tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 27, 2012 2:00pm-8:00pm EDT
consideration of the cybersecurity bill. we spoke to a reporter about the issue. >> what is ahead in the senate? >> they are offering at lot of amendments. we will have privacy provisions, trying to remove any kind of voluntary security standards for industry. we are going to have a whole lot of moves to route the week. >> with the fiscal issues facing the senate, why does the majority leader set aside a viable time to take up the cyber security bill? >> i wrote a magazine piece. he is just quite legitimately worried about the national security threat. if you talk to any experts, they
tell you this is the top worry they have. it is the one thing that congress has not passed. he has been working at this four year and a half or so, bringing all these committee chairs and bringing all these issues worked out, trying to get a bill that could pass. they are at the end of the opportunity to do something this year in the senate, so this is why they are doing it. >> you wrote about rival factions working on the bill. who are they? >> the main group that sponsors the bill on the floor, they are senator joe lieberman, senator rockefeller from west virginia, senator collins from maine, and senator feinstein from california. they are committee chairs or in
the case of senator collins the top republican on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. they have got the white house endorsement, the backing of senator reid. they have an interest in seeing some standard put in place on the industry. the second group is an number of top senate gop members, john mccain is the leader, and they are trying to make it that there are no kinds of standards. those groups agree on a lot of other things, how to improve the government's own security. the third group is with senator senator white house, who have been trying to bridge the gap between those two, to come up with a system of voluntary
standards that are more incentive based to get businesses to shore up their did offensives -- their defenses. it is unclear how many businesses it would affect. it is a broad array of businesses. the sponsors of the senate bill say it would only affect a small percentage of the people who owned the most crucial of all these networks. the business groups are quite worried [unintelligible] [unintelligible] they are worried about what that will mean for them. most business groups do not like it, although there are a number of technology firms that do like it. those that do not like it say it will become a de facto regulatory scheme, even though it is voluntary. the ones that do like it is too
important -- the ones that do like it say it is too important and it will affect a lot about other people as well. >> would it be august -- with the august recess and around the corner, the timetable in the senate? , this week, in the next seven days or so. we will see how far they get. at this point there is no sign of agreement on a person of the bill that could maybe get 60 votes. that does not exist right now. then they have to figure out what to do with the house. that could be a more difficult thing because that house gop is concerned about regulatory schemes of anything and has a kind of rejected something similar to this. >> you can read this reporting at cq.com.
thank you for the update. >> back now to the clare boothe luce policy institute, where mary katharine and is talking about the importance of speaking out as a young conservative. she has been speaking out for a couple minutes. >> you could tune in for years later and it would be the same thing. that is how they look at politics. for years go by and they do not see concrete changes that are changing their lives. they look and say this is the same thing over and over again, and you people are crazy because you pay attention every day. is this ok not to be normal, but we have to keep that in mind when we are here. i think you should take the time to visit the normal people, and this is presumably what congress
meant and congress people are supposed to do that, but they forget that and it does not help their perspective. presumably we were all normal at some point before we got into this, and we still have that inside a bus. i am from north carolina, and i try to get down there, to be outside the belt way can be helpful. most of port bay it makes what ever you are fighting for up here easier to get because if you are able to communicate with people who are not following this every day and get them to change the minds, that is when you start cheating things. that is the ultimate power, having people on your side, not the people who read "soap opera digest" every week. stay in touch with your normal person. somewhere deep inside you exists. second, when you are going back
to explain washington, one of the things i thought since i moved here is our duty, and this comes with to be kidding with normal people, is to learn washington, learn the things that are wrong with that, and in four people this is how things happen here. i remember when i came to washington, i did not know this. i had been covering nascar, which is watching a bunch of dudes turn left perpetually, just like congress. [laughter] i did not know that much myself. i had been into politics from a young age, had an ideology fairly young, the beyond-the- ground reality, i did not understand. when a the first thing i learned is they do not read the bills, and i said that cannot be right. is that right? i felt compelled to research this further could because i cannot believe it, and i found
out, not only is that the truth, it is standard practice. it is not even thought of as odd in washington. i took that message back home, and said they did not even read the bills. this is before the evehealth cae thing, when it became hip to read the bills at that time. i was into it so early. i took it back to my friends and said, they do not read the bills. don't you think there is something wrong with that, even if you are something -- someone who loves the federal government and thinks they cannot do anything wrong? don't you think they should do due diligence on a bill they pass? even my liberal friends were like, that is not right, is it? they thought i was propagandizing. in the past couple of years with the health care debate, i think
that on its own, regardless of where you stand, was a great educational moment for the entire country about exactly how this town works. they want it to pass it in two months, the public said all along, and what would have happened in two months, all the back scratching, backroom deals, all the not aired on c- span hearing stay at on it, that stretched out for a year, and once it stretched out that long and you could see the details, it is really ugly. what americans learned is that is not new, that is the way that most bills get done, you just saw it out in the open for the first time. that is a powerful thing, and something that i think the normal people need to know. i am glad we went through that. it is your chance to learn here
the weird things that people do not know about washington, communicate it to them, and i was reading about the horrible productivity of this congress, and as for klein -- ezra kellein said earlier they would get the 330 bills done. he said, number one, and never to come and number three, but we need to be cognizant of every single one of those 330 bills, not just as weird as, people whose lives are being affected by these bills should have a chance to weigh in, the exactly what is going on, and we have gotten so bloated and so gigantic that it is almost impossible for them to do that. that is what people say it is
just exhausting, i do not want to be involved. i say i know, that is why we are here to be involved partly on your behalf. when i wish is we could get this sucker boil down small enough you could actually be involved and you actually could learn exactly what they are doing up here. that is our job. we are ambassadors for this weird stuff that goes on here. it is our job to try to fix it by convincing people in it is insane. it is not that hard a job if you work on it. as far as -- what age are you guys, college age? being an intern, i was not one on capitol hill. one thing i will say about being an intern, if you are going to take your first job here, and it applies to all your entry-level jobs, do not be above doing this
and the stuff they ask you to do. i know we are getting very practical here. i am bringing it down. i have had experience where i will give you my first job in washington as an example. i had a job in the job's description there was nothing about going to a particular meeting, and writing up the notes about that meeting every week. it was not the greatest treat in the world. it was not in the description. i could have put a fussed up about it. somebody at the workplace all the right thing and said we like how you write. would you like to write a column for us? that was a turning point for me and it did teach me, look, do not dismiss things that you might think is that really in my job description, lost? it does not mean you can take abuse. taking your self available and making yourself willing to do that stuff, because when you are young a lot of the people above you, it takes a lot of money per
hour for them to take notes at a meeting. that was a good investment for the coumpany. another thought on basic career advice, this town is about who you know. that does not have to be a nasty thing. when i got here, i will make it on my own, i do not need to know any people. you can make it on your merit, but there's something i did not realize as a young person, that is just how human relationships work. i will say this about making connections -- in washington we have a bunch of happy hours and what not and specifically meetings for connecting the other people who might help you in your career. your connections will be away more helpful to you if you actually have a connection with them. the happy hours are fun, the connecting events are fun, but
if you only go in there all mercenary style to find somebody who is want to give you a leg up, ironically that is not want to help you as much. if you go in and i know it sounds silly, be a nice person like your mom advised, it is really helpful. that is another one. did not be afraid to try weird things on the job -- do not be afraid to try weird things on the job. do not look at me. the c-span audience is freaking out. do not be afraid to try to think. been done has an advantage. did you ever think running a facebook page could be a marketable skill? it is because older people do not in a understand these things as much as you do. you have an advantage in the marketplace right now that you should use. when i was coming up, a couple years ago, twitter and youtube and all these things were brand
new, the cost embarrassing oneself were rather low. the people were just learning it, they were not sure what to do with it, so i decided to do a cast.nd peeps news cat it got hundreds of thousands of views. having the ability to think a little bit weird -- i hate that term outside the box -- having the ability to do that, especially with new technologies, is what is going to make you stand out, there are going to be a thousand new tools coming out, that congress people need that activist organizations need, that you will probably be familiar with months before bosses. keep an idea about that, and keep your head about you.
people who messed up on twitter are just being jerks. if you act like a normal person, you're generally ok. do not be afraid to try out new tools. this is one i always give, too. practical. i give this to young women coming into politics. some of you who have heard me speak before it may have heard it because it is my hobby horse. get yourself a negotiating coach. i know the congress in all its wisdom was on to pass a bill that would make sure that no woman would ever be paid less than any other man ever or something. just like they did two years ago when they passed lee ledbetter act. i think it is nonsense. if you're getting paid $5,000 less than a male counterpart, if that is the case, you need to be asking for $15,000 more, and the best way to solve that problem
is get yourself in negotiating coach, asked for what you need, what you deserve, and do not go to the speaker of the house and say could you pass a bill that could help me earn $5,000 a year more. that is a bad way of going about doing that. it goes for men as well, but in particular when at were problems in that situation asking for money, pushing back, and if you get a coach that will hit more, before the game, get you ready to go, in the end, if you start early, it will pay dividends throughout your career. it is a simple thing. i did a years ago. i have a friend who does negotiations every single day, and every time i am up for a job, we do the pep talk. she says, what are you going to ask for? it works, and it is a favorite
that i have done myself and i encourage anybody else to give a try. it can just be a friend, does not have to be a class, but it will help you. it is your right, even as a young person, to go into room and they offer you something and you say, as you're moving up through the ranks, go in and say push back a little bit, i have these certain skills, i have these things that may be different and special, i have proven i am good at this, this is what i want. just put that out there. the last thing i will say, and i want to do questions and answers. i know the speaker was doing floaters -- photos. the last thing i want to say is as conservative as a lot of times we get a little cowed into not thinking that what we do is just as noble as what
people are doing on the other side. i see it all the time. the key party was actually sort of a moment for conservatives to thewhat i'd do matters and thing i care about art righteous, the things that i want to do in making government smaller and smaller sample are good things. i am going to embrace that and go stand out in the park and i am not going to let people say i am a horrible person because of that. it could be easy especially in a liberal environment to let people cow you, but not be afraid to think that what you are doing and believe what you are doing is no. you are trying to make this government smaller and more responsive to the american people, smaller and more responsive to the democratic process. what exactly is not know about that? it is a beautiful thing. at it from the point of view of
you wanting to have people with input on those 300 bills that come to congress every year. is it a wonderful thing, and people will tell you you are a part this person because you want to do it, and they are wrong. just owned it, because that will make you a better communicator as well. those are my basic tips. i would love to the questions because i like questions on current events or advice to what have you. is that cool with you guys? all right. [applause] >> i was just wondering if you could expand on that concept of being a passionate conservative, especially as a young person, attracting other persons to be attractive conservatives that can share this message? >> knowing your stuff is in
port. i grew up with all liberals, i went to college with mostly liberals. i went to washington. there was a brief stint in north carolina when i was not completely outnumbered. as a result, i had to learn my stuff, i had to get ready, not necessarily to go toe to toe in a cable news style debate. that will not win people over if you want a beer. i want to say, look, and one of the ways i sound most persuasive, particularly with a liberal or somebody who is a swing voter who has this idea march you out just to get people? look, people, honest people, good people, but leave something different and here is why. let me explain how it benefits normal folks, how it is a compassionate point of view, and taking that approach
specifically amongst small groups of friends, is the best way probably to reach people. a lot of times, and i say when i taught the young women and young voters, and it is for young people as well, you do not have to necessarily swing them all away to committed conservatism with you. you want to hone in on issues you agree -- they agree with you. you chip away at that conventional wisdom, and if they agreed with you on that issue, they will come to you a bit of the way a little later. i have a best friend at home who believes in free trade. that is the achilles heel with her. she is not an activist conservative, but she is not in the same place she was before because she has this different point of view on that. i think tapping into that and not being like, why don't you agree with this, that does not
want to help you, because the young people, it is not what did happen best often. i like to play it soft. if they attack you, feel free to play back. >> thank you for coming. i go to the university in cincinnati. you mentioned during one of your first positions you went to those meetings and took notes and became a game changer for you. what would be your advice, and that altered your career path, when did you figure out or have you figured out what you want to do in the long run, and what would be your advice to college students who are still figuring it out? >> i like how you figure it out because that is where i am. i did not plan to do any of this, which is part of why i ended up where i am, and i am excited about it, i love where i am, but if you had asked me when i was in college what i want to do, this would not have been in the realm of possibilities, not
because i did not to do it, but it would never have occurred to me to do tv or radio. i found out i liked it. being open to those possibilities was one of the things that helped, because i was somebody who did not have a specific path. when i got past the first time on tv, and so giving those things and shot and not be afraid to do that helps. that goes along with what i was saying about being a young person, having these new marketable skills and not being afraid to embrace that and say maybe you are hosting a webb joke for what ever group you are working for, maybe you are handling 8 twitter feet, but do not be afraid to do things, take those new tools in different directions, and that serves me well perry all of a sudden, being a commentator was sort of a job in itself, like being a
personality of sorts, and having a specific point of view and keep it more fun was something that happened to serve me well with the type i came up in. it would not have served me a couple years ago. the opportunities are multiplying as opposed to contacting as far as different things you can do. a lot to stimulate my situation was different because things were looking pretty good. in activism, there are a lot of places to look on the state, federal levels, say you have some out what's, but do not be like i am going to do this, i am but to be what ever is in a senator's office and not fear from that. there are plenty of opportunities and you might miss out on some things. >> i am from emory university. i have a question about radio
and television. i was wondering what internships come out what skill sets, the do you think will go with best positions in college to get those jobs, once we enter the workforce? >> it is good to start with something like, generally for ready, a call screener or poker. when you get those jobs, and you can get those jobs on a small radio shows. the skills are the same, they translate it every level, and being to handle people and decide what is a good call and a bad call. those skills are the same, but you have to start learning than. as for a tv goes, looking at producing for a show. i think they have done all the networks, they have guessed greeters, which is where most people start out. i have found the best way to get
into radio or tv as a commentator, and this is something i might have done differently, is to get a specialty. i am a journalist that just happened by chance because i was a newspaper reporter and i covered everything. why is paul bryan the guy you go to talk about budget issues? because he knows them better than anyone. he made that his wheel house. finding that same thing for yourself will get you into this areas, coming around the backside, sort of, get you into those areas because people will come to you because you know about something more than other people do. i might have done things differently had i seen backwards. it is a powerful way to make yourself and authority.
>> i am an intern. i was wondering if he could weigh in with your opinion on the question, can women at all? >> -- can women had it all? >> i think you have to make some choices. i would use my own life as an example. i realize about a year ago that in fact part of this comes with the idea of not knowing what you want, i realized that part of what i'd want it was that have flexibility to eventually have kids and be home with them some of the time. i still wanted to have an impact, and i am blessed at my gger is givenloc me a way to find that path. but i am sure if i went 80 hours a week gung-ho for the next 10 years i would be any different position than the one i am going
to be in, because i have made that decision. to me, that is still having it all. i am more than happy with the situation i have created for myself. ended up being part of my goal. when it comes to having it all, it does not mean to me, monetarily and ladder wise, i must be at the pinnacle and i must also have three kids and be home with them sometimes. i understand there are trade- offs we make. i think being honest with yourself about what you want to be is the best thing you can do for yourself. my mom worked probably 60 hours a week and had three kids and did an incredible job, and we never thought twice about it. never had any doubt about how she felt about us. my grandmother was in the military, and did a thousand things and had three kids, back
when that was not easy. i was inspired by them and a slightly different choices and will end up in a different place, but to my grandmother, my mom, and me, they both counted it all. i do not buy the notion that it means this specific thing, and if we do not get there than we fail. no. you make trade-offs and you make yourself happy. >> my name is ashley, and i was wondering what books do you recommend to students? >> you could start out with " federalist papers." i know people have their specific opinions about ayn rand. i think she is a fun read, and if you are conservative, it is a blast to read her, and i know everybody says "atlas shrugged
." there is a book called "we the living" which is a raw picture about how bad that soviet ideology can get. i liked that one. it is a little more soft. i love "the economist," and if i went back to school i would go backe to economics, because it gets you ready to do battle when you have to. i also liked just silly books as well. do not be afraid to read those, too, because that is one thing, taking a vacation from this is really good for you. >> that me ask you, where do you get your news? what are the top sources of
news, and what recommendations do you have for students? >> i actually -- i will say the way i get news is i use my twitter account to get almost all the news i get. i think for many people, especially young people, that is a cool way to do it. i find that because i use my twitter stream, i set up a specific group of people, i follow for breaking news, and it is built over several years, and is probably a large thing at this point. the point being, i find i'm a good 25 minutes and had people on breaking news because i am on twitter. i always follow up with other sources. that is my favorite way to follow news, and it feels the same way as the shift when i was in newspapers, i was the only person reading blogs, and i felt i was at the head of everybody there. you should remember a can be
fast and wrong, so you need to check. if you're a news junkie, that is my favorite thing to do. i love carolco -- journal co -- "the wall street journal" and fox days. all the george mason economists have their own blog. there is a smart libertarian woman that works woman"newsweek -- woman that works at " newsweek." i enjoy that kind of thing. everybody done? i do want to quit since we are on c-span, i want to give a shout out to the c-span2 deal library which is possibly the coolest website on the planet,
and all of you guys will love it. you can go back to 2000 and watched old mick romney debates. what could be better? it is a useful tool, and if you are currently working paula 6, a grateful to have at your disposal. i'd use it all the time. all righty. have a great summer. >> thank you. my name is ashley, and i student at bass's the pacific university. our next speaker is a regular guest on fox news and other cable networks. she is a popular speaker and a defender for conservative principles. kate obenshain made headlines when she was the first woman to chair the virginia gop. the charge, she waled
against tax increases. she also served as chief of staff for senator george allen, and she served as chief education and health policy adviser while he was governor. in 2009 i listened to occur talk about women in the conservative movement, and remember becoming so inspired that i knew one day i wanted to host her at my college campus. when it came back this time of year to bring a speaker, i remember back to that day when i listen to her and i brought her out. this past april and had the privilege of bringing her to my campus, which turned to be a successful event, and she was very inspiring. when i admire about kids is how passionate she is about encouraging young people to become knowledgeable and active in public policy issues. currently kate champions her conservative convention as vice president of the young america's
foundation. she is also a clear? ms. policy institute board of directives member and has been featured in several of the institute bus annual calendars. she has a new book coming out in september. she is a graduate of the university of virginia. she lives in virginia with her children. kate in sparse audiences with her at passion and never hesitates to speak her mind. join me in welcoming kate obenshain. >> thank you, ashley. that was beautiful. when i went to azusa pacific, this is a small christian college, but this will be lovely, how nice, no hostility. the place went nuts, even when i
was announced that they were coming, they were ripping down all the posters, putting double orne's and the tail. the intolerance, even at a conservative campus, is astounding. i have to get ashley credit. you just saw her. she is lovely mild-mannered lady, and she was torn -- they wanted to tear her limb from limb, but she stood her ground. she convinced all these leftists to come to my lecture. they were rolling their eyes. i cannot believe that. they came, and that is the point of groups like clare boothe luce policy institute to bring in and of little bit of diversity to our college campuses, show young people there is another side, and perhaps it should be welcome to want to our college campuses. the notion of a free and open exchange of ideas -- how about
that? it is this crazy idea. you never hear it anymore. there are campus speech codes. i went to the university of columbia, and i said you would not believe it, but at some schools they have free speech zones. there are these squares in the center of campus where you stand inside them, you may say whatever you like. he may say whatever you think. he stepped outside that square, and you're bound by the campus speech code. if you say something slightly offensive to a persecuted group, and that means everybody except white men and christians, conservative women, you cannot offend anybody or you have to go to sensitivity training or are brought up on charges. but kids at the university of missouri, we have one, too.
it is a circle, not a square. they did not even realize it. you are being brought of your ability to think and to speak and to learn, because your professors are not being open- minded. i talked to this guy at cox ms. the other day, with this guy -- with fox news the other day, and he was talking about, i was telling about what we do, and i said, there is validity to having free market professors. no, he really did not agree with that. he thought -- wait, you actually think that only keynesian economics should be taught, and he had to think for a second. he said, well, perhaps there is
simply to perhaps a dose of free market -- validity, because you and your ivory tower have sole access to what is right and what is proven? have you looked around, looked at what happened in the united states when ronald reagan unleased the power of the free market? i cannot believe what you guys have to deal with on a college campuses. what i want to beg you to do, in the name of freedom and liberty, bring in conservative speakers to the clare boothe , ce policy institute com start a conservative group at your school. they're not going to run you off. and i hate you, you will learn and you will learn to defend yourself and you will help further freedom because you will exposed classmates to an ideology that is foreign to them, and it is your responsibility. it is a tough one, but you are
up to wit, you are here, you're listening to speakers and mark your quantities so inspired after you hear star parker creek everything she has to say is the god's honest truth. you need to bring somebody like star parker to the college campus. i am here to talk about the war on women. you heard about that from obama and the administration, because conservatives have launched an all-out assault on women. they hate women. we hate women. we despise them. we want to send them back to the dark ages. i have to point out, this is the movement of star parker, michele bachmann, sarah palin, and coulter, incredibly strong women who we champion on a daily basis. it happens to be that we have a completely different ideology. because of that, we hate women. if the left can convince the
people by saying it enough times that we hate women, if this administration can, then they shut down the debate. any time john boehner or anyone, and the conservative, mentions an issue relating to women, the left those they a women, they do not have had anything to back it up, but if they say it enough times, then they shut down the entire issue of women. that is what they want. that is why they go after brennan with such viciousness, conservative women, because they know women represent the greatest threat to their lock grip. their ability to win elections, if they lose women, if they stop convincing women in ask that they are the soul force that represents their ideology, they will start losing, the entire war, this war of ideas. that is what they are trying to do, try to shut it down and try
to keep a free and open exchange of ideas from happening, because if they do that, they win. we cannot let them win. we have to continually engaged. i believe that groups like clare boothe luce are so important because for some reason, and some of you ladies might disagree with me, conservative women need an extra push. i do not know why. an extra push to be out there in a leadership role. i was -- i became chairman of the republican party in virginia, and i did not even consider the fact that i was the first bullet. it meant nothing to make. i grew up in a very conservative family, but i never thought there was anything i could not do. after i was collected, i went around to these different local committees, getting to know everybody, and i cannot tell you how many women came up to me,
older women, saying i never thought i would see the day that a woman became chairman of the republican party in virginia. i was shocked. it's changed my perspective. i was wondering why, and there is this sense that maybe a woman should not be chairman or maybe there is some extra pressure, maybe some of the good old boys are putting pressure on. i do not know, but i stepped -- i started up a women's leadership training program. the first class, first- dauy of the training class, all these women had a cheap access, and i asked, how many of you would consider running for office one day? one hand. everybody else said i preferred the supportive role. we went to this a months of
leadership training, and by the last day, i asked the same day -- question. every and shot into the air, boldly, confidently. i am not like the national organization of women. i do not want women to be elected and be involved in government or other areas because they are women. i do not care. i want the best people involved. i have a pragmatic purposeful wanting women to be more involved. i think it is our obligation, because freedom is on the press of this, and we cannot sit back and say i have these four kids to take care of, i have to stay home. we still have to get involved. pragmatically speaking, when we promote conservative women, when we have worked when in leadership positions, we bring more women to the movement, there's no question that when people look on c-span or they look at cpac, there are these
banquets, and every night there is this huge dias -- all of this man up there earned their place, so please do not ministers can be. if they see all old white men, how encouraging is that the women who are watching? we have plenty of accomplished women who should be there. star parker, phyllis schlafly, there are so many people who belong there, and we need to train women, and. when you see women who have stuck their necks out, like sarah palin, and michele bachmann, when you see them have the audacity to stand up for what they believed them come to defend them. do not leave them hanging out there and do not jump on the bandwagon when you see others in leadership. go after them. that was immediate, when she
made that point about the muslim brotherhood and perhaps we should be concerned, i do not know, i am not privy to the information, but she had to know something. without even thinking, it was an all out war. people could not wait to go after michele back then -- michele bachmann picked defend her perspective, because when women out there see the vicious attack against conservative women, i have a good life, i do not need this stuff but i do not need to put myself out there for attacks. we need to encourage them, yes, you do, we need your voice, we need you involved and we can do that by defending our fellow conservative women who have the guts to stand up for what they believe in. this administration has the audacity to say that
conservatives are engaged in a war against women. i have to tell you there something wrong. women are beginning to see it. women saw it in 2010. it doesn't a, they did not see it at all. -- in 2008, they did not see it at all they thought finally somebody is going to rise above this bickering and we finally got somebody who's got to champion what we believe in. hope and change. that appeals to us as women. we do not like that nastiness. it appealed to us, but then we saw complete betrayal of what this president ran on. the opposite, immediately, he engaged in the most vicious petty partisan, politics. it was not hope and change. it was divide and copper, rip them apart at the seams. he did that with women as well.
by 2010, women voted for conservatives in numbers we have not seen since 1982. i think it is because of the devastating impact that this administration has had economically on women. when you hear the pundits say women are fairings a much better, the party -- the property rights of women are higher than they were and 17 years. women are not gaining the jobs back like men are. lower income levels, increasing gasoline prices hurt women who are more likely to be in poverty more than when. -- than a man. they are having a devastating impact on women as well. this economy, the obama economy,
it cannot be the bush economy, is having a devastating impact on women. also, i got to tell you, i think women in this country are ascended. they are -- they are offended by what they are seeing in this administration. there is no better illustration than the life of julia. why was it not the life of bob? the need for the government to come in and hold our hand from cradle to grave, suggesting there is no way for women to thrive, flourish, performed beautifully -- she is the american dream come out of bus the beneficial and of government, comes down and myths us up, because we cannot do it on our own. it is offensive. it wraps up of that -- it robs us of that in sad have.
we need our friends. we do not need the government. we want the government out of the way, get out of my way and let me try and succeed. get out of my kids away. get out of my children's education. i do not need the bogus stuff york putting into my children's education. it is deeply offensive, and i hope the opposite will happen. the initiation thinks they will so flagrantly pander to win it. they will say we will give them free stuff. , i pray that the opposite will happen and women will be deeply offended. what ever they will get from government they will get so much less than what they can achieve on their own. i think women are offended by the skyrocketing rate of footsteps and welfare, and alan west was right. it is a new form of slavery.
i am proud of him for not taking it back. i am tired of the government coming in and doing the exact opposite, robbing us from our prosperity. the most cynical attempt to win when it was that manufacture debate over contraception, and the notion that we are robbing women of all of their rights. it was completely cynical, because they put that out there, they let the church come in and say that is a violation of our religious liberties and our bright to decide what policies we want to have. very reasonable. they did not say we do not want people to have contraception. they said we'd the church has the right to decide if we want insurance programs to provide contraception, free abortion policy opportunities, and we have the right to decide that,
but the administration and their little cohorts out their distorted that. dnd sent out a letter, and this is the kind of rhetoric that the left was using to the lanais conservatives. madeleine albright said it seems every time when it takes one step forward extremists try to push us back. this is not extremism. here in america republicans have launched an all-out attack on women's rights. they targeted women's health and are trying to roll back basic rights that most of us thought were won more than a generation ago. what basic rights? when men will never -- women will never go back to the days where we cannot control our own
reproductive health care decisions, and we will not remain silent in the face of this misogyny and anti-women hate speech. this should blow your mind. this is so transparent, and they think women are going to fall over and say they hate us and try to take away our rights. we see what the administration was trying to do. my suggestion is when you are faced with this rhetoric, point out a flagrant hypocrisy. let's look on the other side at that wind-loving left. let's hear what they have to say about women, particularly about conservative women. it does not matter whether they are conservative or liberal liberal. they say business misogyny and heat speech is wrong.
a lieutenant governor was up for a recall, when there was a left- wing talk radio post post -- radio host. i did not come up with this stuff. we need to know what they are saying. the host from wisconsin accused her of performing sex acts on the radio host, ridiculed her children, and joked about her cancer. this guy had called condoleezza rice a black trophy and aunt jemima. by the way, this is a woman who stands up for what she believes in. you remember what happened when another woman was standing up for what she believed in, and obama picked up the phone to call her mom because he was a proud of her, when she stood up and said what she had to say, and obama called her mom.
if i had said that stuff, why mom would not be proud of me. she would be hiding under her bed forever. obama did nothing. nobody did anything about the vicious hate speech, and this was a prominent national campaign. it was not as if nobody knew about it. our president had nothing to say about david letterman's comments about sarah palin or her daughter. it was disgusting. i cannot need to remind you. content and. and the bill maher, calling palin a dumb -- completely unbelievable. and then gloria steinem and went on to the show, did she get it to him, say how dare you?
she said nothing, nothing about this. ann coulter ripped into him for the things he has been saying about conservative women. nobody on the left set up for women being attacked on these shows. ed schulz called sarah palin, bimbo alert. he called michelle a bag of meat. she has suffered greatly as a conservative woman seeking her neck out there. we all have. she said, "slut" is one of the
nicer things i was called. she was called cocoanut, brown on the outside, white on the inside. a white man's puppet. she has been called tokyo rose, radical right asian people, unbelievable stuff. she said if i had a dollar every time i was called a manila whore, i would be able to pay for a ticket for an obama fund raiser. i could go on for a long time. i have a longer list here. my point is not to wring my hand about the sexes and on the left, not at all. my point here, although i am not happy with that, but we do not need to feel sorry for ourselves. my point is to point out the utter hypocrisy of the left. they do not care at all about women's rights, women being respected. they have an ideology. it is all ideologically driven,
even the national organization of women. they champion things that say we believe in women, women's rights call all, their number one goal. they believe their number one goal is parity in contrasts. the you know how many republican women they endorsed in 2010? 0. none. they endorsed many of the democrat man running against republican women. they did not care about parity, gender parity, in contrast. they care about leftists in congress, pushing through their radical leftist agenda, and we have radicals in the white house right now. we have radicals pushing their agenda at the expense of women. if the left really cared about the rights of women, which meant being respected, -- women being respected, they would not be standing up for the horrors of
>> radical islam. now, i am not the type that's going to sit down and read a textbook on islam and i'm not going to read the koran, i'm just not going to do it. i have a lot of other things to read but her book is an incredibly moving and compassionate tale of a woman completely enslaved to islam. forced marriage in front of her and she after living in four islamic countries, she escaped to holland and it's an amazing tale, but she also says it drives me nuts when the west, the -- the left, the left, says women have the right to wear a burka, if they choose to wear one, you o, be covered with this little wig. they have the right, just leave them alone. give me a break. these women are not choosing to wear a burka. they've been completely brainwashed. ian hey talks about being a cabled bird and when the door is opened after such a long time the bird stays in his
cage, it's terrified to go out and doesn't know anything else than the cage it's been living in because it's denied all other sources, so that's what she says. her point is not good -- my point is not to go into sharia law but to point out again the complete hypocrisy of the left, of this administration. you know this administration state department doesn't even report on incidents of religious persecution and the state department report, annual report of human rights violations around the world, they have removed the section on religious persecution. that is one of the main causes of human rights violations around the world, but for them, it's uncomfortable. their main goal right now is reproductive rights for women all around the world. i mean, literally, women are being stoned to death in the streets for walking outside without a male, or for not wearing their veil, and this administration's number one concern is making sure that women all over the world have
the right to an abortion. it's unbelievable. and they're ignoring women being killed, murdered, all over the world. the economy, to patronizing, suggesting that we need the strong arm of government to help us, to the fear mongering that we're trying to somehow turn back the rights on women, the left has no respect for women. and they are clearly trying to turn back -- they are clearly trying, through this fear mongering, to continue to hold women in this lock grip that we have got to break free from. so my message to you all, particularly you beautiful young ladies who are here, you guys, too -- i mean, we need to you support us as we step out there. we absolutely do. but you young ladies, i know you asked mary katharine can you have it be, can you be
involved. it's really tough. it absolutely is. but you have to be involved. there is too much at stake. this administration is not interested in a happy little balance and let's all disagree. it's interested in its ideology and cementing its ideology. you have to be willing to stand up and champion what you believe in. and i will tell you, the attacks get really old, really fast. you have to build up your skin, you have to have the skin of an armadillo. it used to break my heart when people would call me intolerant, some of these names, it would crush me because we're brought up to be sensitive and compassionate. i couldn't believe that people would say these things about me. but then when i realized why am i in this arena, am i in it for me, because i think i'm so great and i want to advance -- no. if we were, get out now. because you'll be devastated. i'm in it for the -- you might think i'm making this up as i go along but i'm in it because of this thing called freedom. i truly, truly believe in
expanded freedom, and i believe that it is a gift from god. it's not a gift from barack obama or john roberts or any government entity. it comes from god. and god alone. nobody else can take it away, unless we give our consent. and i don't give my consent. and we didn't give our consent when we elected barack obama. he was elected saying one thing, and he's come in there with reckless abandon, gone around congress, gone around the supreme court, threatened, intimidated, tried to rip us apart as a country, to impose his ideology on us, in a very unrepublican form. and trying to just completely divide us from that notion of what a democracy is all about, arguing having that free and open exchange of ideas. and look, when you get frustrated and you get attacked and you think this is too much, i'm going to live, i'm not going to do this, please think back to those great founders and your
eyes might glaze over -- don't let your eyes glaze over. we're talking it was this happy little time and that our founders sat around, they wrote the declaration, and they all signed it, john hancock, so cool. when they signed that declaration, they were signing their death warrant. every one of them knew that. they knew that the likely consequence of them signing that parchment was death. for themselves, and their families. and they were persecuted throughout the war. in fact, john hart, his two sons, were captured and put on those floating death ships. they were the prisoner of war ships and everybody died on those. it was horrific. and he was captured himself and he was asked to recant. he said that his boys would go free if he would just recant and he said the hardest words of his life, no not a single signer of the declaration recanted those words. despite what their wives and their children and themselves suffered. they would not recant.
i'll tell you one last story and i'm going to drap up. -- wrap up. i was given a speech for americans for prosperity a couple of weeks ago and they do a lot of speeches all at once and it was like my third, i was tired, it was hotter than hate he's and i wanted to go home, my kids were two hours away, i was like over this, i want to go home, i don't want to talk to another screaming crowd of people. it's not natural for us, by the way. we conservatives to stand out there and hold up signs and shout at the top of our lungs. we really have to be pushed to that extreme and that is what the tea party has done, they are pushed, they are good americans, sacrificing. so i'm driving to richmond and i'm from richmond, by the way, the speech where i was giving, and my hero in life is patrick henry, ronald reagan and patrick henry, but patrick henry, my kids all have to learn his speech, they give it in rhetorics competition, i just think he is angen cidible example of courage. i'll driving through town, exhausted, and i have never
even been to st. john's church where patrick delivered the give me liberty, give me death speech and there it was on my righthand side on the worst part of town, i passed st. john's church and i could not table. i'm a big believer in the almighty directing us and guiding us. i can't believe i passed it and you know t. just reminded me of why we're doing what ear doing. patrick henry stood on the noon of st. john's church before the colonies were venue knighted with this notion of defending liberty, putting their lives on the line to defend liberty comes from god. he stood on the floor of st. john's church and thundered, literally -- they say that the rafters were shaking, as george washington, thomas jefferson, james madison listened to him give his speech and he thundered is life so dear or peace so sweet so as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. forbid it, almighty god. i know not what others may
do, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. we have to find what that cause is in our lives. i hope for all of you, it is the cause of freedom. and that you've realized the great challenges and the great threats that liberty and freedom in our very way of life face right now. they're going to impact you all more than anybody, you all and your children. you will be paying back what is happening right now. and i know that you will dig deep and find the courage and inspiration to stand up and champion that liberty. thank you guys so much. god bless you. >> [applause] >> okay, who's got questions? you guys have some questions, i know you're asleep, a long day. wake up! >> hi. >> ashley! >> okay, i was just
wondering if you can give us some of your more memorable experiences at college campuses, from like -- >> sure. i'll try not to get too god on you, god thing, but this is definitely a god thing. so michelle easton, this was about ten years ago, broke your leg, a likely story, it was a total fake. i'm sure she had this fake cast put on. because she was going to smith college to talk about the failures of feminism. okay. lovely. gloria steinem was there, right, gloria steinem. the cool thing about smith college is the great chef -- yoi my gosh, you know -- what's her name? julia. julia went there, and so all the food and all of the mess halls are her recipes. all the cafeterias are her recipes. i thought that was really cool. so michelle sends me to smith college to talk about the failures of feminism. and i am actually totally psyched about this, because i
love going on to college campuses and sort of throwing that intellectual, theoretical grenade into campus and letting it explode and all the left is like -- because they've never heard these ideas before and free markets, ah! they just go nuts over the simplest little thing. so i am fired up. i wrote this red meat speech, and this goes to what mary katharine was talking about. so i'm flying up there and i actually had been doing this bible study on barnabas, the gracious saint, the gracious disciple and it was an in depth bible study, and here i am, flying out, literally, just ready to go with my red meat speech and gracious saint, gracious saint, like oh please, i am so excited about this. so i rewrote my entire speech on the flight up there because it was so ungracious, and when i thought about it i knew i wasn't going to capture a single heart, i
knew all i was going to do was tick everybody off. i wasn't even going to make everybody think, as excited as i was about that. so i rewrote the speech, and went in there, first of all, and they are foaming at the mouth, they are ready for me, and the first thing i said was okay, i know you guys are not happy about me being here, thank you for letting me come, but you open your minds and i will actually open mine, and i told them i rewrote my speech and i gave the speech, and nobody protested, they were all ready to get up and turn their backs, some of them were going to turn their backs, others were going to walk out. i was really hoping for a pie but there was no pie. but they all sat there, they listened, and at the end, the poor little persecuted conservative adviser, you know the one conservative professor at the whole school? he came up to me and he said kate, you won them over with your graciousness. isn't that awesome? like oh, that's so great! so my point is boy, you can
go into the toughest environment, and if you just show a little graciousness, still have all of your points, have your arsenual ready, because our ars senual is an arsenal of ideas and every time we use them, we win. that's why they come back at us hurling names -- throwing names, hurling invectives. bring your ideas but have thech couched -- them couched in graciousness. prayer and graciousness, listen to me, you will win every single time, and when they start calling you names, remember what marring relate thatcher said, i am always immensely encouraged when they start calling me names because it means we have not a single argument left, and it is so true. let me tell you, they start calling names really fast. that's how deep their arsenal is. >> my name is laurel, poll policy -- policy intern. i was wondering if you could get us about your upcoming book. >> thanks, my upcoming book,
september 4th, it's coming out, it is my first book so i am excited. i have been busy raising my four darling babies and everybody asks well, have you written books, have you written books. no, raising four babies. so i'm excited about it. surprisingly, not about barack obama! it's about this administration and the promises that it made and the complete and utter failure, how it's done sleet lu the -- absolutely the opposite, how he was going to be the great unfier and how he is actually -- he has actually gone after the very fabric of our nation and ripped it apart unlike any other president we've ever had. so it's about the fraud of hope and change. so i hope that you will check it out, and it's coming out absolutely -- actually during the convention. so that will be very exciting, i'm looking forward to that. for like a smith college speech. it will be fun. >> anybody else? >> hi kate. haney, of uva. >> wahoo-wa!
>> i was wondering if you would comment on the recent controversy with chick-fil-a. >> you know, i can't comment on it because i haven't paid a bit of attention to it. so i honestly -- i can't say anything about it. i saw levin was treating about it today. did he say we should boycott or not boycott? he said yeah? is that what levin said? i thought he actually said no, we shouldn't boycott it. i don't know. all right. somebody ask me another question because i don't want to end on the chick-fil-a. i have no idea. thank you. >> and by the way, if you don't know, you're really supposed to fake it and act like you do know but you know, i didn't have it in me. >> aler hando capulte with theludeship institute from florida. >> great. >> i recently attended the virginia state gop convention. it was amazing. so thank you very much for the work that you do. you are not only an inspiration to conservative men -- an inspiration to conservative women but men.
i support you all the way. my question is what advice you give a young man trying to climb the ladder of leadership in the party, to transform the party to make sure the republicans do what they set out to do not so long ago. so what is your response to that? >> right. that's an excellent question, because a lot of us in the conservative movement are in the movement specifically because conservative movement adheres to conservative principles, faithfully, religiously, they're sort of the backbone of democracy in this country, the republican form of government. if you're interested in getting involved politically, i would say the first step is to get involved in the movement, regardless of which side you think you're eventually going to end up in. there is no better leader than somebody who has come up through the ranks of the conservative movement, because in the movement, we are in the ideas, we're not in it because we want glory and glamour and to become governor of virginia,
although that is the ultimate accomplishment i think to be governor of virginia, but we believe in a certain ideology, and if you get involved in politics before you understand that ideology deeply, not thoroughly, not completely, you never understand it completely, but you have to have some basic morale compass, some philosophical compass, because when you get involved in politics, it will suck the soul and ideology out of it but you can blink your eyes. there are so few principled politicians out there, and i can think of some of them, alan west, oh my gosh, so principled, michele bachmann, just an amazing leader, some of the great governors around the country, certainly paul ryan and marco rubio. there are some very principled conservatives who are in political life. but you have to understand what you believe. and then when you do start getting involved in public life, be really careful. the lobbyists, keep them at
arm's length. when people offer to do you a favor, think twice. because it means you're going to have to pay them back. and usually that means selling out in some capacity. don't do it, by the way. and when somebody is in politics, says to you oh don't worry, everybody does it, run. run. everybody does not do it. everybody does not sell their soul. do not get involved in the dark underbelly of politics. but the most important thing i would say is come up through the movement, know what you believe in, and develop your courage so that you have the ability to stand up and to champion those ideas, because i promise you, it will be really tough, but if you can champion those ideas, you don't bend, you don't break, you will go very, very far. thank you so much, god bless everybody. [applause] >> kate obenshain. she's the best. i'm michelle easton, president of the clare booth
luce policy institute and if you'd like to bring kate and star and many of the other great women that are in the movement to your campus, i hope you'll come to our website, right here, cbopi.org. those of you in the room and those watching on c-span. we'd love to help you bring a conservative woman's voice to your campus. sometimes the woman speaker you bring in is the only conservative voice that will be heard on your college in the four years that you're there. think about that. think about the difference you could make in the lives of the students who hear it. now one thing we like to do at the clare booth luce policy institute is take a moment to recognize effective leaders who speak up boldly as clare booth luce did on behalf of conservative principles and traditional values. and before star parker specks to you today i'm going to -- speaks to you today i'm going to introduce her and give her an award. the institute's annual leadership conservative award is a distinction for women who have shown exceptional leadership in promoting conservative values. i'm proud to present this
award to star today, because she has established herself as a thoughtful and energetic leader in washington, d.c. and in the national conservative movement. now, before star's involvement in the conservative movement, she had seven years of firsthand experience in the grip of welfare dependency. she found a cure, the center for urban education in 1995, to bring new energy an policy discussions on how to transition america's poor from government dependency. she's got a bachelor's degree in marketing and international business from woodbury university and now one of the things she does is she consults with legislators on market-based strategies to fight poverty. she lectures at major churches, conferences, and colleges around the country, sometimes for the clare booth luce policy institute campus lecture program. she spoke at smith forest recently and this fall she's going to speak first at harding university in
arkansas. she writes insightful columns on tsus and her columns are nationally syndicated by scripts news service which reaches 7 million readers weekly and often you'll find that star's articles are posted on the front page of our website, cblti.org. they're excellent. she's also written tremendously powerful books including in 2010 she wrote " uncle sam's plantation, how big government enslaves america's poor and what we can do about it. meteorologist: "white get i don't, how the middle class reflects inner city de bay" and in 1998, my favorite title, her book was called "pimps, whores and welfare brats, from welfare cheat to conservative activist", star is a mom and grandmother. one look at you -- i'm a grandmother. she doesn't -- she does spend time with her grandchildren in southern california and she also loves riding her
bike around d.c. and in our 2012 great american conservative woman calendar here's a picture of star on her bike in front of the lincoln memorial. you know, despite their leadership and their rich lives of achievement, you won't find conservative women like star praised in the mainstream media or by feminist womens' groups. in fact, many of the lib raps in the media and on college campuses wish they could silence conservative messages like star. but at the clare booth luce policy institute, we are eager to honor leaders like star parker. we want to recognize star appearing and say thank you for your courage and determination in promoting our shared conservative values, and for speaking out against the left's big government socialist people hurting polices. and another thing you might not realize, star, is that you inspire all conservatives to be more courageous and
fivey -- feisty in defending and promoting our beliefs because you are occur courageous and feisty. if you'd come on up here now, i have an award. >> [applause] >> this is our 2012 clare booth luce policy institute conservative leadership award. >> there you go. >> thank you. >> [applause] >> thank you. i found out when kate was speaking that i was to speak. i didn't come prepared to speak. so what i'm going to do is just share a few thoughts with you and then you will have to have me come to your campus and then i will make a presentation. i came in today, i flew all the way back from dallas, just to receive this award. and i'm just very, very grateful for it. i understood through my assistant, no, you have to be back, because i was on my way to see my grandchildren. i left washington yesterday, i was half way to california, and came back here to be with you, just to say thank you.
one thing that i was reminded of, not just with the q & a, when you asked about chick phil eh, which i -- chick-fil-a, which i wrote on this week, we need to be there for them, i was reminded about the cultural war we're in as a nation, when you think about being a christian in our society today. it's becoming much more difficult. for people that don't know my story, i believe the -- i believed the lie of the left. one of the challenges with what's happening to our country has already happened to every inner city in our country. in fact when you look at the minority communities, we can see a picture of where we're going as nation if we continue on this journey toward secular socialism. when you think about a religious conversion, i experienced that, after buying into their ideas, and as was mentioned in my introduction, living seven years in and out of welfare -- i didn't start living in welfare. i started by believing the poor were poor because the wealthy were wealthy, i
started believing that my problems were not my fault, somebody else could fix them, and i started by believing that america was inherently racist so i doesn't have to mainstream my left, i bought every idea they said and found myself totally bankrupt. after the christian conversion i changed my life, went back to school, got a degree, went into business and during the 1992 los angeles riots when that business was destroyed, i had already started thinking about social activism, i had already started thinking about the damage that was done by the welfare state, particularly in the black community and i wanted to do something about it. as mentioned to you through mary catherine, she said focus yourself, think about why you're here, what opportunities that you have because you've been selected to be here. not every youth is here. in fact when you think about the department of education, the damage that they do to youth today, six 80s million of our young people who have this perverted notion of how life works simply because they hear one side of the story. so when i see buckling
conservatives that are here in washington, interning, because they've got a break, i want to challenge that group to say you're not here just for yourself. you're not here to advance yourself. in fact, you are selected, similar to the way that moses was selected. he didn't know what his journey was going to be, he didn't know the outcome because he was a baby, he was put into a river and he had to go into a place and grow nup a place that he didn't know, that he would be called one day to go out and serve, to serve in a very, very special way, so that others could live free. so when i look at interns coming to washington, d.c., i look at you in that similar light and in fact my organization, cure, we just launched an internship program, because i've been on campuses all over the country, as mentioned in the introduction, almost 18 80s campuses that people tell me that i look young. i'm 55 years old. i look young because i'm changing the image of the republican party. i figure i can just do it singlehandedly if i have to and now it's changing the moilage of grandmas because i'm two times a grandma. i have a 6 1/2-year-old and
four-month old that i'm looking very, very forward to getting on that plane and getting back to california so that i can give her grand mama kisses. this special place that you're in, washington, d.c., where the laws of this land are shaped, is under attack. it's under attack by the very people who have been elected to do the bidding for the american people. we have an opportunity to make some changes. we've always changed as a society, when we are encouraged to do so. mostly because it's a time of decision. and we're at a time of decision right now. i knew that then, that there was a special call on my life, when i could look into the inner city and not just see the damage that was done to my own personal life, but to the life of everybody that i knew. i knew then when i looked at the data of how broken the black community was that i needed to do something about it. i ended up in washington, d.c., because i realized myself that we needed people here in washington who understand traditional values, because choice loses its meaning if it doesn't matter what you choose. we keep hearing the ideas of
choice. there's no definition for choice. if you can do any and everything you want to. i knew that we needed people in washington that believed in limited government. the role of government is not to pursue our interests. it's to protect them. it's not to plunder our bank account. it's to protect our interests. it's to protect us, as chuck holzen said, from our neighbor's sin. i knew we needed people in washington, d.c. that will fight for free markets. we have to have profit. market is good. capitalism is good. and the idea of socialism have been sold into the inner cities and that's why you see no fruit. we see bankrupt, broken life. it's underappreciated that in this country, in the 'six 80ss, 70 percent of black children were raised in marital households, today, 70 percent are raised in single households. when we look at the cultural pathologies that come from that, that's where we're going as a country because out of wednesday lock birth rate is 40 percent, four in ten children. you cannot have a civil society if it's a broken
society. so i've dedicated my life to get here to do so really hard and serious work, to declare to the country that the answer to poverty is freedom and personal responsibility. not a welfare statement that's what ronald reagan says. i'm just stealing it from him. but it's absolutely true. and i wanted to declare that through an organization, so i started one. i started an organization, cube the urban center so we can find market based solution toss fight poverty, we have given $400 billion on poverty in the last 40 years and look at the end result. time doesn't allow me to tell you the he said result of the $400 billion. most of it isn't a named program. if they do name it, it isn't working. one of the programs is the food stamp program. now it's grown into the second largest welfare program in the cup. you look at what happened in economic collapse, those were welfare programs, fannie mae and freddie mac was a welfare program. that's whato by government intervention in places that it didn't belong, free
markets, individuals, enghaidged lives and product, are how we're going to solve economic problems, but through the hand of government. i know people in washington that believe in a strong national allegiance. we have divided ourselves as a country. we can't go on like this anymore. but it's so terribly divided. i've been saying all over the country t. reminds me in the '50s, when -- the 1850s with abraham lincoln when he had to look into the striptures at that hard place in our society and say a house divided against itself can't stand. he quoted lord jesus christ and said we can't go on like this, we're going to be all one or all the other. he didn't expect the union to dissolve but he knew we can no longer be half, we couldn't be half free and half slave and that's where we are as a nation. we have some that believe in biblical principles and personal responsibility, and we have others that have bought this lie of secularism and socialism, and now we're about half way. we have 48 percent on one side and 48 percent on the other side and there's not
anything getting done to solve our problems. that's what the chick-fil-a debate is about. nature abhors a vacuum. you can't take morality and principles out of a society and say well, let's have neutral territory now. no, the enemy comes in, and so does terrorists and that's what we're seeing and now it's almost unamerican to be a christian, because if you dare to speak your biblical beliefs in this society today, you're not only shunned, now they can take things from you. .
on the other side. we get pushed against the wall about the idea of social justice. we are the ones that after going into a church on sunday morning , we have no results except broken this and chaos. liberalism is cruel. after they take that $400 billion, it is inconsistent with the scriptures. we give away another $300 billion in benevolence. we are the ones that open up the maternity homes.
this is benevolent christian network. -- work. it will be a dark place if we lose the cultural war. connect at the personal level first . i think we should go into the college campuses and share our ideas and fight with them and allow others to participate in that struggle. it is a tragedy that we have to fight our way into the college campuses because you think that that would be a place for all ideas would be welcome. we know that is not true. when it comes to this place, i have an agenda. my life story in bodies american exceptionalism.
we have moved far away from the blueprint. the very few who were trying to figure out their lives because they made a few mistakes, now living in these housing projects. liberals keep promising we will make everything better for you. do not worry about it, we will keep stealing from your neighbor. they do not know they are dependent upon us. they're being conditioned to hate us. they are the ones whose think that america is stacked against them. they are the ones that in the history of america, they are the ones that have bought this idea that government can take care of them and their children, and we have been left wanting.
i had an opportunity to go on " the view" because michael morore was being interviewed. when i get into heaven, i think i deserve a special crown for sitting between joy and barbara walters for 45 minutes. why did he go to canada and cuba? he could have gone to compton or camden or any other inner-city. you want to know where all bottom -- obamacare is going to take this, go to detroit or south central los angeles, or riviera beach. he can see exactly what happens when government controls health
care. it can take to an hour-and-a- half to get to a hospital because there is not one in your local community because the government tries up opportunity. -- dries up opportunity. i was telling you about my internship program. so we can start to change those that have been hit hardest by government to start believing that america is not set against them. we want to get them from those campuses into our thing take in washington, d.c. move onto other great works. your role is to make sure that when you finish your college studies, if you decide you were going to come to washington,
d.c., is to come here and take this seriously. what we are up. as kristin -- what we're up against as christian conservative people. when you get here come the that is what is going to be your first challenge. those ideas are what really work effectively, not just for the port in this country, but for the poor in the world. i was telling the group recently that one of the beautiful things about america is that we'd get opportunities to change. we have a lot of challenges. we're going to have to make some clear decisions about to we are going to be. we do change when we need to. i believe we're going to change. in america, we still higher our
leadership and that is a wonderful opportunity we have that other countries do not have. as you look around the world, they do not have that. blood runs in the street when they have to battle. because we hired our leadership, we can hire our leaders that believe in we, the people. if we do that, in the end, we win. to get this award is extremely special because i have been in this battle for quite some time. i do know their rewards are not just about coming and saying, i lived in washington, d.c., and
california. the rewards are when i get letters that say, you changed me. you touched me. mother teresa is one of my heroes. if we keep ourselves in remembrance that our ideas are what rescue's others, we can be proud and conservative and christian. thank you so much. [applause] i will answer a few questions. are really do have a flight. i was not expecting to make a presentation. during your conversion process, what was the most difficult liberal lie to shed? how can we should trees to people struggling with that? -- truth to people struggling
with that? >> that her fate is your destiny. your fate is not your destiny. the biggest lie is that if you die poor.ouor, will the nanny state concept that you do not have the ability to engage your own life to sort through and make choices. if you fall, he can get back up. the biggest lie of the welfare state is that it steals and dignity. when people do not have dignity, their fate is their destiny. this sets of circumstances one
is born into, does not have to be the set of circumstances they die in. it is hard for them to think they have the ability to raise their children healthy. that they have the ability to move out of an impoverished situation. when you tell people that it is too hard for you, do not even try, you have destroyed their reason for being here. that is one of the most damaging lies. >> i wonder if he would speak to christians and social justice and getting kristin's engaged and involved in realizing that the system -- christina'ans in dazed and
involved in realizing that the system is a moral. >> i believe that in churches all over this country, people are engaging to the level they can. where we are missing it, those who have this notion that we are a christian country and there is nothing wrong with redistributing wealth, half the nation agreed with them. they will try to point to the acts. you are supposed to be benevolent to yourself, not to go into your neighbor's pocket. there is a lot of activity in this country today with different organizations.
many of my friends are trying to get the message out to christians in their churches so they will connect to the economic side of their life with the social side of their life. when you think about property, it is as sacred as life and marriage. you have to get people to understand that. there is an inconsistent see with redistribution. the 10th commandment says not to cut its. -- to covet. we have built out this model system that is harsh. the rules of welfare to do not work. a lot of christians do not understand what has happened.
and the role they should play to turn that tide. the reason i was in dallas is that it was a tea party event. there were 15,000 people there. a lot of these tea party folks are kristin people and they are saying, what has happened to our country? it is important that we continue that journey. it is important that young people find their place to say, i am going to be involved in as well. that involvement is personal. can women have it all? we can, but i different places and times in our lives. if you are looking for the cinderella dream, there is nothing wrong with that.
there is nothing wrong with that. the new data is out showing that the demographic shifts in this country. it is important that we sell these ideas. when you think about the demographic shift, who is not having children. the replacement rate is 2.1. latinos, mexicans, at 2.4 children. when you think about who is not producing, that might be a nice noble cause for a good christian family. we have to look for those times , it is time for us to go to war because we are under attack.
this is a wonderful christian family that just believes the bible. when a baptist paper asked about marriage, of course they believe in the sanctity of marriage. and now business is under attack. the aggressiveness of the left, particularly this, sexual element, could run them out of business. once there is a targets in their mind, they are released less. they will continue to push against that. >> do you believe there is any room for entitlement programs in today's government? the think they should be abolished altogether? >> i think we should understand that entitlement programs are taking from one end given to
another. i think they should all be abolished. i did not think they should be abolished overnight, because they cannot be. social security -- social security is the government promised that cannot fulfil. social security, when it was developed, it was developed on a concept that if it were a business, it would be illegal. ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes. current workers pay for current retirees. back when the system was designed, roosevelt decided to find out what is the age of gas. when he found that the most people died at 63, let's make the retirement age 65.
one of the challenges with the system is that the people that get hit the hardest are the people that need freedom of the most. many people in the middle class, it is only one part of the retirement. but poor people, the social security system makes them violate the system. if you have somebody poor comment you force them to give it to uncle sam. they cannot transfer it to their grandchildren. the only a little bit they have, they do not own. they get a horrible rate of return. every time we tried to have a discussion about changing these programs, so that they help those who need the help of the
most, if we get pushed back from the left. the medicare program, medicare has challenges. the biggest tragedy is the medicaid program. medicaid is a poverty program. it does not have any type of funding facility. it just takes out of taxpayers to pay for all challenges. the biggest of the health care of those that qualify for what what we might consider poverty. you name it, you can pay for it. medicaid pays for 40% -- we cannot go on like this. young people will not be able to afford it. the main reason we should abolish the entitlement programs is because they're inconsistent with the scripture. we need to make sure we take
care of the poor. one of the things i appreciate about the honesty of the gospels is when john wrote about an encounter when he was in jail and he heard about his cousin jesus. he said, go ask him, is he the one or should i look for another? dejesus said, you go back and tell john these things. the blind are seeing, the deaf are hearing, and the gospel is being preached to the poor. what the government has done has interjected itself into this miracle that could occur in people's lives if they had control over their lives.
the entitlement programs are totally inconsistent with scripture, in my opinion. >> who is your favorite woman in the bible? >> is there was named star? that is a difficult one. i love ruth. they have been convinced in order for them to get in to take work, they have to get a minimal wage. the left has convinced people we need to pay a minimum wage. when you look at what happens in this economy, we're looking at all these other factors. what happened with fannie mae and freddie mac and the mortgage collapse, it gets less attention
when nancy pelosi had the gavel, the increase state minimum-wage. it is one of the reasons why the unemployment rates are so high. in mountain there was a minimum wage -- imagine there was a minimum wage during ruth's life. they said that we have to have abortion. ruth was a product of rape and. -- incest. ruth went to serve her mother in law. she went into a land that was not her own. ruth is one that i really like
because i think our welfare moms should model their lives after her. the key to work is just to take any job and you work harder than the person above you. my absolute favorite is libya -- lydia. god has been so gracious to me. i told you about believing the allies of the left. -- lies of the left. he rescued me and saved my life. i can take on more of a lydia type of a persona.
i own a home now in southern california. i've been able to transition into a bed and breakfast. i have a lot of people who are retired, ministers and others. if you look at her life, that was what she was able to do. when she heard the gospel, she changed. she invited the got -- the disciples into her home. she had the resources to serve them. i am 55 years old. i am hoping you young people will be inspired enough and challenged enough to grab a hold of your life and realize that this is one season. over the rest of your life, i am hoping you grab that. very soon, -- my new intern from florida.
very soon, there'll be of replacement and i will be able to go and be a full-time lydia. i will be able to help out in that regard because i know the baton has been passed to people who are very passionate about saving and protecting freedom and understanding how that makes an exceptional because we have all light for the world. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much for being here. thank you to our c-span audience. if you would like to know a little bit more about us, please visit our website.
or give us a call on our toll- free number. those of you in the room, there are a valuations on your chair. if you could complete does come up we will be giving away some books next week. otherwise, thank you so much. thank you again to all of our speakers. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> on capitol hill, the debate over extending the bush tax cuts will move from the senate to the house next week. legislation would establish an expedited timeline. the senate considers the nomination to be a judge on the 10th circuit. centers will continue consideration of the cyber security bill. we spoke to a reporter covering the issue. >> what is ahead in the senate now that they voted to advance the cyber security bill? >> pimm looks like they will need a lot of amendments -- looks like they will need a lot of amendments. privacy provisions, the minutes
to remove any kind of voluntary security standards for industry, a whole lot of amendments throughout the week. >> with all the major fiscal issues, why did majority leader read set-aside time to take of the cyber security bill? >> i wrote a magazine piece. he has -- he is worried about the national security threats. they all tell you this is the top worry they have. it is the one thing -- he has been working at this behind the scenes for a year and a half or so. bringing together all these committee chairs. trying to get some kind of bill to pass. they are at the end of the
opportunity for them to do something this year in the senate. >> in your article, you wrote about a rival factions working on the bill. who are they, and what are their interests? dodge the main group that sponsors the floor -- if the bill on the floor, senator lieberman, senator collins, and senator feinstein. they are all either committee chairs for in the top republicans on the government affairs committee. they have the white house endorsement and the backing of senator reid. they are seeing some kind of standards put into place, the most important one that have ever been attacked.
they are attached to of those computer networks. the second group is the top senate members. there are no kind of standards. they agree on other things, the government's own security. the white house, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that have been trying to bridge a gap is safe and the voluntary standards to give the emphasis to show up. >> these standards would affect a lot of businesses. what is the view of the business community? >> is not clear how many it would affect right now. the sponsors of the bill say it will only affect a small
percentage of the people that own the most crucial of all of these networks. the business groups, some are quite worried that it will be longer than that. there are a number of fines and other businesses. those that don't like it say that it will become this kind of the factor regulatory scheme even though the bill is extensively voluntary. but we need to have some kind of defenses in place because the way the internet and everything is put together, it presents major fact somewhere. >> what is the timetable for getting it done in the senate? >> they are looking at this week, the next seven days or so.
at this point, there is no final agreement on a version of the bill that could exist right now. it passes the bill that only does one piece, the information sharing. it could be a more difficult thing because the gop is concerned about the regulatory scheme. >> with congressional quarterly, you can read his reporting at cq.com. thanks for the update.
gosh we are very glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to host a special conversation about before and policy approaches of president obama and governor romney. his presidential challenger. i am the director of the foreign policy program here at brookings. we wanted to have president obama and governor romney to give their foreign policy speeches. for reasons that will probably be clear to you, they both gave speeches at another venue, the veterans for foreign wars. i am not sure why the preferred
that then you to brookings but they did. in the last two days, they have both outlined for policy. of course governor romney is embarking on a foreign trip on friday which will take him to london and then to jerusalem and warsaw. we thought it was an appropriate time to have a conversation rather than debate between representatives of the obama and ronnie campaigns. we are delighted to welcome both michelle flournoy and rich williamson. michelle is probably known to you because she served from the beginning of the obama administration through february of this year as the
undersecretary of defense for policy where she was the principal adviser to the secretary of defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy. and let the development of the defense department's new strategic guidance. michelle is well known to us here at brookings and has appeared many times both when she was an administration spokesman as a senior defense department official and also as the co-founder of the center for a new american security, a new think tank that is doing excellent work in the field of developing national security and defense policy. she served in previous
administrations as a principal deputy secretary of defense strategy and direct reduction. she is now chair of the national security advisory group of the obama-biden reelection campaign. rich williamson, ambassador, is a non resident senior fellow at the brookings institution now on leave to the campaign for governor romney. he founded the strategies group but at the chicago. previously he had a number of distinguished responsibilities in both the reagan, george h. bush and george w. bush's administrations. in the white house as assistant to the president for
governmental affairs. his many diplomatic posts including the ambassador to the united nations in geneva, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs and most recently, as president george w. bush's envoy to the sudan. he is a long-term member and now vice-chairman of the board of directors of the international republican institute. so we are very glad to welcome both rich and michelle to this podium. brookings pride itself on being a non-partisan think tank and it is in that context that we are hosting this event today. our moderator is a guest scholar at brookings and former
chief diplomatic correspondent for cbs and ncb news. former anger of the meet the press program -- former anchor of the meet the press program and author of "the haunting legacy," marvin calb. it is my pleasure to hand the podium to you. >> thank you. thank you very much. i assume all of you are for policy fans. and you all realize this is our moment in the sun for the 2012 presidential campaign. i have not a clue as to how long it will last but let's take full advantage of it. like all of you i am sure i read both of the speeches, the governor's speech and the
president's speech. what i will do is run down major highlights and ask you questions about it. starting with iran, every now and then when i think about iran and listen to the governor and the president, i ask myself, what is the real difference between the two? they both wanted that iran not have nuclear weapons. there will be patient that the process has gone on for this long. let's assume for a second that governor obama -- governor obama, get that. that governor romney is elected in november and the president takes place next year. would he in his impatience to get this process moving cut off the negotiation and began to seriously consider a military option? >> iran as an important issue and i have to put a bit of context. four years ago this month, in israel, senator obama and gave an important speech about the
middle east and identified iran as perhaps the most growing threat to international security in the middle east. we are more than three and a half years into the obama administration and irrefutably, iran is much closer today than they were three and a half years ago. so whatever the strategies are, they have failed. governor romney has been clear that a nuclear iran is an enormous threat to the u.s. security, to our friends in the region and need to be addressed. >> and essentially unacceptable, is that right? >> unacceptable. he reiterated his view, consisted with the u.n. resolutions of zero enrichment. a suspension of infringement. >> but that had not happened up to this point.
>> diplomacy without the threat of force is music without insurance. there is no credible threat of force. no one in tehran or in the region feel that the obama administration will use force. for example, they legitimately wanted to pursue a policy of engagement which contributed to a muted response to the green revolution when innocent iranians were being beaten arbitrarily and arrested and killed. it allowed the security council to define what sanctions would be in place, allowing russia and china to have a veto over what we did to pursue our own interest. and the current engagement of discussions are going nowhere. they're back in time -- i think
as you know from the press reports, there are suggestions that there might be acceptance of a 5% in rich and -- enrichment. that message is ok, we can wait until they moved. they keep moving the red lines. that would be unacceptable. >> so would he also be impatient to get the process moving and if the negotiations are not working, move towards a military option? >> he would create a credible threat. he is not taking it off the table. the mixed messages we have had we did the president gave a firm speech -- we have had -- the president gave a firm speech. i have is a real's back. the next day, republicans made a response.
president obama said republicans are too militaristic, they are undercutting a war. we are just reiterating what he said. >> ok. we got the message. do you agree there is that kind of perception of the president not choosing to act militarily and in light of what rich said, what is it that you sink and obama administration reelected ought to do. >> i do not share his characterization. i am sure that is very surprising to you, of the president's record on this. the truth is this is a president who is very careful
about what he says and does what he says. you can track that on his iraq policy, his afghanistan policy, his al qaeda policy. he was very careful when he chose the word he used with regard to iran, that we must prevent them from gaining a nuclear weapon. >> he also said he does not bluff. >> and he does not bluff. i would strongly reject the notion that the policy has failed. the truth is we went for a period of engagement because it is the only way to create international unity behind any sort of effort to pressure iran. so we went for a period of engagement and got a disappointing response. that set up the possibility of getting un sponsored sanctions
against iran with russia and china on board. then that set up further action for the eu to take steps and into this today, we have the most serious sanctions ever put in place against any country on the face of the earth, including sanctioning their oil products, their central banks and so forth. some of those effects are still to be felt. some of the most recent round of sanctions started in july. at the same time, you have had an effort at negotiations. at think everybody has been disappointed with the iranian response. the president has been clear that the military option remains
on the table. he has never taken it off the table. i can assure you the pentagon planning for this is incredibly robust. it is ready to read if you look at our posture in the region, it is very strong and well positioned. the military option is a real. the president's judgment is that now is night at the time because there is still a chance with further sanctions biting for iran to change. >> how much longer does the president feel if can wait and give the negotiations a chance? >> the key is that we have to ensure iran is not able to enrich material to get a weapon. that is what the intelligence community is watching very closely. the judgment is we do still have time. >> how much time? but they have testified publicly on this a year more. at minimum. >> let's jump ahead to syria which is another urgent issue. michelle, if the assad regime
used chemical weapons in any way against its own people, an international force moving in, with the obama administration use american military power to stop it? >> i cannot speak for the president on that issue. that is going to be his decision and we are now getting into hypothetical but i can say is that the president has been very clear on a repeated basis that the use of chemical weapons either in syria or to transfer chemical weapons to any elements like al qaeda would be unacceptable and that the
syrians involved would be held accountable. i also know that this has been a topic of intense discussion with the neighboring allies. with our allies who are neighbors of syria, to say what would we do, how can we prepare for that contingency? i have every confidence that the president is taking that that very seriously and would take appropriate steps. >> that includes israel in those discussions? >> governor romney has said many times he would support the syrian rebels but in what way? is he talking about providing american weapons to the rebels? does he know things that many of us do not know about who the rebels are? is there the possibility these weapons will and up in the hands of al qaeda? >> governor romney has been clear and has a different approach than the president on syria. now into 17 months, 17,000 people have been killed. the rhetoric has been justified that libya action looks pretty how the cut -- hollow when you look a what does happen in
syria. over a year ago, governor romney said we should be using our resources to work with the opposition to try to identify moderates, help organize some of the things we have done in other spots. the administration has been telling people recently about how five weeks ago, we began to work with the opposition. which is great. but it is 15 months late in the year after governor romney said we should be leading. he said we should be willing to arm the moderate opposition. we do not even know who they are now. >> did we know a year ago with the work? >> you do not know if you do not talk to them. this administration did not send resources in to have a dialogue like we have done in other parts of the world.
so we did not. the point is, leading means engaging an issue like syria, one that is according to the commander, the biggest strategic blow we could give to iran is if assad leaves. it is strategically important to the soviet union. the rhetoric used in libya is shown to be hollow in the context of syria. and to neighbors like turkey, and jordan and israel were we have interest and alliances. >> the idea of the u.s. under president romney providing american weapons is correct? you would be providing? >> he said repeatedly he would be willing and support farming the moderate factions within the opposition. >> what about moving american forces on the ground? >> senator mccain and senator
lindsey gramm and others have called for safe havens. governor romney has not done that, he had been asked and he said no. he said that it is not his position, but he feels we should have been and should be arming the opposition, but we should not have been leading from behind. we should have been in there a year ago trying to identify and work with the opposition. >> the administration has been working with the opposition for many months, not just the past five weeks when it came out in the news. most importantly, helping them to gain greater cohesion, working with the political opposition to develop a common platform, to develop a syrian derived transition plan. this is crucial. how is change going to happen in syria? the way it will happen is if you can get parts of the inner
circle around assad to begin to defect. to do that, they need the assurance -- they can be part of a new syrian government. it is important for them to hear that from the political opposition and to feel that minority rights will be protected and so forth. working the political dimensions of this is the most important piece and that is what the administration has been focused on from the get go. >> move on to israel for a secondary when the president went to cairo in june 2009 and delivered a very important speech to the arab world, is there any thought now that he made a mistake by not going on
to jerusalem at that time, which is just a 40 minute flight from cairo? >> you have to look beyond the itinerary. the truth is, does anybody criticize ronald reagan and his commitment to israel? he never went to israel. the as anybody criticized george w. bush? he did not know until his second term. what has this administration actually done for the state of israel? that increased security assistance levels to historic levels. has never been higher. we have added funding to protect israeli citizens against rockets coming from gaza. we have stood by him in the un, vetoing resolutions that were trying to condemn israel. >> excuse me, but why it is there still of feeling, the stories that are written that the relationship between president obama and prime minister netanyahu, for example, are so tense and strange? >> that is a good question.
this is an issue where we have always had bipartisan consensus. it is important to hear from the mouths of israelis what they think about the obama administration and their policies. this is from time minister netanyahu. he said there is one thing that stands out clearly in the middle east today, that israel and america stand together. the obama administration gives back to israel security in an unprecedented manner. never has security or the means of security been better met than today under president obama. those are israelis talking about the relationship. >> the governor yesterday in his speech at the vfw accused obama of treating israel in a shabby way, and adding his voice to you in course of what he calls accusations, threats, and
insults against israel. what would specifically a president romney do to advance the israeli-palestinian negotiations? >> per se let me respond to something michelle covered. it is important to put some context with your question. the fact that she pulled up three quotes from israeli shows the defensiveness of the obama administration on the relationship with israel. i think that says something. secondly, when itineraries are announced, the campaign says this is just a gimmick going there, but obama will do it in a second term.
you treat your friends not only with military support, which the obama administration has done quite a bit as with previous administrations, but you try to get political cooperation, and that has not existed. there have been harsh differences, whether dealing with the palestinian issue, iran, and it is symbolized by the fact vice-president of the united states kept the head of state of israel waiting 90 minutes for dinner as if he was having a temper tantrum. you don't treat any head of state that way, let alone your friends. >> i would like to not go through the political language excessively. we do read the papers and understand that. i question has to do with romney as president. what specifically would he
propose or advance to move the palestinian-israeli negotiations forward? >> the first point is something you made. the united states cannot make this worse than the party spirit you have to have respectful dialogue which is why governor romney will be meeting with palestinian leaders. you did not go public on a negotiating position before you talk to one of the parties you say is a friend. it is a difficult problem. there is not an instant solution. anyone who does has not spent the kind of time you have in the middle east or has a different agenda. it is a very different culture. you will have to continue to try to manage that tense situation so there is less friction and violence. >> will governor romney in israel this week, to the best of your knowledge, be discussing with prime minister netanyahu the idea of a joint american-israeli operation in syria or against iran?
>> that is a good reporter's question and i will give our response of someone who has been government. they will discuss it and decide what they want to go public on. >> michelle, i would like to talk about pakistan. i am sure we have all read widely and you may know from personal experience that president obama is described as being extremely disturbed, concerned about the possible disintegration of the state of pakistan. then the question comes up, what do do with its nuclear weapons? i am wondering first of all of you think that description is accurate, and then i have a follow-up. >> i think the united states is and should be concerned with the fragility of the governing situation in the state of pakistan.
you only have to look at what has happened on the civilian side and some of the dynamics between the civilian side and the military to be concerned about the long-term future pakistan and its democracy. >> is that the reason why the president would like to retain a force of some 20,000 american troops in afghanistan, just in case something dreadful were to happen in pakistan with the weapons? >> and the president talks about a follow-on force, a much smaller force in afghanistan post transition, that force is really focused on continuing to train and work with the afghan military and pursuing joint counterterrorism operations in the region. it is not directed at any of afghanistan's neighbors. >> i don't mean it as directed
against. i mean the force will be there in afghanistan in case in neighboring pakistan government disintegrates, and then the question of who controls the nuclear weapons or rises as the real and urgent problem. >> that has not been a rationale for thinking about the follow-on footprint in afghanistan. several administrations have been very concerned about the safety and security of pakistan's nuclear arsenal and have worked on this issue, and the situation has improved somewhat over the years. >> what you mean by worked on this issue? >> i don't want to say more than i can, but there have been cooperative efforts to improve the situation. the thing that worries a lot of people is some of the rhetoric coming out of pakistan about the future nuclear plants in terms of growing and diversifying their arsenal and so forth. that would be a worrisome
development should that happen. >> governor romney now seems to accept the president's 2014 deadline, which during the primary season, he did not. according to the speech yesterday, he now seems open to that. so why the change? >> the position on 2014 was last fall, so it was there, but he has been critical of the president being guided more by political considerations than facts, and he has been concerned that our military leadership has not been supported as general petraeus's testimony as cia director. michelle is exactly right. pakistan is enormously difficult. between the intelligence, the army, the civilians, the religious factions, it is barely functioning state. they've got nuclear weapons that are extremely dangerous and there is no simple answer.
the governor understands that. he has said with respect to their tolerance in the western region of taliban forces, we should look at conditionality for foreign aid, but that is what his position has been on pakistan. i just want to acknowledge that michele's description has a lot of merit to it and it is one that governor romney understand. >> what does conditionality mean here? >> if you are going to continue to give the aid to pakistan, which is well over a billion
dollars a year, the tolerance of them allowing the taliban and other factions to work in their western mountains that bleed over and kill americans at this time, etc., you begin to pull that back. >> i would not use the word conditionality, but i think the discussion with pakistan after they took some steps to close the ground lines of communication for supplies and so forth has worked our way back towards a more cooperative relationship. i think the u.s. in this administration has been clear about the areas of cooperation that we need to see to be able to continue to move forward with the assistance and support. starting first and foremost with counter-terrorism and things related to the safety of our troops in afghanistan. >> moving on to russia and our relations with russia. governor romney seems very upset with president obama's reset policy toward russia. the governor has described russia as the no. 1 global flow of the united states. first of all, what do you think
of the governor's criticism? >> i think it is unfair and it misses a couple of the tremendous benefits we have gotten from the recent policy. from the beginning, president obama has been clear that we want to have a partner relationship with russia. where we have differences, we will continue to negotiate and press and push and work through those, but we will not in any way sell out our allies. we will not allow russia -- none of that. what you get is very tangible progress in some important areas. another step in arms control that makes the world safer, that keeps the start verification provisions in place. that is a very positive development that had broad
bipartisan support in the congress. corporation for transit through russian territories, very important political cooperation on sanctions against iran. russia agreed to stop supplying iran with sophisticated weaponry and air defenses and so forth. i worry that if you took the approach of this is now out our new geopolitical follow once again, you would lose a lot of that cooperation that is really important to american interests. >> did you think that it is possible that we will see in russia, under president putin, the rise of an arab spring-like popular uprising? there has been an authoritarian drift in russia during the last 3.5 years. ironically, if you look at the ambassador's writing at stanford at the end of the bush administration saying bush was too soft, it would have to be magnified if you applied the
same standard today. european observers were unwilling to say was a free and fair election of putin. a new law passed in the last 10 days. you have a law that tries to outlaw independent political parties in the provinces. you have russia, with all due respect, who has been a lifeline in both syria and recalcitrant on iran. when i was special envoy to sudan, there were things we could not get it through the un security council on sanctions. we put together a coalition of europeans and others, over 20 countries that put sanctions on banking and other things. you don't have to wait for us to say you can do this. you have russia against the
missile defense deployment and using their oil and energy to intimidate. you talk about it. for better or worse, i have dealt with some less than pleasant guys. and saying you are not doing good things never surprises them. they know they are not. so you have this false politeness. one more thing i have to say because i want to agree with machel's earlier comment. obama says what it means and means what he says and he did that with an open mike, and that should concern us with respect to russia and other places. >> our russian colleagues are very hard hitting. we have raised human rights and
concerns about democracy. we have been pounding them both privately and publicly on syria. there is no holding back. we have been very clear on georgia and so forth. to be fair, we should characterize the record accurately. the question i have is, what exactly would you do differently or more? what would you sacrifice in the current relationship, what would you be willing to put on the table to get in a different approach?
beyond the rhetoric, what would you do specifically? >> ronald reagan -- people in this town said we cannot deal with him. you have spoken the truth, but we cannot do that. lo and behold, he got the first nuclear reduction under ronald reagan. so first, speak the truth. the russian people that are trying to get more space for their civil rights deserve it. the american people deserve you to stand up for that. you do not empower them by saying russia has control over your own security interest weather with iran or syria. i think you would see changed behavior. what you have done is allow them to constantly test the limits. that tested it and then felt they could go further. >> let's move on. the governor says the white house is leaking classified information for political gain. >> there is no one who was more upset and disturbed about the leaks and president obama. he did not authorize them. they were not authorized. he has appointed to prosecutors to pursue them and instructions have been very clear.
no one is immune, nothing is off the table. i want to get to the bottom of this. he has also said that he will hold accountable, he will pursue the investigation to the logical conclusion and will hold accountable and prosecute anybody who is found to have leaked. i think that is very clear. if you look holistically across the administration, there is no administration has been more aggressive about pursuing leaks than this one. you can look back to some the things that happened in the bush administration in terms of how difficult these things are to deal with, and yet what you need is a clear presidential direction that this will not stand. it is intolerable and
unacceptable, and to go after the people who might have been responsible. >> i have to ask you this question before you let loose. do you think that romney was equally disturbed when the bush white house leaked googles of classified information to bob woodward when he was riding his four books about the iraq and afghan war, including interviews with the president? >> i don't understand the administration's incestuous relationship with wallboard or in these books that come out. i have been reading this ever since i was in school in the watergate days. i have never had discussion with governor romney, but i find that extremely disturbing, too. but the leaks we have seen now are unprecedented. look what happened to israel that was part of the cyber engagement with iran. did they want this leak made?
>> i have worked in israel. the idea of leaks not happening in the israeli government, that is routine. happens every day. >> let me just parse this then. you are saying the israelis like the fact -- these leaks did not come from israel, and you know it. maybe he'd be classified something that the last minute. the fact is, the president picking targets for the drones, that was highly classified. the fact that we engage in the cyber attacks, even the meetings with senior pakistan officials hurt american securities. the president should do a
special counsel, should publicly say i have instructed everyone in the white house to respond to every question that is asked. he should be forward leading with congress' efforts to try to get to the bottom of it. dianne feinstein misstatement can back off and identify the white house as a source. i believe every reporter in this town knows the least one source at the white house. >> one thing that will probably save the government a lot of money, if you look at david sanger's latest book, in the back he list all the people he spoke to at the white house. so there is no need to go through this entire thing. it is all they are all open and public. >> nobody owns outrage about
national security leaks that are dangerous for the country. the president feels that outrage. i am sure governor romney feels the outrage. the truth is the president is going after this aggressively and i have no doubt that they will get to the bottom of it. >> i was at a forum dealing with libya and syria and the atrocity prevention board. there's a question about intelligence leaks. steve made a very thoughtful response and i said i think the obama administration has figured out how to do it. >> let's move on to defense spending. michelle, a question for you. in an effort to sidestep the sequestration coming into play at the end of the year, the president has proposed a $5
billion defense cut. the question asked is based on a congressional budget office study which says that if the president got his way, it would be almost impossible to get everything and he wants in his own defense policy because you would not have the money. so how you get the difference? how do you reconcile that? >> i am really glad you asked a question. there is a lot of confusion on this question. first of all, the president is not advocating one trillion dollars of defense cut. there are two separate issues. the first is, there is a budget control act that was passed this past year by a bipartisan majority of congress, all of the congressional republicans to worry about defense issues, $487 billion of cuts over the
next 10 years. that is a planning assumption for the budget the administration in developed for the fiscal year 2013, and secretary panetta was really clear. after some years of growth, we think it is possible. just be clear, that leaves the fiscal year 2013 budget at $525 billion. it estimated the budget will grow by 2016. it is not cutting the base line of defense. it is cutting and more funding as the war in the transition happens, but is not cutting the base budget. it is slowing the growth in the budget. it is always nice to introduce
some facts in these discussions. compare defense spending based budget. this is not some devastating, radical, horrible cut in defense spending. it is a reduction in the pace of planned broke. that is what the administration has said yes, we are going to live with the law that congress passed. the second issue, sequestration. it is the sword of damocles hanging over our heads in the congress fails to come up with the $1.20 trillion deal. the president has proposed a balanced approach to putting both revenues and the spending cuts on the table to avoid sequestration. if congress fails to act, and right now the republicans in congress are saying we are not going to touch the issue until after the election and then we may not even allow revenues to be part of the equation. if sequestration goes into effect, in you will see another
half trillion cut in defense. and everybody, the president, the secretary, everybody agrees that would be devastating for u.s. national security. we want to avoid that at all costs. >> thank you, that is helpful. governor romney has said many times that he would like not to cut the defense budget, but rather to add to the defense budget. at the same time being consistent with the general republican pitch for lower taxes. within the framework of the problems the country has today with respect to the national debt, deficit, etc., i don't know anybody who says you can raise defense spending, cut taxes, and accomplish anything with respect to the national debt. so how you do that? >> i need to introduce you to more people creeks i heard the same thing in 1979 and 1980, and the economy was crippled
with double-digit inflation. >> you think it is the same as today? >> no, it is worse because of the last 3.5 years. but it can be done via the governor has been clear that he thinks we have to rebuild our navy. he has called for 14 more ships the year. he thinks that there is a philosophical difference between president obama and governor reagan -- governor romney and president obama on the economy. it is one that the american people are intensely interested in. governor romney wants to keep discussing that issue and allow the american people to make the decision on the alternatives. that creates, what do you create growth by more revenue.
converse is trying to support and unleash the private sector for growth. i would suggest that the president like to have the debate just about taxes versus no taxes. that is what they are trying to posture desperate there are reasonable legislative proposals to deal with the defense portion by mccain and gramm and others. it is fresh and refuses to engage him because they want to talk only about taxes. we are willing to have that debate in the context of a larger economic discussion, but we don't think the current path, which allows a diminution of our defense capability, allows businesses they are in the center for american leadership, for u.s. interest in
the interest of others. >> do you think it is possible, short of an agreement on the economy and the fiscal clip that it described for the end of this year, do you think it is possible short of an agreement to increase the army and put it more money into defense? do you really believe that? >> i believe we can, should, and need to have an adequate defense. >> but where would we get the money from? >> i am happy to provide working with one of our economic advisers to cut through the details. >> please give me your answer. but we can go back. there is a difference of views. the president's view is we are going to tax more, provide more stimulus, and that will have results. 3.5 years later, and has not worked. the president does not want that discussion with the american people.
he wants a discussion on taxes. >> just to put the president's current defense plan in context, the army is coming down in size with the end of the war in iraq and the transition in afghanistan. it will still be larger that was at the plan of 9/11 before the war as group. this is not harming u.s. national security. you have every service she, every commander in full support behind the president on this budget proposal. i think that is very important it the other thing is that is free should inform us about the economy. at the end of the clint administration you had a surplus and a very robust economy. you then had the bush a administration put in place
many of the same policies that governor romney is now advocating economically. at the end of eight years, you had a profound deficit and debt problem. we have tried this before and it does not work. >> i am understand the desire to run against george bush the second time. you are running against ronald reagan. [laughter] >> is part is over now. we would love to have your questions. not only questions here, but questions in the spillover crowd next door. please, when you ask your question, identify yourself all please be brief. if you make a speech, i am going to cut you off. we want to get as many people as possible. thank you very much.
>> and thanks for taking the time to speak with us and thank you for your service. i want to ask about the fact that a lot of criticism about governor romney foreign-policy during the campaign has recently come from republicans themselves. today there was a long piece in the weekly standard criticizing governor romney for saying he would not hold a national security meeting during the first 100 days of his presidency. there's a feeling that governor romney has the prioritized national security. i wonder if you could react to that and tell us what is the priority of foreign policy with the campaign. >> good question. i think governor romney, if you read his book, "no apology," laid out his vision of an american century and what would
be required to satisfy it. he amplified and refreshed that at the vfw speech yesterday. he has answered questions about it. there is a desire to have more and more detailed and we try to provide those in response to questions from journalists and others like yourself. in the end, what he wants to do is prevent -- present a world vision that is dramatically different than president obama's. and how he would approach it, whether dealing with china or russia or iran, he has done that. they will never be satisfied there is enough details and he wants to be provocative, so he will write columns that can be challenging. we feel we are laying out a vision where america should go. we are comfortable and the governor is comfortable with that.
>> right over here, please. speak directly into the microphone, please. >> i have a question for both of you. if your candidate wins, what will be the policy toward macedonia? >> i'm sorry, i did not get -- >> specifically with regard to nato? [unintelligible] >> we are not hearing you. >> what would be your support of macedonia? greece is a member state of nato.
we have not been. >> thank you. >> for the obama administration, it has been an important pillar of our policy in europe that the door to nato remains open and that as countries developed democracies as contending, able to contribute to the security of europe, the door should be open. in practice it is a very robust engagement with macedonia, working in capacity billing, exercises, and so forth, as part of the partnership for peace. i think that -- i would expect in the second term that policy to be continued. >> thank you very much. third row. >> this is a question for mr. williamson. i would like you to answer, a question that was presented
earlier, and that is where the money is going to come from to rebuild the navy and to raise the defense budget. where will that money come from? >> >> as the governor said yesterday, at vfw, in order to have the sort of american century he envisions, and to have american in a position where it can lead internationally, the first step is to be new and rejuvenate the economy. he believes that will come through allowing incentives in the private sector, a different approach on regulation, eliminate uncertainties, including "obamacare," that will all contribute to a stronger
economic growth in the united states, and that while we have many important issues to deal with at home, if we are unable to protect our security interest, the u.s. government is failing in its first responsibility to the american people. >> to follow that up, until all that happens -- that does not happen in one day, as soon as the governor becomes president, let's say -- in a period of time, whether three years or six years or 10 years, where are you going to get the money in order to deal with what is that he says is so vital? that is my problem in understanding this. >> you are entitled to your view. >> know, my problem. >> you are entitled to your view of my problem. [laughter] in the last three and a half
years, whether a stimulus bill, adding burdens on the private sector, whether it is a dog- franc or -- dodd-frank, you have stifled growth and you have had the slowest economic recovery since world war ii, you have had the longest rate of unemployment, over 8%, since the great depression, and so the policies you seem to feel are the only ones are not the only ones. it is a different approach. >> was actually a question. yes, please, right there. >> i am a washington correspondent for a south korean news agency. i have a question for the ambassador. what is your strategy?
governor romney's strategy on north korea? what is the main difference between your approach to north korea and that of the obama administration? more specifically, what do you think about the six-party talks on the nuclear program? >> thank you. >> north korea is a tremendously difficult problem, and on a bipartisan basis there has been support for the six-party talks. north korea is sustained by the beijing could support. the approach now for six or seven years, bipartisan, has three talks and discussions with paying to get them more pressure on korea to abandon their program. clearly, it has not worked. governor romney has not outlined in detail a country policy.
we recognize that as president bush does and president obama does that china is a leverage point to try to get change, and we have to continue to work the help that. >> i would like to put in a question here that we have a columnist from india. would be romney's policy on china and how would it be different from what it is that president obama is pursuing? >> one of the strengths of governor romney in his long and successful business career, including international business activities, in the first foreign policy debate last october, for example, he said we have to be tougher on the ways in which china is tilling the field. at the time it was dismissed in washington and elsewhere.
since then the administration has taken china to the wto. he looks at china as someone who is not playing other rules financially, whether it is the support of their currency, support of state control businesses, whether it is trade aspects, and he said he will use the wto and other leverage points on china. on human rights, he has to get a position of where the obama administration has moved. when clinton went to china, she said she would raise human- rights. it is now part of the dialogue. the president has made good progress there in the governor's opinion, but from day one governor romney will raise human rights issues. he said we have to be more forward leaning in dealing with difficulties in the south china sea, which, after 14 incidents
beginningppine chipships, last summer, clinton took an initiative and is trying to get some talks going. they had disappointment at the recent meeting. governor romney has said that as a start, but we have to be firmer on the freedom of the seas. there are differences in approach, and especially on economic issues you can express' and more forward- leaning confrontational approach on chinna. >> taken, and the asphalt and ask you, how do you judge the seriousness of the rising set of problems concerning the south china sea? >> i think we have to take them very seriously. there are a number of countries that have resource claims in the
area, and these disputes have the potential of erupting in conflict if mismanaged. we have seen as an aggressive posture of some chinese fishing vessels and so forth. and so i think secretary clinton has gone, president has also talked about this, it made very clear that we cannot see use of force to resolve these disputes. the fact that the u.s. has shown up, the u.s. consistently has naval presence in the region, exercising freedom of navigation across the board, it has given confidence to our partners in southeast asia that they can stand up for themselves and for the rule of law and for resolving these disputes peacefully. more needs to be done, but i think this is an area of the
world to watch, it is one of the areas in which we sought -- bought a lot about in making -- when the president made the decision to rebalance toward asia-pacific, given how much that area controls trade flows and contributes to our economy kerry >> we in the back on the left. yes. >> can you explain to us what are the primary factors behind the administration's rejection of army the syrian opposition, and the ec circumstances under which that might change? mr. williamson, the romney campaign said that governor romney but not grant exemptions to the mdaa sanctions to countries like china, if they fail to cut their imports from iran.
does that mean governor romney, if elected, would not exercise a national-security waiver to spare turn it the effect of the sanctions? >> i did not know you were asking two questions. >> in terms of army the opposition, early on the earliest concern was lack of clear information and reliable information on exactly who the opposition was, where the arms would go, how would you control that, and the very real risk that given that there are some al qaeda elements there and other extremists, that some american arms supplies could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and that that would pose a serious downside risk. beyond that, i think the focus of this administration is really on trying to create the basis, the political conditions for transition. and so the focus on working with the opposition has been to give
them communications, logistics', all kinds of assistance to help them be more coherent and effective, but to keep open the path for assad to step down. the last element is that we have had some significant success in preventing russia from resupplying syrian military. if you were to launch a major american weapons supply program to the opposition, we would lose a lot of leverage with russia, and you could basically open the floodgates for russia to be supplying the syrian military in full, and that would be i think -- that would be pouring fuel on the flames of what is looking like an increasingly deadly conflict. >> just to be clear, there are no russian arms currently going to the assad regime?
>> we have been able to stop the last few shipments from going in. they had prepared a budget helicopters and were sending those and. we got the russians to send those back. >> other equipment is still coming in? >> there is some, but some has been stopped and turned around, and that is important. >> question in the back. got a microphone there? >> lesson in -- bosnia and possible are of interest to the last three administration. what is the governor's thinking about that part of europe? >> right.
bosnia, kosova at tremendous infrastructure problems. kosovo continues to have incredible ethnic tensions. the united states has to be engaged to the u.n. and european union in those areas and try to find them with a greater but capa's the. the balkans continues to be a precarious situation. for kosovo to be sustainable, it has to have economic liability, and once you have growth there and progress in good governments, some of the tensions will diminish and you will begin to have a more sustainable, stay allstate. >> thank you very much. >> a question for mr. williams.
you mentioned nuclear arms control. one of the things obama did is continue the start treaty. romney made an impression opposing that, and was criticized by many republican national security leaders who noted that the start treaty continues at reagan's interception reception for missile defense. the question is, with governor romney adhere to it is criticism of july, 2010, and if elected, would he withdraw from the start treaty or continued it? >> governor romney stated his position which he would not have supported it when it was being deliberated in the senate. it is now in force. like every new president, he
will do a review of our existing arms control agreements and other major policies. he has not said he is gone to withdraw, and it would be premature for me to speculate. >> i have another question from the overflow crowd, and i would like to ask michelle about this. the person asks, what is the candidate's approach to the your crisis, specifically? >> president obama has spent a lot of his time and energy revitalizing our alliances and partnerships across europe. europe -- we have got to afghanistan, libya together, done a tremendous amount of work. it is hard to find a policy area where we are not lockstep with areas like the u.k., and with our nato allies. obviously because of the
interconnection between our economies, there is great concern in the united states about the euro crisis and the administration has been working with european leaders, trying to help them take the steps necessary to solve the problem. i do not think anybody envisions a u.s. bail out. nobody thinks that is necessary. one of the things that was curious to me, in governor romney's white paper, there was not a single mention of europe or nato. i am very interested in understanding how -- and maybe we will learn more on this trip -- how does the governor of view europe as a priority in our foreign policy, given that it is foundation of our most important alliance relationship? >> in both responses to
questions and in various speeches, and in that thing of the importance of us to renew and keep our friends and allies close, he has talked about europe. that is where he is going on this foreign trip, with respect to the u.k. and poland. he has expressed concern that in the libya incursion the largest economy in europe, germany sat on the sidelines, and there are only a few players that came in. that shows a certain tension within the nato alliance and the need to work at it. he feels that europe has been and remains our most important alliance. he is going to reiterate that message when he is in london meeting with cameron and others. he will be reiterating it when he goes to poland and gives a major speech there. >> does he have specific ideas about the problems of the euro? >> as jim baker said a long time
ago, it is hard to have a single monetary system when you have 17 fiscal systems, and they are now bearing the first of it. europeans will have to sort this out, and there is a tremendous tension on the germans who are being asked to try to help the mediterranean states. he has not thought it was appropriate for him to prescribe solutions, but we recognize how difficult it is. he has talked about that and the importance to try to keep europe economically strong. >> question right here. >> i would like to ask if you could comment on two strategically important countries, japan and india. japan, we have not yet heard a position from romney on whether or not he would support tpp for
japan, and india is a country we have been looking at as a possible security partner. i was wondering how you see that going forward. >> that we start with india. this is an area where we have had a lot of continuity, and bipartisan support. india is an important security partner today. we -- our military relationship has never been closer. they exercise more with the united states than with any other country. we are in cooperative efforts on piracy in the indian issue appeared -- a notion. it is a very powerful partner for us, and we have so many common interests and common values, and this administration has invested a lot in that relationship. the president's first state
dinner was for the indian prime minister. japan is an important ally. we continued to invest in that relationship. after the accident, the way we were there for japan, it was something that the military forces who were there were so proud and happy to be able to help and be able to be there in a moment of need. that has only solidified the relationship further. where having productive discussions about the future of our posture and how to adapt that, and those are going well. both of those relationships are vibrant and strong. they have continued to be sold under the last three years. >> i would reiterate what michelle said. one of the successes of the bush administration was to strengthen and renew the relationship with india, and it has been carried out, and that is a good thing for the united
states. the governor is clear he recognizes the importance of japan and the republic of korea our security interests, but also economically and as partners. he has expressed his desire to strengthen and more on that relationship. >> in the back, right there. yes. >>standing up with your hand ou. >> thank you. i'm from the ivory coast. i have been here since the beginning. we did not hear anything about africa. in the ivory coast, the forces of the current president of displaced people and hundreds of people were killed. i wanted to know how the current president or the future president of america will make
sure that stops in africa countries. thank you very much. >> i should answer the question, for the current and future president. [laughter] this said ministration and this president has spent a lot time and energy on africa. the president visited the continent in his first six months in office. he has laid out a very sweeping set of policies that deal not only with very important issues like food security and the element assistance, but also continued democracy developed and rule of law. i do not want to get into the particulars of the situation in the ivory coast today because the white house has -- is actively engaged in that, and i do not want to insert myself as an official when i am not one anymore.
what i can say is any time there is pilots like this, it is on the radar screen, it raises serious concern, and i am sure there will be separate action taken. >> a question also from the overflow crowd concerning turkey. what kind of thinking as governor romney been involved with cooking to turkey, how would he improve the relationship, what does he think about its importance, etc.? >> turkey has growing importance. they have become more assertive in the region, trying to play a larger role. it has come in up in the context of discussions about syria, and the need to work closely with ankara on strategy and support.
with turkey's efforts to protect its border, they have allowed the opposition to have offices in turkey. governor romney recognizes turkey's unique role as but a nato country and in the broader middle east region. it is a country that the united states has a great interest in developing and strengthening the personal relationship with, even though we have seen on some items, we're not done to be in agreement. most of our discussion has but in the contests of the crisis in syria, and he clearly has an appreciation of the pivotal, critical role that turkey place there and in the region. >> do you see the obama administration strengthening even beyond where it is today the relationship with turkey in general, but also specifically with respect to syria? >> i think turkey is a close
partner right now on syria and those engagements are daily and intensive. we have been working well together. the administration has recognized the new and current role that turkey is playing, the kinked east. they have been important on syria, on iran, but we have taken pains to continue to make sure they stay anchored in europe and in nato. i think the president's mistletoe events program that has now been adopted and -- missile program as an adopted, and having a turkey coast that, the radar, is very key to continue to have cooperation with poland and romania and spain, all of whom will be posting elements of a system that will provide more capability, lower-cost, than the predecessor system will have.
>> we are honored to have a question for martin. >> wonder if i could step up and white and the lands and ask a more general, strategic question about strategy. president obama has placed a lot of emphasis on shaping an emerging global order in which china, india, brazil will have a seat at the table, and he has worked quite hard at this multilateral approach. i wonder, first of all, whether governor romney as a different approach to the rise of these powers, and whether president obama in his second term, if he has won, -- one, will still make this a priority. >> it is important to make a
comment that governor romney believes it is important to engage. it is important to seek multilateral cooperation, collaboration, coordination, and to recognize that the relative powers are shifting with the rising power as in china, india, brazil. and that that means shifting some of the way you do business. having said that, i think there is a fundamental difference in how they view the world. the president as a very legitimate perspective with multilateralism, and deference to international law. is one person wrote, the president went to chinese
thinking his eloquence would bend their behavior, and the chinese found that curious it and looked at their interests. i think governor romney leaves all countries look at their interests, and they should, and that means sometimes you have a different way you work with them. there is a difference in approach where we would argue or suggest that governor romney is more in the tradition of truman, kennedy, and reagan, and that president obama has a different approach, a different way to look at it, and the american people will judge how successful. >> i have to say something. i have spent hours watching this president make decisions in national security council meetings and so for. he is first and foremost a patriot and a pragmatist. he starts with american interests, but he also believes that we have to press its
benefits us, it advances us when we are to our out use. when we favor international law, somebodyt something else else created. when we respect that we are advancing our own interest in keeping that system. it has to adapt to accommodate new players. we need to find new ways to integrate a rise in china. this is not some vague, abstract idealistic notion. this is very essential to who we are, and you do not have to choose between% interest in being true to your foul used. you can do that but at the same time, and that is what he has been doing remarkably, i think, over the last four years. >> he just wishes he had done it more in syria. >> would you like to comment? >> have been very clear on the
differences on syria. this is a president who was one of the first to call for assad to step down, recognize the horrors that were happening, to put millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance on the table, and to lead the syrian effort to bolster the opposition, get them to be cohesive said they have a viable chance at transition. we have been consistent with our values and the way we have approached syria. >> what i would like to say as we wrap up, this has been a wonderful discussion, and we ought to take it on the road. what do you say? thank you both very, very much, and thank you all for coming. may i just ask that you all remain seated by the panelists have an opportunity to leave.
it will just be a minute or so. thank you again. >> sent hosted by the brookings institute. also earlier this week the commission on debates released its schedule. the final debate will focus on foreign policy, october 22, in florida. the first debate focusing on domestic policies, october 3. the second obama-from the debate will be in town hall format, october 16, and the york. you can ask all the extra -- you can watch all three debates on the c-span network. >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m., a
critical look at the president before and after he reached the white house. at 10:45, the former chief economist at the world bank on by growing economic divisions are bad for our democracy. part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span2. >> newt gingrich talked about the u.s. economy and foreign- policy issues. here is a portion. >> you have seen a person you want to be, and if not candidly, the person that has to change is you. not other people who delegate you. it is a very hard thing to do. i have done things in my career of people thinking that i was not spirit some of the time they were right. one of the point i make about
working hard, it does not always work. i just lost a presidential nomination. i ran for congress twice and lost in 1974 and 1976. i had a project to create a house republican majority. we had been in the minority since 1954. i figure 24 years was long enough. the project i was running, we lost in 1980, 1982, and there are people who would have told you the weekend before the election or election day of 1994 that i was nuts. clearly we could not become -- as a guy the other day who said to me that the two great surprises of his life were that you had a republican speaker of the house and that the berlin wall fell, and he put them in the same league. i had to be willing to indoor
two lost campaigns in order to finally win. i had been willing to endure wheezing year after year, cutting back up, and say what did not work, and go back at it. there was the phrase, a cheerful persistence, and both words are important. anything you want to achieve you have to persist, but if you want to persist, you want to do it cheerfully. in a free society you attack people piping cheerful. if you are persistent, but grumpy, people hide from you. if you are depressed, they ignore you. if you are cheerful they will tolerate you. cheerful persistence is a discipline for me. the couple books i want to wreck to beat you. i would urge all of you to buy a copy of "the fact executive."
his argument is in the information age every worker is an executive, that knowledge workers by definition are about executing . it is an astonishing book. i urge you to buy it in paperback because it is i think the best single book on be effective i have ever seen. he starts with an important point, which i believe deeply, having spent my lifetime studying it, effectiveness is a learned habit. it is not about genetics, i.q., it is about learning a set of patterns that work. then being disciplined about applying them and applying them. and learning in the process. i strongly urge you to read "the effect of executive." let me talk about where we are in terms of the conservative
movement. we're in that middle of a tremendous amount of change. conservative movement began in its modern form in reaction against the republican establishment and against the national establishment. if you look at the rise of cold water, it is taking on both the national system, the welfare state, lyndon johnson, and is taking on the republican establishment, nelson rockefeller. it had a huge impact. there is no question that it change the patterns of the republican party decisively in ways that are still true to this day. it created the framework within which break-in could rise. it is important to remember if you could go back, and this is why i am a historian, any social ce that has straight lines
is not part of the real world. 1972, when nixon won a decisive re-election and carried virtually every state in the country, there was zero reason to believe reagan would become president. the vice president was spiro agnew. he was a conservative. there's every reason to believe that the end of four years that agnew would be the republican nominee. i suspected reagan thought agnew would become the nominee. there is a great book on the discovery that agnew was a crook, and getting him out of the vice-presidency, which nixon been picked gerald ford. nixon then resigns, for becomes president, for it then makes to huge mistakes. he treats break-in with
contempt, which makes reagan irritated, and he picks nelson rockefeller to be the vice- presidential nominee. add four picked reagan, history would -- had ford picked reagan, history would have been different. ford would then have served as president, and i am suggesting, if you look at a guy who tells the story beautifully one of the leading analysts of american pulling. -- polling. he said he learns about campaigns being real because he was convinced learn -- to leave his job and work for kennedy when kennedy was 30 points ahead. the week after he left, kennedy gave an interview in which roger but asked a trick questions. this is 1979. kennedy was running against
jimmy carter. mudd asked an unfair question. he asked, why do you want to be president? candidate could not answer, and he could not answer him so badly, that his campaign to started to collapse. charlie cook is the one who had left his job in order to be a field manager for ted kennedy. he watched it disintegrate. there's no point in 1979 where you would have said reagan was inevitable. at this stage reagan was nine points behind carter. i am giving this as a way of thinking. you do not know how the movement will evolves in the next phase. that may tell you what the three great needs are. first, we have to win the cultural fight to take back the campuses.
we have allowed the left to develop a bizarre combination of american intellectual life, much of it reinforced by coercive behavior, and it is going to be ? real brawl how many of you are on a campus where is painful to be a conservative? why should we tolerate academics and posing false history, teaching staff that is not true? you want to understand why obama has such black-out ideas put he is a perfect representative of the academic class. he thinks work does not matter, he thinks he cannot get there on your own, he thinks government is a magic thing that works, and he was shocked to think that
shovel-ready jobs were not shovel ready. to live in america to find out that our democracy is not agile is out of touch with reality. [unintelligible] this is filled with the powerful meeting. i am describing a world that you know? one of the challenges of the movement is a fight in the academic world, and those of you who are attracted to that, get your ph.d., good to campus, start a war. you do not have to argue for
countervailing by as. you have to argue for tax. modern liberalism is based on fantasy, and we desperately need a generation of innovation. one of the sad parts of my not having been more competent as a candidate is we really need a whole range of new ideas. brain research, alzheimer's, of heightism -- autism, partisa parkinsonism, brain disorders is the biggest area of research and the next 25 years. it is -- we have all this effort on aids, and i and the stand the importance of aids and the political power, but the fact is alzheimer's is massively
baker, optimism is massively bigger. why is that we do not have the same level of investment and why are we not having the same levels of research breakthroughs in brain research? i meant what i said about going into space, and the weakness we got into was that my opponents said nasa is so incompetent, how could you throw that much money at them? that was the right question, but then they cut off the answer. what we need is a new model of going into space that uses the private-sector, prizes, entrepreneurship. my guess is that people who are knowledgeable about this, they believe a private sector effort to get to the moon would cost 5% of what the government plans to spend. the model i tell people, is the right brothers. they practiced for five years,
spent a total of $500, they had 500 flights that failed. on december 17, 1903, the forest for -- the first four fights failed. the fifth flight work. they discovered how to fly for 500 bucks. the smithsonian got a grant to build an elaborate airplane, launched it of a boat on the potomac, and it went to the water and sank. you have a $500 private sector, two guys who are passionate, and a project. the smithsonian was a mad that their relations were so bad that for 37 years the right brothers -- wright brothers would not
give them the wright flyers. we need a generation of innovation. we need to apply -=- it would say trillions of dollars. need to overhaul the congressional budget office, which is a disaster. the cbo is a bastion of reactionary liberalism propping up models that do not work. we do not have the intellectual horsepower engaged in these kinds of fight. the third thing we need is something we have a fair amount of. we need a lot more was the people. we need people who are prepared -- there are so many fronts to have fights on right now, and some of it is cultural, some of it is did it with the changing real world, and some of it is dealing with the obama administration. we need to more people on twitter, talk radio, tv, writing
books. two last examples. we're now going through a revolution in energy. there is an american energy opportunity that by itself is gone to remake your life. he should be dramatically optimistic. if we can beat obama, we will see a takeoff in the next decade that will make america at the leading country in the world. we will be the dominant manufacturing company by the end of the decade, and people forget, we are an enormously endowed country. my first taught in the 1970's, and this should be a great case study, we used a popular book at that time, and it had been developed using fancy computer models at mit and was seen as advanced. it was one of the first --
everything they describe it is wrong. every single prediction -- if you get a copy of the book, it is just wrong. the most recent example of the left being wrong is the concept called peak energy. how many of you have heard of that? raise your hand. the academic left was talking about people. there is a funny movie, called "the last car," and it is jimmy carter plus world come true. it is a black utopia in which everything the left dreams of happening and it is miserable.
in that context, innovation has changed everything. we have a combination of what is called fracking and horizontal drilling, which enables you to go down and get what is called tight oil or gas or shale. we knew there was gas or oil at those depths in certain kinds of formations. we did not know how to get them. how much reserves? it was zero. i will give you two numbers. the amount of natural gas that is recoverable in the united states went from seven years in 2000 to 125 years today. >> newt gingrich from earlier today. you can see the entire event later tonight on c-span.
next a discussion about education reform at the state level. we will hear from marks from john king and cynthia brown, hosted by the center cafor american progress. this is about an hour and a half. >> good morning. thank you for coming to the center for american progress, and i offer you a welcome. i am cyndi brown, and i want to thank you for joining us for what we hope will be a compelling conversation on the state of state education reform. that is where the action is. we're pleased to have a distinguished group of panelists, and we hope you will join in as we move along this morning. over the past five years states
have launched efforts to reform their education systems. 46 states adopted a common core standards. 25 include measures of student learning and teacher evaluations, according to the most recent data. states have lifted caps on charter schools, but time and money in school turnaround, and change their human capital policies. 30 states now have waivers from the no child left behind act to alter their accountability system. as well as designing new teacher and principal of valuation systems and adopting college and career readiness standards. states themselves have initiated many of these changes, and others were spurred by federal programs, like race to the top. the waiver process itself does not appear to have stimulated brand new innovation, has asked
states to articulate a coherent vision of education reform at engage and winnable -- in meaningful changes. the new report found. today we are releasing no child left behind waivers. we examined every state plan for nuggets of innovation and we identified questions and concerns. we believe it will provide useful information to understand what states are up to and where they are headed. that is why we are gathered here, to take stock of where states are and where they are headed. some say momentum for reform has stalled. others are pushing states and the federal government to do even more to drive change. this morning we would like to take a deep breath and a step back in order to ask important questions, like, what exactly
have we achieved? what did it take to get here? what have we fail to do come or what challenges have be overcome? then what is next? to set the stage we would like to share if you findings from our report. waiver plans do not catch everything states are doing, but they are excellent snapshots of the current state of play cricket jere. jeremy ayers is a co-author of the report and he is gone to share about that now. >> we know that some of you or all of you should have had a hand out. there is a little extra information, so if you want to go home and look at that and memorize it, but we put only the essential information here on the screen. for those of you who are watching this, we are making sure this information is on the
website. what did we accomplish with this report? last winter we participated in a debate on the waivers with the folks at the fordham institute. someone should dig into these applications and identify what is new or innovative. the method we use is simple. we look across every single second-round application as new plans were approved. we were looking for new things compared to current law and skirt state practice. once we found that, we jumped back into common themes, and from our perspective what were the promising ideas and what were ideas that the best questions. we look at every single principle with in the waiver package, including the fourth, reducing duplication. very few states talked about this. the department did not ask for
an explicit information. we thought that was a lost opportunity. states are looking for flexibility. we know there are some states that stood out, and we mentioned those in the report. if we dig into each principle now, in your handout you will see what the department asked in terms of college readiness. they asked a couple things, states to adopt new career standards, english-language proficiency standards, and they asked to report on college going and credit the commission rates. when we look at across the plants, there were a couple things that are interesting. we saw a handful of states that would train all their teachers to work with english learners. we thought that was a promising move. there are a couple of states
that integrated their standards into that. there were a couple of states that created early warning systems, identifying students that are at risk of dropping out. it gives states an idea of what they can do to help those students. we noted a couple states that moved toward a standards-based report card, that would be much more clear about what students are mastering and held well -- and how well they master them. we did not find anything that altered the orbit of the planet. that this -- there is nothing that was interesting or groundbreaking. it did not seem the waivers themselves stimulated groundbreaking changes, but it was an opportunity for them to articulate a coherent vision and
for a number of states to push forward that they had started already. this was true for the other areas as well, including accountability. this is in your hand out. what did the department asked of states? they asked for a couple things. we may be remembered that nclb asked all states to get to 100% profess unseat since 2014. -- 100% proficiency by 2014. the department asked for states to create a new accountability work, and to use that new rating system to identify schools that are making progress, the bottom by% of schools, and states working with
--stress, how d an extra 10% of schools, schools with large achievement gaps, and states have discretion of what they can do. states are -- all states have to demonstrate how they would promote continuous improvement at how they would improve learning in every single school. that may not be the same hook as kurt wall, prune-- current law. what did we find? a couple things we wanted to mention, and we did want to note that some states continued to set ambitious goals.
the cuts gap in half goal is an one.tious we thought it is notable that a number of states would take that option. one state, arizona, will continue to get 100% of kids to proficiency. some of them are hard to tell how rigorous they are. there were a couple of states that we did not know what their goal was. an interesting dynamic that folks not realize is states are setting goals every year for schools to continually improve. and number of states -- a number of states would hold their schools accountable on a different set of indicators. three states are keeping a -- a you make your goals or not?
north carolina said this is how align.goals our issue is how accountable will schools be for reaching those goals? how clear it is it to the states what they are being held accountable for point for the states that have separate accountability index, there are lots of specter's that can be included, and we have a question about how clear it will be for schools to know what that is. i would mention and a lot of states this go round would increase accountability that was not required in a lot of states. most states would continue to set goals for districts, for those of low-performing districts. connecticut would create an
achievement zone. new york would create focused districts, districts that had a number of schools with large achievement gaps, they would ask the entire district to engage in systemic reform. the other part of accountability, a number of folks have been looking at an issue, a lot of states will continue to lump together the subgroup's into some low- performing group and compare that to a height-performing groups. we note that a number of states would lower their -- size only use the super subgroup if those
groups fell into that size. in terms of low-performing schools, a couple of states stood out for having a comprehensive plans not for what they would do in the schools, but very clear and cogent middle game and end game. what i mean is they were clear about progress expected schools to make. the day that they would use to measure that progress. what steps they would take if schools did not make that progress, and what would happen if progress did not get made. we found a lot of state did not have detailed plans for that middle game an end game. we drew attention to how often states would identify these low-performing schools. i had festooned -- i had assumed states would do this every year. some states would push that out that every three years or out
the four years. in terms of teacher and principal of valuations, this is in your handout, the department asked states to create teacher and principal at valuations systems, and the principle system is pretty new come at a use that information, to have multiple measures. when we look across the plan, states -- 50% side student learning, delaware had an interesting thing, they did not put numbers on it at all. the fifth component of stewed growth, and they set benchmarks were students have to reach satisfactory growth. that is their approach. in terms of technology, and a
lot of states are now using technology to capturing information, but providing development the teachers, to track what part of their a valuation has happened, and a couple of states that took the bull by the horns on teacher equity. insuring that students had equal access to effected teachers. the department's clear for not waiving this part of the curtain wall. we found only two states dug in to be effected as measures for teachers and would use that to ensure students had equal access. in rhode island, they saidit would go more than two years being taught by an ineffective teacher, and we can discuss if that is the right word being, but they did stick their neck out and put a number on it. in terms of findings, i will go over to these briefly. there are big changes without the waivers. the waivers themselves did not
seem to stimulate new changes, but helped state pushed forward. there are promising ideas, some ideas that we thought we'd get more fleshing out, including increasing learning time. only in new york got a thumbs up for describing what they would do with increased learning time. states are using a variety of sources of funding to do this. in terms of recommendations, states are laboratories of reform. it is a new game of trying to figure rang out what this means. the department should continue to ask for more information and states should offer that. states can learn from each other. they do not have to reinvent the wheel. some are sharing information on teacher evaluations. this is a new way for the department to relate to states. we are asking states to move
toward performance management. that is enough for now. i'm not sure how we met the challenge, but thanks for being here and we look forward for a great discussion. >> thank you, jeremy, and i think the cap education team. they read all this waiver requests, and they were hundreds of pages. i would be lying if i said i read them all. i sure do, they all read them and poured over them, -- pored over them.
we think it is useful information. we have a great panel of state and national leaders who will talk with us about the state of state education reform. i will introduce some of them. erst is dr. john -- first is dr. john king. john first came to this date as a commissioner, and before that was a leader in the charter school movement. michael yudin is the president -- principal deputy assistant secretary of the department of education. before that he worked on capitol hill. alex johnson is the board chair of the policy innovators in
education network. i think he is also on the new haven school board. he is a familiar person with what is calling on at the state and local level. i want to start by saying, what is it that really drives state to make changes on their own? i will start with john and alex. from where you sit, what is the right balance of federal carrots and sticks? what will happen when race to the top money goes away the waivers reform? will they continue to last? >> i think money dries states, for sure, flexibility, and fear
of st consequences. raced to the top was a significant amount of money and allow us to accelerate a series of reforms that we were already committed to. we were interested in working on a teacher effectiveness initiatives, but needed the extra push of the money, and it was helpful, and allow us to raise the cap on charter schools, commit significant resources to data systems, which is a hard thing to do in a difficult fiscal and drama, allow us to persuade labor management to come together and around teacher evaluation. allow us to double down on those reforms and that is what you see in our waiver application. the challenge when the money runs out will be but are the
state'stions for the capacity to execute? when i read the report, i worry about my colleagues that did not have those resources, how will they execute on the promises of the waiver on a high-level. >> it is worth taking a moment to reflect on race to the top. say what you will about it, one way it was a success is it motivated dramatic policy change at the state level in an unprecedented, compressed period of time. why did it do that? i think part of that is it inspired executive leadership. it was structured in such a way that it was the executive branch that had to sign off on the application. there was accountability on the part of governors, commissioners, and state board
of education's trick that accountability shifted to the legislative branch, and that they needed to the governors have way and enact significant legislation. and both of those instances, there was an opportunity for those outside the government a process, groups in particular, and members of a pie network, that created the opportunity for them to frame this run public accountability for this decision makers, that there was but a tremendous honor and distinction to be gained for exercising leadership, but there was also a real accountability if folks fell short. that combination, combined with the money, but i think the money was less significant. when you look at the odds of winning, everybody or most books went after the snowing in some cases that they might well not succeed in getting the resources. >> before, you were head of
concam, an advocacy group in connecticut, so connecticut did not get race to the top, but the momentum kept going. was it started -- did race to the top post in along? >> absolutely. trying price and failing, creating a narrative, and it just so happened that this was a gubernatorial election year, and the state failing twice and motivated both democratic and republican candidates to make that an issue in the campaign. really to contend with each other about how to right that wrong. it turned out to be a closely fought election, and the democratic candidate that prevailed make this a signature
issue. i think it is hard to know but it that would have happened come clearly that was a big motivator. >> what i have heard from folks is applying for race to the top allow stakeholders to come together and figure out what is best for our kids, how can we best improve and outcomes, and whether they'd won or not, they can up with a plant that were going to -- plan that were going to drive improvement. >> it was very much that, that people felt attached. there was a process of working together, sometimes contentious, but how could you step back from that after all the stakeholders to come together to hash it out? it was natural for many states to continue.
>> was that a similar dynamic in new york? you've got the money, but some market you had a more contentious and are met. you're probably used to that. >> new yorkers are known for our congeniality and lack of controversy and conflict. there is an ongoing challenge of maintaining momentum around any reform effort, but i think what is helpful is there is state and level and national consensus out around a few key ideas treat this since -- that is one that has strong national consensus and is reflected in 45 states. there is strong consensus about teacher in effectiveness. a lot of debate about how to
measure a, but there is strong consensus that teacher quality, and the effectiveness of the support of what drives student achievement. there is always going to the box along the way, but race to the top, the waiver, continued opportunity to have the administration's standing with state leaders, advocacy groups, saying we have consensus, now we will roll up our sleeves to keep the momentum moving forward. >> one thing about the emerging consensus, i think race to the top has been criticized by some for promoting gimmickry. the idea that we should have a competition at about the president of student achievement growth in teacher evaluation, when many educators who engage in the process feel that is a complicated thing and requires intense a professional judgment, that it cannot be reduced in
that way. i think the reason -- one reason we have got this consensus is for years, folks who were pushing for change on issues like teacher evaluation did not feel like the door was open at all, and they kept bumping up against it. once the door, opened, those folks who have been pushing so long wanted to rush through as fast as they possibly could. there is a lot of literature, the policy window opens up for just a narrow group -- this door is open now, and we have the opportunity to be more to lipper to of both in policy making and -- more delivered of -- deliberative and policy-making. john has a perspective on what district you want to have control over. the point is that this door is
open in a way it was not before, and i remember in that process in connecticut, at 1.1 of the representatives of the large teachers union said the board effective and teacher should not appear together in the statute. we are past that point. >> if i could just add to both of those points, states were moving. they wanted to move toward college and career readiness standards. they were required to expand so much energy and resources on complying with current law. you asked about carrots and sticks and the amount of energy that was set up by try to comply with this one child that's all mandate of no child left behind was getting in the
way. what we kept hearing, we want it to do more, which wanted differentiate it accountability systems, which wanted to focus on effectiveness, but we need to comply with the law. we need a comprehensive bipartisan reauthorization. our look were -- our local sups could not wait. let us do more and give us the space to do it. >> that brings me to the interesting topic accountability. there is no question that what prompted the waiver process is that deadline of 2014, and the recognition that the very heavy process around school improvement was not getting us
to the kind of comes we need. the major accountability requirements were waived, and states were allowed to come up with their own proposal. this has caused considerable undies by advocates and representatives of those groups of students who historically have not been well served by a public school. there is recognition that we had to move forward in some way, but there is a real sense of concern about what is going to happen down the road. i am interested, michael, you have -- the department has approved quite a variety of accountability systems, and i bet you have read most of these
waiver proposals. what bright spot d.c. in the approach to accountability? -- what bright spot do you see in the approach to accountability? >> this fascinating. providing the some breathing room for states to come up with means of improving outcomes and holding their schools accountable. one of the more controversial proposals was treating these kind of combined subgroup's of the lowest-performing groups of kids. that is in addition to the subgroup. everybody has to set targets for each of these groups that are required, required to set performance targets, annual measurable objectives, ambitious and achievable, whether cutting the gap in half or some other similarly ambitious setting of goals.
use those schools to drive their continuous improvement in all of their title one schools, to use those two target interventions in support in ways that are meaningful. providing this space, taking some of this pressure from no child left behind, we know in many states, up to 90% of the schools are not making it. you cannot prioritize your resources when almost all of your schools are labeled as failures. just that space did create -- innovation is in the eye of the beholder, but kentucky, for example, has put forward a comprehensive and thoughtful accountability framework. they are going to be looking at a model for kate-3, so they will
be looking at arts and languages, building teacher effectiveness. new jersey is focused on using performance data to drive the their interventions and supports and to drive continuous improvement. not only are they looking at growth and achievement, but they remediation at hig rates. south carolina is adding a category, not without controversy, they are adding male and female, said they will be looking at additional subgroups of kids. what of the things about the subgroup that i think is fascinating is in each of these cases that they add a combined subgroup, and in many cases they lowered their and size, they showed us data.
they were going to capture more kids in their accountability systems and the other words than they otherwise worked under no child left behind. no -- rhode island, is now all but 13 of 282 schools will be held accountable. english learners, under no child left behind, 54 schools in the state were accountable under the current law. with the waivers, it goes to 227 schools will be accountable. >> interesting. john, you have kept a lot of the approach. what was some of your thinking as he developed the accountability approach in be your? >> one of the reasons we decided to keep the approach was because of the subgroups and not wanting to go away from casting attention and light on schools
that were under serving english- language learning. it was important to keep that focus on subgroups. we did not want to lose the rifle attention on absolute performance and whether or not schools are making gains. the other part of our strategy was saying accountability is not just about the system for district and schools, it is about the accountability of schools inside -- of the dolls inside of those schools. if you put people to the rights of standards and hold people individually accountable and give them support, that is what will get us to the target, not just shining a light on people who are not being in the target, but figuring out how we change instruction to get to this. >> interesting.
so, i do have a concern about going forward in terms of monitoring the states do. they will make annual reports, they will report did this aggregated data by subgroups performance of students in schools. if they do not report it to, they have to report it in a publicly available way. a state web site, send information to parents in the community. it is easy to say the airport to move from a compliance approach to our performance management approach, but a performance management approach is a much more sophisticated, really higher-order skills have to be used in investigating and making a judgment about progress. i worry about capacity at the
state and federal level. we will not go to the capacity at the district level. that is probably the most important issue. it seems to me that -- new york may be the largest the education agency. i am not sure if that is still true. it was true at one point. i do not know if the department's elementary and secondary education staff -- how are we going to get this job done, and i will allow each of you to respond. are we not going to have to respond to advocacy groups and research cripps at the state level to keep track of what is going on, report on it, shine a bright light? now we have instead of one approach, we have 33 different approaches, and by the time, maybe 50. how are we going to make judgments about all of it? >> at the fed level, and higher
order thinking skills are not part of a federal brock a seat -- >> i did not say that. >> it is just requiring us to think differently about how we go about our work. some of these requests were up to 400 pages. how are we going to do with this? how are we going to manage to this? one thing i want to say, because this was not a competition for money, we could provide an unprecedented level of technical assistance. because new york was not competing against connecticut, providing new your with a level of technical assistance as necessary or as appropriate as they wanted, and it did not matter that we had to provide that same kind of technical assistance to connecticut. connecticut's needs or different.
we have to think about the way we did that work differently. we created teams to address each of the state. they were to become requests were too complex, so we did not just handle it in the office of the elementary and secondary education. we brought in folks from our policy shop. we conferred with our folks from better -- from -- we conferred with our folks who were doing raced to the top. we had the teacher quality folks, all of these different program offices that are traditionally sigh load -- siloed. we had no choice to write this technical assistance and support. working until 11:00 at night, because some of them were on the west coast, and walking through
these requests, we could get them to a place where the secretary felt confident we were holding states to a high bar, but states felt this is our plan, this is what we want to do to improve outcomes for kids. it made us look at our work differently. we established relations with states and we have to continue this. that is my point, which have already started down that road of doing business differently. we have no choice but to continue that. >> accountability to whom and for what purpose? i think it would be shall and very easy to think about accountability, the stakes are comfortable the federal government, there is accountability between john's department is accountable to the us department -- the whole theory of change as i understand it, behind no child left behind, is to have much greater
transparency so you could be accountable to parents and the public as a whole. for what purpose? to create a dynamic red there would be sufficient political will to change a school when in fact it showed up as leaving many kids behind. >> and i think one of the reasons we've gotten to where we are today is that premise didn't play out as fully as people hoped that it would. and i do think, to your point earlier, cindy, that there is a very important role for entities outside that closed loop of accountability between different levels at federal, local and state governments. one of the things that came out of no child left behind was this tremendous trophy of data that all kinds of people could use, whether it's greatschools.net or state advocacy groups, colorado succeeds, putting report cards
up on the web. the traffic on independent advocacy group websites with school performance data and school report cards in most states far exceeds the traffic to the state denied of education's website. and why? because the advocacy groups are trying to present the data in a way that is really useful and actionable for parents and the public. and so i do think in this waiver process we're going to really need to be mindful about making sure that the data that outside groups have relied on in the past does not go away. and likewise, for states that may hold out -- and there may be one or two states that decide not to apply for waiver, my guess is the federal government is not going to be terribly effective in driving change within those statements. to the extent that those states are really going to be held to account, it's going to be because state-based groups and others in those states say this is unacceptable.
it is just not ok for us to just step away and kind of put our heads in the sand. >> that's probably true for -- i mean, the two largest states have not applied, but they do have strong reform advocates within them. is yours the third largest state? that's what i thought. so how have you changed the way your agency is approaching reform and accountability with districts? >> a couple of things. we know that we have a capacity in challenge. we know the department is large, but we have responsibility not only for k-12, but job placements for adults, libraries, museums, i could go on. so we have that broad range of responsibilities. so the portion of the department dedicated to p-12 is small, so we have to be smart
about how we leverage our limited resources. one thing we're doing is trying to work with other statements on implementation of the common core, because schools that are implementing the common core are schools where achievement is going to improve. so we work with massachusetts and rhode island, on a common rubric for evaluating curriculum materials against the common core. we are working obviously with other states on assessments that will reflect the common core. we are also thinking about how we use technology better as a department. so we launched a website just to provide professional development materials for schools on the common core, on data-driven instructions, engageny.org, and that website has gotten a lot of traffic because it's immediately useful for teachers and principals. and we're thinking about as schools that see their performance isn't where they want it to be, we have a
network of regional teams that we created through our funding, whose job it is to do professional development for teachers and principals. so, you know, i think our challenge in this environment is how do we match high accountability with high support? but the other piece i want to raise about state and federal capacity, in addition to people power, there's also courage capacity questions. will people on the end hold the line on tough decisions? and i'll give an example. in new york the school improvement grant program. >> i was going to ask you about that. >> so we have 10 districts into have school improvement grants. all the districts chose to use the transformation model in some or all of their schools, which meant they committed to do teacher and principal evaluations in those schools. our law set the framework for teacher and principal evaluation, but they bargain
the details. so by december of last year our districts still hadn't complete the bargaining around evaluations. and the question was, were we going to let them keep the money? and we decided no, so we suspended all 10 of our school improvement grants. it create add lot of controversy in the state. but people made a set of promises. one of the superintendents i won't name said, you mean just because we didn't do what was in the grant you're going to take the money away? actually, yes, i do mean that. i'm sorry that's surprising. and so we took the money away, and in the subsequent months nine out of the 10 districts negotiated evaluation agreements with their bargaining units and took it seriously. there's one district, one large district in new york city that's still struggling to work it out. i think they will eventually get there. and the governor has now said
and got the legislature to agree in next year's state budget that if they don't have their evaluation agreements in place by january, they will lose their state increase for the year. so it's that kind of courage, that kind of line-drawing that we need to be willing to do if we're serious about accountability. i think the usdoe has raced to the top and say we're going to take your money in you don't do those things. >> they kind of had a tough conversation with you, didn't they? >> indeed they did, and that was helpful, like the teacher evaluation issue. and that's the key, the usdoe and state leaders have to lock arms and say not only are we committed to these reforms that sound really good, we're actually commitmented to execution and we're willing to make hard choices to get there. >> among the hard choices, one the challenges with no child left behind has been that the federal government has never really wanted to take title i
money away from states and districts and schools precisely because it's targeted at the students who we all agree are most in need. so that enforcement mechanism has been, i think, in many ways an empty threat. you know, it's different when you say, well, you've applied for a grant and we're going to take it back. but there are lots of states that never won race to the top money who are still accountable for waiver plans. i wonder if the federal government is going to be able to do what john just described with the core federal funding, because that really hasn't happened in the past. >> there's no doubt that in my personal opinion that the teacher and leader evaluation pieceses possibly the most difficult aspect of the waiver plans. and i got to tell you, it's been very, very difficult for many states to kind of meet our
rimpletse. but you know what? this -- our requirements. but you know what? this is about flexibility. as long as they're moving forward to develop guidelines that use multiple measures and student growth is a significant factor and they're going to work with their districts to develop those teacher and leader evaluations and then pilot those evaluations so that they're ready to be implemented by 2014, 2015, there's so much flexibility within those -- within that framework that they say, we can't do this. we're not going to be able to do this. and, yeah, they can. it just takes some courage and some kind of flexibility within. as long as you kind of adhere to your principles, there is this space. and it's going to be hard. but where we ended up -- and this gets to the point that i think both of you are making --
this is definitely going to be a shared responsibility. there's no way that we're going to solely be able to ensure 100% compliance with what the states have said they're going to do. we're going to do our best. we're going to do our best to provide technical assistance and support ongoing so that we don't come to a place in two years or three years where states are just woefully out of compliance, right? but we can head that off at the pass. so that gets to your original question, cindy. we can monitor, and what tools do we have? we have tools of technical assistance and we can change the way we do business, so we can at least mitigate that end game where we have to make some decisions that are very difficult to make. >> i think most of us are very concerned about sequestration and the possibility of forced cuts to the department's budget. but the fact that that issue has now been raised and the fact that school districts and
states are taking it quite seriously might actually create an opportunity, in that that resource stream which people used to count on as sort of in vie late is one that people are looking at and saying we might not be able to count on that. it might be that that degree of uncertainty now about that see source stream creates an opportunity for the federal government to think about how to engage states and districts for accountability for what they've said they'll do. >> i want to turn to one more topic. what's the state role in individual school improvements? we've seen some states set up special school districts or achievement zones, louisiana, michigan, tennessee, and i think connecticut is going to
be establishing one. do these have promise? john, you haven't set one up, what do you see as the state's role in school turnaround? and all of you can talk about that. >> two things that we have a tradition of in new york that we're committed to. one is that the department ought to be providing professional development, resources and tools, swell diagnostic resources and tools to help with tools, and then that we have data that is clear and direct and shines a light on underperformance. the thing that rates at the top of the ladder in terms of accountability, there will be a way in which the evaluation law can be used by districts to make changes when they need to when personnel are ineffective. the piece that's missing, and we have a bill in the legislation is we don't have a
level of accountability at the district level, particularly with respect to governance. in some of our districts it is clear that the boards are really struggling to manage the district effectively, and in some cases their mindset about their job as board members is not focused on achievement, it's focused on other things, sadly. so we have a bill in the legislature that we hope will get taken up next year that would allow us to remove a board and a district that is chronically underperforming. our view is that in some of our districts, it's at the governance level where the superintendent and the school leaders are not able to move the system forward. and so we do feel like we're missing that tool in our tool kit, and i actually hope that over time the u.s. d.o.e. will create incentives either
financially or flexibility-wise to push states to hold districts more accountable, because i think district governance, district leadership is a place where there aren't a lot of levers of accountability. >> you know, we definitely saw some innovation through flexibility about holding districts accountable. you know, massachusetts, for example -- and i hope i get this right -- you know is holding its districts accountable for the performance of its lowest-performing school in the district. so they will actually be held accountable for that. that's a pretty big deal, right? and, you know, john, in new york right there, they're creating their effort on closing achievement gaps at the district level. so there are a number of states that are really being innovative in how they're working with their districts. a lot of states are local controlled states, and a lot of the energy and ownership is invested in the district. other states, however, are looking at regional service
agencies or regional centers to really provide those supports and resources. >> when it comes to school turnaround we need to engauge this not as a programmatic challenge but as a structural and systemic challenge. one thing that is concerning, understandable but concerning, is that with the push with race to the top for states to engage districts around turnaround, we've seen a whole lot of providers crop up who will sort of come as consultants to districts and implement almost like a turnaround program in a school. i think we know a lot about what works in high-performing, high-poverty schools, and i think it's not the case that there's sort of a magic form that. i think what we need to attend to is getting the lessons we could learn from high-performing charter
schools, but there are examples of traditional public schools that have done this. incredibly motivated, hard-working and talented people working inside a structure that reinforces the behaviors and the interactions between students and teachers in a way that is transform tiff. and until we create those conditions, turnaround is going to be something that we wish would happen, but it's not actually going to happen. so i think there's a balance between new school creation and turnaround. and politically it's a lot easier to wish that turnaround will come true than it is to say we actually need to create 10,000 new schools in this country or whatever we think the number might be. so an important way for the government and states is to encourage districts to think of themselves in a portfolio fashion, that they are open to -- that they have responsibility for every student, but they are open to having a variety of school providers running schools in different ways inside that same
district. and to me, i think that will allow for turnaround, but it will also allow, in some cases, to start over, which is often what's needed. >> you know, just -- that's a great point. and another thing that we've seen out of the waivers that states are doing across the board, but increasingly so, is pairing low-performing districts with high-performing districts. so they're sharing best practices. and there's a sense of partnership across districts so that they can really learn from each other. and we're also trying to facilitate at the state level certainly as well, through the school improvement grants. but that's a really exciting new opportunity for folks to really own their improvement of all kids and partnering and sharing best practices is absolutely a great new opportunity. >> under our race to the top grant we have commissioner schools effort, so our reward
schools under the waiver would be able to compete for a grant that would allow them to capture best practice and partner with a low-performing school to share that best practice. so we're excited about that. just one point related to an earlier point. a sad irony of no child left behind, it's actually a pretty low accountability, right? i mean, the kids are accountable because the kids bear the burden of not having the education that they're enter titled to. but in fact -- entitled to. but in fact there were schools low performing before the no child left behind and after the no child left behind, and the adults in that building continue to go about their work today just as they did pre-no child left behind and the local superintendent may be the same and the local board goes about its work in the same way it did. in a funny way, although we talk about no child left behind, in terms of the strong accountability, there's
actually not a lot of accountability for the adults. that's why the teacher and principal component here, like the districts that really changed the adults and have responsibility, those are really important. that's real accountability. >> right, right. ok, i have a last thing i'd like for you to comment on, each of you, and then we'll open it to the audience. looking back over the past few years, what do you think are the biggest challenges to going forward with reform? hold that in mind. and then, if we were to hold this event in five years, what topics will we be talking about then either that we covered today or haven't covered today? so it's challenges and where we're going to be in five years. hey election? -- alex? >> i think challenges, what i just talked about in school
turnaround, i think, and school closure and new school creation is a profound challenge. politically it's so hard and yet i would argue the evidence really is strong that we need to be much bolder in that arena. so i do think we'll be talking about that i have fears why now. i think we won't be talking about teacher evaluation in anything like the same way five years from now that we are now. i hope we're going to be talking a lot more about teacher preparation and teacher apostle development and teacher recruitment, because evaluation is really a management tool, and we've gotten obsessively focused on it as a policymaking matter. in high-performing organizations, that's almost inverted. >> hopefully we'll be improving college and career readiness. that's what we try to work
towards every day in new york. i think one of our biggest challenges is continually needing to confront the message that schools don't matter. i'm still shocked by the extent to which people are still prepared to argue that, well, the kids are low nm, well, the kids' parents are, whatever is their ration nail. i know it feels sometimes in reform circles that that's a victory won, but i actually think that's a continual conversation, to remind people that schools can make a difference in kids' lives that, we, the adults, who manage the schools are responsible for contributing to their lives and putting them on the right trajectory. to me that culture shift and that expectation shift remains a central challenge. more practically, i think executing well on these initiatives is both the challenge we've had and the challenge wel8's have going forward and we'll determine whether or not we are
reflecting on whether we are able to do a good job and actually ensuring their implementation in the classroom. are we able to turn evaluations from an identification system to a tool for professional development and management? that, to me, is the central challenge certainly for us. >> yeah. i'm with them. but i think, you know, the capacity to implement these -- i do think these plans are innovative. it may not be orbit-centering, but the fact that new york and john in their requests have focused career-ready standards as the core of their entire reform strategy in a comprehensive way is actually different. it's actually really meaningful . the capacity to implement these plans, i think, is a great
challenge. i think today the political will is difficult, whether it be around school turnaround or teacher he value. but i -- eval. but i actually agree with both of these guys that in five years, you know, i am absolutely hopeful that particularly in the teacher and leader evaluation space that evaluations are simply a tool. we've just put out our teacher incentive for 20123, and that's exactly what it's bcht it's about using evaluations to inform decision-making at the local level that's going to drive improvements in teaching and learning, and how is it alined with your vision of instructional improvement and how are you going to use these evaluation tools to make the kinds of decisions so you can get the best teachers where they're needed the most, or if you need more math teachers, or if you need more professional development, or how do you recruit? and that's really where we're trying to go. so i think we're going to be
there in five years. i think that's what we're going to be talking about. >> well, thank you, guys. so let's tush it over to our audience -- turn it over to our audience. if there are any members of the media who have questions, i'll start with you. please tell us who you are. your affiliation. >> i'm david resk from building one america and commissioner, to continue the conversation that you just spoke about in your last comments, a decade ago i studied all 140 elementary schools in the 29 school districts ofer re-county, new york, which for the rest of our audience is the buffalo area. -- of erie county, new york, which for the rest of our audience is the buffalo area. i have found amongst the 29 districts the expenditures per pupil ranged from $7,635 in akron central to $11,416 to
ours in lackawanna city, about a 60% livings. the outcomes in the state-administered fourth grade reading, science and math scores was zero. at the school-by-school level, where the data was available school by school, the pupil-teacher ratios in term of class size ranged from 10.4 pupils in buffalo's public school, 72, to 20.8 in west seneca elementary, in other words, 1 100% differential. what was the correlation between class size and outcomes? zero. by contrast, the percentage of low-income children school by school accounted for 75% of the variation of fourth grade math
scores, 77% of the variations in fourth grade science scores, and 87% of the variation in fourth grade english scores. as a matter of fact, if you at that time had just told me that percentage of low-income children in this school, i would have predicted the state english scores plus or minus six point is less than 1% on your scale with 95% accuracy. these are not revolutionary findings by me. we've known the relationship of socioeconomic status to outcomes since james colvin's report in 1966, and there's 45 years of educational research that has constantly reaffirmed not only the relationship between a child's socioeconomic status and the socioeconomic
status of the classmates, but shows consistently that low-income children learn best and dramatically better when they are surrounded by economically integrated classrooms. and you had that very report presented in this very room a year ago by heather schwartz in terms of her very definitive analysis. my question is, why do you, sir, and your fellow educators, continue to ignore the fundamental role that economic segregation and potentially economic integration would play in the issue of the performance of american school children? >> you can take a crack, and i might take a crack. >> i've got something to say, too. >> sure. >> let me start with this -- the premise of your question i would challenge. just to me, there's two possibilities. the reason that kids who are poor who are in particular schools are doing poorly, is it about the kids or is it about
how the adults organize themselvess? i would submit it is not about the kids fundamentally, that the kids are just as capable. if that is true, then it is about how we, the adults, organize ourselves. decisions we make as the adults, not decision that is the kids are making. so the premise of your question troubles me somewhat. that said, i will say that i am intrigued by the notion of trying to organize school systems and attendance zones in ways that enhance socioeconomic integration, have spoken about that quite frequently, even just today in the paper. i'm quoted in many papers talking about new york city and some of my concerns about enrollment practices that result in very high concentrations of high-needs kids, in particular buildings without adequate support. so i'm concerned about that. but we also know that all around the country, including in schools that i ran, there are schools that have 100%
african-american, latino kids, 80% kids in poverty, and have outstanding academic results. so i do not accept the contention that that ensures that the outcomes will be poor. we know that there are schools that are proving that that is false and that indeed, there are schools that can have high concentrations of kids in poverty and excel, if they do some of the right things. they have incredibly talented teachers dedicated and very talented principals. they have extended learning time. they have data-driven instruction. they use assessments to inform their teaching, they work to engage families effectively, they have a rigorous curriculum. there are things we can do to make schools work even with high concentrations of poverty. but i certainly am open to the conversation on socioeconomic integration and i think it's related to a governance question. i think you see if you contrast new york to illinois, some of
the states with lots and lots of school districts with some of the states that have county systems, like maryland and virginia, there are ways in which county systems that achieve higher degrees of not only socioeconomic, but tax diversification can get systemic benefits from that. so i'm open to that, but i fundamentally believe that every kid shows up with the potential to achieve college and career readiness, and the question is, war we, the adults, going to do to organize ourses to ensure that they get to that destination. [applause] >> i think the assertion that schools are powerful and the assertion that poverty is a real factor that impacts students are not mutually exclusive. and i think it's unfortunate in some ways that we've gotten to a place in this country right now where that seems to be the debate, because in reality, i
think educators in high-performing, high-poverty schools, have a much more nuanced sense of what's going on in the lives of their children outside of the school. but the critical difference is that they are not placing -- they're not sort of waiting for everything outside the school to be fixed before they engage to do everything they possibly can as an educator. and when that happens, you see tremendous results. so i think this really is to me a question of being able to hold these two ideas in tension and to ask of educators, to feel comfortable as a country asking of educators that they work in schools that truly are powerful. and that gets back to the systemic issues. we don't organize many, many schools to allow for the very interventions that john has described in high-performing, high-poverty schools. we absolutely have to change the way we're doing business in our schools, because we can't expect educators to change their behavior if we don't
change the system and the structure in which they are embedded. . . . >> i don't have much to add except to say -- no, wait, i want to get other people -- >> race to the top, the process provided no positive scoring for any proposal from the state that would advance economic integration of the school. they would have gotten zero. >> actually, i was going to make a comment related to that. i think socioeconomic integration of schools is a positive value, and more schools that do it, the better we would be as a society not just because of economic outcomes, but also how we relate to oach other in our communities. and the federal and state governments could provide incentives to schools to do that. but it is naive to think that
it's one strategy to improve a variety of outcomes, but it cannot affect all kids because of the segregation in this country that has gotten worse in many ways and may never get corrected in certain communities. i myself, who are the staed my career working on school desegregations, decided i couldn't wait for our schools to be desegregated and i was much more interested in improving the quality of education in every school. and i think we have to keep it as something we strive for and provide incentives, and it would be helpful to provide incentives, like you just said. but it cannot be our only mission for achieving improvement. all right, other questions. middle of the room. >> thank you. i'm sorry, i have a sinus infection, so i'm kind of groggy.
[laughter] not usually, but today. roberta stanley. i'm with the national school boards association. my question is directed to the chancellor. the new york state has a wonderful system of regional education service agencies called boces which a lot of other states try to emulate and are kind of jealous of. have you not utilized them, or what are your plans to do so? >> one of the -- thanks for the question. one of the key elements of our race to the top plan was to rely on the boces for our professional development teams that are supporting implementation of the common core, teacher and principal evaluation, data-driven instruction. the way we organize our application, we committed that there would be teams of professional development experts, curriculum experts, assessment experts, that would support each set of schools, and those teams are based in those regional service providers that are based in the boces.
and that's been very powerful because i think historically the boces have been great providers of back-office services to schools, and career and technical education opportunities for kids. race to the top really created an opportunity for the bo sess to play a much larger role regionally in common approaches to professional development curriculum and thinking about teacher and principal evaluation together. so that has been very powerful. we hope that we, over time, as a response to the economic challenges the states face, utilize for economic development in the boces. >> hi, i'm a policy intern at the century foundation. i was a teacher in new york city for six years in a high-poverty school. i think there's a lot of talk about accountability, and that's the big buzzword in all this. accountability for teachers,
for principals, which is heartening, because that's been left out of the discussion. schools and districts. anybody who spent time in a classroom has heard a kid ask, does this counts, or are you grading this? do the waivers have any proposals for substantive or tangible accountability for the students themselves, or are they still this fatal flaw with nclb where the teachers are being measured by something they, in that day, have no control over how a kid performs on that day in, that exam. is there real accountability for students in these, or is it still passing it up the line? >> i would argue that accountability frameworks that are looking at how a student grows, how schools are closing achievement gaps in particular, how students access and perform on a.p. or i.b. exams or have access to industry certifications that are built
into some of these accountability systems, college-going rates, college remediation rates. i think those all do absolutely count for kids. that's what matters. >> the one thing i would add in new york, we have the long tradition of high school regents exams that are part of our graduation requirements as well as a part of students' transcripts that they'll use when they apply for post secondary opportunities. and for our high school measures, those regents exams are playing a central role, including a shift that we made in the waiver towards focusing on the college and career-ready level on performance of those assessments, rather than just the passing threshold, so our account sablet will focus on the regents exams that core reelingts to enrollment in and success in first-year college credit-bearing courses, which is a shift for the state, because our threshold for the
accountability system was our pass rate, which was significantly lower than the level of performance necessary for college. >> one thing between accountabilities for students and educators. i think there are a number of states like new york that have graduation requirements that hold students accountable. like wise, we are now seeing early literacy interventions and policies that block social promotion, say, from third to fourth grade, whether in florida, colorado has made a step in that direction. but the whole premise behind those policies is not that the student is simply left high and dry, but that by holding students to that performance standard, educators are in fact accountable for helping them get there. and in fact, i think the state commissioner at the time, dave driscoll in massachusetts, when they implemented their high school graduation requirement, he said something to the effect of we decided that politically it was easier to hold students
accountable than hold adults accountable. once we held students accountable, then the adults had to step forward and do what they needed to do to make sure that students were successful. >> if i could just add to that. you know, 30, 40 years of research shows when kids are held to higher expectations, they do better. so the adults in the classroom, the adults in the building, absolutely have to set those expectations, whether they're kids with disabilities or english learners, kids that are held to higher expectations do better. >> ok. a couple of people in the back. then we'll come up front. >> i'm virginia spatz from capital community news here in d.c. i was struck by the enthusiasm for rhode island's plan to keep children from having ratings ineffective for two years in a row. here in d.c., for example, there are so many neighborhoods where the schools are so low. it seems that kids would get
new teachers every two years. i'm wondering how this plan can possibly keep schools like that from having just greater instability in neighborhoods where the kids already face instability in their homes and neighborhoods, and this is just going to add to the situation. teachers won't even have a chance to get acclimated to the schools because of the scores, they're rated ineffective. >> remember, you're moving to a system of students growth. so if they're starting below grade level and behind, like they are in several of those schools, you're looking at whether the teacher is able to show growth in those students' outcomes. maybe not up to the grade level, but making progress that way. so i don't think it necessarily ensures turnover. >> and rhode island, too, if i'm not mistaken, also identifies in their plan the tupet for schools to develop --
tunalt for schools to develop learning objectives. they actually are using multiple measures. they're using growth in a meaningful way, and that's the decision that the state made. but they are also actually looking at a variety of multiple measures, classroom observations and students learning objectives and a whole set of means that really hopefully will provide rich information to the teachers and the leaders in those schools to really make the necessary improvements that are appropriate. >> hi. thanks for taking the question. ben weeder from stateline. yesterday at the fordham institute secretary margaret spelling said her assessments of the waiver applications led her to conclude that they would lead to -- that they would halt the growth of charter schools and other, quote/unquote charter options. i'm wondering if you think that's a fair assessment.
>> i can't speak for the rest of the states, but certainly in new york that is not the case. we maintain the choice component of ntlb even in our waiver. but really what's driven the access to additional charter opportunities has been the raising of the cap that was a part of how we won race to the top. the biggest challenge to the growth of high-performing charters is a capacity challenge. we actually are being very selective about which charters we'll give and give them to organizations that can demonstrate the capacity to perform at a very high level. and some of the larger providers in common schools where i was kept achievement first. many of them are stretched with the number of schools that they have and are trying to figure out how they build capacity to grow. so the challenge is less, at
least in new york, a statutory challenge and more a regulatory challenge, it's more a capacity challenge. is there the talent to continue to fwro these organizations? >> i don't know if it's related to the waivers, there remains a number of states where the statutory framework for charter schools is not what it should be, both in terms of funding parity in terms of continued obstacles to growth. it's getting back to the idea around structural change and creating districts that have a portfolio approach. there is an important place for high-performing chart nerves a district level strategy around managing performance and ensuring that all kids learn. i'm not aware of specific things that states have done in waiver applicaons that step away from that, but i think unless we have a real continued push in that direction, politically it's challenging, and we need to keep moving in that direction. >> if i can actually add to that. i think to the contrary, right,
that in fact we've seen in a couple of instances where states can -- where there are high-performing charters, they actually have the opportunity for greater flexibility within this package. we know that in many states charters are autonomous and their policies and procedures around teacher evaluations are different, and we're recognizing that and supporting that for high-performing charters, as long as they meet our requirements. they don't have to do what the state says they have to do. in fact, in some states that's prohibited by law. utah, for example. and utah has a waiver. so there's great opportunity to still hold charters accountable to a high standard and still give them the flexibility and autonomy that they need. >> so i want to address the choice provision and nllb. i was enthusiastic about it when it was put in. it's a myth that it
accomplished anything. but i came to the center i did a study of the choice provision in nclb and at best, at its high points, maybe 2% of the kids who are eligible to choose to leave their low-performing school and go to another actually made the transfer. why? not because there wasn't interest in the families, there weren't other high-performing schools -- there weren't high-performing schools available for them to transfer into, and mainly -- sometimes because of space, sometimes because they were surround bid large numbers of low-performing schools. and there was no requirement for inner-district choice. if you don't have inner-district choice, you're not going to have much opportunity. this country has in many places, not all, drawn their
school district lines around more affluent communities and around poor communities. probably the best example of that is new jersey, where you have county-wide school systems, there's more opportunity, perhaps, for choice to work. but where you have lots of small districts, where you isolate people by the wealth of those communities, if you can't choose to go to those schools, you don't have much opportunity. so this notion that the choice provision accomplished much is, as i said, a myth. we'll take one last question from the guy right here. >> thank you. i'm with americans for the arts. thank you, cap, for reading all the waivers. the question is -- >> and michael. >> yeah, and the department. secretary duncan and the secretaries before him identified as one the most major unintended consequences
of no child left behind being the narrowing of the curriculum. so because the proficiency targets have shifted from a federal a.y.p. mechanism to now a state-based or these waiver states have that responsibility, do you think that the unintended consequence for narrowing of the curriculum because of its connection to the testing, do you think that improves the solution for addressing those consequences, and do you think that the state-based advocacy groups can address it more clearly as well now in their states? >> that's a great question. you know, and that is without doubt a priority for secretary duncan. what we believe and we hope we've achieved, but ultimately it is up to advocates in the field, is that by taking some of the pressure of the punitive
nature of no child left behind off of the system, that it creates opportunities. and we see in some of the states they are being a little bit bold and different. kentucky, i mentioned earlier, is actually building the arts into their accountability framework, as part of the inspector model. states are looking at different subjects. they're looking at, you know, college readiness factors, different sets of factors that we do absolutely believe and hope will change the focus from narrowing the curriculum to broadening the curriculum. ultimately this is a shared responsibility and it is absolutely up to y'all, and the advocacy community to make sure that that does in fact happen. >> i think that parents and students want a diverse curriculum, and in a system where there is choice and flexibility and trance patient see, schools that provide --
transparency, schools that provide that have an opportunity to attract students while still being accountable for students achievement, and that's really what we're all after here. >> part of what we need to do is, i think, correct a mistake that people make, which is thinking that by narrowing the curriculum to e.l.a. and math, you will improve your performance, whether it's looking at what e.b. hirsch has written about the role of cultural literacy in student achievement, that is, do you know enough information about the world to tackle the text, or the evidence on the influence of arts and music and on students' performance note only in english and math but arts as well. what we know is attending to social studies, the arts, will lead to better student outcomes. if you look and go back to the high-performing urban schools or high-performing schools serving low-income kids, many of them have dedicated time for the arts. they have strong enrichment programs. they have dedicated time for science. those are things that i think
have gotten lost partly because of accountability, but i don't think fixing the accountability system alone will change that, because we're always going to focus more on writing and math, does the students have the skills to be able to do college-level work. so i don't think that's going to go away. but this question of how we get to a college-ready student i think is something where we have to change people's hearts and minds about what good instruction looks like. >> ok. i want to thank you, thank owe panel for talking to us about -- thank our panel for talking to us about state reform and you all being interested in it. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," gun control policies and other laws in the country. the staff writer looks at the is he questionsters possible impact on education programs and dr. peter delaney from the
substance abuse mental health services administration talks about the growing abuse of prescription drugs in america. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on american history tv -- >> we begin to open up the discussion by asking you this -- what exactly is the nature of the clash between mcarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures and history, truman and mcarthur, john hospitals kins' professor on what led a president to relieve a general at the height of korean war saturday night at 8:00 eastern. sunday, more from "the contenders," a series that looks at key political figures who ran for president but lost and changed political history. this weekend adlai stevenson. he once said he had a bad case of hereditary politics. his gland father was vice
president under grover cleveland. his great-grandfather was first to suggest abe ram lincoln as president and he ran twice against eisenhower. "the contenders," 7:30 eastern and pacific. this weekend on c-span3. >> you know, it's the tradition of common law judges not to reply to suppress criticism. we get clobbered by the press all the time. i can't tell you how many wonderful letters i've written to "the washington post" just for my own satisfaction and then ripped up and thrown away. >> you don't send them. >> you don't send them. that's the tradition of the common-law judge. you do not respond to criticism. >> supreme court associate justice ant anyone scalia reflects on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents in his latest, "reading law," sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> next, a look at the release of a recent census bureau report on americans living with disabilities.
from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. >> we'll get a snapshot of americans dealing with disabilities and how that may have changed over the last couple of decades. let me introduce you to our two guests. matthew is a census bureau statistician and the health and disabilities branch and the executive director of the national disability rights network. we're doing this, mr. decker benchmarks it's the 22nd anniversary of the so-called a.d.a., americans with disabilities act. i'm going to ask you to remind people what the a.d.a. was and is. >> the americans with disabilities act is one of the broadest civil rights statutes passed in 1990 and affects really just about every aspect of american life in order to bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society.
>> why does the census bureau collect numbers? >> people with disabilities play an important part in american society. they are involved with various government programs, social security, plays a big role for a lot of people with disabilities' lives. but they also contribute a lot to the economy. they're consumers. they're buying products, they're using the health care industry. so it's important that we follow both the size and characteristics of this population. >> so your first slide is actually the definition of a disability, and that's really important to understand, because it seems like it would cover a wide swath of people. how does the census bureau register it? >> not only does it cover a wide swath of people, but they have several definitions of disability, dependsing on the survey that we're using. the report that we put out earlier this week, the americans with disabilities 2010 report, comes from a survey called the survey of income participation. that uses a very comprehensive
definition of disability that looks at a number of activities . asked the respondents in that survey, do you have difficulty performing an activity, such as difficulty walking, climbing stairs, things like that. and then if they said that they did have difficulty, they would ask whether or not they were unable to do that particular activity. from those kinds of questions we could devise both a measure of who's disabled or who has difficulty doing these kinds of things and then also a severity measure. so a severe disability, and we define that as basically those who are unable to do those activities. >> for our viewers, to involve you in our discussion, we're going to open up our phone lines and you can also send us a tweet. we'd like to ask you about the effect of the americans with disability act on your lives. and this can be if you're a disabled person, if you're an employer, if you're a citizen who benefits from things like curb cuts that came as a result of the a.d.a. so we'd like to hear your
story, positive or negative, and we'll work that into our discussion as we listen to questions here. one the other things we do with this "america by the numbers" segment is understand consumers of the very big investment this company makes in gathering statistics. how do groups like yours use this disability survey? >> well, it is important, i think, to remind policymakers and people of the large number of people with disabilities in the united states and the fact that they need to be an integral part of our society and that a whole series of federal programs, benefits, but also just the routine of daily life needs to be adjusted to make sure this large number of people that has been documented by the census bureau are enjoying the fruits of american society. >> our phone numbers are divided geographically for this segment, as they always are. 202-737-0002 if you live in the
mountain or pacific time zone. we welcome your phone calls. you can also sends us a tweet @ cspanwj. give us the details, please. >> one of the things that the report found is there are 56.7 million americans in the united states with disabilities in 20106789 this accounted for 18.7% of the civilian non-institutionalized population. kinds of a fancy way of saying people who are in the community. it doesn't include the population who are in nursing facilities or are in correctional facilities. those get measured in other surveys. they wouldn't be in this one. now, this number, 57 million, about, was an increase of 2.2 million since the last time we measured this population in -- while the number increased, we actually found that the percentage remained the same,
at the same 18.7%. >> as the population increased over that period, right? >> yeah. >> so the next one is a point about employment. >> yes. this is one thing that we've seen consistently is that people with disabilities have lower employment than those with no disability. and what we found was about four in 10 individuals with disabilities were employed, whereas non-disabled individuals, it was eight and 10. >> last night on our radio station, mr. decker, i heard senator tom harkin being interviewed, who was a big sponsor of this legislation 22 years ago, and he said his great disappointment has not been an uptick in the number of employed disabled people. would you agree with him? >> i certainly would. the americans with disabilities act has actually changed the face of our country. now we will all see every day many, many people with disabilities out there being involved in the community. but i have to say -- and i
agree with senator harkin -- that one of the disappointments of the americans with disabilities act, it didn't change the outcome of employment with people with disabilities. >> why? >> well, i think it's still an example of the attitudal feelings in this country and the stigma into people with disabilities face, especially with employers who incorrectly think that people with disabilities aren't going to be able to perform the job, that they're going to be expensive accommodations that will be necessary. all those things are not true, but they're very hard-held in the minds of a lot of employers. >> let's look at these actual numbers here, which reflect what your highlights were. the number of people both in actual numbers and percentages of the population. >> what we see here is in 2005, the blue bars, we see 54.4 will million people in the united states in 2005 had a disability. and then in the red bars, which is the current numbers in 2010 we see that number has
increased to the 56.7 million. we also can look at the people with severe disabilities as what we see from here is that in 2005 it was 34.9 million, and that actually increased by 3.3 million to 38.3. >> do you keep statistics on the causation or cause at of the disability, whether or not it was accident-related or congenital? >> we do ask about the underlying health conditions for people. although we do not do actual disease surveillance, thates the purview of the center for disease control. so we're not trying to measure the reason behind it specifically, but for people who do experience difficulties with these kinds of activities, we will measure the kinds of reasons for why they ended up having that difficulty. >> and let's move on to this percentage of population. >> so here we see that the percentage of the population of people with disabilities remain the same at 18.7%.
but then when we look at the severe disability, we actually see severe disability inkeysing from 12% to 12.6%. >> let's go to the first host: let's take our first call from indiana. caller: yes, i was curious about the papers they said they would be sending out. when will they resending that out? i have them is on disability so want to make sure they get that. wendy do this statistical survey? guest: this survey was conducted in 2010 in the summer. this gets conducted every few years. we're still finishing up the panel, the actual survey. there's a large component of this survey still going on. we also collect disability data supposed surveys are also in the field and being collected on a more regular basis.
host: how many people tend to get survey did? guest: this survey involved 65,000 households. some of our surveys are larger and some smaller. there is the current population survey which has about which is used for creating our income and poverty -- poverty numbers and unemployment. host: you are a graduate of george washington university and pursuing his master's at georgetown. you went to hamilton college? guest: outside of utica, new york.
i got involved because of my interest in the legal issues. it is not because of the personal experience. host: 6 next slide tells the older you are, the more likely you are to be disabled? guest: yes, this is just being confirmed with the death. -- with the data. host: walk us through how the percentages increase. guest: on the left-hand side are a different age groupings. as you go down the chart, you get to older age groupings up to people who are 80 years and older. for the on this population, those under 16, the percentage of population with those children of his 8.4% but as we go to increase the population with disabilities up to 70.5 percent of people who are 80 years or older.
they are experiencing the effects of aging? >> many people are living longer with better health procedures. the life span -- the life span of people with disabilities used to be much shorter. i think this is important for policy-makers to realize what they need to do to prepare for this large population. host: i am going to ask this tweet not be placed on the screen. is obesity part of your numbers? guest: we don't require any specific conditions. we look at if you have difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
week that would be considered a disability and it could come from obesity or something like a congenital disease. host: what does the law say about that? definition. the question of whether someone who was morbidly obese would fit that definition depends on how it affects their functioning. these are people who have weight issues that could fit that definition. we have to protect them against the functions of yourhost: i spent the little time with this because i wanted to understand what you did to this statistic. what do we learn from this? guest: this is a thing the census bureau has done to look at disability in the context of aging and different age groups. done across the health statistics.
there are a lot of morceli rates but it is essentially comparing two groups that you want to be able to see what is expected with that issue. -the age effect. one thing we have is in 2005, the population was younger than a was in 2010. what if the population in 2005 and 2010 had the same distribution? we applied to this formula to the disability number. when the to be a judgment, disability decreases. it gives a different take on the disability situation. host: people who are critical suggest that with broad definitions, more and more people are coming into the fold
but the numbers look like they are decreasing? guest: we are all temporarily able-bodied. i think the statistic shows you that you may not need these accommodations are protections today but next week may find that it is good there is an accessible building or you experience on discrimination. this lets us know that this is an issue that affects us all. host: this is from twitter -- guest: people will find a way to abuse just about any issue.
we know that handicapped parking is one of those issues that people could take advantage of. that does not mean it is not necessary and important to the people who needed. there has to be better enforcement. there also have to be better review of that eligibility. that does not mean the issue itself should not have better access to parking lots and businesses. host: here is another question -- guest: high would say the ada is not a current user but is recovering. we believe that people will experience addiction need to
have assistance and help and our hope that they can turn our lives -- their lives around. these people don't just disappear if we don't treat them more work with them. you talk to police and you find that they know very well that putting these people out on the streets only causes other counts of public issues. host: the next slide looks at disability by race. every time we show numbers that are sliced by race, we get critiques asking why the government does this. guest: understanding where the race and backgrounds of people with disability helps policy- makers target was the best way to deliver services and they can try to improve the programs that are already there. host: why is there a racial
disparity in disability? guest: there could be a number of reasons. their health disparities, access to care, there are a variety of issues that come into play. one of the issues is also that there is different age distributions between racial groups. one thing we found in the 2010 census was that the median age for white non-hispanic saw was around 42 years. compare that to less -- has backs and latino or the average age was 27 years. host: caller: with that background, let's look at the percentages but population. hispanics and blacks were almost equal? guest: there was not a significant difference.
for asians and hispanics and latinos, those percentages were not radically different from each other but were lower on the first two groups. host: is there a differential and access to services among various demographic groups? guest: we have done our reach to some of these populations to help them identify that they have a disability and there are certain things available. my guess is that in those cultural groups, there are a variety of reasons that people identify themselves with a disability. sometimes there are cultural and religious reasons why a particular ethnic group is not comfortable having a disability. they begin to feel like it is a stigma in their culture. they are reluctant to speak about this.
we have to do average of those populations. there are necessary and useful services they could benefit from. host: york, pennsylvania, you're on the line. caller: thank you gentlemen soi used to work two full-time jobs, i took care of and raised my two children and bought my own house. all of a sudden, at 38 years old because of starvation as a child, my bones fell apart. i had advanced osteoporosis but i did not know that i had it. it left me permanently in mobilized. while i was healthy, i have the attitude of people not using handicapped parking. now i am so grateful that there
is handicapped parking and that there are card so i can get back and forth in the grocery. i can't thank you enough. guest: i and she makes the point that even if you are having a good, healthy, secure life, anything can happen to us as we age or have some catastrophic illness. look at the number of returning veterans coming back. they are still having difficulty adjusting to the concept of a person on disability and are returning to adjust to life in the united states as a person with a disability. it is important to maintain these protections and services as people begin to realize they may need the services. host: we posted these slides on facebook and also a tweeted them out.
we have these facebook comments -- do they show up in your number of guest:? i don't have any numbers with me today but the census bureau doeshost: are they in these numbers you have given us? guest: they are not actually in the report but we have that in the community survey evidence showed the percentage of people with different service disabilities in different places around the country. host: when we see that total, veterans would be a different number? guest: they would still be included in the survey but we don't differentiate and look at the specifics. guest: if you add people in nursing homes and in jails and prisons, it would be a much
larger number for disability. many people find themselves in the criminal-justice system. host: here is another note on that -- guest: the promise and the potential of the disabilities act is to make sure that those who can work and be productive are allowed to work so they can become tax paying members. they don't necessarily have to be dependent on services and benefits. as we begin to change the attitudes of the employers and reduce the stigma, i think we will see people with disabilities being a productive member of our society. here's another treat --
this next set of numbers might answer that question. guest: this slide shows a few of the types of disabilities that this survey covers. it goes through some of the activities that the survey asks. the first two and the top left is difficulty seeing and hearing. this is defined by the searing question and whether or not someone is typically reading letters in newspapers. we found that 8.1 million adults had difficulty doing that. we found 7.6 million adults had difficulty doing hearing activity. as we did down the chart we look at some of the physical type of disabilities when the go down the list.
we seek 36 million americans had difficulty doing that activity, or upper-body limitations, even grasping a pan, that had 19.9 million at disabilities. host: i was surprised that the using a wheelchair. guest: yes, but there is more individuals using canes and walkers and crutches. host: we see lots of people of realtors out about these days. are you encouraged by digital technology and science to address the to kill the the difficulty seeing and hearing? here is an example from "the wall street journal."
i heard last night about a store reversing blindness. where is medicine heading? guest: give is a great -- this is a great advance for the disability community, to have the ability to communicate with their able-bodied peers. the explosion in technology is making great advances for people with its disabilities. with up to make sure they are affordable. many people with disabilities are at the poverty level. there have to be funding and services to make sure the benefit from these wonderful answers. host: from florida, go ahead. caller: my concern is with the abuse of the ada.
anytime you get a good program, there are people that want to take advantage of it to that should not. i have a granddaughter who was born with cerebral palsy. her father is trying to hold onto a job from a 8-5. this year the cut her aid to be with her while she is working. he has to come home and take over or pay the extra to ask someone to stay a couple more hours. on the other hand, i'm a person with people who are no more disabled and i am and take advantage of it because it is free money. i'm just so sick and tired of the abuse and fraud in this country. it is not followed up on.
the people that rightfully need and deserve this service like this, they are cut back. that is my only comment. i wish someone could do something. guest: i certainly share that frustration. when people take advantage of programs and services that were designed for the general population, this demonstrates that to cut back on the person the disability services, the responsible falls and family members. they sometimes have to leave their jobs which compounds the cost of services. that is a concern. my work is to see the other side of the coin, the number of people who are discriminated against to face neglect can face a stigma. there will always be those people who abused any program
but we have to focus on the people who need the services to live their lives better. children disabilities. guest: we think about disabilities affecting the overpopulation but there are children with disabilities as well. one of the things this report found is that 5.2 million children under the age of 15 had a disability and that was 8.6% of the population of children. some disabilities these children have include things like not being able to do regular schoolwork or difficulty with vision and developmental disabilities. host: we keep hearing about the rising cases of autism.
would they be covered under this law? guest: the question on the survey asks if someone has developmental disabilities. we don't specifically to families on that. the question of whether they are on the autism spectrum towards a more functional side and whether or not the question is up for the respondent. employment get to status by disability. but does this tell us? guest: this chart looks at employment in two different ways. on the left, you see a snapshot of the employment situation for people with disabilities. on the far left is 27.5% of people with severe disabilities were employed at the top of the service. that compared to seven 1.2% with non-severe disabilities.
the other aspects of this chart look at the long-term effects. we find that people with severe disabilities are much less likely to be employed for a consistent time. and more likely --time period. or unemployed and people not in the work force. host: this is important because it does to the trend since ada was passed. guest: the survey that most of his other numbers that come from does not have a long-term trend in it. this is the current population survey.
this looks as possibly at a sub population of people with disabilities, those who have difficulty with the kind of work they can do. one thing we see over the last 15 years is that the percentage of people with work disabilities who are working is going down. the unemployment rate has been moving along with the business cycle. host: the percentage of employed is going down for the disabled group? guest: yes.
we have to redouble our efforts to convince employers that there is a resource out there they can use. in the states with low unemployment, the rate of hiring people with disabilities is much higher. employers, when they need workers, will begin to change their views of the ability of the population and begin to hire them. thate got to build on experience to make sure that employers understand this is a vital resource that they are not not using well. guest: this slide shows the distribution of states on the topic of a plumber rates for people with disabilities. you can see that the level of employment for this population is not just constant across the united states. we see places in the north central aspect of the country which have a high rate of
unemployment. there are areas down the south along the mississippi and alabama and tennessee and kentucky which have much lower rates of employment for different people. host: is that a progressive approach toward hiring? guest: that is something we want to look at. we can go back and start to parts this out. there is unemployment with disabilities and not surprised in north dakota and neighboring states, people with disabilities are rising with that vote. this has been useful so we can go back to our members and say let's look at why this state seems to be this way. host: american hero tweets -
guest: this is a current and controversial issue. under the wage and hour statute, we have the ability to pay people less than minimum wage. unfortunately, we have relied on that as an easy way out. we have over 400,000 people with disabilities in sheltered workshops where they are receiving minimum wage. that is well intentioned. there is the idea to get those folks into the workplace but it has now become a barrier to people. we want people with disabilities like everyone else. >> this next slide may be our last. guest: one of the outcomes from the decrease in employment and the effects on earnings is that
people with severe disabilities have much higher poverty rates and individuals would no disability. the chart we see on the left side was 28.6%. we can look at poverty overtime and see whether individuals with disabilities are remaining in poverty or staying out of poverty. we find that those who remain in poverty for two years or at 10.8% of people with severe disabilities. it was 3.8% to people with no disability. host: why aren't there more ogmsgive useful skills to people allow gainful
employment within reasonable expectations? guest: there is a variety of programs. there is issues of job training and rotations of are many programs. i would go back to the fact that we have prepared many people with disabilities to be very good act of employers. we have not been able to break through the feeling of discrimination and stigma. host: our last call is from north carolina's caller:. good morning. i am currently on disability from a swimming pool accident. i get a check for $1,200 per month for my disability and my bills and in come, as far as my bills, they are $1,000 and they
take their health care away from us and our medicaid insurance. how can someone on disability take care themselves of that amount? host: the affordable care act, is there a change in the guest:? we feel very strongly that the affordable care act as a missing piece. it does not deal with insurance, health insurance. it took 20 years later for congress to finally put that in and now we have no discrimination based on previous existing conditions, these are things that are critical to people with disabilities who might be using the health care service. this is the final piece of the nra of protection to people with disabilities. disabilities.