place to be here at the foot of the rocky mountains. my mom and dad used to read to me from a book called man to match my mountains. perhaps we should changed the title to men and women who match the mountain sprint right here, men and women have matched the mountains of colorado and they have done so in aircraft. this is the home of the air force academy. [cheers] [applause] this is the home of norad that helps keep our skies safe. this is the home of focus on the family.
this is home to a great institution of higher learning and a pretty darn good football team. [cheers] [applause] and one more thing, i think this is going to be the place where we will elect the next president of the united states. [cheers] [applause] now, you know that you're going to get some visitors this week in the president will be here and we are going to have a big debate and people want to know who will win and who will make the biggest difference in the arguments they make. in my view it's not so much winning and losing in the people themselves. the president and myself.
it is about something bigger than that. these are a chance for us to describe a path forward that we would choose. and the american people have had to make their choices us what kind of america that they want. i believe the people on colorado will choose a better way forward for our country. >> the president's pathway is not something which is unknown to us. we have seen the pathway he has proposed over the last four years. to that effect, we have heard his beach and about four years ago, about where you could take the country and fighting for some of the things that were described there, taxing people more and more.
we have seen it for four years. we have seen a number of people on food stamps go from 32 million up to 37 million. 15 million people have fallen into poverty and need food stamps. twenty-three million americans looking for jobs. we have had 43 straight months of unemployment above 8% read what does the president have to say about this? he says forward. i think forewarned is a better term. [laughter] [applause] [cheers] >> we listen to the president at his convention a few weeks ago. no new ideas. he is out of ideas and excuses and on november 6, you're going to put him out of office. [cheers] [applause]
[cheers] [applause] now, paul ryan and die, we have a different path that we put america on. there are five things that we will do to strengthen our economy. and also to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. you realize over the last four years, every year you have seen the median income in america come down. income is down some $4300. i that means things are really tough for the american people might win an paul ryan's plan, creating the five steps to get this economy going will help middle income americans have a brighter future and will lift
people out of poverty. let me tell you what the steps are. number one, we are going to fully take advantage of our oil and gas and coal. [cheers] [applause] i will look make sure that we get the resources in alaska and get it here. by the way, i will get that pipeline from canada i have to fill up my cell. [cheers] [applause] number one is energy. that creates about 3.5 up to 4 million new jobs. not just in the energy sector, but also in manufacturing.
i want to make sure that our workers are getting training programs and the skills that they need to work for them. right now we have 47 different federal government training programs. forty-seven. they report to eight different agencies. they develop all the overhead and waste and duplication and i want to take all that money and give colorado its fair share and say to you create a program that works best for your own people. [cheers] [applause] and making sure that our people have the skills to compete. i not only want to help our people that are in the workforce
today, i want to make sure that our kids are given the education that they need. for that to happen, it is time for us to fully recognize that we have to put our children and parents and teachers first and the teachers union behind. number four, we would like to take the risk of opening a business. small businesses have to grow and thrive, and it takes big companies to build a new facility in america to hire more people. for those things to happen, if they think america is going to have the kind of economic circumstances that greece now has, they are not going to risk having a business. i'm going to cut federal spending and cap it and finally
it is on track to a balanced budget. [cheers] [applause] there is one more. we have to champion small business. we have to make it easier for small business. now, the president, the president has a plan for small business. out of the million small businesses, he is planning from raising his taxes from 35 to 40%. that will kill time. and it will kill jobs. the national federation of independent businesses, to look and see what impact that will have on america. the answer is that will cost 700,000 jobs. i have a plan to add 7 million
jobs. we are going to work here bring together small-business. [cheers] [applause] and let me mention one other thing. if the president succeeds, on that basis, a guy or a gal could be in the backyard barbecuing with their kids and people can come up and say, here, signed a statement. we want to devote way we can
watch you go. in a setting like that, you will see coercion and small businesses overtaken by unions. i will tell you that entrepreneurs are not win want to start a business if that is the case. it will kill america's entrepreneurial economy. with the president is doing is bowing to the demand of big labor to its contributors and it is wrong and it will kill our economy. we must have people have the right to vote by secret ballot. [cheers] [applause] those five things i have described will create 12 million jobs. as those jobs are created, there will be more competition for workers, and as businesses compete for workers, they will have to drive there reaches up and their benefits up. so you'll see rising incomes again. we have experienced things for the last four years.
i don't want to be like europe. i want to restore the principles that made america a nation we are. we are an exceptional nation. i believe the exceptional nature of this country was established the rights were given by the creator and not the government the ability in america for people to pursue their dreams. every now and then, someone has
a great idea, they build an enterprise and employ hundreds of thousands of people. i see it day in and day out. it is what makes our economy. a bigger government taking more, demanding more and more, more intrusive in our lives will not make america stronger, instead, restoring freedom and opportunity will get america to work again, and i will do it. [cheers] [applause] and it is important. this election is not just about four years. it is about the course for america. over decades, we are going to make a choice now which is going to affect us for the rest of our
have had a foreign policy led by the strength of the personality. we need to strengthen american military and our economy and america's principles if we are going to keep this world more safe. [cheers] [applause] the greatest thing about this campaign for me personally has been meeting the people of this great country. i love america. i love the beauty of its rocks and roads and trails and i love the beauty of the american soul. we love our country. the fact that you are were here tonight, that you care about elections shows how much you care in america. [cheers] [applause]
we need to lead with an economy that is strong and growing, and economy that shows that this year our nation is growing more slowly than the year before. and the year before that, it was faster still. this economy is not in recovery. presidents policies have not worked. he doesn't get that, he doesn't understand that. we must get america going again with a strong economy to afford a strong military and strong homes, to support both of those. this is a critical time for america. we have had the benefit of the greatest generation that has held the torch up, a torch of freedom and opportunity. but the members of the greatest generation are not as many as there used to be. they are not as strong as they used to be. it is our turn.
we have to grasp that torch and hold it up for the world to see. [cheers] [applause] >> i make this commitment to you. when i am elected president of the united states. [cheers] [applause] i will do everything in my power to keep america strong. to strengthen our values and our homes and our founding principles, i will do everything in my power to get this economy going again, helping people in this country, and i will make sure that our military is second to none, that it's so strong that no one will ever want to test our might. [cheers] [applause] >> i have a request of you. that is my commitment to you.
your commitment to me is this. convince people to come join our team. i need you to go out and find people and say it's not working. we need to get america going again. we are going to get america strong again and we are going to strengthen america from the foundation. i love this country and i love you. thank you for your help. let's win this one for america. thank you. [music playing] ♪ ♪
meet in their first debate. watch and engage with c-span with our live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern followed by two ways to watch the debate at 9:00 p.m. on c-span, both candidates on screen. on c-span2, the multi-camera version of the debate. following, we will have your reaction. live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we examine the health care law that presidential candidate mitt romney signed into law when he was governor of massachusetts. boston herald reporter will be our guest. we will be joined by a host of reliable sources and the host of the daily download. we will discuss the recent report of how high school students are doing on the sats. our guests is vice president james montoya.
"washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on tuesday, the new america foundation looks at the role of money in the 2012 elections. panelists include the former sec chairman and live coverage starts at 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> you are watching c-span2 at politics and public affairs, featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights, watch public-policy events and the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at her website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> president obama held a campaign event on sunday night.
it's a choice between two different paths for this country. it is a choice between two fundamental revisions. [cheers] [applause] we have a lot more work to do all across the country. we have a lot of work to make the middle class secure again. [cheers] [applause] the question is, whose plan is better for you?
the valley. and all across the country. thousands of americans have wind turbines and solar channels. unlike my opponent, i'm not going to let oil companies run everything. i don't want to collect $4 billion in corporate welfare for taxpayers. we have a better plan where we invest in wind and solar and a new biofuel system. where we can take hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut it in
>> i don't want to ask students to pay more for college were elderly or disabled americans i don't think the answer for all the hard-working folks here in nevada and across the country whose homes are under water is just to do nothing and wait it out. that was governor romney's advice. just let the whole housing market bottom out. do you know what? my administration -- we have already helped more than a million responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages. i'm running to let them -- i'm running to make sure that everybody, that more people like them who are responsible and who
have been paying their mortgage payments, that they have a chance to refinance and save up to $3000 per year. and by the way, i'm never going to turn medicare into a voucher program. we are going to reform and strengthen medicare for the long haul the right way by reducing the cost of health care, not by shifting it on to seniors. and we are not going to -- we are going to keep the promise of social security. we are not going to turn it over to wall street. just like we are doing work at home, we are going to continue to work abroad. four years ago, i said i'd end and the war in iraq and i did. i said that we are going to wind down the war in afghanistan and we are.
and while a new tower rises above the new york skyline, al qaeda is on the path to defeat. osama bin laden is dead. [cheers] [applause] well, as we saw a couple weeks ago, we still face serious threats in the world. but we have and will always make sure that we have the strongest military the world has ever known. the thing that makes our military strongest is the amazing men and women in uniform. [cheers] [applause] so when they take off that uniform, when they come home, we have to serve them as well as they have served us. because nobody who fought for us should have to fight for a job
or a roof over their heads were the care they deserve when they come home. [cheers] [applause] governor romney has got a different set of ideas. he thinks the way i and ended the war in iraq is tragic. he will tell us how hill and the war in afghanistan. we don't know. i have and i will. and i'm going to use the money were no longer spending on war to do the same nation building here at home. rebuilding our roads and our bridges and putting americans back to work. that is part of what makes america strong. that is what we're going to do. so this is the choice we face in this election. this is what the election comes down to. and you are going to hear over the next two months, i know you must be tired of hearing these ads -- but you are going to hear more over the next six weeks or it and over and over again, you're going to hear my opponent talk about bigger tax cuts,
fewer regulations, that's the way to go, and since government can't do everything, it should do almost nothing. if you can't afford health care, then hope you don't get that. if you can afford college, borrow money from your parents you know what? that's not who we are. i don't think the government can solve all of our problems. but the government is not the source of our problems either. there are some things we have to do together. instead of going around and blaming somebody, unions or immigrants, gays or somebody for what is going on, this is what we need to pull together. we are in this together. we believe that america only works when we accept responsibility for ourselves and for each other. that is how we create more opportunity, more responsibility and possibility.
america is not about what can be done for you, it's about what can be done by us together as one nation and one people. and that's what you understood back in 2008. you are the reason that seniors across the state of nevada are averaging $600 plus on their medications because of health care reform. you did that. you are the reason that students, thousands of students have more help paying for college. you have made that happen. you are the reason why two grandparents in reno who could refinance their mortgage to keep the peace of the american dream, you are the reason why a young immigrant who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag will no longer be deported from the only country he or she has ever called home. [cheers] [applause] you are also the reason why outstanding soldiers will be kicked out of the military just because of who he or she loved it.
[cheers] [applause] you are the reason why thousands of families have been able to say to the loved ones who served us so bravely, welcome home. welcome home. [cheers] [applause] welcome home. [cheers] [applause] you made that happen. i made the same point down in florida the other day. governor romney heard me say that to you can't make change just from washington. and somehow we got all excited about this. he changed his speech and said i'm going to make change from the inside. and it got me thinking, well, what kind of inside job is he talking about? [laughter] is he talking about the inside job where outsourcers are writing the tax code? is he talking about the inside job where oil companies are writing the energy plan or health insurance companies are writing the insurance plans? is he talking about the inside job where a bunch of men in washington decide women can't make their own health care
decisions? because it that the inside job that he's talking about, we don't want it. we don't need it. [cheers] [applause] change is not only going to happen when ordinary americans, it has to happen when ordinary americans work together with their elected representatives to make all of our voices heard. that is how change happens. so the question then is how hard are you willing to work for a? how hard are you willing to work for a? [cheers] you know, we've got just a few more weeks left. you know, in 2008, one-on-one, 47% of the people didn't vote for me. they voted for john mccain. and that's the way democracy
works. and i sat on election night, i said to the people who didn't vote for me, especially, i said i may not have won your vote, but i heard your voice. i need your help, and i'm going to fight for you, too. [cheers] [applause] i'm going to work on your behalf, too. [cheers] [applause] because i'm not interested in creating democratic jobs or republican jobs. i'm interested in creating american jobs. ..
that we all share. those are values that belong to all of us. and now we have to reclaim them. if you have willing to work hard, harder than you did four years ago. if you are willing to knock on doors and make phone calls. we reclaim the values. we can rally around a new economic patriotism. we can rebuild this economy. we can strengthen the middle cladle. we with keep moving forward. we're not going backwards. we're not as divided as our politics suggest. i still believe we have more common than anybody understand. i believe in you and i ask you to keep on believing in me. [cheering and applause] i'm asking for your vote. i'm asking you to stand with me. if you stand with me and work
with me, we will win clark county again. we will win informed again, the election again. we will finish what we started and remind the world why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. [cheering and applause] god bless you and god bless united states of america. [cheering and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sun coming over new york city ♪ ♪ ♪ school bus driver in a traffic jam ♪ ♪ staring at the -- in the rooferl mirror ♪ ♪ looking at the -- of a promise land ♪ ♪ one kid dreams of fame of and
freeway ♪ ♪ ♪ in the ♪ a bankers' daughter ♪ ♪ all they want is everything ♪ ♪ she came out here to be an actress ♪ ♪ he was a singer in a band ♪ ♪ they just might go back to oklahoma ♪ ♪ and talk about the stars they could have been ♪ ♪ only in america ♪ ♪ dreaming in red, white, and blue ♪ ♪ only in america ♪
has chatted. i will finally do something which is the president has not been able to do is call them out and label them a currency manipulate. >> we are brought more cases than the previous administration did. and we've been winning the cases. >> wednesday president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate. news hour jim moderates from the university of denver. watch and debate with c-span followed by two ways to watch the debate at nine. on c-span both candidates on screen the entire debate. and on c-span2, the multicamera version of the debate. and following, your reactions, calls, e mailings and and tweets. follow the live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. see the first presidential debate love on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org.
watch and engage. coming up tonight, the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts a decision discussion on the role of the u.s. president in the world and declining. eric can ton faces his economic challenger in a seventh district debate. that's followed by libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson on the obstacle of faces a third party candidate. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we'll exam the health care law that presidential candidates mitt romney signed in to law when he was governor of massachusetts. our guests is boston herald reporting christine. we'll joined by howard host of cnn n reliable sources and laurens a burn of the daily down load. and we'll discuss the college board's recent report on how high school students doing on s.a.t.
the guest is college board vice president james. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tuesday the new america foundation role of money in the 2012 election. panel lists include the fec chairman treefer potter. live coverage starting at 12:15 i have all the channels, house, senate, plus author of of things. if i know bill is coming up on the floor in the house, i watch you know what channel i want to see. i have them all. if there is either a speech i know you have covered, or a book review or so on, i'm going do watch that. when i want to find out something, that has some value to it, that's going to be one of
the first places i look. i mean, i'm a public broadcasting fan. i watch the channels. a couple of hundred channels, i probably have five to ten of the most -- but it's going include all the c-span channels. david watches c-span on direct tv. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. up next the presidential and foreign policy are the focus of the event at the carnegie endowment for international peace. panelists discuss american influence and engagement globally. the changing international order and emerging nations. this is ninety minutes. good evening. my name is david. i will be the moderator for the evening at the carnegie
endowment discussion about how should the next american president engage the world. this is a debate format discussion. we have a terrific group of panelists here starting on our far right here. we have professor john ikenberry of princeton. next to him is tom freed monday of the "new york times" and jessica matthews and bob kagen of the brookings institution and we ring are going to cover several sets of issues in little blocks tonight. in each case, i'm going open up, i'm going open the discussion with a quote from one or two of the panelists, we'll then have some interaction among the panelists on the theme of the quote, and then i'll ask them a couple of questions about related issue. following that, at the end of each one of these sort of three -- twenty or twenty five minute sections. i'm going it look to you for
questions question keep it as interactive as possible and have you as engaged in the discussion as possible. at the very end, there will be a little more time if we vice president covered something in the context of the three big themes, then you'll be able to introduce that in to the discussion and we will wrap up here promptly at 8:00 to tonight. when we do get to the questions and answers. it would be good if you would identify yourself and keep your statement in the form of a question. i have already spoke ton them about the same goal which is to have a lot of kind of brief comints and engagement on each of the issues. we're going start as our first issue on the theme of american decline. bob, famously wrote here and those of you in the first three
rows can read it. it will appear something like an eye test in the back. i will read it for you. bob wrote, or actually said in an interview, united states both economically and militarily and also in terms of the overall influence is as strong as it's ever been. he said this on february 21st, 2012, in case you want to pinpoint at least that statement of that. tom, do you agree with that the assertion that right now or in 2012 the united states was as strong as we've ever been. >> it depends if you're speaking strong relative to what and whom to whom. the way i -- and in what area. i think there's no question in terms of influence. and on the global stage, we are i think the country that is
still most emulated in the world. it is possible to me as mohammed said the world's cleanest dirty shirt also. and so i really prefer to think about american strength. i have to answer the qea little bit of detail. in terms one of the things that have made us strong historically, and argue that we actually have formula for success in the country. and it was built on five pillars. one was educate our people up to and beyond whatever the technology was. so they could get the most out of it. when was the cotton begin it was universal primary education. when it was the factory it was universal secondary education and the laptop universal post secondary education. we had the best infrastructure. we had the most open in the century of immigration policy to attract the most energetic and
talented immigrants around the world to start 40% of the new companies in the silicon valley. and prevent recklessness and incentivize risk taking and we had the most government funded research fop push out the boundary of science and technology our best innovators and entrepreneurs can pluck them and start the new company. it you think about that as the formula for success an education we now -- well, roughly 30% of high schools drop out of high school. we used to lead the world in college graduates coming to high school. we no longer do that. on infrastructure, according to american society of civil engineers we're $2 trillion in deficit in terms of infrastructure. immigration, we have a policy now that basically says here come here get a great education and get the hell of our country. we are fighting on the simplest h1b issues that are vital phenomena the future strength. fourth the rules for incentive risk taking and recklessness.
i don't think we have em i didded to the degree we want. on government funded research if you see in the gap it looks like ekg heading for heart attack. i don't know relative to what all i know in terms of the things that historically made us great, on each one of those, i see us not going in the direction we should be going, and for me that's the alarm bell and the wake-up call and the pep talks i've been trying to put forth. >> jessica, let me ask the same question to you. are we as strong as we have ever been. or where there ways you see measurable and meaning decline. >> to me it's obviously we're not as strong we have ever been. both for the reasons tom enumerated because the world changed around us. in part because that was our policy. i mean, we spent an awful lot of time, effort, and money after world war ii creating an
international system, economic system in particular to stem late growth in the rest of the world. so this is the success of a policy in several decades that has made us relatively less strong in terms of just dispose l cash and incentives to get the behavior that we want to see. militarily we surely are as strong we have ever been. we live in a world that has number of nuclear towers. and we used to world pre18957 that none other than us. it to me it hardly seems worth debating. it's a different world. >> i was told we had to debate it. [laughter] >> well. i'm going to keep -- going down the line to see anybody who is willing to debate it. >> well. >> i just did. >> i can't debate it either. for me, the decline is the wrong
word. i think the world is getting more crowded. there are countries that are catching up and growing fasters in economic terms the u.s. will have less share of world wealth and gp in the years ahead. there isn't a country, and, by the way, as jessica said, it's a story of american success. it's a story of america's strength and success not weakness and failure. it's sixty years of promoting an open-world system rules. a vision of inte inte dwraition, of trade, it's what the architects of the 1940s would be flabbergasted how successful this order has been. so it -- it's decline, it's biment in to the american vision. but i think there is a story of transition of power transition and the united states is not going to be able to wield unit polar authority as it has has in the past if it could.
and so new habits, new institutions, new bargains, with countries that are primarily coming up out of the west and are not present at the creation. there's a lot of diplomacy ahead. it is a story of taking advantage of great opportunities that were generated by the u.s.-lead system. >> so we have not so much. no way, it's not that simple, and you have the opportunity to argue with any of them or with yourself because this was in february. >> yeah. i feel the same way six months later? >> there's two problems with the discussion and one is the tendency to overestimate our power in the past and have a rosie view how wonderful everything used to be. i mean, tom has picked out several areas where, you know, you could say that we're measurely worse off. i can pick areas where we are measurely better off. tom writes in the great book, it used to be us.
egg gracious used to be us. denying massive amounts of people the rights used to be us. not being concerned about the poor used to be us. and so i would say looking historically there have been periods we with have been on different measures better than we are now. there are measures where we have been worse. it's a mixed picture i would say. the real question we're addressing. the real question, i think the thing tom talk abouts are important. i am for the pep talk. i agree with the pep talk. but in terms of measuring our influence, again, i think that jump on the phrase that john had which is what he said we don't exercise the author if we did and i think the an is of course we never actually did. we spent the cold war dealing with the soviet union that wielded a certain amount of influence. had troops controlled half of europe. i think our situation is unquestionably better now than it was during that period.
in terms of strategic situation in terms of wielding over influence. and i think the real way to look at this and john also talked about that is with when i measure american success and american influence, i measure it against the capacity do uphold a certain kind of world order which the united states has upheld for a many decades since the end of the second world war and a lot of changes the people focus on in don't affect the world order in a negative way. it's point jessica made. the rise of brazil, india, just like the rise of germany and japan don't count against that world order and therefore downtown count against the united states and the ability to influence things. our goal, yes is to create world order where we don't have to have necessarily as much effort in terms of getting other people to do things. but the problem we face right now is of course, there are those challenges, but even as i look at the challenges, countries like china and russia,
which don't share our goal for a global order. i have a hard time wish i were in the good old days of the soviet union. the ability to mention the shaping the order. the other thing is to overestimate how things fortunately past under estimate how terrible things are now. we're in the depth of a long recession. it it's a time to be dpressed. i understand that. people belie we'll get out of it. i think we tend to underestimate our capability and underachieve in the international system. i think we have more influence than we exercise. >> let's thought about issue of influence. the united states has just come out of a couple wars in the middle east where we spent $2 trillion. there doesn't seem to be a lot of political will to reengage. that's an limiter. we're broke as the country. that's a limiter on the influence and the ability to spend. we have to start spending less one way or another. that's a limber.
some of the international institutions that we work with in before are facing other challenges. our european allies are certainly inward looks. they have certain problems the japanese have certain problems. that limits them. nato went outside the boundaries and started broadening the mandate by going in to afghanistan. you even have today in the papers stories that they're leaving sooner. they're not happy with it and so forth. and in materials of our ability to project our force and the ability to project the influence, it seems like there's strong head winds at the very least. john, how do you think that's likely to manifest itself over the next year. we're talking about the next american president. how do you think he combats this or he is going to be capable of combating this deep seption of declining american influence. >> i think one thing that needs to happen the president needs to rearticulate rationale for the united states to leadership. where there are economic and
other head wind in front of the united states. that the united states still is a critical player, it will have to be a vision of internationalism that, if you will, on the sly and the cheat that is new ways the united states can make a difference without necessarily put martial lanes to work in every region of the world. i think the other way to handled the head winds is to come back to one of ther have chews and one of the screeses or strength of the american approach to global order that is that it does have a capacity for various reasons to partner and build institutions and work with other states. the contrast with china is remarkable. u.s. has 55 or more security partners of various sorts from a so z in terms of the nature of the commitment. china has one or two. the united states has somehow found it kind of natural way to
operate through international institutions through partnership and states and all sort mechanism that can generate cooperation. in the next phase of american history it seems like that's an asset we should seize upon and to some people call it burden sharing, some people call it redistributing the authority for global governance. it's all there. and it's part of leadership, and in more demanding times, it seems like that is a strength the united states could rely on. >> okay. jeff, let's look at this in a constructive way rather than wringing our hand about decline. again, the next president takes office in january, faces all the problems that tom enumeratedded at home plus fiscal cliff and tax ma ged don and dysfunctional congress and all kinds of things. are there concrete steps the president can take as the
principal foreign policy actor to reverse perception or counter the perception that the united states is in decline in terms of the global influence? >> well, the most important one by far is attempting to heal the risk domestically. we should have -- in answer to your first question, said what i think is the biggest change more the five areas tom taunted -- talked about that weakens us we have never been as politically polarized and divided. we never had a dysfunctional congress or as dysfunctional relationship between the two pennsylvania avenues. the biggest thing the president can do and he doesn't have to negotiate with any foreign partners to do it, is to get a side down the fiscal cliff that has a soft land age