Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[ Silence ]
>> Good afternoon everyone.
Welcome to the only presidential debate focused solely
on one topic, the economy.
Our panelist will provide an informed preview
of tonight's debate.
Handicap the GOP race, and talk
about the economic issues in play.
We're privileged to have 5 seasoned panelists all
with ties to Dartmouth College.
Three award winning writers who are also Dartmouth alumni
in open reporting and commenting on the national political scene
for decades, will join two distinguished Dartmouth
professors whose insights are regularly featured
by major national media outlets.
Now, word about our moderator, Mort Kondracke for more
than 25 years, Dartmouth has hosted events
for presidential candidates.
Mort Kondracke was there at the start in 1984
when Dartmouth held its first debate for the democrats.
Then Mort was a panelist at the debate and we're pleased
to welcome him back now to lead this esteemed panel.
Mort Kondracke, a 1960 Dartmouth graduate and current member
of our Board of Trustees, has been a national journalist
for 41 years, the last 18 years as Executive Editor
and columnist at Roll Call,
the leading newspaper covering the US Congress.
He was a Senior Editor at the New Republic,
Washington Bureau Chief of News Week,
and a Wall Street Journal columnist.
He is a Fox News commentator and was a regular panelist
on the McLaughlin Group and on ABC's This Week.
A Nieman Fellow at Harvard from 1973 to 74,
he has also frequently appeared on Meet the Press
in National Public Radio.
I present the panelist for this afternoon's session.
[ Applause ]
>> The panelists are invited to come closer
to the water if they choose, okay.
Hi everybody.
I'm Mort Kondracke, and I'm delighted to be here.
Any of you whoever watched the McLaughlin Group will know
that I'm not only glad to be here, I'm glad to be anywhere
where I can finish a sentence
without getting interrupted [laughter].
And now I'm playing John McLaughlin but I will do
so more civilly than he ever did.
Our panel, first of all, I'll introduce the panel
and then I just want to--
and then I'll explain how we're going to proceed.
David Shribman, class of 1976 is Executive Editor
of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, suma *** laude,
Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dartmouth,
Pullet Surprise Winner in 1995,
and a former Trustee of Dartmouth College.
Joe Rago, class of 05,
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member,
also a Pullet Surprise Winner for covering healthcare,
won his Pullet Surprise in 2011.
Matthew Slaughter is Associate Dean
of the Tuck School of Business.
From 2005 to 2007, he was
on President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers.
And he has-- was in the Dartmouth Economics Department
from 1994 until he finally joined the CEA and then he moved
to Tuck when he came back.
Linda Fowler is professor of government,
has been at Dartmouth since 1995, was Director
of the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy until 2004.
She's the author of 2 books on congress
and is working on a third.
So, the way we're going to do this is that we will talk
about the debate and other presidential campaign issues
for 40 minutes, and then we'll throw it open
to the audience for questions.
And so, and I-- what I hope you'll think of--
think about, and I'm going to ask the panel about this too,
is questions that you would like to see,
ask of the presidential candidates tonight especially
non-obvious questions that might be asked
to the presidential candidates.
I don't know whether the panelists are actually watching
us, the questioners are actually watching us
but in case they are, maybe we can get
to inject some new queries into the mix.
Okay, so first of all, let me cover some news,
some of the news and events of the day, and get them
out of the way, and just get your comment
on what impact do you think they will have
on the presidential race and on tonight's debate.
The most obvious of which is Governor Chris Christie's
endorsement of Mitt Romney today.
And previously by the way,
Judd Greg's endorsement of Mitt Romney.
Linda, you're an expert on New Hampshire politics,
what difference will that make for the New Hampshire race,
tonight's debate and the race in general.
>> Well, this certainly cements Romney's position
as front runner and particularly with many
of the republican donors who have been so reluctant
to fund any of the candidates right now.
What we are in now is what's called the invisible primary.
Most of what we're seeing now is for the benefit
of activist donors, journalists, political junkies like us.
And they will take this as a significant sign
that the republican establishment
at least is beginning to coalesce
around Romney as the front runner.
>> Matthew?
>> So, I think about the topic
of tonight's debate being economics,
I think there's a signal there.
I think one of the things that has attracted a lot of people
to Governor Christie was his willingness to take on a lot
of the strong and challenges
of how the New Jersey economy is doing,
what are top fiscal choices facing that state?
So, it gives a message to the [inaudible] brothers in America
when Governor Christie casts his preference with Governor Romney.
And so with Judd Greg at least in New Hampshire here,
I think a well-regarded senior statesman of the state,
former governor, representative, senator, and importantly
on these budget issues, I think a real voice
of moderation [inaudible] there's going
to be some hard choices.
>> David?
>> I think from its days of discussion
so in a cocktail party to a tea party,
the republicans have been less a party
of the fraternal lodge [laughs].
And I think the ascendancy of Governor Romney,
he's the next guy, that there's some logic to it,
and that's why you see these people hang out with him
and signing up with him.
And in this lodge, we will see some of the men
who are in the lodge tonight.
In this lodge [inaudible]?
>> Well I think his laying on hands
of Romney's is really important because there's a huge sense
of dissatisfaction, you know among activists,
conservative journalists, especially donors
with the current field, you know it's kind of these knuckle heads
and Romney has his own problems.
So his endorsement-- Christie's endorsement as one of the people
that people were trying to conscript into the race,
you know either it's Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan,
some of the other-- maybe more serious
or more thoughtful republicans,
Christie's endorsement has a big factor.
>> Well, it's obviously not over, right?
It-- but it's a big step for Romney.
>> Yeah, and I think, you know, if there were somebody better
than Romney, I think Christie would have endorsed him.
And I think you're going
to see all these guys coming in and going.
Well, look down the line and Romney's the most plausible,
and we're gonna make our peace with him.
>> So what's the effect going to be on the debate tonight?
Is-- are people going to say and then try to separate Christie
from Romney and try to find ways
of diminishing the importance of this endorsement?
>> I think [inaudible] on, I cherish the notion of sitting
to the right of a guy from Wall Street Journal [laughter] I--
>> but you're not?
>> -- well, from your point of view [laughter].
So the-- I think it's the other guy's opportunity
or actually their obligation to try to separate themselves
from the rest of this pack so as to emerge as the alternative
to Romney because I think as Linda says and Joe as well,
Romney really has solidified his position.
>> Yeah. I would just expect that we're going
to have some effort to paint Christie
as an establishment kind of figure, kind of, you know, soft,
having-- in favor of gun control, soft on immigration,
and all that kind of stuff in order to separate the 2 of them
from the rest of what the republican party thinks.
So, second big event today was the discovery of this plot
to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador
of the United States by the Iranians.
Is that going to have any effect tonight?
This is an economics debate.
>> I don't think so.
>> Okay, I don't-- I don't think son either.
Third item [laughter], third item--
I just wanted to get it off the table.
Third item with the news is the sort
of almost universal denunciation of the pastor
who slurred Mormonism at last week's Values Voter Summit
in Washington, you know, the pastor was introduced saying
that Governor Perry and sort of implied that Perry was better
than Romney because he's a real Christian, and Perry said,
he did not get out of the park, didn't he?
And today at the endorsement event, Romney really sort
of pinned it on Perry.
Now, every-- almost every commentator
that I've seen has said this has no place
in the Republican Party.
So does Perry get really hurt from this, do you think Joe?
>> I think it reflects a larger problem with this campaign that,
you know, it stood up in just a few months
and doesn't really have the sea legs yet.
So he really needed to denounce this guy not to come off,
you know like anti Mormon bigot.
And instead, he kind of-- he dropped the ball here.
It doesn't speak well of the professionalism
of the Perry campaign.
>> Anybody else?
Haven't [inaudible] yet?
Okay, let me ask you a bigger question.
What do you think the American People are looking
for in a President in the 2012 election?
>> Well, they're looking for Superman
but they have been doing that for a while now.
But on a more serious note, I do believe
that the country is very concerned about the future
of this country not just the economy
but we've never seen poll numbers that we're now seeing
about the number of people who think it's going
in the wrong direction.
And I think given the political opportunities
that the economy provides for the republicans right now,
it's surprising to me that they haven't actually talked more
about it and more concretely.
And so, this is their opportunity to do that tonight
and if they don't, I think they will have missed an
important opportunity.
>> Joe?
>> No, what they need to talk about is economic growth.
I mean we're in a growth recession right now.
This is the major issue you cannot put people back
to work unless the economy is growing.
And I think the only guy who's really talking about this
in a very sustained way is Mitt Romney.
I don't agree with all his proposals, you know it's kind
of hashed, but he knows that this election is going to be
about the economy, referendum on Obama's economic policy
and I think he's got the right focus
if not always the right message.
>> Has he, you know Ronald Reagan gave us a sense
of optimism even in the depths of stagflation in 1980
that we really could do it.
And I don't really sense from Romney that he's--
that ebullient about things.
I mean he is whacking away at Obama.
I don't hear a great optimistic growth message
that I have the answer and here's
where we're going, follow me.
Do you?
>> No. I think-- the thing to understand
about Mitt Romney is he's a Bain and Company consultant.
He is a technocrat to the core.
He believes in getting all the smartest people in the room,
hash up their differences and come
out with a technocratic solution.
And, you know, I was with him on the campaign trail yesterday,
constantly reinforces, you know,
private sector expertise, businessmen.
I'm, the turn-around artist.
I know what to do.
But he doesn't have sort of that doesn't really fit
into a larger message about either economic growth
or the direction of the country.
It's kind of he believes in his own expertise
and he'll tell you about it.
>> So what do you think the public is looking for?
What is the public--
>> Oh, I think the public is gravely concerned and with very,
very good reason, there's not one indicator
in this particular round that's encouraging though.
The market has had some good days
but the market generally is bad, the number.
If you look at statistics, I think it was
in the journal today, a number of--
a number of people who have graduated in engineering degrees
in the United Stated versus other countries.
A number of people who have college degrees
in the United States versus others as Joe says growth.
And the problem I think that maybe Romney has is he may have,
you know, a 9 million plan-- 9 million point plan,
but there isn't a soul on earth, except maybe his wife,
who is passionate for him.
And [laughter] of course he has one of those great jokes
about Romney, I think I'll let her talk.
But the problem is Ronald Reagan, from the beginning
of his political career in 1966 and Mort you remember this
as well, had people who were passionate for him.
People who considered themselves Reagan people of 66 [inaudible]
and 68 as well, and we ran in 76 and then again in 80.
There was a real passion, people believed in Ronald Reagan
and identified themselves as Reagan people.
If you can find somebody who identifies himself
as a Romney person, call me collect.
>> [Laughs] So I want to [inaudible]
about something Linda said.
It echoes what John and David said I think there are 2 numbers
that a lot of American households are sitting around
and I'm wondering who's going to help explain
and provide a solution to.
And one in September of 1999, that number is--
refers to the fact that how damaged the American labor
market is in terms of the number of jobs.
So today, there's about 109 million private sector jobs
in the United States and the number we have today is the same
number we had 12 years ago in September of 1999.
So that's one reason, you know, upwards of 80 percent
of Americans are saying America is on the wrong track right now.
But I think the other one is not just jobs but the incomes
of those jobs, and the second number is the year of 1989.
A couple of weeks ago, the US Census Bureau put
out the annual report on incomes
and poverty in the United States.
And in 2010, the median household in America,
its earnings was 49,445 dollars.
That's only about 369 dollars above what it was in 1989
when he addressed for price inflation.
So the typical household
in America today sitting there wondering how
in our situation we're going to have fewer private sector jobs
when we did a decade ago and the typical household is just barely
breaking even or worse off.
And I hate the difference between Ronald Reagan of 1983,
then we have-- we had a very deep recession in the early 90s
that was largely triggered by the Fed to break inflation.
And the recovery you tend to get from those,
Central Bank monetary [inaudible] induced recoveries,
the recessions is really-- it really [inaudible].
You know, September of 1983, in one month,
the US economy grew 1 million jobs in just one month.
This recession is very different 'cause it was triggered
by financial crisis, you've got the ongoing pressures
like you mentioned with China, and India,
and those other countries.
And I think almost by definition it's the hardest starting point
to tell a story but I think a lot of Americans want
to hear somebody tell a story for what's causing this
and what they're going to try to do to get out of it.
>> But most Republicans tend to blame this thing on Obama
for not getting out-- not, getting us out of it.
They don't-- I've never heard a Republican say
that a financial downturn is harder
to get out of than a get--
>> Yeah.
>> -- I hope somebody will ask tonight,
you know that many economists say--
>> Right.
>> -- that this was a financial crisis, that it's harder to get
out of, what do you think about that candidates?
Wouldn't that be a legitimate question?
>> It would be a legitimate and a great question to hear asked.
And I'd love to hear the answers.
I think reasonable people can talk
about whether the policy choices in the past couple of years
of congress and the administration have been wiser
or not in trying to help address these things.
But the pervasiveness I think of the economic pressures
that face the US right now, you know,
the president is a powerful person whoever it is
but there's limits to that office
and these forces are a lot bigger
than who is in the White House.
>> The Wall Street Journal doesn't think that it's harder
to get out of a financial crisis than it is, does it?
I mean--
>> Of course.
>> Does it really-- I've never seen that.
All right.
>> I mean look, you have to separate elective politics
from journalistic interpretation [laughs], I think.
But no, clearly there are much deeper problems at work
in the economy than just Obama's choices.
I don't think Obama's choices have--
have helped certain health matters
but it's exactly right, you know.
If you look at new business starts,
they're down over the last decade versus the decade before,
rising healthcare costs are eating into incomes, you know.
Just that all the money we're spending
on healthcare is not showing up in paychecks as wages.
So there's absolutely deeper problems.
And you know, sort of Washington has I think--
they sort of view the economy as this Newtonian system
where you know you cut taxes and you get a response
or you pass a stimulus and growth will rebound.
And that's not really the way it works.
On the other hand, running for office is different
from being an economist or being a journalist.
>> Linda?
>> Well there's a lot of survey evidence
that voters are quite myopic about the economy.
And that in the past,
republicans have always been very good at pumping
up the economy in the fourth year before republican has
to run for election.
Democrats have always been badly at that.
So I think we're seeing-- this is part of a much larger pattern
that we've seen and voters tend to look
at what's happening recently.
And George Bush the first was a victim of that kind of myopia
in the 92 election when the economy had actually started
to come back but he didn't get any credit for it.
So, I think the sophistication of voters is pretty limited
on these kinds of issues.
And so, they're easily--
they find it easy to forget whose recession this really is
I think.
>> And I think that's absolutely right.
What struck me throughout this entire period is how the main
tenets, save of course the stimulus, but the main tenets
of the Obama economic policy were actually set in motion
by President George W. Bush are-- has its [inaudible] there,
the bail out of industries and companies that were too big
to fail all began in the George W. Bush administration.
And so, now it's tough luck to President Obama.
He ran on the notion that he would make it his economy,
well it's his.
Tough luck for him right now but I am struck
at how people have forgotten that some of the major tenets
of this-- of the Obama plans
so called really are the George W. Bush plan
and that's sure not only in the economy, Mort,
but it's also true in foreign policy, and in law enforcement,
in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and else where.
>> You never hear a republican candidate mention the words
George W Bush.
I have never heard them mention the man who wasn't there.
>> If he was still alive then he would-- what [laughter].
>> The person that I have heard refer
to George W Bush is Barack Obama.
And, you know, he would like to blame his problems
on George Bush and-- but I do want to ask about Obama.
He's clearly trying to play Harry Truman, you know.
Running against the do-nothing-republican party,
do-nothing-congress, putting out a jobs plan
that everybody knows has no chance of passing and-- but--
which has popular elements including raising taxes
on rich people.
So he's down in the low 40s, everybody says that, you know,
a president going into an election year
in the low 40s is-- has no chance to win.
Do you think he can pull it off?
>> Well, the Truman analogy according
to my colleague Brenda Nion [phonetic] is a forced one.
When Truman was running against the do-nothing-congress,
he was also experiencing a quite nice increase in GDP.
At the same time, the models that people used
to predict the outcomes of presidential races all say,
when you get down into the 40s in approval
and when GDP growth is low, which it is now,
those are the big determinants of the popular vote.
So, I don't think there's any political sign as you think
that will be anything other than close.
But I don't think-- I think what we're talking about is
within the plus or minus margin of error here.
And I think the republicans have a terrific opportunity
but they shouldn't assume that they just get to run
on a narrow set of issues and win this election.
>> So, well yeah I mean predictions are hardest
especially about the future.
But [laughter] I think it depends
on who the republicans nominate.
I--
>> Well, say they nominate Romney.
>> I still think it will be head to head but who knows?
It'll-- I think it'll be very close just
because of the relative weakness of the GOP field.
And, you know, I think it's going
to be a pretty vicious campaign.
I don't see how it couldn't be, you know it's going
to be all the tax from the republicans
on Obama and vice versa.
So, I think it's going to be messy and it's going to come
down to the wire but don't have any models
to say one way or the other.
>> The more I think what troubles me about the president
and his prospects right now is that he--
he's an American original.
Born in Hawaii by most accounts [laughter].
And having been reared in Indonesia
and having been educated both on the West Coast and in Columbia,
couldn't get into Dartmouth apparently [laughter].
And, you know, with a mixed race and a mixed outlook--
an international outlook, he's an original.
And yet, he seems to want to say, well I'm like Ronald Reagan
or I'm doing a Harry Truman now.
And he should be Barack Obama rather
than Harry Truman every [inaudible]
or rather than Ronald Reagan.
And I think that's one
of his problems is he hasn't figure out--
he hasn't figured out or let himself be him
and of course we used
to [inaudible] the phrase let Reagan be Reagan.
We haven't seen Obama be Obama since the Pennsylvania primary
in April of 19 in 2008.
I think that's-- that more than any of the rest
of us is Obama's problem as it is.
>> So who is Obama?
>> Well, he has to answer that for us.
I mean--
>> Have you seen the real Obama?
>> I saw him for about 15 minutes
around the corner one day [laughter].
But I mean that's for him to tell us not for--
I mean we make a living.
It's a cheap living but we make a living by telling everybody
who Obama is and who Reagan was but he needs to tell us
who Obama is and he hasn't done so.
>> I mean I detect a certain Jimmy Carterish in aura.
>> Well here you go again Mr. President [laughter]
>> How can-- seriously, I mean, you know, the--
all of a sudden doing this "class warfare thing" looks kind
of desperate and it looks like he's blaming other people.
You know, take off your bedroom slippers and get into action
as though it's somebody else's fault.
And that-- if that model holds, then people will look
at the debates when they hop on the presidential debates
and they'll see
if the republican candidate is credible.
It could be a landslide.
I mean, if that model stopped.
>> So we could have Jimmy Carter running against George W. Bush?
>> Okay, this is getting too complicated [laughter].
So when-- I'll generally-- Americans I think--
I agree with Linda that, you know, not everybody gets--
not even the economists get all the macro models
and [inaudible] cause and effect on what policy had, what impact.
But I just know from things I've been on the years my reading
of public community evidence,
American are pretty sophisticated pack of employers.
They know when they're doing well,
they know when they're not doing well.
You know, you want to know the most--
some of the most sophisticated thing about global economics,
go to any manufacturing plant in the Midwest, they talk to folks
in the production line.
They will tell you about the currency risk they face
and how oil price [inaudible]
>> You won't find anybody on the production line.
>> You'll find as well-- okay, so here's the great point.
So there's 11.7 million Americans that work
in manufacturing today.
Anybody-- I'll give-- breakfast at Lou's tomorrow morning
if anybody can tell me the last time we had 11.7 million
Americans working in US manufacturing?
>> Oh, 1820.
>> No, close.
So, April of 1941.
So, I think the point I make here is
if you want a simple answer,
we'll build back the manufacturing jobs,
we'll get the fat cat CEOs and their [inaudible].
>> How do we do that?
>> None of that's going to address these issues.
And so, I think Americans, one of the things [inaudible]
when you look at-- Americans tend to be very--
my reading of public opinion,
these survey is we're really optimistic.
You know, and even if you look at you know questions those kind
of low frequency questions about how your kids are going to do
in the future, go back to early recessions and even coming
out of those recessions,
slight to noticeable majorities Americans still said,
yeah we just came through recession
but I think my children's generation is going
to be better off.
My kids will be better off than I am.
>> Not now.
>> Right now, two thirds of Americans say,
I do not think my kid's generation will have a better
standard of living than I do.
So there's an opportunity, I don't know whether it's Obama
or whether the republican candidate emerges to be.
Again, to speak to that, and if it's going to be simplistic
or kind of mean, I'm not sure that's going to resonate
with a lot of people in effect.
>> We do have the manufacturing job and the services jobs
with the one
in six underemployed Americans in the US today.
>> And to quote what Matt says into context,
the last time there were
that few industrial jobs, there wasn't a Lou's.
6 years before Lou's started.
>> Yeah, right, right.
[ Laughter ]
>> You-- now the Wall Street Journal at least according
to the Huntsman campaign,
says that the Huntsman economic plan is the best plan
for getting American growth together.
Did you write that editorial?
>> I did not.
>> Okay, do you agree with that point?
>> Who?
>> I would say it's a good, it's a good economic plan.
>> What's so good about it?
>> Not going to make any endorsements but,
you know you've got gestures at some
of these long term undercurrents that are dragging down growth,
you've got pro-growth tax policy,
you know broaden the base, lower the rates,
clear out the loop holes, get rid of the deductions.
So it's a tax simplification.
The-- but Huntsman I would say is the winner by default.
You know, Mitt Romney's 59 point economic plan, you know,
it's got some good stuff in there.
But it's also got his trade war with China platform
which I think would be a huge mistake.
You know, one of the major mistakes of the great depression
that we've so far avoided is having a trade war raising
tariffs on imports, you know currency issues.
And, you know the only other one with economic plan as far
as I can tell aside from Rick Perry's--
I haven't heard how great Texas is, let's all be Texas,
is Herman Cain with his 999 plan.
And so, it's a 9 percent VAT, 9 percent corporate profits tax,
and 9 percent income tax, and it's just unrealistic
and disruptive in a lot of ways.
>> Why?
>> It's especially for low-wage earners.
You know, you're going to have a consumption tax
and a 9 percent tax.
These are people who are not paying taxes right now and,
you know, you want-- except for payroll taxes, I should say,
excuse me although that is social insurance system not
income taxes.
>> That is the 99 percent?
>> We're all giving [laughs].
>> But, you know Joe, Romney has 59 points, Roger Wilson had 14,
God had 10, and Reagan had 1.
Are we worried that there's no one vision of this whole thing,
from any of the candidates, not only Romney?
>> I think that's a huge problem, you know, they--
as I said, they haven't really made a larger narrative
about how-- they haven't crafted a larger narrative
about how we ended up at our current juncture.
And that's a failure especially in a presidential contest
where people are looking at these 2 guys, sizing them up,
and saying, who's the plausible president which--
where's my vote going to go?
>> There's still a problem with narrative I think is what needs
to be starting and sorted out?
And I think that's why the journalists are paying
so much attention to this debate even though the viewer should
know Bloomberg is relatively small
but I think people are wondering when is the narrative
about what the republicans are for, and what they would do
if entrusted with government that hasn't coalesced yet.
And part of the problem is that you do have to tell the story
of what caused it and that raises all these difficult
questions for republicans.
So, I think it's a real challenge for them
and that's why we've seen their economic plans are really
about biography.
I made more job-- you know, I was a job creator or I did these
and at some point, unless pretty persuasive for a while.
>> So, what is the question that one
of these questioners should ask tonight
about to get this vision thing or the narrative going?
Is there-- how would you frame a question to them to try
to elicit what they think in broad terms?
Anybody?
>> So I'll take a crack, I--
it could be a retrospect to "how did we kind of get here?"
Well, maybe a prospective one is tell us your story and maybe try
to frame it not point 16 and 42 those maybe part of it
but what's your vision for how America builds the millions
and millions of new jobs it needs to,
to rebuild the balance sheets and income statements
of American households and do it in a way
that is sustainable for the future?
Because I think one of the key things is no disrespect
to retail trade and homebuilding.
But if we go back to that driving economic growth,
that's part of what laid the foundation
of the world financial crisis.
It's got to be millions of jobs linked to international trade
and investment and of the ongoing dynamism
in the world economy.
>> David?
>> [Inaudible] social change everybody's words
but I wouldn't change a word of what Matt said,
I go with what he said.
>> [Inaudible] do you have any notion
of what the question is that gets to this?
>> No, but just to build on a point, you know,
not only homebuilding but healthcare
and education are sectors
that have negative productivity rates.
And we're putting more and more national resources
into those 2 industries every year.
>> I'm sorry, education and?
>> Healthcare.
You know, lot of pockets of innovation in both fields
but overall negative productivity
and that's striking down economic growth.
>> Therefore, we should do what?
Or therefore, the question to them is,
how would you increase the productivity of the educational
and healthcare sectors?
>> Right, and I think, you know, the resources that we devote
to things that-- well we're not getting a marginal benefit.
We need to put those into something productive
in savings and investment.
>> Linda?
>> Well, I think the 800-pound gorilla is how we continue
to pay for wars that the public has stopped supporting
and how we can redesign our military apparatus in a way
that is more cost effective and none of the candidates,
of course, wants to touch that and I believe Romney is--
>> Ron Paul does.
>> -- that's true and Mitt Romney actually is calling
for a fairly substantial increase in defense spending.
And the healthcare is one of the 800-pound gorillas
in a looming deficit crisis.
The shorter term, one is military spending
and what we really want to pay for it.
>> I would like to see somebody ask, what is the role
of the big banks in all of this?
>> I think we see someone answer that [laughter].
>> Well, there are books about it Gretchen Morganstern
of the New York Times and Michael Lewis have written books
which basically blamed the banks for the whole thing
>> Well Gretchen blames-- Fannie Mae.
>> Fannie Mae, right.
But Fannie Mae was the origin of it
and Alan Greenspan contributed to it but the banks,
you know invented the instruments and never knew--
never unders-- never fessed up to what they were inventing
if they knew what they were inventing.
So, you know, what is the role of the big banks
and what would you do about it?
It's the question that I would like to see these guys answer.
And maybe they'll say, you know, all we have to do is repeat--
repeal Dodd-Frank and everything will be okay but--
>> That's what they will say.
>> -- well, I--
>> And I know you don't accept that.
>> No-- I, you know, I wouldn't.
And the other thing that I'd
like to have them explore, monetary policy.
I have not heard except for saying
that Ben Bernanke is devaluing the currency
and I have not heard anybody explain what monetary policy
ought to be, how it affects all this, I mean,
I've heard people say that if we went out back
on the gold standard for example, that, you know, we--
that a lot of our manufacturing problems would go away.
Now the gold standard is kind of a weird subject to bring up
but don't you think it ought to be brought up?
>> No but I [laughter].
Well, I mean look, we're not going back to the gold standard,
I mean, it's kind of silly to suggest that but, you know,
should-- should the Federal Reserve be pursuing a
rules-based monetary policy or kind
of the Ben Bernanke Improvisation Act
that we've seen since 2003?
I think that's a fair question to ask certainly.
>> You know, as critical as we all have been
of this republican field and cause my friend Susan Black
in Pittsburgh says that she'd feel better
if she could finally-- at least 2 of them who believe
in evolution but [laughter] this is a-- generally speaking,
a more economically literate, you may be horrified by this.
>> No.
>> A more economically literate group than most--
than almost any 20th century president.
And remember John Kennedy didn't remember what the difference
between fiscal and monetary policy was and they have
to tell him well remember M for McChesney, and M for monetary.
McChesney Martin was the Chairman of the Fed.
So, I mean, these guys are more sophisticated about--
more sophisticated and better developed view
than President Truman did, than President Roosevelt did,
than President Coolidge did, than President Harding did.
And than President Nixon, and President Johnson,
I think we ought to give them at least that.
>> If a question about the Fed is asked,
I'd love to hear a candidate offer a ringing endorsement
for the statutory independence of the Fed.
And I would say the credit the Fed [inaudible]
for the innovation to help us stay out of the depression.
History is quite clear,
countries that have more politicized central banking can
have lower rates of economic growth, higher rates
in price inflation, more valuable price inflation.
So, what I'm a little more worried,
the fact that we've got-- one of the candidates will be
on the stage who we have elected would probably aim to shut
down the Federal Reserve.
>> That's Ron Paul.
>> That's Ron Paul, who chairs the House Financial Services
Subcommittee that has over sight of our monetary policy.
That's-- hopefully gives Paul some [inaudible].
>> Other questions that you would like to see asked?
>> Well, I-- yeah
>> I think we should let the audience--
>> All right, open to the audience now.
The-- I guess the best way to do it is to--
I can't really see back there but other people can
who have microphones, so raise your hand
and a microphone will come to you.
There's somebody in the back there.
[ Pause ]
>> You've talked about a lot of very complex issues
that are facing the country today.
One thing you haven't addressed is how does any successful
president deal with the polarized congress
that has held an even lower regard
than the current president at 11 percent?
And so, the great ideas are fine
but how do you get them into place?
>> David?
>> I just want to say that about polarization, when a long,
long time ago when I was young and when we were young,
there were liberal republicans and conservative democrats.
And that was deplored by your antecedents,
your political scientist friends who said, you know what we need
in America is party discipline and ideological parties
because this doesn't work?
Well, we got those and thank you very much [inaudible]
because now, the most liberal republican is more
conservative-- the most liberal republican--
there is no interchange between republicans and democrats, okay?
There is no overlap.
Olympia Snowe who's probably the most liberal republican is now
more conservative than the most conservative democrat.
In 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed,
President Roosevelt was able to sign that into law
with bipartisan support even though I often ran against it
in 4-- 3 years later, when President Johnson was able
to get the next great social experiment Medicare passed
with all of 35 percent of republicans voted for that.
Zero republicans voted for the healthcare plan.
I think that's the center of our fall
and I blame the Political Science Department [laughter]
at Harvard but maybe not Dartmouth.
>> Well, the polariza--
I as a resident of Silsby I guess I have to speak up here.
I would say, David, you know that old saying from Pogo,
"we has met the enemy and he is us [laughs]."
>> Right, yeah.
>> And a lot of the research going
on in Silsby right now is whether this polarization is
being driven by activists and elites
who have hijacked the primary process
and have dominated the political financing
of campaigns rather than the party.
They really overshadowed the parties,
in terms of allocating money,
or whether in fact voters themselves have become more
polarized and they are applying these perceptional screens
to the world.
So republicans, for example, see the economy
as being worse than other people.
And so, everybody is kind of using their partisanship
to say what the facts are
and so that's not just congress that's us.
>> Yeah, I think I agree, I think it's both,
I think you have a sorted electorate who--
yeah, democrats and republicans live in different worlds,
I mean, liberals all watch MSNBC,
conservatives all watch Fox News
and they have a totally different view of reality.
So, you know, it's all of the above but one question
that arises out of this, does anybody think
that there's a prayer for this American Elects Organization
which is trying to get a-- get ballot access for an--
as yet unnamed independent candidate for president
in 50 states who will be chosen sometime later
by some magical internet voting system?
But I mean, is there a moderate alternative to what we see
that has any realm of possibility?
>> But don't you think that the independent movements would have
had at least something-- Eugene Debs, Ross Perot,
even John Anderson-- they--
George Wallace, they have been personality driven rather than,
I mean, they've had the personality and then they make
up some phony party like the American Independent Party
or whatever it was, the crackpot party that--
that Ross Perot had.
It doesn't usually work this way.
>> Right.
>> Maybe, except the Republican Party maybe in 1856
but usually it doesn't work that way.
>> Anybody have a-- think it has a prayer?
I don't either but-- okay, question from the audience.
There's one right down-- well, let's see,
you people with the microphones, you find somebody that you
like [laughter] 'cause I can't see you.
>> Hi. Yesterday I saw a paper by Scott Baker and Nick Bloom
of Stanford as well as Steven Davis of Chicago Booth.
It was entitled Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty.
And they claimed--
they developed an index
of policy induced economic uncertainty
and did a vector autoregression of the last 30 years.
They claimed that if we could reduce the policy induced
economic uncertainty to the levels that prevailed in 2006
and before, that would add about 2 and a half million jobs
in the economy over a year and a half.
Now obviously, that's not the whole picture
but they're claiming that's a significant enough picture
that we can't ignore policy in these uncertainties effects
on business investment.
So, once from a policy perspective,
do any of you have any concrete policy ideas that might be able
to reduce the level of policy uncertainty?
And second, would any of the candidates be able
to actually address that this evening in your opinion?
>> [Inaudible] should we do exact [inaudible]?
>> Yeah, there's going to be quiz handed out.
>> Policy-- [simultaneous talking]--
policy regressions in the middle of a recession.
>> Right, it creates jobs [laugh].
So it's-- so that's a great question you hear in the media,
a lot of business leaders talking
about policy uncertainty.
Many people in this room far-- as far than I know,
you raise the uncertainty around a business decision
and the decision of that business to wait
and not undertake that hiring, that capital investment goes up.
You know, Federal Reserves Chairman Ben Bernanke,
his doctoral dissertation in MIT was on precisely this issue.
The challenges, how do you quantify
and how do you change it?
That's one of the sort of magic wand things
that I wish I knew what to do to make small
and large business owners feel less uncertain
than they do today.
Part of it is the policy process.
I just-- part of what I think people forget some times they're
talking about the super committee now thinking
about 1.5 trillion dollars in deficit reduction.
Well, nobody really quite knows what they're going to do.
And then there's going to be bickering that comes
out of whatever they might do.
And every week and month of that goes on, a lot of small
and large business owners
in America are not sure what their personal tax rate,
their corporate tax rate, their payroll tax rate is
for this key business decisions.
So it's a great question
and I don't know what the answer is maybe we'll hear something
from some of the debate participants tonight
but the other thing that we need to keep in mind
in America is what a lot
of these executive see is this uncertain United States
juxtaposed with the dynamist and the growth
and frankly the greater policy certainty
that they're seeing a lot of it breaking beyond countries.
A lot of these countries have much-- in some basic sense,
a lot better economic policy than we do today
and that matters for a lot
of the decisions these companies make.
>> Then when--
>> Yeah, go ahead Joe
>> No, I think one of the problem especially
if you're talking about policy
or regulatory uncertainty is the problem of delegation
where congress used to pass specific statutes saying what
the law is going to be fairly debated in the committees.
Now, they give sort of general instructions to the agencies.
They say, you know, you figure this out,
get in the federal register and everything will be fine.
So, there's a lot more administered discretion
in what the government does and particularly if you're,
you know, trying to overhaul air pollution regulations
or the Dodd-Frank Bill for instance--
>> Yeah, fed [inaudible] is a great example.
So much of that has been left to the discretion of regulators,
no disrespect to them, they're good public servants.
But what that means is lots of firms, and banks,
and financial firms aren't quite sure what the rules are going
to be in the coming months and years.
>> And it's a huge boom industry for lobbyists and consultants.
>> Yup, so that--
>> But that's partly the result of partisan divisions
in the congress that because they can't agree
on language they know they have to do something.
So, they write big statutes that can pass or overly specific ones
that protect a huge number of individuals, exempt them.
So, to what extent is policy uncertainty just another word
for good luck and polarization?
>> Well, if I'm not mistaken,
most of the republican candidates have said one
that they would do away with Obama care which is--
it does create uncertainties among other thing.
They would have regulatory holidays,
they would cut corporate taxes,
some of them would have a tax reform which is--
which would create uncertainties 'cause lots of businesses depend
on their loop holes for, you know, income.
But, generally speaking, haven't they said what they would do
about to eliminate uncertainty, or do you think not?
>> I don't so.
I think it's going to be very difficult
to eliminate uncertainty.
I think, however, the election shakes out, I think we'll give--
put a lot more certainty into the process
about what the policy environment is going
to look like going forward--
>> I mean if Romney gets elected president
and the senate goes republican, and the hou--
now the republicans retain control of the house,
I'm not sure we're going to like what comes out
but there will be some certainty, won't there?
>> [Inaudible] he would.
>> There was enough--
>> Huh,
>> We might not like it.
>> What?
>> We had unified party control after the 2008 election
and that didn't produce more certainty.
>> Well there's [simultaneous talking] also
like there's certainty about the good policies and uncertainty
about that policies that I think is an important distinction.
If we're--
>> Right.
>> -- returning to the super majorities in 2008.
>> Yeah, I mean what happens classically,
I mean the part I'm talking about polarization is
that 2 parties fight to get control of the government
so that they can do things their way.
And then when they start doing things their way,
the country thinks that they've gone too far in one direction
and throws them out again.
So, you know, which is what happened to the democrat.
Question, anybody?
>> If I had a chance to talk at the debate,
I would ask them how they would get business more involved
in the community.
For example, our education.
The manufactures could help the schools
because in the schools are the future workers,
the hospitals future workers.
Instead of having vouchers why not, in addition to the parents
who have their children there, the community help.
Instead of saying, I don't want to pay higher taxes,
say let me help my community.
It seems that people go through the education system and then
after they're out, they don't want to pay
for other people's children.
But I would ask how these candidates could get their
businesses involve to help and then
in return we would help the businesses.
>> Can I have a [inaudible] at that?
I think it's a great idea and the one thing
in particular I'd point out is that the median voter in the US,
the median person
in the American labor force has a high school degree
and about 1 year post-high school education.
And so, that person I [inaudible]
to say our educational system does an increasingly poor job
and sort of preparing them for-- to have the skills,
to try there a decent living
and then hopefully a rising standard living
in today's global economy.
And when you look at manufacturers,
the National Association of Manufacturers,
and a bunch of companies have done studies,
the biggest constraint a lot of these firm site today is skills
and talent, you know, it maybe but the reality
of today is a manufacturer in America tends
to be very capital intensive, knowledge intensive,
the folks gotta have, you know, a lot of numeracy,
problem solving skills in advance math,
good communication skills, and I say gah, I can't find--
they go to the communities in America,
I can't find the young folks that have that skill set.
So--
>> At the same time, I worry and I bet President Kim worries
as well that with the lingering economic woes really--
economic despair at this increasing emphasis on training
and less on education.
And I like to make a distinction between going to college
to be educated and going to college to be trained.
And I think that the genius of America flew
out the last century and into this century has been what our
people-- what our educated people have been able to do.
And the more and more we emphasize training
and the less we emphasize education,
I think the more we even more empower ourselves
as we go forward in the economy.
>> So, ca-- I agree but what I think of training,
I think it's the read and write arithmetic in my mind,
that's what lot of these manufactures
and other companies that's what they say they're looking for.
>> Go ahead, respond.
>> By education, I agree with education and training
but whatever I learned at Dartmouth when I graduated
and I go to work [inaudible] capital for your newspaper--
>> Well, you could do better than that, you could do better
than [laughs] being capital newspaper.
>> You can tell me what you want [inaudible].
>> No, I'm going to want to hire people who have their own ideas
and who can think and I don't really want to tell them what
to know because I know how to do what I already know how to do
and I want to hear the new ideas and the new thinking
in my place even though it's a newspaper,
an antediluvian 19th century industry.
I still want to have new ideas and creative thinking
and I think most important is you want that as well.
>> But you know there is the--
my wife happens to be the president
of America's [inaudible], she--
Collin Powell's Youth Organization
and which is fighting the high school drop out crisis.
And what-- and the problem is that as you point out kids
in the 9th grade, see no connection
between their education and any kind of future.
And so, having a number of businesses actually have stood
up and brought kids into hotels
to see what the hospitality industry is
like into high-tech industries to see what engineering is
like and stuff like that.
But it could really be done on a much more broad scale
to keep those kids connected and to show them that they're--
that going to school is, you know, has a purpose.
But, you know, across the board on education,
I mean the ACT result showed that only 25 percent of the kids
who took the ACT are qualified for college work.
Now, if that is not an argument for education reform,
I do not know what is, however,
all these republican candidates want to get Washington
out of education and some of them want
to demolish the Department of Education,
anyway, end of editorial.
Next question, anybody?
>> You mentioned that because
of Chris Christie's endorsement that's going to have an effect.
Because of that, do you think
that all the candidate's eyes are going to be
on Mitt Romney trying to turn the tables on him?
I guess how much of an effect do you think that's going
to happen in tonight's debate?
>> Sorry, I missed the question.
>> Repeat the question.
>> Just the fact Chris Christie's endorsement
of Mitt Romney kind of how much
of an effect do you think that's going
to have in tonight's debate?
Do you think all eyes are going to be
on Mitt Romney because of that?
>> I think so.
You know, the debates have been remarkably important
so far they essentially ended Tim Pawlenty's candidacy.
And the candidates are not really taking questions
from journalists.
So, this is the only forum where they are kind
of get-put-on-the-spot and have to distinguish themselves.
And Romney has gotten to pass in the last 2 or 3 debates,
everyone has been, been ganging up on Perry.
I think the other candidates are going to realize it's coming
down to Romney and 1 maybe 2 other people and they need
to get into that spot and that means going after Romney.
So, I do think it will increase the urgency of going
after Romney for the other campaigns.
>> Do you think any-- who do you think is the likeliest,
not Romney, in the race?
>> Well, I mean that's the other thing.
Perry is sort of seen like, you know,
he's had some sort mental disability
at the previous debates [laughters].
I'm sorry, it's true.
He is not a very practiced public speaker on issues
that are not related to Texas [laughter].
And so, he came in.
He seemed to be the great hope, and he's standing is diminished
in each debate because people are kind of looking at him
and going, woah, what's that all about?
[Laughter] and part of it is he's just been governor
for 10 years, hasn't been focused
on the more national issues.
And so he-- I mean his policy people are stuffing him
like a Christmas turkey with new information
and you can tell he's just fried.
He doesn't have [laughter],he doesn't have things together.
And so--
>> So is Herman Cain going to be--
is Michelle Backman going to make a come back?
Does Huntsman have a prayer?
>> I think all three are potential alternatives.
>> Really?
>> Yeah, they've all had their moment,
and they have another moment, and then we'll see who survives.
>> Any thoughts?
>> I'll be watching with keen interest.
>> Okay, I think we all will.
Thank you very much to the panel [applause].
Thank you very much [inaudible].
[ Applause ]