tv Highlights from... CSPAN April 14, 2012 4:05pm-6:30pm EDT
>> good afternoon, everyone. i am the senior fellow and director of the program here at the center for international studies. we're delighted that you are going to join us for i think a very important discussion about the european economic crisis. we're not going to talk too much about the economics although that would be an important part of the discussion. instead of focusing on the rising borrowing costs, size of bailout, and firewalls, we're going to take a look at the rising -- a rise in popularity of populist national and extremist voices and parties across europe. and what that means for your. what does that mean for the u.s. in the future of the transatlantic relationship? the larger question i hope we dig into is how do democracy's
work through major society restructuring, painful reform, and long term deleveraging? another part of the question we need to dig into deeper is the unforgiving impact of europe's debt crisis on its use. we're seeing staggering levels of unemployment among european youth. the upcoming may 6 recollections will provide us with important knowledge about how societies, exhausted from austerity, are going to respond. joining me for this discussion, i am delighted to have four distinguished journalist and observers of european politics joining us today. with us, jim hogan for "the wa shington post," "chrstine
>> let's jump into the discussion. we would love to start with you. your correspondent for "the new york times." you have literally watch the european project evolved and you have written extensively on the topic. i was struck by an op-ed you wrote in november of last year and it was entitled, "we are all greeks." the u.s. will go through similar challenges as we work to reduce our debt and make some structural reform. you noted the greeks are forerunners of what the rest of us are becoming. they have been making promises of lower taxes and high benefits that could never afford to keep. that was important.
help us understand the bigger picture and think you for joining us. >> about that column, i wrote it after i sold a small piece of land i bought in greece. i knew a little bit about how great the not pay taxes. since 1980 -- 1975 i paid very little in property-tax as. normally it is the job of an analytical journalist to find the cloud in every silver lining. after that incredibly downbeat opening it is my job to reverse that and see if there are glimmers of hope in this dark picture we received. do not go out and sell your stocks before i get a chance. i want to look briefly at the three-point some want to
concentrate on. the first is what time and what changes have been produced and what will be produced by the economic crisis. looking at how european leaders are managing this crisis. there have been a number of structural and growing psychological changes in europe as a result of a financial meltdown that began in 2008 and the economic and debt crisis that have followed. the debt crisis will have my undying thinks forever if it does nothing more than having swept the burlesque on the government out of power in italy. -- berlusconi government out of power in italy. monte is not overwhelmed by it, he has become prime minister. something -- they admitted
what the truth was. there is a psychological and beneficial psychological change beginning to occur. grace is finally being forced by this crisis to face up to a system that was corrupt and tremendously inefficient. in which the lead in particular participated in the corruption and that was the underlying thing -- the move that column. americans who rail against tax increases but are not using them to pay the bills we are running out are doing the same thing the greeks did for 30 or 40 years. let's see how that goes. the greeks have become aware that they have joined a currency they cannot afford and will probably have to leave. there is -- there are the
effects that you heard about and you will hear more as we begin to delve into this subject. law-and-order has suffered because of this economic crisis. you have seen violent protests in spain and greece and countries that have a strong strain of anarchism in their politics. there's intensified scapegoating. i think the economic frustrations and disappointments are not yet fuelling a new and durable gain or big gains among extremist parties. i think in france, the most likely outcome is the coming to power of a bland and reassuring -- he began his campaign by promising to be a normal president which is kind of an amazing thing.
his drawing a contrast between nicolas sarkozy and a more reassuring figure like himself, he claims. it is notable the french election results -- was not about how angry the french are. they are in essence in denial. about their own economy and that is an accurate case. the full extremist right-wing party has lost a little bit. the big political phenomenon has been an energetic leftist professor who has gained primarily and among the use because of his energy. because of his charisma. not because he is offering policies that will deal with
this problem. i think the greek election if it is on may 6 as it probably will be will be to bring the two major parties as discredited as they are back into some kind of power-sharing arrangement. i think you seeing the results in europe. a forced coalition government. on the management side, how the house -- how did the europeans manage this crisis? a lot of us have criticized merkel in print. beside what is movement -- where the german population, the german public was acquiescent in a tremendous expansion, she has achieved that. i do not know she intended to get there but that is where she is.
the deal -- to deal with the economically important countries to face the kind of problems that broke countries have been going through. it is time for her to use that leadership especially since french socialists are likely to win. they are on the record as demanding renegotiation of the pact and that is creating confusion. final word on transatlantic relations, european debt crisis has brought europe to the center of attention of the obama administration. it began last june when president obama posted chancellor merkel in washington and sat out kind of -- set out the kind of germany would like to see going for.
there were illusory romances with china and india, with a group of 20, practically anybody who would come along. accept the europeans. he is focus because of the danger and i am sure for other reasons as well. it is important to note is the danger of his own reelection. he has sent tim geithner repeatedly to europe. he has been a force for good in europe on this issue. much more active than before. you can see this in his open favor of sarkozy's reelection. it is a foundation of contacts that he will be built. i hope this does not come across as [unintelligible] i am a historic optimist because
of my background. i hope that perhaps europe today faces -- is in a crucible. and out of that crucible will come the needed changes needed reforms in the european, political, and economic superstructure. i think that is the primary lesson that comes out of the crisis for the europeans, what they have today does not work. >> thank you so much. as a former u.s. managing editor of the financial times, and now at reuters, you are interviewing some of the top economic and political leaders. you are well placed to help understand the economic picture that is fuelling political challenges we're seeing.
she went on the "colbert report ," and i think that is extraordinary. >> thank you for the invitations. one of the questions he asked me was it was at the time when berlusconi made that for comment. -- horrible comment. i want to respond briefly to a couple of kim's points. i disagree on angela merkel. she has played her hand in a politically adept way. if you think of the political constraints she faces in
germany, the cultural ones and the political ones. she has done a terrific job of bringing germany along. second thing i very much agree with jim on his crucial u.s.. about how 0 europe right now interestingly is playing into the u.s. election. i think sort of consensus -- the exogenous thanks that could lose the election for him is something happening with iran or the world economy and falling apart. in real way, you can say what happens in berlin may have a greater impact on the u.s. election.
if you are interested in him and you can, follow him on twitter. he is great on twitter. really fun to follow and -- without a big time commitment to see what is going on in france. so a few points here. some very big questions and i will not try to give you the ultimate answer. i am going to make four points to think about. the central thing this crisis has shown, jim said it shows europe does not work.
there is the way the street had to treat them. ultimately what we're seeing clearly right now is it was founded in a very non-democratic way. it was a contract that knew they were right. quite intentionally, a roach motel was created, you can get in, you cannot get out. and it was not an accident. he did not do this by mistake. and very -- the idea was the economic union will work so well we will all love each other so much that in due course, we will form a political union. maybe there would be a few crises along the way to push things forward. that has happened. the crisis part.
what is i think at the core of what we're seeing in europe right now is european people are saying wait, this is supposed to be this humanistic piece into the world. the people who are running the show are not the people we elected. i agree with jim. who could not be pleased about monti replacing berlusconi? -- if you are interested in this issue, i urge you to find online the founding editor of [inaudible] europeans are confronting the question of, is an expensive social welfare state consistent with the heterogeneous society? are people willing to pay the
high taxes and extend that warm and loving -- toward people who are different from themselves. i think the european technocrats and the canadian like me would like to hope the answer is yes. what a lot of european societies are finding is it is hard to get to yes when you ask that question. the big issue europe is facing and related to that second one, is a demographic crisis. i think all this could talk about that. we understand the parameters. the interesting twist i would urge you to consider in thinking about your demographic crisis is it is a devil -- prices of patriarchy. in the western industrial
scientific society the only way you will persuade women to have a lot of kids is if you are a feminist, progress of society. in a patriarchal place like italy, women are not going to have kids, there is work -- we to much work to do and they have the choice. it is interesting if you look at the birth rates across europe, feminist sweden is one of the few places that is managing to have a reasonable birthrate. france is still pretty patriarchal but the state has taken over the role of the house spent. in an equal partnership. -- the husband. in an equal partnership. that is an important issue to think about. and then the final area i think we should consider, i have
worked and studied in italy, britain, but also in ukraine and russia. this is a perceptive -- perception from that eastern prix of europe. one of the saddest and most dangerous consequences of the weakening of europe right now at the core is the impact is having on the periphery. when historians look back on europe in the 1990's, they are going to reflect on what a tremendous success the european idea was at bringing eastern europe into the civilized successful world. the polls are interesting. if you talk to someone like [unintelligible] different ands -- ends of the
spectrum, the uniting mantra was europe. we would pass laws because we knew that had to be where we were going. you saw that in the crescent of countries on the eastern preferred including turkey. a lot of turkey's concept can be traced to the designer to make themselves more appealing. that was a very important counterweight to all sorts of dangerous tendencies in those countries. europe is not as shining an example. also much weaker and much less able to devote attention to the country along that border land. there is a real risk we will
see lots of backsliding there. we're already seeing it in hungary. imagine what russia and ukraine would look like if europe were strong and vital, rich, vibrant, able to devote attention to its each year -- eastern border. that is our fourth place where i think we're seeing a very powerful band dangerous to the whole world ripple effect. >> thank you. you have a tough act to follow. your day job is reporting the news from the united states. you were in brussels correspondent from 2002 through 2005. the early years as the euro project developed. i would -- i would love your sense of the internal german dynamics on this but appreciate
the anti-german sentiment we are saying in the south. how does the german foreign policy and economic policy react to that? we look forward to your comments. thank you. >> thank you and thanks for your patience. i know this thing -- it is 10 days old. angela merkel said -- they ask, what is your name and would
international become a german. she said i am just coming for vacation. icthey know they have a problem. i also would like to talk about that. and i guess i would like to comment on that as well. i think i would address two or three basic misperceptions i have observed here in d.c. german crisis management.
i think no one in germany commensurately not the delran has any plan for this crisis trade what they're doing now is they're trying to define what they did as a plan. it is a little bit unfair because no one has anticipated this. there was nothing [unintelligible] either. this -- what you call it management of the crisis, i would not be that positive. you can detect some driving forces. it is time to make [inaudible] this is an approach that is very german and it's pretty
well not to europe but to brussels. it is establishing rules. that basically leaves the thinking that is -- this is you set rules and then you let the markets follow these rules. this includes rules that -- something that seems difficult to address in the u.s. you find market solutions but [inaudible] you force others to follow the
rules. it worked quite well at least for the first 30 years of the federal republic and typically, the christian democrats are turning back to this. the problem is economic policy which you can by decree, the problem starts when it meets reality and a different culture. the test is still out there. the problem is i feel in the long run we have -- risking the
value of the european project. what we're doing is returning brussels are europe to something that looks closely to what the imf used to be for latin america. i was in germany as being the bad cop. and how long that is going to last, that is difficult to see. i asked a spokesman, you heard the story about the greek retiree who killed himself last week because he was so desperate about the economic situation and his own life.
you look into -- did anyone send any note of regret or condolences? the suicide, this is a symbol. i do not say that the government has the concept to do with that. there is no danger of underpopulism. in an organized form. our policies in germany are basically subscribing to what the german government has caused -- forced into europe. if you think -- i did not say
they want our money. in some places that is not even on true. in some cases, the german argument ran forces the position of not joining -- the battle last year. i am afraid that this will have a lasting effect. i've some remarks of the european -- american perception of the european crisis. i understand the main sources are people who are interested in your part -- many parts of the english press or the anglo-saxon press to not understand the whole thing. that is something
[unintelligible] the democratic reaction to what has happened in europe is basically yes, there is a crisis that could cause re-election. to not let the greeks cause any trouble. this does not work because whoever is doing this balancing act, they could have done this more recent -- [unintelligible] the democrats at the moment are in terms of reelection. they did not understand about too much public debt. they do not understand what the policy of merkel is.
they make this announcement and that is one of the things. merkel has created distrust. they're coming up with the fundamental creed and believes that they are doing this, saving grace this way. a fundamental belief in the european project itself. the idea that to be important, you give up the european dream, you give up the euro, this is not how the people in berlin thing. the cost-benefit analysis like what i see in the anglo-saxon press, it is a real cost benefit analysis. in a way, it helps to keep the price low but they will pay the
price. it will pay any price. in that regard, that is something that the republicans do not get. in this policy speech there were three countries important to us, is rocca, the u.k., and mexico. i am wondering, in what world is he living? what is he talking about? i am not asking you to see germany. he wants to get it, he can put it at 10 or 12. thank you. >> closing up, chris caldwell. our 2009 book, reflections on the revolution in europe, immigration in the west. that is an important book and it looked at how policies are being shipped and perception. there was one quotation that
jumped out. the most important europe is the fallout from decades of mass migration. the most important moral value is democracy. there is sometimes a lack of confidence in the capacity to address the former. and your thoughts not only on the inside and comments but as you see the immigration debate in europe, tim talked about the scapegoating. president sarkozy's anti- immigration message of the last few weeks. help us put that into some context. >> thank you for having me. democracy is a big part of this story. i would say that populism has undergone a shift in the last -- and our understanding of it have undergone a shift in the last 10
years or so. it has changed focus. 10 or 15 years ago, when we worried about populism, we worried about movement that although they played by democratic rules, some kind of anti-democratic sentiment or anti-democratic lineage made them suspect, made us wonder what would happen when they came to power. these would be groups like the national front in france, the party in austria. the block in flanders. we looked at these and we saw the xenophobia. a certain discomfort with the
new will to cultural societies that were developing in europe. i do not think that is a big focus of populism today. something has changed. i would say this does not mean that the fallout from decades of mass immigration are not a problem. there is a huge problem. europe is not equipped to handle a multi-cultural society in the way that the united states has. it is not as content with having societies of minorities. it does not have an answer. and as a result, even in the midst of the finance prices, it is doing pretty well.
as in sweden. parties like the minority party and not in the government in hungary. however, the main energy of populism in europe has shifted. i think what populists in europe are worried about most now is europe. the main -- the european union. the main area of populist resurgence in europe lately has been on the french left. what the french left has done is really quite impressive. you have [unintelligible] running as a great underdog in
the socialist party and he ran on a platform of what he calls the globalization -- de- globalization and had a shockingly high percentage of the vote. this is really something. what are these people upset about? what he says he is upset about is the fiscal union that the europeans want to impose to get out of the debt crisis. he describes resistance to this as well.
as a patriotic duty. this is sometimes -- he is sometimes confused about the european union. he wants to nationalize. he likes the idea of getting rid of the nation state and once the nation's state around so they can do the one thing that the nation state is there for which is nationalizing industry. it is a similar contradiction to the one the german left party has. that have similar rhetoric. this is what is happening. it is shocking that he has risen with 15% of the vote. democracy as some of us have discussed is really central to this. everyone on this panel seems to share the view of how we could
not -- how could we not be pleased to see berlusconi replaced by mario monti? i am not pleased. you have a democratically elected -- replaced by a semi- democratically elected leader. they freely admit that mario monti is the better economist. i will admit if i have to -- here is one of the two men to babysit my daughter, can it be mario monti? there is a disturbing part of the pattern of the exit from democracy. you have the departure of the greek prime minister. after he'd suggested holding the
referendum on an agreement that would bind his people for these degeneration. the finance minister said was greece ought to suspend elections so that it could install a more technocratic government along the old ones you had in italy. line of the when you have in italy. i think the energy of populism in europe comes from people who feel their hands have been taken off the levers of controlling government and want to get them back on some how. maybe we can open it up from there. >> thank you for some insightful comments traded i never had
heard the e.u. as the roach motel. what i would like to do is pose a few questions and open up the floor for a good discussion and debate. i want to get down to the practical. let's do a quick diagnostic of the upcoming greek election. and there was a reason why he was thinking along the lines of perhaps pushing the elections of. if you believe the polls. it looks like over eight parties will enter parliament from the extreme right, the golden dawn, to the extreme left, the communist party, one of the last communist parties that truly a stalinist. they can potentially be in parliament. many do not support future bailouts. in june, the greek parliament has to pass 14 billion euros in
cuts for its next tranche of funding. if the rules based approach that brussels and berlin is voicing, what happens when the country just says no more? and that would argue is there a disorderly default or an exit of the euro? what happens when democracy says no, i will not do this. i would like to go quickly down the channel. in reaction to this? the second round will be on may 6. we will have two powerful messages from europe about how the project will proceed. >> if your vision comes true the markets will be -- >> i fear monday will not be a
good day. >> even after the first round. we will react to the socialist thing likely winners. on your great division, what choice do we have? i do not think the greeks have a lot of choice. what i see happening in that event, the when you sketched out is grace will go into a form of default. it is already at a former of default. and it will be isolated from the eurozone and will fairly quickly yet -- leave the eurozone. that will happen anyway. you can have it happen in a much more orderly fashion. i think this is not necessarily favorable for europe. >> i think that is an important point. the thing i would add is it is not necessarily framing it as a
collision between democracy and austerity. another way to look at it is what are the different interests in place? negotiation is going on as the greeks negotiate with the rest of europe. how much of the bill are we going to pay and how much of the bill are you going to pay? in that negotiation, at certain moments, the greeks have had a pretty strong hand. grace is small relative to the size of europe and the size of germany. there are moments when it would have -- bail greece out and not have the crisis continue. it is not a democratic or un- technocratic for the greeks to cut the best deal they can. there are lots of nichelle --
national interests at play. one of the things that is important to look into when you are looking at how different european countries are handling the economic crisis, the economic choice is to figure out what are the best economic interests? there are significant business interests who happen to be big media owners and have a lot of debt which would be easier to pay off and be nominated. it is not monolithic. >> that is the point. we could have solved this crisis in a much safer way if we had that strategy. i think that is a historic
mistake. i am picking up a point. the new populism is small on the left side. the populism -- it did not manage the main thing they are trying since at least the mid- 1990's. that is the slogan the government got elected by. kohl was this heart of jesus european and people got tired of him. people turn into -- because they were disappointed. he came up with this different
approach. he had to address the issue. he said we do not do europe because of the past, we do it for shaping the future. that meant shipping globalization. that was a theme. -- was a leading guy. this is a reaction to the democratic left to address this issue. especially in the euro crisis, it is seen as the capitalists and it is doing with the bailout. not for the greeks but for the germans. that kind of populism is dangerous. i do not think it is so new.
i covered the referendum in france in 2005 that desperately went wrong. one of the leading [unintelligible] in that campaign. i remember travelling around with the student leader having a discussion. every second i remember in terms of , totally wrong. but he was successful. he made this time again. -- he may this time again. this is to build up this firewall to the southeast. you want to make sure that there is no impact. i think to address greece first,
greece has some acute as we know financial problems. it is a primary deficit. it does not have those measures and it cannot access markets. we have an immediate acute crisis of the sort you need to send care cards. you need charities in there. this may be the best way to regain competitiveness -- [unintelligible] after some months, i think an exit from the eurozone is facing greece. it would be a roaring recovery of grace. it is much easier than european
lasers -- leaders like to admit. these countries that default and understand why they have defaulted to re-access credit markets. it happened to southeast asia after 1998. the real danger is not that greece will fill but it could succeed. that is where there are negotiable -- their negotiating power comes from. economists understand this. about europe, the general problem with europe is known about what they wanted out of it in the end. the french thought the way europe was configured with germany silenced by a its
historic debt toward history after world war ii, it would be a megaphone for [unintelligible] after the schroder government came to power, you had eastern expansion which was an absolutely pivotal moment. why ukraine -- this is creating a powerful bloc, not just a work force but also a lot of financial strategic [unintelligible] -- germany is now the most powerful country in europe. europe is -- germany is unhappy their purpose is to suck money
out of germany to pay for these things dreamt up in another country. >> can i add one more thing to this point about the poor germans. i think it misses one profound advantage they have from the eu and euro. a way to think about it is, germany plays the role of china. the eu was constructed perfectly to allow germany to do that. it is a little bit rich of the germans to be testing goes bad southern europeans. without them you could not have this powerful export-led growth of germany. >> he is not clearly explaining there are two sides.
they do not produce enough for saving enough. on the other side you have a country with 60% of exports going to other countries. what would happen if the euro failed? i do not think it well. unless you consider it a loss of greece would be an eventual failure already. what would it be if the germans said with the deutsche mark? they would not be able to afford a bmw or mercedes in the united states anymore. in that regard it is absolutely true. >> let's bring you back into the conversation. we will wait for microphones to
come to you. alex, why not come here. if you can give us your name in your affiliation please. we will get the microphones past the round. >> my question is simple. everybody agrees europe does not work and needs to be fixed. if they fail to fix themselves, what is the worst-case scenario for europe in five years? >> recovering banker. my question has to deal with the financial crisis. at the very end of 1999, congress legalized credit default swaps which were made illegal in 1908 after the 1907 financial crisis here.
do you see this as antibiotics or legal overdose of speed? >> i will let even answer the question. >> i am recovering from a stint where i used to be employed by the european union. as a brit living in america have to make a quick remark to my german friend who took mitt romney to task for same britain is a critically important ally. every single person said that europe is on president obama's radar but for entirely negative reasons. why on earth would do not think the european -- the uk is even more of a special ally than in the past. britain at shares more with cultural, military values than
the you ever will. it is a manufactured entity and it will collapse by all accounts by everyone on the panel. you also said the british press to understand the you. i think the british press are the only people who do understand the eu and that is the problem. herman said if the euro collapses, the whole e you collapses. dear we hope for such a thing or is chris cole well right to that if greece does leave the euro it might become a huge success and a mighty expos for what it is. it is not an entity for the modern world. >> good food for thought. >> our panelists allowed to applaud? >> know, you are not. only at the end of a session.
our ltro's and aspirin? i think fevers are starting to come back if they were. chris you are on your own with the anglo-saxon press a suit in the united kingdom. -- issue in the united kingdom. >> muddling through and simply buying time is no longer a sufficient approach for europe. we can debate whether angela merkel has been brilliant or absent, but the fact is she now faces the time where she has to assert leadership or we will be facing a move toward a worst case scenario in europe. what is the worse case i can think of? read nationalization of the economies and defense leading to the demise of nato. a lot of economic turmoil not only for europe but for the world markets.
i do not think as i have said greece leaving the euro is anything like the worst case scenario. i basically agree with christopher caldwell. i do not see a strong economic resurgence by greece, about three or four years ago i asked the greek economic minister about their plans. this was before the crisis. he said we have a bright economic future. we have tourism and we can increase our exports. greece just as not have the exports to take advantage of a devaluation. they would be hurt by it. i was talking to one of the foreign ministers in town for the g-8 meeting. i was disturbed to learn there will be no discussion of the g-8 forum ministers meeting. a discussion we are having here today. there will be no discussion
about the political effects of the economic crisis. i think that is too bad. i think that is a worse way to get to a scenario. in terms of aspirin or speed -- you always put your finger right on the problem. we have to stop muddling through and we have to have a strategy to pay our way out. >> i agree. >> just touching on a few of the things that have been raised. on the nightmare scenario, my nightmare scenario is a little bit more basic. if he were to have a disorderly collapse -- if you were to have a disorderly collapse of the zero and not the peripheral countries. i think everybody can paint a scenario even if they do not like to of a pretty strong fire
wall separating a greek default and exit from the euro. imagine a disorderly collapse of the year wrote default by big countries like italy or spain, then i think you have a global financial crisis that is bigger than the lee min crisis. we have already seen what the able to dosis was for the global economy. my disaster scenario is much more short-term one that if things really fall apart at the center then it is not so much what does this mean for europe 10 or 20 years down the road, it is what does this mean for the world economy the next day. maybe it would not be a lehman type disaster, but even if it were a 20% chance i think that would be terrifying for
everybody. just a comment on the question of europe and the row and if it will survive, i do think we all have to listen quite closely to what christian has to say. for those of us who are not european and not continental european often do die get -- yes, the idealism. -- do not often get the idealism. i think the germans and the french believe in and very passionately. lots of new europeans believe in it, too. i think for those of us outside -- i am not american. i find american patriotism and belief and american exceptional as some for something i do not fully partaken of. i admire it and i see how it is such a powerful lifeblood of the american project.
there is a little bit of that going on in europe and we should not discounted entirely. >> i am really not good in madison. reading what other people say about it like warren buffett or somebody who thinks this is a dangerous medicine, i am skeptical about it. it is probably every a -- reaction to the german capability to coming up with a solution to a problem. basically what they are now tolerating, the ec be buying up public debt is something that according to the letters of the treaty is not legal. this is a real violation of the approach -- the germans will follow. i in tension, i hope they find a better solution.
it may have an affect but it will only happen and one and a half years. the main point -- the worst case scenario, i am not an optimist but i would like to speak about best case scenario. the worst-case scenario is it goes on like this. this muddling through is a knowing many people. -- annoying many people. is also annoying the markets and how they are using the game. if we go on like this for a another five years, that is for me the worst case scenario. you have to gear to think in concepts again. i do not know when you can do that. now we have a cycle of french election. in one year we have german elections coming up.
on european issues there is more consensus than other countries. the third point i would like to make coming back to the question of democracy and the deficit of democracy in european affairs. picking up the dollar went with my british friends, yes there is a economic deficit in europe. i would like to see it solved as well. one idea is to get the guys in brussels finally elected. what a great idea. whenever this idea is projected in the negotiations, i was having the ambivalent privilege of following years of constitutional discussion in brussels in the convention. one ever democracy was about to turn real like getting the president of the european commission directly elected from the european people, the same
people who complain brussels was not democratic enough, they were objecting saying this gives too much power to brussels. you cannot have it both ways. this is not my regular job. in this regard, i would like to point out we just got a new president in berlin. in his first big speech in front of parliament, what he said was -- he was quoting an old phrase from -- actually he did not quote it. when he got into power in 1969 he said the slogan, a risk more democracy -- restarting german democracy after the foundation had been led, especially with the so-called economic miracle.
the new president said risk more europe. that is something 80% still in germany a plot to. i think a huge majority in continental europe and increasingly in the new member countries. one of the great winners in the whole european debate is poland. they have the most creative ideas. they even go to berlin and sit with the germans are not willing to say. in that regard there is hope that we do not have a against a narrative. >> you have the last word. >> i guess we have here is worst
case scenarios. since we are talking about populism and a popular anti democratic movements, there is one that would come to people's minds. that would be an anti-democratic -- democratic movement. i think the last time you had a real movement in europe that have levels of a street uprising was in the 1960's. if you do not count the terrorism of the 1970's. at the time the generation that carried it out, the baby boomers, they were a huge generation. there are not quite as big adventure europe as here, but once the baby boomers became adults they made up 38% of the voting public. they made up 38% of the
purchasing power could enter the market. i think there was an intuition that they were about to -- had a huge amount of latent power. the present generation -- the generation that always makes trouble is people between 15 and 30 years old. the current generation is very smart. you could say, the weight of the electorate and the wake of the sentiments of people is still in the baby boomers. people nearing the end of their productive lives saying, bring on the benefits, please. i do not see any kind of radicalism as a danger. i do see it as a danger. to pick up on something jim said, europe is really weakening militarily. this self weakening is being carried out in europe.
i think belgium has closed over half of its army bases. austria does not have tanks anymore, or they won't shortly. this is all being carried out in ignorance of the american budget constraints. that is a danger. ltro's, i am not the macro economist i could answer that question well. i degree, it has something to do with democracy. when we talk about miracles to the type for -- tight rope walk. who does she fear more? dishy fear the political leaders of europe? dishy fear the electorate? i would feel 100% certain she'd fears the political leaders of europe more than her electorate. the german courts said there now
has to be a vote on a bailout. that caused a cascade of con -- consequences. they said they would not go along with the plan to buy debt in secondary markets. at the end of the day, the letro's were the only way of bringing relief through which he could circumvent german democracy. that is why we have them. it does not make them good over the long term. >> thank you so much. we are a little over time. to pick up your mantra, let's keep talking about this subject. it is very important, both the economics and politics. these fourreading colleagues and their insights. please join me in the thinking our panel. [applause]
>> sunday we take a look at some of the key senate races. 33 seats are up for election this year. bernie sanders of vermont and joe lieberman of connecticut who is retiring. our guests are the campaign committee directors. newsmakers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. and sunday eastern on c- span. >> our specific mission is to work to see that human rights remain essential components of foreign policy. when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human rights can never be the only consideration. it has to be part of the dialogue it. >>katrina lantos sweet is from
the lantos foundation. >> when we talk about hair or has it relates -- or the recent policy of russia and how the u.s. congress should pass the accountability act. we do not need to go into the details of the policy. whether we will stay on record saying human rights matter in russia and china. >> more with katrina lantos swett sunday night at 8:00. >> april 15, 1912, nearly 1500 paris on a ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookouts sighted in icebergs ahead, this struck the bells to three times. this is a warning sitting there is an object ahead. it means a head of the ship and does not say what kind of
object. with the lockout ended after he struck the bel, he went to a telephone desk and a call down to the officer on the bridge to tell him what it was they saw. when the phone was answered, the entire conversation was, what do you see? the response was, i spurred straight ahead. the response from the officer was, thank you. >> sunday at 4:00 eastern part of "american tv -- american history tv." >> on wednesday, ron paul reaffirmed his commitment to stay in the presidential race after rick santorum's announcement was dropping out. ron paul holds 52 delegates trailing the two remaining candidates. he gave remarks at a youth for ron paul campaign rally in fort
worth, texas. that primary is may 29. [crowd cheering] >> thank you. [cheers] >> it sounds to me like the revolution is alive and well in texas. [applause] thank you for that very nice welcome. i want to thank stacy and amanda for the introduction. i want to thank my family for being here, and my son, robert for giving us this very nice introduction, and jeremy kicking it off with details about how you can win delegates. that is pretty important. tobben reckitt cheers] .
it looks like to me like freedom is still very popular. i'm glad of that. i think one of the candidates cannot remember his name, but i think he -- one of the candidates, i cannot remember his name, but i think he dropped out of the race yesterday. [cheers] that day i was asked quite frequently by the media what it means. i said, out there were 12 lead one time. we are down to three. it looks like we are cutting the field down. [cheers] and then they say, when are you going to quit? and i say, i thought we were just getting started. [cheers] we have a revolution to fight, a country to change. we need to change what is going on. we might as well get our balanced budget before we quit that kind of stuff.
there is a lot of enthusiasm, and i welcome the enthusiasm and the encouragement, because there were a few years when i would go around the country talking about the same issues. the crowds were a little smaller than they were always polite, but the crowds now, when people ask now about what i'm going to drop out, i say, when nobody wants to support the cause of liberty. [cheers] but i say, in our case, we do not have a $4 million deficit in our campaign. our numbers are growing. [cheers] and the money is coming in, so i take that as a stamp of approval. there are a lot of people who care about freedom, and freedom is still popular. we will keep going until we have victory.
[cheers] but it is great to see the enthusiasm and so much support from the young people. there was one time in 1960's they would talk about the young people and they would say if he were 20 years old and you were not a liberal, you did not have a heart. but they also said if you're 40 and were not a conservative, you did not have a brain. i say, why can't you have both and believe in freedom and the constitution? [cheers] something rather amazing is going on, especially in the last several years. things have changed quietly and steadily in a positive way. although, over the last 100 years is pretty much down to the cause of the republic.
in the last four years, something dramatic has happened. many of the things we had been talking about and warning about, the austrians had been talking about the danger of printing out money and running of debt and all of the things with crises and watch out for the housing bubble. the one that came about, the people suddenly started saying that is what the austrian free- market economists had been talking about let's talk more to them and people were paying attention. who would have dreamed that five or 10 years ago that we would ever make the federal reserve an issue in a presidential campaign. a [cheers]
ok, that is simple. when the election and we will end the fed. how about that? [cheers] actually, next year would be an appropriate year. the fed has been around for nearly 100 years. 1913. and they destroyed nearly 100% of the 1913 dollar. let's not let them do it to the 2% left. let's have a repeal of the federal reserve act as a celebration. [cheers] but it has impressed me very much going to the college campuses and talking to people and seeing how many people understand exactly what the monetary issue is all about. and they understand by looking at a little bit of history and why the fourth -- the founders warned us about the money issue
and why they put in the constitution that congress could not print money. if they could only use gold and silver as legal tender. and that is what we should do. only gold and silver. [cheers] but we did not follow those rules and the fact that the federal reserve can print money and create money at will, and a buyout debt, what do the politicians do when they can accommodate the big spenders? they spend a lot of money, run up the dead, tax to the maximum, bar to the maximum, and they still do not have enough. and they have this ravenous appetite for federal government and then the federal reserve comes in and accommodates the big spenders and a print the money and, lo and behold, it destroyed the value of the money. some people say that is difficult to understand, but more and more i talk to people in eighth grade, ninth grade and they say, you print a lot of money and is going to lose its value.
[cheers] but it is also the mischief that occurs. government spending money is one issue. but there are two problems. one, they take the money from us. they may take it directly to taxation. they may put the burden on a later generation by borrowing. they may just print money. but it is always a burden because they take it out of the economy and our ability to produce wealth. but when we really get punished is when they spend the money. what good do they do when they are spending the money? [applause] they might feel compelled to go start a war that we do not need and get us into trouble that we
do not need. [boos] that has been a big problem. as a matter of fact, the problem as i see it, whether it is financial, foreign policy, an attack on our civil liberties, we have lost in the last 70 or 80 years is a respect for our constitution, a respect for our rule of law. [applause] if we got into trouble by allowing our representatives and residents to ignore the constitution, and we get in trouble, why wouldn't the solution be only sending people to washington who read the constitution, understand it, and live up to their oath of office? [cheers]
very simply, that means we would not have a federal reserve system because it is not authorized under the constitution and it destroys the value of our money. think about how many wars we have been in since world war ii. none of them have been declared, not one. how many trillions of dollars have been consumed? how long do we stay in the country and not wake up and say enough is enough? right now, the american people have awakened and not only are they looking at the federal reserve and saying, we have been in afghanistan long enough and it is time, all. -- time to come home. [cheers] war in defense of one's country is proper and necessary and the president has a responsibility to be commander in chief.
but the president does not have the authority to star wars without the proper permission coming from congress. [applause] and even today, we have a president -- he sends his secretary of defense over to the hill, and secretary panetta explained that we do not have to do that. we do not have to get permission from the congress. [boos] he said, we can get legal permission from the united nations. [boos] and of course, this is how we have gotten ourselves into a way to much trouble. but great nations are generally not destroyed by mittal -- military means. if we did not -- fortunately, we did not have to have a nuclear exchange with the soviet union. i was drafted in 1962.
there were missiles in cuba. [cheers] i served five years in the military. but even under those circumstances, with how dangerous it was, at least our president at the time called a kershaw of and said, may we talk this out -- called thiskruschev and said, may we talk this out and have an agreement so we did not have to have a nuclear war. [cheers] my humble suggestion is, why can't we have a country that isn't even building a nuclear weapon? [applause] this is what the founders of advice in order to get along in the world. you should offer friendship and trade. just think how much better off
we are doing with vietnam. how many people did we lose? 60,000, and hundreds of thousands, if not a million, vietnamese died. the french were there for years out of fear that the country might go communist. what happened? we lost the war and left. they did not go communist. they have been weather -- westernized and we invest over there and others do as well. just think what could be achieved -- what has been achieved with peace that could not be achieved with war. [cheers] war is always a drain and there are explicit ways to go to war. we should never get the
principle of preemptive war. preemptive war means we start them. we do not have the right to start wars. [cheers] we have an obligation to make our country safe and secure and have the fence, but you do not do that by starting wars. we have talked too long of the status court and the conventional wisdom is that war can get you out of a depression. [boos] that is exactly right. it is not right. it is wrong. even if it did do that, it never justify that type of killing, but it does not work. wars are always of economic cost to a society. a [cheers] not only do i look to the constitution for decisionmaking when you go to war, but also to the christian job core principles. if we followed those, we would see a lot less fighting and killing in the world and we
would be much richer. in the last 10 years, we have accumulated $4 trillion worth of debt due to the wars we are fighting. think of how much that money could have gone into society here, how much better off we could be. today, we are a poor nation and we have the greatest debt in the history of the world, both foreign and domestic. it is the foreign policy that brings people down so often. the soviets went down not because we had war, but because they finally went bankrupt and had to go home. this is the day our greatest threat -- the one thing i can assure you of with my experience in service and in washington and knowing a little bit about military power, we do not have to worry about people touching us militarily. we have the strongest military defense in the world. [cheers]
but i wish i could assure you with that much confidence that we have nothing to worry about. when we take an oath in office, we take an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i am more worried right now about the domestic problems we have than the -- and the lack of following the constitution. [applause] think of how our civil loyalties -- liberties have been under attack in the past 10 years. there has been fear and you can understand, but it does not justify it. and we have this notion that it is okay to sacrifice some of our liberties to be safe. [boos] that is correct, it is never necessary to sacrifice liberty for safety. and the founders said if you do, you will not be safe and you will lose everything and you
will lose your liberties as well that is what happened. immediately after 9/11, within a week or two if we pass this thing called the patriot [patriot [boos] i know some -- the patriot act. [b faughoos] i know some members of congress, who said it sounded good. it just came up an hour ago, and i said you had no time to read it. he said, i know. i said, what are you voting for it? and he said, i cannot go home and explain to market -- constituents why i voted against the patriots act. and i said, that is your job. go home and explain it to them. [cheers and applause] i know what -- i bet is the patriot act had been called the repeal the fourth amendment act, a lot of your people would have
voted for it. next year, we will also put on the list of repeal the pay trade act and get your civil liberties back. [cheers] we will call it restore the fourth amendment act and maybe people will vote for it under those conditions. our liberties are being systematically undermined. we have essentially lost our privacy and it has been eroding for a long time, but it is essentially gone. it also gives the authority to this agency of government, which i hope is not a friend of yours because it is not a friend of mine, that is the my tsa at the airport and how they treat people. [boos] the purpose of the members of congress and the president is not to make a save. the second amendment is to make us safe. [applause]
as an ad as it was, the president interfering with -- as bad as it was, the president interfering with the supreme court, what about the president claring unilaterally with executive order that he could be the prosecutor, the judge, jury and executioner, and that the law of the land says that the president should make the decision to assassinate an american citizen? [bs] if we are not an allied enough about what we see at the airport, with our military being able to arrest people, with the president deciding who can be assassinated, i will tell you what, we are not deserving much. but i will give you some good news. the people of this country are not going to put up with it and they are going to make up their minds and get some change. [applause]
you know, en i think about economic policy, monetary policy, civil liberties, i think about individual liberties and the importance of individuals. i think that is what makes america great, the individual. the declaration of independence is very clear about where our liberties come from. they come from our creator, not from our government. [applause] of course, the founders understood what the consequence of that would be. if you have the right to your li, let your liberty, the right to takcare of yourself, -- the right to your liberty, e right to take care of urself, you ought to have the rights to the fruits of your labor.
the income tax came in the progressive era of 1913 along with the federal reserve. we will add that to the list too, repeal the 16th amendment. you know, there is always an excuse. you know, for all the laws. this january 1st, we have 40,000 new laws placed on the books. once again, i would really enjoy being the first president that eliminated 40,000 laws. that is what i would enjoy. [applause] [chanting] thank you. you know, the theory behind all the laws is that those in charge, the bureaucrats and politicians, believe it is for your own good. that is what they are cleaning. and i have had members, when i say, why are you voting on this? you are in trading on the decision making of the people. they say, well, the people are too dumb to do it. they truly believe they do it
for your own good. if governments believe they can improve personal behavior by regulating you, believe me, we are in big trouble. that is where we are. that is why we have some in laws and regulations and the courts now are so out of control as well as the executive branch. think about all the regulations. they are not legal. executive orders, almost all of those are illegal, from the
president. a couple of weeks ago, the president wrote an executive order and he took the defense production act of 1950 and renewed it with an executive order. he changed a few words. the emergencpowers, which should never be granted, grant that if there is a war, the president can take over industry. he changed a word so that not only in times of war, but in times of peace the preside can do that as well. i have a simple solution. let's have a constitutional presidt who understands that executive orders can be used in a very limited fashion. one thing you can do is use an executive order to repeal of the executive orders that are illegal. [applause]
so often, those who oppose what we are talking about, what we do, say you guys want to go back to the dark ages. you know what the dark ages is? big government, and tyranny. that is the dark ages. the future is a free society and looking to improve upon it. [applause] and of course, that is why we live in a very fortunate time in our history. we live and still enjoy the blessings of liberty. the big question is, how long are they going to last? we live in probably the freest country ever and the wealthiest country ever, but in the last 75-80 years, there h been a steady erosion. just recently was recognize
that we are not producing enough and it is difficult borrowing, difficult just printing money. therefore, for the first time in our history, our middle class is shrinking and getting poorer. the people know about it. they talk about the 99% and 1%. that is a mixed bag. you have to be careful about that. i talk about it, but we should not be resentful of the people in the 1% if they made an honest living without the government. we shall expand as numbers. -- we should expand those numbers. but if somebody is in that tax bracket, that income bracket makingillions if not billions of dollars and thedo it
because they get bailed out and work the system and they get their contracts and special privileges, that should not be tolerated. but this is what has happened. the powerful special interests have been benefiting by the pretense that we are helping poor people. the housing program is the best example of this in recent times. it was designed to help poor people. everybody deserves a house. you do not have a right to what you want or desire or demand. you have a right here liberty. you do not have a right to somebody else's property. you do not have a right to a free house, free food, or anything free. nothing is free. the government cannot provide it. they have to steal it from somebody.
and that is fine. that is fine for a while as long as we are wealthy and can borrow, as long as the trust our money, but eventually it all changes, and that is what we're witnessing today is the change, the change in attitude because we know we cannot continue. we're living off the fact that people still trust our dollar are around the world. but it is st fading. there are plans being made to have an alternative world currency. this will be very damaging. and we can work on an as so many of us have in this country to restore the constitution unsounmoney in commodity money, but the other side -- and sound money and commodity money, but the other side is talkin about creating a restoration of the imf. what we need is a restoration of the concept of liberty. it does work. that is where we have come up short. we have lost our confidence in ourselves and we have allowed this idea that we can become dependent on government, that now the productivity has gone way down and we are a much poorer nation. one of thing that is really bothersome in another way, if people become dependent -- and
it seems like we save them and take care of them -- actually, when they become totally dependent, they lose their sense of growth. i think that is what happens so often. [applause] we lose the idea of what freedom is all about. for me, it is seeking excellence and virtue. whether it is in caring for ourselves and our family, caring for our intellectual pursuits, caring about our spiritual life, it is up to us. our creative energy comes from liberty.
when we lose our liberty and the government curtails us, we destroy that and destroy the sense of worth. i think it is a lot of anger out there. right now, they're fighting and screaming up in washington, why don't you guys get along together? one side spends money on one thing, as the other side wants to spend it on something else. they compromise and spend it on both. it is not compromise we need. it is a definition of what truth and minuses. and then bring people together on these issues -- truth and rightness is. and then bring people together on these issues. if you bring people together because of freedom, everybody might come together for a different reason. everybody may want to use their freedom in a different way, but we should all join in supporting freedom. we except this all the time. we set this all the time on our -- we accept this all the time on our religious values. if we believe in freedom, we allow people to do that. it should be that way in social
affairs as well. r so long, we have had this concept of freedom divided into pieces. the founders had it right. personal liberty, social liberty, economic liberty was all one in the same period now we have a group that says, economic -- economic liberty to a degree, and we put a limit on that. it is one and the same. when you see this come about, it is not going to be a republican revolution or a democratic revolution. it is going to be all of the
people coming together and saying freedom is the issue. [applause] for those who say that this is going to the past, going backwards, only the beginning, the understanding of liberty is only a couple hundred years of a real test. if they are the past, we are the future, as far as i'm concerned. [applause] but good things are happening in the country, and one is that people like you are very numerous and growing in numbers. they are all over the country. you know, last week and continuing this week, we have been talking on the campuses and bringing people out, and we get usually these small crowns of 3000-8000 people. -- crowds of 3000-a thousand people.
-- 8000 people. one day when we had a very nice rally in california, i looked at the internet the next morning, and the article, the headline was, where has ron paul gone? where is he? well, sometimes they would like to ignore us, but i think they are going to hear from us loud and clear. [applause] [chanting]
and i think you all know the quotation i use a lot, and that is, "an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army." ideas are powerful and they have consequences. bad ideas have bad consequences. we put up with a lot of bad ideas in the 20th-century, a lot of fighting and killing needlessly. we need a new century where we can talk more about ace and prosperity and the rule of law. that is what we need to be talking about. so many are coming to this conclusion that these ideas are alive and well on college campuses. but there are a lot of people who come now, and even at the mediis recognizing, it is not only teenagers and young college kids. it is a lot of people coming together now.
a lot of people worry about it because they take a vote and they say, we do not have 51% to pursue these beliefs. the founders knew this and they understood that may be 7%-8% of the people really knew and understood what freedom was all about, what the revoluti was all about. but today, our numbers are growing. benjamin franklin said that what you need is an irate, tireless minority to burn the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. that is what we need. good ideas are becoming pervasive.
they have been around now for 30 years or so. i get a lot of credit, but many more individuals have done a lot more work in the intellectual community. it has to happen. just as keynesian azzam was an intellectual revolution that reet -- keynesianism was an intellectual revolution that wreaked havoc for 100 years, behind the scenes, the intellectual community was saying no, it is fascism, communism, socialism, interventionism, welfare, inflation at the central banks. but they're losing out because their system is obviously failing in the people know it. -- and the people know it. [applause] but we do need to change our policies. we need to change the spending. i am for cutting a lot of
spending, as i said. but even under those conditions, i still have priorities. ife rk our way out, if we could have priorities and take care of those who need to -- who have to have been taught to be so dependent. i do not think you need to start with food stamps. i think you need to start with foreign spending and cut all of at first. there are still a lot of people that think we have a necessity to go about the world spreading our goodness.
they call it spreading our exceptional azzam. this has been going on since woodrow wilson, make the world safe for democracy. this idea that we can force people to be good. well, i will tell you what. we have an exceptional nation. we understand property rights, monetary policy, limited government. today, we have lost that. but if you are in exceptional nation, if we are to be an exceptional nation, people will want to emulate as. they will want to copy yes. you cannot go overseas and say to this and we will give you money. if you do not do it, we will bomb you. that is not the way to change the world. so often the argument is used against legazing the freedom of choice in society. when people heard each other and damage each other, that is the purpose of government to take care of those problems.
but when people have a lifestyle you do not approve of and you say the government has to come in and change it, all of a sudden, what we do is just getting into more and more trouble. people say, i cannot allow people to spend their money. they may not do it wisely. they may become a gambler. it will be all my fault. but you ow, by legalizing freedom of choice, you do not endorse it. because people use their religion in a way you do not want to, you do not endorse their religion. probably the most important thing for me personally is thinking about striving for excellence and dealing with iritual life. that should not be in the business of government. under those conditions though, government should just a out of it. if we can except that for our -- accept that for our spiritual life, why do we think
we need the fda to tell us everything we will ev do about what we put into our own body. i have talked for a long time about the war on drugs. i think the war on drugs has been a total failure. pplause] i think drugs are horrible. i think the addiction to prescription drugs is a lot worse than the addiction to illegal drugs. i also know that addiction should be a crime -- should not be a crime and we should not throw people into prison who did not commit a violent crime and turn them into violent criminals.
[applause] our country tried prohibition back when they passed the 18th amendment. just think of the difference in that period of time. they amended the constitution to give the power to the government. it was a total failure. people woke up and said we have to repeal prohibition. today though, i think we are making great progress. when you see pat roberts in coming out and saying, hey, let's look at this more carefully. and he, like i, was very reserved. drugs are dangerous. but who is responsible for changing you against yourself?
when the government thinks they can do that, they will tell you how much all you can put on your food, howuch exercise you've -- salty been put on your food. how muchxercise you can get. it is one of the excuses for the violation of our civil liberties. guess what? guess who is against a change in the drug laws? alcohol companies. drug companies. what if you started using something you could grow in your backyard in did not by all those expensive drugs? -- and did not buy all those expensive drugs. the issue for me is not the drugs. the issue for me is libey and who makes the decision. one thing leads to another. today, if i decided i wanted to drink rondel, i would be prohibited by the federal government -- drink raw milk, i would be prohibited by the federal government. today, there is a commercial product that we used during world war ii, but today, we are
prohibited from growing hemp. they say it looks like marijuan buif sebody wants to get hot i -- high on hand, as they would have to smoke a cigar as big as a -- high on hemp, they would have to smoke a cigar as big as a phone pole. if we assume, just like in economics, that the government is always the lender of last resort, if the government is the protector of last resort, if you do something that makes no sense, you should not be able to coerce your neighbor to take care of you. freedom doesn't bar
responsibility. john adams argued the case that if we became an immoral society -- and in moral society cannot have liberty because we abuse it. i think a lot about the abortion issue and the problems we have there. abortions were done in the 1960's illegally. the law was not changed. what happened is the attitude changed and then the law changed. so often, the laws are a reflection of our moral behavior. there is a lot of responsibility on individuals. assuming the responsibility is crucial, but to assume that the government is always going to
be there for is to take care of us, it does not work. the more the government is involved, well, if you do such and such, that will be a cost to government. the government is nothing more than a thief in the night that comes to redistribute wealth. [applause] think the most important thing we do to carry on this revolution is to recognize that we live in dangerous times and recognize that there is a larger number than ever who now are joining in the freedom movement and believe in individual liberty, believe in the rule of law. therefore, we have a responsibility. individuals like you that would come out and listen to talk like this are different than the average person. the average person is home doing
something else. they may vote, and if they do, they may not decide until the day before they vote. but individuals like you to become knowledgeable and understand the problems, i believe you have a great responsibility. if you have your head in the sand, you n i get blamed for a whole lot. if it cannot -- cannot get blamed for a whole lot. i think the most important thing is to become knowledgeable, believe in it, and if you are prepared to understand what liberty is all about and you want to participate, people ask me, what should i do? where should i go? if you are prepared and you have credible evidence that you are convinced, somebody will make use of your talent. we all have different talents. we all have different responsibilities. if nothing else, we all have responsibility for ourselves. if everybody took care of themselves, think what a wonderful place this world would be.
we have responsibility. we have responsibility for ourselves, our families, our neighbors. local gornment is permissible under the constitution. we have responsibility in our churches. there is a lot that can be done. there is a much goodness out there that we really want a healthy economy where there are more rich people. what are they going to do with their money? ey are going to help people. the money will be there but there will be a greater amount of wealth. we have destroyed the wealth machine in this country. i do not think there are very many people i know in washington who understand how serious it is. they think they can borrow and spend and print money and it will last forever. i think you know differently.
the constitution is important and why. >> many beautiful cultures and many beautiful people visit us. but definitely, many people will get killed in a full blown war between the u.s. and iran. >> the president is given the ability to be the commander-in-chief under article 2 of the constitution. this civilian control is something -- they did not want the military controlling the government but rather the civilian leaders being in control of the military.
this commander-in-chief issue was important to them. as a check to that, congress would be the only people that would be able to handle the cold war. but the congress would be the only ones that could declare war. in jennifer -- jefferson's administration he sent the niffy to deal with the barberi pirates without a formal declaration of war. the first declaration came with madison's administration. he most reluctantly was drawn into the war. it was spurred on by a group of war hawks and members of congress that felt like the national representation and prestige was being sullied by british on the high seas. so you have pees these people dealing with congress in determining how military power sob should be exercised. i think that's how the founding fathers wanted it.
they wanted to be one where the branches would be watching over each other. and for the purpose of not just derailing the program, or trying to bring down a president or bring down a party or win the next election but more of the same, the american people. but the end result is we haven't had a formal declaration of war since we declared war on germany and japan and that axis in world war ii. so we have been involved in a lot of military actions since then, but none of them actually going to the congress and formally declaring war. so congress has on numerous occasions tried to bring lawsuits against the president to determine whether or not his actions were constitutional or legal. >> this is a headline from yesterday. a lawsuit filed against obama on u.s. operations in libya. congressman cuse niche -- kusinich why did you file suit
in federal court? >> this is an issue of the constitution. you have to go to congress to get a major issue resolved. in this case, it is our contention that the president of the united states violated article 1, section 8 of the constitution when he proceeded to order an tack against libya absent a vote by the united states congress. >> as an american, i'm grateful for congress' ability to go to war. in recent history presidents have initiated action against foreign countries without declaring war, therefore bypassing both bodies of congress and by consequence circumventing the voice of the american people. as an iranian i am concerned that a president now or in the future may initiate military
action for political or defensive purposes. without consulting congress, the president may not conclude going to war >> making a decision is definitely important. entering the war should be a decision where many people get involved in that decision, such as congress. >> we think conflict in libya has brought this situation to a head. we think members of congress should obey the constitution. >> the constitution was designed to be a check on the government.
hence the enumerated powers. each of the branches have limited pourds with congress having its own unique powers. an important one of which is the power to declare war. my focus this morning will be on the president's ability to use war and none other. it is in accordance with our constitution that we are here, asserting our sworn constitutional duty and telling the president he does not have the support nor the authority that he claims to have in order to continue military operations in libya. >> however, some presidents have declared war without consent of
the congress. i asked my partner to demonstrate. >> there is a definite -- in libya he was not waiting, he was going after them. quick action had to be taken. he found a way to do it without breaking the law. he didn't officially declare war on them. he just had them do whatever he wanted them to do. >> he didn't declare war. like i said, he didn't live up to the spirit of the law, the
spirit of the constitution, but in my opinion this war time it is justify final. lack of action would have caused more harm. >> opinions may differ, but the constitution is still the final law of the land. >> if are the -- it says to the president, what should the policy of the us be in sudan and any place around the worl. if we don't pay attention to this, if we don't contemplate the wisdom of the founders in providing the powers of the government, we are in danger of losing our country. >> go to studentcam.org and considering the discussion on facebook and twitter pages.
>> as many americans rush to file their taxes this weekend, it is worth pointing out, we have a tax system that doesn't always uphold the principle of everyone doing their part. this is not just about fairness, it is about growth. it is about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. it is about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those ininvestments. in a perfect world, none of us would have to pay taxes. we would have no deficit to pay down, and we would have all the resources we needed to invest in schools and roads and a strong military and new sources of energy, investments that have always bowl centered our -- bolstered our economy. but we live in the real world with real choices and real consequences. right now we have serious deficits to make.
we can't afford to keep spending tax cuts on the wealthiest americans that don't need them and didn't ask for them. warren buffet is one of the wealthiest men in the world but he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. that's the way the system is set up. 1-4 billionaires pay pays less than the average working household. as warren buffet points out, it is wrong that middle class americans pay higher taxes than some millionaires and billionaires. this week members of congress get a chance to set things right. it is called the buffet rule. if you you should pay the same income taxes as middle class families. if you make less than $250,000, like 98% of american families do, your taxes should not go up.
that's all there is to it. most americans support this idea. one survey found two-thirds of millionaires do, too. we need republican politicians to get up to speed with where the rest of america is. if you belong to a middle class family, i've cut your taxes each year i've been in office. i've cut taxes for small business owners 17 times. >> the thing is, for most americans like me, tax rates are near their lowest point in 15 years. in 2001 and 2003, we are told we would have a higher zwrob job growth from tax cuts. the typical american family saw its income fall. on the flip side, when the most well off americans were asked to pay a little more in the 1990's,
we were told it could kill jobs. instead, 10's of millions of jobs followed. we have tried this trickle down experiment before. it doesn't work. middle class families have seen too much of their security eroded over the past two decades for us to tell them they will have to do more because the wealthiest americans are going to do less. we can't stop investing in the things that will help grow our economy and create jobs, things like education, research, and new sources of energy just so folks like me can get another tax cut. i hope you will ask your member of congress to step down. prosperity has always been built by a strong and thriving middle class. it is a principle worth reaffirming right now. thanks. god bless you and have a great weekend. >> i proudly represent southwest michigan in the u.s. house of
representatives where i serve as chairman of the committee on energy and commerce. i'm fred upton. our committee overseas national energy policy. a topic on the minds of millions of americans grappling with higher gasoline prices. vice president biden recently said our energy policy is the best it has ever been. the facts say otherwise. last year we produced 100 million barrels less than the previous year. the president rejected the keystone pipeline which would very eased our dependence on foreign governments for oil. and heavy regulations on the energy sector pushing prices higher. in many ways, this administration's policies are, indeed, moving us backwards and making gas prices worse.
foor people around the country everything from the commute to the grocery bill is getting more expensive. higher energy prices mean fewer jobs. in the house, republicans have already passed a number of common sense bills to address rising energy prices and create the jobs that we need. so far these bills are being blocked by the democratic-controlled senate. but we're not going to stop until they start listening to the american people. this week i heard firsthand how it would be harder to refine and sell fuel in america. so one of our committee members pushed the pause button on costly new regulations until we
study them all to determine how much they are driving up the price at the pump. cutting through the red tape. we have to address supply. the strategic petroleum reserve last year. he's thinking of doing it again. that is not the real solution to rising gas prices. if we deplete our reserves, it is a threat to energy. if the president releases oil from our emergency reserves, he must open up more federal land for energy development. energy could be a great american success story. technological breakthroughs are helping us unlock vast energy resources that were previously inaccessible, and we are doing
it in an environmently safe way. today we're knocking on the door of a bright energy future. as long as washington does not create obstacles. that is what we invite the president to join us. if he won't lead, we will s the american energy initiative captures our spirit of optimism. it is a better solution to power our future. that you for listening.
>> tomorrow the president will participate in the leaders retreat and hold a meeting and press conference with the president of colombia. its final certification contingent on u.s. concerns over labor practices. president obama will return to d.c. tomorrow night. >> as you heard, the senate will vote on the so-called buffet rule on monday. >> george w. bush made an appearance this week. the president said increasing taxes on nigh high income earners would hurt job growth. watch both events at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span.
>> our specific issue is to work to remain an essential compobeyept of american foreign policy. and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, this can never be the only consideration. >> katrina lantos swett is the c.e.o. of human rights injustice. >> when we abandon our human values, and we are talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror or the recent policy