tv Road to the White House CSPAN September 17, 2012 12:30am-2:00am EDT
now does the prime minister agree with his former treasurer that is tainted money and they have a duty to give it back? >> i have not seen the evidence for that, but what i say to the hon. gentleman is what about the 12 billion pounds his party has taken from the trade unions to bring this country to its knees. >> order, the house must come down. >> can the prime minister assure me that steps are taken it will be a public consultation and the establishment of an independent body so violence is never compromised now?
>> all fracking violations have been suspended. the royal academy of engineering and the royal society produced a full independent review into the risks of fracking. they would have to meet stringent standards. now it would have to fit within our overall energy commitment. >> you have been watching prime minister's questions. airs minister's question live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. over the next few weeks, members of the house of commons will attend their party conferences. the house returns on october 17.
you can find video of past questions and other british affairs programs at our web site at c-span.org. >> i think the fourth amendment is a privacy amendment. i strongly sank -- think the privacy protections our founders took for granted, in the internet age, you cannot take for granted. the short answer is, i feel strongly that the information about yourself is yours, unless there is a law enforcement privacyo go around that
screen. >> the question of technology and privacy, monday at 8:00 eastern, on c-span2. >> in less than three weeks, the first of the presidential debates. next, a european parliament debate concerning the russian judicial system. members of the russian punk band pussy riot were recently sentenced to jail. the russian prime minister medvedev nas spoke out in support of the band members release and added that he did not agree with the response.
next the response of russia's judicial system and the future with the eu members of the european parliament passed a resolution commending russia's judicial system. this is 35 minutes. >> during the last exchange we had we shared our concerns and about the violence against demonstrators. we welcomed at the same time the russian civil society, and we saw the russian civil society ready to engage in battle with the government and to play an active role in the development of political institutions with the country.
we sought dialogue between government and citizens. we have encouraged vladimir putin to pursue economic reform. we also offered our support in the shared organization's agenda. there have been some important developments. let me mention who world trade organization on the 22nd of august. russia took a major step forward in ongoing integration. we strongly support of that process and expect russia to fully implement all of the related agreements and to reach maximum benefit of the world trade organization. there has been some encouraging initial results to further institutions, the easing of
party registration rules, as well as direct elections of regional government. however, these have been only reforms so far, and to allow for a pluralistic parliamentary system without undue obstacles. much more needs to be done. we encouraged who'd been to engage in constructive dialogue, to find the best way forward and insure a good way forward. we have seen more intolerance of any expression. it is a -- instead of stronger safeguards, we have seen a string of measures that chip away at them.
it went at unusual speed before the summer recess. the common aid seems to be to further reduce the available space that can suspend political activity in the country. immediately after the inauguration, a number of leaders and activists who organized and participated in the sixth of may demonstrations were arrested and fired. many face charges. soon after the eighth of june, vladimir putin hyde amendment effectively limiting the administration. i stressed the government should include new legislation, and guarantee freedom of assembly for citizens. i also cautioned strong measures to curtail this were likely to prove unproductive. a few weeks later they present
foreign aid for all of the activities. given the history, foreign funding is not intended to challenge recipients. i reiterate my serious concern over the developments as well the situation in russia. these institutions are important. they are key to russia. they should be able to work freely and have the means to do it. we have supported some ngos and will continue to offer support to their contribution to russia. we do so because the european union has a strong interest in a stable and democratic russia,
and we have been offering our support to those who share this goal, but we need to impose our objectives on these russian organizations, nor do we aim to control their activities. in no way to these organizations become hours or anyone else's agents. let me state that clearly. get all of russia ngos would undoubtedly prefer to receive a russian funding, but there is barely any funding available for activities that could be perceived as critical of the authorities, nor do many businessmen offer support. i will not go into the details. good the key issue is how they will be interpreted and applied, and we will pay attention to that, but most recently on the 17th of august,
three young women were sentenced to two years in prison each for a peaceful less than one minute long performance. we understand this provocative stunt hurt religious freedom. it should have been sanctioned as a minor offense. on the same day i issued a statement about my deep disappointment with a disproportionate reaction and recall of russia's commitment to respect obligations to ensure fair, transparent, an independent legal process. the irregularities to the trial have been reported, including conditions of pre-trial detention. the package of legislation limiting freedom of assembly, restricting ngos, the pussy riot case, and the sentencing,
the dismissal of a deputy, and a continued lack of progress on the case -- this constitutes a trend of great concern to us. the trend raises serious questions on the state of the rule of law and in particular the use of law enforcement structures and other instruments of political purposes which should be used to safeguard the rights of freedom for citizens of russia. in conclusion, i want to stay the importance of having an economically successful russia at the border of the european union. russia is sometimes a challenging neighbor, but it remains an important partner in many issues and many fields, and we remain ready to work with russia on positive reform
efforts, to work constantly together on modernization, the integration of the rules based system, the development of citizens' rights and freedom has to be the basis of stability and prosperity, and we will continue to work with the government administration on these roles, but we should not shy away from our responsibility to express our concern with recent developments. we worry that the government set the country on the wrong path and wasted opportunity for modernization. i would like to thank the european parliament for working with me on services for both of these trials. let me take my opportunity to express my gratitude to parliament for your strong support of civil society cooperation, including financially.
>> thank you very much. let's now move on to the speakers on behalf of the group. now for a minute and a half. >> every word which you have said has my full agreement and has been in the negotiation today. on both sides we are critical of the anti-democratic developments in russia, and we know the country has never had a genuine democracy. we know this is a learning process they have got to go through, but they might have thought with the advent of president medvedev, things were going in the right direction, but things have veered in the other direction, and we would agree with you this means moving forward as well.
it is not just europeans that and see things moving in the wrong direction. the russians themselves are aware of that. the other week we were in russia with the eu delegation, and we talk with civil society. we were able to discuss all the legislation which you mentioned today. the problem is there is broad interpretation, but civil society never knows where they stand. it means proper function of civil society is impossible because they do not know where they are on firm grounds and what the rules are, and this is the question.
what can we do together to ensure the rule of law is respected because of some major modernization and now? >> thank you very much. >> let me say on behalf of democrats we are interested in a socially strong russia based on the principles of human rights, civil rights, rule of law. this was mentioned by gorbachev. he knew we could move russia forward only if they mobilize the free will of the people, and this energy of the russian people has to be based on observation of human rights, civil rights, rule of law, so we are all very distressed with
the situation developing since may, not only with the sentencing of the rock event but also with cases like a freely elected deputy of his mandate. the same applies to him. we the socialists and democrats want a dialogue with russia. russia is also a member of the oaecc. it is in our interest to develop a dialogue not only on the partnership, economic cooperation, but also as far as human and civil rights are concerned. it is not only in our interest. it is in russian interest,
because without it, and the russian society, the russian state cannot develop. thank you. >> thank you perry much. thank you, a share. dear colleagues, civil society and knows they can count on us. revolutions are one thing, but are words enough to protect development in russia. they have not kept their promise to actually move forward. now we are faced with a dilemma. should we continue to use the same strategy by speaking and making declarations without
accompanying are gestures with something more concrete? we are faced with-tensions and now the detention of pussy riot. i think the response underscores how draconian the russian measures that have been taken really are. this is what goes on with the kremlin. do not take account with russian civil society. for the new generation, i think the words we express our not enough. we need to do something more concrete, some type of proof for all of those aspiring for freedom in russia. we need to encourage proper legal measures to be taken.
what has been done is targeting all of those who abuse human rights. russian civil society needs this. we need to act now. we need to support freedom for russia. >> thank you very much, and all right, mr. schulz. >> five months after putin forced himself back into power, relations between the eu and russia have arrived at an important point. we need to take stock honestly. we should not pretend anymore. we tried to get a strategic partnership. we have not achieved it. we are a long way from a strategic partnership. our policies are really showing
failure, and when it comes and who to syria, we do not follow the same values, and the autocracy is close to kremlin and the liberal west, and the eurasian union has no psychological basis. this is no more than a declaration of intention, and the government does not show any sign of wanting to modernize. the rules that have been adopted recently are rejected by the people. these are very badly drafted, and it is opening thoreau's to this behavior, and it is shown by this. it is a question looking at the
political behavior of the regime and whether that is something that serve the people. russia is not on the path to democracy it. it is moving and the other direction. the moment the kremlin sees our attempt to get modernization of an attempt to carry on having good friendship with them, but we have to take a close look at our relations with russia of. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. this afternoon you have had many critical words against russia, georgia, and syria. however, in your remarks, there were reproaches with regard to the internal situation in russia. you talk about the problematic
new law, which is a constraint on human rights. you know the situation of the woman arrested for allegedly possession of narcotics substances commonly and we know that there are developments in that case as well. only four hours ago, negotiations ended successfully because there was general agreement around parliament across the groups, and that will strengthen your hand and give you a stronger mandate. >> thank you very much. one minute. >> the system of justice in
russia seems to be a perfect instrument for the russian authorities to hammer down on the opposition and really quash it. what of those who killed them? there is a worrying issue relating to the organization of the n.g.o., which monitors elections. they were fined 13,000 rubles. also, we have heard the supreme court in russia has given itself powers, which means it can run counter to the rulings of the international tribunal, the international court, and we
can only put the rulings within the context of this totalitarian justice system in the kremlin. >> thank you, chairman. ladies and gentlemen, i do not intend to contradict assertions. i just want to present an example for comparison and reflection in the czech republic recently. an ordinary citizen, a bus driver was sentenced and imprisoned because of a sign of the attached the insect and cannot now to the faces of some politicians on the pre-election campaign posters. it is interesting to note to
this person was sentenced. he paid deleaded material damage, and this happened in one member state. similar cases could happen in other states of the eu. we should look at the situation in our countries. >> one-and-a-half minutes. >> thank you very much, president. russia's joining of the wto will intensify economic ties between russia and the west and the european union in particular. we in the european parliament and in europe and more russian citizens are hoping for
something different from the present situation what our expectations when it comes to relations between europe and russia? we have the right to have relations based on more democratic approach. we would like to see more independent rights recognized in russia. aid is interesting the new constraint to freedom that we see it and the freedom of movement of ngos and constraints on who internet activities for the sentencing shows how things are going badly, how the situation is turning sour, and these cases
are still unresolved, so it is time to talk about human rights in russia. it is time to analyze the case. >> one minute. >> i should like to focus on two. perhaps i do not look it, but i am not a fan of punk music. we all know what pussy riot is, and perhaps differently from lady astor and we could talk about how this is civil or whether this is something that has deeply affected the interest of the people. i think two years ago we were
all agreed on what is happening, but i think what we were worried about and what the russian should be concerned about is that it is clear this legal case is one which shows political pressure on the justice system, and this is not acceptable. secondly, this is n.g.o. law was drafted in a way to be drafted as it has been used. we need something a lot clearer, and i think the law should be put where it belongs. there is one thing you cannot tell me, and that is we have to look at everything and do things together with russia. i am firmly convinced we discussed this issue with russian colleagues, and this is the only reasonable approach to continue to discuss issues in
order to move things. i am not one who believes that the discussion of resolution if only 3% of european union's is the best way to get success. thank you very much. >> president, lady astor, we are saying that russian civil society is awakening. it has been wide awake for a long time. what is asleep is the government and most eu member states. this is why i am grateful to lady astor for a very clear analysis that she has laid before the house. we have got to move from analysis. many people today attested to the backward steps in civil society.
more christian than many of the senior church representatives. they have clearly said, the patriarch should respect god more than putin. they do not want to have the economy by the grace of putin. mr schultz is right when he says that a policy of appeasement is wrong. that will end up as an eu relationship by grace of putin. that has to be placed at the center of our relationship with russia. yes, we have to talk with russia, but not in the way
that's been described. we have to speak in a clear language. the european parliament has always taught in plain language on human rights. and we cannot look the other way and talk firmly. >> a blue card for you. are you ready to accept the blue card? >> you don't fix up to? >> oh, yes, he does accept appeared don't you also believe that the success of the clear language of the parliament also leaves something to be desired? we have not been clear enough. we need to work together. we need to develop projects together. we also need to use a clearer language in hopes that something will move.
secondly, would you be of the belief of the catholics -- if you had had this have been in your cathedral, perhaps to have been shown a lack of taste the their, what you just said. secondly, we have a different political system here in europe and i really don't understand when people see this very brave protest, which is a cry for help, and then people talk it down. for example, a member says it you have a neighboring country that puts things on the set of putin, there the european union shows questionable credibility. we should not allow our credibility to be weakened. >> the legal system in russia has deteriorated considerably.
we're talking not just about the case of these three women from this rock group, but it is nearing the state in which the legal system has found itself. of course, change is necessary and really need to make it crystal clear that we are aware of what is going on. it is something of which could and should be ashamed. these three women who have been sentenced to three years in
prison have already been in detention for six months and we really do need to be thinking whether we should describe this as a crime. if we go back to check history, when it was a communist state, i'm not sure that it would have been such a political misuse of the system. i think we need to be crystal clear about this and we need to get the message through that we don't accept this. >> i am encouraged by your clear message in this sad situation. since mr. putin has started his third presidency, the human rights situation is deteriorating. now the question remains, what has to be done? until you -- until we continue to express our disappointments, i think it is time to express
with a warning that there can be no further progress in our relations. the first unjustified step is to establish an e you, unless the russian officials who are responsible for the death of sergei and responsible for complete political repression. only then, i think, something will begin to change. it is up to us to act or just to react. >> thank you very much. and now mr. murphy has the floor. >> since the jailing of the three women from pussy riot to prison for three years is an absolute scandal. it demonstrates the fear that
the regime has not only of pussy riot but also of the protests against the election rigging. all of the promises made to the people of russia since the collapse of stalinism have been absolutely false. the benefits of growth have grown only to the oligarchs well working people suffer. they were promised democracy. they got only rig elections and the absence of any real democratic rights, the right to freedom of speech, the right to protest. in the closing statement of the trial, one of the members of pussy riot added this up accurately. the whole world now sees that
the criminal case against us has been fabricated in this system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. murphy. >> thank you, mr. president. and thank you to all the members of this house who have contributed to this very important debate. i think the views of members have been coherent and consistent in saying to three things with which i agree. first of all, we need to step up our work with civil society. in russia. and to be as supportive as possible of all those who seek democratic future for their country and to be clear to of the importance of russia in terms of how we work with russia in all our activities across the world. i have already pointed to
examples of that. but i would again say that russia is an important and key partner with us in trying to address the nature of the nuclear program of iran and i do not wish the other members to be under any other religion other than that russia plays a very important role in that. we have to do more to push forward on this. it is important. it is an area of work, both in terms of economic and in terms of political life, where we can do something. but the concerns that have been raised have been well said and the concerns of individual concerns coming terms of the basis of this debate, the political use of justice, have been noted and we thank you for your support for what we're doing. and i look forward to continuing to work with you on this.
[applause] >> monday, former defense secretary and former joint chiefs of staff chairman discuss the impact of the u.s. debt on national security. other speakers include alan simpson. and former white house budget director. it is live, beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. now, a conversation with former education secretary bill bennett, now an author and radio talk-show host. he was a guest on today's "washington journal."
host: we want to welcome bill bennett, former education secretary. we want to talk to you about education and friday, the forum introducing your former employee, intern, now the vice president nominee of paul ryan. when did you first meet paul ryan? guest: i met him at power america, hired by ben webber, former -- it was vin webber, jack kemp, and we were the partners of partner of america and paul ryan was hired as speech writer and staff assistant to jack kemp and also when i needed help. host: do you think he has helped the ticket? guest: yes i do. one thing that he has done that's quite remarkable is he has made the whole debate about medicare a fair debate and a debate which republicans can win. as you know he often says we can win this debate. i don't think anybody thought republicans would have a shot at this debate before paul ryan
went in. it's also very interesting, steve, to see the kind of grades he's getting from older americans. and that is a surprise to the media. by paul is smart, he's very persuasive. i think in the next two months he'll be even more of a percentage gain for republicans. host: you look at the latest polls, the president up 11 points in pennsylvania, and the nbc news maris poll has the president winning ohio, florida and virginia. if that happens there's no way mitt romney can win this election. guest: i think that's probably right and i think it's uphill for mitt romney. there's a lot to tap in the last few weeks and i think when it's digested and thought about, if it is thought about, romney still has a very good chance but it's definitely uphill. guest: in the weekly standard, bill crystal says if it's time to panic, it's time to panic about the prospect of four more years of barack obama as president and the weekly from
the -- message from the weekly standard is simple, explain how ghastly the prospect of four more years of president obama really is and explain the course after romney-ryan administration that will follow and how the new polices will lead to a national recovery. what he has been saying is mitt romney has not been doing that. guest: well he's been doing it some. mitt romney is criticized -- remember when he put out the 59 points, they said this is too many points, too specific, now he's criticized for not being specific enough. maybe something in the middle like goldilocks and the porridge, not too hot, not too cold, maybe 10 points. he certainly needs to stay on offense. the debate is very important for him. one of the things in the past week has been the emergence of foreign policy as an issue. i think this is a strong place for mitt romney to go. i thought the statement that he made was proper and correct. host: in fact you read the entire statement on friday, why?
guest: i did because i wanted the audience to know exactly what he said and see what their reaction was. it was obviously very positive. that's what he said when he said it was disgraceful, what the president did in response, to blame the filmmaker for what was happening all over -- well, not all over then, but in several countries in the middle east and now all over. in, what, 20 countries now. and it strikes me as somewhat bizarre that people do not see how clearly this is a weakness for barack obama, that they have not articulated a defensible position on these issues. this was the president who went to cairo, ironically, to say there would be a new understanding and there's not a new understanding. in fact people think less of us than they used to during the bush administration. host let me ask you about your
former boss ronald reagan, in april of 1980 when he was running for president, the failed mission that resulted in u.s. forces being killed as they were trying to capture the hostages being held in iran. and ronald reagan as a candidate issued a statement that said it's time for national unity, he waited six days before he then delivered a speech critical of the carter administration and his polices. in terms of the timing of the romney statement, should he have waited? guest: no, i don't think you have to wait when the situation -- it's a very different situation than what ronald reagan was looking at. what he said was it was wrong to blame the wrong people and he was absolutely right about that. in terms of the particular negotiations that might take place, reagan backed off from that.
but as you know, he took a very strong position on what the administration was doing. as events have unfolded, i think it's been clear that romney was right and this administration was not. and i think situations -- the situation is going to get worse over there, and one still waits for this administration to explain to us just exactly how some ridiculous little film like this inflames the entire world. it doesn't cohere, doesn't make sense. what i think is they sensed the united states withdrawing, being weak, the united states not reacting with strength, with the way it should, and i think that's a recipe for disaster in the future. host: dan balls in the "washington post" saying it's time for romney to spell out his agenda. what does he need to do? guest: i think he could be more specific about what he wants to do. he said last week he had an economic plan, that would not decrease taxes on the wealthy, would not increase taxes on anyone, he could be more specific about that, i think. but i think the real case that he has to make is what happens if we have four more years, can we stand four more years of this. i think, my view is the country is being wrecked, that we are going downhill. maybe the most important statistic is not the economic stuff, which you hear endlessly about, unemployment and middle class family income and so on, but national morale, 57 percent of americans think we're in decline as a country and as a civilization. that's pathetic. this is what's happened to morale, our sense of selves if they want more they can elect
barack obama. host: loreen says it's time to shut down the republican party and this from the associated press, why aren't you winning, republican acti vies are incredulous, why can't republican mitt romney seem to break open a height race with the president given the nation's sluggish economy and enthusiasm to beat the democrats. guest: i don't blame mitt romney. he's not a great candidate, he's not a natural in the way that ronald reagan was a natural, in the way that bill clinton was a natural and in the way that barack obama was a natural. he's not that kind of political horseflash. he's a good candidate. i think he would be a very good president. but he's articulated a clear view about who he is and the differences with the president. i think we may want to put responsibility in a democracy on the american people, you know, and if the american people vote this guy back into office they will be punished and many will serve that punishment if this is what they decide to do. them,'s really up to isn't it, and i know a lot of people who look at the current situation and say well, he's doing pretty well.
the heck he is. he's not doing well at all. i think people need to come to a recognition that this is their country, their future, their kids' future, do they want four more years of this, do they want to double down on this administration. host: you've heard the charge, you're not part of the media but many say in the mainstream media, in the tank for barack obama, there is a liberal agenda, a leftist agenda favoring the president in this campaign. guest: there isn't any question about it. there hasn't been a question about it for a long time. one piece of evidence is the surveys of the media, not of the mainstream media, where they were asked who they voted for and if you hear conversations and go to cocktail parties and events around washington you can tell where people are. i know i often hear from people who know i was the secretary of
education, know i write books and they say you're a thoughtful person or at least a sometimes thoughtful person, you're not like one of the tea party people or the conservative, right wing people and i say no, i am one of those conservative people. so you can read the bias pretty clearly. this is the way journalism schools work, this is the way the reward system works. it's very similar to what goes on in higher education. you bring into the fold people who are of your view and promote them that way. host: the news of the day from "the washington post" and striking chicago teachers holding a rally t's. appears as if this will be settled today, a vote scheduled later in the day and if that happens teachers could be back on the job tomorrow. the last strike was in 1987, the education secretary at the time -- guest: it was i.
i would -- if i said it was me that would be a problem. it was i, secretary of education. i had called the chicago public schools the worst schools in the country, a spokesman from the mayor's office at the time stood you said and said we're not the worst schools in the country, detroit is the worst schools in the country, i said good for you, don't be guilty of low aspirations. i must say chicago has made progress, it's probably now the fourth worst school district in the country. i say this a big ironically. host: what are the problems? spell out the problems for the city. guest: the main problem, of course, is the condition of kids in inner cities in america. and i don't blame teachers for that. that is they are getting a lot of kids who do not have parental interest, parental involvement, a lot of kids from single parent homes. look, the singlemost important fact for the american future is 40 percent of our kids are born out of wedlock. this makes a difference in life, this makes a difference
in society. so a lot of the kids that the teachers and schools have to work with come to them less than ready for school, and what can they count on after school? some kids find, other kids know, it's not so good. so understand that the material they're getting isn't all potential rhodes scholars, we understand that. nevertheless we expect our teachers to do their best and do better than they're doing and here's the remarkable thing. there are schools that take such children rand do very well by them, teach them, improve them, they learn to read and write and count and think. the educational research now is clear, and i think this is the heart of the matter, steve, it's been done by the milken family foundation, los angeles and in other places, if you take a child in the third grade at the middle level in the 50th percentile, math and reading, and give him an excellent teacher, in two years that child will be at the 80th percentile, if you give that child a poor teacher, that child in two years will be at the 20th percentile. what more do we need to know? but that good teachers make a huge difference in the life of a child. not all the difference. not everything. most important person in the child's life is a parent,
obviously. but if you can move from the 50th to the 80th with a great teacher or 50 to 20 with a poor teacher you've got to pay attention to the quality of the teaching force. the true evaluation isn't just about improving teachers. it's also about identifying who are the ones who should be promoted, rewarded, given more opportunity, given more responsibility, and encouraging out 69 profession people who are -- out of the profession people who are harming kids. host: how do you do that fairly? guest: you do it fairly through a number of monies and people with be -- can be open minded about this. i visited about 150 schools when i was secretary and i've now visited probably more than 600 schools. there is not a single school that i have been in, where if you go into the teacher room, faculty room and say to the teachers who's the best teacher
here, who's the really great teacher in english or math or the -- where the teachers turn and say we have no idea, there's no way to tell. there's no way to evaluate it. it's ridiculous. it's like going into a hospital or a newsroom or a football team, any place else, everybody knows who the great teachers are but we get into this notion that it's impossible to figure out. one of the beats in chicago is they're using standardized tests as part of the measurement for evaluating teachers. you should use standardized tests as part of the evaluation. you should also use other things like the assessment of other teachers. see if you said to teachers it
seems to me as a group there, are big raises in this, there are big opportunities in this for all of you if you will clean up your own house, clean up your own act, discipline the people or encourage out of the profession people who don't belong in it and encourage rewards for the people who are excellent, i think what we -- we could do that, a rational system would do that, it would take into account what kids are scoring, what parents think and what other teachers think. host: politics and education with our guest bill bennett, former education secretary, radio talk show host and author of how many books? guest: 22. host: jane is on the phone from cleveland, ohio. caller: mr. bennett, they tell us that
social security and medicare are in trouble. i just wonder what you think if teachers and firefighters and policemen were -- would pay into it, they say they want a dollar of increase for every $10 of cuts. well, before they start cutting social security, don't you think everybody should pay into it? a lot of americans don't have the benefits and the pensions that these teachers and all the public employees have. all we're going to get is social security. i think it would be best to help the system if everybody paid into it. what do you think? guest: well it certainly would bring more funds in. i lot -- a lot of people don't realize it, the caller is right
to bring it up, and a lot of people don't realize in a lot of the cities and states, teachers do not pay in social security at all, they have their own retirement plan. in chicago, they don't. they have their observe retirement -- own retirement plan, health plan. they make on average in chicago -- last numbers i saw were $75,000 a year for about 170 days' work or, what is that, 30 -- figure it out, let's see, five, 30, five, 36 weeks, something like that, work -- weeks of work in the education system. they have $75,000, a very good retirement, very good health care benefits. by the way, there's a myth, a kennard, that people do not want to go into teaching. that is wrong. there are a lot of people who
want to go into teaching. do you know that something like 16 percent of the harvard graduates in the last two years have applied for something called teach for america, which is this wonderful program which encourages graduates in liberal -- libbal arts for teach, 80 percent at princeton, 20 percent at university of north carolina, they want to go into teaching. the notion that we better do something because people don't want to go in is wrong. make the conditions better, encourage excellence, reward good teaching and you will have more people going in but yeah i see the caller's point. host: dennis van roekel said in the first five years, 42 percent of public school teachers leave the classroom. guest: well, that's right. it's interesting, in the teach for america program, which is just one track where you get the liberal arts majors, i think a higher percentage stay, i'm pretty sure of those numbers, but people go in and they find it to be a pretty discouraging environment. they may find it discouraging for a lot of reasons. one of the reasons that people i know have left teaching is that there are better opportunities elsewhere for promotion if you are doing a good job. good excellence is recognized and rewarded. it still is not. look, you had the situation in d.c., and let me just say, washington, d.c.
scores are lower than chicago's, so we're not bragging here, about this city, where it was possible for teachers to make i think 110, $120,000 a year, but they had to accept a pretty rigorous system of evaluation, and they wouldn't do it, they voted it down. that's why the former chancellor, michelle rhee, left washington. host: paul, joining us from new york city with bill bennett, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: sure can. caller: i want to say first of all i agree with mr. bennett on education, i think it's great he mentions the length of time teachers are actually working, but i want to ask him a question, basically two questions. one is why does america spend more on education than any other economically developed country, at least of the vast -- at least the vast majority and get less, and why do we spend so much on health care as a percentage of gdp and everything else and get so much less. guest: i don't think we get less for health care. it's the best health care in the world. now it may not be. the obama care system may wreck or system. the burdens imposed on doctors and hospitals i think will be too great. the thrust of the question is about education. we spend a lot of money because we spend a lot of money on a lot of things. i was talking to the assistant, mr. van roekel, head of the national education system, outside as we were listening, and it's very interesting that the whole thrust of the education debate now is how teachers need more, how the schools need more. we have been giving more money to the schools. not the last two years, because of what's happening in the economy. but consistently, if you look at the curve, you will see education spending up, up, up,
performance is flat. we have given more, spent more, spent more and gotten a flat result, no improvement in our system, because it doesn't have accountability. it does not have accountability. >> -- host: should there be a department of education? guest: there will be for the foreseeable future. you remember i was held hostage for a while, a liberal told ronald reagan he would not confirm me as secretary of education unless ronald reagan sent him a letter saying he wouldn't abolish the department and i told the president, you do what you want, you're the president and i can do something else if you abolish the department. he didn't have the votes then, ronald reagan, in his second term. if he didn't have them then, you won't need them now. you don't need a department of education, you need some federal responsibility in education but it could be minimal. when i was secretary, we did a poll, a survey, of all our grant recipients and we asked them to evaluate the program, the program that got the best grades, the bloc grant to the states. we take the money, we take our cut out, and send it back to them. that's the program they felt was the best. people said why did you take it in the first place, why don't you leave it there. host: from virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just sitting here amazed and outraged by the assertions that the former secretary is making. number one, blaming the obama
administration for the mess in the middle east, because of obama's polices, as i recall a year ago, condoleezza rice and the other members of the bush administration were tripping over one another to claim that they were the ones responsible for the arab uprising, that they were the ones that planted the seed of democracy by starting these wars in iraq that cost is much in terms of life and money, and this other assertion that the obama health care plan is going to ruin our system, national geographic magazine two years ago had a comparison of the costs spent her capita by various european nations and little portugal, spending about $2500 per person, per year on health care had better outcomes
in infant mortality than the united states, which is paying three times more. guest: i don't believe it. when you see the flow happen in the different direction, then i'll believe it. what do i mean by that. when we see more americans going to europe for health care rather than europeans coming here for health care, then i will buy the european system or at least part of that argument. look, in terms of the so called arab spring, the president, again, when he went to cairo said he hoped based on mutual respect we would have better relations. we do not have much better relations. you can say what you want about the bush administration or condoleezza rice and so on. i agreed with the war in iraq, i think it was the right thing to do.
i'm worried we're going to lose ground there. but barack obama has certainly improved peoples' view of the united states or relations with countries there in the middle east. the situation in iran is very tense. i happen to think the israelis probably will strike iran, and i think they may do it before the election. i don't have any inside information here, but that's just my guess. but the notion that you can do -- put forward an olive leaf and it would be reciprocated by people there is not the case. we wondered what would happen in egypt, we now have the muslim brotherhood. why aren't people outraged that a flag of the united states was taken down, an al-qaeda flag
was put up in its place, that everywhere -- not everywhere, but in 20 countries, people want to kill americans, that our ambassador was killed, slaughtered, a symbol of the united states, and we are caught -- when we are asked about it our response is well, thisbozo in california shouldn't have made the movie. that is just insufficient for the world's greatest superpower. the response was insufficient, and weak. i disagree with the caller. host: the "new york post", again, reprinting what you said friday, i think it's a terrible course for america to stand in apology of our values, next on that, 60 minutes, the president being inter rude on that cbs program, governor romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. guest: one expects the president to shoot back at mitt romney but i think that romney is exposed to -- has expose add real weakness here. i they were under an illusion that the world would accept them as the new savior, that everyone would step aside, and
that these radical people who hate us, hate everything we stand for, would somehow turn their swords into plow shares. they have not done that and that is clear as we turn on the tv. what are we asking, are we asking our ambassadors, close down our consulates and embassies in sudan and tunisia? this is not a good sign. this is not a new signal. host: john has what contribution did you make as education secretary? guest: people tell me that we raised the bar in terms of discussions of higher education, what standards should be, which is something i was trying to do of the i was not of the view that the secretary of education ought to transform the system. that's not his job. the secretary of education's job i think was mostly bully pulpit to raise the issues that needed to be addressed. we talked about three at the
time, content, choice, and character. that was in the mid '80s. i'm still very proud of those because now we are having a big discussion about content, actually an agreement about content, the core standards that are being talked about all over the country. choice remains critical i think in education. that's one way you can get accountability is giving parents choice. we have arguably the best system of higher education but enormously wasteful and enormously expensive and you have the reason -- the reason for quality is the choice in that system and character, and there's a new book out by a man named paul tuft which talks about the importance of character and the virtues, if you will, in succeeding in education, so i'm very pleased with that. that was the legacy i wanted to leave and i'm pleased to have done so. host: let me go back to an issue we talked about in the last hour, parents struggling as college costs explode and what the examiner did, bill bennett, is took a look at the inflation
rate over the last 10-12 years, back in 2009, inflation was essentially nonexistent, yet four year private colleges that year went up nearly 4 percent, 7 percent at public institutions and last year, private schools going up 4 1/2%. you can see the significant increase over the last 12 years, and private schools, up 8.3%. there's also this cover story, which is last week's newsweek magazine, is college a lousy investment. guest: i know. i'm writing a book about this, is college worth it, and it will be out in the spring. it's amazing. you know, one of the thing i'm reminded of is how old i am and how you're virtually ageless! but that they quote the -- when they write the chicago public schools article, they quote me from 1986 or '87, now i'm quoted in higher education for something i said in 1988, bennett, 2. o, if you provide more student aid from the federal government to colleges and universities, they will raise tuition. if you put more money into the system to help students, the colleges and universities will raise tuition. and so the student will not get any closer.
this is exactly what they did. the president of the -- >> host: let me just show you this out of newsweek magazine, these are students with their debt, 75, $25,000, $100,000 plus. guest: i wrote about a girl from ohio northern who majored in sociology or something, and she graduated, she owed $100,000, she's waitressing, no job available, she's putting off getting married, certainly putting off having kids because of the student debt. for a lot of people it doesn't make sense to go to college. it depends. depends on where you go, what you study, what the job market is like, and the lot. however, americans believe that this is a sacred and wonderful thing and i understand parents who want more than anything to
send their kids to college, will put any number of members of the family to work to go, borrow whatever it is, the colleges that remain, however, i think venal in this regard. they want all the money they can possibly get and they get it. there are very few institutions that are responsible about this. growth city is one that doesn't take federal aid and they're very conscientious, it's a very reasonable tuition there, too, but the day of reckoning i think may be coming for colleges and universities because the price and the results are now coming home to people. how much they owe and what are they getting. host: dennis is on the phone from florida with bill bennett, good morning. caller: good morning mr. secretary. depending upon how good your memory is, you may know me as dennis from miami calling into the -- into the radio show. guest: of course. caller: that was a great story. this is from one catholic to another. with so much at stake, in the upcoming election in november, for the catholic church, the institutional church, and the members in it, does it seem to be that the catholic church, the clergy, are doing shockingly little in the way of
teaching to the issues? guest: yes. host: -- caller: and number two when you keep in mind as a catholic -- catholic from obama is proabortion, can a catholic actually vote for obama and still actually be a catholic? guest: that's a -- i'll leave that to rome. let's put it this way. my parish is the same as chris matthews was, teddy kennedy and mark shields, so that would suggest to people either that the catholic church has been identity crisis or one of us is in heresy on this. but yes, you raise very serious issues and this whole issue of omabacare, the whole context here of contraception and sandra fluke and all that raises a very serious question about church-state relations and the independence of the churches under the first amendment. look, let me be connected -- connect the two strands of the conversation together. i think the reason that the philosophy of barack bin laden and the person of barack obama -- barack obama and the person
of barack obama has to do ultimately with our educational system. i think that what republicans believe about individual responsibility, self reliance, that this is the last best hope of earth, is not as broadly believed as it used to be. there was a survey done not long ago, asking what system was superior, socialism or capitalism, i think capitalism edged out socialism by about three points. why would americans believe that? because they're not taught otherwise. this is what we're supposed to learn in the schools. plato said the two most important questions are who gets to teach the children and what do they teach them. you are now seeing, you know, in adulthood, several generations of people raised in our schools to think that america is largely a suspect
country, it's an exploiter, an imperialist place, it's really unbalanced, not a great place, and this is not true. we have our sins, we have our problems, we have our shortcomings, but in the long story of humanity and history, the history of the american achievement is high and unique. a lot of americans don't know that and as a result, they're not appalled by things that they see our president saying and notions that you know, america is in decline. they think well, a lot of countries are in decline and the president says we think of ourselves as exceptional, as do other countries. there's a way in which he doesn't appreciate the uniqueness of america and the
american story in american history. the one way in which he does was the best thing he ever said and that was the night he was -- he won the election, where he said this could not have happened in any other country. he's right about that. he needs to broaden his appreciation and deepen it a little more. host our conversation with bill bill bennett if you're joining us on radio, check out bill bennett.com, twitter handle is at william j. bennett and among the books, the book of virtues, the children's book of virtues, the book of man, readings on the path to manhood and working on the 23rd book. guest: i guess i am. host: when is it coming out. guest: when do i get tenure, huh? it will be out in the spring, probably may. host: thank you for waiting. caller: yes, i was just amazed with mr. bennett and his lovely remarks about our president. this lovely catholic man who still loves this church, who raped and molested many children in this country and we want to have our country run by their catholic rules. well, not everybody in this country is catholic. and this country was started on the reason for people to have the choice of their own religion. not so states could choose
certain religions to make our laws by. guest: well, the caller is right about the abuses in the church. they were horrible. i am a member of of -- an old friend of mine, cardinal in boston, asking him to step down. it had to be done, we had to exorcise, and nobody is suggesting that the pope should be run out of rome and i think we settled that with the election of john kennedy and i agree with the caller, the state government should not be interfering with the religious liberties and setting tests for what constitutes appropriate behavior for religious institutions. host: our next caller from peoria, illinois, valdez is on the phone, good morning. caller: hi good morning. i think i should generalize my comments because there are too many that he's make thank are inaccurate. mr. bennett is too smart with a phd to be spewing teachers do this
and that. i'm a retired police officer, my brother is a retired teacher. we don't pay into social security and we don't get social security. guest: right. caller: so you know that. secondly, you must be conflicted with the kinds of things you say about wars, not ever having served, i was. i was active duty, three years army, and it's just unfortunate that it's easy for pay -- to pay what teachers should do, what we should all do what we have a congress that has a 10 percent thereabouts approval rating, nothing gets done, but yet we want to step on teachers and make it sound as if they have all the responsibility to make sure our kids grow up. guest guest i didn't say that and i don't believe it. when we started talking about chicago i started by saying why would -- a lot of the kids who come are ready.
nevertheless, they're your kids and students and you have to do your best by them. the suggest is the chicago schools and the teachers strike. i'm not beating up on teachers though i would encourage poor teachers to get out of the business because the evidence is also clear from the research just how much harm poor teachers do. again that study i cited available from the milken foundation, the 50 percentile, at the 80th with a good teacher, a poor teacher, down to the 20th. that's all we need to know. host inner city schools, you talk about the poverty rate, crime rate, number of single parent households. these aren't -- these are societal issues. how do we as a society deal with that. guest: there's a movie called "waiting for superman", a very interesting movie, about parents wanting to get their
kids into better schools. turns out a number of people, actually a large number of people in the inner city, want to do better by their children. they're not sure quite how to do it but they go to lotteries, do whatever they can, they falsify addresses in order to say they live in a certain place so their child can go to a better school. we have in d.c. or used to have the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, which is a great program where kids can go to school. one of the remarkable things, i was in debate with chris matthews in texas, we disagreed i think on everything, except, you know, the trinity. but he said that one of the most remarkable stories in america is the success of the catholic school, the inner city
catholic school, with particularly minority populations, and that's true. that's denstrable, but there are also public schools that work with the inner city population, work well and work effectively. the problem with the system is that we don't differentiate and don't encourage more schools to be like the good schools. it's not that you can't educate these kids. these kids offer a challenge to education. my wife works in the inner city, she works with kids in washington, d.c., in her program. you can bring them along just fine. it takes work. it may take extra work, extra effort and maybe people should get extra pay for it. i don't have any problem with
that. it's just that when we learn how to do it and do it right we don't try to generalize it through the system, we continue to let the poor teachers do what they're doing and the good teachers do what they do. the system ought to be much more rational than it is. it's not my point to beat up on all teachers, i wouldn't go to 600 schools in my career and pay honor to teachers if i didn't believe in teachers. host: let's go to two points from our viewer in california, as long as parents believe that it is entirely the public education system that is responsible not only for teaching their kids but feeding them and providing them with the basic foundation of life that used to be the parent's responsibility, schools will fail, lack of parental responsibility has and is causing the problem with
education that we have now. guest: let's turn it into the positive light, not too far from simi valley, i was going to parents night in orange county, it was immigrants from southeast asia, cambodian, vietnamese and others, to address this parents group, they called me up and they said two weeks hence, there's a math test, so none of the parents will be at your assembly, they'll be at home working with their kids on the math test. there you go. cancel the secretary of education, we don't want to hear him, our kids have a math test. that's the point of the text or the e-mail. not every teacher is a parent but every parent is a teacher, the child's most important and virtually indispensable teacher. host: another question, jan saying what do you do with kids whose parents are addicts or homeless. guest: james q. wilson, a great professor, at harvard for many years, a great thinker, gave a speech at the american enterprise institute, it stays in my mind, who said we need probably to think about more orphanages, polices where kids can go when they can be healed. when you're in a home with a drug addict, things aren't good and you're going to -- you may well go the same way, unless you are rescued. i believe in the -- in parents having every right to choose the education for their child but when the pair sent incompetent, criminal, drug addicted, you can make a list, then i think society has to intervene. i went to boys town, as secretary of education, and as -- when that room fills up with those kids and you look at those faces and you can see the kids have been through a lot, then they speak and it's the voice of angels, what they do at these places is transform these children, and i remember going into a crackhouse and seeing a child in a corner with a flashlight trying to read his home work in a crack house.
you know what you do here, i'm a family values guy a. conservative, nonstate guy, get that killed out of there and get that child some place where he can live and breathe. host: for bill bennett, republican line, good morning, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. yes. i feel we should end the drug war, and it's just ruining this country. ruining our peoples' lives, being convicted of it. we have more people locked up in this country than any other country in the world. at least 70 percent of those people are nonviolent drug offenders. host: how do you end the drug war, what's your solution? caller: ron paul or gary johnson. guest: and gary johnson is a serious man with a serious set of proposals. i think they're wrong headed, it's a long discussion, we can do this some other time. it's a good topic by the way that doesn't get any attention and i'd be glad to discuss it sometime at length, but one of the interesting statistics, we now have more death and serious health problems related to addiction, to legal drugs, like
oxycontin, than to -- than to illegal drugs, so people who say well, this will end the problem, just legalize the drugs, you've got very serious problems with legal drugs right now. legalization isn't the answer. thererijuana that's out now, more kids are in treatment for marijuana than anything else. marijuana that's out there now is very potent and in the context of education, you want to educate the next generation, last thing you want them to do is is to get buzzed a couple times a week. host: joey has this point, other industrialized nations provide highly subsidized secondary education for their citizens. guest: we spend a lot of money on education. it's highly subsidized. it's just not highly effective. there needs to be more effective. i think we spend enough. $700 billion? that ought to be enough to educate people with. we just don't do it right. host: let's go to sioux falls, south dakota, bill bennett in the studio. caller: a couple things. he was right in the fact that he said that he is a right winger, that's for sure. the other thing is that not only do we not want our country
run from rome, we also do not want it run from israel. netanyahu, i find that just almost next to treasonist for anybody to back the prime minister of israel over our president, along with candidate romney to come out the very night with a crucial crisis that in the middle east there, and basically, what do you want to call, obstruct by -- what i want to say, the comments about the way our president was handling the situation. well, i don't want -- guest: i don't want our country run from israel, won't be, run from rome, won't be, and i don't want it run from something, or something-style, like in spirit of jamesville, wisconsin, that notion, those places where my friend paul ryan is from and but also from parts of new york city and other places, where i grew up in brooklyn. look, the debate about foreign
policy is about a lot of different things. one thing for sure, iran is a menace, that if it gets these nuclear weapons, nuclear capability, it has told us it would use them and they have to be stopped. they show not much sign of stopping. "washington post" yesterday authorized, i think they're right, what constitutes crossing the red line for benjamin netanyahu and crossing the red line of the united states, we need to agree on what
the red line is, if we can't, israel has a right to defend itself and the interesting question is if it does act, will the united states be behind it. i sure as heck hope so. host: david writes about this morning and benjamin netanyahu on the sunday programs, you can hear on c-span radio, which you can hear beginning at noon eastern, the last call for bill bennett is john. caller: let israel go ahead and attack iran. if iran got nuclear weapons, they're not going to do anything because they know they'll be blowed off the map. those people are not trying to commit suicide. you sit up here and you talk like you know all about it. you've never been to war, you never even went to the military. so you need to stop talking like you are this great authority on things. guest i'm not a great authority on things, i'm just giving my opinion. i didn't serve in the military, and it's one of my regrets that i didn't meet my wife sooner, that i didn't major in classics and served in the military. our second son is a second marine in the -- second officer in the marine corps. i take these issues seriously, i think the most important things, the commitment of u.s. troops into military action is the most serious act a president can engage in and i
think we ought to have a more thoughtful policy than we do. it doesn't necessarily mean that we don't commit our troops. sometimes we have to. rld we either g strong now, and you pay now or pay later. i think we get strong now or the odds will increase against us. host: first of all, when did paul ryan let you know he was seriously being considered for the vice presidential nod and what have your conversations been like since he was nominated? guest: back stage the values voters seminar on saturday we figured out that paul ryan called his mother at 11:00 on that friday night, he appeared on a saturday morning. host: 9:00 o'clock. guest: and he texted me that morning at about 8:00. he called me and i missed the call, pick upior phone. maybe i was doing c-span, i don't know! but he left me a message, and it just -- it was a very warm
and friendly message. we have texted back and forth on a variety of things. i've given him advice which he's mostly not taken, which is probably right. i remember a guy, someone told me to go see, said he was one of the wisest men you'll ever meet, and when he tells you what to do, do the opposite. because he's always wrong about practical advice. so i went to see the guy, he said now, this is what you should do, okay, but do the opposite, then he said you should probably do the opposite of what i told you, then i was totally confused. but ryan and i have stayed in good touch and it of great to see him. he was signing books for my wife and he went past the book, and a little smudge on her pocket book and he got out the handkerchief and trying to get the smudge off and she said just sign the book! it's priceless now. host: it's time for romney to make the case, voters are ready
to hire romney, that's a question, judging from all the evidence available, the answer is not yet. the other point he makes is that there are a smaller number of truly undecided voters for romney to peel off. >> i -- guest: i think it's tough but i think there's a -- i think people are being casual with the pollsters, i think there are more indecided people. i know the experts say no. with you -- but we shall see. look, it's been a very tough campaign. more to come. don't tune out of this thing and don't count this thing over until november, and watch those debates, they will be very interesting. mitt romney, i thought did a very good job in the debates and he was getting pummeled by some people. barack obama is not used to the format, not used to -- he didn't run through a campaign primary like mitt romney did, so we shall see. but yeah, it's uphill, and i wish it weren't. i wish they were 10 points ahead, but we aren't, we are
where we are. host: bill bennett, former education secretary, author of 23 books. guest: you think that's impressive, 23 books. host: come back on book tv. we're going to take a short break and get to your phone calls. >> tomorrow on washington journal, jonathan alalen. bob woodward talks about his new book. jessica black talks about school lunches and nutrition. >> our construction workers can build homes and factories that waste less energy.
put them back to work. i will take advantage of our oil, our gas, our nuclear, our renewable spirit north america will be energy, independent within eight years. >> watch and engage with c-span as the presidential campaigns move toward the october debate. energy policy is like the one of topics for the first debate, october 3. foreign policy the focus of the farm debate, the 22nd. through election day, coverage of key house and senate races. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c- span the work. -- c-span.org. >> the first of the presidential debates live on c-span.
watch and engage. next, a discussion on teacher's issues
with the president of the national education association. then a house hearing o. then a look at the remaining weeks of the 2012 presidential campaign. now, a discussion on teacher's issues with the president of the national education association. from "washington journal," host: we are going to welcome dennis van roekel, thank you so much for being with us. guest: thank you. host: we want to talk about chicago school history and other school districts facing similar problems. these problems being faced in chicago are no