tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN October 19, 2012 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
my life to continue that work is your united states senator. >> moderator: thank you. we hope this debate has subfolders as they ponder their decision and a selection only urge you to vote on election day. what you think our candidates, chris murphy and linda mcmahon and our reporter panel, al terzi, dennis house, keisha grant and mark davis
if i could have your attention,e program on manufacturing society in the 21st century here at the institute. i welcome you on behalf of the institute both in the audience and those viewing remotely. i wanted to ask our president, walter isaacson, just to say a few words. it's always dangerous when your boss knows as much or more about the subject matter. >> that is definitely not true and that is why it is a pleasure to have tom here at the aspen institute because the one thing we do know about the issue of
manufacturing is how important it is to america's economy and how ridiculous it is to try to think of a great economy that doesn't always have a healthy manufacturing sector. and so, when we were looking at the aspen institute and all the things we do in terms of the creation of jobs and the economy, we felt there was a huge gap because people kind of understood the reduction of manufacturing jobs in america that was happening, but nobody was as focused as they should be even though they had been on the call for this and many other things. so, when tom and i and others talk, it was with a realization understanding how to make a healthy manufacturing sector in america was key to our economy and to the 21st century so that's why it's great to have tom and this program here. thanks. [applause]
this is the seventh in the series of programs we've been doing. our next one will be on november 28 here in this room. we will be exploring the impact of the energy renaissance from the u.s. manufacturing. we will feature, this man do leave now the head of the american chemistry council and the boston consulting group and tom peterson at the climate strategies each of which has recent reports on the importance of the subject. i want to thank you the supporters to make the program manufacturing program here possible. these include the apollo group, madison capital partners, manufacturing institute innovation the national association of manufacturers, national science foundation, to leo the motor, u.s. chamber of commerce and william but danger. today's program explores the policies needed to strike the u.s. manufacturing in the near
term. i note that the topic of manufacturing was mentioned 15 times in tuesday's presidential debate and the two panelists are fully able to elaborate on the candidates' positions but also their deep knowledge of the subject. our partner for this event is the conference on the renaissance of american manufacturers, manufacturing headed by gilbert kaplan. like i am, he is an alumnus of the international trade administration at the commerce department. unlike me he's a distinguished trade lawyer responsible for many of the trade enforcement actions that we have seen in this town in recent years. i would like for you to introduce the panel. [applause] thank you, tom and all of you for coming today. when we started the conference on a renaissance of american manufacturing about two years
now country years ago now and 2010, and when the other group i work with in the kennedy for u.s. trade law looked at these issues, we felt we really needed to focus more on manufacturing in the united states. we needed to make this a central feature of the policy debate in washington and a political debate in washington and that has been the goal so we are delighted to be given to have this debate with the aspen institute and focus on the manufacturing issues. we think they are critical to the national security in the united states and critical to the economic security of the united states. we also think that the relationship between trade and manufacturing industry to have people that are knowledgeable i want to introduce brandt aldonas who is the director of split
rock international a washington, d.c. consulting firm he founded in 2006. mr. aldonas served as an adjunct professor of law and member of the board of directors of the institute for international economic law at georgetown university law center. from 2001 to 2005, he was back u.s. undersecretary of commerce for international trade, and in that capacity according to his biography, he served as america's salesman and i hope he got the commission for all those sales because there are a lot of exports and he certainly deserved it. before assuming his position as undersecretary of commerce, mr. aldonas served as the chief international trade counsel to the senate finance committee, and he is here on behalf of the mitt romney campaign. our other speakers from the other side of the of his dr. jared bernstein. he's currently on leave from the center on budget and policy
priorities where he was a senior fellow. from 2009 to 2011, he was the chief economic adviser to vice president joe biden's executive director of the white house task force on the middle class and a member of president obama's economic team. dr. speed -- bernstein and what economic policies, income inequality and mobility, trends and employment and earnings, international comparison and the analysis of the financial housing market. and i'm also sure manufacturing. prior to joining the obama administration, dr. bernstein was a senior economist and the director of living standards at the economic policy institute in washington, d.c.. finally, we are very happy to have as our moderator, hedrick smith, who was one of the great commentators and authors in the united states on policy and
manufacturing and other issues. he is a pulitzer prize-winning former "new york times" reporter and editor and any award winning producer and correspondent. for 26 years mr. smith served as a correspondent for "the new york times" and washington, cairo, saigon, paris and the american south more foreign countries than any of us. [laughter] in 1971 as the chief diplomatic correspondent, he was a member of the to the surprise when team that produced the pentagon papers series. he went to the surprise for international reporting from eastern europe and he was formerly "the new york times" washington bureau chief and chief correspondent. the most exciting thing is he's written this great book, "who stole the american dream" which goes over what's going on in the middle class, what's going on in the problems we are facing in
america today and how manufacturing relates to those and we have about 53 copies. there used to be copies. but they are out on the table. i hope he will take them and if you don't get one, i'm sure mr. smith will not mind if you go to a amazon and buy a copy of this book. so, with that i will turn it over to hedrick smith. >> thank you tom for the introduction. quickly to let you know what the ground rules of the object or to cover as much territory as we can, so i've asked each of the speakers to hold their initial answers until the questions are posed to each of them to 90 seconds and then if somebody wants to rebut the other side, 62nd rebuttal. [laughter] >> i was going to save we are not here to learn about body language and smiling and frowning and how you look when the other guy is seeking what we are here to talk of substance.
this is a roomful of people who know a lot about trade and an audience around the country and i hope that we will talk in america speak and not washington speak today, both of you, and we are also a room full of people who believe very much in the importance of the manufacturing sector but there are those, believe it or not to say manufacturing is passe and it's been over the hill on manufacturing and that we need to move to be a service economy to be globally competitive. so i want to ask you, mr. aldonas to begin with, a similar question to dr. bernstein. is manufacturing really important for the economic future, if so, why come and what we want from mfg.? is it jobs, provinces, jobs overseas, jobs at home? should we have a secretary of manufacturing to go along with the secretary of the agriculture and secretary of wall street? what we need to do?
why is it important? >> short answers are critical. the reason it is critical was the patents that are produced every year come out of manufacturing, so the long-term economic growth to raise the productivity and what drives that is the investment that comes out of the manufacturing sector is what we want as the productivity gain. that also spends of employment opportunities that in terms of growth this is where it starts. >> dr. bernstein, vice fast answer. terrific. >> i would add 70% of r&d. but it's very easy to say get productivity and therefore you get all these other benefits, but we have seen an awful lot of manufacturing jobs disappeared while we are gaining in productivity for the mint factory jobs. we've seen an awful lot of manufacturing jobs show up in other places in china in
particular but lots of other places, so why is meant by a train automatically a good deal for america, for the country? it's obviously a good deal for the companies they are involved in but what is it going to do for the american middle class? >> i had to do this with lou dobbs over and over again. to point out that some of what we have seen with respect to the decline of the labor employment is an artifact of on a recall when for example motorola outsourced its logistics and customs operation to ups those jobs overnight stay in america but they were shifted on the service sector. they were registered as a decline in the manufacture and employment when the reality was the boundary of motorola had softened and is now incorporated the supply of ups. we didn't lose in a factory jobs simply by shifting into dubious. >> so, when you say that you are
in manufacturing and you copies of the boundaries, what are you actually talking about? is it production jobs you're talking about or an engineering design john? >> when i think that many factors and implement i think actually of the entire value chain including the suppliers and i want to ensure that we have investment on both sides of that in the united states. some things i'd love to see is making sure we have the best investment in the environment across other things because when i've gone and talked with manufacturers surprising how they recognize that in the world that we live in the suppliers >> again i don't have an answer to the question. i don't have an answer to the question. my question is what kind of jobs are you talking about or the soft jobs that are breeding of into service and what is it going to for the american middle class the american middle class is still losing jobs that you say they've been been redefined? those are jobs that have been
paying wages and got support a global value chains would means we need both. it's not exclusively focused on manufacturing. >> let me jump in and by the way, it is a pleasure to talk about this. we actually find a lot of areas of agreement and some good disagreement as well but substantively and thank you for hosting today. so, here is an area where i
think we disagree regarding what we are talking about right now in this country. i used to think as an economist card-carrying basis that offshore was actually kindht. i've come to feel differently about that particularly in this anecdotal data.we are talking >> there is starting to be pretty compelling evidence that of shoring and a benefactor of this we're talking about our enemies, but they're actually negatively and the actual proximity of the manufacturing process and to the technology involved in that production is really important, and again a couple guys at harvard did this, a compelling case study on this very issue showing that we are starting to suffer - innovation externalities' because we are separating production and the
technology. one area where you haven't seen that so much is in computer chips, and that is turning out to be partly to exception to the rule and we are actually seeing that now have been there as well and some have fallen behind for example in the solar area because we have outsourced too much computer chip production and the technology they are in. in economies like say taiwan there's an example of the heavily subsidized initiative to bring that kind of linkage between production and research together. it's very important. we can't afford to offshore that. >> i'm going to give you a chance. but i want to go beyond the commerce because it's interesting to me as a guide like the former ceo of intel on the point i just made. i was actually going to quote them on the point. he's saving move the production
overseas him personally to enervate which is what you are talking of. correct quote. the have heard abandoning today's manufacturing can lock you out in tomorrows emerging industry. can we do the kind of rebuilding of manufacturing and innovation that you are talking about and continue the heavy trend that we had over the last decade or so? >> the answer is yes because the reality is that let's take the hardest case they supply apples and the final assembly. the reality is they dictate the machine tools used on the shop floor and the chemistry that is produced. the idea is that we are somehow losing the industrial misunderstands what those manufacturers like apple are doing and they don't think that is manufacturing value-added so in that sense there is a difference but i'm not sure at the end of the day it makes a difference policy why is because when china adopt policies the are explicitly designed to pull
manufacturing jobs into china by subsidies and currency and things like that, we would agree that that is a distortion that is inconsistent with the way the trading system will operate and deeply and consistent with our interest so when you see countries adopting outside of policies, i don't think we may have a difference about whether offshore or on the margins is good or bad that it would alter what we would do and when i've heard him speak it suggests that it comes to a different conclusion about trying to make this the best place to invest because i think we want the clusters of innovation to be taking place in the united states and we want an educational system producing people very capable of participating in that process. both identify the public innovation and expanding access to universities. >> i think that grant is making me feel a little bit like the president may be felt in the
last debate. the other guys are agreeing with you wait too much. [laughter] >> a lot of what you said i think is exactly right. you have to look at -- part of what we want to do here today, and in an agreeable way, sure, is to highlight some differences between the candidates obviously, and i don't speak for the campaign, led the way. i speak as someone who's independent of that clearly supportive of those policies. that said, on two issues that you just mentioned both on training of which the president as an 8 billion-dollar initiative focus on the community colleges working with employers and emphasizing the advanced manufacturing is a really good initiative i think that he himself talked about this stuff. he talks about a minute for a drink, doesn't dhaka that the policy i should have on the book or in proposals and then another one on these manufacturing cultures, the commerce department has numerous policies
to incentivize innovation and specifically focused on clustering, and i can go into greater detail to what they are. in fact, the innovation centers of which i believe there is now one of and running in youngstown ohio. there will be 14 more. this is a project that is actually a band running. this is the classic kind of innovation coordination to help get from the factory floor, and in the economy that fails to do that typically finds a valley of death between the very important institutions. unfortunately, i think the trend on the republican side of the aisle and haven't heard anywhere near these kind of deals from the romney campaign is the other way. one thing is to give up on china and they certainly say that, but i think that you have to get down to the sort of details that
actually operationalize the kind of -- >> i want to move to another question. we deutsch to become both thought about the candidates. >> we are going to crisscross and you will have plenty. >> you may have a chance right now. >> let me just say in terms of the candidates if you look at the president's record, the president and governor mitt romney talked about creating jobs and manufacturing jobs. let's talk about the record. let's talk about the record of each one and talk about your own candidate and not about the other candidate. secure we have the president is to bring unemployment down much lower than it is today and we are on an economy with 25 million people who are either unemployed or are unemployed part time and would like to work full-time. so they say to the electorate you can believe me.
>> really there's quite impressively and people in the room looking at this trend as happily as i and we had half a million manufacturing jobs over the last couple of years and that is a reversal of a more than a decade longer trend and you can't say it's going to last forever. that's something the president has every right to brag on and we need to build on. it relates to the last question which is the president actually has a very elaborate manufacturing agenda. part of it has to do with tax policy. and he has proposed a set of changes to the tax code to incentivize onshore and offshore. he has quite an elaborate set of tax plans to do so that are explained in the treasury white
paper down to 28%, and unlike his opponent, he's actually e lubber dated the partners the would help pay for that. there's the regional clusters, there's the innovation sectors to take production process these from the universities to the labs. there is again on the tax side there's the making the tax cut permanent. i think that is an important thing for a certainty in the industry. some think the romney campaign opposes the production tax credit. i mentioned 8 billion -- i'm going through the attend agenda. >> that's up to you to get through the agenda. >> [inaudible] >> we may have those other questions come up later. let me just ask you on the basis of governor romney's's record a
governor. texas wasn't terribly impressed with his job creation record as the governor of massachusetts. and if you listen to their rhetoric today and what he's talking out, get the government out of the way, more deregulation, lower the taxes come at least one person in the last the date set we wound up with the worst job creation and lost in that decade the worst growth rate of seven decades. >> until this one. >> but if you can separate -- economists can actually separate these things that's very interesting because if you start with 2002 to 2007, it is the worst job creation record in seven days, and you also lost 59,000 industrial plants. so the very thing that mr. romney is talking about doing, it paid off terribly.
>> i would love to know where you get the statistics because having lived that in the administration being responsible for manufacturing and the policy approaches that we adopted and understanding what we were doing tax why is in the recession we inherited from the clinton administration and the end of the boom and the corporate scandals and all the other things that we were putting in the economy the job creation was remarkable in response to the tax cuts and the very significant reforms that let more money in the middle class. the education accounts, things that actually help the middle class. >> how do you lose so many manufacturing jobs at that period? >> at the same time that things going on in the economy that had a big impact on manufacturing, not just in virtue of the things i described which was the osnos and the way that come the artifacts of the way that we count. there's no doubt that what we have seen over the last 20 years in terms of the integration of global markets for a variety of
reasons put enormous downward pressure on the industrial goods come the crisis, global. and that has driven an awful lot of productivity. it means you use machines and in the job that can be done by now was going to be done by computers. it's not to be done by individual to recover job at this point unless regardless of the campaign which is to say how do we train people so that they are the people who are shaping that the algorithm rather than saying we want the jobs at the turn of the 20th century. >> do you have a rebuttal or do you want to move on? >> i want to finish my last expedition. >> i will begin. look, we may have an actual disagreement here. i view the middle class actually i think the data are quite
strong and the middle class to the poorly. i am not saying that was exclusively a function of presidential policy. i thought it was a part of that but this was an ongoing process of inequality. it's a fact that for the first expansion on record were naturally stagnant over the full business cycle. so i agree more with rick's assessment of the liver -- links standard. i want to finish this because it's important. key parts of the president's agenda and i think that they have important ways from his opponents have to do with exports and trade enforcement as well as investments in a clean energy and then the although looking backward. there is a big difference that made it very important difference in the vibrancy of that sector of the manufacturing >> you have rebuttal time.
>> there was a wonderful glass on the president's policy yet what we witnessed at that point in time is the corporate tax rate rises to be the highest among the oecd countries. the idea that through the mechanics of the individual tax cuts you have a big impact on whether this was a place people wanted to vote. the numbers were going in the opposite direction from the point of where we want to be. so what does romney say? we have to bring it down to the oecd average. >> you mean the corporate -- >> the corporate tax rate. that will be the equivalence. now let's look at a good example of that. this is a big impact on manufacturing and planet in the united states. what are the policies in terms of expanding the energy production? you have the department of interior taking land and resources out of production. can't drill. you have an epa that has resisted the revolution technology that is the natural gas revolution and this brought the based in texas back in terms of the production of petroleum.
from rot me's prescription he wants to eliminate the problems and interior that are making it problematic. he wants to build the keystone pipeline and make sure that what we are doing is making sure that investment will flow to that rather than solyndra tax cuts for energy that would work. >> i'm going to carry that argument on. let's go into this energy thing because we do have the recent development, very cheap energy in this country for natural gas. and we have cut prices in the country almost 10 million. i don't know if the numbers are right that a thousand cubic feet. hear $10 in either japan or europe and $15 in the other place. so let me just ask you, jared, the point that grant is making here namely the administration as tampering and hindering the development of natural gas as rapidly as possible and that is holding back the development.
>> i couldn't disagree more. what is handling the use of natural gas and manufacturing is the fact that the infrastructure is still young. for every $10 we spend on energy only one is on a natural gas right now because we simply don't have to get the infrastructure to employ that. >> and the gas to the manufacturing. >> to have them actually a run off that kind of gas versus fossil fuel the price that brings is incentivizing that and move we strongly in the right direction. all of the points that we disagree on i thought that the president had a great deal on the energy production and it's not just fracking which by the we as a good example of a government investment role that led to an important industrial -- >> one of my team's coming and we agree on this, is the role
for the government in investments that have important implications and building industries. the natural gas exploration is very much a function of early government investments in that technology to the the private industry wouldn't make because the returns were so important. it's a key externality of the rationale for the manufacturing playing the role. on the corporate tax rate cut to say we are going to do corporate tax -- >> due to go to 25% -- we are going to do corporate tax. we are going to do corporate tax. >> let's stick with the energy thing for a moment >> if you think about what you just said that you're proposing, if you think about this problem of the infrastructure not being there, why would you then said just not imposing the epa rule that cuts off the possibility of using the coal-fired plant now
and drive up the cost and create the higher cost of the adaptation for companies to get to that natural gas why would you adopt that as a publicity were interested in producing policies? >> it's a good question. the problem with the framing of the question and it is a good question is that it assume such of the rules are pure cost and no benefits. they don't think the rules because they want to block energy exploration. they make them to protect us from the harmful polluting effects of certain types of coal production. you heard the president say i am for clean coal and i agree with that. the fact that the epa constantly without looking at the benefit side of the equation of the that you are shortsighted. >> but the reality is in the context of the manufacturing, you are saying i am getting close to cost now. there is a valley of death between here and where we get people to the infrastructure that allows it to go to natural gas, which i actually disagree
with because all of the plants that are coming on assume that we are going to be moving ahead on natural-gas. the current valley of death, what does that say to the investor and manufacturing at that point? we have a five-year window investing in china? >> how can there possibly a dalia when you look at the production of natural gas? i think that the actual facts of the prices and the exploration and the amount that we are pulling out of the ground just talking about energy in general 2011 as the first time in 60 years that we've united states was a net exporter of petroleum products. >> what you are talking about in the infrastructure of power generation distribution, not the energy that is coming out of the ground, the energy that comes out of the ground we have the large supply of the infrastructure is there to drive it into electricity costs that come down that is one of the reasons why you see them export
natural gas. >> i don't think they prevent any manufacturer from building a machine that uses natural gas versus fossil fuel. i just think the energy thing is a canard. >> ken eis if you to another subject which is china the difference delineated and that is the point. what do we do about china? we are running it wondered 95 billion-dollar trade deficit with china that is giving up a lot of it is manufacturing goods and a lot of it is on high-tech which we thought was going to be a celebration and not a protection. we've got several problems, intellectual copyright materials all across the board and huge subsidies and china, indigenous innovation in the currency problem some but me just ask you should we be denying the currency minute to letters a week and then invoke the counter strategies of terrorists and so forth? >> i'm from the midwest. i grew up in the bohm neighborhood in minneapolis.
we were not afraid to say honest things come to see what was really going on the irony is will that has depreciated i do agree with that completely the have been intervening it even more because they see the value may be against the bureau so they've been intervening and it's a larger market for them than the united states. so the irony is that while we made some progress in fact right now we are seeing a drive to drive that down so when you look at the policy were actually looking at a country that is saying i would like to take advantage of the benefits and the policies that means the playing field as wendi level and a fair competition to go to the markets for the capitol.
the capitol is near the zero. it can go to say i need this to get the influence of my former counterpart to influence the local provincial bank and guess what they are not competing for capital with the president is. that is a model state capitalism that has to be confronted and addressed and there are two ways to do that. one is to say on the enforcement side, and this is something i applaud my friend. >> we are going to come back. but to steal the currency question, so, should the president in the next term be declining china it turns the manipulator and letting the folks up on the hill ahead? >> that is a different question. >> two different things. >> i like both of them. [laughter] >> stat ayaan where grant is on this. if you have a rule that people who manage their currency and a
manipulator currency should be labeled as such, and you know the trend is to not label them seems very cognitively dissident to me. i just don't get it. it is true and i remember as a member of the administration i have often scratched my head in meetings on this very point and what people will tell you and you have been here as well i would be interested in your view, people will tell you it makes sense that if you are sitting across the table and negotiating with these people that doesn't help you. it really won't get you where you want to go because that just pisses the offer something like that. if that is the case don't handle policies where we say we are going to label people and then not label them. i don't think that what do nearly as much as the schumer legislation. i think that that goes considerably not too far in my view have had bipartisan support in both sides got 99 republican
votes and the contras before this one and this is a bill that would provide the administration the ability to see the duty piece by piece. it isn't a baliles thing. you have to do it product by product, and i think the president would find that -- i am certain that romney probably wouldn't. >> point is the law allows you to do that. i'm not trying to force people to what i've described as sort of illustrative votes. they get to make a political point. but it allows it at this point. you can go up to them on the basis of subsidy. i like to discipline the process and the beauty of it in response to friends who say it's always the guys of the treasury department. with the moans and the stars and they say finance is too complex. you can't understand it.
what they mean is leave us alone. i don't feel constrained, again, the midwestern are in need. and the reality is it is hard to call the bluff. >> deer holding $1.2 trillion of american treasury bonds. >> quite the opposite. if you are lying about wall street is that when you are the bank of a million dollars with 1.2 trillion. the idea that is as much as people make writing to is simply -- i think it's simply have to come back and buy our goods or they are going to be making investments in the united states. we have to decide what we want to read in my view, we want to be exporters. i don't want to discourage chinese investment to the i want them to be sound and based on market principles, but i want to be an exporter said that is where i would be headed. >> and the dollar that would
emanate from the policies -- what happens in that regard? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> let me change to the subject of the chinese industrial subsidies. you've got the former ceo of intel saying it costs a billion dollars less to build the chip in china than in america. they are nearly three you just mentioned the business of capital is nothing and infrastructure gets put in, all the utilities and then you get a tax abatement for many years. how do we deal with that? do we go to the wto or wherever we need to go and fight them on the subsidies that violate the global rules and our view? >> this is the one of the things i like where governor romney's strategy is. when it's on the enforcement of the rule taking things -- it's a little bit like the civil rights legislation. remember the justice department
drove an awful lot of the issues people said well i don't think you can win the case but they did it any way in the terms to prove that there was a problem with the rules. we had to do something more in terms of discipline. so, i want to be very aggressive. a very aggressive on the enforcement that the the wto and under our own domestic law and things like that. the other side of it and that includes the i.t. stuff. the other side you have to create an incentive. they are going to push the chinese, we create incentives for the different set of rules. that really obliges very aggressively. we have to have a set of discipline and then we have to have that out compete the chinese investment. let's say the transpacific partnership. >> so this is matching. >> i want to create an environment in the most dynamic economic region in asia where the rules are such that everybody is obliged to go to
the market and face the competitive factors that the chinese don't face. and then guess what? i am certain that vietnam is part of that. they will start to out compete china for investment. we will start to out compete china for investment. you already see in the entrepreneur is that are leaving china because of the policy that is adopted, which ironically would savor the state-owned companies rather than the entrepreneur in china but the reality is we have to also try to create something which says to those folks in the old shanghai a reform movement in china that they are better off moving in the direction of the further liberalization. so at the same time we want to hammer the bad things we want to create the incentive for them to come in the direction of better rules and to compete in the marketplace. stat how do we deal with a chinese subsidy? >> i think the only way that is to do this is in the ways that have worked so far and to do more of that committee i actually think the administration has been quite good on this.
i-9 has a currency, but on the northern -- any administration i can think of in the past, they got very tough on the non-tariffs barriers. if we have a disagreement we should send that out ourselves to get its my understanding that to bring the countervailing duties against the subsidy currency and not just from china to raid the work which i have been very moved by is not just china it is very costly by the analysis which is quite rigorous on a particular group and even on currency they respond. but they all respond as long as the have to and then they start and they go back to their old ways as they described comes of the case that we brought against tire as was very effective and anything under the century 421 which is how the case was brought i think that the steel
case was a rare for the people across the country. >> the idea here is the international body wasn't the wto in this case. it was the other one. i'm walking on the institution, but it's when a country is subsidizing its exports to your country so that they get a bigger market share you are able to through these policies as mentioned impose a tariff or judy that makes those exports, those imports into your country more expensive and they have been flooding the market. they are flooding the market with cheap thai years and steel and they've been protecting their rare earth, those are materials that are important in the aspect of production and the policies the administration pursued would impose on that and that's been very focused. >> to come back let me give you a chance you can answer that.
>> i'm not going to expect this is happening to be not only somebody who was a trade lawyer on the finance committee and the undersecretary was responsible, the commerce department has made a series of decisions dating all the way back to the second lumbar speech that actually relied the problem of the test with certain subsidies. but we haven't done thinking hard of the countervailing duty of this administration hasn't done it is to take a hard look at where they would allow you to go after the chinese. because the seven sustained. now if this is a trend that chinese on to take to the wto, that is where i want to have the discussion because i even want to illustrate that we are right on imposing the countervailing duties against the subsidies that pull the jobs out of america or what to say the rules are insufficient in terms of the disciplines they impose on the
behavior which clearly undermine the value of the wto to this and i want to ask both of you -- >> it wasn't addressed to the audience. [laughter] >> in practical terms almost everybody said in one way or another particularly china to say you've got to get tough talking the talk and walking the walk. it's just too easy to say we've got to do this, that and the other thing. and you've got a wonderful knowledge and explanation of, but the question is in the end how we know that in fact is what governor romney is going to do our president obama is going to do in the second term. >> he has done the actions i've described in his first term. if i wasn't clear about that, i should be to get the actions are actions that were taken in the first term. i actually believe that it may
-- you sound like you know what you are talking about. [laughter] >> it may well be you just described in your last answer can actually work, but i would feel better if we actually had a simple piece of legislation of which this bill is that says when there is evidence of a currency subsidy that's leading to the kind of problem we are both very frustrated about, you can bring a case that without going to the wto can bring a case. you don't have to find out if you can bring the case in that area. while the administration to be honest the administration hasn't said we afford this i believe
they would find it. >> you are walking the walk. how do we know? >> a couple things. one is clearly when he has been asked again and again and again by the skeptics he has said it's coming from him, not his advisers what he is going to claim from day one understanding what flows from that in the action under the trade law and increasing the idea that the currency necessarily does imply a subsidy and then we have to start moving under the countervailing duty without waiting for the legislation. >> so you are saying he would declare and then he would start doing his own duty. >> there's a number of areas where the proposals that have been discussed and that he has put forward have talked about doing some things we absolutely have to do. the reality of the intellectual property laws and enforcement tools are not adequate for the
world our manufacturers actually operate in. a lot of the violations come to us in a component and the way the rules work it's very hard to get to them, so what we have to be doing is actively developing the tools that address that didn't used to exist. remember i talk about the agreement, the vertical integration and the transactions, but world we have an ip regime for. the will of the global value we do not have the enforcement set of tools and we need to build it. >> so a very important thing to add here i think that our disagreements may be actually pretty subtle. we see to agree to currency manipulation is a big problem in that we should do something administratively about it. i think i would go further than you in terms of the legislation, but the other side of the claim is i think a very big and important difference between the two sides that hasn't come up yet and that is the extent to
which you would actually invest in domestic manufacturing here. and i am not talking about being the chinese and the kind of state and the enterprise investments that they do at the extent, no that should be set in the markets, but i go through these ideas earlier of the innovation, the cluster idea, some of the tax policy ideas. the infrastructure and clean energy would absolutely be precluded by the budgets that we have heard from paul ryan and governor romney. and i think that that is really important. and we haven't talked about it at all. grant has a lot of good ideas in this investment space. i don't think there's any money for that in the budget and you have to understand he says i'm going to cap spending in 20% of gdp, 4% of that is went beyond the fence. that means 16% just before everything else and instead of looking at the cuff that applies agency by agency, you have to cut right into the bone and a lot of these programs that
aren't even all that large in manufacturing partnership, the kinds of innovation clusters that i've been talking about, i don't see how that investment becomes a part of the budget that is that of gear. >> the commerce department has lots of friends the door alumni. we could find 4% out of the $500 million the we would cut, and that wouldn't build materials of the programs. in previous conversations i would agree i don't actually know governor romney's view of this but i read a book a couple of years ago but globalization and the american worker and one of the things i took away from that is the value of the head start programs. i want to cut to the milk from that child's table. >> are you buying the kind of programs that the government will in stimulating growth and investment in a variety of
programs? >> what i would buy is a suite of complementary policies that actually help individuals. what i don't buy are things that give solyndra things of that order. the problem is when you expand the government from 20 it comes from my background in the development. when you expand from a 20% take to a 25% take, you have to consider what that does in terms of drawing the influence of lobbying as corruption like we just had a case today with the army corps of engineers. the more money the more you are encouraging this behavior. one of the things you worry about somebody cares about transparency is the more money that's there the more you attract the rent seeking behavior which is the worst form of an entrepreneurial the sum, so when you say i want to encourage the sort of programs, i would rather encourage the policies that encourage investment and allow the market to dictate where that investment
should go rather than try to put somebody in the business of saying winners and losers. >> so the u.s. chamber of commerce were losing a trillion dollars in growth in america and untold billions in exports because of transportation system is so out of date because it takes as long to move a freight train as it does to get from los angeles to chicago and then the airports and highways and bridges and all, you buy that argument? >> i'm from a town where the major bridge collapsed, so yes. they would say we may be in a developing country >> the next question is there a government role in the infrastructure spending so it would be not only construction jobs but -- >> i have a great example. my president could get me out of town in the summer because they figured i would get in trouble. so in the boundary waters of
minnesota there was a house called the split house. the reason i chose that for my little business is that it is a perfect example in the absence of the investment which the government had to do as a public good, no individual company would have invested in that. you wouldn't have opened up the range or on both sides on the border that is the sort of investment the government ends of the protest to do and i don't think jared and i would agree they have done a very good job of focusing. >> where is the money for that now? >> the reality is we have a lot of debt that we have to pay off. now that may mean that on a number of programs that we otherwise have the commerce department those are not going to be invested because we do have to take care of infrastructure first as far as i am concerned. so a lot of the things that we do in economic development in the administration by would be more interested in trying to drive that money through head
start at first and then through infrastructure. >> i am with you on a lot of the ideas that you are espousing, but i really think that you need to take a much closer look at the budget of your candidates particularly paul ryan but also governor mitt romney. paul ryan proposes over $5 trillion of cuts, 60% of them come from low-income programs that include head start. that doesn't mean every dollar that is going is efficiently spend and we should make sure that it is and i am not defending every single dollar, but the budget office looked at the implications of the rhine and budget that he said he supported. numerous decades and they found that outside of the entitlements on the debt and the defense there is less than 4% of gdp left for all the things you just said. you and i agree those things are important. those investments will simply be an affordable under the kinds of budgets that these guys are
espousing and in fact if we are going to have the government such that we can support a manufacturing sector i think we should. >> given where we are in the investments we have to make why would you invest in solyndra? >> first of all the 8123 case is not a good example of what you are talking about. i wrote about it this morning on my blog and you should read about that because it was essentially consolidated into the johnson controls and continues to create the technology that in fact this blog called a battery powered growth is all about how our investments largely from the recovery act have made a
difference in precisely the way i've tried to introduce in the introduction where the governments have planted the capitol in the key sector that is not picking a winner as much as recognizing that there will be an economy out there come a country of their that dominates the production. >> i want to get to the corporate tax reform. i know that you've got something else to say. i just want to move to that topic before we run out of time here. how can we use the tax code to generate more business and jobs here at home, more manufacturing business here at home? we have got a situation here where companies that are working in america doing all the work here in america whether they are real companies and hotels and what ever, they are paying pretty close to the maximum tax rate of 35% and companies are operating overseas and we have a whole slew of exxonmobil, general electric, goldman sachs and paid zero taxes and a big
reason was they had a whole lot of production overseas. is that a sensible system for building job growth in this country or not and try to avoid going into the global and territorial. >> i think it is a perfect example for the obama administration has gone. the sense that it was a signature idea in terms of trying to provide an incentive tax run reassuring misunderstands 95% to manatee lives outside the borders. to be in those markets means we have to invest in those markets. even if it is just a sales office for the exports the idea that then you have the income that is generated by the overseas investment as a means of allowing it to be competitive in the global economy is simply false. the energy sector is a perfect example. let's think about exxon.
remember the days of standard oil and then we thought of the seven sisters in the 50's and 60's when we were being educated. today it's the top 25 companies in the world with the exception of the exxon, and exxon is in the top 20. the question is whether you want to raise the capitol for exxon because it goes to ida tarbel and make sure they can't compete for the resources and capital with the gas industry but also that market or whether they are going to be why is about what the reality of energy is and where we have to invest. so the idea that we are penalizing that offshore investment and take away the foreign tax credit to your dillinger to much overseas it seems to be deeply insufficient. that is the idea that we have to be to compete in the global economy. >> i think you just argued that we should not charge exxon.
[laughter] >> i want to talk about -- >> the corporate taxation is very important in the manufacturing space and one of the reasons mentioned here are the things you've got to know. a lot of what grant talked about do get to the core difference which is the governor says he wants to bring the corporate tax rate down to 25%. it's statutory rate of 35%. there is a huge variation. if you look we are very high in the national comparisons. if you look at the actual effective rate because of all of the loopholes and such and the international ones in my view are the most egregious that's where you see from the bottom in terms of how effective the tax rate is.
offshore production come you offshore innovation as well and that is not the direction. >> you've got about 15 seconds. >> does have is a problem with the president in all honesty. he said he wants reduced to 20%. every budget he submitted truth the rate to 44%. and what he did is adopt a series of policies that took away things that exposed income. >> the federal income tax with corporate tax. >> no, no, no, and the corporate income tax -- >> has the corporate tax gone up from 35%? >> the effect of rate has risen. >> so let me go to the audience. i may just tell you that i would like you to identify yourself, wait for the ladies and gentlemen with the microphone to come around to you. please ask a question and don't make a speech to keep it relatively to the point.
i've got one over here. >> and remember, i'm parked at a meter outside. [laughter] >> .mark from the industrial union council. it is and what you just said about corporate tax rates. deferrals are one of the biggest abominations out there. in fact, we see 70% of the goods coming into this country in china, made by american firms. all they want is access to our market. it wasn't so much about the chinese market. then the whole process of short boost the bottom line. they mean, this is part of the screwed up tax. and the question is, what would you do to get rid of deferrals? >> the answer is that moved to a territorial system. here's why. >> right now we subject every dollar of the u.s. firm earns to
the potential for double taxation. we try and come back to what tax in just the income in the united states is to the system of foreign cash credit and deferrals. the reality is taken away the deferrals, taking away the foreign tax credit is a waste and it would penalize american companies trying to compete in global market. >> let me understand what you just that means he would not have any taxation on any form profits made by american corporations. is that correct? >> on income generated by activities done in those countries. >> you and the president or any other site seeing you at your word of the loopholes. that loophole a cause that to be taxed. >> i'm just trying to get the facts clear. >> said the president never one of those votes by the way has proposed to get rid of deferrals
for exactly the reason the question you raised. and by the way, all the tax solution that correct suggested that if it takes a deferral and makes it permanent. instead of having to just store your income over that to avoid taxation, will make a will that you just never have to pay taxes on it as long as you keep it over there. now there's an incentive to go exactly the wrong way. >> you mean to take jobs overseas? >> escapes taxation. it is subject to very high taxation. >> in china? wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. >> if you want to talk to pharmaceutical companies -- >> trillion dollars hiding. >> hiding? be mycology another hiding when the irs knows they are there?
seriously. >> i want to go to the point where he said were getting all these things from china. i want to make a very important point because it's the misperception that drives the debate about globalization. i'm holding the iphone in my hand. 6%. 60% is what it's done united states. every bit of this comes to us as quote, unquote, an import from china. every bit of the value is kindness import of china. doesn't matter if his are 60%, i think what the question goes to is we actually need to think more deeply than we have at this point. and i'm afraid the tax debate obscures about where value is created because i think in america and particularly american manufacturing, we create value. we've got to do that across the board. if that draws our tax policy, i'm interested in making sure we understand how value is created
here we taxed accordingly. >> very simple. i absolutely agree about value creation. the value creation is intimately linked with innovation. innovation is intimately linked with the production process here within our borders. when you have the tax policy that's territorial, and either allows the kind of games being played today or simply exempts foreign earnings from american taxation, which is what it does. be stretching the bounds of sources not just production come of innovation jobs as well. >> okay, question here. >> former president of the national association of manufacturers. a great panel and i think you covered policy issues with respect to manufacturing very well. i was very disappointed that there wasn't a better answer to your first question, hedrick,
which is why it's manufacturing so important to the united states? here we are in a political campaign and were trying to get votes and we've got a tv camera is trying to communicate this to the public. and i think manufacturing associate american to national defense to innovation to education. i would like to ask both of these good panelists to give us an impassioned statement that they would give to their candidates about why manufacturing -- >> the great question. thank you for asking it. right. we give that a short shrift. i think we both very much tried to accentuate the importance, but not as passionately as we should. so here's the thing. here's my impassioned. not only have we mentioned manufacturers responsible for 70% of r&d and 90% of patents, is critically important for
productivity. there's simply no way american living standards can increase at that faster productivity growth retaken manufacturing sector outcome innovation that is out of the picture and we don't even have the potential for higher living standards. with a big problem in the productivity growth diversion from compensation. you've got to have the growth. that's necessary, not sufficient. good quality jobs. 17% pay premium, not just on the wage site, but the benefit side as well comes from value added. >> 17% more than nonmanufacturing workers. that includes not just a paycheck, but the health insurance and pension benefits. next our trade deficit. our trade deficit is not just experts. it's not experts. you could think exports minus imports. the only way we can online back in real time is by a stronger
manufacturing sector. people who say we can do it through services are wrong in the near term. perhaps down the road, right now service exports are 25% of the trade. >> let me amplify. we once developed a manufacturing strategy. we know this because not only was manufacture and import itself, but in thinking about manufacturing as a catalyst for which you want to see is that economic policy in every other aspect, education, worker training. using this as a force to drive that is important. here's the one point that i close on. we didn't have to wait for congress to tell us to develop manufacturing strategy. we knew what we were facing that we knew it required us to put forward ideas to get the process moving, to drive the public policy. chemical was to release a strategy that would do that in an election year.
in part because you want to frame the debate in the way the issue is joined. sadly, that's not what we've gotten from the obama administration despite the protests. people on both sides demand demand a manufacturing strategy. >> i want to get that lady in the back first. that gentleman's hand. go ahead, sir. >> g-golf riemer, stewart and stewart. i want to ask about the media's role in all of this. listening to you, the trade policies are fairly similar, at least the rhetoric and taxing budget. the problem sorted this treasury perspective is still out there in the media. u.s.a. today's editorials into "washington post" editorials decrying china when in reality the united states is just trying to get a julep to the rules. how do we take what you're doing to keep the candidates focused on whichever one is selected,
really having the courage to go against that mentality when they get in them either for the first or second term. >> great, great question. >> what was amazing as you recall there regardless. [laughter] >> it contradicts something my friend grant said a minute ago. and by the way, i take this from a great chapter called the evolution of u.s. trade policy, which is a must-read for everybody from a book called manufacturing a better future for america and it takes you through trade policy history from the beginning of time in terms of america and it shows the integral role of government in creating the manufacturing sector from the very beginning. tariffs were incredibly important. let me parachute into this
debate today. we think someone who's arguing that we have to have a manufacturing policy, each rate policy, pushback on per practice is some kind of radical socialist, kenyan whatever. >> as alexander hamilton. >> exactly. >> born in the caribbean islands. >> i think what these editorials are reflecting that the bias in neo-economical fashion but a a few decades ago that have been shown to be bereft of real life. and nothing else, look at the financial class. certainly the manufacturing sector is very clear. so we really need to give people historical perspective. in fact, make it clear -- i did a presentation -- my presentation recently was about how it was taken apart a "washington post" editorial that was very much in the spirit of the question or endocarditis
protectionists for going after currency management. that's not protectionists. that's been a free trader. so it's topsy-turvy. >> rick, sorry. >> i got to get more people. i'm sorry. you get the next one. >> in a march strategy group. good to see both of you. you mentioned a one to three. i want to ask it from a different perspective. it's also very much in the knees. yes, johnson controls apparently is some question about that. but apparently they are making a strong bid on that. what i'd like to get from both of you is a comment about a prior suitor that may still be trying to get them, which is a chinese auto parts company. to the extent that this is a firm, which the administration put a lot of money and, have
some sort of technology valuable in some way, that's not defense-related. should there be a policy with respect to screening that kind of a potential acquisition from a foreign company? >> take it wherever you want. >> i'm actually going to answer the question today. >> as you know, we have a policy for national security purposes in terms of investment. we've limited to that because you want to encourage investment we've come to realize there's different strings to a security and the reality is that for going to allow investment by folks who are responsive to the cost of capital the way from star, or don't pay workers the way with the decent federal vapor institutions as we have in the united states, we need to be thinking very carefully, particularly with the taxpayer's investment as to whether or not that's an investment were
interested in. we want to see investment across the border do we have to exercise the judgment about the sorts of investments, particularly because i think about folks on the other side, they're not completing the way exxon has to repeat. i'm not interested in that because it's distorting to our economy if as soon as they do, in their own economy, and shorting our economic growth and global economic growth. so that's an investment i'm particularly interested in. >> i'm sorry. there's so many other people. i'm sorry. that's fair. i just want to keep it moving and get more people involved. >> thanks for an excellent discussion. born. i'd like to ask about trade policy. we haven't gotten into the free-trade arrangements and where we're going unless a difference between two candidates? >> i'm astonished the president stands up at every debate and
say he stands for free trade agreement. for gosh sakes, he didn't find any. he hasn't even launched launched a negotiation. the one thing in terms of a negotiation was started in the bush administration. what he did was hold up free trade agreements for three years while american manufacturers were locked out of those markets. that is not a trade policy that engages in the global trading system and takes our seat at the table with an effort to design the rules in ways that not only serve our interest you incapable of saying i want good in those markets. we go to break down barriers. but just as important, adopting the system we have in the united states is the most powerful thing we can do for economic development. so the idea but my state capitalism to run rampant and are not willing to engage in negotiations shaping the growth, do we define our future to make it greater globally. >> i respond to that?
>> i very much like rants previous answer, by the way. look, first there were two big disagreements we have. first of all, the president takes credit for the three south korea panels. let me tell you something. signing a trade agreement and getting a trade agreement over the kind of pump that we did is far, far more difficult. penalty was there for south korea and that was really touch and go and very hard. i think we have friends from the afl who may have things to say. >> remember nancy pelosi pulled fast-track initiative because the votes are there. >> is a member of the administration who worked on getting trade agreements over the hump, it was a big deal. >> here's the thing were actually disagree pretty significantly on trade policy, which was the root of your question. i don't think these free-trade
agreements have have nearly the impact on trade, on globalization. he said something about releasing growth. there always advertised that way. there's going to be huge benefits for us. every time it never lives up for thought. in fact, the people who make those claims about how dramatic the economy is going to be and how many workers are going to benefit are actually really hurting themselves because the public doesn't buy it at all. so if you actually want to have more free-trade policy, more agreements he signed, you have to take down its rhetoric about how they're going to solve all our problems. >> i would do that in a heartbeat if on the flipside, everyone would stop -- >> i agree with that as well. >> yes, right here. >> i miss you were hired for the school. i want to get back to your importance about the point of head start.
a major piece missing from her total education system is that i'm going to call a complex systems. we train people to be an expert. when i talk to someone to usaid between them to understand your buttonhole, not that it's on your jacket or you're wearing the jacket. everything is linked. we teach people to think it stovepipes. and the connection so you understand the consequences of the choices you're making. anyway, there's tonight changes that go on in our educational system starting kindergarten. >> you're absolutely right. >> how do we make it happen? >> the best is golden cats out of harvard, where the illustrated but we do in our educational system as we prepare young americans to work in the industrial economy, which the great thing about henry ford is create a system. the bad it was secreted a system of replaceable people in the
skills she needed their in that time were to turn the ranch, in effect. now few black and wooden autoworker does today, it's very different. you know, it's very, very different. but that training is not which are prepared to do in your coming out of high school. were not educating people from the start of the world they're going to operate and can watch as the world of the algorithm. [inaudible] >> know, and talking about systemically is a wonderful way to put it because the way we actually deliver in terms of raising human capital really does mean improving the public education system. go daddy start to that. and also expanding -- i don't disagree with that. education is an area the president obama and arne duncan -- >> been laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. for cutting budgets are laying
off hundreds of thousands of teachers what we say we want better education. somehow the mic is not working. >> just be directly. >> do you hear me? aire. i'm ralph, ernie, professor at nyu, but i was stricter at ibm for 30 years and i wrote a book about trade. despite that, i had the greatest difficulty in following up the consequences of the various notions about making capital were easy and the impacts of that on manufacturing. i think it's very complicated. i really don't understand it. if others do, i bow to them. my suggestion is that instead of emphasizing causes, we measured effects. maybe concrete and a proposal. we need allen's trade because we are hemorrhaging jobs to the
imbalance. some years ago, warren buffett proposed a very simple and straightforward way to balance trade. and not by putting a particular tariff on this, that of the other thing, but simply by giving exporters certificates, which importers how to buy. in other words, if you are successfully exporting company gift certificates. they're sold on the open market in order to import you have to buy the certificates. that means it is an incentive to export any limit on imports, but it does not cut down important, just balancing to exporters. it balances trade, it comes from warren who is not an. >> i take exception with that. he's very smart about making money. but this is a guy who talks about taxes, but he cited the tax code like a fiddle. >> of course, he understands
that. >> wait a minute, i'm asking for consistency. he does not do which are describing. >> i'm not asking him to. i'm asking us to consider a proposal of his come which seems to make sense commotion measures the outcome of all these incentives. >> you're saying i want action. you got to look at warrants action. he does not act in the way you're describing. >> i would be less ad hominem. >> i'll do it again if i get the chance. >> you know, ralph, i think either way you've teed that is exactly right. let's look at the effects. i do think that not just the trade balance, but persistence trade imbalances of the magnitude we've seen has been very destructive for growth and they very much embody the kinds of problems that i've been trying to stress in hurting the manufacturing sector is our friend was asking about earlier
in terms of its importance. that particular plan is definitely an interesting one. it strikes me as extremely challenging legislatively. i would think just off the top of my head the price impact on imports of the nontrivial and that is something consumers would not like. i can tell you is a veteran of any these debates, things get very complicated very quickly. >> so the cost of suffer by not wal-mart goes up. so you know, that strikes me as a potential issue there. however, one of the reasons is because of the very subsidies we both been suggesting should be stopped. and that's a bit of a hatchet. i would be interested in looking at those types of ideas. >> i've got to cut it off. i want to thank you does,
charity aldonas and grant aldonas for lively discussion, which surpassed a number of disagreements in a genial way. [applause] >> i want to thank our moderator, hedrick smith for doing a wonderful job. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> there's a movie theater that i write about. i had gone to visit it. it's been there since 1947, which is the founding of the country. a short films from all of the
world, from the united states, from england, from hollywood and india. into me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and openness of the country in spite of all the violence and trouble people have suffered over the last many decades and pakistan. and during one of the protests against video that insulted the prophet mohammed but having negative image of the prophet mohammed. tremendous protest permit people turned against movie theaters and bernstein. i don't see that as a protest against the west. i don't say that against the united states, even though "avatar," one of the movies he could've gone to see at the theater. he had islam back activates but did not like faith for decades, way before this prophet, which was not shown any way.
so they grabbed an opportunity to attack. they were teenagers involved two souls studios in their way to burn to torture. i argue in that piece of what they were really attacking is the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. i try to say that with the greatest respect. whom i do save as a foreigner which are countries about. from having studied the history lesson to pakistanis themselves, that it's an incredible diverse place. it's one of even more diverse place than it is today. lots of different cultures, lots of different traditions, lots of different ways. that movie theater burned when they set it on fire.
>> i think mr. nixon is an effective leader of his party. i hope you would grant them the same. the question before us is which point of view in which party do we want to leave the united states? >> mr. nixon told you like to comment on that statement? >> in the constitution, they had in mind that they would deliver it. we would elect officials based on reasoned arguments. images just that. you have to counter with an image. but in a world with a whole lot of problems in the world and a whole lot of problems in the country, the argument has to dominate, but doesn't when it's on television.
>> on friday's "washington journal," look at positions of president obama and mitt romney with two reporters who cover the state department. this is 45 minutes. >> host: we are talking about foreign policy and campaign 2012 with matthew lee chemistry to permit corresponded with the assist you to press, thanks for being here. and also guy taylor, correspondent of the "washington times." thanks you as well, guys. we want to talk about libya. president obama was on "the daily show" last night was john stuart and besides the humor, also had some serious comments talking about the killings in benghazi back in september. so let's take a listen to the exchange. >> is part of the investigation, helping the communication between these divisions of not just what happened in benghazi, what happened within. i would say even you would admit it was not the optimal response, at least to the american people as far as us all be on the same page.
>> well, here's what i'll say. before americans get killed, it's not optimal and were going to fix it. all of it. and what happens during the course of the presidency is that the government is a big operation. at any given time, something screws up and you make sure that you find out what's broken and you fix it. and you know, whatever else i have done throughout the course of my presidency, the one thing i've been absolutely clear about this american security comes first and the american people need to know exactly how i make decisions when it comes to war, peace and protecting americans. they will continue to get that over the next four years of my president be. [cheers and applause] >> president obama last night. guy taylor, the president has words for optimal. >> i think also, while president
obama is the technology and there is a screwup. that is what he just said. he hasn't gone into detail about what that. was a screwed up in the intelligence community that is the communication intelligence before and after the attack or was it the security was not adequate to protect the life of an american ambassador. >> matthew lee, you were in peru secretary clinton. you have this story from "the associated press." secretary clinton that i'm responsible for conflict security. takasugi chain of command and how it's playing out politically. >> guest: welcome secretary was absolutely was absolutely correct for taking responsibility. the secretary is the president said during debate on the secretary works for the president. and so when we have it book stops here moment, that moment
is going to be with the president. there's been a lot of talk about how clinton was probably not her sword for the president. she was trying to make herself look more presidential than the president by doing this, but frankly when you're secretary of state and someone asks you about a failure, obviously a failure to protect a broad, it wasn't my fault. it is the responsibility of the secretary of state to protect diplomats abroad. and so i think about the president and secretary of state are correct to taking responsibility. >> it almost felt as if the secretary of state clintons acknowledgment are taken responsibility because hours later, obama appeared in the debate and he said i actually take responsibility. so is interesting how that played out last week.
>> were doing about candidates mitt romney and barack obama? what is the situation might be a show is another broader foreign policy philosophy or pressure dealing with things? >> more than anything for the romney camp, it shows they are more interested in being poised to attack than they are in trying to explain what it is they would do differently. is it seized on this for more than a month now and some sort of which they can exploit in the promise very successful for policy record. >> guest: this is a cautionary tale for both republicans and democrats. both sides came out very early on the statements that later proved to be enough for sharing. mitt romney's comments about this statement from the embassy in cairo and then the administration's delay, if we can collect.com in reaching the conclusion. those i spoke too soon on this
and i think it just shows the importance of getting your facts straight before you open your mouth and go out and publicly say thanks. >> guest: i also think in terms of where the politics we have now in the home stretch before the election that the romney camp found themselves a little bit stuck on the party because lawmakers on capitol hill really amped up the volume on the criticism that the administration's handling mess in a way that i don't think benefited going into the last debate. >> host: if you'd like to talk about campaign 2012 and foreign policy come here are the numbers to recall. republicans -- democrats to go to 585-3880. an independent colors, (202)585-3882. we started with libya, but will dig into a bunch of areas that the candidates are talking about on the trail. and it will also score at the foreign policy debate on monday
night. bob schaffer is the moderator has given a sense of what the questions will be. watch that debate here on c-span monday. we also had c-span.org or we can stream it assaults catch clips after the fact. here's a bob schaffer has slated as the discussion on monday night. they are afghanistan, pakistan, which is the longest word. and redline, israel and iran. the new face of terrorism. and the rise of china in tomorrow's world. matthew lee, any one of the stick out of your mind is with the flashpoint of interest? >> guest: well, they're all extremely important issues. as we are seeing, all of them are going to play a role in the campaign and they should help differentiate between the candidates if there's any difference in the two candidates. one thing that it's become clear
is the exception of some small -- smaller issues. there is a whole lot of difference between the true peer to release governor hasn't explained it. release governor romney hasn't explained it he would do differently in terms of a place like dealing with the crisis in area. i think the china issue, governor romney said it's going to come out strong and president obama. he has said some things about russia. in both those cases in china and russia he sought to differentiate himself from the president and it would be interesting to hear the details of how he would act differently. >> host: either similarities or differences? >> guest: if you parse the details of everything that's come out of the romney camp come
at the end of the day, his foreign policy is not going to be that different from obama. if you stay friended by the campaign is trying to make their biggest road is imposture a narrative. but they've tried to do is get behind the string and they've tried to let this from the ronald reagan playbook and say there's actually a ronald reagan advertisement that ran in 1980 against jimmy carter. and if you listen to the transcript of that advertisement, you think it's the obama administration's weakness on foreign policy. unwillingness to stand up for america overseas. i think what you're going to see that i present, although i don't have confidence romney will do it off. but i think no matter what it's afghanistan or syria come especially to hear in the middle east. the administration is the first one to have abandoned this idea of peace through strength. >> host: guy taylor has a
piece in the "washington times" recently that romulo channeled reagan in world affairs. our gessert guy taylor, state department for "washington times" and matthew lee covers the state department for "the associated press." let's get to the phones and he was you have to say. keith reports that arkansas, republican line. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'm glad to be on c-span this morning. my question is not so much in regards to the benghazi incident has been a terrorist attack as it's been mislabeled because to me was the military attack or it was an engagement on the military action. for me come a terrorist attack is on a civilian target designed to create fear in the civilian population. this was an attack on our diplomatic corps and it was an attack against the american
sovereignty. that's my problem is. >> guest: there's a problem now is inherent need a civilian target. these extremists were not there. i have to disagree with the column. i think it meets the definition of a terrorist attack on whatever term, or however you want to define that. >> host: tom, granite city, illinois. hi, tom. >> caller: hi, this is to both gentlemen. i watch the republicans and i'm a democrat, but i voted bush one time the first time. so my question is this mr. romney. i understand the president obama is. he's not letting anyone drag us into wars are subtle conflicts, but easily do hope. like libya and other places. he turned it over to the u.n.
and the last four americans in libya. but it's liberated. my question with mr. romney is, is he talking about actually going back in iraq? going into syria? getting ready to go to war with iran in the sense of, is he ready to put boots on the ground? is that what you must do different than the president? and if not, what does he want to do besides rattle a saber? i'll take your comments off the air. >> guest: i think it's a fantastic question because romney scamp would like certain people in the neoconservative elements of the republican party to believe that in fact he is ready to pull the trigger and the preemptive strike on iran. the problem is you look at what he actually said any talk to senior advisers, whether directly in the campaign or analyst and former officials from the periphery. they want to you exactly what they do.
it's largely rhetoric and largely narrative, or he just wants to say we're going to be stronger. i don't think the romney figgis into the white house is going to pursue a war based policy. >> guest: there's an old saying that foreign policy is like an aircraft carrier. you can change the captain. the captain can change the course, but it takes quite a bit of time to turn it around and move in another direction. >> guest: or take mass events like 9/11. >> guest: indeed. i think during the romney campaign is an attempt to differentiate himself. once it is selected if he gets into office, i think we'd be hard-pressed to see any real significant, at least early on canaveral significant changes in the way the policy of the united states is going. just go unless there's some
event of a breakout of war in southeast asia, which is highly unlikely the sunday march happened at time for singing. then we don't know what romney would do. at the end of the day, romney is inexperienced in foreign policy. he's about where obama is five years ago. and we don't know. we have to wait and see. >> host: muscles and comments governor romney made this past tuesday's debate about a man. let's listen in. >> look at what's happening seriocomic agent, now in libya here consider the distance between israel. the president said he was going to put daylight between us and israel. we have iran for years closer to a nuclear bomb. serious not just 30,000 civilians being killed by military, but also a strategic significant player for america. the president and policies at the middle east began with an apology and pursue a strategy of leaving from behind.
the strategy is unraveling before our very eyes. >> host: governor romney speaking about iran. but also syria, matthew lee. >> guest: despite those comments come it is not clear to me, at least make out what exactly mitt romney would do differently in syria, for example. he starts about how it's important for the united states to play a role in deciding who gets the legal assistance, weaponry and ammunition, but that's with you, it is tradition is already doing. is the editor suggesting the united states should itself go out and actively supply the rebels with arms? he seems to suggest no, but then again, if that is the case, that's exactly what the obama administration policy is right now. so i think for him to be able to say that he is, to make a distinction come he is going to have to be more specific. >> host: talk about israel.
>> guest: a lot of this has come well over weary of campaigning, where governor romney has tried very hard to show this closeness with israel and expose the obama administration for not having a closeness. israel be america's greatest friend. we can't sit here and pretend that hasn't happened to do in some way with fund raising on the campaign trail and also looking at jewish voters in florida and california and hoping that this message of closeness with israel would result in campaign treasurer. campaign funds. >> host: vice president joe biden during the vp debate talked about israel and iran. let's listen to that. >> with regard to the ability of the united states to take action militarily, it is not my purview to talk about classified information. but we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the
iranians. number two, the israelis and united states are absolutely the same exact plays in terms of how close -- how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. they are a good way away. there is no difference between our view in tears. when my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up. then they have to be able to have some and put it in. there was no weapon at the iranians have at this point. both the israelis and we know if they start the process of building a weapon. so all this bluster a key. , all this loose talk, what are they talking about? are you talking to be more credible? what more can the president do? standard for the united nations, directly communicate. we will not let them acquire a
nuclear weapon. unless he's talking about going to work. >> host: vice president joe biden at the vp debate. matthew. >> guest: again, vice president bynum brings up the question. what exactly is the mitt romney would do differently? the obama administration is linked to bush administration before it. very, very tough sanctions against iran and has succeeded. they've imposed very harsh unilateral sanctions. these are passed by congress, but the administration monologue and has implemented them. and we are seen very significant deterioration in the iranian economy, largely produced in part. it is again, unless he's talking about going to war. it's not clear what he would do
differently because it's one thing to say i will rally the international community and get the russians and the chinese on board. it's quite another thing to be a lot to do that in real life. >> host: bustier from not come independent collar. >> caller: hi, i'm more worried about romney channeling george w. bush. you've largely addressed the topic, but just sanest rhetoric, i don't know that it's not going to support war. he so close to being a yahoo! to let israel do whatever they want. >> host: guy taylor. >> guest: it's a legitimate concern. barack obama and joe biden aren't antiwar administration. they ran on a message. four years ago they got the
united states untangled united states untangled from a very unpopular and extensive occupation iraq and they've done it. so it's hard for the obama administration -- it's hard to get up and say we're going to get tough on iran. they've actually been phenomenally tough on iran with the oil, crushing the economy in tehran. it is still difficult to come and say who would actually do a military strike. and i don't think romney is going to go much further than not. as far as being concerned is one of the players in romney's foreign policy adviser consulate is john bolton. john bolton adamantly supported going into iraq. the catch is that he is a country much at from romney in the last three or four months. the only teen romney really wants to take from him is an
association to win friends among elements of the party, but also there's message they need to talk a tougher talk on the global scale. >> host: matthew lee, how closely are you watching advisors both candidates haven't foreign policy? >> guest: fairly closely. if you look at advisors, they provide a window into an administration might or might not do. if that candidate is selected. mitt romney has surrounded himself with advisers who are a lien on the neocon side. john holden was just mentioned. he certainly is one. but as guy said, some of these people have taken more of a backseat role now that there've been reports about divisions in the ranks of mitt romney's foreign policy advisers. it will be a struggle for him to
manage the hard-core neocons in the republican party, people who came from the dick lugar side. >> guest: richard williamson, the conservative internationalists, the james baker foreign policy. it is okay it's a big stick, but it's not all about warmongering. i don't think the romney camp has figured out a way to get behind that. and speak about a confidently. >> host: good morning, doug. >> guest: >> caller: good morning. romney seems more enthusiastic about amin the hands of the israelis. it is a war crime under geneva to attack another country without united nations vote in a chapter seven resolution. faq reminds you george bush is
not adverse to travel to switzerland because i the universal jurisdiction. or we just like to see this question gets asked when the united states. i thought, bye. just to be an interesting question to hear the response. i would point out that it's not always a violation of international law to avoid or attack a country with a chapter seven resolution. there is a universal way of self-defense. so i remind the caller that if one country invades another, while that may be of the call, the country that has -- that is fighting back event in violation of anything. >> host: matthew labors labored apiece. what matters israel, looking how both candidates are eager to show their loyalty and close ties with israel. how is that plain out and do expect that to be a big topic play now? >> guest: i think that romney
will try to expand on this idea that he brought up in the clip the future showed from the last debate, which is that president obama has tried to put some distance between the united states and israel. it is indisputable that there are arguments and divisions between prime minister netanyahu's policies and those which the obama administration would like to see. but those divisions are not any different than previous administration. it's been u.s. policy regardless of the president is, has been consistent since the truman administration here that if the united states will stick up for israel in ensuring security in a very dangerous neighborhood. the distance that governor romney think it's going to try to play out if this idea that prime minister netanyahu's government deserves just be unqualified backing on domestic
policy, domestic israeli policy as well as its policy towards the palestinians. and it is correct in the sense, not just in the sense, that the obama administration has been highly critical of the settlements. but let's keep in mind that george w. bush's father, george h.w. bush had very much the same differences, almost a step further in its criticism by threatening loan guarantees to israel of the settlement issue. o-oscar christian burke, virginia, murdoch come independent collar. good morning. >> caller: yes, i wanted to make a comment about hundreds of years of history of the middle east. the british and other european nations have one point divided up in china's controlled their occupation. the american policy has always been to support israel.
you know, we don't look at each individual nation is having to sovereignty always. we don't always support the leaders of these individual nations. palestinian statehood has an important issue, but it's any question for a very long time. to ask one solution, to give an answer, this is unfair. this is a 30 year ongoing situation that seems to me, in my lifetime, started with debris and the gaza strip and west bank in all middle eastern countries merge there, thought their wars and america got involved. that didn't work. it seems to be the only thing we can do in this situation is try to help these countries find their own solution of, find the common ground and understand the middle east is basically a nation.
it's not really a bunch of independent countries. the border each other, share common interests. we have to find that common ground. is that you are the on that. >> host: aire, murdoch. i tailor. >> guest: you either sign that the libertarian or an obama supporter. my sense though is he brought. if you look at what's going on over the last four years between new pomo white house, you'll see that the devil is truly in the details. iraq obama stood up at the nations. two years ago, basically said the united states could not support palestine and achieve even recognition of the united nations. this is down into the details of whether or not this white house really stands with israel or not. >> host: the president did in fact say that. he said the u.s. would support
the palestinians drive for statehood at the u.n. without a peace deal with israel. that is to say that unless the palestinians go back to the negotiating table and can get an agreement with israel, they are not going to be a recognized it at the united nations. that again has been pretty much a consistent theme for five, six u.s. administrations. >> guest: romney has weighed in on it and there's a military institute last week, right before the last debate. they would support a new institution. this is not very elaborate. it is important to know, that wall from a taxi big-game, he also is embracing his rhetoric that the united states was support to countries from israel and palestine. >> host: with the whether there's dealing with the war
there. governor romney from the "washington post" looked at the candidates positions. better than u.s. forces should remain in a tennessean until military commanders say the job is done. how is he trying to distance himself from president obama's game plan? notley. >> guest: i'm not sure if there is and what just read any demonstrable difference between what governor bonnie is saying and what the obama restriction is saying. governor romney has criticized criticized -- in iraq is criticized for withdrawing u.s. troops too soon. he thought that the residual for should have remained longer. must remember, this is not just the united states. the sovereign independent country in both cases, iraq and afghanistan with their own governments. and if the iraqis or afghans i come in thank you ramis, but we don't want to be here anymore, there's really not a whole lot and it evisceration is going to be able to do about it.
so again, the administration is to give combat troops at the end of 2014. it's unclear if mitt romney thinks that should be changed or not for what he said so far. >> host: must listen to comment made bmi, which i tailor mentioned recently, where he talked about foreign policy. let's listen. >> in afghanistan, i'll pursue afghan security forces by the end of 2014. president obama would have you see that anyone who disagrees with his position in afghanistan is arguing for endless war. but the right to war and the potential attacks at home is a politically timed retreat that abandons the afghan people to the same extremist to ravage their country and music to launch the attacks of 9/11. i will buy the conditions on the ground and away the best advice
enemies find specifically the taliban have absolutely no reason to sit down and negotiate with us because we are going to leave no matter what happens. >> this does not happen in a vacuum. the united states is in afghanistan with numerous other countries and nato itself came up with the idea of nato agreed to this idea in the 2014 withdraw. the united states it isn't clear to me whether governor romney or of the western nato pulled out on schedule as they said they were going to do. as the united states going to stay there alone? wealthy afghan government welcomed a u.s. residual force like that? let's not forget here it's not just the united states gets involved and just what ever the president in washington says it and what is going to happen just because he says. >> host: here is a tweet. romney's plan is the same as
president obama's exec romney plan says not to sing it out loud. it's to give a good president obama and his own words on afghanistan. this is from this week's presidential debate. >> not every the agrees with the decisions i've made but when it comes to the national security, i mean what i say. the war in libya and in iraq and i did. i said we would go after al qaeda and bin laden and we have and we transitioned out of afghanistan and start making sure the afghans are responsible for their own security at the time during. when i say we are and find out exactly what happened everybody will be held accountable and i am ultimately responsible for taking place there because these are my folks and i'm the one that has to greet them when they come home. you know that i mean what they say.
scaap let's go to the phone and hear from jean on the republican line. we are talking about foreign policy and campaign 2012. what do you have to say? >> guest: >> caller: i have a question so far less from the president and that is to either of you gentlemen have anything really positive to say about what you have heard from the from the policies that have emerged during this campaign. thank you. >> host: >> guest: absolutely i would jump in and say i know i sound of a very critical when i described ronald reagan's 1980 advertising. we have to look back and remember that at the end of the years of ronald reagan, the united states played a big hand at ending the cold war and the idea, the sense that there is a lack of positive narrative and leadership coming out of the obama white house is definitely a plan for the romney campaign.
they are on to something. my criticism and i think it came out as being negative is that i am still waiting for romney to tie the knot on that and to see whether or not he can pull it off. i also want to make a very direct position because i'm an objective journalist. >> guest: i would add to that and say that, you know, it's one thing to say that you are going to project leadership and it's another thing to actually do it and be successful at doing at. the reference to what ronald reagan he ran a fall in the carter presidency i don't think anyone is going to argue that jimmy carter was a phenomenal american president, however, let's not forget he was responsible for one of the biggest successes in diplomacy early in the united states post world war ii, and it was the peace deal between egypt and
israel. so although there is a lot to say negatively about president jimmy carter and foreign policy in iran would certainly be one area. he wasn't an abject failure when it came to foreign policy. >> caller: my comment this morning i initially saw the two panelists was to complement them both because they were showing balanced objectives to what was the foreign policy but my comment is that you lost me there because you can't take both sides of the fence. mr. lee, thank you so much for being balanced and shoving that objective, and one of the most disturbing things, and this is why the term debate is so important to me and i really watch it.
i am shaking as i talk right now because mr. romney and his rhetoric scares me. the american people, we don't want to be in war anymore. we don't want any more terrorism such as 9/11 happening here in our home, and what we support what president barack obama and the position that he has taken on the war and how he's handling it week respect him for that. mr. lee, thank you so much for showing that balance. mr. romney is going to talk to us with his rhetoric until maybe not another war but more incidents like 9/11 because he is stirring up the pot with his words. it is in soulful and it is feeling. i'm shaking right now as we talk about this topic. i know the american people want peace not only on our homeland, but for the entire nation.
>> host: we will leave it there so we can get a response. >> guest: i need to defend my colleague. i haven't heard anything guy has said it has been partisan. so, you know, you have your own opinion. thank you for the compliment. i'm not sure that any of us have displayed any bias. >> host: is the reporting end up being more critical of the challenger were the incumbent as you look at foreign policy which may be hindered different than other plans because you all have talked about until you sit in that chair and get the secret briefings and really get the insight of what is going on that the average citizen and governor doesn't have access to who gets more of the scrutiny from the media? >> i think what is so interesting about foreign policy and this is an exciting conversation and more years than i that we've both devoted our journalistic careers in this particular manatee and of the day doesn't really register very
high for american voters. but what is really interesting about it is the mainstream american media is more critical of romney than it is of obama on the domestic issues it is the of the way around. >> guest: i am not sure that i agree with that because whoever the president is actually has a foreign policy record that can be attacked, scrutinized, complemented and copied by the next administration coming in. the challenger doesn't have that record, so i think the incumbent can be open to attack. >> guest: this is rare in the u.s. presidential elections in
the last 200 years the democratic party has carried the high ground on foreign policy. it's moving the other way around. as a whole situation on foreign policy right now was in its relation to politics uncomfortable for the mainstream media to understand. the big elephant in the room here and we haven't mentioned yet is this administration has kept up the ubiquitous judicial war in what my 11 countries across the world, not just the middle east and often they got osama bin laden, and i presume president obama would try to play that up in a very big way in monday's's the date. >> guest: he gave a hint of that in his appearance last night on comedy central and this boiler alert and the comment that he made. so --
>> host: matthew lee correspondent for the associated press and guy tayler who covers the state department for the "the washington times" headline in "the washington post" today cia seeking drones. the agency is fighting it ever and the move would bolster the military force. one of the topics may i ask about on monday night's debate? >> guest: one of the topics he is unlikely to get a response from the president on because this is a classified program even though it is showing up on the front pages of newspapers. it is true as guy just said this administration has taken a policy or a program that george w. bush instituted in the drone strikes and expanded it vastly beyond where it was before. and that is quite interesting. >> host: space still arizona republican line. >> caller: good morning, gretta i believe 20% of the country do believe what these gentlemen are saying, and i think they are apologists for
the obama administration. 80% believe what i believe, and this is in the libya attack it was a shame that our ambassador is killed by these terrorists. we had enough time to take care of this gentleman and his staff and wasn't done. the british left. we were the only ones left. how much time has to go on that we aren't going to protect them? the other foot note is that real time they knew what was happening. they never even set out an aircraft or drone or anything to attack these people, and went on for eight hours? >> guest: your solution would have been to flee benghazi and that would have shown strength? >> caller: we should have put a small army or something to protect our own sovereignty.
do you think i'm stupid? >> guest: no -- >> host: we don't think you're stupid we just really want to hear your opinion so thanks for sharing it. thanks very much. >> guest: it was just curious to me he's saying we should put a small army in there but then he says when the british left other people pulled out. so, you know, it's not clear to me what he thinks. to put a small army in benghazi to protect what is a very, very small mission, i don't think is -- i don't think it is feasible, and he would have to do that every single in the sea around the world and if the caller and the 80% of the people what he says agree with him are willing to pay for the small armies to be deployed every u.s. diplomatic mission around the world or at least those in the countries where there is a serious threat, then maybe some administration of look at that, but i don't see the money being there to do that. >> guest: i -- with all due respect, i think that we have
gone to white politics away from this for a moment and ask some really real questions. whether on monday night or before the election or not, the real question is why was biosecurity soledad? we are not talking about an occupation force for sending u.s. troops but in libya at the time, and you can make the argument that they don't guard every u.s. embassy in this expensive and ridiculous to think that it could be deployed affordably a round of the bulk then why in a post in war environment, the post revolutionary environment with security in such a state that there could be a bomb planted to go off weeks before this attack and nothing was done and the ambassador was encouraged to carry a very popular phenomenally in bowser traveling around the country spending a normal to do that and why was security not? >> guest: we haven't had a clear answer at all honest.
>> guest: legitimate question to ask on the security of libya both at the embassy in tripoli and at the consular and benghazi but i don't think anyone has suggested. but it is to have a small army deployed at all of these missions. so there are questions that the administration needs to answer and some of them there was an attempt to answer some of them that the house oversight committee like a weekend at the door last week i don't think those questions were answered their. >> guest: one of the politically charged hearings in the last four years. from both sides of the. as we have it already asking
questions. what are the number of security people on duty and then in benghazi and are they all are mint and bringing it from the san question that you gentlemen are asking. let's go to new hampshire, independent line, good morning. discussing the foreign policy of president obama i think we have to go back a little ways. since day one of his administration he has tried to protect and ensure criticism of the muslim people and the radical muslims. they've fallen back on the religious training as a muslim to help them out. the policy has been one of the appeasement and apology. >> host: does it matter to you that the president is a christian? >> caller: it matters to me
that he is favoring the numerous cases where he has favored the muslim religion. >> host: the president said he is a christian to clear up misconceptions how does this play into the political game. to try to restore the american relations for america's relations with of the muslim world without getting into the president's religion is or not, which i think is a fairly political issue. i don't think it is correct that the president sought to make peace with the extremists who attacked us such as 9/11, 2001, were just this past 9/11 in benghazi. i think what the president has been trying to do and wants to argue about whether he has been successful or not has been
trying to reach out to the moderate muslims and to try to show them peaceful moderate muslims who are willing to coexist with other religions and minorities that america can be their friend. whether that has been a success or not that is something that can be argued but i don't think it is fair to say that they are trying to appease those that would attack us and the drone strikes have increased particularly and the had fenestration killed osama bin laden. >> host: this is the age of terrorism we should against the elite to unite against those and not take cheap shots on twitter. one final question we see a pullout in the story from reuters ahead of monday's foreign policy debate. 37% of voters favored obama and 43% backed romney brent said who could do a better job on foreign policy. that is a potential gain by the candidate governor rahm even though obama still holds a
narrow lead. what do you make of that? >> guest: i don't want to read into the poll. we have a debate on monday night and if it shows anything that shows the viewership on a foreign policy which is typically down. we are hopefully behind people watching and listening and we will see which one -- which can debate whether it is president obama or governor romney puts their foot in their mouth more.
there is a movie theater that i write about i had gone to visit and it's been there since 1947 which is the founding year of the country and it showed films from all over the world from the united states from england and india and to me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and openness in spite of all of the violence and trouble the people suffered over the last many decades in pakistan, and during one of the protests against video that insults the
prophet mohammed had a negative image of the prophet mohammed and during one of the protests people turned against the movie theaters and burned at. i don't really see that as a protest against the west. i don't see it as a protest against the united states even though avatar was one of the movies that you could have gone to see at this theater. you had islamists activists who have inflicted these movie theaters for decades way before this profit mohammed film which was never shown any way. and so, the ground to an opportunity to attack, and they whipped up a bunch of young people. there were teenagers involved that sold soda from the snack bar to burn this movie theater and just torch at. i argued in that piece that what they were really attacking is the nature of their own country which perhaps they did not understand. and i say that with the greatest
respect who am i as a forerunner to see what the country is out, but i do know having study from the country from having listened to pakistan these themselves that it is an incredibly diverse place. was born as an even more dangerous place. lots of different cultures, lots of different traditions to symbolize pakistan and that is what people learned when they said on fire. i have to be honest with you i love these debates. these things are great. i think it's fair to say the president still doesn't have an agenda for a second term. don't you think it is time for him to finally put together a revision of what he would do if he were elected? he's got to come up with that over the weekend because there
the university hosted a conference on the jewish. in this portion we hear from the george w. bush administration and the member on the '96 clinton campaign. this is just under an hour. for those of you that arrive late i'm the chairman of the conference. the bush and clinton years from 1992 to 2008 were an important time in terms of the american israeli relationship and
resonated with of the jewish vote we are fortunate to have with us this morning to see these events unfold and i will share their insights with us. they've served a number of important functions in the government including george w. bush's liaison to the american jewish community and as the deputy secretary of health and human services who writes regularly for the commentary and is a senior fellow at the hudson institute. dr. troy will be followed by hank will give us a different perspective as to form an advisor to president bill clinton and the department of political leaders but he's not on an estimated 700, says my notes, it's hard to believe, 700 political campaigns and his long and distinguished career as a strategic political consultant. we will start with dr. sheinkopf
to the estimate i know that we are not at the introduction but that leaves me with hank tuna wall of the names of the people you consulted? >> not on purpose, yeah. [laughter] >> du know the names of all of your grandchildren? >> many of my grandchildren have not been born yet. >> as you can see, hank and i have worked together in the past and i'm not so sure that we are going to have such different perspectives but we can take different approaches to what we are going to talk about in the period from 1990 to and i'm going to go to the present and actually start earlier. i also want to begin with something unprecedented in the
scholarly types of panels a shameless self-promotion plug. by these low academic conferences i have a book coming out. [laughter] the book is relevant. it's called "-- the working title is "from cicero to snookie how the culture shapes the president." and it's with the presidents have read, watch, listen to, attended over the years and what books, what kind of books influenced them, shoot them, how information came to the president and the type of technology we have available. our founders were limited to performances onstage or work on paper. they didn't have twitter and all the stuff we have today that they were still huge consumers of information. the argument i want to make today is the information president consumed in the program since the beginning of the state of israel has helped
shape their approach to israel, and also we can understand a little bit about what the president, what kind of president somebody is going to be by the type of material they read or take advantage of. so in a way, although the program says i'm talking about the two bush's, talking about how books shape policies towards the people of the book and with the presidents of rwanda israel and it's been important on how the president's approach israel and we have to start -- i know you're going to have a separate conversation but we do really have to start with harry truman. if you go back to 1948 and 47, 48, it wasn't clear that the united states was going to be an ally of israel and it's not clear the u.s. was going to support a creative state and the u.s. was going to recognize israel. these are open questions that in fact many of the questions the state department was not in the right place. a big shock for anybody that follows the state department. the state apartment wasn't in
the right place and wasn't as supportive as israel, and in fact the secretary of state threatened to resign if truman went ahead with pro-israel position. they did have the u.s. approach to create the partition. he had the u.s. recognize israel and these are important statements that he made. one of the things i read in the recent argument in the article and i think that you can talk about this in the conversation leader is the jewish vote was important. bye supporting israel and the way he did, harry truman helped secure the jewish vote to the democratic party for a long time during going forward. there are a lot of reasons why jewish vote democrats but among a number of them was that early on the democratic party, democratic president truman was supportive of the creation of the states, and that really helped democrats gain the jewish vote. there are other historical
reasons and lord knows they taught them a lot. that was an important step. the question is why it harry truman do this beyond the jewish vote harry truman was a huge leader, she was the last president not to have graduated college. think about it a president but didn't graduate college is something dole today. today, you know, no matter who wins the presidential election, every president dating back from the post 1980 election will have had a degree from even harvard or yale or george w. bush's case, both. but back then you want to get george w. bush on not, right? laughter, but back then it was in the case. harry truman as i said did not have a cause to read what he was a huge reader. started as a child whose parents strongly encouraged his reading. in fact at one point his father
talked about how he saved a whole bunch of money to buy a set of mark twain's books and the read the bible over and over again. his frequent reading in the bible there's another book that really influenced truman that's called a great men and famous women. it was this book about the great figures in history. and one of the people featured in the book, i guess it wasn't a great men section because his name included cyrus the great, the persian king who allowed the israelites to return after the babylonian exile in 586 b.c.. ..
blamed the demise of the business of andrew jackson. how could that be? jackson died of 100 years before the business even began. but what happened was jacobsen recalled that instead of treating intending to the customers, truman was spending all this time reading biographies of andrew jackson. so he blamed amber jackson for the demise of the business. when jacobsen introduced truman at this event, he called truman the leader that helped create israel. remember the assisting verb.
helped create. truman was indignant at this beauty set, which even helped create? i am cyrus. i am cyrus. he said it twice. the truman had cyrus on the brain. enduring us, obviously was beneficial to zero in the jewish people because it helped create -- truman would kill a paper grave. it also does that help secure the jewish vote for the democrats for a long time to come. again come with other factors. so let's fast forward a number of years. the kind of rule of thumb for a long time going forward after that point was that the democrats were more pro-israel, associate a presidential level than the republicans. bush is to stem that the democrats were more pro-israel. in fact, i was just reading a book about the secret service that we fear honda fascinated
robert kennedy, a palestinian who is mentally deranged. what the reasons he assassinated robert kennedy was because he didn't want the more pro-israel to get the presidency. these days you wouldn't really assassinate a presidential candidate because for the most part, presidential candidates are pro-israel. it was a question. i wasn't quite that clear. so you have this situation about what the republican party was not seen as pro-israel and the republicans in congress. obviously nixon in the 73 yom kippur war did get crucial arms and we are met to the israelis, although it took a while is officially over the objections of the jewish adviser, henry kissinger. but eisenhower had insisted that israel cannot do the 564,
journal for did not have relations with israel. and certainly in congress, scoop jackson who were strong producer of democrats. and then come in the 70s happens. 1976, carter becomes president. he becomes president with the assistance of it later became known as the neoconservatives, the coalition for the democratic majority. these are people who are disaffected with the leftward drift of the democratic party. and they were looking for something different. it was kissinger in the nixon or ford administration. the 1972 mcgovern are looking for something different. carter seemed to be the thing that was different. hit a pro-human rights democracy can idealistic strain that appeals to these nascent
neoconservatives. when they did so, they were disappointed and on a number of levels. one level they were disappointed for my personal perspective. neoconservatives expected to get the carter administration and they were almost completely shut out. in fact, elliott abrams had this famous comment where he said we didn't get anything. all we got with the ambassadorship to micronesia. i'm sorry, micronesia. not even micronesia, but micronesia. the carter foreign policy was not sufficiently strong in the cold war. the neoconservatives joke was the carter foreign policy was this a country coming to an ethnic restaurant. the vietnam afghanistan, doubtless eat up all these ethnic restaurants popping up in washington d.c. and then, carter was also a
difficult relations with israel. as president, he did not head in a 1980, ronald reagan was seen as an alternative, also john andersen missing for carter, which is not the president from the jewish perspective. and so what happened in 1980 was reagan got 39% of the jewish vote. you might say he lost the jewish vote. was so great about that? for republican to get 39% is a huge achievement. in fact, over the appear that i'm talking about, the high water mark of a 39%, below-market 11%. but that range of 20% in the low part of love into the high 39 is really the range of jewish support for israel. so people says remnick went to get the jewish vote? and a supporter from a come adviser to romney.
he's not going to get the jewish vote. but if he gets in the mid-to high 30s, that's a good sign. and so was ronald reagan company sought three consecutive elections, where the republicans got 30% are hired the jewish vote. reagan, reagan and bush in 88. it's not coincidently the republicans won all elections. reagan was outspoken in support of israel. that's what israel is now in the cold war, which is important. it's a democracy in the middle east in an area that was largely efficient in democracies and still is. so bright and hot.important feeling towards israel. and he also, he was a big reader. the way he found one of the neoconservatives who a prominent role in his administration was favored in commentary magazine. he read article by jeanne kirkpatrick called dictatorship co standard. a very famous article appeared
in the article, kirkpatrick who is a democrat but drifting to the right and had a very strong pro-israel strategy against the soviet argued that in recent history, no totalitarian administration coming to a totalitarian regime had a permit to democracy or as a third care issues are intendant correctly did move to democracy come or suggested the reagan foreign policy should be as tough as possible and totalitarian regimes, but work with a turing machines to turing machines to help them drift towards democracy. this is a very important -- a very important thing that the reagan administration and kirkpatrick into the administration of the number of neoconservatives were advisers asserted the administration including elliott abrams was upset about micronesia. he served at the leaders there at the state department. so reagan helped bring jewish voters to the republican party. again, not a majority.
the majority is now a political strategists are looking at. he did help them bring into the 30s. now, we get after reagan's administration of george h.w. bush. george h.w. bush got over 30% of his election in 1988. the first time he ran for president, first time his party nominee. and so, bush started off with a nice base of support in the jewish community. however, bush lost that support and he lost it hard. there are a number of reasons for this. some of them quite famous to this day still. one was that he objected -- he had a packing to a disagreement about a loan guarantee to israel based on whether israel is building in settlements. we know the sentiment is supportive or not. and he gave feature is that i'm just one lonely guy out there fighting against evil army of lobbyists. that would seem a very tough
shot. but even more famously was -- you said james baker? goldstar. james baker, we said i'm not going to send the bad word. he said after jewish, they're not going to vote for us anyway. and given the speaker is coming up this afternoon, my friend ed koch, ed koch was the one who printed that statement. he was the first to print in the daily news. it was leaked to him by jack kemp. he was the bush cabinet at hud, always had strong scheuer support and he told ed koch about this outrageous statement, which is outrageous and baker still hasn't gotten over it. and so, support for bush plummeted. now, i'm not going to say the next thing is directly related, but the elder bush was not a reader. reagan was reading commentary magazines and getting inside for not appear that was not bush's interests. there was one time when bush was going on vacation and he was
asked what is going to to do on vacation. he said i'm going to do a lot of running, a lot of tennis, a lot of golf, a lot of poor shoes, a lot of powerboating and a little reading. i throw that out there for the intellectuals out there. reagan was missing. there was another time he was asked about a book that influenced him in his youth when he was in school. and he said catcher in the rye. great choice, good book, but came out 10 years after he had graduated college. so obviously he was not reading that in his youth. maybe one of the sentiment that that in their use. bushes was in a reader. some people are, some aren't. i don't hold it against him. fairways were shakily support for israel or even more generally foreign policy. although he did in the 1992 campaign, which is going badly for him. he did talk to a tally by truman. obviously he didn't get those
necessarily, but he did creep out. following bush, in fact in the bush election, which i'm sure hank is going to talk about, he plummeted from 35% bush got 211%. that's a low watermark. that's it. 11% of the jewish vote, which in most pre-obama elections, the voters about 1010% republicans. the jewish vote had gone down that low. they're a number of reasons. this one was on this israel policies are talked about. second was the economy was not at all. and third he was up against the political maestro who was advised by our friend, hank sheinkopf. clinton had a very strong pro-israel background. she was -- he was comfortable to
the jewish and both his domestic social policies were jewish generally tend to be more assertive democrats and on the foreign policy front as well. so we had the eight years of clinton and bush sons come around in 2000, looking to replace, to step in after quite retired. we had two terms that we didn't have the constitutional amendment, he might still be president based on his recent speech at the convention. but it's not. we have the amendment, to terms the value to appear as though bush is running to replace him and i have a friend, a yarmulke wearing friend who is at an event with george w. bush around 2011 before the election. bush sought him out from the crowd, pulled him aside and grabbed him by the arm and said i want you to know i'm not going to be like my father was on israel. and bush is from different perspective. bush is a w. bush. w. is from a different
perspective. george w. bush had should prohibit minorities, part of the establishment, the realpolitik world including henry kissinger. w. bush was more from the south are an evangelical background. these are groups much more supportive of israel. bush was also a huge reader, loved reading. i know people don't think that about him, but happens to be the case. he would read 80 to 90 bucks a year. get a reading contest is karl rove. these are a serious bucks, history, biography, sometimes philosophy. karl rove wants that in 35 years teenage george w. bush, he never saw him without a book. the guy love to read. he did not retire sit and especially did not protest when he was running for governor in texas, when he was trying to out cowboy his opponent. his last election in 1972 dining tent camps. he was a democrat and he blistered bush for being a
carpetbagger, for being a pointy hat, a northeastern harbor daniel guy. just as george w. bush were talking about. bush was eviscerated on that front by a real down home texan. after that election, bush vowed, i will never be out country began. and he wasn't. so bush, even though he was a reader, didn't talk about that until late in the second term and is trying to change its reputation around. but when he turned ginger reputation, everybody or it has a perception of view, it's too late. nevertheless, the books that help shape his worldview. when he was written books about the arab world, had books about bernard lewis, as one shall make him a lot of neoconservative thinkers including jay when i could burst among foreign policy. elliott: who wrote the book about political leaders in general, including ben-gurion, but also winston churchill.
eliot cohen later came into the bush administration as the secretary of state, condoleezza rice. and he also must seamlessly read book on democracy. he read the sharansky book is so affected him that he gave it. he had them come in for a visit in the oval office and sharansky said afterwards, bush not only read the book, he felt it. and the idea about the promotion of democracy became an important influence for the second natural address, in which bush for development of democracy in the arab world. some sad air of spring turned into an unpleasant winter and came from the date of termination. so we have a very pro-israel president. it's both symbolic and sensitive
issues. it wasn't just his reading. it goes back to 1998. and on that visit, there is not a power politician named our real sharon. sharon offered to take push around and took them on this famous helicopter ride, we took both of israel habaneros part of israel whereas only nine miles from the mediterranean sea to the most and are part of the west bank. a part that can be cut off in a matter of hours. and he showed that from the helicopter's days. we got drivers in texas bigger than not. so bush understood israel's security concerns. he also understood something else. during that trip, with ariel sharon went out to be friendly to bush, yasir arafat took a very different approach. and in fact, arafat basically jacked bush around about whether he'd be willing and able to be
with you. i will come i won't come i do want to meet with you. typical arafat slipperiness. and it ended up with all the slipperiness they did not have a meeting. bush leaves the country and upon his departure can arafat holds a conference denouncing bush for refusing to meet with him. and at that moment, bush realized he couldn't trust his character. i would bet into the support for arafat was in his compound abundant isolated, not getting help from the u.s. come he regretted the way he acted when bush visited. so with a shred of pro-israel president, personal, ideological and intellectual reasons and he only got 19% of the jewish vote in 2000. remember there was a jewish orthodox vice presidential candidate running with al gore, but he got a big lump from 19% in 2002 may 24% of the jewish vote in 2004 against john kerry. that really helped the bush
campaign in ohio and florida hold down the democratic margin in certain districts that usually go very strongly or democrats. so, bush really benefited from the outreach come especially to the orthodox meeting. the orthodox and he went 40% for bush, 70% for bush in 2004. i'm going to come to a conclusion, but i want to tack a little bit briefly about obama and romney. obama has a reputation as a reader. it's not clear. there was one tiniest about it but he was reading. he said they basically have time to floss my teeth and watch "sportscenter." he was a huge tv watcher. he watches homeland, modern family. he watches boardwalk empire, soprano spirit is a big tv watcher and he talks about his tv watching.
nas mentions nokia couple times on the white house podium. but there's an interesting article by elise smith, who suggested that obama's approach is influenced by edward saeed in his book on orientalism. he doesn't necessarily suggest that obama read the book, but he said columbia in the early 80s, the whole idea was in the air and he made taken that into account. there's also another word and going on with obama. it's not a bomb assault, but there's been this trend of people giving obama jewish books. netanyahu started by giving the book of mr. jeffrey goldberg gave him this new pretty liberal translation and then peter byner gave him his third attempt on his or her book, crisis of zionism. i just wondered what would happen if a jewish president and evangelical christians given the translations of the new testament. i'll make you would go over well. that's what we do. to get jewish books to editors, even if they're not jewish. in terms of mitt romney, he is
obviously looking to get a better percentage of the jewish vote than mccain did. he can only got 20% of the jewish vote in 2008. he is aggressively engaged in orthodox outreach and jewish outreach in general. i was in a phone call with governor romney and he was talking to three dozen jewish leaders this past thursday night. he also has read a number books relevant to israel, including startup nation but dan seymour who is an adviser to romney, which is a really important both in terms of making israel not about just the arab-israeli issue comes with a strong economy and changing the perception of israel among business leaders and u.s. so we'll see what happens in the upcoming election, but i have direct from this study, but also it is better off, when it comes to israel, it's better to have a president that reads then they
don't. it's better to have a president that reads the right stuff. thank you very much. [applause] >> things. we call mr. sheinkopf to the podium and after he speaks will take questions with respect to both speakers. after that extraordinary presentation can i really don't know how i can keep you busy for 20 minutes. that's the mandate here. i'm not sure that i can. i make some observations about jews generally, i can talk about what i feel about it. and the harried truman democrat, which tells you about my basic perceptions of the world. i think my opportunity of people, you defend the basic antenna set a moral tone and make sure to read this extraordinary nation does its job around the world within reason and that it takes up as
the only one done, it takes out the job that he took upon itself at the second world war to make sure innocent people were murdered for religious belief. we seem to be failing. but bill clinton didn't fill in that regard. he had one regret i think, haven't spoken about this over the years that he did not do anything or what he should've done about rwanda, neither is anyone else. i'd be applied to decide to come a long history with jews while he was still governor on arkansas. i worked for the first time in the 80s when he was governor. he has since was wisconsin's major advisor and brought me to see that then governor pivot got along really well and the relationship that went on for an awfully long time for me. he was very much committed to jewish, is a judeo imagination. the first day i remember going
into the white house and going upstairs to the residence library. it's a very peculiar place is hopefully some time. this is one door that goes upstairs to the residence. and the place is like a museum. you see this gigantic. it really is and gigantic. it's like living in -- it's like living in -- how do you translate an english class like a warehouse that's controlled on all sides and you have inventory. the people of inventory are constantly being watched to make sure the inventory does have changed, but nothing occurs to her, but it's already ready to be used, can be sold and moved in in time. it's precious and contained. when there is the president of the united states, even if you're doing business every few minutes, national comments to ask is happening in another two minutes or if you're waiting for the president, who beat her in two minutes for the president will be her one and a half, the
president will be here in 15 seconds. because anything the president of the united states has extraordinary impact of everything around us. during the reelection campaign in 1995 and six, we went against the republicans. i shot the fma would broadcast them in june of 199517 months before the election, which "the wall street journal" beat the out of me for. i was next at the double obviously in the series. but the president went to dallas to make a speech that we were moving the numbers. in january 1995 come he was down 35 points against a generic republican, including bob dole because the year before the democrats as a result had lost both the house and senate, which is what happened to this fine fellow, obama. the same thing, health care loses those chambers. history tends to repeat itself. anyway, the president --
[inaudible] 1994. [inaudible] >> that's correct, 1994 both chambers are lost or democrats controlled the senate. had a good shot until the romney campaign imploded to lose it. that being said, 1994 both boss through the prison is down 35 months. i heard you. i got it. i got the correction. i got the criticism. per duncombe or moving on. i know it's hard, but we will. the president goes to dallas, makes a speech and he says, i know that many of you think they raise your taxes too much. though i did when the stock market took a 200-point hey. the point is that anything the president does or says as instant impact on the world around him. and it's a serious thing and we often forget the politics have direct impacts.
the governance is entirely different. he was first evolved very much a southerner, very much the sun of an alcoholic. the illegitimate son of an alcoholic mother, very brooding at night, would read all the people i've worked for this three smartness listed in the introduction and although more extraordinary leaders consistently and constantly and extraordinarily smart and well versed. clinton was very much committed to make any world better because of his own background. he had jewish roundedness part of their think tank. the number of books on jews accredit the shelves. the people in the reelection effort a few but in 1995 and 96,
belknap dining chain coffee was jewish. then you had -- that was the primary group of people. the higher-level advertisement on matters. if you look at it colberg, the great moral than the bosnia was when you think about maybe the high watermark pricing for moral behavior and the use of military as a moral tool. that is an argument i'll have that anybody could without question, it's a difficult decision to make. the jewish are very much involved in this. here you're the guy doing all these things, republican responses they want to kill them because no southerner whose president of the united states should be a democrat. he spent a lot of years from the beginning trying to get some logic for that reason. he was the opposite of what newt gingrich was.
and what does this mean for the jewish? jewish luckman because he was everything they wanted him to be. he was a guy who talked about human rights, supported israel, kept the economy running, who is not evangelical from the south and who knew them. but the great problem republicans have faced historically is that it's kind of the same way -- kind of the problem with blacks and hispanics. they keep saying, if only we can talk to those people and spend enough money, somehow this will turn around. this thing has been going on for it years. medoc has been wri