political vehicles, whether the senate has the appropriate structure for this air etc.. that is one rate question of political functionality. the others other is the polarization of american society on many axes of wealth distribution, political views or whatever. each of these has some relationship to china's rise, especially the structure of the economy but you could say if china had not gone through its last 30 years of revolution these would still a great issues of the united states. so it is striking to me that compared today with the japan concentration of 25 years pass, and i was living in japan at that time, think there was more reason to think that japan's structure was involved in america's economic problems of those times than it is to think china's rise is really connected to what is happening in the u.s. now. so point number one is american should think of their own successes and weaknesses as being intellectually separate from whatever china's achieving or not and that is one of the fear factors that joe is talking about. i will let sound engineers do whatever they wan

client's executive -- objectives. what are the access points, actors, tools, etc. that's the real world. okay? and we're very fortunate this afternoon we're going to have another one of our mentors that's going to address this issue a little more about how to manage clients, how to deal with clients' expectations and all that. which is good. for our purposes for the institute, right, we've kind of decided what the ask is here, right? we've kind of decided what that is. the ask for our purposes is going to be for half of you to develop a plan, a full-blown legislative lobbying plan that covers all of the congressional arena, that covers all of the major policy actors in the congressional arena, involves the president as the chief executive who has to sign legislation. you, you're being told to develop with a full-blown congressionally targeted lobbying plan to enact a bill or to defeat the bill, all right? in this case. you don't have the luxury in this class to say, you know, i think we could get at your problem by doing something less, or i think we could get at your -- why don't we wa

is in a lot of ways washington is the same old story. contesting issues in the public, nasty etc.. this is the way we are. canada has changed. canadians's self-confidence about themselves. where they fit in the world is stronger. there is a better sense of who canadians are. not the little brother syndrome worried about the shadow we cast. it stands up for itself. that shows. it is funny because the disconnect a lot of canadians feel is in their relationship with american they feel like = but in the canada/you as relationship it always seems to be symmetrical disparate relationship in which canada is a smaller dog. we are starting to have these conversations as equals and the diplomatic level which is reflecting the reality of canada/you as relations. that more than anything else is changing the way we solve problems or handle issues and it is bringing us closer together. the other thing in a weird way that has been beneficial in recent years is the transition to the obama administration. many of the things that came after 9/11 were shocking to canadians because it was such a cha

scenes looking for witnesses, etc.. a model which many of us said and continued to say was an effective when the subjects of the investigation were sovereign states or terrorist organizations conducting acts of war against the united states. if you kill an american serviceman or woman overseas, yes, it is a violation of our title xviii u.s. criminal code. but it's more than that. it is an attack against the united states and a knack of war in some respects against the united states. but for many years ago was a model the was used and i suggest one of the reasons why many administrations used that model is a much easier way to deal with an intractable complex dangerous problems. it was a military solution, it wasn't a diplomatic approach, it was let the police and the courts sort it out, and that is the model followed for many years. so in 1996, when the town were was attacked it was attacked by a group of saudi hezbollah members, and the was discovered fairly shortly after the event because host country, the kingdom of saudi arabia had detained and arrested several of the acto

public, nasty, etc.. this is the way we are. but canada has changed. canadian self-confidence about themselves, where they fit in the world is much stronger than it was. there's a better sense of who canadians are. it's not the little brothers and drum all the time worrying about the shadow we cast. canada in the u.s. stage or on the u.s. relationship stands up for itself and that shows. it's funny because the disconnected of canadians feel this and their relationship with americans they fe ke qual t cau.rensp aayseo is a much cold relationship in which canada allows the smaller dog. now i think we are starting to have these conversations as equal at the diplomatic level which is reflecting the reality of the canada-u.s. relations and canada in their everyday lives and that more than anything else is changing the way we see problems, handle issues, and i thk s inng us lile biclosetohe e herngn wei w i init beebeneical f ircent years is the transition to the obama administration. many of the things that can after 9/11 were shocking to canadians because it was such a change, and ameri

training people they have to get on, etc.. we noticed that airports that they now have reverted back to more metal detectors. and the question is why. i mean, i like that. to go back to metal detectors that are they having trouble with the machines? the third is they got the fourth seeded the department of homeland security to be more responsive to the public. we've already lost our rights to this department wholesale. a lot of the concern today is we may lose this right or that right. we've already lost our rights. this is a dictatorial department that justifies everything with words national security, doesn't think it is to meet the administrative procedure act which is something the congress has to look into as well as other laws and finally, the question is do members of congress have to go through this? are we seeing a vip treatment? speaker boehner was whisked past these machines late last year. what is their own experience and their own family's experience with this? i always think when congress is part of the risk they are more likely to be part of the solution. >> thank you.

process, equal protection etc., that is my standard. that is what i look at. i don't look at the other experiences as a minority. i look at what i have a right to and what i will aspire to. [applause] >> also, just we are going to be taking questions so please write down your questions and given to the ushers and we will be taking your questions in this next part of our panel. >> i need to respond because i feel this passion, and it is righteous passion by the way. but a man named frank him he died last week who was 93 years old, it japanese american from world war ii. he was what we call a no-no boy. after they had turned all of the japanese americans after the bombing of pearl harbor, over a period of time of course politics, people are political, so politics played out in the camp. and question 21 and 22 or 22 and 23, 27 and 28. i knew it was in the 20s. they first asked for you to forswear any allegiance to any other government of the united states of america and the second asked you to fight for this country. so it was not popular to answer no, but those who did were labeled

, highways, etc. are brought more into the modern era. >> david cameron stop to say hello to secretary geithner and told him to tell the president that he had great admiration for the state of the union speech and he was going to recommend his speech writer take a look at it. my question is what happened? in terms of competitiveness, there are things the president should have been thinking about. should he have said, "this is a way to connect the dots in terms of growth, in terms of the economy, and at the same time do things we need to do for the long-term help of the united states," or did he wake up and say, "we are really in trouble with competition?" >> these things are part of what he began at the beginning of the administration. of course, they were eclipsed in the public eye in terms of putting out the financial fire in the early task of designing a reform to make sure americans have health care. >> in terms of this preoccupation or the public dissension? >> i think the latter. it is one thing to say it was not just an economic crisis, it was an economic recession more serious

a family through the internal revenue code, etc.? then, once you have decided on structure -- you can have parallel conversations. someone can look at what it is going to take to deal with medicare and social security. you bring those together at the end to have a dialogue. given the new tax structure and our knowledge of what we need for social security and medicare, here is where we have to raise revenue. can we do it by setting the rates in such a way that we would not have to raise revenue? that is way beyond me to say. i really feel that we have to focus on tax reform. that is a crying need that impacts every single taxpayer, whether their individual, business, small business, large business. tax-exempt entities struggle with this all the time. host: un -- you identified these positions, these 16,000 new allocated-agent positions as social workers, averaging 300 per state. where will they office? job description? guest: i did not identify 16,000 positions. we say the irs needs to think deeply about the qualifications and skills of those workers. that needs to be because of th

cars on cleaner sources of fuel, etc. and i think what they are saying is, hey, let's go out and get the oil we have in our country, but let's make sure that we do go into these places -- i think senator gramm said earlier this week that it is kind of like going to the moon in terms of technology. that we do it safely and responsibly and that our government is on top of what is happening out there. host: dallas, brian, republican line. caller: i would like to know why we cannot go to iran war and do some drilling. why there is no talk about half -- go to anwar and do some drilling. why there is no talk about drilling in places like china or the soviet union. what can we do about cutting down the cost of gas for people in this country? this is going to get really out of hand. guest: that is a concern that you bring up and it is a concern that i know many people on the hill, republicans and democrats from these gold states, have, which is, the more you regulate these industry, the more you increase costs for the industry, the costs are passed on to the consumer. you and me, we drive ca

sorts of flags, both assumptions, methodology, etc. crs did a very careful analysis which i would commend to you that shows the different problems that exist. now, congress ordered omb to do the same thing, to do a real study. what omb did is to come up with a number which was a very large number, but much smaller than the numbers. congress in its wisdom said do the cost and do the benefit. so as you talk about the 43-$55 billion in cost they found 128-$615 billion in benefits. if you used the highest in the the cost, the lowest end of the benefits you still have that benefits of $703 billion. >> let me ask you this. who was it that made this authoritative statement allegedly about over a trillion dollars? do you know? >> it originally came from a tom hopkins study. then and gentlemen whose name -- >> mr. adler, do you know? >> i don't know off the top of my head, but i would note that the omb numbers that have been referenced exclude non major rules which are over 90% of the regulations that are finalized each year. compare those numbers with the other