Because they are earned in the view of these people, rightly or wrongly. To a significant degree, wrongly. And significantly antielitist, that theres a wisdom in the collective that the elites often are combating. He wrote, and i thought this was quite a remarkable statement, the tea party is jacksonian american aroused, angry, and above all fearful backed by the new american demography that threatens its interests and scorns its values. They view obama as a sort of, having a conscious strategy of Building Political support by increasing americas dependence on government, and they i in polls of the tea party conducted by Pew Research Center and others suggest that these people consider obama as pushing america towards socialism. Well, thats not entirely wrong in the sense that obama seems to be ad slow candidate of advocate of europeanstyle social democracy. So this is a powerful strain in american politics. It has significant antecedents in our political tradition. It may not be a big majority that ran the country from about 1828 until the civil war in terms of dominating american thinking, but it is in these days for reasons having to do with the crisis at hand, it is very intensely held political beliefs. And, therefore, is a Political Force that has to be reckoned with. Now, there are a lot of democrats, liberals, people t in the media who suggest these people just need to get over it. The country has moved beyond them. And often sometimes you hear some kind of adjective suggesting that theyre sort of white bread people which is a pejorative that it ranks with almost any kind of pejorative that you could just throw at an ethnic group. But they dont have to get over it. Maybe historys not on their side. Probably demographics of the countrys not on their side, but the political, american political tradition is on their side. They dont have to get over it because they can press their points of view just as thoroughly as any other group or alignment within the political spectrum. And so what is this question that is pushing america into these crises . It really has to do with the definition of america. Are we going to move into more of a europeanstyle social democratic ethos and system, or are we going to retain something closer to the free enterprise, free market concepts exemplified, let us say, by in our lifetimes most strongly by Ronald Reagan. I dont have the answer to that, but thats the question. And its a profound question. And its got america in its grip. And as a result of that, america has washington in its grip. And as a result of that, washington has become dysfunctional. And as a result of that, we have such things as the crisis of the governmental shutdown. Now, we solved that crisis with a very temporary bandaid and, therefore, were going to be back in this soup very, very soon. And i think that this has a long ways to play out before we know which direction americas going to go in. Well, bob, thank you for those remarks, and it reminds me a bit of a piece that was in the New York Times a few weeks ago by Sam Tanenhaus arguing that the best the tea party could do was precisely what ted cruz was arguing, that the republicans should function best as an obstructionist force rather than trying to push legislation through. David, i would like to turn to you and say where is the gop headed, and where should it go and why shouldnt we count it out . What does the elephant, in fact, have some life left in its limbs . Theres plenty of life within the elephant, particularly in a twoparty system. In the course of the last two decades the Republican Party has been counted out as dead and ready to be buried several times. After the 1964 election when the goldwaterites took control of the party, time and newsweek carried covers saying the Republican Party was dead. Four years later the Republican Party took the white house. In 1974 those same covers appeared along with Television Programs talking about how the Republican Party was dead, and, in fact, timid republicans actually held meetings to discuss changing the name of their party because no one would ever vote for a republican again. Six years later republicans were in the white house. So this is not something thats new. Its something that goes on. Remember when george w. Or george h. W. Bush was elected, there was the talk of what was called the republican lock. All of a sudden things switched. And they said no democrat would ever be elected in our lifetimes because of the electoral lock as it was referred to in the media. A few years later bill clinton was president. So in a twoparty system in which both parties are prone to screw things up and find themselves unable in some cases or many cases to deliver on their promises or to perform as adequately as the people who have put them in office expect them to perform or just simply because people get tired of them, the other partys got a chance of coming back. I think the Republican Partys in a pretty good position. Right now if you look at much of the punditry, the talk is of the surveys that show republicans got more blame for the crisis of the shutdown than did democrats and that this means republicans are in real trouble. History and, in fact, those who have looked at it think that by the fall of next year when the congressional offyear elections take place this is not going to be something that very many people are going to vote on. Nate silver, for example, the former New York Timesman who makes a habit of handicapping these races says he doubts very much itll have much impact, and thats what history shows. Also while is the a crisis in a sense, its not the existential crisis that folks have talked about. The coverage of this one, of this shutdown and i think that bob is correct that the fault lines here make it in some ways more significant, but the shutdown itself was not significantly different than previous shutdowns other than the fact that the executive branch decided to make as much visible pain as they could for people, for average americans outside washington so they could argue rationally that this was a real crisis. The president argued that never before had this kind of situation occurred where one party tried to put something on to a continuing resolution of such, of such importance. In fact, the government shut down four times under Ronald Reagan, three times in a battle over the mx missile which as i recall was a fairly significant debate that took place in those days and once over the question of aid to the contras which was certainly as controversial as anything that weve talked about now. The champion president to suffer through shutdowns, of course, was jimmy carter. Still holds the record for the longest and the most days during which the government was shut down, and the debates then were over the Hyde Amendment about abortion. If those were insignificant questions that these president s were able to bring people to the table to solve, one wonders about the ability of this president to do the same. Jim baker, the former keefe of staff to chief of staff to Ronald Reagan and later secretary of the state, secretary of the treasury, writes and talks about the fact that when reagan was president and these shutdowns occurred, he immediately called everyone together and got things moving again. That didnt happen during this one. And its the kind of rhetorical crisis that could become real because, for example, in Alan Greenspans new book he talks about the failings of economists coming up to the economic collapse of a few years ago was that perhaps they underestimated the importance of psychology and herd performance on the part of investors and others when it comes to economic decision picking and were looking too much at simply the economic facts. What weve had this time is certainly a white house that has argued that this is such an existential crisis that the entire World Economy could collapse as a result of something thats happened many, many times before. As we approach the debt limit, the assumption if one reads the the daily newspapers or watches cbs or the other networks is that if, in fact, we dont extend the debt limit by whatever deadline the secretary of the treasury sets and that varies from week to week, that the World Economy will collapse because well renege on our obligations. And the fact, of course, is that theres revenue coming in that that wouldnt necessarily happen unless the president decided to rearrange the bills he was going to pay so that when the house of representatives voted recently to pass, to pass legislation that would require from present revenues the payment of all International Obligations of that sort, the president said if it got to his desk, hed veto it because he wants that leverage, and he wants to scare the bejesus out of both voters in this country and people abroad. And if greenspans right and if psychology matters, that could turn a political rhetorical crisis into a real economic crisis as people react not to the reality of what might happen, but to the political bantering and back and forth that takes place in this country. And its interesting, i mean, id add one other thing. When we get into these kinds of battles, you know, the New York Times some years ago when obamacare passed praised those dem can accurates who because democrats who because they believed so strongly in it they were willing to vote for it even though it probably meant theyd lose their seats as heroes, men and women of conscience. When republicans who believed as strongly that there was something wrong with it and that it would take the country wrong with it, the New York Times said they were fools because they were risking their seats. And the fact is sometimes courage and heroes depend on where you stand and where you want the country to go, so the people that agree with you are heros, people that oppose you and disagree with you are fools. And that sort of characterization dominates things. Its interesting to me that once the partisanship ended, once the shutdown ended, within the last 4 hours six democratic 24 hours six Democratic Senators have said we need to delay obamacare for a year because it isnt working and because its a disaster. Those six democrats and all the other democrats in the senate a week ago said delaying obamacare for a year would destroy everything. But now when you remove the partisanship, they said, gosh, weve looked at this, and wed better do something about it. Most americans in the polls blame the republicans for the shutdown. Today a National Poll came out, 51 of americans want obamacare repealed. So the fight between these two sides is not going to end either over this or any of the other issues that are going to dominate american politics for the next decade. David, thank you for those remarks. And now i will turn to Romina Boccia of the heritage foundation. On october 16th, excuse me, congress did what it does also well, it didnt do anything. The deal that passed, it did end the Government Shutdown, the first one we had in over 17 years, but only by setting up another with the finish another battle in early january. The deal also suspended the debt ceiling without enacting any reforms to slow the growth in entitlement spending which as we all know is driving our spending and debt crises, and we wont know by how much the debt limit was lifted until february 8th because there is no actual dollar limit right now on the debt. Effectively, there is no debt limit in place. Next week the 29 members of the Budget Conference Committee will hold their first meeting. The committee faces a deadline on december 13th to come up with recommendations to present to the full house and senate in a report. The first priority, of course, will be to figure out government funding past january 15th because on that day sequestration, the automatic budget cuts that were passed in 2011 as the tet limit was raised debt limit was raised by 2. 1 trillion, by the way all of that borrowing happened in a year and a half but those cuts to be faced over ten years through 2021, the sequester would kick in again on that day. Whats important to keep in mind as this Budget Conference Committee starts negotiating is that we do have a dual crisis of spending and debt in this country. The Congressional Budget Office projects that without any fiscal restraint the public debt will reach 100 of Gross Domestic Product in less than one generation. By 2028. Which poises the concerns of summarizes the concerns of businesses in the 12 Federal Reserve districts. Businesses were reporting yet again that uncertainty in increases over Health Care Premiums and the Affordable Care acts regulations were keeping them from hiring and especially hiring fulltime workers. And concerns over the 2,000page law that barely any lawmaker read before they voted on it, also known as obamacare, is affecting the American Economy, americans in general, and what it does to change the size and scope of the federal government. These were at the core of the recent Government Shutdown. House republicans refused funding for the implementation of obamacare, and the president and senate decided to keep the government partially shut down until they were able to get funding for this law. But the stage was set for this challenge, for this funding challenge back in 2010 when president obama and his Senate Allies decided to hijack a budget process mechanism called reconciliation to ram through this law without popular or even bipartisan support. And if you look at the history of the United States, no equally major change in social policy not Social Security, not medicare, not even the Civil Rights Act was able to be successful over the long term without any bipartisan support. But president obama and his allies decided to enact the Health Care Law with just a 51vote, purely partisan majority, and thats why we have this funding challenge now, because we have a majority of republicans in the house. They control the pursestrings, is and t within their Constitutional Rights to deny funding to a law that a they dont agree with. The founders of in this great nation wanted there to be broad consensus before laws or with passed passed. They neither wanted a single person, nor a Single Chamber of congress to be able to impose its will on the public, so they deliberately assigned a system with checks and balances that required agreement between the house, the senate and the president that can only be produced by compromise. But compromise was all but absent during this recent shutdown as president obama repeatedly and publicly refused even to negotiate. One of the checks in our system is that theres a twopart system to laws, first as enacting the law and second is funding the law in each and every year. And congress can overturn laws, they can stop funding laws. Thats part of our constitutional system, and its not new, and its what happened in this time which is why we had a Government Shutdown. Now, the house made several attempts at trying to force compromise, trying to front the entire government but not obamacare or certain provisions like delaying the individual mandate which we heard the administration is now even considering delaying it for six weeks as the exchanges, especially the web exchanges have proven to be completely unworkable. Even so, the administration was arguably using the shutdown as leverage to push pressure the House Republicans into funding this law because even attempts to reopen parts of the government were almost all rejected. And i quote here from the wall street journal a Senior Administration official said we are winning. It does not matter to us how long this shutdown lasts, because what matters is the end result. So the house gave in on october 16th and voted to Fund Obamacare to reopen the goth, the government, and they also suspended the debt ceiling through february 7th. In the meantime, our deficits are more than half a trillion dollars, and before the end of the decade they will rise back up to trillion dollar levels. The Congressional Budget Office projects that even with very modest increases in Interest Rates what the federal government pays to service its debt will double in less than five years and triple before the end of the decade. Theres broad bipartisan agreement that entitlement spending is at the core of this spending and debt challenge that we face as a country. This is true from the president s own Fiscal Commission which he ignored to just about every economist out there. The sooner lawmakers come to terms with our fiscal reality and start the process of reforming programs like Social Security, medicare and medicaid, the more deliberate and thoughtful those reforms can be. By judging how far apart the house and Senate Budget proposals were, however, i think it seems very likely that washington will continue this groundhog day cycle of passing 11th hour deals that fail to fix the problem, and well continue to have the discussion likely again next year. Thank you. We will now turn to dimiti simes, the held of the center for the national interest. I was in russia about a month ago in september on a panel with president vladimir putin. He was supposed to be one of the panelists, but he quickly kind of appointed himself the moderator. And i began asking as a panelist questions, and he addressed one question to me. He asked what is going to happen with the u. S. Debt situation . Is it going to be something that the u. S. Government will allow to go out of control if control . And i kind of gave him assurances that this would not happen, that we would have several rocky weeks, perhaps several rocky months, and we are not quite out of the woods yet but that [inaudible] would be result. And putin looked, and the audience there were about 200 people including his former finance minister, and he addressed him by first name, alexei, what do we have now in u. S. Currency . What part of our currency reserves is in the u. S. Dollars . And he said, well, about 50 . And putin looked at him, looked at everybody in the room, and he said, well, alexei, youre out of date. We have already reduced it to 40 . And then at the small dinner, putin came back to the same topic again, and he said you all need to understand that we wish the United States well, because if the American Economy doesnt do well, it affects us. But he also said when we witness what is happening in washington, we have to draw our conclusions. And it was fairly clear to me that he was not just talking about conclusions in terms of what percentage of russian currency reserves would be in u. S. Dollars, that it would be broader conclusions about the nature and the quality of u. S. Global leadership. Recently, in bali at a summit which president obama decided not to attend putin was very magnanimous, and he said, well, its fully understandable that president obama is not there under the circumstances. If i was in a similar situation, i probably would not come also. You know what . Such nag anymorety is deadly. Magnanimity is deadly. [laughter] the chinese were also quite outspoken, and they were not holding their punches. They were making quite clear tata they regret president obamas absence, and they saw it not only as a problem, but also an opportunity to remind everybody at a bali at bali that china was a rising superpower. And what america, for whichever reason, could not offer World Economic leadership, china was there and willing to provide it. The singaporeafs who normally are not only among the staunchest american allies, but are very reluctant to criticize the United States became also outspoken. We have a piece today online about [inaudible] who is a very outspoken, very prolific and talented chinese academic. Their former ambassador to the united nations, and he is very critical of how the United States and more specifically the administration handleds the Current Crisis handles the Current Crisis. [inaudible] yes. That is not unusual. Hes an outspoken intellectual. What was unusual, that senior members of the singaporean government were using almost exactly the same language, raising questions about the quality of u. S. Leadership. This is all very disturbing and it kind of substantiates what president obama is saying about the seriousness of this crisis, of the shutdown for American Global positions. Except it is not quite that simple. If you would be watching bbc today as i was doing this morning, you would know that the big story in europe is alleged u. S. Spying on chancellor merkel and before that, of course, u. S. Alleged spying on french citizens, and before that i guess confirmed spying on the european union, offices in brussels and in [inaudible] and so it goes. There are a lot of explanations coming from the Obama Administration, there are a lot of denials. I certainly have no access to classified information and have no idea what exactly is true. But i know one thing for sure, it really smells. It smells in a very major way affecting a fundamental image of the United States in the world. And there is no, there is no escape from that. There is also no escape from us, the United States, not really looking serious in the way this administration approaches Foreign Policy. Red lines in syria a is a perfect example. I couldnt understand for a second why president obama declared very early during the syrian uprising that president assad had to go. I dont understand why he had to say that. President assad, of course, is a nasty eye rant, but he was not tyrant, but he was not known in the United States. We were not aware, at least the Administration Never made public any evidence that president assad was acting against the United States. To the best of my knowledge, we had diplomatic relations with assad. We had senator kerry, our current secretary of state, coming to damascus and being quite friendly to him. So the question was why is that assuming syria was an independent country, not an american colony, why would the president of the United States be saying assad had to go unless we had a specific plan to remove him . And that, of course, quite similar to [inaudible] in the case of egypt and ore countries where he was other countries where he was saying mubarak had to go who was our reliable ally, and we came to a situation in egypt when mubaraks former associates are in power again, and the administration doesnt seem to be quite unhappy with that. But in the case of syria, it had very serious implications, this red line, that it was even before chemical weapons, the red line was that assad had to go. And, obviously, you would not expect the Syrian Opposition to negotiate seriously with assad if the president of the United States had announced that he had to go. We had an event in this very room with a very senior syrian parliamentarian close to the government, and he was telling us how turkey decided to support the syrian uprising. Well, they decided to do it after obama spoke and said that assad had to go. Because today decided that they decided that words from washington, statements by the president of the United States had meaning. And the United States would do something. [inaudible] and then we got these red lines about chemical weapons. And chemical weapons are pretty terrible. I think that anyone would agree with that. I have only one question, if other side is in a civil war and happens to be alqaeda, would you tell, would you tell the relatives of those who were murdered on september 11th, would you tell them that the way their relatives were murdered somehow was morally superior to using chemical weapons . I think it would be a rather offensive statement for anyone to make. But the president have established those red lines. And then, of course, assad has crossed those red lines, or at least the administration claims so. And what have we done . We have done virtually nothing. And then, of course, we now have this remarkable initiative to retrieve the Syrian Chemical Weapons which were pushing together with russia. Well, some would say better late than never. But i am trying to understand what is going on. We were told by the Obama Administration that the president did not have to have a separate summit with putin because there was nothing to discuss. And then, of course, were told that they had a brief encounter in st. Petersburg during the g20, and it was not we were told at that time a very meaningful encounter. And what they hear from officials both in washington and moscow, indeed, it was not a very involved conversation. And then suddenly were kind of confronted with a situation when the administration claims that this idea of Syrian Chemical Weapons was what the administration wanted all along, and it almost is like a diplomatic victory. Well, you know, if thats what the administration wanted to do all along, why wouldnt the president go to a summit with president putin in moscow . He would have to take some criticism because of the snowden affair which, in my view, the administration has also mishandled. Putins russian [inaudible] in the corner criticizing him publicly the moment snowden literally landed in moscow without trying to have some private discussion between the two president s of how to get it resolved, preferably on american terms. But, so the president decided not to go to moscow, not to have negotiation with putin. If getting Syrian Chemical Weapons was a priority, the president had to go there. And you know what . Then we would not have this humiliation in london with the British Parliament acting against their own prime minister. We would not have this situation in washington when obama would have to discover that his own congress would not support him on the intervention in syria. The bottom line is, the bottom line is this administration doesnt seem to have a serious Foreign Policy. It doesnt make Foreign Policy a priority. I dont understand why the president did not go to bali to the summit. If he decided not to negotiate with the republicans [inaudible] putin himself above the [inaudible] and eventually suggesting that it is up to the congress to work out their difficulties, i think if Foreign Policy would be a priority for the president , a responsible thing to do would be for him to go to bali and to assure the other leaders that this crisis would be resolved and that america remains the only superpower. A serious superpower. I was really offended by the president talking about american exceptionalism only several weeks ago in a situation when the administration clearly does not think that if you are talking about being exceptional, you at the minimum have to act responsibly. Because otherwise those words have no meaning. When senator obama in 2008 began winning one primary after another, the future first lady, michelle obama, said that this was the first time he was proud of america. When she was questioned about the statement which was pretty remarkable for the spouse of a president ial contender, particularly who was already a sitting u. S. Senator, she said, no, she was misquoted. What she really had said, she explained, was that a this was the first time she was really proud of america. Well, perhaps, perhaps its a very important distinction. I dont necessarily agree. But what i do see is that for the First Time Since i came to the United States 40 years ago, i see that a lot of persons are becoming really ashamed of their country. Or rather, to be more specific, about the way this countrys being governed. I do not for a second approve the techniques of House Republicans. They have to be mature adults. They have to engage in a serious, sober calculation. And they have to understand that what they were doing, that what they were doing was an exercise in futility. But i think that the paramount responsibility for the u. S. Foreign policy and for the u. S. Fiscal solvency, this is a responsibility of the president of the United States. And they have to say that and i have to say that his performance during this crisis and before this crisis was unexceptional at best. Well, we on that note, i think we have a good basis for stimulating question and answer session here. And i will forgo the opportunity to ask right away and let the audience fire away. Whos going to be first . Nobody else [inaudible] two and a half president s, nixon, ford and reagan. And [inaudible] national interest. Politically, and i think dimitri already addressed this to a certain extent, i would be curious how the rest of the panel feels. Didnt this shutdown defeat the very purpose that some of the leaders of it said it was . That is, didnt it distract from the discussion of a defective medical Health Policy and make the gop, the issue, the heavy . And the shutdown which the people didnt feel was the paramount issue [inaudible] for that reason now that its over and its going to go away, i think things are going to refocus on health. But didnt this just postpone what they claimed they were trying to do, and that was to launch a serious discussion on the issue of the Health Program on which the American People are largely on their styled, and they actually used reverse judo, they nipped the American People flipped the American People to where the American People were opposed to them in congress. I happened to be at the american spectators annual dinner where ted cruz was speaking last night, and hes already starting with the sort of german postworld war i stab in the back, if only a few more of my colleagues in the senate would have gone with me, we would have prevailed. So there seems to be a destructive streak within the gop, although judging from the audience reaction which was not that big for cruz last night, i think theres a sane shakedown taking place. Just curious how the members of the panel feel. David. The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, the subject got changed to the shutdown, but, no, in spite of all the difficulties with the cruz approach which was an approach based on no real expectation of winning though he claimed that he was going to win, he had no end game, but the discussion itself as the recent polls show did increase hostility to obamacare. The challenge that he faced because there was no end game was does the, does the Immediate Reaction to the shutdown which was blamed on him and, remember, the only two shutdowns that have been, that have created this kind of hostility have been the 90 shutdown with gingrich where it was blamed on him and this one where it was blamed on the republicans. The others were just taken as part of the game, part of what we do because the two bodies, the executive and legislative branch have different means of exerting leverage. So the question is in the long run if it was to hurt, does that go away . The betting is that it probably does go away. What cruz did do is set the table for the and its not just cruz, but others as well set the table for the 2014 offyear elections. They may not vote on the shutdown, but they may well be t voting on obamacare, taxes and jobs. And in that seasons he probably in that sense he probably made the republican position stronger. Think about this Division Within the party. He, if you personify the two sides, Mitch Mcconnell and ted cruz, mcconnell saying youre splitting the party, if youre in peoria, what did you see . You saw these two republicans arguing about who hated obamacare most. You didnt get into all these details, you didnt understand it. And then you looked at the fella next to you and said, well, i dont want like it much either. So i dont think in the long run it hurts unless it becomes a personal civil war, and the comment that senator cruise cruz made yesterday and some of the comments senator mcconnells allies are making are dangerous can. These guys do have to pretend that they get along and that theyre part of the same party if they expect to get what they need to actually change policy. And as the mcconnell forces were saying, that would be votes. That would be control of the senate or at least close enough to control the senate so they can get a couple of Democratic Senators to go with them. If they do that, then they accomplish something. If they dont do that, they accomplish nothing. One of the questions that i had maybe for david and bob was that it was dick cheney who said deficits dont matter. And the Republican Party has two wings on economics, one is the Calvin Coolidge herbert hoover, pretty dour, grim focus on reducing deficits and cutting spending, and the other one is more on optimistic message of reagan and focusing on Economic Growth as the way to prosperity and the way to cutting the deficit. And the argument today which seems to be being ceded to the Democratic Party is that growth is the optimistic path, and Republican Party really viably sell deficit cutting . Is that a positive message to deliver to the american public, or are today making a mistake . Should they be focusing more on cutting taxes and increasing growth as a way to reduce unemployment . Bob . Well, i think that growth is the key in political terms. When you go back to the Republican Party, the famous article in the National Observer in which he talked about the two santa claus theory, the democratic santa claus wants to give you all these goodies at christmas, and the republican santa claus ought to be giving you tax cuts to generate growth and to use that a idiom in the political arena. The problem, he says, that the republicans had been the tax collectors for the democratic good keys goodies, so the republicans became scrooge. And it was reagan who basically turned that around. He didnt turn that around because he didnt care about deficits, and im going to say just a little bit about that in a moment. He turned it around because he cared about what his priorities were. He wanted to get the country moving again, and his fed chairman was squeezing the heck out of the economy because of the inflation problem, ask and he needed to general and he needed to generate some growth, and that was his tax plan n. 76 he didnt run on my kind of significant taxcutting plan, he was the original kind of republican that were talking about. But when you think about what reagan accomplished there and how George Herbert walker bush kind of reversed it, his last Budget Proposal for his last year that went up to congress, he had that deficit down. We talk about the reagan deficits. That deficit was down to less than 3 of gdp which is a manageable level. And then it went and shot back up under George Herbert walker bush. And George Herbert walker bush never bought the growth idiom, the Growth Concept that reagan brought. So growth has got to be the key. And with enough growth you can deal with the deficit problem. And thats, thats the reagan lesson that is certainly lost by the people who look down on reagan in historical terms, but lost on a lot of people including dick cheney, i believe, who basically became cavalier about deficits. I dont think thats very smart. But to take deficit as your focus is also not politically smart. David . Oh, i would agree with that. In a sense, of course, cheneys comments were taken out of context because they came at a time when the deficit was significant ally lower than it is today significantly lower than it is today, and he was saying basically what reagan did, growth is the important thing. You know, years ago Milton Friedman took the position that because of the nature of the two parties, one promising all these things and the other ones paying it, that what the republicans ought to do, what the conservatives ought to do this was back in the 60s and 70s is get off this job of raising money so the democrats could pass out gifts to the public and say were not going to worry about that, he said, because nobody would let the deficits go completely out of control. Well, he was wrong about that one. Has changed in the last few years because of the size of whats going on in the sense in the country that we are really on the wrong track fiscally and economically. So thats not an argument against progrowth policies because they are essential as is the optimism that goes with them. But now theres a sense that those deficits may make progrowth policies unworkable because they take too much and suck too much out of the private sector. So i think the world has changed and the thinking of average americans has changed to some degree on these issues so that you got to combine both. May i . Go ahead. The deficit is just the result of the difference between our spending and revenues. The real problem is a rapid expansion of the size of government as the entitlements, entitlements state is expanding. We cannot grow our way out of this. Because as the federal government keeps growing in size and how many resources it consumes in the economy, that is going to affect growth in a very negative way. These high levels of public debt we are facing in less than one generation, Academic Research confirms that theres a high correlation with low growth as you get to these high levels of debt. Thats a problem we can only resolve with entitlement reform. Thats what we need to be doing. Of course, we walked progrowth policies as well but we cannot ignore this problem because it will swallow the economy if we do. Mike. Thanks. I wonder if there isnt a disconnect between the debate within the beltway on this issue thank you. In terms of the details of policy, as opposed to how the events of the past few weeks argued both in terms of the majority of americans public, and most opinion abroad. And i think theres a bit of a danger of having sort of to finegrained analysis of what the problem is and missing the fact that it think the lesson that most people outside washington have taken from this is a more general lesson, and thats a lack of confidence that our political system is up to the challenge of dealing with big problems like this. And if thats the issue then sort of arguing about, well, you know, whether its spending, outstripping resources misses the larger cost, that the country has been forced to pay as a result of the spectacle of the system not being able to address that in the first place. And isnt that the fundamental issue weve got to wrestle with . I think its a fundamental issue. I was looking at president obama, at one of his appearances during the shutdown, and he looked to me like Abraham Lincoln, that he felt the same sense of righteousness, commitment, dedication. The only problem was that, of course, that president lincoln, with all due respect, had to go through the civil war. 600,000 americans had to die in the process. More during any of the war the United States has ever conducted. As i said, you cannot do whatever it is in your country. Immaturity, a significant minority. You cannot do to them as bob merry was saying without encountering very stiff resistance, without trying to compromise, without treating them as your typical partners, rather than adversaries. And i think that what weve seen is a reflection of this fundamental disconnect between the Obama Administration and the very significant part of the american middle class, particularly the white middle class which clearly feels that they are at the receiving end of barack obama redistribution crusade. Again, i completely agree, that doesnt make what some in the house and in the senate tried to do. Because that was counterproductive and that was playing games with National Prestige and, indeed, national solvency. But you have to understand that this was not an artificial crisis. This is a situation when there was a bridge too far, that the administration wanted to push not only on the obamacare, but immigration as well. Environmental issues. Election laws, the Supreme Court have decided, as we all know, that the states, the states have greater flexible and establishing their own electoral laws. What eric holder, the Obama Administration attorney general does, he goes straight to challenge same chords, same states, sort, for their electoral processes using some legal technicality. Now, of course on one level it is perfectly legal. On another level you dont understand that this administration would do whatever they can to have their own way. If the Supreme Court is not on their side, they will try something else. If the citizens of massachusetts elect a senator which he was opposed to the obamacare, the administration will try some legal maneuver innocent. This may be perfectly legal, but that alienates a considerable part of the nation. And you know what some of these people are new to politics, some of these people are being energized. Theyre not very sophisticated yet. They sometimes eliminate candidates which are not quite ready for prime time. But what i think these people are trying to do, over a much broader disconnect in this nation, and we had to take a very socially. It was not just some artificial crisis between House Republicans and the administration. It reflects a fundamental disagreement inside the American Society. You are right about the disconnect. Think about it. Out there in the country, the average american thinks that were on the wrong path in a lot of different ways, that there are all kinds of these problems and that in washington there are bunch of clowns from both parties who dont listen to them, cant do anything, and quibble about things they dont understand. So from that since this just makes, just alienates them further. The reason, whether you agree or disagree with them, the reason that ted cruz and these folks got the pop is for the get out there is because of that frustration, because of the fact that they want somebody to tell them look, theres a simple answer to this, lets just do it. Thats really what he is saying. That these other guys are week, i can fix it for you. I remember back in 1976, this was a Foreign Policy question, but when Ronald Reagan was running against jerry ford in the primaries, and reagan had had in his speeches time and time again reference to the panama canal, remember, we build it, we bought it, its ours, were going to keep it. It did not resonate into one night in florida when they blew the roof off of the place he was speaking to the extent that reagan never lost his place, was stymied. He did not expect the applause lines there. It had nothing do with the panama canal but it have to do with the competitions of Foreign Policy at the time, mostly because all these things that if you into any issued you had a bookshelf of explanations of why what your doing is right or wrong in response to the average american with you dont get it. So reagan came along and said you may not get that, but by god, you can get this. That was response to the what chris is doing innocent is the same thing. Is saying dont listen to these guys this is complicated. Dont listen to all that. Just oppose it. That may be run and maybe unproductive. It works because of what you talked about but it works because, in a political sense because its a populist appeal to the frustration of people who have every right to be frustrated and every right to be upset about the way things are in washington. Whats the response to the Tea Party People when they get upset about spending . Killed 18 people in washington say that doesnt mean anything, whats their plan . Its not the job of the American People to come up with a plan. Its the job of the American People to say we dont like it but we do like it, we hired you guys to come up with a plan and implement it. You do it. Thats not the way our elected officials react to public pressure. They say if you dont like what youre doing, you come up with a plan. Thats not the way the system works, or should work. I think the professor is right that governmental dysfunction in washington can become a significant political issue out in the country in and of itself and can become very, very significant. Theres a large prospect out in the country, a lot of people will not necessarily tie that to what else is going on in the country in terms of the big mix, sentiments and pressures and forces and desires that constitute the american electorate. But in washington they cant be separated because the only way you can address them is my understanding that they are one and the same by understanding that this gets my thesis about president ial leadership in america. When the country is in crisis and the country, any country goes through crisis on a pretty regular basis, the only way in our system, not the system in a parliamentary system, but the only way you can address the crisis is through president ial leadership, or not at all. What does that mean . It means that the president , the person who is whose position to do this and the only person whos positioned to do this must scramble up the political fault lines, must find new coalitions to break the deadlock that is the reason, the genesis of the crisis. In our particular case i happen to believe its a profound deadlock and actually got us in gridlock, deadlock to gridlock in terms of our politics. Can president obama do that . Not now. He had an opportunity to do that i believe when he was elected, in the sense that what Ronald Reagan did, what Franklin Roosevelt did, what in his own way Abraham Lincoln did, certainly jefferson, jackson. They did these scrambled up and brought new coalitions together, and then they were able to move the country beyond that deadlock. I think that president obama squandered one of the great opportunities for president to do that. Hes not going to have another chance, serving not now in this climate. So we will have to wait for the next president. Can the next president do it . Not clear, but were going to be bumping along in crisis, probably deepening crisis and to we get the president ial leadership that can do that. We have a bunch of questions on both sides. I will start with general boyd and then jeffrey, and then ill start working down the side of the room. At the risk of piling on, what these four speakers now have agreed is the sort of winter of our discontent, i think we can quantify that by a question thats been asked by the American InternationalElection Study group over the last 60 years or so. That question being do you believe that your government, do you trust your government to do the right thing all or most of the time . And the polling data in the 50s ran around 75 of the American People believe that their government would indeed do the right thing all or most of the time. With the vietnam war, the trend started downward, and its been, with a few little ripples, its continued to the point where it is, i recall, is around 20 now of the American People believe that their government will do the right thing all or most of the time youre win 80 of a population doesnt trust their government, i dont know the outcome over time but it seems to me that democracy cannot function over time with that level of distrust of the people. And so, and id be interested in all of your opinions. What is how do we turn that around . What is it going to take . Is our Political Class simply unable to deal with that kind of trust, or distrust, to the point that they cant function themselves . Do we have to do essentially what i think was happening in the 60s, the great tumultuous change all came from the bottom up. It didnt come from the top down, civil rights movement, et cetera. But lets talk about a dysfunctional system, so fundamentally dysfunctional that 80 of the citizenry doesnt trust it. There was a more important number in that recent survey, and that is that for the first time in American History a majority say they fear their government. And thats new. The most destructive things that weve got the dysfunction, weve got all of this, regardless of which side if youre living in peoria, which side of the fight to side with, you dont like to fight. When i came to this town and worked for Vice President spiro agnew and went on and mixed it up with his opponents and we took a poll once and found that 65 of people agreed with him and 70 wished he would shut up because americans dont like that type of fight, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. You have part of that but youve got a government thats earned the distrust of the American People, and thats what his populist uprising out in a country is all about. People are fearful of the government. The most damaging things that have taken place in the last year are not the fight over the budget but the nsa controversy, the irs, first as he and all that which is known been dismissed by the government but defended by the president saying thats just been. I didnt do that. Nobody has been punished for anything and people are beginning to become unafraid of their very government. Thats the danger to democratic system. Does anyone else want to make a quick comment . I think also the kind of spending that happened with the schemas and how its very apparent that a lot of federal funding goes toward politically connected groups of people just as well certain law changes like the lengthy employer mandate by keeping the individual mandate on the books when it comes to the presence Health Care Law. I think people are paying more attention. They have more access to more varied viewpoints on whats happening in washington and they are learning that too many of our lawmakers are not representing the interests of the American People well, but their own interest and interest of well connected groups in washington. I think thats another reason why people are increasingly distrusting the government, and they are looking for somebody who will represent their views. I think they are looking for principled leadership, and i think we saw some of that with the shutdown were some lawmakers stood for principle. We know this law is bad. Lawmakers, they didnt vote for it. It was passed on a purely partisan basis, and the house has a constitutional right to deny funding to loss like this, and attempt to do that i think was important to show that lawmakers act on principle at times and in the best interests of the nation. Our next question, im going to work my way up your it does we have a lot of questions, is from jeffrey who is the author of rule or ruin, the republicans in name only. The question of adding is always worth asking in this setting is what would nixon have thought . People tend to forget that nixon was challenged in the republican primaries in 1972 from the right by John Ashbrook. I feel ive heard a forceful articulation as opposed to anything that might be defined as nixonian our governing wing of the Republican Party. I could take issue with any number of statements that occurred whether they are on constitutional issues, legal issues, Financial Issues but i dont think i have to because the argument is going to play out within the Republican Party, particularly the force that we have only spoken about the tea party against the governing wing of the party. I would point you to yesterdays oped in the New York Times saying that robert taft would not recognize the Republican Party today, the republicans have seemed to the democrats, the reputation of fiscal integrity based on these irresponsible actions of the tea party. Also International Journal today on business groups that are challenging Tea Party Candidates in the primaries and putting up candidates against them. I think well see a fullblown civil war inside the Republican Party against many of the argument with her today. I wonder if anyone has comments . I have to say, im never very impressed with this idea that robert taft or somebody from the past would not recognize the Republican Party or this or that today if he were alive. Robert taft would not recognize American Society day if he were alive. We are in a totally different life in a totally different situation. The Political Parties are struggling with this. We have these movements throughout American History of america suggests, michael, that these movements, populist or whatever, whether youre talking about the Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party largely in the late 60s and early 70s, or whether youre just talking about what Andrew Jackson himself spawned after the 1824 election, et cetera. When you talk about the tea party. They are going to get absorbed some of it so it isnt just come it isnt going to be sufficient. In fact, its going to be counterproductive and silly, frivolous to be suggesting that if you just ignore the tea party because robert taft wouldnt recognize them. These movements in our system, if you go back and look at the president ial electoral tallies in the early part of the depression, including during Franklin Roosevelts time, the vote tallies for these socialists and comments parties in america were getting to be rather significant but not necessarily in percentage terms, but in body terms, significant body of political sentiment. Roosevelt brilliantly glanced that oil. He siphoned that sentiment off and brought it into the mainstream. Thats what robert taft of today would have to do and thats why i kind of reject the thrust of your question. Id like to Say Something if i can. Today, im sort of between the tea partiers and others, and i was offended and our member talking to John Ashbrook s. Was preparing to launch his primary campaign against Richard Nixon, and i said, john, why are you doing this . Youre only going to get 10 of vote. And he looked at me and he said, im doing it, dave, because someday we want to say we werent there. Thats one reason that people oppose establishment figures who they think they have gone off in the wrong direction. Or importantly, bobs exactly right. A few years ago i was at the meeting where a former republican congressman was whining about the fact that he had gone to a county republican meeting in florida and there were 200 people there, and 180 of them were for ron paul. He said this is horrible, weve got to figure out some way to keep these people out. I said come it seems to me that the problem is not with the ron paul people, its with the regular republicans if they can own around 20 people for a county meeting. The job of a party come and this is sort of what bob is saying, is not to be exclusive but to bring people in. Parties, a twoparty system in particular are coalitions of people. And effective party leader, or an effective candidate or ineffective Campaign Manager is like a product manager. Hes got another product thats going to sell to a majority of the people which makes it tougher than it is for a corporate product manager because hes got to duplicate up to 51 for his candidate or for his party. That means as a practical matter in the longterm of integrating these differences and getting people to agree on more things than they disagree on. If you cant do that or he can do that, ultimately they fail. As the country changes as the issues change, you have to be able to absorb those new groups into your party, or you feel. The Republican Party, ive been there through some of the. When goldwater came along the northeastern and midwestern party leader said those people wear brown suits. They are small shopkeepers. We dont want them. In those days you got, the leadership was picked by the manager of the steel mill, the banker and all that. They came in, then they became the people who ran the party. When reagan ran, the same sort of thing took place about westerners and folks that didnt get it. When pat robinson came along, famously Michigan National committeeman said visiting a political meeting with him around was a little like the bar scene in star wars. All of those people socialize into the party and became the leader of the next generation. To go back to the ron paul question, in the last election cycles primaries, for voters 30 and under with all the candidates in the field, 50 voted for ron paul. Thats not something you can throw out if you have a growing, if you have a growing membership. You have to be up to look at these things and bring them together. New people in politics often are unrealistic. They dont get it. They dont understand all the intricacies of washington. Its not their job. But the Party Leaders if they want to continue to be party leader, or if they want their party to continue to be successful, what they have to do is bring those people in and let them develop a degree of sophistication so that they conceived in the political process. Its easy to talk about keeping people out to any democratic system the job is not to keep people out, its to bring people in. Let me deal with it. Unlike dave, i was not in the nixon administration. But i knew nixon very well during his later years. He was my friend, my mentor, the best man at my wedding, and he appointed me to run the center. That doesnt mean that i know what he would think. About this particular station. Because nixon like to be a very unpredictable man. But one thing i know for sure that nixon viewed himself as first and foremost as a Foreign Policy, National Security president. That was what he really loved to do, and that wha would really mr to them most. And the idea that you would have the president of the United States like barack obama who has come in my view, a rather pragmatic and reasonable Foreign Policy instincts but for whom Foreign Policy is an afterthought, not a party can i think Richard Nixon would have great difficulty identifying with that. The second thing is, the thing which i think is incumbent if you talk about Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan was that, obviously they were fairly big men in their own way. In a different way each. They never would say my party, my Republican Party, right or wrong. But what i think they would say, and reagan articulated it very well, i would not speak ill of a fellow republican. And that when you hear this kind of war inside the Republican Party, and when you come after a crisis like that, ct republican senators essentially letting the administration off the hook and focusing on tactical airs of the tea party, there is something that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, in my view, would not be able to identify with. I wanted to ask to very quick question. One, it sounds great but absorb the tea party into the Republican Party but im not entirely sure how you do that when they seemed to be so dramatically rejectionists in their policies. To act like an outer parliamentary opposition rather than part of a party that wants to govern or contribute to governance. So thats my first question. The second one is, romina, your comments on entitlement reform i think i entirely agree with, but your depiction of the constitutional mechanisms is a little bewildering to me because i thought that the founders wanted to create a state in which democracy was functional, you know . That wer we were supposed to be creating a nation where democracy would work better than the alternative, which was monarchy. And i dont see how kind of stonewalling that rejectionists as a part of that mechanism, something that comes about as the lava lamp, you try to make it worse, so on and so forth. Im guessing i dont understand why that part of your depiction, without going into all the intricacies of constitutional law, i had a different picture of the constitution come, sometg intended to promote governance rather than the opposite. I think on that point i fundamentally disagree. I think that the system of checks and balances is there to prevent the majority from ruling over a minority, to protect a minority or majority rule. And it was set up with so many checks that it actually promotes a lot of dysfunction. Once i was on the books its are difficult to change it. And there are very few mechanisms that force compromise. Some of them arent these kinds of deadlines that we have like the debt limit or the and of the funding year, the end of the fiscal year. So i disagree. I think that the system is there to have, to arrive at a compromise through struggle and through some dysfunction. The jeld wen down there next few, do you have a question . I do. Could i respond to yeah. Very, very briefly. The question which didnt get addressed as to how do you split off these how do you absorb these people when they are so rejectionists . I think that our history indicates that successful politics entails cutting the rankandfile a way from these rejectionists, often radical, sometimes quite ridiculous leaders. And we see that today. I think a perfect example, a great example gets back to the question, has to do with Richard Nixon who was the governing party, of course. But he was a 43 president for four years and then he was a 58 president. What was the difference . A significant part of the difference was his absorbing into the Republican Party the wall his constituency, 13. 4 of the electorate. He took a lot of heat for that. The southern strategy, and people were attacking him, probably michael once. But the fact of the matter is, thats what effect of politics is all about and thats what the leaders of politics have to do know with the tea party. John walcott from bloomberg news. Dimitri, i have heard the same critique of the administrations Foreign Policy from literally from sal to london. But i wonder if you could put it in some context because it reminds me very much of what we heard the Carter Administration in the postvietnam malaise years. And i wonder if you would also address the fact that the United States remains the worlds preeminent military power and the saudis complaint that were not doing enough, just as you describe and yet they rely on the third fleet to keep the strait of hormuz open. The israelis complain, and will continue to, yet theyre hoping the United States will join them because they cannot destroy Irans Nuclear facilities by themselves. They lack the capability. The countrys economic power is perhaps diminished certainly relative to china and other countries but remains a preeminent economic power. So is this worse than appeared in the 1970s or not . Well, i dont want to sound like a defender of jimmy carter. And he had his share of faults, but lets remember these were postvietnam years. This was after watergate. This was after a deep crisis in the u. S. Foreign policy. It was a deep crisis in american governance, and that was such thing, im sure your mother this, postvietnam syndrome when the nation was really reluctant to do any heavy lifting in international affairs. Jimmy carter has hardly improved the u. S. Situation, but you have to sympathize with his predicament. President obama came to power after two terms of george w. Bush, which i have to say did not quite improve American Global standing. At the same time, the United States as you said remains the Predominant Military power, no question about that. The United States remains the predominant economic power. Thats what putin basically was talking about at the forum. In terms of the role of the international an angel system, we basically build it and we continue to run it. And everybody depends upon us, including the russians and including the chinese. We are also lucky to have adversaries and difficult partners who hardly could claim moral superiority india with the United States. None of them has an attractive, a more attractive system of government to follow. All of them have serious economic difficulties. Bric countries which look to emerging markets, which looked like winners a couple years ago. They have more than their share of problems. The United States is, in my view, very much a leading power, and it remains, in my view, the exceptional power. The problem is that even if youre the exceptional power, you have to act responsibly. And in a purposeful fashion. I think that when people in Different Countries are looking at u. S. Foreign policy under obama, they are asking, what kind of barack obama are they dealing with . I had a call yesterday from a leading gentleman journalist who reminded me how obama became immensely popular in europe, and especially in germany, when he was still a candidate and how he went to berlin and delivered a speech in which actually propelled him to become a Nobel Peace Prize winner before he was able to do anything as president. There was a huge promise coming from barack obama. A new american restraint. Respect for the opinion of mankind come at the same time a sense of American National interest, that he was using on a regular basis. American purpose. And now you have a situation when the chancellor of germany is, according to u. S. Behavior, u. S. Are spying on her and many others in germany, unacceptable. And that, of course, is not the only difficulty in the u. S. German relations. When people are looking at obamas previous speeches, his speech in cairo, his initial approach to china when secretary clinton said we are not going to lecture the chinese on human rights because we know how they would respond. They would talk back. It would not lead to anything. The initial trauma the initial obama approach to russia. What do we have today . We have today the United States acting as nixon and kissinger in reverse. Nixon and kissinger had a policy when the United States what have a better relationship with moscow and beijing than they would have with each other. It was a very successful policy. They are very cities differences between china and russia today. But where you can see how china and russia are becoming closer and closer, and that is a direct result of the Obama AdministrationForeign Policy. Does president obama want to publish Something Like that . I would not think so for a second, but he looks at everything, in my view, through the domestic prison. He does not want to expose himself to any domestic political situation but as a result, our Foreign Policy is counterproductive and people and governments wonder, what do we stand for . Can they trust our words . And yes, the president of the United States cannot avoid the responsibility for that. I think well take the last wayne and then follow next year and then here. Lets gather them all up. Im way in which american Foreign Policy council. I would like to ask robert merry to expand something that he touched down early on in his remarks, which is a dynamics of these issues outside of washington and the country as hell. It seems to me that for much of the country as a whole this is not just about the financial and fiscal and budget issues that have consumed washington, but about other issues that are sometimes in the rubric of the culture wars. But in those issues washington is not the main seat of battle. These are issues that are taking place in state houses and even in city council. Checkerboard across the country, things like legalization of marijuana usage. Things like samesex marriage. You have those issues taking place across the length and breadth of the country, in washington is often not a player or even reacted to the Obama Administration has been very opposed to things like decriminalization of marijuana use. Its been playing catchup on some of these other cultural issues. So my question to you is, given this dynamic is not just about washington, it is about america and American Society, where do those issues play in in a situation where the battlefield is not washington, the battlefield is the country, and washington may get involved in these closing down the government battles but that may be quite irrelevant to some of those other cultural disputes. Are absolute right. I have a thought on the. I first want to apologize to jeffrey. Wayne, youre absolutely right, but this social and cultural issue matrix is front and center to the question of what kind of a country we are going to be. And it is a great driver of the frustration that lead to such things as a tea party. I think the keyboard is focus primary on economic issues, but theres an undercurrent against what they had to say about this but i think theres an undercurrent of what of all this as well. Whats happening there that even so much in terms of washington and not even to some extent in terms of local governments, but the cultural thinking of america largely driven by our younger people is really altering all of that. But that generates frustrations that can be sometimes directed or misdirected by the people who feel those frustrations. I think were seeing that. You get Supreme Court decisions which agitate people further on some of those issues as well. But youre right that washington is not driving that. Washington is the recipient of those ways of sentiments that are becoming more and more significant, just as the local governments are and just as people generally are. But its contributory to the mood of the country and the question of what kind of country going to be. Its the definitional issues of america that generate those, the kind of conflicts and deadlocks that we have today. The greatest definitional issues with the issue of the 1850s regarding slavery. And it was not solvable through normal democratic processes that have been so brilliantly established by our fathers spent we have a think a last question right here. Yes, of course. I think its on. Im from slovenia. I can get down months ago, and, of course, ive been listening very carefully, very attentively to the panelists, especially talking about Foreign Policy repercussions. At this time i dont have any question, but allow me to make a brief comment, just a sense of to get of course [inaudible] i do not like to christen the admissions for anybody else. But as i said, as a friend of your country i would like to say that i remember in the past on many, many occasions we were told the american system of government is an example, if not the best way them of how to write a democratic country. Of course, the country needs making decisions, responsibility issues on time and get the benefit of the country, and if youd like to play the role of a leader, at least to some extent to the benefit of the world. What im trying to say is, episodes like last Government Shutdown, which i came just in the middle of it, and of the episodes that ive heard talk today are damaging your reputation, your image abroad. Thank you. Well, id like to end the session by saying that on this happy note. It occurred to me recently that the Republican Party is becoming too interesting for its own good, at least politically. But it does make for great copy, and you can read all about these issues and others in our magazine. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] a live picture this money from the National Press club here in washington. Were here for an event hosted by Reporters Committee for freedom of the press, looking at transparency in the Supreme Court. Speakers include Kenneth Starr, former acting solicitor general neal katyal and maureen oconnor. When he gets underway the discussion will look at the ways the Supreme Court can be more transparent focusing on Financial Disclosures, codes of conduct and refusals and whether the court should consider live video or audio streaming of oral argument. They are running just a little bit behind. When it gets and we will have live coverage here on cspan2. Also want to let you about an event thats happening tonight. Well be live this evening at 8 p. M. Eastern from texas and a potential 2016 president ial candidate ted cruz the qb of the iowa Republican Party dinner. Live coverage tonight on cspan starts at 8 p. M. Eastern, followed by your phone calls. Again waiting for the start of this event at the National Press club hosted by the Reporters Committee for the freedom of the press looking at transparency in the Supreme Court. Again ranked as a couple minutes behind. We will have live coverage when it starts. Treasury secretary jack lew at a policy cartel center for American Progress. Thanks so much for the very kind introduction and thanks to the center for American Progress for having me here this morning. This is your 10th anniversary and i want to commend john and all of you creating an institution thats really become central to helping shape the direction of Public Policy in this country. As we meet this morning, its been just a little over a week since democrats and republicans came together to end the Government Shutdown and eliminate the risk of default at the threat over our country. This bipartisan action marks a turning point because even though the process was messy and damaging, our political leaders chose to come together for our country and our economy. We now have the opportunity to build on last weeks event. Theres no reason to let this moment slip through our fingers. Not when the American People are yearning for the parties to come together. And not when the stakes for American Workers and businesses are so high. If you think about where we were five years ago, weve come a very long way. Back in the Financial System was in crisis, the Auto Industry was in freefall, and foreclosures were mounting. In fact, in the months before president obama was sworn into office we are shedding up to 800,000 jobs a month, and our economy was shrinking at an 8. 3 annual rate. But the American People thought their way back from the brink. Because of our nations resilience weve seen our economy grow, our businesses expand and create jobs, and our deficit shrank. Private employers have added 7. 6 million jobs over the past 43 months, and businesses of added more than 2 million jobs over the last year alone. Manufacturing has expand one Housing Market continues to improve. At the same time our deficit are half of what they were a few years ago. But even though progress has been made, our economy is still not performing at full steam. The pace of growth and hiring has not been nearly strong enough. One reason for this trajectory is a series of crises marked by the political brings to get in washington in recent years. The Government Shutdown in the debt ceiling and past for were examples of the brinksmanship. Enmeshed budget crisis by crisis nonetheless. And even though we do not yet know the full extent of the damage we do know that a slow the Economic Growth and job creation. And what we should learn from this experience is that washington politics should not hurt our workers, businesses and economy. Nor should their well being be used for local leverage. That doesn does not mean that r side should abandon its beliefs, but we should be willing to find Common Ground to achieve Real Solutions to our most pressing problems. And with congressional leaders now working together to build a budget, this is the moment to do that. As we move forward we should make a pro jobs programs agenda our focus. We can advance this agenda by taking bipartisan action to replace sequestration, fixer broken immigration system and pass a farm bill. We should craft a budget agreement that propels growth and hiring while maintaining fiscal discipline. We recognize we didnt have a monopoly on good ideas and welcome thousand democrats and republicans. At any bipartisan agreement should be animated by a commitment to doing two things at once, rebounding fiscal savings to reduce our medium and longterm deficits, while taking steps now to make our economy more competitive. So as we pursue a path a fair and balanced deficit reduction, its crucial we close wasteful taxable scum eliminate costs where it makes sense and you summon the resources we free up to make targeted investments in a few key areas like manufacturing, infrastructure and education. As we do that we need to replace the harmful acrosstheboard cuts known as sequestration with commonsense measures that rein in spending. These cuts were designed to be so mutually disagreeable that they would compel democrats and republicans alike to come together to create sensible and balanced deficit reduction policies. There should be no surprise that a policy never intended to go into effect is now producing results that raise many problems and there is now a broad bipartisan concern that these cuts or constrain our ability to maintain crucial commitment in areas like infrastructure, education and defense. When a sequestration has been a drag on Economic Growth and job creation. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, sequestration will reduce well gdp by as much as 1. 2 for the Third Quarter of next year. This translates into as many as 1. 6 million fewer american jobs. If we can agree on sensible meeting a longterm policy to replace the short term cuts we can do something good for the economy and our National Security. In addition to putting together a budget and replacing sequestration, congress complete some unfinished work that will accelerate Economic Growth and job creation. Congress need to finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system. A bipartisan bill has passed the senate and is waiting for passage in the house of representatives. This legislation would not only bolster our borders and clear way to earn citizenship and it would increase growth by more than 1 trillion but it would drive this growth by attracting highly skilled scientists and engineers and entrepreneur is to our shores. It would generate new consumer demand and spark Business Activity while producing payroll tax revenue that would reduce our deficit with Social Security and medicare on a more stable footing. Another bipartisan bill that can strength icon is the farm bill. Bipartisan legislation again has passed the senate and its designed to protect americas farmers and ranchers, and provide a safety net for americas most wonderful children. The farm bill conferees have an opportunity to Work Together to develop a bipartisan package that promotes Economic Growth and job creation while protecting the most vulnerable. Its time to get a farm bill signed into law. A comprehensive budget, sensible alternative to sequestration and Immigration Reform to the farm bill of all these amount to a powerful jobs and growth plan. But theres more to do is to shift the economy into higher gear so that it is growing faster and creating more jobs. The thing is we can make progress by simply moving forward on things democrats and republicans have already, to work on, together on in the past. That needs fixing our Housing Finance system, renewing trade promotion authority, reforming business tax code in conjunction with making needed repairs to our aging roads, bridges, ports of pipeline. The key now is to move forward on all these fronts. Each of these will help create jobs and grow the economy. And taken together they will significantly reduce our budget deficits even further. Getting this done but requires tough choices but it will make a big difference for our country. I remain convinced that the tradition of compromise, bipartisanship and building consensus is not a thing of the past. Because when we focus on what is in the best interest of our nation and not on what divides us, we can still find a pathway to progress. We will meet the great test before us and we will secure our economic future. And i thank you all for everything that you do to advance policy ideas to tackle the challenges that we face today and as we look forward trying to build the future of growth and shared prosperity. Thank you very much. [applause] we are back at the National Press club for a live discussion on Supreme Court transparency posted by the group Reporters Committee for freedom of the press. Its expected to begin shortly. Live again here on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning. Im bruce brown from the executive director of the Reporters Committee for reading of the press and to to welcome you today to todays program on technology and transparency at the Supreme Court. Now come in the 40 some odd years since the Reporters Committee lead early was housed in a desk drawer in the pressroom at the Supreme Court, and has grown into one of the countrys leading media advocacy groups, a lot happened to us. Weve had a gala on the set of saturday night live, new york city. We hosted barbecues on rooftops. We have had one of our founding members store a copy, full copy, at the pentagon papers in his freezer to evade Justice Department curiosity about it. Weve had our briefs get in the u. S. Supreme court opinions. We got our name mentioned in oral arguments in the Supreme Court. Weve gone on road trips around the country to teach seminars on free press and free speech. A we have never had a panel at the National Press club. And we are fixing that today. With our first ever panel on the Supreme Court, technology and transparency. And we have, as they say on studio at the Rockefeller Plaza can we have a great show for you today on technology and transparency. We have judges and we have journalists, and we have academics and we have Supreme Court litigators. And as our moderator and musical guest, we have longtime veteran Supreme Court reporter tony mauro, and former head of the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee. So im here to welcome you and thank you for coming, and to join us in this new chapter in our programming at the Reporters Committee. And without further ado i will turn it over to tony. Thank you. [applause] thank you, bruce. My name is tony mauro, and on behalf of the Reporters Committee i want to welcome you to our discussion. I want to thank bruce brown and others for making this happen. In addition to being on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for close to 30 years, ive been covering the Supreme Court for 33 years, so this is a subject very near and dear to my heart. Heres whats special about this discussion this morning. For years or decades, if you raise the issue of axis in relation to the Supreme Court, theres really only one thing to talk about, the courts persistent refusal to allow broadcast coverage of its proceedings. That issue is still with us, unfortunately, but they will be front and center in our discussion this morning, for sure. But with the growth of the digital age and the unstoppable momentum towards transparency from all institutions all the time, cameras in the court is a longer the only thing to talk about and will try to address some of those other issues today. The audio of oral arguments which in many of the courts is streamed live, but not at the Supreme Court. The release of the Supreme Court argues is delayed until they are no longer of much use to the news media. With rare and unpredictable exceptions. The announcement the decisions of the court are even further delayed and it was like this week that the oe oe a project, t the court itself was able to post online the opinion announced from the term that ended last june. It seems clear that there have been accessed announcement of the Affordable Care act decisions a year before. Cnn and fox and others would not have gotten it wrong in the first place in the reports from the court. There are recusals which happen more often than you think by justices bow out of the case. They almost never explain to the public why they do or dont step aside. The our Financial Disclosure forms which are posted online for many other Public Officials but not at the Supreme Court. The justices forms are available at the Ministers Office at the court on paper for a fee, and only after the justices have been told who is asking for them. Theres the courts website. Other Public Officials are held to explicit standards, but not the Supreme Court. The public is left very much in the dark about the decisions justices make or dont make about perceived conflicts of interest or other ethical concerns. I could go on. These issues seem to be popping up more and more these days in relation to the Supreme Court, but lets get to the discussion. We have a terrific panel, and ill introduce each one briefly. First, Kenneth Starr for whom there could be many honorifics, president as in the president of Baylor University, general as in former solicitor general and author, too, of the classic first among equals the Supreme Court in american life. In this town judge is probably the one that sticks, so thats what ill call hill. Next we have chief Justice Maureen oconnor of the ohio Supreme Court. Were so glad to have her with us. Shes a native of d. C. And has been on the court, the ohio court for ten years serving as chief justice since 2010. Her court is an innovator in terms of access and technology, and you can even get the oral arguments on itunes. Next, neal katyal is the coleader at hogan levels and former acting solicitor general of the United States. Just last week he argued the first of a likely five cases before the Supreme Court this term, which will bring him to the total of 22 cases argued in his career. Next is Pete Williams of nbc news who has been covering the Supreme Court and Justice Department for 20 years. I think thats right, right . About 20 years. As other networks have cut back on their coverage, pete is the Television Correspondent we see most often at the Supreme Court. When a major decision comes down or a mass shooting strikes, pete is the one to turn to for calm and accurate coverage. Finally, we have alan morrison, associate dean for Public Interest and Public Service law. Hes the former head of Public CitizenLitigation Group where he argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court. And relevant to todays discussion, alan is the lawyer who in 2004 had the temerity to urge Justice Scalia to recuse in a case involving Vice President cheney, scalias partner in a duck hunting trip. Not surprisingly, scalia refused to recuse himself and issued a scathing memorandum in the process. Before the speakers begin, i want to mention that were going to very much encourage questions from the audience, and were going to do that in written form. And there are pens and cards on your seats. So, please, keep those in mind as the discussion goes on and write down questions, and i will receive them, and when the time is right, ill ask as many as i can. So with that, judge starr . Thank you, tony. So thankful that the Reporters Committee has decided to hold an event at the National Press club, and its a privilege to be here with my friends and colleagues on the panel. Im going to be autobiographical just for a moment. Im in favor of Greater Transparency in the Supreme Court, so thats the organizing principle and the application of that principle. What id like to speak to is i am and have been for now a couple of decades in favor of cameras in the court. I was trained as a young pup by chief Justice Warren burger for whom i was privileged to clerk for two years, and he was a great protecter of traditions while at the same time seeking to reform, change the courts procedures in a number of ways. He loved to share with the law clerks as we came in that he was in favor of technology, so much so that he decided when he became chief justice in 1969 that there should be a photocopier in the court. [laughter] and that was a great reform, because law clerks from yore will say, yes, we had to do what are called flimsies to prepare cert pool memos. There was no cert pool at the time, but cert memos for all of the justices and especially the ifps. And so youd use carbon paper. It was very benighted, was that 1869 . No, it was 1969. So it was a bit of aversion to changing procedures and methodologies, so there was not much discussion about cameras in the court because it was so inimical to the great traditions of the court. My epiphany is when i was privileged to argue unsuccessfully the second flag burning case. And by the way, in litigation we have two categories, victories and developments. [laughter] and this was a very significant development. The constitutionality of the flag protection act of 1989. So i did my best, but i was one vote short. And we werent surprised at that result in the sgs office where robert borks father served with such distinction. At the conclusion of that argument, i said hello to one of the columnists whos kind of a curmudgeonly figure, james j. Kilpatrick. And kilpo indicated he was going to be writing, he didnt come to the court, but every now and then would show up. And the opinion piece that he wrote, the Richmond Timesdispatch syndicated columnist, was every american should have seen that argument. Its not that i was so good. I clearly wasnt. My worthy opponent was brilliant. He was an absolutely great appellate lawyer. But it was not the advocates, it was the entire process and especially the justices engagement through their questions, sometimes reflections. And it was a very poignant argument. John paul stevens, who many would categorize during his Great Service as an unabashed liberal voted in favor of the government in that case, that the flag was unique. Thats when i changed my mind, after i read kilpos column that every american should have seen that argument, because i knew how poignant at the time it was, especially when the greatest generation was still with us, and John Paul Stevens was part of that generation. How could you not protect the flag of the United States. And so i have been a proponent for a long time and have been, at the same time, sensitive to the courts sense of tradition, its part of its greatness. Traditions can be very good, and they can be very sound, and there should be a reason for departing from tradition. So this is very burkian. But there is a powerful reason to change and to reform. And that is what Justice Sandra day oconnor calls, even though she opposes cameras in the court and i greatly respect the contrary view, but i profoundly disagree with it in connection to her effort to respond what she calls the collapse of Civic Education in the United States. And im very thankful that Baylor University is one of the places where we are very engaged with the community and local School Systems and so forth. But the point im making is here are thoughtful justices who are concerned, and that apocalyptic term is hers, the collapse of Civic Education in the United States. So think of how wonderful it would be for those School Children who maybe get into the argument with those 250 or 300 seats people count in different ways, you wouldty we would know exactly how many seats there are for the public but there are no more than 400 seats for the public. And be on those trips to washington, d. C. , thats one of the things to check you have to go to the Supreme Court as the court is sitting. Lets go watch the Supreme Court in action. And theyre unable to do this. Now, the principal response and im nearly through the principal response as i understand it other than this is the way weve always done it, this is our tradition and so forth which at the end of the day in the 21st century is not a particularly persuasive argument. So what is behind now the reason for carrying on the tradition . And the most common there are a number, there are five or six, but im just going to lift up one, the concern that the chief justice, for whom i have the greatest respect, has said the concern of grandstanding. And i think that the response to that is, you know, experience is a great teacher. It was holmes who said wisely the life of the law is experienc and not logic. Certainly thats true in procedure. What is the experience in what well now know and well hear from the chief justice about ohios experience, if you start chronicling and aye not done this the experiences of those courts that do have cameras in the courts, and for right now lets just talk about the highest court in the jurisdiction. Thats all im talking about. Im not talking about o. J. Simpson. Lets leave that aside, a huge, different set of issues. Were talking about the very highest court now in the land. What we see is person after person, justice after judge, advocate after advocate saying it would be a good thing. It would be a very good thing. And that there is no demonstrable, that i know of, evidence of grandstanding save for a comment i know from chief Justice Beverly mclaughlin of canada. She said for the 20 years theyve had oral arguments theres been one issue of grandstanding. Well, that happens more in the United StatesSupreme Court, i would think, than once every 20 years, but leave that aside. In her colloquy with justice ruth ginsburg, how did you handle that . We told the lawyer to sit down. Of course, you can maintain decorum in the court, and i think advocates will tell you, will say you dont win any points by being a grandstander. And the justices themselves, i think, and people say, well, theres grandstanding that goes on, will it get any worse . I dont think that it will get any worse on the bench because of this. And ill close with this, i have argued in Supreme Courts where there are cameras. They are utterly unobtrusive. This is not estes v. Texas from decades ago. And, in fact, when i argued controversially the samesex marriage case in the california Supreme Court, so im arguing that case, theres bedlam outside, but there is decorum inside. And the very able clerk of the court is pointing to where the camera is. Its just part of the briefing of counsel. In that twoandahalf hour argument of the california Supreme Court, there was absolutely no there were no histrionics, nothing other than the government working in a very effective way. And so when you look at what the state Supreme Courts have experienced including in my own native state of texas where im privileged to be back, the state of texas, the texas Supreme Court would be characterized by a lot of folks around the country certainly in texas as, quote, a conservative court. But chief Justice Wallace jefferson proudly, unanimously with his colleagues said it is time for us to move in the 21st century. There is now live telecasting. I spoke with a justice just yesterday to confirm has anything happened lately. Not a single nasty episode. Not one. And yet the sense of Public Education has increased tremendously. These materials are now being used in classrooms and so forth. So if we care, as i think everyone does in america and i think each of the justices do, about Public Education in the United States, the costs are modest to none, and the benefits will are legion and powerful. So it is time for that venerable tradition to come to an end. Of course, the chief Justice Roberts has said oral arguments are not for education, theyre for us, meaning the justices. So i guess that would be his response. Then it should be closed to the public. Right, right. Chief justice oconnor. Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here and be on this esteemed panel. Im very honored to do so. Ive had ten years of experience with cameras in the courtroom at the highest level of the Supreme Court of ohio, and i have to concur that grandstanding is nonexistent as a response to having cameras in the courtroom. The cameras are so unobtrusive that i think both the litigants and the public that enters into our courtroom dont even realize that they are being filmed. And i have to say we have more than 200 seats in our courtroom for the public to come in and be able to observe. They dont need a ticket. They just, you know, come in. At times weve had standing room only, and at times weve had overflow rooms that because of technology we have been able to accommodate those that show up and want to listen to one of our oral arguments or more and do so