Much choice because of our numbers. The fact that we dont matter electorally. The amount of intent to the Effect Committee put upon that they require. And hopefully because he was like having a double headache all day long from day long from the time you wake up in the evening because jews are insistent complainers. Complaining is the National Pastime for jews all over the world. The amount of money and time being put into jews and to get to vote is an absolute waste of time. I know its hard to admit youre not part and which are not. Ill tell you why. New york, california, theyre not voting republican. The republicans in california have no power. They cant get anything done in the state legislature. Is the craziest thing i ever saw. Where else do they live . They live in illinois. Or not voting republican. Ohio . Not likely. You look at the shift in democrats, people who are becoming more assimilated and becoming less jewish may be voting for Democratic People becoming less assimilated unless acculturated by voting more frequently republican, but numbers are smaller in relationship to the rest of the body at large. So the idea the jewish vote for republicans in massive numbers doesnt make any sense. Its not likely to happen and the last democrat to jews universally felt good about was probably bill clinton. Were not feeling good about barack obama and i think we have every reason to feel that way. I think that bill clintons unified or made it easier for us because he was able to bring an evangelical streak within, a jewish streak within. You were to church. It was religious in a country that prides itself on religiosity. It is now in danger. Theres a story this week about the decline of religiosity. Clinton was the last president in our lifetime to all of us who probably presided over a nation that still had meant a growing and pretty apparent and clear so the culture, that since appeared in the 90s that is decline precipitously, with the end of fraternal organization, the local Community Groups and the declining participation of religious activities that gave people the culture that defines this country. That problem is serious [inaudible] well, robert had been made industry. The original article is worth reading an important that every graduate student for the rest of the time will be reading them in clinical science and sociology. Contact him at the decline of civic culture of Television Viewing is made worse by Television Viewing and a device that dr. Troy was kind enough to raise into his hands because it tells you where this is going. People are not participating at levels they would. So what does it mean for us as a jews and people who are a democracy . During the clinton years and bush one and two, a public discussion with was featured out like, less personal, more significant. And in fact in many ways, more jewish. There is no place in the khmer, no matter how heated the argument is that people say im going to sheedy today im going to do something to excommunicate you because youre in a missile in and cutting off your funding. It doesnt work that way. But we have is a political culture in this new era that is completely balkanized, where the expectation is that nothing will get done in the jewish think theyre important because somehow are not important at all. But they are important for us checkwriting. One of my favorite experiences is to go to the white house for christmas party. Yes, theyve Christmas Parties at the white house. And i was fair, as are a bunch of other people. One guy looked at me im sitting there, what purpose this . The world these people . I saw some local pols i knew around the country a couple people work for the president at the level it works out. And there were other people, and they were all well dressed and well mannered weird i said hi, what do you do . I said im sure in for coming because for the president. That im a writer. Matteroffact, while writers. What did you write . Well, we write checks. They look like me, i could feel it, polish, jewish, german, jewish, sending romanian, jewish. I felt it. Then i went subsequently that 50 comes from jews. And thats achten said its pretty amazing. When you become . Rebuttal, but we dont vote at the same laborious to because because the 11th commandment is thou shalt vote. Its quite out to me. I said what are we doing . Were not of funders. A couple years ago i got some flack for saying publicly in the newspapers that new york city ways the atm for american politics, where might the antisemi and decided that they should make that because i was proven in fact we control the world. Im not so sure about that. Some days i wake up and say its good to be a member of these conspiracy, but its hard. The banks in the morning, media in the afternoon. The conspiracy at night in the comments colberg at we could offer people on one call, they communicate in that way. That being said, were writing checks, but were not participating. And this has taken on a greater and much more significant center in the latter part of the bush years, going into the obama years and going forward. So what were doing is ugly, as opposed to the clinton years as are not participating. Even political scientist nrb writing studies to indicate, and ive looked at them to check readiness important part of public participation, rather than going to go. You know, its kind of nice. So where presiding over a people like me have created a political system. I talk about that this week in the wall street journal. For participating in a system to essentially become entirely run by cash, with no ideas and the ultimate issue will be, what does that mean for jews in the jewish state . I would argue and i give this lecture at a synagogue a couple months ago, that this is neither good for us longterm, nor shortterm and he should have more hope that the state of israel will survive and democracy will continue. And the problem we face from a gun into the democracy game because we came to this country and we participated in the became socalled progressives because we came from places that were fascist government and the became the great voters and because we couldnt get into whether theyre republican or democrat machine based in iris or other dominant political culture is. With that in the cities because we had no place else to live and we need to be close to synagogues and institutions that we need. What we did instead was the became organized thinking that somehow fight over organizing you would have access to power. The people running for president. Over organizing does not have power and access does not have power. The definition of power now is the ability to write a check. During the clinton years it was getting in the voting booth in meeting the president shaking his hand. In the bush years, it is being a downhome country boy and being able to fit and put the extraordinary and still viable cannot for election of president , which issa called the iron triangle, which is northern catholics, dynamic to put people into office. As a way a jews dont necessarily fit enough. I want to blow your mind, but youre just not important enough a piece of southern protestants, northern catholics. Bush understood that in the first term. Rove understood that certainly. Contrary to whatever may have written, it worked that way. Bush won understood it, bush two. Jimmy carter got away with it. Richard nixon invented it. It was nixon and the Great Southern strategy, putting northern catholics in another place from which gave rise to the evangelical drift. That being said, sasso functioning quite sure it is, but not in the same way. It is dangerous for us is a Smaller Group of people with this political system and the parties do not function the way they should and are instead replaced by mercantile sense because we survive on the notion that the voting booth matters, even though we really dont count president ial elections. And we survived because we are, so long as that notion matters and nobody has figured out that is starting to become a 3d con job. The symbolic use of politic was written a long time ago, talks about a great place for extraordinary things happen and that is the basis for belief of the american system. If i were doing is writing checks, we dont have much to believe about because money is not a deity last i looked in democracy of some of the same. A breakdown of the parties, which is what happening with the person of money and a breakdown of ideology is not that. When they breakdown in ideology is, certain things happen. In recent times is probably venezuela. I would doubt that the absent, the white van in whitehorse is not that far off if something doesnt correct the exceptions of cash and mercantilist at politics in this country. Why . There were two parties i worked in venezuela in the 90s. Two parties function copay, christian democrats, right . And the democratic alliance, which was really i would say the centerleft. Both parties had definitive ideologies when they began. Both parties became correct. Both parties made no room for young people to move up the ladder. Both parties had a structure, harvard, princeton, cornell, but not someplace else or no college. Note these things very carefully. They are not good for jews. Tanaka for democracy and the exactly opposite of what either president bush or president clinton had in mind. They are dangerous to democracy longterm and dangerous he appeared so close you up with this thought. You dont have to like what george bush did. I thought that the villain in the piece was rumsfeld for a whole host of reasons. You cant fight a war, whether blunt and wore nike camp can put because you want to save 2. Eisenhower didnt do it. It was a great organizer. He may not offend most extraordinaire most extraordinaire president and not the greatest friend israel had. That being said, these two president s, because of their wages at the time they took office, represented a particular point of view a particular sense of where the nation is going at the end of the 20th century. What we see this in and out the way democracy functions. And into the way we saw democracy also, and the legacy of as yet to be counted, but during the clinton years and i have to do this because they have to be partisan, will be remembered as a country that is not a word, where most of the works were regularly, were doubledigit inflation much of the carter years didnt have to remember, where Mortgage Rates were down over america seems to be thriving and where were mostly at peace. We are now at a point where things are not that way at all, where the future is not something were pretty sanguine about. The state of israel is both existentially at risk and risk politically because of an increase in International Antisemitism and just to hear strolling along past the holocaust. So how do you combat these things . At a few rail against the nature of money in politics and you call for Campaign Finance to fund it shut this down as quickly as possible. Think are going to lose the democracy so many of us think is important to see people like clinton and bush get to office. Thank you very much. [applause] i think you did fill 20 minutes, thank you. And we have time for some questions. Theres a microphone microphone in the ideas. Well start right to your right. Both of you talked about president clinton and id like to ask you, we talked about support of jews for the various president , but i would like to know what has been the support of the jews by these president s, particularly nothing was mentioned about clintons oslo accords, which were not good for the jewish state. The active involvement of president clinton defeating and israel by sending his political at a thursday. Thats not true, by the way. I was fair. Thats absolutely not true. That is absolutely false. I can tell you a story about it but its historically accurate or not is not true. Very simply, was in the room. First of all, he was pulling for paris against netanyahu. Sean came in the room and sat, asked for me. We were to the room, he said we have to send to his or her right away because he understands, speaks a language, knows the culture. They said that your contract, is the country. Im firing all of you. Thats a story. Thats what happened. So what youre saying is not true. Are valid weeper . Astarte out of the white house. Nothing to do with anything. They were with iraq that had nothing to do with anything. Nothing whatsoever. I ask you about the oslo accords. Was that a policy that was good for the jewish state . I think hindsight is a wonderful thing. Look, im a jabotinsky eich, so i cant have a rational discussion about it. You know, i dont believe theres palestinian people. From a clinical standpoint, hindsight is a wonderful thing. For who . You. Lets give a couple more people a chance to play by. Ill just defer to hank of all things clinton. Me again. So bill clinton and george w. Bush are not on the ballot. What should we do . [laughter] you really want an answer to that . I said i gave a speech we could go about this. The other guys are morons on the trail. Would you like to do . He must commit suicide. What would you like to do . I have a rope, i have a gun. Bush reshoot affair quiet obviously a big to differ. Ive are the first part, but not the second part. Up i ran this campaign, i would be fired up enough to never work again. Im voting for harry truman. We have time for one more question. If we can get the microphone to the gentleman in the middle who was in a bad geography and probably wont have another chance. Hank, i see the photo of Prime Minister netanyahu and president clinton. I was wondering, why did clinton lie tonight and yahoo . He told them after the wide plantation accord that he was wary pollard and uptodate grandma was signed, he reneged on it. Pattern of you associate the question. I suggest you ask to go to jeanneau this house and move on the lawn until he stops the nonsense hes been doing with the help of the National Security establishments for the last 26 years. I think thats about it for questions. Thank you are much, gentlemen appreciate it. [applause] now come i have to be honest with you. These things are great. [cheers and applause] i think its interesting that the president still doesnt have an agenda for a second term. Dont you think that its time to finally put together what hell do in the next four years if he were elected . I mean, hes got to come up with that over this weekend because theres only one debate left on monday. So lets recap what we learned last night. The tax plan doesnt add up. The jobs plan doesnt create jobs. His deficit Reduction Plan a to the deficit. So you know, everybody here has heard of the new deal. Youve heard of the fair deal. Youve heard of the square deal. Mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. [cheers and applause] we are not buying it. I see cspan in a business capacity. I love keeping up at the hearings. If im keeping that with whats going on live, i go to cspan. Its what i needed in my business capacity that i was able to watch it and i felt very current and uptodate. A cybersecurity was the last one. I didnt want to wait for the coverage a couple of years later. A look now at the changing geopolitical map of the middle east. Roxane farmanfarmaian at a lecture at the university of cambridge examines event including the civil war, rep from Irans Nuclear program, new alliances in what she calls the arab cold war. She spoke at a form of the World Affairs council of dallas, ft. Worth. This 50 minute event begins with an introduction by the councils chairman, patricia patterson. Good morning everyone. I welcome you to the series endowment lecture. With the help of many new in this room, it has established several years ago to bring people of great as he does become issues. And we certainly have an outstanding start in that department today. Roxane farmanfarmaian is an affiliated lecture at the Political International Relations Department at cambridge university. She is also affiliated as a middle east scholar at the institute of politics at the university of utah, which is closely at the middle east center there in utah, which interestingly is the oldest middle east center in the country. She has also a fellow of the Al Jazeera Research and spent last summer and is very excited about projects to drink cambridge and al jazeera. Shes a specialist on strategic affairs, particularly relations with media neighbors to the European Union and United States. Roxanne is inside im their worst articles on the islamic revolution, soil economy, security profile and particularly its Current Nuclear standoff with the west. Roxane is not only qualified to speak today because of her education and experience, but also because of her heritage. Roxanne is a member of the family that goes back to the year 900 became in the 18th century the family of persia and continued until the shots came in. She was born in tehran. Her mother is american. Her father was persian and she corrupt in holland and lived in iran during her revolution afterwards. She was there in 1979 and chose to study and report on the revolution. She published a weekly magazine at that time called the iranian. Shes a frequent speaker and media commentator, peeling regularly on npr, the bbc and outstanding shows in the u. K. She is here as the keynote speaker at the World Affairs council of the committee on foreign relations. She obtained her masters of philosophy and phd from cambridge and her undergraduate degree from princeton. Roxane and i have been dear friends for 18 years and i can tell you its exactly that long since her brother married my daughter at that time. I present roxane farmanfarmaian. Dr. Farmanfarmaian. [applause] what a pleasure it is to be here today. Thank you so much, Pat Patterson for that wonderful introduction and for the World Affairs council for making this trip. I wanted to make sure that you have a look at the map. Its a pocketsized map so that everything i talk about today becomes manageable and understandable. Two years ago, if we have had the conversation about the middle east, it would been such a different conversation. It has had since then the air of spring come in with no predictions and such huge changes to our world. And we need to keep our eye on the ball. Because if we take it off now, we will have a retrying of the middle east map. Now, american policy under the direction of president obama is taking a pair that towards asia. But we are not going to be leaving the middle east and. And ill tell you why. Its not because of oil, although thats an issue. Its not because the class is civilization. Theres a more recent incident, where libya is certainly keeps us on our toes. But its because of an emerging Second Global cold war that has been triggered by the middle east. Now, but they give you a little bit of context. And you know, context is sort of like underwear. You dont need a lot of it. In the past thought of the great powers, like russia, europe in the past. Today, china, need india. In another set the been named powder with the maritime powers, like brittany is to be our today, the United States. And then, there is an american and he put these two ideas together. And where the two great powers, the land power and d. C. Power come together, he called the shout about. And the middle east is located in one of the worlds great shutterbugs. The interesting thing is about them is that small states have the ability to shift the power from one large side to the other, simply because it depends on which side theyre on or which side they decide to shift two. In the middle east, the old part with syria and is today. But, after the fall of the soviet union, after the end of the cold war, there was another heart. Since the entire east were taking place at that time, when the circulation state joined the middle east, when afghanistan pushed the edge of the middle east. And so today, we have a second part inside the middle east and that is iran. And those two cards, with their particular allies are causing this growing Second Global cold war. Now the first indication we have is that is the reincarnation of the second arab cold war. This we know weve heard about is the conflict, the proxy worth you will between iran and saudi arabia. In pattern, they are very much on the first arab cold war, where we had the allies of the United States in the last in the form of the sunni monarchies, led by saudi arabia. Again, the soviet backed secular radicals. Second force redrawing the map. There, of course, is a different kind of structure, it is a force for it hope as well as instabilityd. It is something that has begun a messy process of democracyization theres a great deal of a sense of danger involved with it and where these two forces overlap their [inaudible] between the arab spring and the second arab cold war is syria. What we need to ask ourself is those beginning to shift this map are are there others. I would of course there are others. I would suggest were seeing an entire new set of relationships inside the middle east. The place is turning like a kaleidoscope. Same pieces, different design. We never know where theres going to be another twist. Are there new relationships that are being set up that are possibilitily indicate that the middle east itself is going to take care of the problems . Or does the old moderate versus the radical paradigm still hold . I would say that a very good way of looking at the middle east is in the form of five emerging now we know about the first one. Thats the shii had crescent. We know about that. That is irans game. The key to that is more recently has been the role that iraq is playing in that crescent. It now links iran, iraq, syria, and lebanon all in a continue tick use set of masses. And one has to think its not just bolstered by comments sectarian views by common shii had views. Syrian and iran came friends not bus because they were shii had is that from irans perspective the alawite shii had were so they couldnt imagine looking at it a common religion. The father of Bashar Alassad had to have alawites recognize that the muslim religious practice in order to become president of syria. So they are quite far apart. But they share common ideology. Secure ya supported iran during the iraniraq war because it hated iraq at that time. Syria and iran share antiamericannism, israeli substitute. They dont want a disom nation of american are tech chiewr. They share a common front. So the shii had question. The second is a growing sunni crescent with a [inaudible] on to saudi arabia and down to the coast that i call the oil coast. We see [inaudible] fighters moving from libya and across saudi arabia through iraq and in to syria increasingly to join a sectarian war. The opposition is syria is increasingly being joined by the extremist forces. Its one of the reason its dpiflt for us to support them. Saudi arabia and [inaudible] are providing small arms there are lots of russians in syria, and theyre against antisecurity counsel very often has the base of the idea they dont want to get involved in a great war over syria. Theyre actually supporting. I have a syrian student i talked to couple of days ago he was saying syria in theres no syria. We think of ourself as [inaudible] as [inaudible] but we do not know what the word syria means. So outside intervention is a tough idea when it comes to syria. Its not very welcoming. This is no when in fact. The fight remains [inaudible] as we see the see had and sunny crees sets collide, they are colliding in syria. In the context of a growing second arab cold war and the arab spring. The third crescent is israel. In the wake of the arab spring israel is feeling very isolated. For many domestic reasons, its trying to keep some of the own problems off of the theater of Media Attention at the moment, and it has in many ways used the prioritization of the Nuclear Issue in iran to do that. But its real interest is europe, and finally, it has the means to join europe. So its crescent goes from israel through cypress, on to greece, which it is seen as a huge opportunity in the wake of the recession and itses based on mediterranean gas. Finally, israel has a Natural Resource that the europeans need and which it can sell and will tie it at last to the group of people it feels so much closer to than Anyone Around the middle east. [inaudible] president morsy has turned out to be an unexpected and welcome leader in this camp. Muslim brotherhoods it an organization that has offices in many places of the middle east, the people know it, its old in many way its quite trusted. An its politically experienced in the position of having been in the opposition. So it actually knows what an opposition is supposed to whefn it know no long is in the opposition. Now the question, of course, is will they adopt an extremist agenda now that they are in power as president warned as president mubarak warned us . My view is that president morsy is actually taking rather a middle of the road line. Hes acting very statesmen like. Hes invited turkey, saudi arabia, and iran to negotiate together over syria. On the premise that if we leave any of those four players out, the cost is syrian lives. In the past, was interesting though is turkey would have lead this offense, but its now egypt. Throwing off the old [inaudible] and beginning to take on the leadership of the middle east which is putting turkey on the back foot and saudi arabia. Turkey has perhaps been the greatest loser of this entire set of two years. Zero problems with neighbors no longer because its having problems on the border with syria. The perfect model post arab spring, well, its having difficulty maintaining itself under the particular political and geostrategic pressures. And its increasingly having trouble with the kurds further southeast on the border. That leads us to the crescent. The greater curd stan crescent to the south of turkey. And in fact, this is our real interstate war of the whole region. This is where 500 people among are being killed according to tours own figures. Its not getting very much attention as a serious border war. What what happened is the syrian kurds have basically become independent. They have turned to the iraq kurds who have domination in the north of iraq in the Kurdish Regional government, iraqi kurds are providing arms, money, encouragement. This is inspiring new activity by the kurds along the Turkish Border the pkk to start rising up and encouraging the bombing down coming down. Its having five significant inpacts. First, a major break down between the kurds in the knot of iraq and baghdad. We are seeing they are really significantly adding to the growing sectarian war were seeing in iraq. The second. The enormous amount of bombing on the border. The third, its causing a break down between turkish and iraqi relationships. Seriously causing that supportive structure to crumble. [inaudible] they are pitting the great powers against each other who are their allies. What were seeing is increasing international standoffs in the security counsel which has not been able to develop a single platform to solve the problem of syria or to the contain the nuclear stand off with iran. We have seen the resignation of kofi annan and the statement now csh who was previously a special representative for the u. N. In a palestinian and iraq. His job is as strongly not just keep the forces in syria coming together and possibly to reach an agreement, but to draw some Common Ground among the great powers in the security counsel. If he is not successful, what does a Second Global cold war look like . Lets look at the situation in israel. I would say its quite unlikely prior to the president ial election. But it may not wait very much further after that all before the end of the year. If it does, it will catch the United States very vulnerable and ill tell you why. We still have troops in [inaudible] now the taliban and the iranian are not friends. But they are neighbors. And the iranians can always pull in a couple of favors from the taliban particularly its against the United States. I would argue if there is an attack on iran prior to our withdrawal from afghanistan, its going to be a very, very bloody affair. Now an Israeli Attack would certainly broaden the syrian war and begin to move war from damascus to teheran, through baghdad and down again. Very likely it would extend that ridge all the way over to lebanon and pit israel and lebanon in to a war there too. Sure there would be instability in the gulf. Yes, it would cause enormous spike in oil prices. But the key is that an israeli strike on iran would finally give us the public justification to develop a bomb. Now there is no israeli strike the tension in the security counsel between the great powers still turns out to be significant. What we see is a waiting game between iran and the United States. What we see is that today in the midst of the worst sanctions if has ever had, iran is still importing 1. 3 Million Barrels of oil a day. This is not a country that cannot survive just on the oil its making. The income it gets off oil is all in dollars. Yes, the is plummeting. Yes, its gotten lots of foreign currency to back it up. India, it has talked in to paying iran for the oil in dollars as well. China is paying iran quite a bit of both for the oil. Iran has been sanctioned for decade. It has some clue as to how to get around sanctions. And it has friend behind it as well. These friends are playing americas game with israel at the back at the moment simply to see how long the sanctions can go. But little by little the shanghai cooperation counsel to the east of iran the bricks which have tried to find some agreement between the west and iran over Nuclear Power in the past, theyre going kick in at the certain point. Irans friends get tired of having the sanction go on and on. Its one of the things we saw in 2003 before the innovation the supporters of the those sanctions began to step back and those sanctions began to crumble and what was our option . [inaudible] inside the security counsel among the great powers of the world. And what we see; therefore, this whole region is really just one large price. What we have a turning kaleidoscope of [inaudible] surrounded by a new era of cold war. Intercepted with an arab spring, in the context of a shatter welt belt within a larger growing global cold war. Now is it all bad news . [laughter] i dont like the sad story. I prefer the phrase in the best hotel marigold, it will all turn out right at the end. It its not all right. Its not the end. [laughter] so if we keep our distance, and make sure that other great powers keep their distance too if we dont insist as the worlds great superpower to be in the middle of things at all times, and we try to ensure that there is not an escalation of conflict in the region, this will allow the state of the middle east to tackle some of their own problems on their own turf in their own time. Now im not saying theyre not going to make mistakes. And im not saying that its not messy. The arab spring, however, has shown that exceptionalism is not a valid concept. Arabs, muslims can want dignity, citizens rights, and democracy. On top of that, there has been a constant trend in the region for greater democratic practice. And we have seen it nonstop over decades. We may not have noticed it, it doesnt mean it didnt come before. What it does say let me mention perhaps just a few is this has been an ongoing problem. In 1980, for example, the al jeer rans rose up and established somewhat [inaudible] and somewhat freer set of elections. In lebanon, we know it had a cedar revolution and got rid of syria off of its territory in iran we had the Green Movement which took place in 2009. In egypt, there was the [inaudible] movement and the we are all [inaudible] movement and those were what lead to the outburst and the success of the square. In tunisia we had major Labor Movement uprising and it lead to the [inaudible] despite our plans on the outside for the need for greater democracyization in the middle east, we see that consistently they have risen up themselves and tried to address the problems on their own. And they both dont do so. The way to redraw a map that is perhaps got greater hope in it is not to expect it wont be messy. Not to expect it will take place tomorrow. But if we can exercise leadership to avoid a Second Global cold war on the international scale, we might see another surprise as great as the arab spring. It may turn out right in the end. [applause] lets give the student the first question, if we might. Why would a nofly scone in nato air strikes not work in syria as they did in libya . Im glad you asked that question. Libya is nothing like syria. First of all, syria as an army five times the size as gaffe daffys of a my. Second of all, libya sits right smack in the middle of the mediterranean. Which still in many ways is europes lake. Syria sits in the center of not fly to international forces. A nofly zone would mean having to exert the power to ensure that nofly zones hold. And that begins to mean bringing in significant hardware from outside. Now repeatedly there has been increasing hitting turkey and turkey has retaliated and very importantly called on nato back it up. They go ahead and certainly given the lots of rhetorical support. But still its just not a welcoming set up for any european or American Power to go in and one of the reasons theres a very major possibility that china and russia but particularly russia will just simply not accept that this time around. Another significant difference from the way it was in libya. Lets take questions from the audience. We have a question back here and one here. Well work around the room. Thank you. My question is on the [inaudible] movement. Do you see them as a big threat as theyre gaining more and more power in the region . The question is was is the movement a real threat. Is it gaining more power and the short answer is yes, and yes. There is a longer answer. And that is the movement up until quite recently had no political agenda. This has been something that come out since actually 2003 and the war in iraq. They were have a quiet movement. Their view is now being expressed as an alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood. And so it is going through significant changes itself. It is fracturing rapidly. Were seeing an enormous number of movements. But they have very little Common Ground. Except for the fact theyre quite rigid in their interpretation of the qor ran and the fact races of practice of society and the exercise of law. We find that whefn they win a larger section of the vote, for example, in egypt, its not because theyre politically able to translate a great deal of that. Its a Coalition Force of coming together. And the good side of that is theyre learning the difficulties of what it means to be elected to politics. Suddenly everything that seems so black and white in practice turns out to be affected by a budget, having a Different Group over here and needing to make a comprise with the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Suddenly its turning out to be quited difficult to be a hard and fast if you were in government. Now the threat that i think we are seeing is with the [inaudible] various very extremist groups that are hooking up with al qaeda and were beginning it get a rim southern rim lower algeria a lot of the regions and very sadly this is still heavily sport supported by saudi money. It overlaps of a great deal of saudi values. And gray great number of the groups have officerrings or hubs inside sue i did. Theyre funding sadly continues to be quite vigorous. We have a question right here. If you can wait for the microphone. Let me ask you this question from another student. Yesterday president ial candidate mitt mitt romney suggested he wanted to arm the rebels in syria to fight against the government. How would Congress Respond to this . How would your view in the American Public respond . The question is you can easily hear that one. The answer to that is my view is i cant speak for the american congress. I do know that the Opposition Forces the syrian army, the Syrian National congress have got a good set of play through the media. Who wouldnt support bashar . Come on. But what one of the problems is and it goes back to the fist question, this is not an opposition anything like the opposition weve seen either in tunisia or in egypt. It is fractured, it is in some ways quite violent syria itself had no real institutions of golf nouns its been able to practice. Its more like iraq in all Government Systems [inaudible] and we finally have no idea what the deals are that are being drawn across these regions through the extremist groups that are in iraq and in saudi and the result is we have no idea where those arms would actually go. That, i think, is one of the Great Questions we need to start before sending in everything. One of the problems about theyre being traded like mad and theyre being used often against us and its easy to i can certainly understand where the frustration of candidate romney come from. Theres no question we all feel that. Its complex, however, theres no real guarantee that any arms that would go in there would accomplish any goals they were set out to achieve. [inaudible] this concerns the International Pressure against Iranian Nuclear enrichment. Are there alternatives to captions should fail, other than war. When did we say sanctions have failed . We dont have an easy answer and ill tell you why. Our biggest problem is what we agreed and every member has agreed is the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. Basically that treaty says you can develop Nuclear Power for peaceful purposes. And the problem is, any Nuclear Power thats developed has the possibility of dual use. So the problem is the treaty. Iran is a great target. It has not been a friend of the United States for over three and a half decades, and dot many things we can justify for sanctioning it, and for going to war with it, even on ground theyre not the nuclear program. But if its really to stop Nuclear Development by regimes we dont like and i put pakistan certainly as a possible candidate for that we need to realize we have a treaty that does not fit our interests and our strategy. Id like to know what might be in the minds of the israeli leadership for the following three scenarios. One, an Israeli Attack on iran shortly after the reelection of the current u. S. President. Two. An Israeli Attack on iran during a lame duck after the election of a new u. S. President. Or, three, no attack. Okay. Thrilling to be in an audience and asked difficult questions. An attack after the current president is elected, certainly would fit in the larger picture of why it would attack if either candidate was elected, and that is that israel has a fear of existential threat in terms of iran, and it feels very much as though the control it had in helping to determine the strategic architecture of the region with its friendship with the United States, is slipping away from it. The arab spring and the second arab cold war take place, and so it is very concerned about that, and its also extremely concerned that iran does not develop a bomb under the aegis of the United States looking elsewhere as in the case of pakistan. The u. S. Assured jerusalem it was not going to let pakistan develop the bomb, and one day the pakistanis did and that was the end of that picture. So the israelis do not want that to happen again. And one of the reasons is and this is the existential part of their argument i dont think i would agree that really iran is going to necessarily send a bomb straight over to israel if it happens to develop one. What the existential threat relies on is the fact that israel is the only middle east power at the moment to have a bomb. And if iran gets it, the entire thing shifts because theyre on opposite sides of the great power alliances and israel would no longer be able to dominate militarily in a theater it has been more or less able to evenly dominate simply because it has that final nuclear capability. What was the third one . If it doesnt attack at all . In my talk, then we get into a waiting game. The United States is very committed to iran not getting a nuclear weapon. It would be an incredibly embarrassing thing for us if it did. So its not in our interest to allow that to happen. And it would be more an issue of the United States and israel working out Common Ground to see how the situation in iran develops. And my view is, were not going do see a whole lot hoff lot of changes inside iran. Iran has proventobe resilient against outside pressure, and all these sanctions in fact have helped protect an incredibly big economy. Its been the equivalent of putting duties and tariffs on an industry a Manufacturing Base until theyve gotten big enough to compete on the international market, such as the asian states did when they took those off we had the asian miracle. And in many ways were seeing the same kind of economy working inside iran. Its actually a very vibrant economy, just lacks an awful lot of financial mechanisms at the moment and a lot of raw imports at this point. But its actually quite a robust economy. It makes its the second Largest Consumer of cars and until the major sanctions came down it was the second larger importer of cars, above what it made. Its the second largest producer of steel, and imported more steel than any other state in the region on top of that. Now, of course, its not importing the steel anymore. The steel it was importing is not helping it make as many cars, and its a feeling that sanctions theres no question that this is a big and very, very active economy, and so it was still got an awful lot of oil dollars daily pouring in. You have the last question. Thank you for a really interesting presentation. I am interested in the roles china and syria have played in this situation with syria. So id like to know your opinion on what, if anything, the United States can do to move china or russia off of their position of supporting iran or in European Union, the best outcome is with we stay out of and it let the region take care of its problem . How will they deal with what comes after if that works as the muslim solution. The question was, what can the United States do and how what is the reason behind what russian and chinas approach to be doing these resolutions at the Security Council level. And i think that in many ways this captures the issues that the region is presenting to us. For us it in many ways is a place we think of very much our own, thanks to the fact we have had our own men and women in iraq and theyre still in afghanistan, but in the end, it is our far abroad. It is russias near abroad. At it too close for comfort to have the United States working inside the region without russian input. Now, we were there at a time of great russian weakness. Its not so weak anymore. So that exercise, especially in place like sirarch as syria, which over the long soviet syria relationship, means theyre hundreds of thousands of russians living inside syria. So my view is that we need to identify and bolster those that we know are allies inside the region. I think we need to put our eyes back on iraq. Iraq is in very bad shape and getting worse. It still doesnt have electricity 24 7. It does not have employment. Its got a Prime Minister that basically has taken over almost every single one of the capabilities of Saddam Hussein had, and its got a brewing second sectarian war, and its proving to be this transit area, and i think we would do well by bolstering that democracy, not relying just on elections but ensuring theres the rule of law. We cant even Start Talking about democracy until the person on the street has the same rights as the person in the Prime Ministership and anywhere else and we dont have that in iraq. And so i think that would stem a great deal of the problem. Stop the transition state that iraq is in. Would cut the shia in half and cut the sunni crescent and give a sense of our willingness to support our principles with real action rather than simply taking a military approach. Thank you very much. Roxanne. Thank you very much. See the president ial debate monday night, live on cspan. Cspan radio, and online at cspan. Org. Watch and engage. Tonight, on cspan 2, representatives of the romney and obama campaigns debate how to improve u. S. Manufacturing. Then well discuss the president ial candidates positions on Foreign Policy with reporters who cover the state department. And later, a discussion about the jewish vote with staffers who worked on the clinton and george w. Bush campaigns. So it starts as an economic argument. Men are having a harder time adapting to the economy and women are adapting more easily improve cant tell you why. Theres different periods where men are adapting more easily. Then its education and credentials. The economy is fast changing, who knows. Women seem to be getting the skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men and are sim to be more nimble and that filters into our society. So in the book i talk about how that changes marriage our notions of fatherhood and what men can and cant do and have young people have sex and make decisions. 0 so you start to see it having an influence in our culture. Discussing the end of men, saturday night at 10 00 eastern, and sunday night at 9 00 on after words, this weekend on book tv. I think mr. Nix unions nixon is an effective leader of his party. The question before us is, which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States. Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement . I have no comment. In the constitution they had in mind we were deliberate, we were tough, we would elect officials based on around arguments. You cannot argue against an image. And an image is just that. And you have to counter it with an image. But in a world with a whole lot of problems in the world and whole lot of problems in the country, reasoned argument has to dominate, but doesnt when its on television. The history of president ial debate since 1960, the university of marylands john spl aye splaine. An advicer to president ial candidate mitt romney today said the former governor is serious about his pledge to label china as a currency manipulator. This is a forum on trade and manufacturing hosted by the Aspen Institute. The appointed amount of time. If i could have your attention. Let me my name is tom, im the executive director on the program of manufacturing in the 21st century here at the institute. I want to welcome you on behalf of the institute, both in the audience and those viewing remotely. I wanted to ask our president , walter isaacson, just to say a few words. Its always dangerous when your boss knows as much or more than you about the subject matter. This is that is definitely untrue, and thats why its such a pleasure to have tom here. The one thing we know about the issue of manufacturing is how important it is to americas economy and how ridiculous to think of a great economy that doesnt have a healthy Manufacturing Sector so when we were looking at the Aspen Institute and all the thing wes do in terms of the creation of jobs and the economy, we felt that there was a huge gap because people kind of understood the reduction of manufacturing jobs in america that was happening, but nobody was as focused as they should be, even though theres a president ial commission and call for this. So when tom and i and elliott and others talked, it was with a realization that understanding how to make a healthy Manufacturing Sector in america was key to our economy, and to the 21st century. So thats why its great to have tom in this program here. Thanks. [applause] this is the seventh in a series of programs we have been doing, our next one will be november 28th near this room. Well be exploring the impact of the Energy Renaissance on u. S. Manufacturing. It will feature congressman cal dooley, and tom peterson, each of which has reports on the importance of this subject. I want to thank the supporters who make the program, the Manufacturing Program here, possible. These include the apollo group, bison gear and engineering, delight, Madison Capital partners, Manufacturers Institute for productivity and innovation, the National Association of manufacturers, parker handson. Toyota motor, u. S. Chamber of commerce, and williams budinger. Todays program talks about strengthening the policies of manufacturing. The subject of manufacturing was mentioned 15 times in the president ial debate and our two panelists are able to elaborate on the candidates positions and also their own deep knowledge of the subject. Our partner for this event is the conference on the renaissance of american manufacturers manufacturing, headed by gilbert kaplan. Like gil like i am, gill is an alumnus of the trade administration at the Commerce Department. Unlike me he is a distinguished trade lawyer, responsible for many of the trade Enforcement Actions we have seen in this town in recent years. Gil, aid like id like for you to introduce our panel. [applause] thank you, tom, and thank you all for coming today. When we started the conference on the renaissance of American Manufacturing about two years now, in two years ago now in 2010, and when the other group i work with, the committee to support u. S. Trade laws, looked at the issues, we felt we needed to focus more on manufacturing in the United States. We needed to make this a central feature of the policy debate in washington, and the political debate in washington, and thats been our goal. So, were delighted to be able to have this debate with the Aspen Institute focusing on these critical manufacturing issues. We think theyre critical to the National Security of the United States. We think theyre critical to the Economic Security of the United States. We also think that the interrelationship between trade and manufacturing is a central feature of this entire debate, and its great to have people who are so knowledgeable about International Trade as our speakers today. I first like to introduce grant, the principal managing director of split rock international, washington, dc based trade and Investment Consulting firm he founded in 2006. Mr. Aldonis is an adjunct professor of law of the interconstitute of law at the Georgetown University law center. From 2009 2001 to 2005 he was the u. S. Injured secretary of commerce on international trait and in that capacity he served as americas salesman and i hope he got a commission. Before assuming his position as undersecretary of commerce, mr. Aldonis served as chief International Trade counsel to the Senate Finance committee and he is here on behalf of the mitt Romney Campaign. Our other speaker from the other side of the aisle, is dr. Jarred been e bernstein. Currently on leave from the center on budget and policy priorities, where he was a senior fellow, from 2009 to 2011. Bernstein was the chief Economic Advisor to Vice President joe biden, executive director of the White House Task force on the middle class, and a member of president obamas economic team. Dr. Bernsteins areas of expertise include federal and state, economic and fiscal policies, income inequality and mobility, trends in employment and earnings, Center National comparison and the analysis of housing markets and im also sure manufacturing. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, dr. Bernstein was a senior economy and the director of Living Standards at the Economic Policy institute in washington, dc. Finally, we are very happy to have as our mold rate moderator, Hedrick Smith who is one of the great commentators in the its on policy and manufacturing and other issues. A Pulitzer Prize winning winner and for 26 years he was a correspondent for the New York Times in washington, moscow, cairo, saigon, paris, and the american south. I guess thats another foreign country to any of us listed here. [laughter] in 1971, as chief diplomatic correspondent, he was a member of the Pulitzer Prizewinning team that produced the pentagon paper series. He won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting from russia and Eastern Europe and was formerly the u. S. Washington times chief correspondent. But the most exciting thing is he has written this great book, who stole the american dream, which goes over wheat going on in the middle class, whats going on with the problems were facing in america today, and how manufacturing relates to those. And we have about 53 copies used to be 50. I see many of you have taken. The theyre out on the table out there. I hope youll take them. And if you dont get one, im sure mr. Smith will not mind if you go to amazon and buy a copy of this book. So, with that, ill turn it over to Hedrick Smith. Thank you very much, gil and tom. Just quickly to let you know the ground rules. The object today is to cover as much territory as we can so ive asked each speaker to hold their answers to 9o seconds and then if somebody wants to rebut the other side, 50 seconds rebuttal wait, wait and i was going to say, happily we dont have to worry about body language and smiling and frowning and how you look but were here to talk about substance. This is a roomful of people who know a lot about trade. An audience around the country, and i hope youll talk in america speak and not washington speak today. Both of you. And we are also a roomful of people who probably believe very much in the importance of the manufacturing seconder, but there are those, believe it or not, who will say manufacturing is pass say and america is over the hill on manufacturing, we need to move to be a Service Economy if were going to be globally competitive. So i want to ask you, mr. Aldonis, and ill asking the same question of dr. Bernstein, is manufacturing important for american future . And what do we want, jobs, profits, jobs overseas, jobs home, should we have a secretary of manufacturing and a secretary of wall street, instead of the treasury secretary. What do we need to do sneer why is it important. The short answer is its absolutely critical. The reason its critical is 90 of the patentses produced every year comes out of the Manufacturing Sector so longterm Economic Growth is required to raise our productivity and what drives that is the investment and innovation. So we want a productive game. That spins off Employment Opportunities and other things. But the terms of growth this is where it starts. Dr. Bernstein nice, fast answer. Terrific. I completely agree. I would add that 70 90 of the patents. Its easy to say get productivity and you get these benefits but we have seen an awful lot of manufacturing jobs disappear while we were getting gains in product different. 5. 5 Million Manufacturing jobs disappeared in roughly the last dozen years. A lot of manufacturing jobs show up in other places, i. E. China particularly, but lot office other places. So why is manufacturing automatically a good deal for america, for the country . Obviously a good deal for the companies. What does do it for the american middle class . Two things. I had to do this with lou dobbs over and over again. To point out that some of what we have seen with respect to the decline of labor employment i recall when, for example, motorola outsourced its logistics and cut the operation to ups. Those jobs overnight stayed in america but they were shipped to a Service Sector and registered has a decline in manufacturing employment, when reality was the Boundary Line of motorola softened and it incorporal operated ups. We didnt lose manufacturing job, simply by shifting. When you say you want to boost manufacturing and you have these soft boundaries, what actually are you talking about . Because of this constant leakage there, is it production jobs or Engineering Design jobs . What are you talking sunset. When i think of manufacturing employment, thick of the entire value chain, including suppliers, and i want to ensure we have investment on both sides of that in the United States. So things id love to see, making sure we have the best investment environment. Because when i have talked with manufacturers, surprising how they recognize pretty easily that in the world we live in today, that higher tax on their suppliers doesnt do them any good. Forgive me improve dont hear the answer to my question. My question was, what kind of jobs are you talking about . Production, Engineering Design job . S or the soft jobs that are bleating off into service and what does it do for the american middle class . The american middle class is stuck, losing jobs you say, they have been redefined. Theyre losing jobs that have been paying real good wages and supported a middle class standard of living. Its both. I want the engineering jobs and the design jobs. I want that here in america. And i want to make sure we have a healthy set of suppliers that are part of that manufacturing value chain, that serves the Global Consumer market. So i dont want to deny thats important as well while we focus on manufacturing. From a manufacturers perspective they know their suppliers have to be competitive as well and they have to be employing people who are capable of the skills that drive a global value chain need. Both. Not exclusively focusing on manufacturing. Let me try to sharpen i think the difference here. And by the way, havent had a chance to say. Its a pleasure to talk to grant about this. As always. We actually find a lot of, i think, areas of agreement, and some good ones of disagreement, too but always substantively, and rick, thank you for hosting today. Talk about substance. Thats where you come from. So heres an area where i think we disagree regarding what were talking about right now, this soft boundary. I used to think that, as an economyishing kind of cardcarrying basis, that offshoring was actually kind of more benign than a lot of democrats typically thought it was, just its part of globalize yeah, if you accept globalization, you have to accept that. Ive come to feel differently about that particularly in this very space were talking about, because theres now beginning to be evidence, largely case studies but the pool of an next dote is data. Or comp position. Theyre starting to be pretty compelling evidence that offshoring and the kind of manufactur based innovation were talking about, are enemies. Theyre actually negatively that the approximately proximity of the manufacturing process to the technology involved in that production is really important, and again, couple of guys at harvard did a couple of compelling case studies on this very issue, showing that were starting to suffer negative innovation because of were separating production and the technology. One area you havent seen that is in computer chips, and that is turning out to be, a. , partly the exception to the rural but, b. , were actually seeing that now happen there as well. Some of our falling behind in the solar area is because we are outsourced too much computer chip production and the technology therein, like in taiwan, theres an example of a heavily subsidized initiative to bring that kind of linkage between production and research together. Its very important. We cant afford to offshore that. Id like to just give me a chance. Get right to you. I want to go beyond economists, because whats interesting to me is a guy like andy grove, former ceo of intel. Big proponent of the point i just made. He said moving production overseas tampers our ability to innovate, which is what youre talking about. Direct quote, the companies are abandoning todays manufacturing can lockout out of tomorrows manufacturing industry. Can we do the kind of rebuilding that youre talking about and continue the heavy trend of offshoring we have had over the last decade or so . The answer is yes because the reality is that, for for china, they supply apple. A lot of what they do, and the do the Front Assembly of the iphone in my pact. The reality is apple dictates the machines used on the shop floor, the chemistry of the glass produced. The idea that were somehow using industrial common misunderstands what those manufacturers, like apple, are doing, and they dont think of that as value. Manufacturing value add. So theres a difference between our approach but im not sure it makes a difference policywise, because when china adopts a series of policies explicitly designed to pull manufacturing jobs into china, bit virtue of subsidies, by virtue of the currency, we agree thats a distortion that is inconsistent. And when you see countries adapting those policies, we may have a difference whether offshoring is go or bad, nor would it suggest that it comes to a different conclusion about trying to make this the best place to invest, because i think where i do agree with you is, we want the clusters of innovation to be taking place in the its and we want an educational system that is producing people capable of participating in the process, both in Public Education and expanding access to university. I got a time problem here. I wonder if you nave response . I do. I think that grant is making me feel a little bit like the president maybe knelt the first maybe felt in the first debate. The other guy is agreeing with you way too much. A lot of what you said i think is exactly right. I think you have to look at part of what we want to do here today and i think in an agreeable way, im sure is to highlight some differences between the candidates. Absolutely. And i dont speak for the campaign, by the way. I speak as someone who is independent of that but clearly supportive of those policies. That said, on two issues that you just mentioned, both training of which the president has an 8 billion initiative, which is largely community colleges, working with employers and emphasizing advanced manufacturing. A really good initiative. Frankly i dont think he talks about this enough. He talks about manufacturing but he doesnt talk about the policy he has on the books to help. And another one of these clusters, manufacturing clusters, the Commerce Department, we have a friend, pat buckley. The Commerce Department has numerous policies both to incentivize innovation, and specifically focused on clustering, and i can go into greater detail into what they are. But these are active policies. In fact, the Innovation Centers of which i believe theres now one up and running in youngstown, ohio, that theres going to be 14 more. This is a project that is up and running and funding. This is the classic kind of innovation coordination to get from the lab to the factory floor, and any economy that fails to do that typically finds a value depth between those institutions. Unfortunately i think the trend on the republican side of the aisle i havent heard anywhere near these kind details from the Romney Campaign is to go the other way. The one thing is to get in china. You have to get into the details to operationallize the kinds of connections you were making. I got to call time. I want to move to another question. Both talking about the candidate s. Were going to crisscross, youll have plenty. I want to come back on those two points. Fine you may have the chance right now. Let me say in terms of the candidates, if you look at the president s record, the both the president and governor romney talk about creating manufacturing jobs, and everything is going to come up roses. Lets talk about the record. Talk about the record of each one and talk about your own candidate and not about the other candidate. Okay. So, here we have the president , who is going to bring unemployment down, much lower than it is today. Were sitting in an economy with 25 Million People who are either unemployed or employment parttime and would like to work fulltime or dropped out of the labor force. So what is there in the president s record, his record, that says to the electorate, you can believe me when i say im actually going to move jobs forward in the future. First of all theres really quite impressively, and im sure people in the room i suspect many people are looking at the trend as happily as i am. We have added half a Million Manufacturing jobs over the last couple of years and thats a reversal of a more than decadelong trend. You cant say its going to last forever because nobody knows the future, but thats something the president has every right to brag on, and something we really need to build on. I guess it real areee lates to my last answer which is that the president actually has very elaborate manufacturing agenda. Part of it has to do with tax policy, and he has proposed a set of changes to the tax code to incentivize onshoring and deincentivize offshoring. He has quite an elaborate set of tax plans to do so that are explained in a treasury white paper. Brings the corporate rate down to 28 , and unlike his opponent, he has actually elaborated how to help pay for that. So theres the regional clusters, theres the innovation sectors, to take production processes from the universities to the lab floor. Theres, again, on the tax side, theres making the rne tax credit permanent. Thats an important thing for a certainty in the industry. Something the romney camp opposes, the production tax credit. I mention 8 billion. If you want to call me on time and im going through the agenda well, its get through the agenda. Okay. Im sorry. I still have more. You asked me about the agenda. We have may have those other questions come up later. R d. Let me just ask you on the basis that governor romneys record. Okay . Governor romneys record, governor perry of texas wasnt terribly impressed with governor romneys job creation record as governor of massachusetts and if you listened to his rhetoric today, get the government out of the way, lower the tax rate, let Small Business go, at least to my ears and the ears of at least one person in the last debate, that sounds very much like george w. Bush told news 2000 and we wound up with the worst job creation record in manufacturing and lost 5. 5 million jobs in that decade, the worth growth rate of seven decades until this one. But this is part of it. If you were an mist can separate these thinks, thats interesting. From to 2000 to 2007, the worstb creation, and you lost 59,000 industrial plants. The very thing that governor romney is talking about doing paid off terribly. Id like know where you get the statistics . Because having lived inside the administration and being responsible for manufacturing, and what policy approaches we adopted, and understanding what we were doing taxwise in response to a recession we inherited from the Clinton Administration and the end of the dotcom boom and the corporate scandals and all the other things that put a depressing effect on the economy. The job creation actually was remarkable in response to tax cuts and very significant reforms that left more money in the middle class pocket. Some education accounts, Health Savings cants, things that actually helped the middle class. How did we lose so many manufacturing jobs in that period . There war a lot of things going on in the economy that were having big impact on manufacturing, not just by virtue of the things i describe, which what the outsourcing and the way we account. Theres no doubt that what we have seen over the last 20 years, in terms of the integration of global marketsbut enormous downward pressure on industrial goods, their prices globally, and that hays driven an awful lot of productive gains that means youre going to be using machines any job that can be done by an algorithm is going to be done by a computer, not an individual. Our job, regardless of the campaigns, is to say, how do we train people so theyre the people who are shaping what the algorithm does and what the computer does, rather than saying we want to keep doing the jobs that were there at the turn of the 20th century. Time. Do you have rebuttal . I want to finish my last exposition. He gets rebuttal. I will begin by rebutting and then ill say what want to say. At least youre honest about it. The candidates we may have a factual disagreement here. I view the middle class i think the data are strong that the middle class did particularly poorly in the 2000s and im not saying that was exclusively a function of president ial policy. I thought that was part of it. Those policies were hurtful to the economy but thats was an ongoing process of inequality. It is a fact that middle class incomes for the first expansion on record were thankfully stagnant over the full business cycle. Poverty went up in those years. I agree more with rick0s assessment, at least the living impact. I just want to finish this because its important. Very key part office the president s agenda i think therapist important ways from his opponent. Has to do with exports and trade enforcement. As well as investment in clean energy, and then the autos, which is looking barkward backwards. A big difference on autos and its an important difference in the vibrant si of that sector. Rebuttaltime there. Jerod there was a wonderful gloss on the president s policy and yet what we witnessed factually was the Corporate Tax rate to rise to be in be the highest, so you have an impact whether these is a place people want to impress. So what does romney say . Bring it down to at least the oed you mean the Corporate Tax rate . Thats by closing loopholes. Least look at a good example of that. Energy. This has a big impact on employment policies. What are the policies of expanding energy development. You have the department of interior taking land and resources out of production. Cant drill on that, you have an epa that i resistant, and the natural gas revolution and has brought texas back into play in terms of production of petroleum. Romney wants to eliminate the policies at interior and ep at a that are making that problematic. He wants to make sure what were doing is making sure investment will flow to keystone rather than solyndra, a123, 089 billion in tax detroit alternative energy. Instant wont work. Im going to carry that argument on. Lets go into this energy thing because we do have the recent development of very cheap energy in this country through natural gas and we have price friday prices in the country tell me 3 a cubic foot. And let me just ask you, jarred, the point that grant is making here. Namely, the administration is hampering, hindering the development of natural gauze as rammedly as possible, and thats holding back the development of manufacturing because its a look, i couldnt disagree more. I think what is hindering the use of natural gas in manufacturing is the fact that the infrastructure is still young. For every 10 we spend on energy, only one is on natural gas right now because we simply dont have yet the infrastructure to employ that in bring the gas to the manufacturing and to have the machinery actually run off that kind of gas versus fossil fuels but the price difference is very incentivizing. Were looking in the right direction. Ill let the Fact Checkers read on the opinions on energy image thought the president has a great deal to brag on, on Energy Production and and its not just fracking, which is a big part fracking is a good example of a Government Investment role that led to an important industrial what you mean by that . One of my themes is grant and i agree on this is the role for government in investments that have important implications in Building Industries in manufacturing while natural Gas Exploration to this date is very much a function of early Government Investments in that technology that private industry wouldnt make because the returns were so uncertain. Its a key rational in the role of manufacturing. On the Corporate Tax i have to say were going to do corporate romney wants to go to 25 were going to do Corporate Tax lets stick with the energy thing. I dont see those if you think about what you just said, even if i assume the case you were proposing, that were really talking about this problem of not the infrastructure of not being there why would you then suggest that imposing an epa rule that cuts off the possibility of using cole fired plant now and drives up the cost and creates a higher cost of adaptation for companies to get that natural gas. Why would you adopt that as a policy now if you interesting in preserving manufacturing . Its a fair question. Because the problem with the framing of the question it is a good question it assumes that such epa rules are pure cost and no benefit. The epa doesnt make those rules because its wants to block energy exploration. It makes those rules to protect us from the harmful pollutive extincts of coal president. The president said, im for clean coal, and i agree with that. So so to fight the epa as constantly a source of cost instead of the benefit side is shortsighted. But in the context of manufacturing youre saying im going to impose the cost now. Theres a valley of death between here and where we get to in the infrastructure that allows to us go to natural gas, which actually disagree with. All the plants coming on assume that were going to be moving ahead on natural gas. Having said that, youre creating a valley of death. What that saying to the invest investor . Do i invest in china. How can you say that . The actual fact of the prices and exploration and amount were actually pulling out of the ground. Just talking about energy in general. This this first time i think waits 2011 the first time in 60 years that we, the United States, was a net exporter of petrol e trollum products. Youre talking about the infrastructure of power generation, not the energy coming out over the ground. The energy out of the ground, low prices, lots of supply bit of the infrastructure is there to drive it into electricity costs that i dont think the each play any role in that. Whats i would you see people saying we better export natural gas and coal because we cant silt here. I dont think thearchies playing any role in preventingen a a manufacturer from building a machine that uses natural gas rather than fossil fuel improve think the energy thing is a kinnard. What do we do about china . Running a 259 billion trade deficit with china. Been going up. A lot of it is manufacturing goods. A lot is in hightech which we thought would be our sal racing and protection. We got sever several problems, copy righted materials, huge sub days in china, indigenous innovation and a currency problem. So let me just ask you, first awful, mr. Adonas should we be declaring china a currency manipulate sore we we can invoke the i grew up in a bad neighborhood in minneapolis. We wondered. And you know what . We werent afraid to say honest things. We werent afraid to say what was really going on. They do manipulate their currency, and the irony is that is hat appreciated improve agree with that completely. Late through theyve been intervening in it even more because they see the value of their mmd against the euro rising while the euro is falling against the dollar. A they have been driving it down because europe is a larger market for them than he United States. So the ironis that while we made some progress in fact right now, were seeing a drive to drive that down. When you look at that suite of policies youre looking at a country that is saying id like take advantage of the benefits of the trading system. Im not willing to adopt a suite of policies that means the Playing Field will be level and its fair competition. Thats on top of the fact that from the point of view as a manufacturer, who have to go to the markets for their capital, the cost of capital is near zero for industrial enterprise in china. It can go to one of the banks and say i need this to get the influence of my former counterpart to influence the local provincial bank, and theyre not competing for capital the way a private enter pies pryce has enterprise has to thats a model that has to be confronted and addressed. One is to say on the this is something where i applaud my son tim rice, General Council were going to come back. Met say on the currency question. So, should the president in the next term be declaring china a currency manipulator and letting schumer and the folks on the hill go ahead with the penalty . Those or two different things. Im for both of them. And i suspect youre for one of them. So, yeah, i think if you have a im sort of where grant is on this. If you have a rule that people who manage their currency or manipulate their currency should be labeled as such and you the that champion china is doing that to not label them dis i dont get it. As a member of the administration i often scratched my head in meetings with colleagueses on this point and what people will tell you grant you have been in this fray as well people will tell you, look, we get it. We understand, it makes sense, but if youre thankfully sitting across the table and negotiating, that doesnt help you. It wont get you where you want to go because that just pisss them off or Something Like that. Ive never sat at the table and negotiated, frankly, but if thats the case, then dont have a policy that says, were going to label people and then not label them. So thats one. But really, i dont think that would do nearly as much as the levin or schumer legislation. It has had bipartisan support in both houses, 99 republican votes in the congress before this one, and this is a bill that would provide the administration the ability to seek piece by piece. Productbyproduct. I think the president would sign tom. Ite quite certain governor romney probably wouldnt. Do you have answer answer . The point is the law already allows you to do that. Im not all that interested in trying to force people to what i describe as sort of illustrative votes that get to make a political point but its allowed at this point. You can go after china on the basis of theres things you have to prove. I like the discipline of the profits and the beauty of it in response its always the guys at the Treasury Department that put on this con cal hat with the heaven moon and the stars and say, finance is too complex. What they really mean is, leave us alone. Im not constrained from not saying, this isnt going to work. The reality is to call the bluff. Is there a danger in your mind with their holding 1. 2 trillion in american trussry bonds . Quite the opposite. The old line about wall street. When youre you owe the bank a Million Dollars they own you, when they owe you 1. 2 trillion, you own them. The idea that, thats as much a threat as people make it out as, is simply wrong. More seriously, those dollars have to comb come back, either have to come back in buying our goods or making investments in the United States. We have to decide which we want. My view we want to be exporters. I dont want to discourage chinese investment. I want it to be sound and based on market principles about i want to be an exporter. Thats where i would be headed. A weaker dollar would emanate from the policies grants espousing would help us in that regard. I want to say thank you. Lets me change the subject. Youre doing fine work. Changing the subject of chinese subsidies. You have craig barrett, former ceo of intel saying, it costs me a billion dollars less to build a chip lab in china in america. The land is either free or nearly free. Capitol california next to nothing. Infrastructure get put in the roads and utilities and then you get tax abatement for many years. How do we deal with that . Do we match the subsidies or go the wto and fight them on subsidies that violate global rules . That is one of the things where i like what governor governor governor romms strategy is. At it very aggressive with respect to enforcement. Its like civil rights legislation. You remember the Justice Department drove an awful out love issues that people said, you cant win that case. But they did it anyway at times to prove there was a problem with the rules. That we had to do something more in terms of discipline. So i want to be very aggressive. On the enforcement side, wto and our own domestic laws. The other side of it, that includes the i. P. Stuff. The other side is you have to create an incentive. Nobody is going push the chinese anywhere. Nobody is going to push us anywhere. Create incentives to adopt a different set of rules. That obliges to go very aggressively the negotiating table and say we got have a set of disciplines and then we have to have that outcompete the chinese for investment. So lets say its the transit system. This is the matching this is matching subsidy for subsidy. This is saying i want to create an environment in the most dynamic economic region in the world, in asia, where the rules are such that everybody is obliged to go to the market to face the competitive factors the chinese dont face, and then guess what . I am certain that if vietnam is part of that, they will start to outcompete china for investment. Well start to outcompete china for investment. You already see that, entrepreneurs leaving china were surprising because of the policies which ironically favor the rich and the stateowned Companies Rather than the entrepreneur in china. We also have to try to create something that says to the folkses in the old shanghai Reform Movement in china, theyre better off moving in the direction of i want to create an incentive for them to come with better rules and competing. How do we deal with the chinese . I think the only way to do this is ways that have worked so far and to do more of that. I think the administration has been quite good on this. Yes, its true they havent labeled and you heard my view on that china as a currency manipulate error, but have gotten tough on barriers. I include currency on those. We have a factual disagreement. I its my understanding to bring court vailing duties against not just from china, if you read the work of joe beganon, its not just china. Its very costly to our economy, accord dog his analysis which is quite rigorous. When you hit the chinese on a particular good or even on currency, they respond. But they only responsible as lock as they have to and then they stop and go back to their old ways as grant described. So i think the case we brought against tires was very effective. The think at the steel case, rae earth case for the people, say what the tire case is. The idea here is that within the International Body not the wto. It was the other one anyway, im blocking on the institution, but when a country is subsidizing its exports to your country so they get a bigger market share, youre able to, through these policies i mentioned, impose a tariff or duty, some kind of tax that makes those exports those imports into your country more expensive, and theyve been flooding our market. With cheap tires and cheap steel and protecting their rare earth, materials that are important in production. And through policies the administration has pursued we imposed a cost on that and thats been very effective. You can answer that just as a special im not going to expect happens to be not only somebody who was a trade lawyer, was a chief trade counsel on the finance committee and was upon for administering that. The Commerce Department made a series of decisions dating back to the second lumber dispute that actually belied the problem of what is known as the specificity test in respects to subsidy. And we what we hasnt done is something any administration should do in my view, is take a hard look at where those precedent was allow you to go after the chinese, because those have been sustained by u. S. Security courts. If this is a fight the chinese want to take to the wto, thats where i want to have the discussion. Were right or i want to say the rules are insufficient in terms of the disciplines they impose on this behavior, which clearly undermines the value of the wto and the system. That was not addressed to the audience. In a practical term, almost everybody has said, one way or another particularly challengesser say you got to get tougher with the chinese. I want to understand how the heck we can distinguish between talking the talk and walking the walk. Its just too easy to say we have to do this, that and the other thing, and you have wonderful knowledge of and explanation of, but the question is in the end house do how do we know that in fact is what governor romney is going do or president obama is going to do in a second term . President obama has done the actions i described in his first term. If i wasnt clear about that i should be. The actions against the tires, the steel, are all actions that were taken in the first term. Now, i actually believe that it may well you sound like you know what youre talking about. Which doesnt mean you do. Im a lawyer, so it may well be not a discount there. I do. It may will be the mark mash nations you described can actually work but i would feel better if we actually had a simple piece of legislation of which this bill is, that says, when there is evidence of a subsidy a currency subsidy leading to the problems where both are very frustrated about, you can bring a case that the administration, without going through the wto and all these kind, can bring a case. Not his advisers, that day one, fully understanding what closer not in terms of action under a trade law. In embracing the idea that the currency necessarily does apply and then we have to start moving without waiting for the legislation. So youre saying he would declare and then start during countervailing duties. And theres a number of other areas of proposals discussed that talked about doing things we absolutely have to do. The reality of her intellectual property laws and enforcement tools are not adequate for the role that our manufacturers operating. A lot of the violations come to us in a component come and a finished product it reaches our shores. The way our rules work is very hard to get to that. So what we have to be doing is actually developing the tools, which didnt used to exist. I was talking in the green room, vertical integration, arms length transaction. The world of global values, we do not have an ip enforcement set of tools do we need to go there. So a very important thing, i think our disagreements may be pretty solid. We both seem to agree to currency manipulation is a big problem and we should do something at industry delete about it. I think id go further than you in terms of legislation. But the other side of the coin is a think a very big and important difference between the two sides hasnt come up yet. And thats the extent to which you would invest in domestic manufacturing here. And im not talking about beating the chinese that their own game. I do want to do the state of Enterprise Investments they do, or manipulate currency. But i picked through these ideas earlier at the innovation idea, the cluster idea, some of the tax policies idea. I think that kind of investment in infrastructure and clean energy would absolutely be precluded by the budget that ive heard from paul ryan and governor romney. And i think thats really important. We havent talked about it at all. Grant has a lot of good ideas in this investment space. Ill think theres any money for that governor romneys budget. This is a guy say that cap spending at 20 of gdp. That means 16 has to be for everything else. You start looking at that emplaced agency by agency, youre going to have to coverage about a lot of these programs, some of which arent even all that large. The extension partnership, the kinds of innovation clusters have been talking about. I dont see how that investment becomes part of a budget that is not austere. I would say the Commerce Department have lots of friends who are alumni. We could find 4 with 500 million that we would cut. And that wouldnt go materially to the sorts of programs youre talking about. The previous conversation and they dont actually know governor romneys view of this, but i wouldve put several years ago about globalization and american worker. One of things they took away was the belly of the head start program. Everything is baked in the cake by the time you gradeschool. So i want to cut the milk in the childs table. Im sorry. Want to understand, are you buying the kind of programs, the Government Role in stimulating growth in investment in a variety of programs i was actually saying no. But i bought her a suite of complementary policies that actually help individuals. What i dont buy her things to get the cylinder a 123 and things of that order. Nobody wants a failure. The problem is when you expand government from this can survive background in development economics. You expand government from a 20 face, you have to consider what that does in terms of trying to influence up lobbying and potential corruption. Which is set up a case of the army corps of engineers. The more money, the more you encourage the behavior. The more money that they are the more you attract the right seeking behavior, which is the worst form of entrepreneurialism. So what if they want you encourage this progress, i would rather encourage policies that encourage investment and allow the market to take a Worthy Investment should go rather than putting sending the business by saying winners and losers. So you buy the estimate of u. S. Chamber of commerce that were losing a chilling dollars in growth in america and untold lands in exports because our Transportation System is so out of date because it takes us want to have a Freight Train to chicago if it is to get up from los angeles to chicago and at our airports and highways and bridges. Do you buy that argument . Remember, i am from a town with a major bridge collapsed, so yes i agree. I fly to lax and say jeez, we may be in a developing country. Is the Government Role player . Are people calling for Infrastructure Spending will be not only construction jobs ive got a great example. My parents are wise not to get me out of town because it is the Boundary Waters in minnesota. His white house theyre called this the rock lighthouse. And the reason i chose that for my little business as it gets a perfect example in the absence of the investment to which government had to do to public good. No individual company would invest in that. Or the wheat lands on both sides on both sides of eocene Canadian Border to world trade. That is the sort of investment to get government absolutely has to do. I think we would agree that weve actually done a very good job of focusing on. Where you get the money for that now . The reality is we have a lot of debts we have to pay off. Now that may mean on a a number of suite programs we otherwise have at the Commerce Department, those are not going to be investment because have to take care of infrastructure. A lot of things we do as Economic Development in the Administration May be more interested in trying to drive that money or had started first and then to river structure. Im with you on a lot of the ideas which are espousing here, but i really think you need to take a much closer look at the budgets, particularly governor romney. You know, paul ryan proposes over 5 trillion of cuts. 60 come from lowincome programs and on the head start. That doesnt mean every dollar is sufficiently spent. We should make sure that it is. Im not defending every single dollar in these programs. But the conventional Budget Office looked at the implications come a budget from the said he supported. Numerous decades. They found outside of entitlements and interest in the dead and defense, there is less than 4 of gdp left for other things you just said. You and i agree those are important. Those investments will simply be unaffordable under the kinds of budgets these guys are espousing. In fact, if were going to have any input from the government such that we can supporting Manufacturing Sector in the way i think we should, thats going to involve some new revenues. Again, thats a big difference in both sides. Given where we are in essence the estimate, which you invest in a 123 and cylinder . Ill answer that. It is not a good example of which are talking about. Now, it was actually installed by Johnson Controls and i just read about it this morning on my blog. And you should read about that because a 123 was essentially consolidated and continues to create advanced battery technology. In fact, this blog called batterypowered growth is all about how our investments, largely from the recovery made a real difference in precisely the way i tried to introduce in our introduction, where government has planted seed capital and a key factor that is not picking a winner as much as recognizing that there will be an economy out there come a country out there that dominates advanced battery production. I want to get to Corporate Tax reform. I know youve got Something Else to say on this. I just want to go to that topic before you run out of time here. How can we as the tax code to generate more business and jobs here at home . More Manufacturing Business here at home . Youve got a situation here, where Companies Working in america, do another work in america, whether Retail Companies or hotels or whatever, theyre paying pretty close to the maximum tax rate. Any of Companies Operating overseas and a whole slew, exxonmobil, generally check, murder, i could rattle through a whole lot paid zero taxes and a big reason was they had a whole lot of production overseas. Now is that a sensible system for building job growth in this country are not . I try to avoid going into global and territorial taxes. No comments at perfect example of what the Obama Administration has gone on. But being jerrod signaled with his train to provide an incentive tax wise to reassuring i guess is the phrase, misunderstands for most of these investments are. 95 of humanity lives outside the borders. To be in most markets means we have to invest in those markets. Even if its just a sales office to promote our exports. The idea that should penalize the income generated by the overseas investment as a means of allowing it to be competitive in the Global Economy is simply false. The other two sectors are the perfect example. We used to think of it, remember it today said ida tarbell and standard oil and then we thought at the second in the 50s and 60s were being educated. Reality today is the top 25 companies in the world with the exception of axon girls stayed home. An exxon has been in the top 20. The question is whether you are to raise the cost of capital for exxon because we still have tarbell in our minds and make sure they cant compete for resources and capital with everybody else and not marketed or what they were going to be wise about what the reality of energy is and where we have two of us. So the idea that were penalizing the actual investment, take away foreign tax credit can and are doing much overseas. It seems to me to be deeply inconsistent with the idea that thats where we have to be in order to compete in the Global Economy. I think you argued we should nationalize exxon. [laughter] i want to talk about the answer in Corporate Tax. Corporate taxation. Its very important. Heres the thing that you got to know. I thought a lot of flickr you just talked about, you know, respectfully didnt get to the core difference here, which is based. The governor says he wants from the Corporate Tax rate to 25 . His 35 , but as you mentioned, theres a huge variation. If you look at statutory, or very high in international comparison. If you look at the effective rate, all the loopholes and such in the international ones in my view are the most egregious. Thats where you see a force for the bottom in how higher effective tax rate is. The president wants to bring the rate down to 28 . The governor wants to go to 25. U. N. Argued by three percentage points, think you agree that either one of those would be a fine goal. But the differences, and its a huge difference that lets you to address. Youve got to specify how youre going to get there. Mitt romney with apologies has absolutely been terrible in specifying how hes going to broaden the base. He said trust me, ill get to it later. Excuse me if im very nervous about that because the history of washington is in people promised low rates come you got a lot of performer not much latter. The president talked about accelerated depreciation. Debt financing, the weight inventories are treated, transfer pricing, all this tax deferral, all the favorable treatment for income abroad. That incentive is if the outsourcing. I bring you back to my first comment, which was that when you offshore production come you offshore innovation as well. And that is not the direction for secretary. Youve got about 15 seconds. This highlights the problem with the president. He says he wants to reduce 20 . Every budget drove the reach of 44 and adapted a series of policies actually took away things that exposed income to john taxation. Youre confusing and contacts of the Corporate Tax. No, no, and the Corporate Income tax, there were provisions. At the Corporate Tax rate gone up some 35 . It has risen to well above. It hasnt come up at all. When they go to the audience and just tell you that i would like you to identify yourself. Wait for the ladies and gentlemen with the microphone to come around to you. Please ask a question and dont make a speech and keep it relatively to the point. Ive got one over here. And remember, im part of a meter outside. I have a vested interest. Loblaw from the aflcio industrial council. I listened what she said about Corporate Tax rate. As for osama the biggest abominations as an incentive to assure. In fact, we see 70 of the goods coming into this country made by american firms. We went to china and all we want is not so much about the chinese market. And then they hold profits and boost the bottom line. This is part of discredit tax system of incentives. And the question as, what would you do to get rid of deferrals . The answer is that mr. Territorial system. Heres why. You to put that in language other people can understand. Right now we subject every dollar of u. S. Firm earns to the potential for double taxation. And we churn come back to what taxing just the income earned in the United States is the system of foreign tax credits is usually referred to. The reality is taking away the deferral is taking away of saying im going to penalize. Let me understand what you just said, means he would not have any taxation on any foreign profits made by american corporations. Is that correct . No american taxation. Income generated by david hes done in those countries. Overseas. In any president i think we would get rid of the loopholes. That loophole which would cause that to be taxed without deferral. Many subject of double taxation. Just trying to get the facts clear. Said the president and never one of his budgets has proposed to get rid of deferral for exactly the reason the question you raised. And by the way, all the tax solution that grant suggested death as it takes the deferral thing and accept that a makes a permit. Instead of having to just store your income over there to avoid taxation, will make a rule she never have to pay taxes on it as long as you just keep it over there. Thats an incentive to go exactly the wrong way. Evening to take jobs overseas . Suggesting its not subject to taxation is foolishness. It is subject to very high taxation. In china . Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If you if you want to coopt or a Pharmaceutical Company at 2 hiding hiding . Had been other hiding when the iris nose with their . Seriously. I do want to go back to the point where he said im getting all these things on china. I want to make an important point because its a misperception that drives a lot of the debate. Im holding an iphone in my hand. 60 of the values are in the United States. Every bit of this comes to us as quote, unquote, an import from china. Every bit of the value is counted as an import from china regardless of where is produced. This none of us are 60 , stuff from japan. I think that the question goes to, is we actually need to think much more deeply than i have at this point. Im afraid the tax debate it scares about where value is actually created excitement in america, particularly American Manufacturing, we create value. Not because of subsidies are unfair competition. If address or tax policy, im interested in making sure that we understand how value is created here and we try and draw the system. Very simple. I absolutely agree about Value Creation. The Value Creation is intimately linked with innovation. It is intimately linked with the production process here and if you have the tax policy, that either allows the kind of things being played today, or simply exempt foreign earnings from american taxation, which is what it does. He started a chain of events that outsources production, but innovation and jobs as well. Jerry jasinowski, former president of the National Association of manufacturers. A great panel and i think you covered policy issues to manufacturing very well. I was very disappointed that there wasnt a better answer to your first question, hedrick, which is vice manufacturing are important to the United States . Here we are in the middle of a Political Campaign and were trying to get those in which god a tv camera that is trying to communicate this to the public. And it didnt manufacture essential to everything for National Defense to innovation to education. And i would like to ask both of these good penalize to give us an impassioned statement that they would give to their candidates about why manufacturing is a great question. Thanks for asking it. Youre absolutely right. I think we gave it a short shrift. I think we both very much tried to accentuate the importance. But not as passionately as we shed. Heres my impassioned pain. The manufacturing responsible for 70 of our r d 90 of our patent. Its critically important for product dignity. Theres simply no way american Living Standards can increase without faster productivity growth to take the Manufacturing Sector out of the picture come in the innovation of the picture. We dont even have the potential for higher Living Standards. We have a big pop the productivity growth has been diverging from compensation. Thats different. But shes got to have the growth necessary, not sufficient. Its necessary. Good quality jobs. Not just on the wage that, but the benefits that as well come straight from the value added. The manufacturing works 17 by the nonmanufacturing workers includes not just a paycheck, but the Health Insurance and pension benefits. Next point, our trade deficit our trade deficit is a drag on growth at its not just exploit spirits net exports pdf think exports minus imports. And the only way we cannot blind to that in real time is by stronger Manufacturing Sector. People is that we can through services are wrong in the near term. Perhaps down the road, Service Exports are 25 of the trade. Let me amplify. We once developed a manufacturing strategy. We knew it was because not only is manufacturing important because im thinking about manufacturing as a catalyst for what you want to see his good Economic Policy and every other aspect of american life. Education, worker training come easy and this is a to drive is what is important. Heres the one point. We dont have to wait for congress to tell us to develop the manufacturing strategy. We knew what we were facing that we knew that required us to put forward ideas to get the process moving, to drive the Public Policy process forward. And the goal was to release a strategy that would do that in an election year. In part because you want to frame the debate in the debate in a way that the issue was joined. Sadly, thats not what weve gotten despite the protests. People on both sides of that demanding a manufacturing strategy. Very quick. I will, but i want to get that lady in the back, first. I thought it was her hand. I wanted to ask about the medias role in all of this. This seemed to come the trade policies are fairly similar. Maybe on tax and budget where theres a difference. But the problem is sort of the treasury perspective is still out there in the media. You look at usa today editorials into Washington Post editorials decrying china bashing when in reality, the united businesses trying to get china to live up to the rules of International Trade regime. How do we take what youre doing and keep the candidate focused on whichever one is selected, really having the courage to go against that mentality when they get in for the first or second term. Great question. It does enable me to go where ones to go anyway. You were going there regardless. And it contradicts something my friend grant said a minute ago. And by the way, i take the survey great chapter called the evolution of trade policy, which is a mustread for everybody from a book called manufacturing a Better Future for america and to see the trade policy history from the beginning of time basically in terms of america. And it shows integral role of government and created the Manufacturing Sector from the very beginning. I mean, terrorists were incredibly important. Some of the parachuted into this debate today, think that some of his argument we actually have to be manufacture policy, a trade policy, pushback on unfair practices by other economies with some wideeyed radical socialist, kenyan whatever. There was alexander hamilton. Born in the caribbean islands. So i think with these editorial boards are reflecting is a neoeconomics that evolved a few decades ago that a shot to be completely correct the factual real life. If you need evidence of that, surfing the Manufacturing Sector, its very clear. We really need to get people historical days. And in fact, make it clear. I did a presentation. In fact, we did a presentation. My presentation was about how i was taking apart a Washington Post editorial much less in the spirit of the questionnaire. It caught us protectionists for going after currency management. Thats not protectionists. Theyre being protected, so a server and it will education. Ive got to get more people out. Im sorry. You get the next one. Dana marsh of the transnational strategy american university, good to see both of you. Garrett come you mentioned a 123. Both of you actually did. I want to ask you, yes Johnson Controls apparently some question about that, but apparently they are making a strong bid on that. But what id like to get from both of you as a comment about a prior suitor that may still be trying to get them, which is a chinese auto parts company. To the extent that this is a firm which the administration put a lot of money and have some sort of technology that is valuable in some way thats not defenserelated, not defenserelated you should there be a policy with respect to screening of that kind of a potential acquisition from a Foreign Company . You can take it wherever you want. Eventually i answer the questions. As you know, dana, we have a policy for National Security purposes in terms of investment and weve limited to that because we want to encourage investment in the United States. The time has come that theres differences in security. The reality is that for going to investment by folks who want responses to the cost of capital the way firms had to be in the night dates come and gone to pay workers the way they have to be decent set of labor institutions as we have in the United States, we need to be thinking very carefully, particularly with taxpayers investments as to whether or not its an investment were interested in. We want to stay investment across the board, the victory decisive judgment here about the source of investment, particularly when i think about the 25 Oil Companies at the top of the ladder. Theyre not competing the wet exxon has to compete. And im not interested in that investment. Just take their ip standards. As soon as they do in their own economy into shorting our Economic Growth and global Economic Growth rates about a investment im particularly interested in. Im sorry. Theres so many other people. This is very particular his question. Im sorry, back there. I just want to keep it moving and get the people involved. Thanks for an excellent discussion. Id like to ask about trade policy. We havent gotten into the freetrade arrangement and where were going to what the difference between the two candidates. Im astonished that the president stands up at every debate and says he signed free trade agreements. For gosh sakes, he didnt find any. He had even launched a negotiation. The one thing he has going was the bush administration. What he did was hold up the freetrade agreements for three years while american manufacturers were locked out of his markets. That is not a trade policy that engages in the Global Trading system and takes our seat at the table with an effort to design the rules in ways rules in ways that not only sort of are interested. Im capable of being utterly marketable and saying i want goods in those markets. We got to break down barriers. But just as important, its the most powerful thing for Economic Development. The idea we want state capitalism ever not willing to engage in the negotiations in shaping the rules. Make a Brighter Future globally. Can i respond quite i very much like chris previous answer, by the way. Look, there were two big disagreements. First of all, i think the president is legitimate to take credit for the south korea panel. Signing a trade agreement over the kind of pump that we did is far, far more difficult. I was there for south korea and that was really touch and go when very hard. I think we have friends from the afl here who have something to say. Remember when nancy pelosi pulled the fasttrack way she did it because the votes were there. Is a member of the administration who worked on getting the trade over their home, im telling you is a big deal. Heres the thing where i disagree pretty significantly and trading policy, which is the root of your question. I dont think these freetrade agreements have nearly the impact on trade, globalization and then would imply. He said something about unleashing tremendous growth and its just never happened that way. Theyre always advertised that way. Theres going to be huge benefits for us. Every time, never lives without. The people who make those claims about how dramatic the economy is going to improve because he signed a trade agreement and how many states are going to get ahead are actually really hurting themselves because the public about her reasonably reasonably, doesnt buy it all. If you actually want to have more freetrade policies, more of these agreements besides, you have to take down its rhetoric about how theyre going to solve all of our problems. Or not. Ever do that in a heartbeat if on the flipside everybody would stop saying hunting. I agree with that as well. Im a Naval Postgraduate School and i want to get back to your point about the importance of head start. I think a major piece from our total educational system is a guess and im going to call complex systems. We train people to be an expert. Generally when i talk to someone like you is the return them to to understand your buttonhole cannot understand the buttonhole is on your jacket or that youre wearing the jacket or that youre in the room. Everything is linked. We teach people to think and stovepipes and the connection, so you understand the consequences of the choices youre making. I think youre dramatic changes have to go in our educational system, starting in kindergarten. Youre absolutely right about that. The best work ive seen is wherewith they go straight it is what we do in our educational system is we actually prepare Young Americans who work in the industrial economy in the early 20th century. The great thing about henry ford did is create a system. The bad and henry ford did was create a system of replaceable people and that the skills that you need if they are in that time were to turn the ranch come into fact. Now if you look at what is not a worker does today, its very different. You know, very, very different. That training is not which are prepared to do when youre coming out of high school. Were not actually educating people from the start for the world theyre operating, which is the world of the algorithm. [inaudible] now, and talking about a systemically is a wonderful way to put it because the way we actually deliver in terms of phrasing Human Capital really does mean it. Improving the Public Education system i was tired with that. And also expanding. And i dont disagree with that. I think education is one of the series for president obama and arne duncan. Weve been laying off all sorts of teachers. Or laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers, while youve been saying we want better education. Somehow the mic is not working. Just speak directly into it like that. Do you hear me . My name is ralph, ray. I am a professor at nyu, but i was direct to your ibm for 30 years and i wrote a book about trade. Despite that, i have the greatest difficulty in following out the consequences of the various notions about making and improving the impact of that in manufacturing. I think its very complicated. I really dont understand it. If others do, i bow to them. My suggestion is that instead of emphasizing causes, we measure the facts. Let me be concrete in a proposal. We are hemorrhaging jobs. Some years ago, Warren Buffett proposed a very straightforward way to balance trade. And not by putting a particular tariff on this combat or the other thing, but simply by giving exporters certificates, which importers had to die. In other words, if you are successfully exporting, you get certificate sold on the open market in order to import you have to buy the certificate. That means it is an incentive to export any of them and on imports, but it does not cut down import, just balance them to exports. It balances trade data comes from warren, who is not an. Well, i take exception with that. Hes very smart about making money. But on Public Policy, this is a guide displayed the tax code like a fiddle. Of course. He understands it. He understands it . Im just asking for a little consistent. The companies he invests into not do what you describe. Im not asking them to. Im asking them to consider a proposal of his, which seems to make sense come which measures the outcome of all these incentives. Youre saying that one action. You got to look at warrants action. He does not act in the way youre describing. I would be less ad hominem. You know ill do it again if i get the chance. I think, you know, ralph, i think the way you keep that up is exactly right. Lets look at the effect. I do think that not just persistent trade balance from the persistent trade imbalance of the magnitude three seen have been very disturbed me for her and they very much a body the kinds of problems that ive been trying to stress and hurting the Manufacturing Sector as our friend from name was asking about earlier in terms of its importance. Our plan is definitely an interesting one. It strikes me as extremely challenging legislatively. I would think that just off the top of my head that the price impacts on imports would be nontrivial and that is something that can increase would not take. And i can tell you is a veteran of any of these debates, when you start fooling around, things get very complicated, very kicked away. So i think the cost of staff for buying up all markers. Thats what im saying. The straits as a potential issue there. However, one of the reasons costs are so low is because of the subsidies we been suggesting should be stopped. Thats a bit of a hot chick. But it would be interested in looking at those types of ideas. Ive got to cut it off. I wanted thank you both for a very lively discussion, which surfaced a number of disagreements in a genial way. [applause] i want to thank our moderator, trained them in, for doing a wonderful job. [applause] [inaudible conversations] i had gone busy day. Its been there since 1947, which is the founding of the country. It is shown films from all of the world from United States from england, from hollywood and in via. And to me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and the openness of the country in spite of all the violence in trouble that people have suffered over the last many decades in packets and. And during one the protest against the video that insulted the prophet mohammed had a very negative image of the prophet mohammed. During the protest of people turned against Movie Theaters and burn them. I dont really see that as a protest against the west. Even though avatar was one of the movies that you couldve gone to see since the affair. You see an islamic act to those who have not liked these Movie Theaters for decades, way before the prophet mohammed film, which was never shown in them anyway. And so, they grabbed an opportunity to attack and they whipped up a bunch of young people. They were teenagers involved to school sodas from a snack bar on their way to burn this Movie Theater, just torch it. And i argue in that piece that what theyre really attacking was the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. And i say that with the greatest respect. Hua mei is a foreigner to say what your country is about . But i know from having studied the history, having listened pakistanis themselves, but its an incredibly diverse place. It was born as an even more diverse place than it is today. Lots of different cultures, lots of different traditions, lots of different ways to be. That Movie Theater symbolize pakistan and that is what people burned when they set it on fire. I use cspan in a business capacity. About keeping up the hearings. Im trying to figure whats going on capitol hill live, its got a cspan. Its painful to watch the hearings live. Its what i need and so is able to watch it live while keeping up that i felt very current and uptodate loves doing it. Most recently covered all the technology. Cybersecurity was less when i watched it i needed to know what was going on. I didnt want to wait for the coverage, so first they turned to cspan. Relook the foreignpolicy positions of president obama and mitt romney was to reporters. This is 45 minutes. Host we are talking about Foreign Policy and can gain 2012 with matthew lee, state Department Correspondent for the associated press. Thanks for being here. And also guy taylor, at the Washington Times, thank you as well. We want to start out by talking about padilla. President obama is on the daily show last night with john toured the site the humor, also had some serious comments talking about the killings in benghazi back in september. So lets take a listen to the exchange. Part of the investigation, helping the communication between these divisions are not just what happened in benghazi, but what happened within. I would say even you wouldve met, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American People as far as its all been on the same page. Well heres what ill say. Before americans get killed, its not optimal and were going to fix it. All of it. All of that. What happens during the course of a presidency is that the government is a big operation and at any given time, something screws up and make sure you find out whats broken and you fix it. Whatever all sides done throughout the course of my presidency, the one thing at the knob slowly clear about his American Security comes first in the American People need to know exactly how i make decisions when they come to workpiece, National Security and theyll continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency. [applause] post as president of, on the daily show. Guy taylor, the president has consideration of the word optimal, saying it was enough to move. Guest sure, libby, while president obama and its finally really knowledge and there was a screwup, he hasnt really gone into detail about exactly what that screwup was. I think jon stewart is asking him, him, was it a script of the Intelligence Community was not the white house did not have clearcut indication that the Intelligence Community during or after the attack, or was it a screwup here late that security was not adequate enough to protect the life of the american ambassador. Secretary clinton was traveling there and you had this story from the heat oppressed. Secretary clinton said im responsible for complex security. Talk us through the command. The secretary was absolutely correct to take responsibility. The secretary is the president said during the debate, so were going to have a buck stops here moment. That moment will be with the president. Theres a lot of talk about how clinton was falling on her sword, trying to make herself look more president ial by doing this. Frankly when youre the secretary of state in him and asks you about a failure, obviously a failure to protect american diplomats abroad. You have to take responsibility. What else can you say . No, it wasnt my fault. Its the responsibility of the secretary of state to protect plants abroad. Though i think that both the president and the secretary of state are correct in taking responsibility. Guest i am assaulted the secretary of state clinton acknowledged responsibility was a bit of a trial story because hours later, obama appeared in the debate and he said i actually take responsibility. Its interesting how that played out this week. Host what did we learn about mitt romney and barack obama . What is the situation in libya show us about their broader foreignpolicy philosophy to dealing with things . Guest from the romney camp, it shows that theyre more interested in being poised to attack than they are in being to explain what theyre doing differently. Is it seized on this for more than a month now is some sort of a wedge that can exploit an abundance fairly successful foreignpolicy record over the last four years. Guest there is a cautionary tale for both republicans and democrats. Both sides came out very early on this statement that later proved to be inopportune. This statement from the embassy in cairo and then the administrations delay, if we can call it that, in reaching the inclusions, both sides spoke too soon on this. And i think it just shows the importance of getting your facts straight before you open your mouth and go out and publicly say things. Guest and ways the politics are playing a before the election, that the romney camp find themselves a little stuck behind the party. Lawmakers on capitol hill really amped up the volume on their criticism of the administrations handling of those in a way that i dont think benefited the romney camp going into a. Poster with you that you talk about campaign 2012 and foreignpolicy come here the numbers to call. Republicans 202 5853881. Democrats 202 5853880. An independent colors, 202585382. We started with libya, but will dig into foreignpolicy or if the candidates are talking about on the trail analysis for a better Foreign Policy debate monday night. Bob schieffer the moderator has given a sense of what the questions will be. You can watch that debate here on cspan monday. We also had a debate have on cspan. Org, where you can stream in aeschylus cech clips of it after the fact. Heres what ive schieffer has slated as the main topics or areas of discussion on monday nights debate. Americas role in the world. Also, afghanistan and pakistan, which he calls the longest war. Breadline israel and around. Also the changing middle east and the new face of terrorism and the rise of china and tomorrows world. Matthew lee, anyone that does stick out in your mind as was the flash point of interest . Guest are all extremely important issues. All of them are going to play a role in the campaign and they should help differentiate between the candidates if there is really any different than the two candidates. With the exception of smaller issues, there isnt a whole lot of difference between the two, or at least governor romney has been expanded backley what he would do differently in terms of the place went to the crisis in syria. So i think that the china issue, governor romney will come out strong on china, then president obama. Both of those cases, they have got to differentiate themselves and it will be interesting to hear the details of how he would act differently. Guest i think matt is right that if you parse the details come at the end of the day, it will not be that different. Where he is different over the campaign is trying to make their biggest brooches and posture and narrative. But theyve tried to do is get behind the narrative of peace through strength. Theyve tried to lift this in the Ronald Reagan playbook and say theres a Ronald Reagan advertisement and jimmy carter into this meant the transcribed complaining about the abundant ministrations weakness on Foreign Policy, unwillingness to stand up for america overseas. I think what you see in the debate as i presume, although i dont have full confidence romney is going to be a lot of pull it off. But i think jesse is romney will try and make the argument, no matter what the topic is. Whether its afghanistan first area, especially this syria and the middle east. All Transit Administration is the first one and jimmy carter to abandon this idea of peace through strength. Host guy taylor has a piece in the Washington Times on World Affairs and debate. The state Department Correspondent for the Washington Times and matthew lee covers the state department for these reseda press. Ask it to the phone and hear what you have to say. Keith reports that, arkansas car republicans line. Good morning. Go right ahead. Foreign policy. Caller im glad to be with you on cspan this morning. My question is not so much in the regard as being a terrorist attack as its been mislabeled. To me it was a military attack, or it was the engagement on the military action. We had a terrorist attack for the civilian target designed to create fear and the civilian population. This is completely not that. This was an attack on our diplomatic corps and it was an attack against the american sovereignty. Thats what my problem it is. Host that was inherently a civilian target. This is not a military target that these extremists went after. So i have to disagree with the caller on that. I think it meets the definition of a terrorist attack under whatever terms or however you want to define that. Post your tom, granite city, illinois under democrats find. Caller this is to both gentlemen. I watched all the debates with republicans and im a democrat, but i voted bush one time, first time. So my question is with mr. Romney. I understand where president obama is. Hes not letting anyone drag us into any more wars or to cite other conflicts, but he is willing to help, lincoln libya in other places. And he turned it over and we lost four americans in libya. My question mr. Romney is, is he talking about actually going back in iraq, going into syria, getting ready to go to war with iran . In the sense of calm is he ready to the news on the ground . Is that what he wants to do different than the president . And if not, what is he wanted to do besides rattled the saber . Ill take your comments off the air. Guest i think its a fantastic question because romneys camp would like certain people in the neoconservative elements of the Republican Party to believe that in fact coming yes, hes ready to pull the trigger and bring into strike on iran. The problem is if you look what he said any talk to senior advisers, whether theyre directly in the campaign or analysts are former officials on the periphery. They wont tell you exactly what he wants to do, which leads us to the conclusion that largely rhetoric and largely narrative, where he just wants to stay were stronger. I dont think if romney gets into the white house is going to pursue a war based policy. Guest you know, theres an old saying that Foreign Policy is like an aircraft carrier. You can change the captain, the captain can change the course, but it takes quite a bit of time to actually turn it around move in another direction. Guest or takes massive world events of 9 11, for instance. Guest indy. So i think what youre seeing from the campaign, the Romney Campaign, is the attempt to differentiate himself. But in fact, if hes elected, once he gets into office, he would be hard pressed to see any real significant, at least early on, real significant changes in the policy of the United States is going. Guest unless theres an event, like a breakout of foreign southeast asia. Highly unlikely, but something marchant is as unforeseen, then we dont know what romney would do. Because at the end of the day, romney is really unexperienced on Foreign Policy. Hes about where obama was five years ago. And really we dont know. But have to wait and see what were going to get. Postcode lets look at comments governor romney made about iran. Lets take a listen. Look whats happening in syria and egypt, now in libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and israel crumble the president said he was going to put daylight between us and israel. We have a ram, four years closer to a nuclear bomb, syria is not just a tragedy of 30,000 civilians killed by military, but also a strategic casher tediously significant player for america. The president s policies in the middle east began with the policy to her and pursue the strategy unraveling before our very eyes. Host governor romney speaking about iran, but also syria, middle east. Matthew lee. Guest despite those comments, its not clear to me at these not yet what exactly mitt romney would do differently in syria, for example. Hes talked about how his important for the United States to play a role in who to Legal Assistance weaponry and ammunition. But thats at the Obama Administration is already doing. As a governor suggesting the United States should itself supplied the rebels with arms . He seems to suggest no. But if that is the case, thats what the Obama Administration policy is right now. So i think for him to be able to say, to make a distinction, hes going to have to be more specific. Host he also talked about israel. Guest a lot of this has come for well over a year of campaigning, where governor romney has tried very hard to show this closeness of israel and expose the Obama Administration for not having a closeness. Israel is americas greatest friend. We cant sit here and pretend that hasnt had to do than someone with fund raising enough for champagne trail. Looking at Jewish Voters in florida and california and hoping the message of closeness of israel would result in campaign treasury. Host Vice President joe biden during the vp debate talked about israel and iran. With regard to the ability of the United States, it is not in my purview to talk about information. But we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the iranians. But number two, the iranians are the israelis and United States are military intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. There is no difference between our view and errors. When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take a highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 . Then they have to be elected have something to put it in. There is no weapon the iranians have at this point. We wont know if they start this weapon. All this bluster i keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about . Are you talking to be more credible . But mark and the president to bantustan by the united nations, directly communicate. We will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon. , cease talking about going to work. Host Vice President joe biden at the vp debate
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.