tv Capital News Today CSPAN November 24, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EST
e sure it is streamlined but still safe. host: keith johnson has been our guest. you can read a lot of his work covering tsa and security issues. keith johnson from "the wall street journal." thanks for spending time with us. >> in a few moments, the later, a forum on the future of civil political discourse. >> take a look at the new members of congress with the c- span video library. find a complete list under the congress tab. every member is listed. including any appearances on c-
span. it is all free on c-span, anytime. it is washington, your way. the average prime minister announced his government's four- year -- the irish prime minister announced his government's four year plan. the prime minister met with reporters for 40 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] good afternoon, everyone. i wish to say a few introductory remarks. today we have come to announce a four-year plan between now and 2014.
to let them know that while we have a challenging time ahead, we will go through as we have in the past. the crisis that has come to ireland that we are dealing with since the middle of 2008, which we need to set out for the details as to how we deal with this between now and 2014 is similar in some respects to other crises and other countries at other times. those countries came through that crisis. they came through those problems. this is a time for us to pull together as a people, time for us to confront this challenge and to do so in a united way. to do so in a way which ensures those who have the most will make the most contribution, those who have leased will be protected to the greatest extent we possibly can, that no one can be sheltered from the contribution that has been made towards national recovery. i think is important in conveying to people why we can have a hope and confidence in the future. it is to say that the basic
idea behind this plan is to move our present levels of revenue, levelsf revenue of 2003, up to 2006. people can recall what their tax situation was in 2006, and that will give them an idea as to where they will stand on that side. in relation to government spending, we have to reduce our spending from 2010 back to 2007 levels. and of course central to all of this is not just the cuts in spending or the increase in taxes, but it is about growing the economy, identifying those sectors which are proving to be competitive, which are ensuring that we are burning our way in the world as we move to a past that we are earning our way in the world. miti 1.8 million people at home in jobs -- maintaining 1.8
million people at home in jobs. we believe we can grow the economy next year by 2.75%. on average but to me now and 2014. we do that predicated on our knowledge of the flexibility of our economy and labor markets, how we have improved competitiveness, and how we continue to grow and create jobs. looking at the fact we are a strong diversified economy with a strong multinational sector, a well scaled up irish native industrial base, internationally traded services, building on our national resources and agriculture and tourism, looking to the future with confidence with a well- educated population, the youngest population in europe and the greatest number of graduates, we are smart, resilience, proud people and we
will come through this challenge because we love our country and we want to make sure our children have a future here, too. this is an expression of generational solidarity. this is about we now having come through very good times in the previous sector, unprecedented prosperity for which lessons will be learned, too. we have to make sure in this new set of circumstances we provide the policies and framework that will get us through by 2014. that we will have a public service at that stage that will decide -- where we will have tax rates and tax levels of income tax at 2006 levels, that we would have spending back to what we were spending three years ago. this is something that can be achieved. this is something that the
people can envisage, a challenge that can be surmounted and it is one that we must all be determined as a people to overcome. i'm confident that the talents and will and ability of our own people is going to make this a reality for us as a people. i am confident that the -- i am hopeful that this plan is another confidence-building measure, another signpost along the road towards national recovery, a journey on which we have been on since the crisis began. finally, to say to our people that what we have done for the last 2.5 years has made that week -- has meant that we have made adjustments on the order of 15 billion euros, 14.5 billion euros over three budgets. we face an adjustment over similar size. we will front load this
adjustment next year by taking 40% of the requirement by having a $6 billion adjustment in our 2011 budget. this is about us making sure that we plan our way through these difficulties and that this four-year plan and our budget to be passed and our arrangements to be negotiated and finalized to put the facility in place that will add confidence to our people's capacity to overcome the challenges that we face, those three things can and must happen for our people in the weeks ahead. we are determined as your government to do that. we are appreciative of the assistance from states and european union institutions with whom we are engaged in a
constructive way to find a solution to a problem that is not just for ireland to consider or to confront, but for the wider euro area as well. i hand over to john gormely. >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone. earlier this week the government brought greater certainty about the timing of the general election. this afternoon we present plans to bring greater economic certainty for the coming four years. we must be candid and acknowledged that these are very difficult times for the irish people. we face the biggest economic challenges in the history of the irish state, and we must work with the eu and international counterparts to achieve a good outcome keep ourselves from our current difficulties. we in the green party late great emphasis on protecting education spending in preparation for the plan. we are proud education spending will be increased over the
coming period. this is vital to protect the needs of a rising generation. increased spending on education is above all central to efforts to rebuild national prosperity. so for these and other reasons, we have prioritized education. we have also worked to ensure the best environmental practices at the heart of this plan, minimizing waste and encouraging people to better respect our environment and our resources. we have insisted that what has happened before a fair system of overcharges is introduced. i will again be frank and say that these are elements in the plan, many that are difficult for many people, and we know that we are in our current difficulties because of past mistakes leading to an unsustainable property bubble, further inflated by reckless
banking practices. since coming to government in june, 2007, we have worked with our partners to deal with the ensuing problems. we succeeded in bringing in some reforms, but also the appointments of outside people to head the financial regulation system and the central bank. overall, we the green party worked hard to conclude this document before you here today, and we believe it is the first crucial step on the road to recovery for the irish economy. this four-year plan is the first of three crucial items which must be achieved ahead of the general election early in the new year. the other two are the budget of 2011, due to represented on the 22nd. this government is determined to meet our responsibilities to successfully conclude these
matters and help lay the foundations for a return of confidence and the irish economy, and above all else, ladies and gentlemen, to give the irish people greater hope in the future of this great country. thank you. >> thank you, john. ladies and gentleman, the government decided in early october to prepare a recovery plan, and i want to thank my colleagues individually and collectively for the enormous amount of work that has gone into this plan. government meetings took place on a constant basis since early october, mornings, afternoons coming evenings, weekends, and weekdays. all of that work was concentrated on rebuilding confidence in this economy, preparing areas where mistakes were made, and the plan has been launched or is being launched today.
as the negotiations for the external assistance program for financial support take place. but the work here is the government's work. as the plan points out, recovery in our economy is beginning to take shape. our underlying budget deficit this year will be 11.7% of gdp. our budget deficit will be 11% of gdp. with the benefits of the budget that will be introduced on tuesday, it will decline to 9% next year. our tax revenue this year is somewhat ahead of target so far and spending has been contained. it is expected that our gdp will record a small increase this year, improving on the forecast made at the time of last year's budget. that has happened on the back of strong export growth. indeed, our exports have held
remarkably well throughout this downturn. they are expected to grow by 6% in real terms this year. the growth is not just coming from the multinationals. our own indigenous exporters are also building their market share. it is to broad -- is a broad based recovery driven by exports and demand bite trading partners, and also by significant improvements and competitiveness that have already taken place. it has already been contributed to by our work force and employers. conditions in the labor market are beginning to stabilize. unemployment, of course, is unacceptably high. the register has fallen for two consecutive month, the first time in 2007. of benefit payments will show -- the benefit payments will show a small surplus next year but we are beginning to pay our way in a wider world. all of these data paint a
picture of an economy that is returning to growth after a deep and prolonged recession. the purpose of the recery plan is to plot a course and have sustainable growth in the four years ahead. the plan will dispel uncertainty, reinforce the confidence of consumers, businesses, and of those whom we trade with and are from outside the country. taxpayers have the benefit of knowing that the changes in the income tax over the life of the plan wilbring us to liberals a tense -- the levels of taxation we saw as recently as 2006. taxes paid by all holders will be introduced next year, averaging just over 2000 euros per household by the end of the plan in 2014, and the minimum contribution of 100 euros per household will be the maximum contribution for those most in need, pensioners and those in lower income.
the certainty that the plan gives about taxation over the next four years will allow consumerto plan investments and give them confidence to spend in this economy. the revenue measures in the plan will perform an overhaul our tax system, will broaden the base and provide revenue stabilization so that we can raise the necessary results to pay for public services we are about to see. we know from our experience and the international evidence that a broadly based tax system as its economic growth. it concerns not only the quantity of the revenue raised, but the quality of the measures adopted we will have a tax system that serves an advanced, growing economy. our tax system will continue to incentivize work and incentivize enterprise, incentivize innovation, and incentivize investment. for that reason, all but 5% corporation tax will remain unchanged -- 12.5% corporation
tax will remain unchanged during the period. expenditure will be brought back to years and will terms. the numbers at a public service will be reduced by almost 25,000 by 2014. we will not allow this reduction in numbers to be detrimental to the quality of the public service. that is why we have an agreement with our staff, that is why we have a public service agreement, and and efficiency and productivity will be delivered under this agreement. the reductions in expenditure of focus in the areas of public sector pay, pensions, social welfare, and other programs relating to the capital program. it is important to understand that they are the key drivers of expenditure, and that is why these have to be protected. careful truces have been made in determining expand -- careful choices that been made in determining expenditure over the next four years. investment in education is a
priority for the whole government. so is investment in innovation and enterprise. these will all be maintained at high levels to foster the growth potential in our economy. the labor market must be reformed to remove barriers to job creation and to incentivize growth and to make it worthwhile to employee and be employed. the minimum wage will be reduced, and the short-term focus return of the agreements that apply in agricultural, catering, and construction sectors is underway agreements cannot endanger jobs or prevent the creation of jobs for younger persons. this plan is not just about expenditure assessments and taxation arrangements but these are realistic strategies for growth in this economy. the strategy is set out in the plan both in terms of the conditions that will apply to reducing cuts and in terms of
each sector of the economy and the divestment of each sector of the economy and how the state can assist in developing different sectors of the economy. by providing certainty to consumers, the plan will provide certainty that the economy desperately needs. it is important for us to recall that the economy has had strong, balanced growth in the past, and the purposes of this plans to resume the economy on that track way of balanced growth. there are some matters in the past to which of necessity cannot be fully disclosed until budget on the seventh of december. the details of taxation within the annual budget and that will be the case this year. if, in your perusal of the plastic, you find it short in detail in some of those areas, it is because more precise announcements will be made on
budget day, as has been the custom and tradition. it is a rational and sensible plan and bring us out of the downturn that we are already getting out of. it will he ensure that as we climb out of it, we will do so on a sustainable basis for the teacher, ensuring that the next generation can enjoy standards of living that we have had the privilege of joining in recent times. -- of enjoying in recent times. >> the greens were very adamant that those fees would not be reintroduced the students contribution to those levels is effectively fees by another name, is it not, minister? >> note, and you will have to await the forthcoming budget to see how we deal with that particular issue. but we always said that education has to be prioritized. and he agreed with this
assessment that education was the most important issue, because he had the experience in his own country and in mind when they laid emphasis on education. -- on country in finland when they laid emphasis on education. again, i emphasize that you will have to await the budget to see where we go with that particular issue. >> this plan is going to cause lot of hard chip for a lot irish people. do we really need to make savings of as much as 6 billion because the labor leader argues the figure only needs to be 4.5 billion. >> the basis for what we're having in terms of providing a facility for the country is on the basis of a 6 billion
adjustment. that is the context under which we are operating. therefore, i don't agree, obviously, with the contention on that point. the second point to make is that, yes, this will ask a lot of all of our people. but i am confident that people, if we can do this in as fair and equitable way as we possibly can, that people will see that there is a genuine effort to see that the burden is shared appropriately and proportionately and progressively. if people can see that the basic contours, the basic format of this plan is about taxation levels and income tax at the 2006 model and spending at 2007 levels, then people will see over the next four years a progressive improvement in our situation. it is about creating jobs, the conditions under which we can
create more jobs for our people. without putting public finances on a more sustainable basis, we cannot have confidence or investment from business and the private sector to drive a job creation. we have got to create those conditions and work with people who are creating jobs. we believe that implementing this plan by 2014, we can get unemployment under 10% by 2014 by implementing these policies. this is a big priority for our people. it is realistic, and in relation to our spending program, we have to have it affordable for the moneys that the taxpayers are able to provide in the present circumstances. finally, at the end of this plan, of the 40 billion we're spending on foreign services, 40 billion -- of the 48 billion we are spending on foreign services, a 40 billion will be on health, education, and
welfare. we must make sure we have an affordable basis from the taxpayers' point of view in providing these services. >> one thing i would really emphasize is that the 4.5 billion was an adequate figure, because i'm sure he has said many times the state is funded halfway through next year, and then the state runs out of money. gilmor announced that he believes spending more money next year would make it easier for us to borrow money next year. under this plan, our overall borrowing will decline next year to 9%, a single digits. last year we were at 11.7%. this year we have to get to single digits, because every other country in the euro zone is in single-digit borrowing. never mind the single target we have to reach by a 2014. as a minimum next year, we have to get to single-digit levels. that means correction of the 6 billion.
everybody has pointed this out. when the commissioner visited dublin, he extended invitations to all the parties to meet him. deputy gilmor chose not to meet him. that is their own business. but they should be informed, and i know deputy kenny accept the figure. but debbie gilmor should inform himself of the basic facts. if we do not do a correction of 6 billion in this year's budget, we have no credible way of borrowing money to pay for our social welfare, to pay for a public salaries, to pay for our education system and health system. we have to face up to that as an asian and stop pretending that there are -- we have to face up to that as a nation and stop pretending that there are simple cure-alls. >> looking at these figures, it seems that your tax increases are going to be more than we
were expecting, in the next budget in particular on income taxes. the figures here will make the average middle-income person was off by 3000 -- worse off by 3000 euros a year. at the bottom end, or reducing minimum wage, it seems that minimum wage people will be subject to the engine tax for the first time it is that the case? >> no, i think you are anticipating the budget. i don't accept your contention that there are thousands and thousands of euros been taken off, middle income taxpayers in this proposal. we are out looking at approxately 20 euros a week in terms of the individual taxpayer. i accept that, but i don't accept the rather more inflated figures that you give it there. >> "irishtown times -- irish times." you talk about intergenerational solidarity.
isn't this an attack on the younger generation? all the pensions are not going to be touched, and yet you are -- older pensions are not granted to touch, and yet you are closing of the jobs to young people. where the jobs for them? >> well, the answer is that we have to make what are called structured decisions. in other words, what is sustainable in the longer term? we are seeing that in relation to pension provisions, new entrants to employment in the public service. when this four-year period is over and we bring back balance to a public finance and we have order back in the public finances, then, of course, we can forge ahead. our horizons can go beyond 2014, but we must concentrate over the next four years on consolidating our position, reducing what we spend as the
country, and basically improving our tax base. we have to have a sustainable taxation system for the level of services we are providing at the moment. and beyond 2014, there will be a policy framework that people can look at the new policies and new possibilities. in the immediate term ahead, this is what we have to do. we will create jobs by reducing -- we were sent out your to create jobs by improving the environment under which jobs are a creed, by making sure we have more credibility and we have a more competitive industry trade that involves keeping down our costs, making sure that people can solve more -- can sell more. trading circumstances are difficult, but this year -- we had a very bad year last year, we contracted by 9% -- we see manufacturing up this year. we are competing better, we are
getting more products and services out to the market in a way that will maintain jobs at home. >> public servants have seen average reductions in take-home pay of 14% apart from the additional taxation over the last two years. that has happened without industrial disruption. it will play an ongoing part in that. we are looking at public sector pensions any reduction in public sector pensions in this particular plan. we are working and will be working to make sure that there is a reduction in number. that can be done, and the level public service can be maintained, if we work with our staff. in relation to the and the people and their opportunities, by focusing the investment in education, we develop jobs and
we develop the human capacity to build and grow this economy. >> "daily telegraph." i am looking at some the details of what you call the deficit dynamic. the assumption seems to me. -- the assumption seems to be very optimistic. there are warnings that taking this money out of the economy is not going to help with ttp in this period. it also seems that it is not a straightforward fiscal deficit problem. you have a problem with your banks. it seems that your sovereign debt assumptions in this period seem to be optimistic as well. can you tell us more about these assumptions? >> first of all, in relation to get dynamics -- to get dynamics, this is part of the negotiations. i should point out that there was of a substantial correction last year of 4 billion, notwithstanding that we had growth in gdp since. the execution of that particular correction will cause
huge damage to the economy and lead to deflation and a lack of growth. it did not happen. we have to control the spiralling debt and reduce it. we have brought it under control and we are taking a decisive step in reducing that debt and bringing it down to single-digit figures. that is essential for the future of this country, and that is what we are going to do, and that will create confidence in this country in its capacity to manage its own business. >> "sunday times." if you are reducing the minimum wage by a euro and you are going to reform social welfare, is it implicit that the reduction in social welfare over four years will be of a similar order, 11% or 12%? >> in relation to the social welfare issue, we set out in the plan how we are going to go
about this. it may involve further cuts in rates during the course of the span, given how well other activation measures work. we are not avoiding that prospect. but obviously, we will have a very carefully consider that on a budgetary basis year over year. we have a situation where it is a very significant part, and during the good times, quite rightly so, we increase will be on the top living increases -- well beyond the top living increases, doubling the pension at the time. it was a very progressive approach in terms of helping those at the bottom to bring them to a threshold of income. they would not have been
contemplated prior to doing that. we now have a situation where we take some steps back in order to go forward again. it is obviously important that we maintain, to the greatest extent we can, many of those gains. we will not be able to keep all the gains we made, but we have to be conscious that people on low incomes and people on social welfare -- to assist them to the greatest extent weekend with the resources we have available and to grow jobs and opportunities for people. we saw that in the past when we sought a return to growth after the last recession. we were able to bring down fees for the work force for 12 months and were successful in getting people back into the workforce. we have a big job to do here, and there is no simple, easy solution that i can put forward today. but we have to come in making these choices and the budgetary
decisions going forward, be mindful of where we expect the burden to fall could we not in a position to say we can shelter people from decisions and maintain them in all circumstances. >> in respect of the inds, do they include the reliability with respect to the banks? >> yes, the current position. again, the forward position is a subject to negotiation. that will be made clear at the conclusion of those negotiations. as i indicated in reply to a previous question. you are right to raise the issue, because it is key to these negotiations, what our european partners are telling us, that we need more capital investment in the banks, more efforts to transfer, and
stronger guarantees in our banking system. they are looking to business on the measures the government has already adopted, and the precise cuts to this will be decided at the conclusion of the discussion. [unintelligible] again, you are anticipating a different press conference, because the negotiations have not concluded. [unintelligible] no, it doesn't, because as far as the budgetary position is concerned, the for work in the document is a realistic framework for the next four -- the framework in the document is a realistic framework for the next four years. in terms of the realism of this framework, it is correct. >> could i make the point, in addition to bryan said -- brian said -- we are providing for reducing deficits over the next four years, bringing it down to 3%. included in our figures are the
deficit requirements of the economy going over that period. if, say, we negotiate and finalize and except the facility for the country it would be possible to cut down some of that facility instead of the debt we are putting into the figures. the difference would be the difference in if there was the interest rate -- we are putting into our figures with the deficit requirements would be by 2014. [unintelligible] >> the point you were making that apart from this, some of this may be on the banking system. in relation to that, much of the funding their is being talked about as a contingency fund. to provide fire power, and is not necessary -- the national pension reserve fund also stands ready to assist in the
banking area, and that is not requiring any additional borrowing. >> your government has pledged specific investments in a number omajor projects in northern ireland. are you determined that the will continue at the thomas lovell? >> -- are you determined that that will continue at the promised level? >> yes, i am determined, and we will be able to proceed on the course we're seeing in reductions in our capital projects. i am confident we can work through those issues and they still have the priority that we would require when the money is required. is a multi-annual project. -- these are multi-annual projects, as you know. >> [speaking foreign language]
under what circumstances do you see taking up the offer? >> we will to the offer of assistance -- we welcome the offer of assistance from britain as to a bilateral loan, and sweden and denmark. there are a number of funds will make up the full complement of the facility when we finalize our discussions. as we say, those discussions are ongoing and i don't want to say anymore that. let me say that we welcome the offer that has been made. >> the chancellor has been extraordinarily supportive of ireland in this crisis, and we expect a new maturity in the relationship between the united kingdom and ireland. the united kingdom is required on a bilateral basis to be on assistance and we are grateful for that. the of a v -- they have been very supportive, and while we
would increase taxation on the plan, it is up the government to decide where those increases would take place. >> bbc news. you have a big financial problem with your government. do you blame yourself for the rest of the world? >> no, we take our responsibility at all times. clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, one would say that there were certain things you could do differently. but in relation to the fact that we are in any situation, we have to deal with the situation as it is. it is not a question of apportioning blame. the people will speak upon it shortly anyway. what is important for the country is that we bring this plan for word, that is credible, that it is accepted by people with whom we're dealing, acceptable to them, that we
bring forward our budget and complete discussions. this country, in the last 10 years before this crisis, showed what it was capable of achieving in terms of growth rates. we overcame his or problems of under investment and underemployment in -- our own -- historic problems of under investment and under plummet in our own country. this crisis has hit the people part in many respects and people are trying to find direction and a weight forward, trying to plan for themselves and their families. it is a human issue for many people, a very human problem that is affecting many people. but we have to confront the problem and move on, and we have to be able to do that, and we can do that by having our democratic accountability as well, now and in the future. i don't want to get into that debate. that debate will be had with the campaign begins. today is about putting its best foot forward.
here is what we need to do to put to rights issues that have been put to write to give ourselves the prospects of prosperity again. we are a people sufficient ability and intelligence to win our way through this difficulty. i hope that we can do that and don't pull it gether. -- and can pull it together. >> an answer from you and john gormley, please, but could you give us an indicative date for the next general election? >> i cannot do that, because i have indicated in broad terms what we're going to do. let the focus remained on today's business and let's see that this is one that has to happen. will we do is put this budget through, enact legislation required to do that, show our
commitment to 2011 is set, and then, whenever we have that completed, the people can decide on who they want to cover in the next four years -- to govern in the next four years to get this applies the implemented. -- get this plan implemented. >> this document is important from an economic point of view, and the preparation that has gone into it. it is enormously important from a political point of view. it sets out realistic options that are open and available to this country in europe ahead. this document has to be the basis of any sensible proposals in the next general election. anything ellsberg forward is not. -- anything else put forward is not. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, prime minister's questions from parliament in london. it in half an hour, the head of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases on drug-resistant diseases. then a forum on the future of political civil discourse. later, john bolton on threats to representative governments and the free market economies. >> this year's student documentary competition is in full swing. make a video on this year's theme, washington, d.c., through my lens. upload your video for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000.
for all the information, go to studentcam.org. question wednesday's time, british prime minister david cameron lead -- joined at mellon band mourning the death of 29 miners in new zealand. he also took questions about the financial crisis in ireland and immigration issues. this is about an hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am sure the whole house wishes to join me in paying tribute to the guardsman of the irish guard who died on wednesday, november 17, and afghanistan. he was the 100th british soldier to die this year, a reminder of the high price that we pay for the vital work that is being done. he was the 100 british soldier to die
we send our deepest condolences to his family and loved ones. this morning, we had meetings, in addition to my duties and the house. i will have further such meetings later today. ministerial colleagues and in addition to such duties i should have more meetings. >> i join with my col dolences and express families to the families of those in the new zealand mining disaster, two of whom come from scotland. did the prime minister share my concerns that while 100% tips are passed to the staff some are using scams to pay national insurance while ripping up to 14% of the staff tips will. will he grow to meet with myself and a delegation of hospitality workers of the one year review on the operation of law on tips. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, the honorable gentleman is entirely right to
mention the tragic accident at the new zealand mine. i spoke to new zealand prime minister john key this morning and our thoughts and with the whole house with the 29 miners who lost their lives. i know a high commission and the consular officials are in touch with their families and doing everything to help in what might be an impossibly difficult of time on the issue of tips, the honorable memory is a wonderful campaigner on this. it's right that tips should be distributed to staff. they should not be used to top out the minimum wage and they should not be diverted in any way. the law is very clear, tips musn't be used to back up the minimum wage and enforcement officers should take action to ensure that doesn't happen. and they should have a look of the code of practice that's produced and make sure that the hospitality industry is meeting this code of practice. >> will my right honorable
friend will take steps to sort out the mess on the square and on the 29th. does he think reasonable that visitors from london to home and abroad should be faced with a no-go area surrounded by a campsite? >> i have to say i entirely agree with my right honorable friend. i will always defend the right to protest and protest peacefully and it's entirely free that people should protest but i have no reason why they are able to sleep in the square. i had many discussions with many and i think april the 29th is too far a deadline to get this problem sorted out. >> mr. speaker, can i start by joining the prime minister in paying tribute to guardsman christopher davis of first battalion of the irish guards. he like our other troops died
providing heroic service to his country. and could i also join the prime minister in expressing deep sadness of the deaths of the miners tragically killed in the mine explosion and from scotland. i know the risks of miners take from working underground and our hearts go out to the miners' family and friends. can i also thank the whole house for the good wishes on the birth of my second son samuel. and in particular, to the prime minister and his his wife for their generous gifts. [laughter] >> i'll keep the gifts secret. [laughter] >> but i want to turn to -- i want to turn to a decision which has been made in advance of the education white paper in which there will be a statement at 12:30. is the prime minister aware of the deep concern among schools, families and leading sports men
and women about the education secretary's decision to take away all of the funding from the highly successful school partnerships? will he now overrule the education secretary and reverse the decision? >> well, first of all, let me welcome the right honorable gentleman back and congratulate him again on the birth of baby samuel. i very much know what it's like. the noise the mess the chaos trying to get the children to shut up. i'm sure it was two weeks away from it all. [laughter] >> he's very welcome. [laughter] >> the point about the sports funding of the white paper which my right honorable friend is talking about. we are taking a lot of the specific grants -- we're taking a lot of the specific grants that were spent on specific subjects and putting them into basic school funding. what it means the school's budget will go up 3.6 billion
over this parliament and i have to say to the honorable gentlemen what we experienced over the last decade is, yes, a lot of money put in the sport but we didn't see a lot of progress. yeah. we didn't see a lot of progress. let me just give him one figure. the number of schools offering rugly, and gymnastics. >> the prime minister will regret that answer because he shouldn't believe the nonsense the education secretary telling him. since 2002, we've seen an increase from 25% to 90% in the number of kids doing more than two hours of sport a week. we've seen 1 million more kids as part -- doing competitive sport between schools. and, and i would have thought the prime minister supported this. we have a network of 200,000
volunteers from the school -- i do say to the prime minister, that sounds like the big society to me why is he undermining it? >> let me tell you what it's ended up after 10 years of this approach. only 2 in every 5 pupils play any competitive sport regularly in their school. only 2 out of 5. that is a terrible record. only 1 in 5 children play competitive sport against other schools. the approach that you took for all those years didn't work. the time for endlessly telling head teachers what to do, how to spend their money is over. it's time to trust head teachers, give them the budget and let them decide how to make sure we have great competitive sport within school and between schools. >> okay, mr. speaker, if you won't take it from me, perhaps you will take from joe phillips who is the school sports
coordinator in his constituency. she says this in a letter. i'm devastated to witness the potential demise of this legacy of the sweep of mr. gove's pen and i wished he could have talked to our students, our parents and our local sports clubs and providers. i do say to the prime minister, this is a daft decision, it is a daft decision that you should u-turn on as soon as possible. and i'm afraid it sums up this education secretary. high-handed, incompetent and unfair. why doesn't the prime minister get it? >> last year the proportion of 11 to 15 years old playing sport went down. this was after all the money they spent, all the initiatives. it simply didn't work. what we are doing is protecting the playing fields under our planning rules where taking back the betting and borrowing schemes. but again, there is a fundamental difference.
their approach was specific grant after specific grant wrapping teachers and schools in red tape and not making any progress. we take a difference approach. put the money in the school's budget, growing by 3.6 billion pounds, holding our schools olympics, promoting school sport. that's the way they will make a difference. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i ask my right honorable friend during his international negotiations regarding the island at any point did anyone actually suggest that those countries with large deficits should be slowing down the rate in which they are reducing them? >> the honorable lady asked a very good question going to the g20, going to the g8 and going to european counselors there is absolutely nobody who thinks if you've got a big budget deficit you should do nothing about it. the only people who seem to be taking this view are the party opposite they've now got a new approach. they're having a policy review and it says this. this is the leader of the
opposition. in terms of policy, we start with a blank page. [laughter] >> it got to be a great help with the g20. [laughter] >> russell brown. >> thank you, mr. speaker. uk border funding to support immigration on other religion work at the ports unit ceased yesterday with the commitment that all such work would be dealt with in northern ireland. without additional resources all at that location i believe that that cannot work. if in the coming months the portshire in my constituency does not see a reduction in cases, will the prime minister revisit this issue? >> i think it's incredibly important what we do at our borders. i spent some time yesterday with the home secretary at heathrow airport meeting with u.k. staff and i want to help them go on doing that.
the answer is that what we're going to do is make sure that the immigration work will be done in northern ireland and i will look at this to make sure that the system is working. >> geoffrey clifton brown. >> does my right honorable friend that a proper plan to the irish economy would be far less damaging to the wider economy this country then some of the other possible dire alternatives. >> my right honorable friend makes a good point. every man, woman and child pays 3 million on pounds. they are very intertwined and we do right to ensure stability and growth from the irish economy. >> jim sheridan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the context of we're all in this together, could the prime minister explain why he is proposing to abolish the
agricultural wages po protect some of the -- and at the same time, he is protected from solid scrutiny the salaries of those in the country. >> we have looked very carefully at all and tried to work out which ones need to stay and go. i think that was long overdue. we have a minimum wage in this country. we have a tax credit system and there are so many quangos that aren't doing any value. >> mr. william cash. >> would my right honorable friend explain why at every city the city of the investigative order, the economic governments of europe and also the stabilization mechanism that this government is has more integration and no repatriation of powers?
>> i'm surprised to hear that these wrong. under a previous government we would have caved in when they asked for a 6% budget piece. we will make sure -- >> order, i want to hear the prime minister's views about the honorable member for stone's views and i hope the house does. mr. prime minister? >> we will secure to make sure that future bailout mechanisms should not involve non-euro countries like britain and that is something like we're going to secure in europe. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister agree with me just as it is right to disclose top salaries in the public sector so it must be right to require banks to disclose a number of employees paid salary and bonuses over 1 million pounds? >> yes, we do agree with that and the last government commissioned -- the last government commissioned the walker review, david walker has carried out that review. he's made his report. he's made very clear that he
thinks that we should make progress with this transparency agenda at the same time as other european countries. that is a view we think should be taken into account. and i think it's important -- he shakes his head. the fact is -- the fact, he was part of the government that appointed david walker. i'd rather listen to someone who knows something about banking then someone who doesn't nothing something about anything. >> mr. speaker, he'll have to do better than that. he's demanding -- he's demanding transparency, rightly from the public sector. but unless we have transparency in the banking system, then shareholders can't exercise their duties to clamp down on unacceptable bonuses. when there was news when it was in the offing and he said transparency is the key to confidence in any commitment from our banks to behave more
responsibly on pay and bonuses. why won't the prime minister listen to his business secretary? >> we agree with the approach of transparency. that is why the walker review was set up. that is why we should examine what walker has to say. i have to say i will take lectures from the honorable gentleman about certain things but not about the bank. he was in the treasury when they didn't regulate the banks properly. he was in the treasury -- he was in the treasury when they set up the tripartheid system that failed. he was in the treasury when they had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. he was in the treasury when they gave fred goodwin a knighthood. i'd go back to the blank sheet of paper if i were you. >> i'll compare my record in the treasury anytime to his. he was there on black wednesday. black wednesday.
now, isn't this just typical of the prime minister? before the election he promised a day of reckoning for the bankers. we passed the legislation. it's there for him to implement. it's not very much to ask, mr. speaker, all that the legislation would require is that they would to have publish the banks, the number of people -- not even their names as the chancellor used to call for, the number of people getting pay and bonuses above a million pounds. it doesn't make sense to wait for europe. why doesn't the prime minister show a lead and just get it done. >> he says -- he says he wants to contrast his record in the treasury. yes. let's just remind people when he was in the treasury they built the biggest budget deficit of any g20 country. we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. he says it was his government, it was his government that set up the walker review and he should listen to what they have to say.
i got to say, the honorable gentleman has got nothing to say about the deficit, has got nothing to say about regulation. he's just the nowhere man of british politics. >> mike -- >> mr. speaker, i'm sure -- i'm sure the prime minister is aware of the november campaign where a man growing mustaches for the month of november for prostate cancer. would he join knee half million people worldwide many in the u.k. who are on the 25 million pounds this year in sponsorship and given how good we look, would he consider joining us next year? >> first of all, can i congratulate the gentleman of a mustache specimen of the mustache that he has grown. it's absolutely right to raise awareness about prostate cancer. i think it's a very good charitable move.
i can see some of his neighbors have followed his example as have some of the people in my protection team. they are all to be commented for raising awareness about this real killer that we need to do more about. >> mr. geoffrey donaldson. >> i join the prime minister in paying tribute to christopher davis who sadly lost his life in afghanistan. the prime minister will be aware of problems with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by many service personnel and veterans across the united kingdom. will he give a commitment to implement in full the report prepared by his honorable friend the member for southwest wellshire to help our veterans and service personnel with this? >> he did an excellent report particularly about mental health issues and how we need to invest in those both in the forces and in our nhs and we're carrying out those recommendations. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
can the prime minister inform the house how much foreign students contribute to the economy? how much jobs they creates and how much for funding for higher education for domestic students? >> foreign students do make a big contribution to british universities and to the british economy but i have to say to the honorable gentleman the home secretary went to heathrow yesterday to talk with border agency staff and the one thing that they all raised was the problem of bogus students coming to the u.k., people arriving at our borders who have got a visa, who are claiming to go and do a m.a. or a b.a. and who can't speak english. i'm quite convinced as i've said at this dispatch before. we can control immigration properly by cutting down on bogus students and people coming here without a reason while also helping the u.k. economy at the same time. >> would the prime minister agree with me 162 million pounds
of sports budget is a prize worth paying for the health and fitness of our school children? >> everyone wants to see an expansion of competitive sport in school. i feel absolutely passionately about this issue. the approach we've taken for the last decade has meant that only 1 in 5. that is pathetic. 1 in 5 of our children are playing competitive sport against other schools. you have a choice in politics. you can go on with an approach that is failing. you can go on with an approach that is failing or you can make a change and do it differently. they are shouting on the front bench because they know their record was one of lots of money spent the complete failure. >> the issue of workplace bullying has been highlighted in an article in the new statesman this week. i quote ed's team are terrified -- they think they are going to kill him because -- >> order, order. the honorable gentleman will resume his seat immediately. that question has got nothing,
whatsoever to do with government policy. mr. dennis skinner. >> if the prime minister is so keen to put a cap on immigration why did he earlier state that he gave his 100% backing for turkey to join the e.u.? surely, he knows that most immigration to britain comes from the e.u. doesn't he think there's a stench of hypocrisy about this immigration policy of the government? >> i have to say i think the honorable gentleman is wrong for a very clear reason. if you look at immigration, the balance of migration of european countries and the u.k. is broadly in balance. the excess immigration is all coming outside of the e.u. the current figures were for for
net migration of 2,000 a year. that is 2 million people across a decade. in our view that is too high. it needs to be cut and a cap is a very important part of that. >> jonathan moore? >> what assessment has the prime minister made of the statement that there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike? >> well, i have to say he is completely and utterly wrong and i think the world in a slightly mad place where someone who supports militant tendency can get elected to the largest union in the country on 17% of the vote and that same union basically picks the leader of the labour party and pays all his bills. it's completely wrong and if he's going to be a reformer he better do something about it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. despite being slightly a head to the curve in the mustache stakes, can i -- can i take the prime minister back to an explaining we had in june and
further to the question to the honorable gentleman for lock and is really. much more needs to be done to help troops returning conflict. the prime minister i know is concerned about it. i am very concerned about it. and i hope that more will be done. in particular, there's so many homeless people now coming back and also the medical services are necessary. will he please commit himself to making an urge statement on this matter before long because time is running on. >> the government is very closely focused on this issue. it's not just about medical services as the honorable gentleman says. it's also about long-term mental health needs. in the u.s. veterans are contacted every single year to check up on the mental health status. when we look at the mental health problems that came out of the fortunes war where more people killed themselves in fortunes than died in that war we're storing up a huge problem of the future because of the incredibly active service that people have seen in both iraq and afghanistan. we need to prepare for this now. the government is fully aware of that.
i'm very, very aware of it myself. i'm not sure about a parliamentary statement but we do want to legislate and make sure it goes through everything it does. >> does the prime minister believe the tax rate should be temporary like the shadow chancellor? >> yes, i agree with the shadow chancellor. the interesting question is whether the shadow chancellor agrees with the leader of the opposition. the leader of the opposition has got two policies on tax, the graduate tax and the 50p tax and the shadow chancellor doesn't agree with either of them. >> before the election, the prime minister pledged not to cut education maintenance allowance. and the deputy prime minister pledged to vote against tuition fees. can the prime minister now explain to my 17-year-old constituent lauren bedford the difference between a pledge and a promise? >> what i would say to your constituent is that we inherited a complete mess from the previous government. we have a choice.
we can deal with it or we can end up if a situation like ireland and other countries where it's not just cutting educational maintenance allowances. you'll be cutting everything. what we're going to do is replace it with something that is more targeted on those who need the money to stay on at school. that, i think, is in the best interest of her constituents and everyone else. >> eric -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. stepping stones in algeria is a children's based charity in my constituency. it worked with its nigerian partners of children who were accused of witchcraft often if they were left they would be persecuted or killed and recently been subject to a great deal of intim days can i ask my right honorable friend to do whatever it can to assist the children'sased charities in nigeria? >> well, we do have very close relations with nigeria and i'm sure the foreign office will be interested if what he has to say and the charity he's referring to does an extremely important
job. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is the prime minister aware that in the nursing home in my constituency there are some of the 60,000 people across this country whose quality of life is going to be shattered because of his government's decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance? how can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either 1895 pounds a week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives? >> well, it's important, i think, that we make sure disability living allowances is paid consistently to people who are in hospital and to people who are in care homes. that's what we're doing. and as i understand it, the labour front bench support this change, yes? >> no. >> on a previous occasion, the leader of the labour party said he supported to disability living allowance or is this another area where it's back to
the blank sheet of paper? >> mr. speaker, now that the government has brought forward details of its new homes bonus, will the prime minister join me in rug si council who are proceeding with proposals for substantial development? >> i do think this is important. for years we were spending lots of money on housing but not building any houses. why? 'cause there was no incentives for authorities and we're changing that and i believe that even though the resources are limited a lot more house-building will go ahead. >> i'm sure, mr. speaker, the prime minister will agree with me that education is a powerful agent for social mobility. and while i welcome in principle the pupil premium, emerging details seems to suggest that taken together with the
withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, it could detour some young people from staying on education. will the prime minister agree with me thed delegation of experts to address this problem. >> i know the right honorable gentleman has addressed this problem and i'm sure the education secretary will be happy to meet with him to discuss this. basically what is happening here is that we're seeing per pupil funding that is not being cut and on top of that, you're going to see the 2 1/2 billion of the pupil premium. so that is going to mean overall the education budget rising by $3.6 billion across this parliament. that's a substantial funding increase. i'm sure that the pupil premium will have the effect that i want and he wants but i'm sure he can look at the detail of it with the education secretary. >> mark spencer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've been recently meeting with many charities in my
constituencies and indigo children and many of whom have expressed concern at the reduction of local authority funding and the timeline between the openings of the big society bank. can the prime minister assure me -- can the prime minister assure me to the access to that big fund will be quick and easy for those charities to snacks >> yes, i can. the point the honorable gentleman raises is exactly why we're raising 100 million pound transition fund to help charities that might be affected by difficult decisions by local authorities to help them through that time. that's exactly why we're doing it. and i expect we would have the support of the whole house in doing so. >> shaun james? >> could the prime minister explain to me how the cloture of the identity will pass the security of the country and will be replaced by a risk assessment system which surely cannot be right and cannot be safe and secure?
>> i'm very happy to look in the case the right honorable lady said. we are having to make savings right across the public sector. that does mean big changes in the way we do things but in each case we should be looking at making sure the effect we want to have is delivered by the money we spend. we have to do that across the public sector any government we'd have to do that but i'm happy to take up her individual case. >> andrew bingham? >> and in my constituency have suffered due to excessive traffic. as we try to get the best from the meager resources from the party opposite -- what -- what -- what words can the prime minister offer his encouragement to the residents that will bypass us in the future. >> they don't like to hear about the mess they left this country in. but just in case there aren't any doubt, we'll be talking
about the mess they're making not in five months time but in five years time too. now, in terms of transporting expenditure, we are spending 30 billion pounds on transport investment. that is more than government and the party opposite planned and that means there will be schemes ahead and i wish him well with the work he'll be doing with the department of transport. >> it's now nearly four years since the collapse that left hundreds of people thousands of people throughout the country without a christmas. they have not received one penny compensation or or an explanation yet. will the prime minister meet with me to bring this story to a conclusion as soon as possible. >> i well remember the case t right >> in a few moments, dr. anthony
fauci, head of the national institute of infectious diseases on drug-resistant diseases. the then former un ambassador john bolton on the free market economy and representative government. later, we will look at new airport security procedures. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, an update on iraq. author samuel casey carter joins us to talk about his new coke. we will look at government efforts to reduce poverty with the center for law and social policy. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m.
eastern. now a discussion on the decrease in number of diseases that are becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs. from "washington journal", this is 40 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: our final guest, dr. anthony fauci of the centers for disease control -- guest: national institute of health. host: i'm looking at all these papers. i apologize. guest: that's ok. host: we have lots of headlines about aids, but even though the risk of aids and the number of deaths is going down, there is a dramatic increase and the number of deaths from antibiotic- resistant things like bacteria
and other so-called super bug spirit what is happening? guest: what happens is that as you get more intensive treaent in hospitals, you get pressure from microbes to be able to escape the force of the antibiotics, which essentially it suppresses them. one was a ridgely sensitive to penicillin, a common, easily administered drug. as it began to be used more in hospitals and outside of hospitals, the microbe, the bacteria, evolved to become resistant to penicillin, but there was another drug called mrs. hillen that was able to suppress it. the more we use it, the microbes, because of extraordinary evolution our capacity to escape an antibiotic, began to become resistant. now with the situation with
90,000, at least, for yo -- per year per race of infections in which there are about 19,000 deaths. a decade or so ago, most all the more hospital-acquired -- most all of them more hospital- acquired now, about 15% of these are community-acquired. you can get infected from contact with someone who has staff on their hands. adon't even have to be near hospital. that is called a community- acquired. the whole issue of antibiotic- resistant microbes is a prominent one, but others, including ones we call the grand negative infections, you generally see associated with serious diseases that people have. it is a growing problem. host: let's get one set of statistics to understand why
this is a growing problem. this is for the centers for disease control, and it is health care-related mrsa infections. people got these when they were seeking treatment for other issues. 2% in 1974, 22 per cent sign -- 22% in 1995, 64% in 2004. on the line with us is congressman phil gingrey, a republican from georgia, a doctor, a member of the energy and commerce committee. he is one otwo members of congress, the other being henry waxman, behind legislationhat would spur a pharmaceutical company is to develop more antibiotics. est: thank you very much. it is good to be agreed to and have the opportunity -- it is good to see dr. fci -- it is good to be withou and have the opportunity -- it is good to see
dr. fauci and discuss this important issue. host: can you explain thiwhy this is a priority? guest: is a priority for the very reasons dr. fauci just mentioned at the beginning of the show. the emergence of antibiotic restant bacteria, such as the stf the caucus, but there are many others -- bugs coming back from iraq and iran. our troops are being exposed to a crowded conditions, and more and more we're seeing these drug-resistant bactea. some of the so-called gene that allows them to mutate very quickly despite any wonder drug. all of a sudden you have antibiotic-resistance and no way to treat. we have, because of this, through the energy and commerce committee i introduced a bill
called the gain act, give antibiotic incentives now, bipartisan legislation. we really hope, susan, that this will answer the problems of why pharmaceutical companies are not developing new antibiotics. over the last 20 years, when you look at fort-year period, the number of new antibiotics that have come on the market -- the last measure was, i think, 5, a rapid decline. there are many reasons for that we can discuss that as well. host: let me get one another perspective on this. we have a chart that i can put on your camera. this is from the infectious diseases society of america and
food and drug administration. one chart shows the number of antibiotics approved purcell, which, as you suggested, has been going down dramatically from the 1980's until the last two-year period. but it suggests in a sidebar that the number of clinical trials under way whout legislation you suggested is really picking up. over the last 10 years, it went somewhere i didn't read from under 20 to about 45 or so. -- somewhere in theeighborhood from under 20 to about 45 or so. it looks like pharmaceuticals are going back into the business of searching for drugs in clinical trials. why is legislation needed? guest: susan, that is a great question. we talked to a number of pharmaceutical comnies, large and sll, and we know for a fact that the chart on the right that chose clinical trials increase in -- some products are almost a point of bringing to market and getting final
approval, but the pharmaceutical companies have put the products on the shelf. the reason they have done that, and dr. fauci may want to comment on this as well -- the seven-year period of exclusivity does not give them enough time to recoup their investment. this becomes a market-driven problem. we feel that in this gain act, one of the main provisions is to extend the time of the exclusivity from 7 to 12 years to give them an opportunity to recruit and make a small profit -- recoup and make a small profit. also in the bill is to streamline the approval process and for the companies to be able to get information at the fro end of the fda in regards to what type of clinical studies and they require so that companies don't waste time and energy going down the wrong track.
i think that answers the question. but that is a very good point you ma. host: we ask you to be with us for a few minutes. thank you for adding your perspective about legislation that you hope to propose and promote any nd of spirit we will see when you get back to washington bri. guest: well, susan, very quickly, let me just say how pleased i am to hear from dr. fauci. he does great work and i have enjoyed having him testify before the energy and commerce committee in the past. host: thank y, sir. appreciate it. have a good holiday. dr. fauci, could you comment on the pressures and regulatory pressures on drug companies? guest: congressman gingrey makes a good and important point. the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop and that by ex is far less than inctives -- develop
antibiotics is f less than incentives people have almost every day in their life -- lower cholesterol, blood pressure, things that have wide distribution and are used continuously. if you look at antibiotics and how they are used, they are generally used for a limited period of time, 10 days, two weeks for the course of antibiotics. after awhile, there will inevitably be resistance to the antibiotics, no matter how good it is, particularly if we don't use it properly. pharmaceutical companies have a small window to make up the expenses and investment they put in and get a profit in have to go on and develop other products. what congressman mckendree is talking about is to try and alleviate -- congressman gingrey is talking about is to try and alleviate some of the constraints on them. we are trying to tarnish chips
with public and private companies, --rying to have relationships with private and public companies, to have a collaborationetween government, private, and industry, in order t get legislation such as this and other attempts to alleviate the regulatory burden and get them to have a greater incentive, and i think it will go a long way to getting us where we want to be. host: there is agreement that more kinds of antibiotics need to be developed. guest: no doubt about it. the pipeline for antibiotics is rather dry, if i may use that metaphor. given the need for a double ax and the need for having antibiotics replace those to which -- the need for antibiotics and the need for antibiotics to replace those which are micro-resistant is no work or we want to be. we are having communityacquire
d resistant microbes. that is very troubling. host: i've read this analysis frequently, which is that one other complication is the widespread prescribing of antibiotics for people who do not need them for the illness they have. guest: there is pressure on the part of the community upon the physician, where if you have enough of a respiratory infection, the vast majority of the time a virus that needs nothing more than local, symptomatic treatment and not the end up by addicts, people come into the doctor's office and expect -- and not the antibiotics got people come into the doctor's office and expect the prescription. sometimes they will be disappointed if they don't, so they write a prescription, and the in appropriate use of antibiotics is one of those things that pressures those microbes to start becoming resistan so that when someone comes in with an infection that ally is -- that really needs
antibiotics, it is difficult to treat. host: we're talking about the increase in resistance -- health care-related, mrsa infections, and her infections that are resistant to antibiotics we currently have, what the causes are and what the solutions are, with dr. anthony fauci. virginia, jane on the republican line. caller: this is to dr. fauci. you discussed comnity-acquired resistance and contracting mrsa. this is rather difficult for me. my mother passed away about month ago, and she had other health issues, but upon our arrivaat the hospital, within 24 hours of tests, they told us she had mrsa. facilitiesnt living
that could not have been there. -- facility said it could not have been there. what is being done with our reach,ssisted living facilities? as much as they try to keep the facility clean, this is where my mother spent or life for the last year, and she came directly to the hospital and was in the elite told she had mrsa. -- i was immediately told she had mrsa. there needs to be more outreach within the facilities. guest: thank you for comment. i'm sorry to hear about the situation with your mother. certainly there is a considerable amount of our reach an awareness on the part of long-term care facilities, because we know that there are problems and recurrent problems not only with methicillin- resistant stea but otherph -- staph, but other microbes
which caused problems in nsing homes around the country. the situation with your mother is something that susan and i were just discussing, community-acquired. if your mother went into the care facility and immediately had methicillin-resistant staph, it is likely she acquired it on the outside and had at the time she went in the way we get around that is to decrease the overall resistance of microbes in the community by but hospital practices, but hospital infection control -- but hospital practices, a good hospital infection control, and also the appropriate use of antibiotics. that really is a challenge. host: just picking up on that theme, this i ands an anecdotal question, -- this is an anecdotal question,ut you hear about people worried about going to the hospital because
they might get sicker than when they went in. what can family is due to decrease the possibility of contracting something when they go into the hospital? guest: the is little they can do other than having the hospital that acutely aware of this. at this day in 2010, we have a very, very good awareness of what hospitals need to do. i make rounds of my patients and hospital -- at the hospital at nih and you lose your accreditation if you don't wash your hands before you go into a patient's room, aer you come out of the patient's room, dress in the to -- gown. a good hospital will have those practices in place double click prevent the spread of these infections. -- that will prevent the sead of these infections. host: is there anything by which they need to record the
incidence rate? guest: you can find out exactly. in order to maintain accreditation, they have to be transparent as to the rate, the prevalence, the incidence of hospital-acquired infections. host: john on the line for dr. fauci. caller: good morning. about six years ago, my father had mrsa. he was a farmer, he sold farm equipment to read a little accident produce a cut on his leg, and within two weeks he was in the er. my question is, is it items like that, or the fact that he got the cut and got staph from the enronment around him? guest: well, would very likely happen, and we cannot say for sure, but this would be at the ba -- the a compatible
scenario with your father, is that when he was very healthy, he had a very frequent and have better -- frequent i nhabitor with other types of staph on his skin. it broke the protection barrier on his body, which in this case was listed it was innocently acquired, perhaps from shaking -- which in his case was on the skin. it was innocently acquired, perhaps and shaking hands with someone. that is the reason why without even going to the hospital, he developed a resistant infections. that is what we were referring to over the pasteveral minutes as community-acquired staph resistant to methicillin. host: i have a report here, "the superbug you have never read of -- never heard of."
what are some of the properties? guest: the most common way you get it is it if you are receiving antibiotics for another reason. you change what you call the flora of your gastrointestinal tract. there are billions of microbes in your gastrointestinal tract. most of them don't hurt you. they live a life of mutual non- agression in the body. but every once in awhile, when you perturbed that environment in the gut, the microbes suddenly become the relent and cause problems. -- become virulent and cause problems but it can make you very sick and even kill you. what is happening is that the prevalence of this has increased in hospitals, as they have been treated not appropriately, they
develop a resistance. you have a strain that is common. people all of a sudden develop resistance, and you put a person under the condition that allows the microbes to flourish, you find it is resistant to antibiotics you normally treat it with. we have seen serious outbreaks in nursingomes. it is usually people who for the reasons have compromised their health. either they are very elderly or are vulnerable to other illnesses. but a perfectly healthy, normal person can develop this infection. host: dr. antho fauci at nih. wisconsin, alex, republican line. caller: good morning. i am a survivor myself. i'm calling in regards to a
couple of factors about hospitals on the prevalence of removal of the mrsa. how about copper fixtures? have you had any conditions that you have been aware of that they have been bringing them back? guest: i did hear -- didn't hear -- ho: copper fixtures. guest: no, i am not aware of any work that has been hundred do -- been done. caller: it is now being brought in where they are utilizing more copper fixtures -- wash basins. the other thing was, universities, colleges and universities have in public funds used for development of new antibiotics. we are going to need these, and why not give incentives to
universities to strongly develop? guest: you have brought up a couple of good points. first, let's get your item about how you can minimize the occurrence and the spread of these drug-resistant microbes. whether use copper fixtures are not, the overriding approach would be a good hospital infectn control, the kinds of things we were mentioning about hand washing, about using proper types of gowning and gloving so that you don't spread it across the hospital could that in and of itself goes a long way. with regard to universities, particularly university hospitals, medical schools doing the kinds of research that we at the national institutes of allergy and infectious diseases are supporting, in ordeto get the pipeline of new drugs that we were talking about, and as we mentioned earlier, we can only
do that if we of collaboration and cooperation a public- private partnerships with the pharmaceutical companies. host: i want to bring together thfirst topic we talked about this morning, tsa screening procedures, and this comment from twitter, if i can get it on screen here. is not opening. there we go. there is something around the internet, and you can either concern a -- the -- bout tsa agents not changing gloves for every person. uesst: from what i can g there, i understand they pat you down over your clothes. sure, there are bacteria that
can survive on clothes, but when you're talking about skin -- to my knowledge, they don't pat down their surface of skin and individuals. i think not. what i have seen on tv and the internet is th they are pattin g down people through their clothes. host: technology -- upi.com a to this story, "new form of lighting kills germs. technology developed by researchers at a university in glasgow decontaminated the air on a narrow specum of invisible light wavelength." guest: i cannot comment on that because i don't know the data. the use of certain types of lighting is very common, even at
our own laboratory at nih. wh you leave at nightyou flip on a like that is good at keeping the count of microbes in the laboratory low. that is one way to do it. if that is what they are referring to, maybe a modified or improve form of that, that is a possibility. i don't know the data so i cannot comment. host: is there and the proper amount of technology-based research --? appropriate amount of technology-based search? guest: oh, yes, beyond just creating new antibiotics. host: sean, independent line. caller: i have a question regarding the use of antibiotics and farms and livestock and the veteran gary industry. the use large quantities of anbiotics and that encrages
the spread of antibiotic- resistant organisms? guest: that is a good question. we have had a lot of discussion on that and i have had the opportunity to testify before congressional hearin on that. many organizations that are involved in the raising of livestock use antibiotics not to treat an infection or even to prevent infection in the animals, but actually to enhance the growth of the anils and make them bigger and healthier. there's been considerable concern that whenever you give an antibiotic to any living creature that has microbes associated with thatreature, you would have the potential, at least, to pressure towards the evolution and development of antibiotic-resistant microbes. that is one of the things that i'm concerned about. the fda has come out discouraging the use, the widespread use, of antibiotics
for the peer purpose of making them grow bigger and healthier, not discouraging its use for the old us of the animal, but not using it in the absence of illness. host: bruce, democrats' line. caller: yes. i just heard the representative from georgia and was blaming superbug coming from iran and iraq. the farming operations were these superbug are actually being produced -- cld you expand on that a little bit more? but these bugs coming from iran and iraq, or are they being developed right here in the united states? i just read a book about it, and today, 10% of the pork you handle as mrsa on it. guest: that is a good question. we have to remember that now,
particularly in the time we live now, 2010 and beyond, that we live in a global community. extraordinary about travel throughout the world -- extraordinary. -- extraordinary amount of travel throughout the world. it can evolve here and go someplace else. you don't want to say that we are blaming other people for it three or it could involved someplace else and come here. what you heard just a little bit ago when you are talng about infections among our troops in afghanistan, in iraq, where there is a particular microbe that generally can be treated well but has now developed some resistance, there is a microbe that is transmitted by a fly, again in the middle east and iraq and afghanistan. there is also a resistant microbe that you usually see
that this long and kidney infections -- gives lung and kidney infections, particularly in india and people who travel to india that get operations that have to do with cosmetic operations, faceless and things like that, and come back and have this microbe -- face lifts and things like that, and come back and have this microbe that is actually resistant there was concern that we were blaming india for that. when you look in the united states, particularly in new york, they have had a similar type of resistance strained for some time that has nothing to do with india. since we live in a global community, resistant microbes can come from anywhere, including originating in the united states. host: how does the united states compare in its rates per population? guest: the united stes has a lot of hospitalization, a good, expense paris system.
-- good, expensive health-care system. you caargue whether it is equitable for everybody. but peoplcan get care late in life when they can develop a number of infections. we are the perfect setup for resistant microbes. in other countries, were you can go into a drug store and without prescription by antibiotics, like we see in south america and asia, that is kind of an inducement towards the development of microbial resistance. host: they are taking too many -- guest: they can go to a doctor and without even a prescription get the drugs themselves. host: kevin, republican line. caller: pleasure to talk to dr. geti could you really to talk to a physician who is on your notice of personal madison
years ago. in the critical care unit, i notice thathysicians and health-care providers were mostly understanding the importance of all of the precautions, hand precautions, gown and glove, but it is also important for family members to pay attention as well. this seems to be an discourse between the families and friends when they visit patients, and if the people who care for loved ones walk in with , make- a gown and glove sure you do the same thing. the question i have, do you ever think we are chasing the wrong end of this animal with the new antibiotics for different infections? we're seeing resistant increases across the board.
sensitive staph -- it can keep methicillin-resistance in check. maybe a way we could have a symbioticme bioti -- fora instead of going after it with a bigger, better bazooka? host: how long have y been practicing medicine? caller: 10 years now. guest: kevin makes a very good point. first, it is absolutely important, what he said, that you kind of defeat the purpose if you have physicians and nurses and health care providers in the hospital gowning up and with hospital precautions to see a patient, and then the family member will come in and not do
that. that is the responsibility of the hospital staff to make sure they educate the family. sometimes you are under-staffed and you cannot look at everybody who walks into the room. but maybe just put a sign on the door that before entering, you must wash your hands, put on gloves, put on gowns or what have you, as you go in. the other thing he was referring to is that rather than developing new antibiotics the good fight resistant microbes, why not change the flora to allow the microbes that could crowd out the resistant microbes to actually be your shid against resistance? it is an idea that is being pursued, particularly in the arena -- there's a lot of research. during that goes with the vaginal -- research we're doing that goes with vaginal flora, that if you can put in the vagina a group of microbes that
are very benign that would crowd out the ones that are causing infections, that is what he was talking about. host: 546 minutes left with you. i would be remiss if i did not talk about the new aids stories out this morning. "the new york times" is it front-page coverage good to our audience, we will spend another segment on this at some other point. "study finds don't really lowers the risk of -- shows the drug really lowest risk of aids." guest: in a study that involved men having sex with men, they divided into two groups, when received a placebo, and the other received a drug that is commonly and extensively used throughout the world to treat people infected with hiv.
in this case, if you took a pill every day and you are at a high risk of infection becaus of your sexual practices, even if you use condoms and try to reduce the number of partners, taking the pill increases your risk of getting infected. the results were really quite clear that of the individuals who took the pill, overall in the study, there was a 44% decrease in the risk of hiv infections compared to the placebo. but importantly, for those who took the drug for at least 90% ofhe days and they were supposed to take the drug, the decrease and a wrist was over 70%, -- decrease in risk was over 7%, a major finding and new tool. host: another report in "the new york times." "chris against the disease is still fragile -- progress against the disease is still
fragile." do we know what the implications of this study might be on the overall goal will hiv -- guest: if this gets adopted to be a prevention modality, and there are difficulties with that -- the expense -- we are suspicious and the good sense that this will work as well in women and heterosexual men as it did with men who have sex with men. hang said that, this will be considered for sure by countries as an additional tool in the tool kit of prevention. right now we have had quite a good year and half. we h a vaccine tested in thailand that was modestly effective. we're not there yet. we had good results with microbicides in south africa. as these things which were, we will see headlines -- these
things mature, we will see headlines on more reductions in hiv. host: do you want to comment on the pope and condoms? guest: long time coming condoms are clearly an important tool on it preventing the spread of hiv infection. host: pam, you will be the last an hour wednesday morning ogram. democrat. caller: it has been shown that 80% of pharmaceutical company money is spent on advertising and only 20% on research. this was according to a group in michigan, including senator stabenow, that showed this. michigan is the onlstate in the union that was unable to sue pharmaceuticals for harm or death. this was brought in by a
republican governor to entice more groups to move to michigan and do more research. that never happened. third, i come from the health- care industry. i had a staph abcess several years ago. i know treatment is restricted and is one of the antibiotics is held so that when it is needed, it is necessary. but if you use to many antibiotics, not this one necessarily, you will create other problems. guest: she is right about the advertisements. that is what pharmaceutical companies want to do, sell their products. they put some amount of work on research. we would like em tdo more. we would also like to be able to partner with them more. i am not critical of them, i
st think we need to partner purred with regard to michigan and being able to sue, i cannot comment on michigan politics because i am not aware of it. and that antibiotic is an extraordinarily good drug to be used against methicillin- resistant staph. we want to keep in reserve so that when you do have a resistant microbes, you have the big gun. host: when you and i were young, drug companies were not allowed to advertise. what has this done for society? guest: what happens is thayou get pressure from the people, the community, the public, on their physicians rather than leaving up to the judgment of the physician. as a physician and public health official, i think overall it would be best n to try and get into the head of the general public, to give them the
opportunity to pressure a physician to give them a drug that may not be best for them. they should direct advertisements towards the physicians to educate physicians about the properties and risks and benefits of the drug, rather than out the >> in a few moments, of form on the future of some of the political discourse. in less than two hours, former un ambassador john bolton on threats to free market economies. and then we will look at the court -- new airport security procedures. then later, prime minister's questions from parliament in london. >> take a look at the new members of congress with the c- span video library.
find the complete list under the congress tab. every new member is listed. it is also free -- it is all free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> now a discussion on the future of civil discourse. this panel, hosted by emory university in atlanta, included donna brazil and radio host monica crawly. this is a little less than two hours. >> >> i would like to welcome you today to a civil discourse on the politics of confrontation and america. today you will have the opportunity to hear from the dynamic group of speakers who
will shed light on the challenges facing important public and scholarly dialogue in our communities today. in light of national and university events that have taken place, this event will delve into the complex relationship between education and civility, media interest and a scholarship. the role of social media seems to impact students. however, the issues raised today affect all citizens, and a matter one's age, race, or socio-economic status. it is my hope that all of you today in the audience will share with your friends, family, and colleagues the lessons you learned from today's events. although the dialogue and the debate will not end here, i am excited that discussion is starting today at this university. it speaks to the fact that our school continuously strives to be at the forefront. this is a discussion that should be occurring across the country and what better to place a better place to start it then at
-- what better place to start it and at universities. >> again, good afternoon and welcome to the panel uncivil discourse on the politics of confrontation in america here at emory university. we have an exciting panel of experts, analysts, and esteeme authors. i am currently serving as the student association president. before we begin, i would like to reflect upon the meaning of civil discourse. every day we communicate with one another through our words and actions. do we truly understand each other? are we aware of our peers true meanings, intentions and thoughts? or do we merely speak over one another in an effort to have our own point heard, understood, and value? as a society, perhaps we have forgotten it the most important aspect of maintaining the civil discourse among ourselves.
-- the art of listening. . perhaps listening today will allow us to understand the context of our new and dynamic world, the constant change in politics, tragic events of intolerance and discrimination across the world. -- and an ever-present need to understand and seemingly contradictory cultures to which we are exposed on a daily basis. it today we are fortunate enough to practice our art of listing during a discussion of these issues and more with our panel of experts. to introduce our discussion today, we would like to welcome to the stage the dean who assumed the dean ship of every law in 2006. he told the academic position of prof. of law. he previously served as vice president, dean and prof. of law at washington university school of law for six years. he joined the faculty of
vanderbilt law school in 1987. he was a fellow in the institute for public policy studies and was acting dean from 1996-1997. he held positions in the australian government as a senior legal officer for the commonwealth's attorney general's department in canberra. he was responsible for policy advice on the racial discrimination act and racial discrimination legislation. . . discussion. from 1988 until 1987, he was a member of the australian national university and he served as associate dean from 1980 to 21995. he has written books on defamation and free speech, a child mental-health, --
ha it is fitting that this conversation takes place at the law school. at the law school, we discussed daily. -- we discussed daily matters of importance in the world. we get from the right and left a poultice, often the idea of lot is ridiculed. this is seen as an empty vessel in which raw politics can be carried out. on its face, the rule of law is
a debate a round institutions that support liberty. that is a heritage supported and shared by many nations. this is not exclusive to just one nation orust of the united states. there are nations that are built around institutions that have been molded by time and tide. they are pluralist, tolerant, and civil. these are precious and delicate institutions. the founding fathers recognized that a delicate quality. they appreciated the passenger of the people -- the passpassio of the people.
great burdens were put on the people as it was in all of emerging forms of responsible government. throughout the early debates in civil society, society, although it appeared to be floundering in the early experimentation of the republic, it was to be reinforced byves eliminating preferences -- buying eliminating prejudices. people were taught to be virtuous. the very term "commonwealth," is that citizens were to look beyond their own interest. although political structures had to guard against temptations of self-interest, sexual interest, education would be there to support the best
angels. in every age and in every democracy, voices have been shrill and politics dirty. john autumn's said that sometimes they have failed. institutions were weak and had been eroded by shrill voices. the application of those shrill voices now together with the media grafted upon a population which is poorly educated about civic matters. it is curious when an
institution has failed and civic education and has failed to have the kind of education that we will have to attend. they don't penetrate sufficiently to protect our institutions. the marketplace of ideas which is the metaphor for the first amendment operates on the idea of a town hall. unfortunately, the town hall has become a rock is bizarre which can undermine the pillars of the republic. we need a change. it is this conversation that addresses this issue today. i felt sure that we will have a wonderful afternoon and i can assure you that it will be civil. thank you. [applause]
coul>> we would like to introdue some of our panelists and the moderator. could you please take proceed as we read off your biography? dr. patrick --, the calhoun professor of american history specializes in villages, intellectual, an environmental history. he has an undergraduate degree om oxford university and went on to a ph.d. in american history from the university california, berkeley. is the author of the two books on british and american history. >> dr. monica crowley is a panelist on the mclaughlin group. she is a nionally syndicated radio host.
she holds two master's degree and a ph.d. from columbia school of international affairs and worked as a foreign-policy analyst. >> dr. kathleen cleave. she practices law in new york before joining the emory faculty. she dropped out of college to join -- and then became a leader in the early by panther party in california. she coedited "liberation, imagination, and supply party -- and of the black panther party." dr. -- is a contemporary author and scholar of middle eastern affairs.
he has served as a senior level adviser to leading policymakers and is a frequent contributor to cnn, npr, bbc, and nbc. he's the author of "the rise of muslim capitalism." dr. -- has a ph.d. from the university of chicago. she is the author, editor, and translator of 8 books on indian religion. she is co container of the peace initiative at emory. she has served as the chair of religion from 2000 until 2007
and currently is the cha of development and excellence at emory. >> professor donald brazil is a prominent political analyst and a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist. she is also a contributor and commentator on cnn. finally, i would like to introduce our moderator today. he is the james m. cox professor of journalism at emory university. he has worked in mississippi, boston, philadelphia, and the atlanta for 35 years with the bad.
--for 35 years. his book has won the pulitzer prize. >> popoand you. thank you for being here. we come together at a very emotional time. and by all external evidence, we are a deeply polarized nation in the middle of economic destruction, technological of people and cultural change. what we don't know is the response to these forces. we are a deeply polarized nati in the middle of technogical upheaval. i don't think that any would say that this is the most
expressive or polar ice time and our history. we achieve this through personal attacks, unbridled diatribes that led to war which led to liberation and ultimately to the founding of this natio in the years that followed, the argument that could not be worked out to debate that settled through pools. blood ran in the square. dend from up the road drew large and cheering crowds across the nation, outside his house,
as he delivered speeches which delivers speeches and the most in elegant imery to hammer african americans and their culture. he spoke in a tone that sometimes appears over the airwaves today. he would say that he pitied people and that he had come to enlighten them. he will tell audiences before posting that he and his fellow southerners had to shoot blacks to "take the government from them. "this is the white man's country and shall be governed by the white man." later, a procter -- proxy said that minorities control the government and he wanted to take back his government.
"i will fight it to the last ditch." the academy amerced in the 1960's as ground zero for free speech. so much that in the same year that the dogs and hoses were released on civil-rights demonstrators inlabama and the same year that a bomb hit four girls, -- was able to do a tour of college campuses and speak with some but stirred little interruption. after the turmoil of 1968, the resignation of president nixon, we went from the 1970's and into the 1980's when the tenor of our political discourse appeared to improve. at the same time, or cultural
dialogue coarsened. "nbc today show," moved from the news division to the entertainment division. they employed p.t. barnum techniques to gain market share. provocations that many as you will remember the company shouting matches the shouting matches became the outrageousness of jerry sprier. the low cut dresses of -- of the 1960's adult films became the pg-13 films which shows a young adults sniffing lines of cocaine off of the chest of women. a loosening of self restraint continued into the 2000's.
we went through the time in the 1960's when much she small and sports was despair's for a while. gordon gecko became the symbol of the end justifying the means. people were perfecting the kind of motivational trash talk and they pounded thei bodies into the skulls of other athletes. where we've surprised by the discovery ofoncussions? does that become a metaphor if we don't find a way to restrain things seem to survive if they are meaner, stronger, if they become trash talk. there is some trash talk which some people clarifies the issues, this is in the mississippi legislator.
many believe that it only provokes our worst instincts and the same way that this is a precursor of concussions. what if we decide that a speech is a precursor of hate crimes? what are we going to do about it? will we find some other way to elevate the discourse? what will it say when history judges? would say that we saved the american dream or we weakened it? these are questions we will discuss today. i will open up with a question to the panelists, based on their own knowledge of history, on thei own observations, whether or not they are alarmed today by the tone and tenor of discourse and by the reach of this discourse into everyday life. if they are, i would like to
know why. if not, i would like to know why not. >> would you like to take that first, professor brazil? >> let me say what an honor it is to be on this panel was such distinguished scholars. some of the people of i admire. it is a great pleasure to be in the city of atlanta. a city that is so progressives that it arrived in the 21st century six months before the untry. i like to say thank you for your southern hospitality, especially those of you who reached out to bring in many of my relatives and other from the gulf coast during that horrible moment in our lives ding hurricane katrina. let's talk about what happened last tuesday, what impact this would happen on the civil discourse.
what happened was an electoral earthquake. the loss the democrats suffer has changed thebalance of power. this is also the third major change that voters have made in washington in just the past four years. can the two parties work together for the common good? will 2011 be a repeat of 1995 when our differences caused a major government shutdown? what the election did not do, i'm sorry to tell you, is to change the way washington operates. if you have hope for stability and cooperation, well, please to not hold your breath. unpopular opinion is that the voters rejected president obama's agenda. i don't think that that is even close to reality because they
rejected how congress operates. th rejected the lack of civility in washington d.c. and they sent mixed signals on how to proceed on issues like tax cuts, climate change, and so on. public confidence in government has eroded. it has been going downhill since the 1980's. the recent downward trend began in the fall of 2008 when public satisfaction was at its lowest peak. republicans trust government when they are in power. we are in a vicious circle of revenge, retribution, and of course, the partisan politics of a gridlock which keeps the partisan fires burning on both sides.
washington is gridlock in 2010, washington will be gridlock for the foreseeable future unless members of ngress learned the art of compromise. we're used to the inflammatory rhetoric which has defined our debate. we go on television and we argue our points from our perspective camps. of course, we try to settle our disagreements by outdoing each other. we have not resorted to fistfights. unless we tone down his rhetoric, who knows will happen now that we have 84 members of the tea party ready to come to washington, d.c.. very hard to tell which traction the country will: and especially when eveone will continue to
point fingers. one of the things that i found interesting in the run-up to this election was that there was a small group of lawmakers, about 130 former members of coness, from both political parties, who wrote a letter to their colleagues urging them to be a, urging them to tone down the rhetoric and of course foc on problem-solving. what struck me after they made their announcement is that no one in the news media picked it up. this is a story that perhaps fell on deaf ears within 30 minutes of the press release. let me say that as an old capitol hill hand, i started
when i was in my early 20's working as a staff member and later returning as a chief of staff. there is no question that they are not in the mood to get along or find common-sense solutions. i think that 2011 will bring very different group both lawmakers to washington, d.c. i doubt very seriously that the republicans will move to the center for the democrats. what we have seen is the removal of those who are in the middle of the dialogue and now we are left with a healthy group of liberals and a healthy tea party group of conservatives. good ck and let me say this as my closing point, a couple months ago i wrote a column and called on the networks to get rid of --
i called upon my network to remove us unless we have various that touch something very knowledgeable to say. one of the reasons why our networks are reliant on parsons is to keep us partisan. it is difficult to keep us together. >> thank you. [applause] they accept >> i would like to ask dr. crowley the same question, are you alarmed by the discourse? >> i am alarmed of certain elements of it. overall, no, i am not. when you look at the course of american history, we have a great tradition of verbal
brawls where we on other sides of the important issue, we argue our point of view passionately and relentlessly and sometimes it does cross the line and sometimes those passns to overtake us and we get a bit out of control. when you go through the history of the u.s., what we are seeing is something new. you do have a 24 hour news cycle, this is exhausting because you never get the full story, he can neverust read the new york times, "the washington post,",r other publications and just be done with the day. "the new york times just updated a story.
when you look at the course of the united states and what we have experienced here and how far we have come in a very short amount of time, i think that this is due in large part to what we tend to bemoan here today which is a train wreck of ideas. now, we can out-we can have a conversation about how they will be done the train wreck of ideas and drove the u.s. tohe point of pre-eminence in the world in a short 250 years. think about the revolutionary times. if you go back and look at what the founding fathers called each other, your hair would stand on end. we are quite different today.
they had such bitter policy rivalries, jefferson and adams, that they were both obsessed with outliving the other. jefferson died in virginia and unbeknownst john adams, a couple of hours would dine -- would die. his famous last words were efferson lives." he did not know that jefferson had already died. we think about the world war ii era as a great time of unity but there was some very bitter debates about whether the u.s. should intervene in europe and in asia. those debates were wild and brutal and vicious. of course,slashfort to the civil-rights era and we know what those debates were all
about. many in this room lived through the very vicious times. in modern history, we havthe vietnam era which gave rise to some very animated debates. watergate, of course. the new think of the modern presidency is, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, highly polarized figures. you think of the 2000 election and the passions that gave rise from that. then the george w. bush presidency which was highly polarizing. that was called everything from hitler to a war criminal. then you have barack obama who was equally tarnished and maligned. this is not just on the right
but also those on the left that make their displeasure known. i think the differences and the reason why we are here having this conversation is because of this news cycle that includes cable television. i work for fox news, so i am part of the beast. this is a beast that constantly needs to be fed with new visuals. i don't think that there's anything wrong with having passionate points of view on where you think the country is going. i have a problem with people who use personal attacks to make those points. that is a serious line that is often clark -- crossed on both sides. when you have the media, not as cable news but the internet,
facebook, the social media, twitter, which i do not do. you start gettingnto a cycle where it starts to feed on itself and it feels like you need to top yourself all of the time. i worked for president nixon during the last years of his life and one of the things that heaid to me it is that presidents are so caught up in the accelerated cycle that they don't build times into their schedules to think. that is true for all of us. we tend not to have the time or make the time to think. when you are immersed in this new cycle, exaggerated the differences and attracts the
exaggeration of the differences. that is not necessarily a bad thing but this is up to the electorate, to all of us, to talk about what we would like to focus on. the market would then sort it out. in conclusion, i would just say that the train wreck of ideas is what drives this nation forward and the best ideas, they don't always win but eventually they do rise to the surface. we as news consumers need to pay close attention to where we give our me, attention, and dollars, and then let the market sort it out. >> thank you. i would like to discuss this ne with dr nasser. i will remind all theanelists that we want to try to keep our
responses in the prescribed time frames. >> thank yound thank you for inviting me. it is very good to be here. the short answer is yes, i think that the lack of civility in public discourse is much higher in i intensity and town. this is perhaps a problem facing the united states that encourages this trend. i don't think that the quality of our public discourse helps us in dealing with them. for instance, having the name calling and to the simplistic descriptions of health care reform or financial regulations, this makes dealing with things more difficult. there are three things which i think the while looking at it i
find very problematic. one the lack of civility which seems to be targeted at particular communities that are not covered by the rules of polity and crectness. this can be quite controversial in ways that previous episodes might not have. secondly, i think fell lack of civility in our discourse has gone handn hand with dumbing down the debate as much as possible and with a lack of sophistication. the most intense voices tend to be the most ignorant. this tends to be in areas such as terrorism, islam, capitalism,
etc. it is like we care less about knowing and more about having strong opinions. we are pushing the population to have strong opinions rather than not. we live in a time of international connectivity. it used to be that only hollywood connected culture and images of the u.s. to the world and now it is also cable news, social networking. what we say and how we say it is not only limited to our own environment. that is different from earlier episodes of intense and uncivil public debate in america. this does impact both the image of america and ultimately help people understand our power or
stding or influence. for instance, the tea party movement was mentioned. most of us never thought that the language wld begin to seep into europe and lead it to the creation of self-styled european two-party movements. on the other hand, the image of the president of the nine states president- the president of the nine states as hitler is deeply shocking to those in europe. -- the president of the united states as hitler is deeply shocking. >> would you like to discuss whether or not you have cause for alarm. if he wouldike to take it one step further, is to any particular thing that you attribute the current state of instability ?
>> i am alarmed by the collapse of the rule of law and so much that it protects fundamental rights. that is what is very upsetting to me. i would like to speak not as a lawyer but from the perspective of someone who went to register voters in 1961. i was a high school student and i was working in my home town. this was the tuskegee civic association that had recorded us to go out and register people to vote. i was about 14. it was discouraging because many people were intimidated and they did not want to register. two years later, girls like me were blown up in the baptist church for demonstrating against segregation in
birmingham. the bomb was put there by the klan. by there, and -- by then, i had gone off to college. then president kennedy was assassinated. and by 1969, i was listed on the d f p i 8 key -- list. -- i was listed on the fbi list of instigators. tea party activists have today and are similar to the well- dressed and middle-class members of the clues klan. we have had a democratic president it was once a member of the close clan. we have had supreme court justices who were members of the
ku klux klan. they are not outside of the parameter. they go inside of the mainstream. my real question is whether we are dealing with civil discourse or are we dealing with the question of the distribution of power? we have had some very fundamental disagreements. there was a lot of hatred over the health-care debate. this is appalling. i cannot understand why people are so hateful, the about four people having health care. those a protest in december new york against the attorney general. 200 people came and they were protesting the decision to try
an al qaeda operative in new york. people were calling him a traitor, etc., but people were calling for his lynching as well. why is it ok for you to call for the lynching of the attorney-gener? eric holder is trying to represent double of law. he says that we should try prisoners in our court as criminals and get guantanamo bay closed down. there is the argument that this is a military necessity. the cil war had issues similar, how do you treat traders or prisoners? and civil war cases, this is pointed out by eugene rothschild
is says that the same issue comes up. these were the sons of liberty who were traitors and they were trying to bring the confederate army behind the lines in tennessee. they were tried by the military and sentenced to death. the supreme court said you cannot try this man under the circumstances when the courts are open. there is no martial law. this is the important case. this idea that we can rudiate civil liberties and allow the courts not to handle this terrorism is at the core of this. i find the idea of a university could be ordered to hire
professionals -- professors of a certain viewpoint, is reprehensible. this is reprehensible because he published a book of the kind of professors that he did not like. he would le to undermine people like me, so full rights workers who then came to the university and talked about civil liberties, etc. now we are being looked at dangerous professors. i got a letter congratulate me from the general counsel. what will someone to, you are in georgia? >> you have made the enemies list. >> i think the university is where we can talk about
fundamental ideas and that is what is missing. in the news cycles, you cannot even talk about half an idea. who is going to talk about what is war, what is fair because there is the whole issue of them claiming liberty. liberty is the claim of those people who were fighting for their independence with celebrity. when you hear them talking about a pretty, they're not talking about freedom. who was out demanding freedom, freedom, freedom? freedom from what? freedom from those people. there is the recycling of some of that element. we were able to challenge this and prevent that from going to a fascist state. when the rule of law is threatened, i am alarmed.
>> thank you. >> i would like to thank you for raising the relationship between politics and culture. that is the way in which i will address the question. i would like to thank donna for raising this question of gridlock. one of the things i'm interested in is the cultural dynamic of gridlock. getting as talking would-be interesting. i would like to address monica and -- we can think about what monica has argued for. good ideas and name-calling kind of go hand in hand. there are times when name-
calling and dumbing down can go hand in hand. those are two fundamentally different points of view about the relationship bween name- calling and the intellectual content. all of us agree that we would liked intellectual content as part of our old and we don't know how to get it back. one of the things i think a lot about is this question of say a buddhist like to see from ancient india or tibet where name-calling and intellectual content actually went hand-in- hand. the more intelligently to consult your enemy, the more intellectual content you were proven to have. this is an interesting point of debate. i am fine with name-calling as long as it continues the democratic association of ideas,
the democratic mix of ideas, a democric context. when that name-calling stops the exchange, then we have a problem. this is not a foregone conclusion that they go hand-in- hand. the two are actually aiding and abetting each other. the way i see it in terms of history, i think a lot of what has happened today has its roots in the 90's in terms of multi- cultural interest groups. i think that charles taylor did a beautiful job in talking about why groups need public recognition. what happened is that as a result, we expanded the public sphere and a very powerful way but we contracted the idea of a
common good. we have an expanded public spirit and a contracted common good. that is where we run into trouble. special interest groups including religion ceased to think about themselves as parts of alliances and parts of the common good. one of the things that has emerged is another symptom of that which i think originated in this context in the 90's and the possibility of irony. we live in this age where we see ironic advertisements all the time, we see those that are ironic about irony. we cannot talk about ourselves in a healing way, in a therapeutic way. the one place we cannot be ironic about ourselves is in
public. i think what has happened is because we don't have an idea of the common good, we are stuck in the special interest gros without the rhetoric of irony about ourselves. in response to the danish cartoon controversy, the president of iran said that we are going to have a cartoon contest about holocaust and that will be our revenge. and that's really -- at an israi is percent that they would have a competition first. it was more about which crude could be more ironic out themselves. -- it was about which group could be more ironicbout themselves.
very rarely do we think about alliances in theay that some parliamentary systems do. in terms of what constitutes public self irony at a group level. i would like to throw those questions out there. >> i would like to discuss this in a few minutes. are you alarmed or worried, dr. alex? >> i am astonished by the incredible high lel of good manners that americans show. i come from a country against which the u.s. fought a revolutionary war and then i travel around the country and it is very kerber -- very courteous. this is completely unexpected.
when i was growing up, the television shows have a high level of violence. when i first came to america, it was surprising to me how peaceful everyone was. to some extent, i have not gone over this. the first american election campaign that i saw from inside of the u.s. was the campaign between president carter and ronald reagan. it is highly ritualized behavior. people going to politics are self selected. they willingly entered the arena in which they know that there's a point to be disputes and they know that there will be bitter exchanges, etc. nearly everyone else watches this things thinking that it is
just the politicians going at it. this is not seen as a threat to the core of our being. it is assumed that they will be petulant, childish, and irritating. if you are not a member, you don't have to be worried about the fact that this relentless a mutual 19 is going on. -- mutual nagging is going on. i teach american history here at emory university. i will ask them what religion they are. they will say, i'm a methodist. i will say, tell me why thiss right and all the others are wrong. they will absolutely not do this. i will not make any claims, i will not tell you mine is right. the moral principle that they share is an incredible appreciation for the importance
of stability towards the others. they will not make exclusive claims on behalf of their own faith. they would do anything rather than say that they are right and therefore that one is wrong. freedom of speech is a great good and no wonder some people who have freedom of speech will use it rather aggressively. second, if you compare the nation according to its ideals, you will be disappointed about how far short of it comes. if you compare the nation against the other actual missions in the world, then once the pictures just looking some much better, it is incredible house civil the american people are to one another. even the politicians, despite all the hard words, everyone agreed that the election would take place. >> this comes after the name caing. politicians know what they're
getting into. they know what to expect. the technology allows a lot of people to hide and to throw stones from behind trees, from behind and anonymity. this has a corrosive effect. now we have a point where a young college student couldst i voted for his sexuality and he feels compelled to take his own life. -- where a young student gets outed for his sexuality. the technology has allowed the anonymity. this has gone mainstream. you write a column and the comments that flooded into which are mean spirited and unbridled
ineffective. i'm sure you probably get some of that yourself. that does to people's ethnicit gender, gender preference, everything. that is a real change, isn't it? >> spa i have to tell this great story. back during the 2008 democratic primary, i would get e-mail from people who are saying, you like, you have to endorse obama. then, a few minutes later, you are a female, you must endorse hillary. i did not take a stand and that at various incendiary e-mails from blacks and they got even worse e-mail from females. i finally began to address my friends saying that i am also grumpy and become an old, so perhaps i will endorse john mccain.
is not a socialist. he is not without much of a liberal. i am a liberal. the muslim attack, the attack on his religion, his face. i have heard it all. i've defended the clinton and sex, so. the point i'm making is that it is ok to have strong and vigorous debates. they should be based on facts. >> they should also be based on accountability. there is no accountability if you don't know who is doing it or saying it. obviously, the congressman from south carolina, we know the is what he calls the president a liar. he stood up to it and responded to it. now, there is this on scene bubbling turmoil and anger and hostility that is directed on anyone. -- unseen turmoil and anger and
hostility that is directed on anyone. we have more of those people were considered to be giants of the public, george mitchell, sandra day o'connor, lee hamilton, vernon jordan, taking on the role in the public eye right now? seemingly off to the side? itit's difficult to say who giant is going to be. q when truman was almost universally hated. you cannot find someone now to say a bad word about him. 20 years from now, people will say, why do we not have such people now? >> the political process is so brutal, given the glare of the 24 hour news cycle, that decent people on both sides do not want to subject themselves to that. they do not want their families scrutinized, they do not want to have to file financial disclosure forms for whatever reasons, and so the political process now attracts all lot of
very good people and a lot of sort of a second string people. in terms of the giants and those that you name, those people are doing very good work behind-the- scenes. george mitchell is deeply involved in the middle east peace process. sandra day o'connor is doing good work. alzheimer's because her husband suffered from that disease. you had heavyweights who are operating behind-the-scenes. you've also got heavyweights who have taken the risk to enter public life, what the barack obama on the left, or paul ryan who was one of the most serious conservative senators in the u.s. senate vote, agree with him not. you have a lot of serious thinkers entering the process. the problem is thathe process so often distorts perceptions th you do not always get