Operation to undermine alqaeda. I dont know if you guys have read this, its a plan thats going to, basically, destroy the recruiting, its going to disrupt their operations, and its going to bankrupt the organization. Its actually a very simple plan. You see, the cias going to hire the Obama White House to design the alqaeda web site. [laughter] [applause] well, i dont need to tell this audience that washington, d. C. And, in fact, the entire country has changed over the last four years. But we dont have to simply cite our belief in our philosophy as to whats going on in our country. The world knows. The world has observed. And let me just give you two very authoritative sources that confirm the fact that things are increasingly not right in our Nations Capital. The first one is the world bank which does a study every year on international competitiveness. The second one is a Organization Called the World Economic forum which meets in davos, switzerland, which also puts out an annual survey. Both of these august organizations put together these studies, and they track corruption in developing countries around the world. And since 2009 both of these organizations have found that while in 2009 the United States was in the middle of the pack as far as advanced industrialized countries were concerned in dealing with cronyism corruption, we are as of in this year dead last among developing countries. That is the fate and the state to which our country has moved. And if youve been to washington, d. C. Recently as compared to even ten years ago, you come to the realization that this is a very different city than it once was. Of certainly, a different city than the one i experienced as an undergraduate in the 1980s. It has now got the highest per capita income in the United States. They passed silicon l valley. And, in fact, they have the trappings of luxury. Theres actually a ferrari dealer in washington d. C. [laughter] you can go on the web site, and its ferrari of washington, d. C. , and theyve got a quarter Million Dollar car parked out in front of the nations capitol building. We did a special on fox news in january called boon town, i dont know if any of you saw it, and this is absolutely true. We actually went and interviewed a salesman at ferrari of washington, d. C. , and he explained to us that car sales were great, but they were in trouble with ferrari of north america as compared to the ferrari dealership in south beach, miami, and the other in hollywood. And we asked them, well, why . If sales are so great, why are you having such a problem with ferrari of north america . I kid you not, he said, well, the problem in california and miami the ferrari dealership, people come in and they finance their cars, and thats good for business. In d. C. They pay cash. [laughter] think about that. Thats an absolutely true story. Well, whats troubling about this is that this is the seat of government, and the wealth that is developed in washington, d. C. Is not the same as wealth that is developed elsewhere in the country. In Silicon Valley you have people like steve jobs and others who developed great businesses and great industries, and they made hair money their money by doing what . By selling goods, services, products that people voluntarily chose to buy. Nobody forces you to buy an ipod or an ipad, nobody forts you to buy a laptop forces you to buy a happentop computer. You voluntarily choose to do so. And that is the beauty of the free market system. But in washington, d. C. The cash that is sloshing around there does not come from a voluntary exchange. I dont know about you guys, but i dont volunteer to pay my taxes to the irs. I dont volunteer to send my money there, i have to. Its an extractive process. And what id like to talk to you a little bit about tonight is what i see as perhaps one of the most compelling challenges we face at what is happening in our Nations Capital and increasingly our country, and that is we are increasingly moving from a free market economy, and we are approaching an extortion economy of which washington, d. C. Is our Nations Capital. Now, what is the image that we have of people that go into politics . And there are very, very noble people that do go into politics and continue to go into politics today. I by no means adopt the opinion that they are all corrupt and they are all bad. In fact, your going to be hearing from some of them today. But what you have increasingly is, i think, a myth about what happens. And that myth is what i call the Jimmy Stewart myth. Anybody here since the movie mr. Smith goes to washington, the old classic film . Great film. Jimmy stewart is sort of the innocent guy whos very earnest, and he comes to washington, d. C. , and he just wants to do good. And, you know, the problem is theres all these bad guys out there, these special interests and these lobbyists that are corrupting him. And weve kind of approached politics in our country that way, at least for the past 40 years. In other words, the assumption has been that we have these publiclyspiritedminded people, and weve just got to keep everybody away from them. And if we can do that, things will be just fine. Well, im going to contend to you that increasingly in washington, d. C. Its less Jimmy Stewart, and its more like the sopranos. People here watch the sopranos . You know, lots of Great Stories and lines in that film, but one of the things that you hear is in the shakedown operation they would say youre only as good as your last envelope. Youre only as good as your last envelope. And what im going to contend to you tonight is that, yes, we do have some Jimmy Stewarts still in washington, d. C. , but increasingly we have people that operate like the sopranos. And be ive been criticized by some who say, you know, when you say they function like the mafia, arent you taking things a little bit too far . What i would ask them to do is go back and look at the history, particularly of the Italian Mafia, and you realize that the Italian Mafia literally was organized by italian politicians, so maybe that tells you something. But let me talk to you a little bit about what do i mean about functioning in this manner, what do i mean by extortion . I dont mean the things you usually see in mafia films, were certainly not talking about people being violet in a physical sense, were not talking about People Holding guns or threatening. The example that i would give of the sort of extortion im talking about is an image that comes from urban america about 20 years ago. And probably older individuals here like myself will remember in this, perhaps the younger students wont. But there used to be a plague this urban america called the squeegee man. Anybody here remember the ski knee men . These were guys in new york and other cities would wait at a stoplight, and youd pull up with your car, and theyd stand in front of your car, and theyd have a squeegee or theyd have a cloth in one hand and a brick in the other x. Theyd say 50eu8 going to wash your window, can i wash your window . Now, they never said im going to take this brick and smash it through your windshield, but everybody knew that if you didnt pay the guy, he was going to smash a brick through your windshield. So it pretty soon became clear that people would pay these guys, and it became very lucrative. Well, Rudy Giuliani in new york and other mayors saw how destructive this was, that it was extortion, and they got rid of it. They nipped it in the bud. That is, essentially, the sort of extortion that im talking about here. And when you talk to people that are in the business community, corporate executives, particularly those that have left or if you look at surveys of business leaders, many of them will tell you that the main reason that they give to certain candidates or that they give to certain individuals in terms of political campaigns is not always because they support that candidate or like that candidate, sometimes they give it because they feel like that if they dont, bad things are going to happen to them and to their business. And in my book i actually cite some examples of this. One of them came from a former president of shell oil whos telling me about an experience he had in 2009, and you may find this on youtube if you want to go look it up, he went and appeared before this congressional committee, and a number of members of congress from, in this case, both political parties. But they were led by Maxine Waters began lambasting him and telling him the reason that gasoline prices were 4 a gallon or higher was the fault of shell oil. And be there were even threats there in front of the public cameras that, you know, we need to start thinking about nationalizing oil companies. And there was a very, very heated exchange. What the president of shell oil told me after that really bothered me. She said after those hearings were done, those same congressmen who had been making these threats came up to him and said, you know, if you made a donation or held a fundraiser for me, i might understand your issue better. Now, how would you take that as a member of congress as a Business Executive . Coming from somebody who is already who has already publicly lambasted you and is threatening action that could potentially harm your company . It takes place, and it goes on. And its troubling. And it is, in my mind, a function of the fact that government has become so large and so intrusive in so many facets of our lives that it gives those that are willing to use these tools and are willing to engage in this kind of extorted behavior an opportunity and the tools that they need to get it done. Theres a great line that Ronald Reagan always used, its similar to a line that Thomas Jefferson used, and i think it really encapsulates the mindset that we need to embrace. And that is that to the extent that government can do something to you sorry, that it can do something for you, it can do something to you. Think about that for a second. To the extent that government can do something for you, it can do something to you. And that is increasingly the experience of people in d. C. Well, how does it work . Let me just give you some examples of the kinds of extortive behaviors were talking about. And, again, were not talking about everybody doing this. But we are talking about, i think, an increasing number of people do this because, frankly, its lucrative. The first one is what you might call a mill kerr bill. Milker bill. First of all, it has absolutely nothing to do with the dairy industry, okay . Thats what you need to recognize. The milker bill is introduced by a member of congress, a senator, and the wills not the bills not really designed to pass. The idea of writing the law is not the hope that this is going to be good policy or its going to change things, its primarily introduced to milk Campaign Donations or lobbying contracts for family members and friends of the congressmanment so, for example, you might introduce a bill that says we need to raise, you know, federal excise taxes on large oil companies. You introduce that bill. Well, whats going the happen when you introduce that bill . Your going to scare the daylights out of people in the oil business which is precisely what that bill is designed to do. And theyre going to come running to that office saying, you know, were concerned about this bill with, whats going on . And in the process of that exchange, theyre going to end up making donations, and they may end up hiring family members of that legislator or former aides to serve as lobby is. The milker bill, of course, can be reintroduced next year and the year after, and it can become a form of extraction that takes place. And corporations end up basically paying protection money. The second technique is what you might call the toll booth technique. If you are a powerful chairman of a committee or you are in leadership and this has happened under both parties, you can essentially charge companies and individuals in order for bills to actually go from committee to being voted on on the full house floor. It can be a very lucrative technique that is used, again, to extract wealth from corporations. But its not just these sorts of techniques that take place. There are other ones that i think speak to the problems that were having in our country today. Let me give you another one. Have you ever noticed that bills and laws that are being written are increasingly large and convoluted and complex and impossible to understand . You know, glasssteagall was a bill that was written in the 1930s, it basically reengineered or reconfigured the entire Financial Sector during the great depression. That bill was about 35 pages long. The latest reform change that we had was doddfrank be, that was doddfrank, that was more than 2,000 pages long and, by the way, that doesnt include all the rules. Theyre still writing the rules. Its going to probably be more than 10,000 pages long when its done. Well, why does it happen . Why are these bills so large and con convoluted and difficult to understand . Well, one explanation might be our world is more complex, right . That may be part of the explanation, but i want you to start thinking about the things that happen in washington, d. C. At least with some individuals not in terms of policy, but think of it in terms of a business. All right . And if youre in business, what you want to try to do is create demand for your services. So let me tell you what happened with doddfrank. Doddfrank, as you can imagine, was written by, in large part under the guidance and direction of individuals that work for senator dodd and for congressman barney frank. When that bill became law, this highlycomplex bill that nobody seemingly can understand, those Staff Members quit their jobs and what did they do . They went into private business charging large wall street firms and charging large banks, charging them enormous fees to interpret the bill that they had written. Think about that for a second. Its a little bit like saying im going to to write a bill in an ancient language like sanskrit. Were going to make it law, and then im going to serve as a translator. In other words, youre going to have to pay me so you can figure out how to conform with this law. Thats really what is taking place to a large extent, and that is a form of extortion. If not before hand. This is not just opinion, it is basic fact. The department of justice is an entity that is designed to interpret and enforce our laws and when president obama appointed the attorney general appointed eric holder who had been his Campaign Chairman and campaign bungler, large dollar fundraiser for his selection and four under his senior slots at the department of justice were occupied by a campaign bunglers. That is unprecedented in American History and during the last four years what you have seen the department of justice do is enforce laws in such a way as to where they go after the political opponents of the president and dont lay off of the political friends and supporters of the president. It is essentials the using the department of justice like the brick for the squeegee man. This statistical evidence that shows if you are a campaign contributor, the securities and Exchange Commission or department of justice, you will suffer far fewer penalties and a lot smaller chance of being prosecuted if you are a Campaign Donor than if you are not. That is where we have come to the department of justice today. The final point to make as it relates to extortion is the money flowing into washington d. C. Is not just about winning elections and winning reelection but that is part of it. Increasingly Campaign Funds at least for some, lifestyle subsidies and enrichment and use creative techniques and methods for doing this. As was mentioned in the introduction there was a special we had on 60 minutes a couple weeks ago, i dont know if people had a chance to seize that but if you look at the creativity that takes place, that would be a place to begin. Let me give you a couple examples of things that have been done. We highlighted a congresswoman from california, from los angeles, very creative techniques that she developed for self enrichment, she ran for office in 1998 and in the midst of that First Campaign she loaned her own campaign 150,000 cash but she thought it would probably be a good idea to charge her own campaign 18 interest for that loan and decided i am going to wait a while, maybe 20 years to pay that loan offer. The end result is she ended up with several hundred thousand dollars in her pocket in interest that her campaign put it in her pocket. If you saw her on 60 minutes she was confronted by Steve Crosser about this fact. He informs Steve Crocker she had to make the loan to her own campaign because as a hispanic and a woman she couldnt get a bank to make the loan to her ignoring the fact that banks cant make loans to politicians running for office. That is illegal according to federal law. She then went on to explain i live in the same house and drive the same caught so what is the big deal . The question becomes to her constituents is it a big deal . Are they going to continue to reelect an individual who is self enrich themselves in this manner . That will be something that only an election will tell but the other thing that is happening is you see vehicles like leadership pacts which perform legitimate functions but can also be used as a form of life style enrichment. If you have a Campaign Committee like friends of Peter Schweizer you are running for congress, there are tight restrictions in what you can or cannot use the money for. I couldnt take my kids to disney world in the middle of a Congressional Campaign and have my Campaign Committee pay for it. That would be against the law. Jesse jackson jr. Is in jail today in part because he was using Campaign Funds for personal household items. Leadership pacs are a little different. Leadership pacs dont have according to the sec those kinds of restrictions so you find instances where a congressman decides to take his family to scotland and had his leadership pact paid for the entire trip or you find other individuals who enjoy golfing so they use the leadership pac funds to go to the best golf and resorts in the world. The point is when you think of money and politics and people raising money for politics it is not just about election and reelection, sometimes with some candidates it is about lifestyle subsidy. The criticism i always get from people is they get terribly depressed and angry and i guess i apologize for that. Hard to believe but i am by nature an optimist and i am an optimist, we have been through this before. There are good people in washington that are trying to make a difference, doing the right thing. I would contend to news that we need to start thinking about what goes on in washington and we need to start coming up with ideas and reforms that tackle these problems in a different way. Let me give you a couple of suggestions that i propose in the book that i think would be good ideas. The first is, of i know this is a radical concept to some, nancy pelosi and others have said this is a ridiculous idea, but why not simply ask our lawmakers to read the laws that they are voting on before they vote on them . In other words, if you are going to have a 2500 page bill the nobody can understand you ought to at least make them read it and that is a a totally reasonable and totally didnt legitimate reform. I know there have been bills introduced to that. That is an excellent idea. Some clarity to highlight, others suggested the bills ought to be read out loud on the house floor before they are voted on. The second suggestion that i have comments and this again perhaps is a radical one but one we ought to consider, for the last 40 years as we looked at the issue of money and politics, the focus has always been on largely restricting the behavior of american citizens, donors and people outside washington d. C. That is unusual because in about this. What you are talking about when people make Campaign Donations if theyre making them voluntarily they like a candidate and this idea is a First Amendment issue as far as i am concerned. People have a right to express the notion of who they support. There are very few restrictions on the conduct of politicians when it comes to raising money. That is not to say all of them do badly or do bad things that there are abuses that occurred. My thought is the reform we ought to consider is this. Why not do in washington d. C. What we do in the state of florida where i live, what they do in the great state of texas, Washington State and elsewhere, a simple and radical idea and that is when the legislature is in session politicians cannot solicit or received campaign contributions, period. If you did that one of two things would happen, probably both. First of all, you feel lot more efficiency when congress is in session. They could not raise money at the same time. It would put them in a position to focus on lawmaking. That would be a good thing. The second thing that would happen if you would probably dramatically shorten congressional sessions which would also be a good thing. They would be eager to do more fundraising, that would have an affect on reducing the connection in terms of what i describe as the extortion process and you would have a situation where there is an important bill before an energy committee, and some members of congress will go out and hold fundraisers on the eve of that vote. If people dont make the right contributions are making enough or generate enough enthusiasm they may abstain, they may not vote, may not show up, they can do any number of things. It puts companies and industries in a position that they feel they have to make donations. Why not separate lawmaking from moneymaking an say lawmaking takes place and they can raise the rest of the money accordingly. Finally, the ultimate solution to all of this is why is it blushing in b. C. Has become fabulously wealthy . So much money flowing into that city, why is that there is some much money to be made . Fundamentally is about one thing, the size and scope of government because it is indeed true that if you give politicians the opportunity to do something for you they can also do something to you. When you give the Political Class in washington to pick one years and losersthings washington d. C. Are only going to get worse. I would love to take any questions. [applause] thank you. Very kind. Very kind, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Questions . My question to you is the left is always talking about Citizens United, Steven Colbert dedicates the show to the Citizens United case. Can you comment on the case and what should be done . Let me preface this by saying i am not a lawyer. I dont pretend to be a legal scholar. It has been established for quite some time that being able to commit your funds to political causes is a First Amendment issue. The reasoning was twofold, number one, that we live in an era about communication, television, necessarily in that society, if you have a First Amendment right and to talk about the shoes you care about whether it is National Security or Second Amendment rights or the environment or whenever that that necessarily involves spending money and that is true and the second point that i would make is money in politics is as important as being able to protest because not everybody has the time and the ability to show up somewhere with a picket but maybe they can certainly write a check so i actually am not a critic of Citizens United. I do believe people have a First Amendment right and whether it is someone on the left or the right they earned that money, they possess that money and should be able to spend it accordingly. My question would be to the people who like a Public Financing of elections, do they really trust incumbents, those who hold seats in congress to design a system that is not going to favor incumbents . That is cynical but we all know that by and large people operate out of selfinterest. There is no easy solution. People who say i want to get the money out of politics a want Public Financing of elections, those are throwaway lines that dont really offer a solution. Talking about the Jimmy Stewart movie, it is true we have internalized the notion of washington corruption as a matter of individuals and people would act better everything would be great rather than as the sort of the way you presented a public choice institutional notion. Why do you think it is that we have this high expectation rather than think of it institutionally . Why is the public choice view not more intuitive . Again, as government has gone larger and there are more opportunities, you look at for example lobbying, lobbying has a long history in the United States but in terms of being a major industry it has been over the last 30 to 40 years and i am not anti lobbyist, people have a right to petition government and explain their positions. The problem is it has become incredibly lucrative and that is what has changed. It has taken on a business logic of its own. What i tell people is when you discussed politics you need to discuss it the way you talk about sports. Any sports fans out there . Talking about professional sports you can talk about quarterbacks and running backs and who are they going to draft but eventually you look at the question of money, a discussion about this persons contract or that, we have to approach this the same way and it may sound cynical but it is the public choice approach to this which is where is the money flowing and why is it flowing in that way. A lot of what is happening in d. C. Are individuals who are market focused in terms of the political market and trying to create demand for their services and use it do that not by solving problems in d. C. Youd do that by not solving problems. We need to follow the market incentives and you are quite right. The public Choice Theory makes the most explains the most. If you look at the nineteenth century, certainly some of these things were in play as well but we didnt have the food and Drug Administration and health and Human Services and all these large government institutions handing out so much money or making vitally important decisions for huge sectors of the economy. There just wasnt as much to be gained as there is now. Yes, sir . I am sorry. I wasnt even looking over here. Please go ahead. I am from ucla. I thought it was funny you brought up congresswomen Janet Napolitano who is now president of our school. My question was you mentioned how she is a tricky scheme. This is a different one. She is a congresswoman from los angeles not related to judge andrew napolitano. Sorry. Goahead. My question is i heard you in the past talk about the investments congresspeople make based on their policy choices. Wondering if there was any development with regards to that, legislation passed through . That is a great question. My last book i looked at the fact that politicians were in a position where in effect they could engage in Insider Trading and you had members of the Senate Armed Services committee who are deciding what the procurement is going to be of the military budget, which Weapons Systems are being bought and they are free and often do trade stocks in those same defense companies. There was a study done in the journal of quantitative economics if you years ago where they looked at the stock portfolios of u. S. Senators and what they found in this academic study was the average american underperforms the stock market with their stock investments, average hedge fund beat the market by 8 year, the average senator beat by 12 year. The question was always ids guys all just incredibly brilliant investors or is Something Else going on and i think we all come to the idea of we have to debate that very long. Basically what happened is the book came out, 60 minutes did an excellent story on it, there was something that gathered steam called the stock act. Is not a bill i was a big fan of because what it basically did was said yes, insidertrading was illegal for members of congress. The problem is you are counting on the securities and Exchange Commission to enforce this law and Given Congress sets their budget, the sec commissioners get confirmed by the senate. They are not going to enforce it. The much simpler and better solution would simply be to say if you are on the Senate Banking committee you cant trade bank stocks. If you are on services you can trade defense stocks. That is the better approach to state. They passed the stock act which essentially created this new law. It also expanded the disclosure, made it more frequent when they had to disclose Financial Transactions and it was signed by president obama with great fanfare but something unusual happened nine months ago. They basically gutted the bill and for those who think bipartisanship is dead in washington d. C. This proves it is not. What happened was in the house, it passed on a voice vote with no debate, harry reid did the same in the senate, passed by voice vote and president obama quietly signed it and basically gutted the law. The answer to the question is very little has changed. They are aware more people are watching what theyre doing so perhaps the more egregious stuff we saw before is gone, but it remains a problem. Great question. My name is david cooper from bakersfield, california and i stumbled on a book one time by reading several hedge. There were a couple things that came into mind that i thought were fascinating. One was the second part of those that failed in the house and they put 110 billion worth of sweeteners, and another thing that came about, dont know if you about it in your book, house or Senate Committee chairmanships are up for sale depending how well they fundraiser and a few things like that. Congressman have always been bought and sold. Because the government and the budgets reduce it a little tiny bit, whether it is energy or education, the real debate should be whether these programs or departments should exist at all and if you did that, you would take the contribution corruption out of it. That is the great point. Weiner need a more fundamental debate and i do think that one of the problems i talkedabout in exports in is the fact that both republicans, democrats and the house have the system of socalled party dues and they make it sound like a country club thing. You got to pay your dues and the country club this is like a country club that you may not be interested in joining but you are going to join is how it works. You come in to congress and you are given essentials up price list and we put these in the appendix in the back of the book. If you sit on the house financial Services Committee in addition to your own Campaign Fundraising you have to raise in that election cycle half Million Dollars to go to the party committee. If you sit on the committee and dont raise that money and consistently dont make that mark, they will threaten and take you off of that committee. You get elected to congress and you are an attorney or banker and use end up on the judiciary exactly, but it is not. There is a price tag associated with it and again, that is an example where Political Consultants have put members of congress in a blind and the problem is several members of Congress Told me to pay their party dues, you dont go back to your constituents in ohio and say i need to raise money for party dues, make me a donation. You rely on lobbyists and corporate and Labor Union Pacs in washington d. C. Reinforcing the dependency cycle. It is the huge problem. Thank you. My question pertains to the third solution to the extortion issue in washington which is basically no fundraising while congress is in session. I wanted to ask even though they wouldnt be allowed to fund raise during the session it wouldnt necessarily stop back room deals during fundraising. How does this all the extortion problem . They might just demand more exorbitant fees from the lobbies to make sure they keep their word. You bring up a good point. There is no Silver Bullet that will fix this problem. The experience in florida and texas and washington and others at the state level when you talk to people like the chamber of commerce fables a that it happens because it gets rid of the immediate pressure. Right now you better accommodate get phone calls in washington, a bill being brought to committee, you better put up. They will literally walk from the floor of the house, go to the steps of the house on a cellphone and do dialing for dollars. I dont think we will ever get rid of all of it but if we could at least try to mitigate it, try to separate it to some extent, we can get rid of the more extreme forms. Great question. Marked down from mississippi college. A real simple question with the simple answer. Real interesting research, i have written books with research. Have you ever thought about doing a documentary or making a movie possibly . Great question. I have been involved in documentarys. Theres a documentary here the foundation has available called the conservatives which talks about conservative philosophy. There is also a documentary that i was involved in called in the face of evil about reagans successful execution of the cold war and winning the cold war which i think the foundation may have copies of or they may campaign finance. I have not done that recently. I have done certainly some things with 60 minutes and others but in terms of doing a documentary myself i have not but it is a good idea. I am from hillsdale college. I wanted to know, you mentioned all of this going on, the corruption so to speak. Why hasnt of amelia exposthe m it . Or has it . People are angry and frustrated. Why isnt the media covering it and if they were would people be responsive enoughs to ensure it wouldnt happen . Great question. There are some people in the media covering aspects of this but i think there are a couple things that are working against them. One is there is a cultural mindset in d. C. And if you are in the media there are a couple of hurdles you have to get over. One of them is you are so much involved in the immediacy of what is going on that day it is hard to see the larger forest and this is a forced story. You have to be able to think through andest story. You have to be able to think through and look at the different trees, they are chasing the story of that day. The second problem is some journalists rely on people in powerful positions for their stories. That is where they get their beaks, their interviews, dont want to offend people in power because they might not get that exclusive interview that will help their position. It basically terms them, changes them from watchdogs to let dogs. They dont want to offend people for fear of doing this. The third part is cultural. I have this experience, a gentleman, i wont give the name, he probably wouldnt mind if i did but i wont. I had a conversation with somebody who is on television very frequently, lives in washington d. C. And was talking to him a year ago, i love your books but i could never write those kind of books . I said why is that . These people are my neighbors. My kids hang out with their kids. I couldnt write a book like that. If you are part of the washington culture, it is very hard to do that and those are all factors that have led the media to yes, they nibble around the edges and there are very good reporters out there but they dont have the opportunity to drill down in a way that i enjoy doing so much. I am eric country from u. S. C. Good to see. Thank you for speaking. Quick question. Build a little bit of of what he said, in general, as we have seen in the last couple years with congresspeople voting to increase their salaries and benefits and all kinds of very ethical wonderful things that make us all smile at the end of the day and take medication, i have a question for you. On a large scale, how do we find ways with the people and also other agencies within the government legally to hold people accountable for those actions, not only just what you talked about in your speech in regards to things like doing fundraising at different periods of time and having things more straight forward and to the point but getting to a point where we have agencies or people whether in the media or stuff that hasnt been tapped into yet that actually are addressing keeping these people accountable because it almost seems we are at a point where there is a lot of people in this country, not in this room or agree with all of our ideals who will agree with us on the fact that there is a lot of unethical behavior and if a year that we can inspire them to obviously realize these people arent as beautiful as they may seem. My question is how do we keep that in check for future generations and decades of politicians as they come into office so we dont have to keep reinventing the wheel and trying to solve problems we already solve. Good question. It is our focus really needs to be on where washington d. C. Is in terms of its size and scope. I know i keep returning to that but i think that is central. I take a view of human nature that is pretty basic and that is people are people. There are good people and bad people operate in a private sector, operating government, but if you create opportunities for people to self enrich themselves or throw their weight of round, to gain benefit people are going to do that. Is going to be a problem. I focus on this person is bad, that person is bad and focus on the fact that the notion of having a large, powerful and intrusive government you are asking for trouble. People are schizophrenic on this. It mystifies me. I will give you an example of something that mystifies me. Over the last six months, legitimately so, there has been a lot of criticism from libertarians and people on the left about the National Security agency and phone records, spying on americans and having all this information on private phone records and the left has been very agitated about that and i share that agitation. But the same people are enthusiastic and excited about handing their medical records over to the federal government. Makes no sense to me. Theres a schizophrenia there and what we have to get back to again and again and again is government is going to function in a certain way. It is run by flawed individuals. I think what we need to do is continue to encourage the message of limited government and we need to make that appeal not just in terms of a political philosophy because most American People are pretty pragmatic. They dont think in terms of philosophy. We need to make the appeal in terms of corruption and common sense and the bigger and more powerful government is the more corrupt it is going to be. That has been our experience and the way it will continue to be. That is how i would push that. Yes, sir . Joel sumpter. One of your solutions you said would be instead not allow them to trade stocks on their committee. The problem with that would be trade information with one other person so one is health care and the other is trade that information and profit off of each others information. Is there any possible way to mitigate that . Very good point. There are a couple of proposals i mentioned to. That is one of the. The other one i proposed is why not have members of congress put their assets in blind trust. A lot of people think they do but they dont enjoy lot of people publicly said, i am thinking of senator john kerry, when my book came out i noted john kerry who was intimately involved in erecting the Affordable Care act, regulating, redefining a large part of our economy, the health care sector. The same time he was doing that his stock portfolio was flipping Health Care Stocks to the tune of millions of dollars. His office has said it is not a blind trust, one solution is to ask politicians, you have to put your assets in a blind trust, it is not perfect, there are ways of round. What we have to realize is there is not going to be any solution, people could Exchange Information based on committee assignments. We have to look for ways to make it more difficult for people to engage in this self enrichment. It is a mystery to a lot of people but we are starting to understand why is it you have some individuals to come into politics and they are middle class and after 15 years of Public Service are multimillionaires. How did that happen . Because they come up with some very creative ways that make use of the power and influence to serve their own ends. We wont change human nature but we could try to change the incentive structure or change policies to where we make that a lot more difficult. With that i will say thank you and enjoy the weekend. [applause] booktv is on facebook. Like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers. Watch videos and get uptodate information on events. Facebook. Com booktv. With just a few weeks left in 2013 many publications are putting out their year end lists of notable books. These titles were included in the Washington Post notable nonfiction of 2013. In brilliant blunders from darwin to einstein, colossal mistakes by great scientists