PBS NewsHour | PBS

Does Greater Equality Make Societies Stronger?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:50:00 EDT

Graphic by the PBS NewsHour, based on the cover of "The Spirit Level."

Paul Solman answers questions from the NewsHour audience on business and economic news here on his Making Sen$e page. Here's Thursday's query:

John Naghshineh: Mr. Solman, could you please talk to Richard Wilkinson or Kate Pickett about income inequality? They wrote the book, "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger." According to them, social mobility tends to be stronger in more equal societies, which contradicts Richard Epstein's views about inequality being an incentive for growth. They also show greater equality correlates with higher life expectancy rates, lower crime rates, fewer dropouts, teenage births, educational outcomes and much more. You can guess how the United States fares on these charts up against other economically advanced nations. Their research couldn't be more relevant to our times!

Paul Solman: But we did. We've run two segments from our interview with Richard Wilkinson:

Inequality Hurts: The Unhealthy Side Effects of Economic Disparity

EmbedVideo(1633, 620, 386);

In Ohio, How Two Counties' Economic Paths Diverged Over 30 Years

EmbedVideo(114, 620, 386);

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.

Follow @PaulSolman

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

Russians Drill Into Ancient Lake in Coldest Spot on Earth

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:17:00 EDT

After decades drilling through more than two miles of ice in the coldest spot on Earth, Russian scientists announced this week that they reached their goal: a subglacial lake the size of Lake Ontario, which has been sealed off from the world for as long as 20 million years.

So much has been reported on the mechanics of the drilling, the grueling conditions the researchers faced, and the microbial life forms they hope to find submerged under Antarctica's Lake Vostok, we thought it was worth wrapping up some of the best coverage, using Storify after the jump:

src="http://storify.com/newshour/russians-drill-into-mystery-lake.js?header=false&border=false">

Culture Canvas

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:43:00 EDT

A roundup of the week's arts and culture headlines.

The nation of Qatar purchased a Paul Cezanne painting, "The Card Players," for more than $250 million, the highest price ever paid for a work of art, via Vanity Fair.

Uruguay's first biennial art show will open next fall, via The Art Newspaper.

Artists and intellectuals in Hungary are concerned about increasing tension between the government and cultural institutions, via The Art Newspaper.

La Scala fired a ballerina for alleging high rates of anorexia in the company during an interview, via The Los Angeles Times.

A nylon star designed to improve air quality was selected as the winner of the 13th Young Architects Program. The nylon is treated with a chemical spray that neutralizes pollutants in the surrounding air. The design, by architecture firm HWKN, will take its place in the courtyard of MOMA PS1, via The New York Times.

Laura H. Kahn discusses the relationship between science fiction and public understanding of scientific ideas.

The Eisenhower family objects to the designs of the forthcoming national memorial to the former president. Famed architect Frank Gehry designed the plans.

Paintings, jewelry and fashion belonging to the late Elizabeth Taylor sold for more than $183 million, Christie's auction house said Thursday, via the Associated Press. The most expensive item was Vincent van Gogh's landscape "Vue de l'asile et de la Chapelle de Remy," which sold for $16 million.

John T. Sargent, who oversaw Doubleday & Company's expansion from a family-controlled book publisher to an industry giant, died at age 87.

British science fiction writer John Christopher, author of the popular "Tripods" trilogy, died at age 89.

Spy novelist Dorothy Gilman, author of "The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax," died at age 88.

The Daily Frame

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:56:00 EDT

Click to enlarge.

Kalamandalam Radhakrishnan touches up his make-up before his Ottanthullal performance Thursday at the Soorya Festival in Ahmedabad, India. Ottanthullal is a type of classical performing art from Kerala, India, featuring dance and storytelling. Photo by Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images.

Students Learn a Trade in Afghanistan Hotspot

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EDT

In an open, dusty part of southern Afghanistan where fighting between Taliban forces and NATO troops is commonplace, and jobs are scarce, an organization is working to train Afghans to make them more employable.

The program seems simple enough -- recruit Afghans, supply them with job training and send them back to their communities to make a living.

But the location -- in southern Afghanistan's Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold and active insurgency against NATO troops -- makes it more complicated.

The program is called Invest in Helmand and is run by Mercy Corps, a Portland, Ore.-based group with a branch in the UK.

The group started Invest in March 2011 and chose to work in conflict-susceptible Helmand because that's "where there was most significant demand," said David Haines, Afghanistan country director for Mercy Corps.

"We were approached by community members and shuras (local councils) to do something about the lack of training opportunities -- there are no government training facilities throughout the province."

Also, Britain's Department for International Development, which helps fund the program, wanted to focus there because of the presence of British troops, he said.

The Invest program training includes mobile phone, computer and engine repair, carpentry, metal work, embroidery and tailoring. Training sites are in Helmand's capital Lashkar Gah, Gereshk and most recently Marjah.

Although the program is not even a year old, it has undergone some substantial changes.

"If I look at what we're delivering now and I look back to the proposal 12 months ago, it's like night and day, because obviously you learn a huge amount," said Haines.

For example, Mercy Corps learned that students tended to stay for the duration of the course when they were recruited and referred to the program by their shuras and sponsored by the communities.

"It means there's an undertaking on the shuras' part that they will support the students to start the business and the students are much more likely to stay for the duration of the course because they've raised an expectation within their own communities that it's a privileged position to be put forward to these courses. And so they have to make the most of it," Haines said.

It also removes Mercy Corps from the picture somewhat, which is a good thing, he said. "There's a switch from Mercy Corps directly implementing something in the community to facilitating people already in the community to do the same thing. It makes things a lot more sustainable and culturally appropriate."

Another big change is more women are getting involved.

Mercy Corps specifically started with male students in order to gain traction within the community, demonstrate the benefits of the program and gain credibility, said Haines.

"People, in the rural areas particularly, are always concerned that either we're trying to brainwash people politically as an international organization, or convert people to Christianity."

After about seven months, the Invest program started training women, which required a separate location, and all-female teachers and security guards.

In addition, because it's a conservative area with concerns about security, families were reluctant to have their daughters, sisters and wives go outside without a male relative. So Mercy Corps provides buses to take them to and from classes, said Haines.

The program now has 700 female students out of a total 8,400 and hopes to increase that number.

Students range in age from 15 to 60. About 70 percent are illiterate, and many come from conflict communities, said Haines.

"Most don't have a formal education and would be employed as laborers in fields or construction. They sacrifice the income that they would be getting normally to study for three to six months."

Since the start of the program, about 65 percent have gotten jobs or started their own successful businesses, he said.

One of the most attractive features to students is that the teachers come from the private sector within the local community.

In Marjah, for example, Mercy Corps looked for carpenters who were the busiest at local bazaars and made deals with them to serve as instructors. The carpenters get a free workforce; the students get trained and boost their employability by saying they trained under a well-known craftsman in the community.

The program also provides students with another economic option, rather than joining an insurgency for the money. "A big chunk of people who join the insurgency do so for economic reasons -- it's not ideological or religious or political -- it's purely economics," Haines said.

The interaction students have with one another also helps lessen tensions, he added, since they are exposed to different social and economic groups. "The students just learn to get along, basically."

View all of our Social Entrepreneurship stories and follow us on Twitter.

Romney Readies His Conservative Pitch

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:08:00 EDT

Mitt Romney campaigns in Colorado Springs last week. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Mitt Romney is taking a break from the campaign trail, no doubt preparing for his big moment Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

The math and the calendar ahead, not to mention his organization, suggest the former Massachusetts governor remains the favorite to capture the GOP nomination to challenge President Obama in November. As the weeks and contests stretch out, and with Romney's three rivals saying they won't let up, the speech could be a big moment.

Low turnout in early Republican primaries and caucuses and a continued lack of enthusiasm for the GOP's candidates haven't helped Romney's case. Could CPAC be his moment to retake control of the party's steering wheel?

Jonathan Martin and Manu Raju write Thursday about Republicans who are worried Romney needs to "step it up," as Politico put it in the headline. From the piece, which includes frank quotes from members of Congress:

The admonition came from outspoken conservatives and members of Congress who typically stay out of party spats.

"There is not exactly Romney-mania right now," Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl told POLITICO, adding that the former Massachusetts governor "absolutely" must shore up the weaknesses with the GOP base that were on such vivid display Tuesday.

"Playing it safe, which Romney tends to do, is not going to get it for him," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a 2008 Romney supporter and a leading voice of his party's conservative bloc, who called the results this week "a signal."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who rode a tea party wave to defeat veteran Sen. Russ Feingold two years ago, said conservatives believe "we're losing this country" and want "a strong messenger carrying a strong message."

"Gov. Romney should probably be a little concerned," Johnson said. Asked if the front-runner has work to do with the party base, the freshman conservative said: "Last night's results definitely confirmed that."

The Washington Times' Ralph Z. Hallow writes about the conservative movement's expectations for the annual gathering, and what it might mean for Romney.

From Ralph's story:

Year after year at these meetings, CPAC attendees have grumbled about the failure of some of the elected Republican officials who profess conservative ideals to adhere to them once in power. Those activists, who keep coming and keep bringing recruits, say they aren't giving up on finding politicians whose deeds will more closely resemble their words.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has won the straw poll at CPAC two years in a row, won't be attending. Pressure will be on for Romney to knock it out of the park and remind the heart of the Republican Party why he's the guy they want to challenge Mr. Obama this fall.

Team NewsHour will be on hand at CPAC, so make sure to follow us.

CULTURE CLASH

The Obama administration's decision last month to require most employers, including religious-affiliated hospitals and schools, to provide contraception through their employee health insurance plans has revealed stark divisions, including inside the White House.

Bloomberg's Mike Dorning and Margaret Talev report that President Obama sided with a group of female advisers not to limit the health care mandate, despite warnings from Vice President Joe Biden and former chief of staff William Daley that the move could turn off Catholic voters:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic and a two-term governor of Kansas, was joined by several female Obama advisers in urging against a broad exemption for religious organizations. To do so would leave too many women without coverage and sap the enthusiasm for Obama among women's rights advocates, they said, according to the people, who spoke about the deliberations on condition of anonymity.

Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley, also Catholics, warned that the mandate would be seen as a government intrusion on religious institutions. Even moderate Catholic voters in battleground states might be alienated, they warned, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

Polling conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake suggests that Catholic voters might not be the part of the electorate the administration has most to worry about. The survey found that a majority of Catholics -- 53 percent -- said the opposition to the mandate by the U.S. Conferences of Catholic Bishops made no difference in their views of the Affordable Care Act, according to a copy provided to The Morning Line by a source familiar with the data.

That said, the administration has plenty on its hands when it comes to Republican opposition to the mandate.

On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, threatened congressional action if the administration followed through on its decision. "If the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must," Rep. Boehner said. "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand and will not stand."

(For more on the split in Congress, be sure to check out the Roll Call piece, "New Chapter in Culture Wars," written by John Stanton and Meredith Shiner.)

Liberal groups, including the Nurse Alliance of SEIU Healthcare and Protect Your Care, plan to get local reporters in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida writing about "the importance of contraceptive coverage" within the health care law with a series of conference calls Thursday.

The issue has also become a focus of the Republican presidential campaign, with Romney criticizing the president during a stop in Atlanta on Wednesday afternoon.

"This kind of attack on religion and on our first freedom, our right to worship and believe as we choose ... this is wrong," Romney said. "If I am president of the United States, I will restore and protect our religious liberty in this great country."

The White House has signaled a willingness to find a compromise with religious institutions on the mandate, but even that action could bring political risks, as any move to restrict access to contraceptives might displease women voters, who supported Mr. Obama over John McCain by 13 points in the 2008 election.

SANTORUM SERVERS OVERLOAD

Interest in Rick Santorum was so high on Wednesday, it took nearly 20 minutes for a call on his 888 campaign number to be patched to a human being.

"We've been that busy, getting way more than the normal amount of calls," an operator told The Morning Line, noting she was one of 40 people frantically taking donations on the line.

John Brabender, Santorum's longtime media strategist, appeared on Wednesday's NewsHour and said there's little time to stop and savor the former Pennsylvania senator's victory. He said calls and donations were "going through the roof," noting that "we had to add more servers" to meet demand.

Brabender, who had spent all day filming in Pittsburgh, where Santorum claims his roots, wouldn't tell Judy Woodruff what kind of television spot was in the works, but he gave a hint: "I was here shooting a commercial today. I'm not telling you any more than that."

Watch the entire interview and our segment on the Tuesday election's here.

The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg and Nicholas Confessore look at Foster Friess, the man who has given $331,000 to the pro-Santorum super PAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund.

From the story:

Michael Biundo, Mr. Santorum's campaign manager, said the Red, White and Blue Fund had been helpful not just with television commercials but also with a phone bank operation that helped drive Santorum-friendly voters to the polls in Denver. While he said the campaign was receiving an influx of new donations after Tuesday's victories, "anytime anybody wants to help us, we'll take it."

2012 LINE ITEMS

Hotline's Reid Wilson reported on Twitter (@hotlinereid) that the Obama campaign's first ad about energy ran between Jan. 19 and Jan. 25. There were about 5,000 spots running in 25 markets, costing $1.4 million, he wrote.
Politico's Maggie Haberman and Reid Epstein look at Romney's return to CPAC, four years after he announced his withdrawal from the 2008 GOP race at the annual conservative confab.
Our partners at Patchwork Nation write about how bad a night Tuesday was for Romney.
Paul announces a Valentine's Day "money bomb" and tells his supporters in an email, "One thing has become clear after these early contests -- it's anybody's race."
Ed Koch, who led an anti-Obama push over the president's moves on Israel last year, now tells Ben Smith he "has been hearing fewer and fewer complaints about Barack Obama."
Obama campaign pollster Joel Benenson writes a memo gloating about low turnout in the early GOP contests. "The only state thus far with a significant rise in Republican turnout was South Carolina, where Romney was trounced by Newt Gingrich," he writes. He also argues that "Romney's effort to woo conservative voters is hurting him with independents."
The Democratic National Committee posts a new web video suggesting Romney is beholden to special interests. Watch it here.

TOP TWEETS

Gallup polling shows economic confidence continues to surge following jobs report. Closing in on best level since '07.
— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) February 9, 2012

src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

How Mark Zuckerberg, using the Like button, appeared to endorse #MittRomney gaw.kr/xgKmVy
— Jennifer Preston (@NYT_JenPreston) February 9, 2012

src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

DC Food trucks need you! Pls take just a minute to help all of us remain in business! fb.me/19Q1KctUC
— DC Empanadas (@DCEmpanadas) February 9, 2012

src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

OUTSIDE THE LINES

The New York Times reports on the "broad national settlement aimed at halting the housing market's downward slide and holding the banks accountable for foreclosure abuses." The NewsHour will have more on Thursday's program.
The NewsHour's Gwen Ifill spoke with Washington Post reporter Kimberly Kindy about the paper's year-long investigation looking at how members of Congress have steered taxpayer money close to home.
"A growing number of Republicans want to lift the earmark ban that has been embraced by President Obama and Congress," The Hill's Alexander Bolton writes.
A pair of polls released Wednesday show Congress' dismal popularity hasn't gotten any better. Gallup showed the approval rating for Congress at a record-low 10 percent. Even though Congress has only been in session 15 days this year, its approval rating still managed a 3 percent drop since the last Gallup poll in January. And a new Rasmussen survey found 43 percent of Americans believe "a group of people selected at random from the phone book [would] do a better job addressing the nation's problems than the current Congress."
Roll Call's Kyle Trygstad looks ahead to Senate races in 2014. Hint: It looks good for the GOP.
Judy Woodruff (@judywoodruff) writes about the state of agriculture in America.
Washington state passes a measure legalizing gay marriage.
The Texas Tribune writes that Gov. Rick Perry was the butt of several jokes at Wednesday night's annual congressional dinner hosted by the Washington Press Club Foundation. (Disclosure: Bellantoni is on the foundation's board.)

NewsHour politics desk assistant Alex Bruns contributed to this report.

ON THE TRAIL

All events are listed in Eastern Time.

Vice President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the Ohio Newspaper Association Convention in Columbus at 11 a.m.
Rick Santorum holds a pair of Oklahoma rallies: in Oklahoma City at 10 a.m. and Tulsa at 2:30 p.m.
Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have no public events scheduled Thursday.

All future events can be found on our Political Calendar:

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers, @quinnbowman.

Legacy of S.F. Mayor, Killed With Harvey Milk, Revived on Stage by Son

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:45:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a son brings his father's story to the stage.

The play is about the life, the legacy and the memories of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, who was gunned down at City Hall 33 years ago.

Special correspondent Dave Iverson of KQED San Francisco reports.

JONATHAN MOSCONE, director, "Ghost Light": Okay, so I'll give you just the cue line.

DAVID IVERSON: It's the first week of rehearsal for a new play.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: Yes. That's going to be good.

DAVID IVERSON: At the Berkeley Repertory Theatre, the legacy of Mayor George Moscone is being re-imagined in the most personal way.

ACTOR: Assassination tends to put a damper on table talk.

DAVID IVERSON: The play is called "Ghost Light," and it's directed by Jonathan Moscone, the late mayor's youngest son.

JONATHAN MOSCONE, director, "Ghost Light": I just wanted to explore what it means to lose somebody. I lost my dad when my back was turned. I didn't even see him die. I didn't see it happen. It's obviously a piece of me that hasn't been put together.

DAVID IVERSON: Jonathan Moscone was 11 years old in 1975, when his father George was elected mayor. It was a time of change in San Francisco, including a new wave of gay and lesbian residents.

The new mayor embraced the new San Francisco, appointing a gay rights activist named Harvey Milk to a city board.

GEORGE MOSCONE, mayor of San Francisco: Gay support is a campaign asset in any campaign. People look for it. People try to exhibit a platform of fairness, so that they can warrant the support of the gay community. And I would hope we'd get at least a lion's share of it or a fair share.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: My dad loved his job so much. And he loved being the mayor. And he just took it -- he took it as the greatest gift he could ever have received.

DAVID IVERSON: In November 1978, George Moscone was completing his third year in office. And then, on Nov. 27, shots rang out at City Hall. Amid chaos and confusion, the then president of the city's Board of Supervisors, Dianne Feinstein, stepped to the microphone.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, San Francisco Board of Supervisors: As president of the Board of Supervisors, it's my duty to make this announcement. Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed.

MAN: Oh, Jesus Christ!

MAN: Quiet!

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: The suspect is Supervisor Dan White.

DAVID IVERSON: For a city and 14-year-old Jon Moscone, the world was turned upside-down.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: I only remember like picture frames of the day. Someone sat me down on the couch. It was my mom's best friend. And she told me that my dad had been killed. And -- and then I don't remember much after that.

WOMAN (singing): Amazing grace, how sweet the sound.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: Whenever I remember you in my prayers, as indeed I do constantly night and day, recalling your tears when we parted, I yearn to see you again.

TONY TACCONE, writer, "Ghost Light": He said, the world went silent. The world went completely silent for a very long time.

DAVID IVERSON: Tony Taccone is the artistic director at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre. He's known Jon Moscone for over 20 years. They're fast friends, but the topic of Jon's father was always off-limits.

TONY TACCONE: So, when he took me out to the bar and plied me with alcohol sufficiently enough to sort of, you know, loosen up his tongue, if not mine, and then suggested to me that he was ready to do a piece about his dad, I fell off the bar stool, practically.

DAVID IVERSON: And there was another motivating factor.

SEAN PENN, actor (in character): My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you.

DAVID IVERSON: The movie "Milk" celebrated Harvey Milk's contributions to gay rights, but barely mentioned the mayor who had given Milk his first city position.

For Jon Moscone, who is gay himself, the movie only told part of the story.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: And that kind of -- to be quite honest, kind of pissed me off.

TONY TACCONE: One of the main reasons that Jon wants to do this piece is to -- is to liberate his father's memory.

DAVID IVERSON: The movie "Milk" may have jump-started the playwriting process, a process we documented over time, but the memories that soon emerged were far more personal than political.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: I remember, the day he -- the day he died, you know, I wasn't feeling well.

I could tell he was concerned about just making sure that I was okay. And he had maybe thought he was going to stay home with me for awhile or -- maybe -- no, no, it was bring me to the doctor. He said, "Should I take you to the doctor?" That's what it was.

TONY TACCONE: And you said no?

JONATHAN MOSCONE: I said no.

TONY TACCONE: So -- so if you had said yes . . .

JONATHAN MOSCONE: I know. I know.

TONY TACCONE: There were definitely aha moments. Certainly, when Jon mentioned the fact that he was sick the day his father was killed, and -- and he didn't talk about guilt about it or anything like that. He didn't mention it. But I thought, that's dramatic gold.

DAVID IVERSON: Taccone started writing, creating a semi-autobiographical story about a character named Jon who goes through life blocking out the pain of the past.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: As president of the Board of Supervisors, it is my duty to make this announcement.

DAVID IVERSON: The play begins with a dream sequence. Jon is once again 14.

ACTOR: You were sick that day, the day he was killed. Did you feel responsible in any way for his going to work that day?

(KNOCKING)

ACTOR: Can you hear that?

DAVID IVERSON: In the play, a boy who feels responsible for his father's death grows up to be a man who can't face the past or even talk about his dad.

ACTOR: You try to talk. It doesn't come out right. No one gets it. And you drift further and further inside yourself. Your closest companion is silence forever and ever. Amen.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: We never talk about our fathers. We never do. We never talk about them, except -- except to say either the nicest things or the meanest things. But we never talk about what it meant to lose them and how it means to go your entire life with no -- no -- no path made before you.

DAVID IVERSON: The play is about finding that path. Even scenes about the legacy of George Moscone focus on finding that way forward.

ACTOR: My father has been languishing for over 30 years as an asterisk in the life of Harvey Milk.

ACTOR: No, honey, your father is doing just fine. It's you who's been languishing.

DAVID IVERSON: Jon can't move forward, nor can his father's memory be restored, until he fully faces the past.

In the play's final scene, Jon visits his father's grave. There's no tidy ending, just a realization of where the path forward begins.

ACTOR: Looks nice, doesn't it?

ACTRESS: Yes, it does.

TONY TACCONE: The play ends up being about learning how to grieve and the place of that in one's life, the importance of that in one's life, the blessing of grief.

JONATHAN MOSCONE: And that's a first step. And the play is a first-step play. It's a first step about this kind of complicated relationship, this huge relationship between life and death, between father and son.

DAVID IVERSON: Political legacies aren't created anew in the play, nor is history remade. Instead, history is made personal.

Investigation Finds Members of Congress Steer Millions Close to Home

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:39:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: A new Washington Post investigation has found that members of Congress steer taxpayer money close to home and close to their own interests.

The report examined the records of all 535 members of Congress, tracking their use of earmarks, provisions inserted into spending bills for their home districts.

Among the findings, 33 lawmakers spent a combined $300 million on public projects within about two miles of properties they own. And 16 members used special spending provisions to give money to groups with connections to immediate family members.

Moreover, it's all perfectly legal.

We're joined now by one of the reporters who spent a year on the project, Kimberly Kindy of The Washington Post.

Kimberly, when you started this, did you think that this was going to prove that Congress -- members of Congress were feathering their own nests? And did you?

KIMBERLY KINDY, The Washington Post: I don't think that I would put it that way.

We -- we just knew that there was a big disconnect between -- you know, members of Congress, they have a lot of power to do things. They can pass laws. They can do ear -- they can direct money to earmarks -- with earmarks. And not a lot is known about their personal financial portfolio.

So, what we did was, we went way beyond the personal -- the financial disclosure forms they have to file, which, frankly, are -- don't really reveal very much. And we did a very deep scrub of the existing public records, so we could get a very good sense of their financial holdings. And then we started looking at their actions and, you know, looked at the earmarks.

And I think that we were surprised to see how many were very, very close to property and how many of them ended up going to programs that in some cases their family members run.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about two examples.

One was Rep. Norm Dicks, who is from Washington State. And he's a Democrat.

KIMBERLY KINDY: Right.

GWEN IFILL: Tell us about what you found.

KIMBERLY KINDY: Well, in that case, we're talking about a member of Congress and his son who actually worked to create a state agency that then the son was hired to run.

And the particular circumstance here is that the member, he became chair of an appropriations committee that allowed him, gave him the power to direct millions of dollars to the cleanup of a sensitive system of waterways, Puget Sound, in the Washington State area.

So his son was in charge of a program to clean up the Puget Sound, and his father sent millions of dollars to that effort. Much of the money ended up going -- what we were told by the congressman was that, this money was competed. I made sure that it was competitively bid.

But when I asked for the records, and I kept digging and kept digging and kept digging, what I found was millions of dollars that, sure, it went to the EPA, but it was -- they were given to them in the form of grants where they were the only applicant, and in one case, it was an outright earmark.

GWEN IFILL: Let's go to the other side of the aisle. Rep. Hal Rogers from Kentucky also was involved in this?

KIMBERLY KINDY: Yes. He was in the first story that we did, which ran yesterday, that showed how close earmarks come to members -- to members of Congress and their property.

And in this particular case, we're talking about earmarks that went all around the area where he has a home, all around the area where he owns stock in a bank. And to give you a sense of how close it came to his property, the -- there's the driveway bib -- I'm not sure how many people know what a driveway bib is, but you have the sidewalk, and then you have it -- it comes down like that, right at the edge of your driveway, so you can get out.

GWEN IFILL: Right.

KIMBERLY KINDY: That was repaved with earmarks that he secured.

So that's how close it got to his property.

GWEN IFILL: So, when you tried to decide -- after going through all these public records pretty exhaustively, how did you decide what the cutoff was about what was too close?

KIMBERLY KINDY: Well, that's a good question.

I mean, what we looked at was -- there were very few that we included unless they were within two miles. And so we're talking about dozens and dozens more that had things within five miles. We looked at whether or not there was a broad public benefit. We certainly weighed that.

But if there was going to be a great benefit to the member because they had a property a few blocks away or they had a property a mile away, they made it into the project. So we looked at proximity. We looked at the broader benefit, and then we looked at, you know, how much it might be beneficial to the member.

But those -- that judgment call wasn't a big thing.

GWEN IFILL: Right.

KIMBERLY KINDY: We really were like -- the financial disclosure system, it's supposed to show you exactly what a member's assets are and how that intersects with their finances. And it doesn't.

GWEN IFILL: But -- well, exactly, Kimberly.

KIMBERLY KINDY: We did that.

GWEN IFILL: So, you went and you looked in county records, you looked in property records . . .

KIMBERLY KINDY: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: . . . all public records.

KIMBERLY KINDY: Right.

GWEN IFILL: And, in finding all this out, did you also discover whether any of these lawmakers went to the Ethics Committee and said, hey, is this okay?

KIMBERLY KINDY: We did.

We asked that question. And the thing that is another very revelatory thing that we found out in this process is, the rules that they have set for themselves are so lax and permissive, this is perfectly acceptable. They go to them and they ask, hey, is it okay? And they say, yeah, it's okay, because, under the rules, unless you are a sole beneficiary of an earmark, it's perfectly permissible under the rules.

So, earmark experts, what they like to say -- and there are people who have been studying this, you know, like, for a decade. They haven't done a systematic scrub like we have done, but they know how it works. And what they say is that the rules are so lax, that you would have to get an earmark to remodel your kitchen in order to face an ethics charge.

GWEN IFILL: Wow. It would have to be right under your own roof.

Kimberly Kindy of The Washington Post, thanks for your work.

KIMBERLY KINDY: Thank you very much for having me.

Brzezinski: U.S. Should Work With Russia, Turkey to Solve Global Problems

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:32:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we turn to some thoughts about the U.S. role in the world as it shares power with new global players.

That's the topic of Jeffrey Brown's conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

JEFFREY BROWN: "America must promote a revitalized West and provide balance to a rising new East." So writes Zbigniew Brzezinski in his new book, "Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power."

The former national security adviser casts a harsh eye on what he sees as this country's stagnation at home and unilateralism abroad and offers a corrective.

At his Northern Virginia home recently, we talked about what he calls a shift in the world's center of gravity from the West to the East.

How do you define this shift? Is it a slow rebalancing or is it a true tipping to power in Asia, specifically China?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, former U.S. National Security adviser: It means the end of global supremacy by the West.

The whole concept of global power, one power dominating the world eventually, is associated with the West. It started with the great explorations, and then the naval competition, Spain, Britain, France, then became a struggle for the control of Europe, or even Eurasia, with imperial Germany, then Nazi Germany, then eventually Stalinism.

That today is no longer attainable, because the West has declined in its influence. Simultaneously, Asia has risen. Asia is now composed of states that are increasing the dynamic, but also competitive, so we could have a period of instability in the Far East.

And all of that, furthermore, is complicated by the new reality of what I call global political awakening. That is to say that, for the first time in all of human history, the publics of the world, the population of the world is politically awakened, restless, stirring, resentful, in many parts, increasingly motivated by an anti-Western narrative.

JEFFREY BROWN: You're seeing this in the Arab spring, for example.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, that's one extreme example.

JEFFREY BROWN: Russia.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's another example. And that's germinating. Something there is going to happen, I think, before too long.

JEFFREY BROWN: When you're talking about the shift to the East, specifically on China, so much talk about China, so much written about China. What are we not understanding? I mean, what vision do you have for China vis-a-vis the U.S.?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: The vision that I have is that we can avoid a head-on collision, which was always the case in the past, when one major power was ceasing to rise and another rival arose on the scene and aspired to replace the previous one.

That usually resulted in a major conflict and, in the last century-and-a-half, in world wars. I think we can avoid that with China, in part because of the new reality of interdependence, economically and financially. The fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, we know and the Chinese know that, if one hurts the other, one will suffer oneself.

JEFFREY BROWN: When you're talking about a declining power in the West and a rising in the East, and you use the word partner, what does partner mean? Is just a partner no longer -- no longer a leader?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, it means that, for one thing, we can't dictate. We can't really be the determining player of everything that is important on the global scene.

It also means that we have to learn from our own experience that the use of military power, first of all, sets in motion unpredictable consequences, and, secondly, is very, very expensive.

JEFFREY BROWN: We're not the global policemen.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We cannot be the global policemen, because we'll just drive ourselves into bankruptcy, and then social resentments domestically, and loss of legitimacy internationally.

Global power is becoming diffuse and no longer concentrated in the West or in the hands of the United States. America has domestic and international problems. And on top of it, there is no larger organizing vision for a world that for the first time needs to address global problems.

And what I advocate is a strategic vision, not a specific blueprint, but a concept of how America ought to strive to create some sort of balance, global equilibrium, so that we can all collectively address the problems that the world faces.

JEFFREY BROWN: One of those is to, I think in your term, expand the West to include places like Russia and Turkey.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely.

I think that it's in the vital interest of the West to do so. And I think drawing in Turkey, drawing in Russia would greatly increase the vitality of the West. And after all, the Turks in the course of the last 100 years have demonstrated a determination to be modern, secular and democratic. So they're really part of our value system.

In Russia today, we see for the first time the emergence of something we can call a civic society, not isolated dissenters who are heroic, whom we honor, but who are isolated, but a community, a society, that is to say, the younger, more cosmopolitan elements of the new middle class. And they feel themselves to be part of the West.

And I am convinced that if we're intelligent and patient and also persistent, then not long after Putin has gone, Russia will move much more rapidly towards the West. And, therefore, a coalition of America, Europe enlarged is something that will have weight in the world.

JEFFREY BROWN: Do you think the American people, the American political system is prepared to respond to this crisis you're talking about? You're talking about when you use words like diminishing power or a partner, rather than leader, balancer, these are sort of new terms that I wonder if people are prepared for or are able to respond to.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think you're really raising the fundamental question, because the part that's dealing with America focuses not only on our economic social problems, but very much on what you have just right now said.

We are a democracy. We can only have as good a foreign policy as the public's understanding of world affairs. And the tragedy is that the public's understanding of world affairs in America today is abysmal.

JEFFREY BROWN: Abysmal.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It is ignorant. It is probably the least-informed public about the world among the developed countries in the world.

JEFFREY BROWN: What are the consequences -- you spend a fair amount of time in the book on this -- the consequences of not adjusting to the global shift, to the global crisis, as you describe it?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think the consequences are likely to involve more turmoil, in the sense that certain problems which could be avoided might the get out of hand. First on the list, obviously, is Iran, and the likely consequences, destructive consequences of military violence there.

The consequences are likely to be more regional crises. The consequences are likely to be the absence of collective responses to the new global problems that affect all of humanity.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, the new book is "Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, thanks for talking to us.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, thank you, as always.

Amid Eurozone Crisis, How Germany Became Europe's Richest Country

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:22:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to Europe's debt crisis.

Negotiations are going down to the wire on yet another bailout for Greece, one that would require German help.

From Germany, Margaret Warner reports on some of the people who help make it Europe's richest country.

MARGARET WARNER: The Restaurant Dionysos was packed on a recent night, heaping plates of Greek fare flying from kitchen to table. But at this eatery named for the God of wine, the drink of choice is German beer.

The Greek-born owner spent years building this showcase of his homeland's cuisine for Frankfurt diners. But now the economic crisis in Greece and demands that Germany act as financial backstop to Europe has him wishing his old home behaved a little bit more like his new one.

CHRISTOS KEZETZIDIS, owner, Dionysos (through translator): In Greece, it's a totally different world. I came here to work. In Germany, there's just more order and they do more work.

MARGARET WARNER: That work ethic is forged at places like the Herrenknecht factory in Germany's booming Black Forest region. Owner and founder Martin Herrenknecht grew up in a tiny village here, the son of an upholsterer.

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT, chairman, Herrenknecht, A.G.: My dream was always to have more people employed than my father. My father had 12 people.

MARGARET WARNER: More than 4,000 people work for him, from young apprentices learning to shape metal to master craftsmen constructing the subterranean ground-eaters built here, tunnel-boring machines that can cost tens of millions of dollars.

The secret to Germany's success lies in small-to-medium-sized family firms like this one that manufacture some highly specialized and indispensable piece of equipment. The Germans like to say, we make the thing that goes inside the thing that goes inside the thing.

In Herrenknecht's case, it's a very big thing. Some weigh thousands of tons. Projects from the Beijing subway to New York's Second Avenue line to a train bed under the Alps all exploit Herrenknecht's indispensable feature cutting head that can readjust to any material on the spot.

The founder credits much of his success to the centuries-old mechanical aptitude and ingenuity of the workers of his region.

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT: Before, let's say 300 years, we built cuckoo clocks and, today, we build tunnel-boring machine. So we changed from the . . .

MARGARET WARNER: From cuckoo clocks to tunnel . . .

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT: To tunnel-boring machine.

MARGARET WARNER: . . . to tunnel-boring machines. That's quite an evolution.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET WARNER: Most of Herrenknecht's $1.25 billion in sales are worldwide, helping make Germany an export powerhouse.

With just a quarter of America's population and a quarter of its GDP, Germany exports more than the United States in total, notes Norbert Walter, the former chief economist of Deutsche Bank.

NORBERT WALTER, former chief cconomist, Deutsche Bank: We Germans have 1 percent of the labor force of the world, and we have 10 percent of the exports in the world. That gives you an idea of how successful and how oriented towards international markets we are.

MARGARET WARNER: The 10-year-old common European currency also helps. A third of Herrenknecht's sales go to other Eurozone countries, and pricing his machines in euros, rather than what economists say would be a far stronger deutsche mark, makes them more competitive abroad.

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT: If we were to have 17 different currencies, can you imagine every morning, I should study what is now, let's say, our relation to the Swiss -- to the French francs, to the peso, to the lira? I couldn't work like this.

MARGARET WARNER: We've come to Germany to find out why it's doing so much better than its European partners. And part of the reason can be found here, in the southwest state of Baden-Wurttemberg. The castle behind me may date from the 1700s, but the economic model they've developed here is 21st century-plus.

Just outside the state capital, Stuttgart, is another one of Baden-Wurttemberg's high performer, Trumpf. Customers from Harley-Davidson to Apple buy its laser-driven metal cutting machines, $2.7 billion worth last year.

The family-owned firm devotes 8 percent of revenues to R&D to keep its innovation edge. They invest even more in their 9,000-person work force, more than half here in Germany. Like most German industries, Trumpf hires them young, after the equivalent of 10th grade, for a rigorous three-year training and schooling program and a full-salary job afterward. Most stay far longer. And after college, paid for by the company, some go on to become managers.

Apprentice Simon Richter is 19.

SIMON RICHTER, Trumpf: I applied for being -- training because, yeah, I like the mechanical work, and not only the theoretical stuff at school. It's so always the same at school, and you don't know what do you need math for in your life later.

MARGARET WARNER: So do you think you have a good future ahead of you?

SIMON RICHTER: Yes, I have.

MARGARET WARNER: Trumpf keeps the apprentice program going even in hard times, as when the 2008 global financial crisis melted down the company's sales.

NICOLA LEIBINGER-KAMMULLER, CEO, Trumpf: It just hit us. Really went from one hour to the next, we didn't have any orders. At the same time, all over the world, no order. That was really cruel.

MARGARET WARNER: CEO Nicola Leibinger-Kammuller watched as sales plummeted 40 percent in two years, and she had to drastically cut production. For most firms, that would have meant layoffs, but not here.

NICOLA LEIBINGER-KAMMULLER: It's just a terrible thought having to lay off people, because we like our employees and we need them. And they are well-trained, and they're loyal. And they have been working for us for decades, some of them, or many of them have. And it's just a terrible thought to have to send them away.

MARGARET WARNER: Instead, Trumpf turned to a new German program called Kurzarbeit, or short work, cutting its employees' work hours and pay. The government made up part of the difference. And they got extra training on their off-days.

Judith Schonemeyer and Sebastian Frederick say they didn't mind reduced wages. At least they kept up their skills.

JUDITH SCHONEMEYER, Trumpf (through translator): We noticed that the financial figures were declining. Right from the beginning, it was clear. For me, it was one or two days a week I didn't work. We accept less money, so that once the situation improves, we won't have to start over again.

SEBASTIAN FREDERICK, Trumpf (through translator): It gave us a secure feeling, especially the people with families, that they have job security, that the company stands behind them and that you get to keep your job. So everybody was happy to do without the 5 percent or extra hours.

PETER LEIBINGER, vice chairman, Trumpf: The desire for security and safety is the most, so to speak, the strongest driver in German culture.

MARGARET WARNER: Nicola's brother, Peter Leibinger, vice chairman of Trumpf, said the short work program, readily accepted by the German workers, positioned industry to restart quickly after the downturn, and it paid off big-time for Trumpf.

PETER LEIBINGER: If we hadn't had this opportunity to use Kurzarbeit, we wouldn't have had the upswing that we saw, meaning 50 percent growth within one year for a company that makes a very difficult and complicated product and has to deliver that into the world. This wouldn't have been possible without us having our work force on board.

MARGARET WARNER: The Leibingers' financial caution also helped them weather the global credit crisis. Trumpf carries no major debt, they say, and in good times, they bank the extra profits to reinvest later.

NICOLA LEIBINGER-KAMMULLER: No yachting, no, no horses, no racing cars and stuff like that. And that's why usually we have enough money to reinvest with our money for research and development and buildings and acquisitions and so on and so forth.

MARGARET WARNER: But even Trumpf is feeling a chill wind now from other E.U. countries, who account for half its sales. Since the euro crisis hit big last summer, there's been a slowdown in orders from customers in Italy and Spain and even France.

PETER LEIBINGER: They said, we'd like to invest, we could use the extra capacity, but we're just so unsure about the future, we're going to wait for awhile.

MARGARET WARNER: Martin Herrenknecht, with his European customer base, is torn over what to do about the crisis. This self-made man is frustrated that Germany is being asked to bail out less prudent and hardworking neighbors.

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT: It's nonsense. They should control it in a better way. And it cannot be that we get retirement with 67 and the Greeks with 50.

MARGARET WARNER: But then there's economic reality.

Do you think that Germany is going to have to help support some of these countries?

MARTIN HERRENKNECHT: I would say that's quite clear.

MARGARET WARNER: That tension, how to shore up the euro zone on which Germany depends, without endangering its own hard-won prosperity is one the Germans haven't yet resolved.

GWEN IFILL: In her next report, Margaret looks at the roiling debate in Germany over whether and when to shore up its indebted neighbors.

News Wrap: Boehner Calls Contraception Mandate 'Attack on Religious Freedom'

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:16:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: Republicans stepped up the pressure on President Obama today over a mandate that religious schools and hospitals provide birth control for employees. The provision has spawned a political storm, with Catholic leaders and others saying they would have to violate their own teachings against contraception.

On the House floor today, Speaker John Boehner called it an unambiguous attack on religious freedom.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, R-Ohio: The federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries. If the president doesn't reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold and defend, must.

HARI SREENIVASAN: White House officials suggested Tuesday that a compromise might be in the works.
Spokesman Jay Carney followed up today.

JAY CARNEY, White House press secretary: We're trying to implement a policy that will affect millions of women -- well, all women -- and -- in this country -- and also to do so in a way that's sensitive to people's religious beliefs. And that reflects the approach the president takes, and it reflects the approach that Secretary Sebelius has taken.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Carney also criticized Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for attacking the birth control mandate. The White House spokesman said Massachusetts had a nearly identical policy when Romney was governor. Romney shot back that the policy was already in place before he took office.

The House voted today to grant line-item veto authority to the president. He would be empowered to eliminate specific items in spending bills, instead of having to veto or accept the entire bill. Congress would then have to approve the specified cuts. The measure faces an uncertain future in the Senate. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous line-item veto law in 1998.

Wall Street had a relatively quiet day. The Dow Jones industrial average gained five points to close just below 12,884. The Nasdaq rose more than 11 points to close near 2,916.
In Syria, the military assault on the city of Homs was unrelenting, despite President Bashar al-Assad's talk of peace. Amnesty International warned of a growing humanitarian crisis.

We have a report from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News in Beirut, Lebanon.

Be advised: Some of the images may be disturbing.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The Syrian president says the bloodshed must end, but not quite yet. Government forces have been shelling Homs for five days now, each day more terrifying than the last.

Amateur video coming out of Homs shows fire and destruction, mainly in the Baba Amr district. Few residents dare brave the tanks on the street, patrolling Homs with no electricity and diminishing stocks of food.

Maybe he doesn't care if he's hit. The child in his arm is dead, activists say killed by a rocket which fell on the family home. The bodies are taken to a makeshift morgue. We can't verify the numbers, but government opponents say scores of people were killed today. Medical supplies are running short.

The aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres today accused the Syrian government of targeting medical facilities. Doctors are in despair.

DR. MAHMOUD AL-MAHMOUD, Syria (through translator): Baba Amr has been under rocket attack since 5:00 a.m. We are treating this man in the mosque. We can't do anything for him. He needs a hospital. We can't help him here.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Activists say government snipers are hiding in buildings. Just driving along the road is dangerous.
The Syrian state TV version of events is a mirror image. Armed gangs are blamed for everything.

MAN (through translator): The bombs are coming from Baba Amr. They are from armed gangs. Who else? It is not safe to walk here. I can't find any bakers open because the militants won't allow them to open.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Outside Homs, the military convoy stretches on and on, dozens more tanks being transported towards the city where President Bashar al-Assad is showing Syrians that, whatever the human cost, his regime will prevail.

HARI SREENIVASAN: European Union officials said today they will discuss tougher economic sanctions on Syria when they meet at the end of the month. But Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against interference. He said, "we should not act like a bull in a china shop."

The prime minister of Egypt insisted today that a crackdown on foreign nonprofit groups will go forward. On Sunday, judges referred 16 Americans and 24 other foreigners to trial. They are accused of illegally using foreign money to stir unrest. The U.S. and others have threatened to cut off aid to Egypt unless the military-backed government relents.

But, in Cairo, Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri was defiant.

KAMAL EL-GANZOURI, Egyptian Prime Minister (through translator): We will follow and abide by the law. Egypt has known civilization for thousands of years, so we won't back down or take a different route because of the threat of losing some aid.

HARI SREENIVASAN: U.S. officials say the Americans being held in Egypt have done nothing wrong.

Those are some of the day's major stories.

How Significant Were Santorum's 3 Victories?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:03:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: It was a big night and day after for Rick Santorum. He swept the latest round of Republican presidential nominating tests and, in so doing, altered the complexion of the race.

RICK SANTORUM (R): Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota!

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

GWEN IFILL: The former Pennsylvania senator scored decisive victories in both those states, plus a five-point win in Colorado, outgunning front-runner Mitt Romney in all three of Tuesday's contests.

RICK SANTORUM: I don't stand here today to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

GWEN IFILL: Santorum won with minimal turnout, less than 6 percent of the voting-age population in Missouri, and in Colorado and Minnesota, less than 2 percent.

Still, his trifecta dealt a blow to Romney's inevitability argument, days after he scored big wins in both Florida and Nevada.

The former Massachusetts governor addressed his supporters last night in Denver.

MITT ROMNEY (R): This was a good night for Rick Santorum. Want to congratulate Sen. Santorum, wish him the very best. We will keep on campaigning down the road, but I expect to become our nominee, with your help.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

GWEN IFILL: The Romney campaign tried to play down Tuesday's bad news in a memo released in advance by political director Rich Beeson: "There is no way for any nominee to win first place in every single contest," Beeson wrote, "but unlike the other candidates, our campaign has the resources and organization to keep winning over the long run."

Tuesday's results can only help Santorum's underfinanced campaign. He said today he raised a quarter-of-a-million dollars overnight. Texas Congressman Ron Paul finished second in Minnesota, third in Missouri and last in Colorado.

He spoke last night in his strongest state.

REP. RON PAUL, R-Texas: Believe it or not, we did very well tonight and have a very, very strong second place, and it's going to continue.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

GWEN IFILL: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich finished far back in both Colorado and Minnesota, and he wasn't even on the ballot in Missouri.

At an Ohio factory today, he ignored the results as he talked up manufacturing.

NEWT GINGRICH (R): You cannot be the arsenal of democracy if you don't have an arsenal. So, we very badly need to rebuild our manufacturing base so that we are competitive.

GWEN IFILL: Because no delegates were officially awarded last night, Romney has still won the most so far. But an Associated Press analysis based on last night's margins of victory concludes that, while Romney remains ahead with 107 delegates, Santorum is now in second place with 69, ahead of Gingrich and Paul. Those delegates would be officially allocated at upcoming party conventions and caucuses.

More than 1,100 are needed to clinch the national nomination.

NewsHour political editor Christina Bellantoni is here with more on what's next after Santorum's surprising trifecta.

Christina, given these three outcomes from last night, which one did you find the most surprising?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Colorado was definitely the most surprising. Missouri, which I'm sure we can talk about, was less of a formal contest. Not very many people turned out. Minnesota was going to be a little tighter.

But Colorado, Mitt Romney was favored here. There weren't very many polls coming into the caucuses. They were mostly done by Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning pollster. But Romney was favored by 10, 12 points in a lot of these polls, and some fairly recently.

So, with Santorum winning by five points, as you can see on our map, Romney was able to win the western-northwestern part of the state, which is close to Utah, where he has a strength. But he was not able to really deliver.

Another big surprising thing of the night, this green portion here is the one county where Newt Gingrich actually won in all three of the states, and I think that that's a surprising result as well, because this was something where everybody looked at him as perhaps coming in second place, and he didn't even really show up.

GWEN IFILL: But given the low turnout, which we saw, how much of this was a Romney loss and how much of it a Santorum win?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Yes, I think that Santorum's folks look at it as a big win for them. In part, they've been able to raise a lot of money off of this. They able to sort of capture on the momentum and the media attention to him in a way that when you just -- you won Iowa and you didn't even find out you won Iowa for two weeks. He didn't get that national attention that he's getting today.

So that's a win for them. But it really does suggest a lot about a lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. He wasn't able to get his people out. Turnout was low in all three of these states. The people that turned out were people that didn't necessarily like him or like his ideals.

GWEN IFILL: Let's walk through the other two states.

In Minnesota, what did we see happening there?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Well, Minnesota -- and this is a caucus state and it's an area where you can't always predict what's going to happen there. There's a lot of political dynamics in Minnesota on both the Republican and Democratic side.

But this is an area where you had two candidates who are actually from Minnesota running for president before they actually dropped out, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor there, and then Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

GWEN IFILL: Both kicking themselves today.

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Exactly. And Tim Pawlenty had -- worked very hard for Mitt Romney, campaigned for Romney in Minnesota. Bachmann has not endorsed anyone, so who knows if that made any difference.

But Rick Santorum was able to really deliver here. Now, it is very important to note that the turnout was down in all three of these states. It was down 7 percent from 2008 in Colorado in the same contest, 23 percent from Minnesota in the same contest, and in Missouri, just half of the people turned out this time that turned out in 2008.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about Missouri. Is Missouri a particularly conservative state among -- in Republican circles?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Yes, Missouri is very conservative. A lot of evangelicals live there. It's the home of Rush Limbaugh, where he grew up.

And it's also an area where you've seen it was a battleground state. It has slipped away from Democrats in recent years in presidential contests. The Obama campaign isn't really considering contesting it.

And Rick Santorum had some key endorsements there. Phyllis Schlafly, who's not a name we really think about all that much these days, sort of an icon of the early female movement on the conservative side, you know, she was a big endorser for him. She had been with Bachmann before. He was able to really drive home some of these key groups. And he did a lot of events with evangelicals.

GWEN IFILL: And is it too soon to say that Santorum has replaced Newt Gingrich, who, as we pointed out, wasn't really on the map in any of these three states, as kind of the anti-Romney?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: It might be too soon, but one indicator of this is what the Romney campaign is doing.

You're seeing them go full-out against Rick Santorum with press releases. You haven't heard them really talk that much about Newt Gingrich. so, the question is, do they put anti-Santorum ads on television ahead of these contests that are going to be Feb. 28 in Arizona and Michigan, and then Super Tuesday, March 6?

And Santorum, if he's able to put some money on the air as well -- if he's raising all -- this much money -- that could be very interesting.

GWEN IFILL: I know you will be watching, Christina Bellantoni. Thanks a lot.

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: Thanks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Brabender, a senior strategist to Senator Santorum's presidential campaign, joins us now from Pittsburgh.

John Brabender, thank you for joining us. Congratulations.

JOHN BRABENDER, senior Rick Santorum campaign strategist: Thank you for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And congratulations to your candidate.

I do want to ask you, though, yes, the senator won in three states, but with such low turnout. We just heard 2 percent, 6 percent. How much of an accomplishment was this?

JOHN BRABENDER: Well, I think it matters a lot because it's the people who are paying most attention in the Republican Party right now.

And each state had its own symbolism, if you will. Missouri was particularly interesting to me because exactly why you said there. Newt Gingrich was not on the ballot. It's the one state where Rick Santorum had a clear shot with Mitt Romney. So, it was the moderate vs. conservative pure battle, and Rick Santorum won that state by 30 points.

And then you go to a state like Minnesota, which was expected to be tight, and Mitt Romney only got about 17, 18 percent of the vote. That means 82 percent of the people voted for somebody other than who was the supposed frontrunner.

So I think that there was a lot that said. There's been eight states so far, and Rick Santorum has won half of them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of Gov. Romney, he was out on the trail today saying, yes, congratulations to Sen. Santorum, but he said, in effect, we didn't really compete head to head. He said, we didn't really compete in the states of Colorado and Minnesota. He said, when we do, we can beat him.

JOHN BRABENDER: Yeah, well, I thought it was also interesting that as you mentioned they put out a press release yesterday saying they're still the best candidate because they're the best funded campaign.

And I guess they're going to print up bumper stickers that say "Newt Gingrich for president because we have more money than anyone else."

The truth of the matter is, I feel that these are excuses. And, frankly, I think you even have to wonder if these aren't slightly insulting to the states that did hold their primaries and caucuses yesterday, that now, after the fact, he's saying that those states really didn't matter to him.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You also know, John Brabender, that Mitt Romney is coming after Sen. Santorum, saying that when he was in the Senate, the debt ceiling was raised I think he said five or six or seven times, and he talks about federal spending shooting up when Sen. Santorum was in the Senate. He says what this country needs is somebody who wasn't part of Washington back then.

JOHN BRABENDER: Well, it's interesting, because two things. We're talking about Mitt Romney who gave us -- basically, Romneycare became Obamacare.

We're talking about Mitt Romney, who supported the Wall Street bailouts, which is deeply offensive to all Tea Party supporters. And interesting thing about Sen. Santorum, when they say about insider/outsider, he actually was an insider in the sense that he was in Washington, but he acted like an outsider.

He was part of the gang of seven that closed the scandal-ridden House bank and House post office. He even got -- away with little perks for senators like taxpayer-funded meals and taxpayer-funded haircuts. And he's also the one who reformed welfare, taking millions from welfare to work and also getting rid of all the abuse.

So, if Gov. Romney wants to go match for match as far as who has had a bigger impact on fiscal sanity being brought to Washington and being brought to this campaign trail, we sort of welcome that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The image many people have of Sen. Santorum is that he appeals mainly to social conservatives in the Republican Party.

Where are those voters going to be in the contests that come up in late February in Michigan and Arizona, the Super Tuesday states in early March? Are there enough of those voters for him to continue with the kind of success that he had last night?

JOHN BRABENDER: Well, first of all, I think you have got to be a little careful.

Do those groups appeal -- does the senator appeal to those groups? Absolutely, because he's been consistent on those issues. Unlike Mitt Romney, who's been all over the map on, for example, the life issue, Rick Santorum has been consistent on those issues. So they do appeal to him.

However, I do believe his blue-collar roots, coming from Pennsylvania, his manufacturing plan to bring back manufacturing jobs from China, his fiscal responsibility, all those things mean a broader group of people who are supporting the senator.

Think about this. Rick Santorum won every single county in Missouri last night against Romney. You cannot do that unless you're getting groups from the Tea Party, from the social conservatives and mainstream Republicans. And Rick Santorum appeals, I believe, across that whole spectrum.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The other comment, John Brabender, we're hearing today from the -- just this afternoon from the Romney camp is that they're the one campaign with the money and the resources to go the distance.

Now, we know that you were raising money overnight. I gather there was a 20-minute hold at your campaign office from people who wanted to donate. How much money have you raised? And how much of a problem is it just to keep at it?

JOHN BRABENDER: Look, I will acknowledge right now that if the campaign simply comes down to who can run the largest number of attack ads, that we should just quit all the primaries right now and declare Mitt Romney the winner.

However, the fact that Rick Santorum has won half of the states so far, spending just a fraction of the amount that Mitt Romney has spent, says to me that people care a heck of a lot more about the message and the messenger and their record than how many ads they're going to run on TV.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're in Pittsburgh. That is, of course, the area where Sen. Santorum grew up. Are we to assume that you're shooting commercials there to air for his campaign now?

JOHN BRABENDER: Well, I was here. I also am a native of Pennsylvania, and I was here doing some things.

Rick, unfortunately, is not here in Pennsylvania today. He's in Texas and then on to Oklahoma. But this is -- Pennsylvania is very much a big part of the hub of the Santorum campaign, and many things relative to the campaign are produced here, and many of our volunteers and supporters and staff come from Pennsylvania. And we're very thrilled the fact that, come April, we're also going to have a primary here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Shooting a commercial?

JOHN BRABENDER: I was here shooting a commercial today, but I'm not telling you any more than that.

(LAUGHTER)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Okay.

Finally, if Iowa had gotten the results right in the first place, how much difference do you think that would have made?

JOHN BRABENDER: You know, I'm sure it would have made some, but that's looking back.

All I know is that, last night, there were three primaries and caucuses in this country, and Rick Santorum won all three. And the strange thing about presidential primaries and this process is, there's no time to look back or even any time to stop and enjoy what just happened.

You have to look forward, and you have to deal with the cards that you are dealt. And what we believe right now is, we have the momentum. The excitement's there. These weren't small victories. We won by big margins. We're seeing the contributions coming into RickSantorum.com going through the roof. As you said, there was a long delay today because we had to add more servers.

And so I'll tell you what. We're pretty excited about where we are. And I think there's a lot of people in this country who for the first time in these primaries are very excited about a candidate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Brabender, senior strategist to Rick Santorum, thank you very much.

JOHN BRABENDER: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it.

A Bad Night for Romney, but How Bad?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:37:00 EDT

Former Sen. Rick Santorum speaks to supporters Tuesday in St. Charles, Mo.; Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images

So what exactly happened Tuesday night? Suddenly former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has reemerged from the pack to claim the Republican spotlight with three wins - Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri - while front-runner Mitt Romney is combing through the wreckage.

The former Massachusetts governor is arguing that last night was ultimately just a bump in the road to the nomination. No delegates were committed and he did not campaign hard in the states that held contests.

Still, three losses in one night was tough for Romney, a blow to his momentum at the very least. And as bad as the Tuesday results were at the state level for Mr. Romney, they were actually worse in some ways when you break the votes down to the county level using Patchwork Nation.

Romney's Bad Night

Romney did not win a single county in Minnesota or Missouri. He won 16 counties in Colorado, but there was a definite pattern to his wins and it centered on income.

The average median household income in the 16 counties Romney won in Colorado was about $59,600 in 2010. The media household income for the state in 2010 was $54,400. If you look at the dark green on the map below you will get a good sense of which counties Romney won - nearly of them are in that dark green area.

This map shows the counties Romney and Santorum won. We noted this wealth-divide pattern for Romney in Florida last week and noted the problems it could cause him in the future.

Romney did manage to win the wealthy suburban Monied Burb counties around Denver - places like Jefferson and Douglas counties - and Denver itself. And he won a string of counties in the northwest of the state. But he didn't win them by enough to beat back Santorum's wins everywhere else.

In fact, Romney didn't win the Monied Burbs in Colorado overall - Santorum edged him 40 percent to 37 percent. And perhaps most troubling for Romney, he didn't win any of the Monied Burbs counties in Missouri or Minnesota. The Burbs have given him his biggest support so far in this campaign and he struggled with them Tuesday outside of Colorado.

In other bad news for Romney, he did not win Immigration Nation counties, places with large numbers of Latinos, that voted last night. He won those counties in Florida, thanks to Miami-Dade but last night Immigration Nation counties went to Santorum in Colorado and Minnesota on the whole - and by large margins overall.

If there was a bright spot for Romney it was that he at least managed to win Colorado's Boom Town counties. That may prove significant in later primaries out west, but it's not much of a consolation prize right now.

Santorum's Strengths

Santorum, meanwhile, did well in all kind of counties on Tuesday. But his biggest strengths came in some key county types. He won the Evangelical Epicenters (57 percent of their vote in Missouri and 76 percent in Minnesota), the Immigration Nation counties, the small-town Service Worker Centers and the aging Emptying Nests.

Those last two types, the Service Workers and Nests, may be especially critical in the coming weeks. Look at the map of Michigan below and note all the red (Service Worker Centers) and light green (Emptying Nests). Those places tend be both more conservative than other places and less wealthy.

Does Santorum's win in those places in other states mean he is all set for Michigan? Hardly. Romney has a lot of advantages in Michigan, where his father was governor from 1963 to 1969. But Santorum's appeal with voters in those places coupled with his strong pro-manufacturing message could play well in Michigan.

And as the primary schedule moves south those Evangelical Epicenters loom large in places like Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

So what exactly happened on Tuesday night? Time will tell for certain, but at the very least the Republican presidential contest got a lot more intriguing.

In California, Some Students Rethink Dropping Out

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:29:00 EDT

Santa Barbara High School covers 40 acres in tree-lined hills overlooking the Pacific Ocean, a few miles away. The Spanish-style main buildings date from the mid-1920s, and when the doors are closed, you could be forgiven for thinking not much has changed.

But when the bell rings, students clad in the latest fashions quickly fill the open spaces. Girls wear fitted shirts and skinny jeans; boys often sport baggy jeans that defy gravity. And when you hear their voices and their stories, you know we're well into the 21st century.

Santa Barbara High School, however, is not immune to poverty, violence, dropouts or any of the other ills that plague most schools. And it is here that Victor Rios has come to share his story and study the achievement gap.

Rios, a onetime gang member and dropout himself, earned a Ph.D. and has become a sociologist. He appears on campus regularly, and has shared his story with dozens of students.

Many, including Joseph Castro and Brandon Smith, admit to rethinking their lives after hearing how dramatically Rios turned his life around.

Watch Video

Several girls here told us that his story resonated with them as well. We found four seniors who have been through tough times -- and considered dropping out. But Patricia Castillo, Meliza Palacios, Jennifer Gutierrez and Liliana Casian each say they've decided to stay in school, and all of them now have plans for the future.

Watch Video

American Graduate is a public media initiative focused on the high school dropout problem.

Follow @newshouramgrad

>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

America's Agricultural Success: A Well-Kept Secret?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:54:00 EDT

Photo by David McNew/Getty Images.

Amid all the worry about how long it will take the economic recovery to kick into high gear, there's a little-noticed sector that's doing very well, thank you: American agriculture. Overlooked by many of us in the news media, probably in part because we spend most of our time in big cities, farm sector earnings hit a record last year, with farm income rising just above $100 billion.

I sat down with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a few days ago to get an update on what his huge (90,000 employees) department is up to, and came away surprised by the successes in the American agri-economy. Much of this is being driven by farm exports, which reached a record high last year -- and as Vilsack, a former Governor of Iowa, likes to point out, helped support 1.15 million jobs here in the United States. These exports contributed to an overall U.S. trade surplus that also hit a record in 2011. (Did you know that every $1 billion in overseas trade generates 8,400 jobs in this country?)

The question is WHY is agriculture doing so well? Vilsack, whose grandfather owned a farm, says back in 1975, the most productive farmers planted an average of 12,000 seeds per acre. Today, thanks to science, it's closer to 30,000. After information technology, agriculture is the second most productive sector of the economy. Farm unemployment is dropping at a faster rate than the rest of the job specialties because of this, and because of what Vilsack calls "an extraordinary investment in infrastructure." He describes an extensive supply chain including storage, transport, and equipment manufacturing. Farmers are buying lots of new machinery, like large tractors with sophisticated GPS systems, leading to new hiring on the part of companies like John Deere, which recently added 250 people at a plant in Ankeny, Iowa, that manufactures cotton pickers.

There are many more facets to the success story, but two bright spots in particular stand out at this wide-ranging federal department: housing and food assistance. The U.S. Department of Agriculture helped arrange 456,000 home loans over the past three years, during perhaps the country's worst housing crisis ever. The homes they helped find mortgage backing for are principally in rural areas. Secretary Vilsack explained "it's our mission to do this; we've been working hard to improve the quality of life for people living in rural areas." Under that same heading, he threw in the assistance the department has provided for school construction, for small business (almost 50,000 loans) and for the expansion of broadband in rural areas -- some 80,000 miles-worth.

Finally, food stamps: a sensitive topic on the presidential campaign trail this year, as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has referred to President Obama as "the food stamp president." Run by USDA, its real name is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Vilsack reminded me that while there was a substantial increase in demand for SNAP benefits in the wake of the economic downturn, only 8 percent of recipients are on welfare. More than 50 percent are children and the elderly; the rest are people with disabilities and working men and women who don't earn enough to afford to keep food on the table for their families. "Payment accuracy" is up to 96 percent, in other words, less fraud, in the wake of stepped-up enforcement and investigations. Most impressive: in 2010, SNAP helped lift 3.9 million Americans -- including 1.7 million children -- out of poverty.

There's always something to criticize in government; after all, it's made up of people, and people make mistakes. But there are also some positive stories these days in the agricultural arena that deserve to be heard.

Choose Your Own Health Care Adventure, Part II

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:00:00 EDT

Strap on the goggles and fire up your DeLorean, it's time to go back to the future of American health care. Unfortunately, Marty McFly's booked. So our traveling companion is Mary -- a 50-year-old, middle-income, single woman with diabetes.

Last week, we met up with her to examine some of the ways the medical, technological, and political ideas swirling around in 2012 -- ideas still unhatched and far beyond her control -- might impact her future health 13 years from now. Using potential scenarios for U.S. health care as defined in a new report, our "time-traveling" pals at the Institute for Alternative Futures laid out four possibilities for Mary's health care in the year 2025.

Watch the videos below for a refresher on the four scenarios. Then, as promised, read the analysis of Clem Bezold, founder of IAF, who explains what would need to happen over the next 13 years for each of those scenarios to become reality.

And don't forget to check out the final results of our audience poll from last week -- found at the bottom of the post -- to see where your ideas on the future of U.S. health care stack up with the other participants.

SCENARIO 1: "Many Needs, Many Models," or the "Expectable Future"

Watch Video

Bezold: "Among many health care experts, this is the most likely forecast for U.S. health care. It may not be the most preferable, but there's enough inertia in the system to prompt a fair amount of positive change. In this scenario, we have electronic medical records that work, there are advances in system integration, digital coaches have become relatively effective, and the personalization of health care has improved significantly. The good news is we double the percentage of people in integrated care from 20 to 40 percent -- but the bad news is we only double it. The rest remain in fee-for-service or semi-integrated care. So we see improvements, but they're not uniformly distributed.

"To get to this scenario, we assume the Affordable Care Act has been implemented fairly successfully, but the improvements in changing the health care system are modest. We add people to the rolls for health coverage, but we end up with shortages. The employers generally look at the new health insurance exchanges and say they're effective enough, and that they'd prefer to get out of providing health care. So employers continue dropping coverage or shifting to consumer-directed health plans with defined contributions and high deductibles. The triple aim of health care reform -- enhancing the patient's experience, reducing per capita health care costs, and improving the overall health of the population -- has been accepted by most integrated health care systems. Most providers, though, remain unintegrated and the payers don't require it. And that's largely because health reform's Accountable Care Organizations, which were designed to integrate care, haven't been implemented as widely and successfully as they could have been by 2025."

SCENARIO 2: "Lost Decade, Lost Health," or a "Challenging Future"

Watch Video

Bezold: "In this scenario, the Supreme Court has ruled the individual mandate of health care reform unconstitutional, eliminating a major component of the Affordable Care Act. The United States has made huge investments in electronic medical records but they're not fully interoperable and therefore aren't very effective. In the meantime, prices keep going up, and a lot of people are now uninsured. So they seek out free digital coaches to substitute for regular check-ups. The problem is that advertising revenues fund many of these digital coaches that are free to patients, and many independent providers of these free digital coaches don't adequately check the quality, safety or efficacy of what their advertisers are selling.

"To top it all off, the United States has suffered recurring recessions, several tied to the European financial crisis. And due to that fact, there have been periodic and significant budget cuts -- 10 percent cuts in health care spending happened twice within two or three years of each other. One was in 2013 when Congress failed to find a patch for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that reimburses doctors for their Medicare services. The second slashed Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates yet again to cope with ever-rising health care costs. Physicians are being told to do more and get less -- and their stresses continue to get worse. Some health care providers just go out of business, including some community health centers. To be sure, there have still been some developments, including the discovery of a successful treatment for Alzheimer's, but you have to be rich to get them. Even if you have health insurance, most plans have stopped covering a number of the cutting-edge, expensive treatments."

SCENARIO 3: "Primary Care That Works for All," or an "Aspiring Future"

Watch Video

Bezold: "In this scenario, the Affordable Care Act has done very well in moving people toward integrated care. In general, the system also continues to move health care delivery systems into integrated care that focuses on prevention, takes full advantage of digital health coaching and utilizes the entire health care team. Leading health care officials have made a concerted effort to ensure that patient-centered medical homes have evolved into robust community centered health homes. In practice, they see themselves as treating the entire community and addressing social determinants of health in a neighborhood or region, in addition to treating patients. Things have gone well due to a combination factors, including the successful implementation of the ACA - particularly the success of Accountable Care Organizations which have fully integrated and simplified care -- as well as greater transparency of costs and real competition among providers.

"All of that has resulted in much more patient satisfaction. Incentives have shifted enough to encourage the medical community to use the entire team more efficiently. There's less use of physicians and more use of others in the team, including community health workers. It's been found that more and better care can be provided by using people further down on the chain. Community health workers have less training than nurses, but they can visit patients in their homes and effectively reinforce the information, diagnosis and advice from the health care provider. The recommendations are based on the latest medical protocols, the patient's bio-monitoring and community health assessments. It's become increasingly apparent that by focusing on prevention and taking a community-focused approach, you can get better outcomes for less cost."

SCENARIO 4: "I Am My Own Medical Home," or a "Surprisingly Successful Future"

Watch Video

Bezold: "In scenario four, much of health care moves into integrated systems that work, but the United States also has some economic challenges that have interfered. So we don't get the same degree of access to the effective integrated health care we saw in Scenario 3. The individual mandate within health reform has been ruled unconstitutional, and that means no one is forced to have insurance. We're also seeing a continuing movement where employers stop offering their employees full benefits. Individuals have to be ready to shell out a fair amount of money to get good health insurance -- and many people do that -- but another 40 percent of them say they can handle their health care on their own.

"In fact, technology, competitive insurance plans, and transparency of quality and price for providers, tests and procedures have allowed many individuals and families to self-manage their health care quite well. Most of these people have determined that they either can't afford full health coverage and consumer-directed plans help people take control of their own health care. Forty percent end up using technology and consumer-directed plans to become their "own medical home" and an equal amount buy their health care though integrated plans. For those managing their own care, there are very effective tools that allow people to buy health care "by the piece." For example, if someone needs a test and she can't do it at home, there's an equivalent of Angie's List that links up with that individual's digital health coach to find the result that will work best for them. The same is true for routine care -- it's easy to shop around. Because this consumer-directed care is so effective and lowers cost, it puts a cost pressure on integrated systems to become more efficient and effective. Another positive development is that consumer-directed plans include a very effective digital health coach, with all accompanying advertisements vetted by health insurance companies to ensure the quality of their messages and the safety of consumers."

Which scenario do you think is most likely? Check out the results of the NewsHour poll conducted over the past week. While it's far from scientific, the poll does indicate that many of the participants have a "very gloomy" outlook for U.S. health care, Bezold said. He offers his own assessment below.

Here are the results of a NewsHour poll that asked viewers to rate the relative likelihood of each scenario. Raw scores have been converted to averages:

Scenario 1: "Expectable Future": 60 percent likelihood (average of 5.95 out of 10 for 65 voting)

Scenario 2: "Challenging Future": 70 percent likelihood (average of 6.96 with 78 voting)

Scenario 3: "Aspiring Future": 53 percent likelihood (average of 5.27 with 60 voting)

Scenario 4: "Surprisingly Successful Future": 42 percent (average of 4.15 with 61 voting)

The above results are based on ballots cast between Jan. 31 and Feb. 7. Continue voting here:

Rate SCENARIO 1: "Expectable Future"

Rate SCENARIO 2: "Challenging Future"

Rate SCENARIO 3: "Aspiring Future"

Rate SCENARIO 4: "Surprisingly Successful Future"

src="http://twtpoll.com/js/ibadge.js" >Your browser doesn't support iFrames :( Vote for this poll here.

Bezold: "In terms of relative likelihood, my own opinion is that Scenario 1 is about 55 percent likely, Scenario 2 is about 45 percent likely, Scenario 3 is 38 percent likely, and Scenario 4 is 38 percent likely. I pick Scenario 1 as the likeliest because it includes the strongest aggregation of forces in terms of where we're headed. While I don't like that it's most likely -- especially because we've only doubled the number of people in integrated care -- we will see a number of advances in a whole range of things built into that scenario. So it's not all bad news."

The scenarios were developed in consultation with some of the top health care experts in the country, and with the support of The Kresge Foundation, which is also a NewsHour underwriter. Read the full report here.

Inside Homs, 'The Blood Is on the Floor'

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:38:00 EDT

Reports from the besieged Syrian city of Homs paint a dire picture. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says that dozens have died there in the last 24 hours, 14 of them children.

The assault by Syrian government forces came after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Assad regime. "Assad is using the veto as a license to unload on the opposition," said Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute.

On Tuesday, the NewsHour spoke with Sami Ibrahim while he was in Homs. He works for a Syrian opposition group and described in detail the frightening increase in violence. Ibrahim also told us what happens when a make-shift hospital comes under fire.

This video shows rockets hitting what appear to be residential buildings, while gunfire crackles through the air. It was posted to YouTube by the Syrian Observatory.

Related Coverage:

All NewsHour coverage of the Arab Spring
An NPR interview with Syrian citizen journalist and blogger Omar Shakir in the Baba Amr section of Homs
An interview with activist Emad Mahou in the southwestern Syrian city Zabadani by PRI's The World

View all of our World coverage and follow us on Twitter.

Is Our Economy Basically Just a Game of Monopoly?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:25:00 EDT

Photo by foreverdigital via Flickr.

Paul Solman answers questions from the NewsHour audience on business and economic news here on his Making Sen$e page. Here's Wednesday's query:

John Feuille: Most of us have played Monopoly. You set up the board, deal out the money, roll the dice and play until one person collects so much of the wealth that the other players can't buy anything, or pay rent, or pay utility bills. The game stops. The rich guy can't sell anything, or collect any rent, the poor people can't buy anything or pay rent, etc.

Let's say, you want to keep the game going. The rich guy, with his eye actually on collecting more wealth more quickly in the future, might suggest getting rid of all those onerous taxes and fees in Chance and Community Chest. But that won't get the game going again. Someone has to go into the bottom of the closet, find the old broken Monopoly game and deal out more money to the players. If you do that, the game can get going again. Kids can figure out what to do -- it's unfortunate that Congress seems unable to.

An inherent weakness of capitalism as a method to bring the most happiness, to the most people, most of the time, is that if too much wealth gets concentrated in too few hands, the game stops. The correct purpose of regulation is to keep the game going as long as possible.

Paul Solman: Provocative analogy, John. The game of Monopoly was actually invented to make your very point.

One question raised by your email, assuming for a moment that it's true: Why don't the rich understand this? To which a response might be: Many of them do. Hence the Buffett-Gates push for higher taxes on the wealthy. And what about the rich who resist arguments like yours? Could be they're short-sighted. Could be just too greedy to let go. Could be they just don't agree with you.

As to finding an old Monopoly game in the closet and using the money to keep the game going -- it just so happens that's what the Fed did after the Crash of '08 and what the European Central Bank is doing as I write.

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.Follow @PaulSolman

Conversation: Edward Gero on Rothko, 'Red'

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:29:00 EDT

Rothko died in 1970. His life has been turned into art in the play "Red," written by John Logan. Staged first in 2009, "Red" is now at the Arena Stage in Washington, D.C., in a production directed by Robert Falls.

Actor Edward Gero plays the role of Rothko alongside Patrick Andrews as Rothko's assistant.

I spoke to Gero last week about his role:

EmbedVideo(2658, 514, 320);

A transcript is after the jump.

Mark Rothko was one of the giants of American art in the 20th century, known for his luminous abstract paintings, rectangular fields of color and light, which for many had an almost spiritual quality to them. Rothko died in 1970. His life has been turned into art in the play "Red," written by John Logan. Staged first in 2009, "Red" is now at the Arena Stage in Washington in a production directed by Roberts Falls. Actor Edward Gero plays the role of Rothko alongside Patrick Andrews as Rothko's assistant. Edward Gero joins me now, and Ed, hello. I should say we're good friends, we're old friends.

EDWARD GERO: We are. Yes, we are.

JEFFREY BROWN: Of a few years. Nice to see you here.

EDWARD GERO: It's great to be here.

JEFFREY BROWN: This is a historical character in our own lifetimes.

EDWARD GERO: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Is it different for you in the preparation?

EDWARD GERO: Well, it is a bit different, because of biographical and historical context it really requires some research on getting the biographical story clear and learning from that, finding character traits that might become clear in the reading. I read the Breslin biography, the definitive, spent time with the paintings, met students of Rothko who live in the area to get a sense. I've done a couple of other biographical characters. I did Nixon a few years ago here in Washington and Salieri is also a historical character, so they're fascinating to do, and I think you get to combine the imagination of creating a physical life. There's no film of him, there are only iconic photographs, so it's an interesting process.

JEFFREY BROWN: Because there was a major Rothko exhibition here a few years ago, which I did a story on, so I'm familiar with some of the biographical text you're talking about. He was not a pleasant man is what comes through. I mean, he was in many ways a very difficult man.

EDWARD GERO: Exactly.

JEFFREY BROWN: And you have to make us care about him.

EDWARD GERO: Well, it's interesting. When I particularly spoke to his student -- there's a woman here who studied with him at the Brooklyn College -- and she said he was a really warm, empathetic human being, and I thought, How do I reconcile that? But this personal experience was quite different from the stories I'd read in the book. So it was trying to find those values in the script, and I think that comes across in some small way in his relationship with the assistant.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, let's look at a clip. Do you want to set this up? This is you and your assistant.

EDWARD GERO: Yeah, we're just about ready to prime the canvas and we're talking about his frustration about people not understanding how to look at the work and the sort of shallow approach that most people who are buying his works may take.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, let's look at this clip from Red.

[CLIP]

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, there's a lot of humor in that clip, but it gets to the real drama of the piece of this question of the purpose of art, the value of art in a commercial society, and this focuses on one episode, right, when he was given a commission to do a series of paintings.

EDWARD GERO: Yeah, this was the largest commission in the 20th century at the time, to do about 500 or 600 square feet of canvas for the Seagram Building designed by Philip Johnson and Mies van der Rohe, and it was $35,000 commission, which was a lot of money in 1957. So, yes, he was struggling with this, how we value art and what we want to do with it.

JEFFREY BROWN: I have always thought that one of the hardest things to do in art, in film and theater and books, sometimes is to capture the creative process itself. Now here's what - and I think of various examples where it's sort of unsuccessfully done. Here it works. You're sort of seeing it happen.

EDWARD GERO: We see the canvases being stretched, we see the stretchers being built, the paint being mixed. There's always activity during the play and sort of a multitasking thing. We're talking about Nietzsche and the birth of tragedy while we're mixing paint, putting up canvases, and at the center of the piece is, of course, the sort of burst of painting that happens where we both prime the canvas, which is a great moment to play.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yeah, I'll bet, did all of this -- sort of as you say 'work' aspects to it -- did that help you?

EDWARD GERO: Oh, there's no question about it. I spent some time talking with painters and how to paint, how he held the brush, how he mixed the paint and so forth. But it physically links us to the reality of the event. There was one moment we did where in the beginning of the play actually knocked over a bucket of paint that we were going to use later in the play, and I thought, 'What are we going to do now?' Well the good news was I heard the prop man running back stage to mix another bucket, but Ken, Patrick Andrews, I just tossed him a couple of towels and he just went about cleaning up. Just incorporated it into the evening.

JEFFREY BROWN: You know, maybe because I've been able to watch you over a number of years as an actor I can ask, how does each role, leading up to this one, allow you to grow? What is it that you're aspiring too?

EDWARD GERO: That's a great question. I've had the opportunity to play these very complex, interesting, troubled men, artists -- musician in Salieri, Nixon, Scrooge -- it's a kind of thing that you hope to have happen in a lifetime in the theater where you train and hopefully these opportunities will come where you get to play these great, troubled, complex human beings. And I'm very grateful for this opportunity to do that. With this particular role, there's a little bit of the Chicago, what I would call the Chicago aesthetic. Being Italian I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve a little bit and I think maybe I do that in performance but --

JEFFREY BROWN: What is the Chicago aesthetic?

EDWARD GERO: Well, I think it's a real aversion to any kind of sentimentality, that people have emotion, of course, but just get on with it, you have to survive the winter, they've worked in the slaughter houses or the railroad, there's a real working toughness. That's my sense. I might be imagining it, but that's what I took from it. And I learned how to incorporate that in the role. It was a little bit sentimental, I think. Some of the press had said that in Chicago, and I sort of took that in a little bit and adjusted that along the course of the run and now here in Washington. But he's just fierce, and it's a really interesting thing to play. It seems more simple, but in a way I think the audiences get to come inside a little bit more and bring their own -- like the art -- bring their own experience, their own emotion, to what's happening inside Rothko. It doesn't mean that I don't work on those things, but I don't have to show it as much and it's been a real interesting journey.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Edward Gero as Mark Rothko in "Red." Ed, it's nice to talk to you.

EDWARD GERO: Thanks, Jeff.

The Daily Frame

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:49:00 EDT

Click to enlarge.

Stormtroopers in London promote Friday's release of "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace 3D." Photo by Dave J. Hogan/Getty Images.

Santorum Sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado; Slows Romney's Momentum

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:30:00 EDT

Rick Santorum, with his daughter Elizabeth, left, and wife Karen, celebrates with supporters in St. Charles, Mo. Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images.

This time Rick Santorum did not have to wait 17 days to find out the good news.

Sure, the former Pennsylvania senator was expected to win a non-binding primary in Missouri that rival campaigns and pundits dismissed as a "beauty contest." And the thinking was Santorum might even win Minnesota's caucuses. But the surprise of the night came in Colorado, where Santorum won by five points after polls showed Mitt Romney the favorite by double digits.

Santorum's sweep of the three contests Tuesday night revived his presidential prospects and stalled Romney's momentum after his two convincing victories in Florida and Nevada.

"I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum said at his election night party in Missouri.

Addressing supporters in Denver, Romney offered his congratulations to Santorum but projected confidence that he would eventually claim the GOP nomination.

"We'll keep on campaigning down the road, but I expect to become our nominee with your help," Romney said. "When this primary season is over, we're going to stand united as a party behind our nominee to defeat Barack Obama," he added.

As Team Romney will be sure to remind the world this week, no actual delegates were awarded. But that didn't stop news outlets from projecting counts that now put Santorum in second place.

Click here for the latest on the race to 1,144, courtesy of the Washington Post.

Beyond the delegate count, there is another set of numbers that could portend general election troubles for Republicans. All three states saw fewer voters turn out Tuesday compared to four years ago, with Missouri's drop-off being the sharpest, with less than half the number of ballots cast. (Of course, the "beauty contest" label might have had a little something to do with that.)

In Colorado, voter participation was down by about 7 percent, while in Minnesota, with 95 percent of precincts reporting, voting was off by more than 23 percent.

Dampened enthusiasm in non-binding nominating contests is one thing, but whichever Republican contender emerges with the nomination better hope that turnout is there when the votes really count in November, especially in battleground states such as Colorado and Missouri.

Visit our map center to see full county-by-county results of all three states.

ASKING AXE

On Tuesday night, Judy Woodruff (@judywoodruff) interviewed President Obama's top campaign strategist David Axelrod, who defended their recent decision about super PACs and noted that 98 percent of their campaign's donations are from small donors.

The super PACs have "spent more money than all the Republican candidates in these primaries, over $40 million, and 99 percent of it on negative ads. And that was a little preview. That was the appetizer," Axelrod said. "You know, we're the entree. And they're going to spend multiples of that to try and defeat the president. And it is simply -- it is not wise and it's not right for us to sit by with our hands tied behind our back and allow that, the election to be hijacked by these groups."

In 'Pilgrimage,' Leibovitz Explores Portraits Without People

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:48:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, the story of a portrait photographer viewing her world through a different lens.

Jeffrey Brown has our story.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ, photographer: What's interesting about the picture is -- I get asked all the time, well, God, how'd you get to that position to take this picture? You know, it -- actually, it's on the walkway.

JEFFREY BROWN: This is what everybody sees.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: This is what everyone sees. You know, my children are right -- standing right here. I mean, they're right here. And I'm just over them. And they led me to this picture.

JEFFREY BROWN: A photograph of Niagara Falls -- or any landscape, for that matter -- isn't what we normally think of when it comes to Annie Leibovitz.

Beginning in 1970 at Rolling Stone magazine and later for Vanity Fair and other publications, Leibovitz has become perhaps the era's best-known portrait photographer, a chronicler of rock 'n' roll music and the culture at large, creator of numerous famous and attention-grabbing images.

Now, for a change, Leibovitz has given herself an assignment. The result, containing no portraits, is titled "Pilgrimage," a new book and an exhibition now at the Smithsonian Institution's American Art Museum in Washington.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: It's a journey.

You know, it was -- and I certainly didn't realize it until afterwards when I look at these photographs and realized it was -- there was a lot of searching in it. What was beautiful about it was finding photographs that moved me, that were -- that, you know, pulled you in, that were seductive, without, you know, being on assignment or having an agenda.

JEFFREY BROWN: Of course, the big difference here, this famous portrait photographer has created portraits without the people.

And, in a way, that's how she thinks of them, capturing her subjects through the things around them and what they saw. The chronicler of the contemporary instead looked to the past.

She started in Concord, Massachusetts, exploring lives through places and objects, the home of Louisa May Alcott, Henry David Thoreau's bed. She developed a broader and eclectic list of people, including Sigmund Freud and his couch, Elvis Presley's family grave site at Graceland, and of places, Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park, the Spiral Jetty sculpture in the Great Salt Lake.

Often, one led to another. Abraham Lincoln, for example, became a starting place.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: I love the Lincoln Memorial. Out of the Lincoln Memorial came not only Daniel Chester French, who was the sculptor of Lincoln. Marian Anderson came out of the Lincoln Memorial. Eleanor Roosevelt came out of the Lincoln Memorial.

One of the best trips I took was, I went to Lincoln's boyhood -- Lincoln's birthplace in Kentucky, and drove from Kentucky to Indiana to his boyhood home and then up to Springfield, out in the middle of this country. And then I drove into Ohio for Annie Oakley. I've always loved the road, but I'm just saying, in this time, it's great. It's great to just get out there and make your own list, find your own way.

JEFFREY BROWN: The project grew out of a low point in her life. Her longtime partner, the writer and thinker Susan Sontag, died in 2004. Several years later, Leibovitz went through a much publicized financial crisis that almost left her bankrupt.

She says now she found a kind of renewal in the lives and works of other artists, photographer Ansel Adams, choreography Martha Graham, painter Georgia O'Keeffe.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: What was so great about the project is, you know, I thought I knew who Georgia O'Keeffe was. And as you go into these places and -- where they lived and worked, you -- the thrill of it is, you get to really learn who they are.

You know, walking into Georgia O'Keeffe studio in Abiquiu just floored me. It's just -- it doesn't mean I can translate it into a photograph necessarily, all those feelings. And that's -- that was the work. It didn't all come easy.

JEFFREY BROWN: In fact, Leibovitz, 62 years old and decades into a successful career, says she had to learn to shoot objects, such as here of Emily Dickinson's dress.

So, here is the object, right, without the person.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: This is so not my kind of picture, where I come in . . .

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you mean?

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: Well, I never come in tight and look at detail like this.

JEFFREY BROWN: Right.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: And -- but in order to tell the story, that it wasn't just any white dress -- these are alabaster buttons. And there were these unbelievable -- you know, the unbelievable detail in this.

It does have a sense of composition and graphics, which -- which is there since the early days in my work. So . . .

JEFFREY BROWN: Another major difference here, these photographs are taken with a digital camera, not film, which Leibovitz normally shoots, and without the equipment and setup required for her portrait work. She says she found unexpected benefits.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: I noticed it right away in Emily Dickinson's house. It was the end of the day. There was hardly any light. And I started to just take pictures with a small snapshot digital camera.

And I found you could see into the corners. Film doesn't have that much latitude. It has only a certain amount of, you know, tones and darks and lights. It's a whole brand-new world. I'm learning along with everyone else.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, and, of course, and we're all doing it, right, even on our smartphones.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: Love it. I love it.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: I love it. I think it's great.

JEFFREY BROWN: Leibovitz says this was a project that in some ways actually has no end, though she is continuing the work she's best known for.

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: I love my work. I love my portrait work.

And I don't -- this just immediately feeds back into taking portraits. It's . . .

JEFFREY BROWN: So, you . . .

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: You have to take care of your work.

And by, you know, feeding this -- by doing this kind of exercise of going out and, you know, basically, you know, turning your back on everything else you're doing and just, you know, going another way is a really important exercise.

The best work, you don't really know what you're doing when you're doing it. It's -- I love that. I'm beginning to trust that now. I don't -- you know, I mean, I was told . . .

JEFFREY BROWN: You're beginning to trust that now, after all this time?

ANNIE LEIBOVITZ: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: "Pilgrimage" exhibition will continue at the Smithsonian through May 20. It travels next this summer to the Concord Museum in Massachusetts.

Italy's Premier Mario Monti: Time to Focus on Growth in Europe

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:35:00 EDT

Listen to the Audio

Help us, via Universal Subtitles, to subtitle this interview in English and other languages. If you have foreign language skills, you can help make this video accessible to communities all around the world. Click the box beneath the video for more information.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for having us.

PRIME MINISTER MARIO MONTI: Great pleasure.

MARGARET WARNER: As we sit here, Greece is undergoing yet another 24-hour strike. The financing situation hasn't been resolved. What are the consequences for Italy if Greece should default on its debt?

Mario Monti: The consequences would have been extremely serious for Italy, had a default of Greece happened a few months ago. Now - in fact -- of course, I hope that there is not a default for Greece, but I'm really confident that even in that case Italy is seen by the markets and by the E.U. institutions and by the global community as a country which, since a few months, has really taken some tough structural measures, both as regards the budgetary consolidation and as regards structural reforms for growth.

So I'm confident that we would be much less exposed to a Greek default risk than we would have been a few months ago.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think Greece helps prove the point you've been making to European leaders, though, that austerity without growth can be a recipe for disaster?

Mario Monti: Yes, but Greece is really the extreme case, because of the excesses of deficit, of public deficit in the case of Greece had been over many years so high, so extreme that it would have been hard -- let's face realities -- to have a soft landing from those excesses of deficit without a recession.

But in more general terms, I think there is a valid point if we say that Europe needed to be put under a safe place as regards the public finances of each member state. Thanks to German and other pressures, we could say that most of us are there or nearly there. And now, without going back to fiscal indiscipline, that the time has come to focus more energies on how collectively we can achieve more growth in Europe.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that in fact there's a real danger of a backlash here in Italy against what they may see as E.U. imposed changes to their way of life that are very, very painful. What are you seeing?

MARIO MONTI: There was -- there was such a risk of backlash, and it is there more generally -- well, let me say a word about Italy.

I try to avoid that backlash by always presenting the necessary sacrifices that Italians have to go through not as an imposition from Brussels or Germany or the European Central Bank, but rather as a necessary step that Italians have to undertaking -- to undertake also at the suggestion of Europe, but basically for their own interests, for the interests of ourselves and of future generations of Italians. This is precisely meant to avoid backlashes.

Having said that, in a wider perspective, the euro zone crisis has indeed brought about quite a bit of misunderstandings and the re-emergence of old phantoms about prejudices between the North, the South of Europe, and a lot of mutual resentment.

And it is very, very important that we all take this with great attention in order to avoid that something that was meant to be the culminating point of the European construction -- namely, the single currency -- turns out to be, through psychological negative effects, a factor of disintegration of Europe.

MARGARET WARNER: The German government is arguing, however, that if the pressure is relieved too soon on the really indebted countries, the pressure of the interest rates in the market, that they won't even do the necessary reforms. Do they have a point about that?

MARIO MONTI: That point was certainly valid in the past, for the long years since the inception of the euro where the financial markets went to sleep, took a long siesta and did not exercise any market disciplining effect. Now, of course, after the recent financial crisis, markets woke up quite brutally and did exercise a lot of pressure for each of us to engage in a serious budgetary consolidation.

Now the role of the markets is there, but I don't think we have to rely basically and mainly on high interest rates for governments to continue the path of sound budgetary and reform policies.

On the other hand, one could also make the case that those countries and those populations -- like, since a few months, the Italians -- who definitely are embarking on all the necessary measures of budgetary consolidation and structure reforms, may be disenchanted and not ready to continue on this path unless they do see some recognition of their efforts through, in particular, a decline of interest rates.

MARGARET WARNER: But you do want Germany to put up more money, do you not, to make this bailout fund, the firewall, bigger, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's been urging, as the IMF has been urging?

MARIO MONTI: Yes. That goes for Germany, but for all member states. And of course, Germany happens to be the largest one. But one can also make the point that the higher the overall amount of money put in the firewalls, the smaller the probability that it will ever have to be disbursed, because the markets will be impressed by the credibility of the -- of the fire brigades.

MARGARET WARNER: What can President Obama do to help you?

MARIO MONTI: To help me, or to help the E.U.?

MARGARET WARNER: Both.

MARIO MONTI: I think he can help us all through a sound management of the U.S. economy, which he's trying hard to achieve, just as we can help him by avoiding the explosion of tensions to the world economy out of the euro zone. And I think on both sides of the Atlantic, we are working well in the desired direction.

MARGARET WARNER: Back to what you're trying to do here at home, do you think that by calling for more competition in the economy, as well as budget cuts, you are asking the Italian people to really change their central character or culture?

MARIO MONTI: To some extent, yes. I am fully aware of this, and basically our mission and my wish is to have the Italian people value more and more some strong qualities they have in their genes and traditions -- that is, a strong entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of -- and a sense of solidarity in society.

But I definitely think that Italy can become a more competitive place only if we introduce in our system much more meritocracy, which means much more competition and accountability in all decision points of corporate, as well as the public administration.

So you can say what you probably think, that this is a tall order for a government which, at most, will be in place until the spring of 2013. But we will be happy if we accompany Italy with a gentle pressure towards achieving at least the first mile of this long road.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you so much.

MARIO MONTI: Thank you very much.

Protests in Greece Take Aim at Europe's Demands for More Cuts

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:33:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: Next, a two-part look at Europe's debt crisis.

First, more protests in Greece against austerity measures in the country where the troubles began two years ago.

We have a report from James Mates of Independent Television News in Athens.

JAMES MATES: It is 20 years to the day since the Maastricht Treaty was signed to bring the continent every closer under the euro.

This afternoon, this was a German flag being burned in Athens. Before long, riot police were swinging batons and firing tear gas. Greeks believe they are being driven into poverty on orders from abroad. This is a country is seething with anger.

Inside the parliament, politicians seem to be on the verge of accepting Europe's demands for another round of cuts to wages, pensions and health care. It's designed to reduce Greece's massive debt. But as anyone in this crowd will tell you, they have been cutting for two years now, and the debts have simply got bigger.

EVA KAILI, socialist member of Parliament: I don't think they can take anymore. And I think it's the wrong recipe. That's why. They could take it if they knew that it was a way out. But from what it seems, it's not a way out. It leads us to deeper recession.

JAMES MATES: What the Greek government is having to do today is choose between two appalling options: to take the medicine that Europe has prescribed and with it years more of austerity and recession, no guarantee of success at the end of it; or to forget Europe's money, to go it alone, leave the euro, knowing that in the short term, at least, that would be even more painful. One or the other, they have to choose.

A storm swept through Athens this afternoon, driving many of the protesters home. It was also enough to rip the European flag from its pole, where it flies beneath the Acropolis. Many Greeks, though, are simply too angry to notice the symbolism.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now Italy, another European country and a much larger economy under financial pressure.

On the eve of his visit to Washington and meetings with President Obama, Italy's premier talked today in Rome with our Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Amid protests in the streets and pressure from abroad, a new face came on to the Italian political scene three months ago.

Prime Minister Mario Monti's mission: try to rescue the country's stagnant economy and unwind its massive national debt.

MARIO MONTI, Italian prime minister (through translator): If we will be able to take advantage of this opportunity altogether to start a constructive dialogue on general goals and decisions, we will be able to redeem the country and to rebuild the confidence in its institutions. Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: Italy had not fallen to the same depths as Greece, Portugal and Ireland, needing bailouts by the European Union, but the economy was stalled. The markets were hammering Italian debt. And Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was facing sex and corruption charges. He resigned after he lost his working majority in parliament over austerity measures the E.U. had demanded.

With that, the Italian president turned to Monti. The former professor served as an E.U. commissioner for nearly 10 years, but has never held elected office. Now he leads a government composed mostly of other technocrats. They must try to ensure that Italy can continue to borrow on international credit markets and keep paying off a national debt that equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product.

Among E.U. countries, only Greece has a larger debt load. Monti has pushed through budget and social welfare cuts. But he also has warned his European partners, especially Germany, that austerity must be accompanied by growth.

At the same time, his moves to modernize the Italian economy have run up against longtime traditions, such as the protective hold that guilds have over everything from taxicabs to lawyers. So far, his proposals have been endorsed by parliament, but more tests loom.

Assad Running out of Friends, but China, Russia Still Among Allies

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:27:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

RAY SUAREZ: I'm joined by Rania Abouzeid, who's been covering the Syrian story for Time magazine. She's in Istanbul, Turkey, where leaders of the anti-Assad opposition have set up headquarters.

Rania, welcome back to the program.

The Russians announced their arrival in Damascus and their intention to act as mediators. Has there been any response to that overture from the opposition in Turkey?

RANIA ABOUZEID, Time: Well, not officially, not at this point.

However, it's the same -- it's the same thing. The opposition says that the Russian government is merely buying Assad more time for him to continue his killing spree across the country. We heard once again pledges by the Syrian president for reforms.

And the Russian foreign minister was touting an upcoming constitutional referendum as some sort of measure of President Assad's willingness to enact those reforms. However, this is the same talk that we have been hearing for months. And according to all of these amateur videos and the quite gruesome images that we are seeing coming out of Syria, it hasn't changed what has effectively become a war zone across the country.

RAY SUAREZ: Rania, is it significant that the temple of operations against Syrian civilians didn't calm down at all during the Russian visit?

RANIA ABOUZEID: No, it certainly didn't. If anything, it seems to have escalated.

As your report mentioned, Homs has been bombarded for the past four days. And it has been bombarded for weeks and indeed months before that. Syrian opposition members speak of horrific death tolls. I mean, we're talking about 50, 60, 70, sometimes 80 and higher, you know, death tolls of -- sometimes, it hits the triple digits. So we are talking about what seems to be a killing field in Syria.

RAY SUAREZ: There are reports coming out of Syria of overtures from the Russian delegation that would indicate they're trying to find a way out for Bashar al-Assad. Do they really still back his legitimacy at this point? Do they think he can hang on until 2014?

RANIA ABOUZEID: Well, that's a question that everybody is trying to answer.

I mean at the end of the day, Russia's interests in Syria are strategic. They're not personal. So, one wonders why the Russian government has so closely aligned itself with a regime that most observers say is bound to fall. The only question is when and how many other people are going to die in the meantime.

RAY SUAREZ: France and Italy have followed the United States and the United Kingdom in pulling their ambassadors back from Damascus. If they've got Russia and China, can Syria sort of soldier on as the rest of the world is abandoning it?

RANIA ABOUZEID: Well, don't forget that they also -- they also have Iran. And they have the Lebanese -- Lebanese militant group Hezbollah as well.

So, you know, Assad is running out of friends, but he still has quite powerful allies. And he certainly hopes that he can hold on until the presidential elections. However, it's a question of whether or not the Syrian opposition is -- I mean, we're already seeing that the Syrian opposition is becoming more militarized.

And, certainly, after the double-veto a few days ago, the Syrian opposition, all of its varied forms, feels quite abandoned. That seems to be the word that we have been hearing most often from activists on the ground, as well as from members of the FSA that I have talked to recently. It's the same word: abandonment.

And you see in some of these amateur videos that are posted online, the chants are, "God, you are the only one who is still with us." So there's a real sense of desperation and also a sense that, you know, they must continue this fight, because, as one activist told me, "We're dead anyway. Either we die free or we simply die, because the security forces will hunt us down."

RAY SUAREZ: Let's talk a little bit more about the state of the opposition. You talked about they're feeling abandoned inside Syria.

What about outside the country, as they use diplomatic efforts to try to consolidate the support from around the world? Are they succeeding? Are they seen as a logical next step in the other capitals of the world?

RANIA ABOUZEID: First of all, I think they have to consolidate their own ranks. You know, the Syrian opposition is quite fragmented. The Syrian National Council has presented itself as the de facto opposition group, an umbrella group, if you like, but it has its own problems.

You know, some people say that it has a very heavy Islamist tilt. Others say that it's mainly comprised of exiles who haven't set foot in Syria for many years and that they don't speak for the men and women who are on the streets of Damascus and other cities actually like Homs and other areas in Syria who are living under this bombardment and who are dying in the streets.

So this Syrian opposition in all of its varied forms needs to get its own house in order. And that is a very serious concern, because, you know, the people in the streets are demanding it. And certainly Western governments and others, Arab governments as well, are looking for more from the Syrian opposition.

RAY SUAREZ: Rania Abouzeid of Time magazine joined us from Istanbul.

Thanks for talking to us.

RANIA ABOUZEID: Thank you.

After Russia's Veto at U.N., Foreign Minister Gets Hero's Welcome in Syria

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:25:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: Now to Syria's uneasy, uncertain and unfinished revolution.

Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: In the capital, Damascus, a high-ranking Russian visitor, in other cities, more death and destruction.

We start with a report from Jonathan Miller of Independent Television News in Beirut.

JONATHAN MILLER: Artillery and rockets started pounding parts of Homs at dawn again, the fourth straight day, this even as the president promised to cooperate with any effort to promote stability in Syria.

The Russian foreign minister feted like a hero in Damascus by a regime fast running out of friends, Syrian state TV awash with love for Russia, which vetoed the U.N. resolution. Sergei Lavrov reportedly told Bashar al-Assad that every leader should be aware of his share of responsibility, adding that he hoped the Arab people could live in peace and understanding.

But while the president again promised political reforms and assured the Russian mediator that he wanted an end to the violence, his military clearly remaining under orders to stop the uprising, and across Syria, the onslaught continued.

In the restive southern city of Daraa, where the revolt began last March, a street demonstration was met with gunfire. This footage is unverified, but this video among several to emerge of violence in Daraa today. This was filmed in a school. There's clear distress, one woman shouting, "We're going to kill them, we're going to kill them." Then you see soldiers and bound men face down on the ground.

In Homs, where whole neighborhoods remain besieged and under intense bombardment, not much let up. Terrified civilians say they feel abandoned by the world. Here, women and children take shelter in a basement.

In a northern Idlib province, many reports of military operations, many civilian deaths reported, too. In a northern village attacked by government forces yesterday, Free Syrian Army fighters now patrol. The Syrian theater of conflict is expanding, numbers of dead and injured rising by the day. The Russians have brought no diplomatic breakthrough. The revolt has entered a new phase.

Axelrod on Pro-Obama Super PAC: 'We Simply Couldn't Sit by'

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:16:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the race for the White House, shaping up to be an expensive general election battle.

President Obama's reelection campaign reversed its stance against super PACs late yesterday, encouraging contributors to donate money to a group, Priorities USA Action, run by former administration staffers.

"With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election, whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm," wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina in a blog post.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It's time to put strict limits . . .

JUDY WOODRUFF: In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama had criticized the Supreme Court ruling wiping away limits on corporate and labor union giving.

The shift by the Obama team comes as super PACs backing Republican candidates and causes have seized an early financial advantage. Groups supporting Republican presidential candidates had raised more than 34 million dollars combined by the end of last year.

Another conservative super PAC, American Crossroads, has hauled in more than $18 million. By contrast, the pro-Obama PAC has brought in less than $5 million.

But the president's own campaign has received more money than all the GOP contenders combined. The administration's change of heart also comes on a day when Republicans are voting in three more states and as the leading GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, continues to lambaste President Obama's record.

And for more on the president's reelection bid, we turn to his senior campaign strategist, David Axelrod.

David, thank you very much for joining us.

First, on this reversal . . .

DAVID AXELROD, Senior Obama Campaign Strategist: Happy to be with you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: . . . on whether to encourage your donors to give money to the so-called super PACs, does this mean you don't think you can win this election based on the contributions of ordinary Americans?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, no.

We certainly appreciate the contributions of ordinary Americans -- 1.3 million people have donated to the president's campaign, most of them in small contributions, 98 percent of them in small contributions. And we appreciate that.

What we're looking at, though, Judy, is something we have never seen before, something unleashed by that Supreme Court ruling. And we've seen massive amounts of money coming in to these super PACs. And by our estimate and by their own estimate, they intend to spend upwards of half-a-billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and the Republican National Committee is going to spend in this election.

And faced with that, you know, we had to act. The president believes deeply that these super PACs are an unwelcome development in our politics and is going to continue to try and find ways to reform them, up to and including a constitutional amendment.

But right now, these are the rules, and the question is, are we going to have two sets of rules or are we going to have one set of rules? And we couldn't sit -- we simply couldn't sit by and allow $500 million, $600 million, $700 million of negative ads be run against us, with no one on the other side responding.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But it was pretty clear from the outset that this was going to be the case, a lot of money was going to be raised.

That being the case, why didn't the president stick -- I mean, he clearly felt so strongly about this. Why did he change his mind?

DAVID AXELROD: Judy, I don't think anybody had an idea of just how much money these super PACs were going to raise.

And now, you know, we see the reality of it. They've spent more money than all the Republican candidates in these primaries, over $40 million, and 99 percent of it on negative ads. And that was a little preview. That was the appetizer. You know, we're the entree. And they're going to spend multiples of that to try and defeat the president.

And it is simply -- it is not wise and it's not right for us to sit by with our hands tied behind our back and allow that, the election to be hijacked by these groups.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about the economy. There was a good report that came out last Friday on jobs, the unemployment rate.

But a number of respected economists say they don't expect that trend to continue.

Are you, in effect, David Axelrod, sort of held hostage every month to these unemployment numbers?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, first of all, let's stipulate that the most important thing isn't our link to the unemployment rate, but to, you know, how the American people are experiencing this economy.

We're fighting hard to increase - we've had 23 straight months of private sector job growth. That's accelerating. We want to continue to accelerate that because that's good for our country. And, obviously, you know, it is good for us as well.

But -- and in terms of the economists' projections, I think one thing that we have learned over the course of these years is that no one really has a crystal ball on these things. And I have seen more robust projections, less robust.

The best thing for us to do is keep our nose to the grindstone, keep pushing, keep pushing forward and taking the steps we think will help accelerate the economy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, still has a primary fight on his hands, but your campaign has pretty much been treating him as the eventual nominee.

What are the strengths that you see in Mitt Romney that make you assume that he will be?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, look, he's been a weak front-runner from the beginning. He continues to be a weak front-runner. He has far more resources than anyone else. He's run for president now twice. He's got a national organization.

It seems like the Republican establishment has largely embraced him in this race. So it's logical to assume that he -- you know, he continues to be a weak front-runner, and that he may be the nominee of the party. And we're prepared for that. He certainly projects himself that way.

And we'll be prepared for that debate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And in terms of framing the campaign at this point going forward, your major challenge is what?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, look, we're going to project a positive vision for how we move forward as a country and rebuild, not just regain the jobs we have lost, but rebuild an economy in which the middle class is growing, and not shrinking, in which people who work hard can get ahead, in which people can look forward to a better future for their kids.

That's how we measure progress in the economy. And there is going to be a very distinct difference between the way we approach it and the way the folks on the other side do, and particularly Gov. Romney, who seems to believe that, if we just go back to what we were doing and cut taxes for the very wealthy, cut regulations on Wall Street, that somehow we'll all profit from that and the economy will grow. Well, we just tested that proposition and it failed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The administration decision to require religious charities, universities and others, hospitals, to include contraceptives in the health services they provide has created a huge firestorm in the leadership of the Catholic Church and other religious leaders.

You said earlier today in an interview, David Axelrod, that the administration would work with these institutions to implement this policy. What does that mean? Does that mean you're prepared to give them some sort of an out?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, Judy, let's back up and do -- just recite a little history of how we got to where we are.

The Institute of Medicine recommended to the health and human services secretary, Sebelius, that contraceptive services be part of the package that are in every woman's insurance package, insurance policy, as preventive care. She added an exemption for religious institutions, for churches and their employees.

The question is, does that extend to hospitals? Does that extend to universities where many people work who aren't even Catholic? And do those women get -- essentially don't -- do they get the same rights and the same privileges as everyone else to that preventive care?

And, you know, we believe strongly that that should be the case. And, in fact, that's the policy in 28 states today. So what we have said is, we're going to have a year's period of time in which to transition to this. And that will give us a chance to look at what these others -- how this is implemented elsewhere, how we can implement it here in the best and fairest way, but certainly advancing the principle that women deserve access to contraception, and those women, those teachers, nurses, janitors and so on who work in these institutions deserve access, just like everybody else.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, very quickly, to clarify, are you saying there may be some exceptions?

DAVID AXELROD: I'm saying that there are models all across the country that can be emulated, including, by the way, in Massachusetts, which was in place when Gov. Romney was there, and in Georgia, which has no exemptions, where Speaker Gingrich is from.

These policies have been in place. Half the country has these policies. And we should be able to learn from that in implementing this and move forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David Axelrod, senior strategist to the President Obama re-elect campaign, thanks very much.

DAVID AXELROD: Good to be with you.

News Wrap: Iran Calls U.S. Sanctions on Central Bank 'Psychological War'

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:13:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: Iran today dismissed new American sanctions against the country's central bank. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry charged the move amounted to psychological war, and he insisted the sanctions will not make Iran give up its nuclear program.

RAMIN MEHMANPARAST, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman (through translator): The actual results of these measures will be a stronger and more serious determination from our nation to achieve its great objectives within the framework of the national interest and the nation's rights.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Also today, the Iranian parliament summoned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for questioning over a number of charges. They include allegations that he has mismanaged the country's economy.

In Iraq, ministers from a Sunni-backed bloc ended their boycott of the cabinet and returned to work. The Sunnis walked out last December, after the Shiite-dominated government tried to arrest Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the country's top Sunni official. The Sunnis were under growing pressure to end the boycott, as the government struggles to cope with new violence.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve urged Congress today to find agreement on extending tax cuts. A Social Security payroll tax cut is set to expire this month, and the Bush era tax cuts run out at year's end.

At a Senate hearing, Ben Bernanke said letting taxes rise would hurt growth.

BEN BERNANKE, Federal Reserve chairman: There'll be a very sharp change in the fiscal stance of the federal government, which by itself would -- with no compensating action, would indeed slow the recovery.

HARI SREENIVASAN: On Wall Street today, stocks rebounded late to make up earlier losses. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 33 points to close at 12,878. The Nasdaq rose two points to close at 2,904.

A vice president at the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity resigned today. Karen Handel actively supported a move to halt grants for Planned Parenthood because Congress was investigating the group's funding of abortions. Komen later rescinded the cutoff under heavy criticism. Handel defended the original policy today. She said it was not influenced by her own anti-abortion views and criticism of Planned Parenthood.

The last known veteran of World War I has died in England nearly a century after the war ended. Florence Green joined the Women's Royal Air Force in September of 1918, when she was just 17. The service trained women as mechanics, drivers and for other jobs. Green served as a waitress in an officers' mess. Florence Green would have turned 111 years old later this month.

Those are some of the day's major stories.

Will Prop. 8 Ruling Lead Supreme Court to Consider Same-Sex Marriage?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:03:00 EDT

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: A three-judge federal appeals panel ruled 2-1 today against banning same-sex marriage in California. The decision upheld a lower court that found the ban, known as Proposition 8, violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels begins our coverage from San Francisco.

SPENCER MICHELS: It was another victory for supporters of same-sex marriage in California. And they celebrated outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco.

Opponents of Prop 8, Felicia Madriz and Allison Spencer, said the appeals court decision was important.

FELICIA MADRIZ, opponent of Proposition 8: Absolutely. You know, this is one more step to equal rights. And hopefully, federally, it will be recognized.

ALLISON SPENCER, opponent of Proposition 8: We're really excited and emotionally moved, obviously. And, hopefully, this'll put the nail in there.

SPENCER MICHELS: On the other hand, backers of Proposition 8 insisted the fight is not over. In a statement, the National Organization for Marriage called the decision predictable, as well as sweeping and wrong-headed. But it also said, "We have every confidence we will prevail."

Nearly everyone agrees that the Prop 8 case will eventually end up before the United States Supreme Court on appeal. But before that happens, the losers in this case, those supporting Proposition 8, could ask for a hearing before a 10-judge panel, a so-called en banc hearing.

The Prop 8 battle goes back to November 2008, when California voters passed it with 52 percent of the vote. The ballot measure banned same-sex marriage, just five months after the state Supreme Court had allowed it under then-existing law.

But in August of 2010, federal Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the ban. He ruled that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. Later, the judge announced he is gay and in a long-term relationship. Lawyers supporting Prop 8 argued he should have disclosed his relationship or recused himself.

The appeals court said today there was no evidence that Walker was biased in his handling of the case. In the meantime, other states are tackling the gay marriage issue this election year. Those with pending legislation or ballot measures in 2012 include Washington State, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maine.

They and others will be watching to see the ultimate outcome in the California legal battle.

GWEN IFILL: Today's ruling is limited to California, but in a 128-page opinion, the federal panel emphasized the broader constitutional principle.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the majority, concluded, "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California."

We get two views now of the decision and its fallout. David Boies is one of the attorneys for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which supports same-sex marriage. And John Eastman is chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, which argues same-sex marriage is not protected under the Constitution.

I want to start by asking -- reading to both of you gentlemen something else from the court's decision today and ask you to respond.

The court also said that California used the initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed without a legitimate reason for doing so.

Pretty tough language, David Boies.

DAVID BOIES, attorney for the American Foundation for Equal Rights: It was very tough language.

This was a great day for America, a great day for California in particular, but a great day for America and everybody who believes in equal rights. What the Ninth Circuit said was, the court of appeals said is that we're not going to tolerate any longer governmental discrimination against our gay and lesbian citizens.

And they said it in very emphatic terms. And although the decision is, as you say, technically limited to California, the principles that it articulates mean that eventually we're going to have marriage equality throughout the United States. And people need to get into the 20th century, if not the 21st century, and recognize that that kind of discrimination is over with.

GWEN IFILL: John Eastman, what's your reaction to the strong language in this ruling?

JOHN EASTMAN, National Organization for Marriage: Well, Judge Reinhardt has staked an awful lot on this opinion in trying to compare this to Colorado's Amendment 2, and saying that this initiative did absolutely nothing except remove a longstanding right for gays and lesbians to marry.

Of course, it wasn't longstanding. The California Supreme Court had made that up just several months earlier. And Proposition 8 is not so limited. It applies to one man and one woman. That means plural marriages are also illegal under Proposition 8 in California.

So, the notion that the only purpose of this was animus towards gay and lesbians is just patently false on the face of Proposition 8 itself. The basic notion here is, do the people of the state have any right to continue to defend marriage as it has always been understood, tied to the biological complementarity of the sexes, with at least a purpose of procreation and the rearing of children that are the offspring of that relationship?

To say that there is no legitimate purpose and that it's completely unreasonable to adhere to something that has been around in every society and certainly in our country since the beginning, I think, is a great stretch.

And Judge Reinhardt has staked the entire decision on that claim, which is just patently false.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask Mr. Boies about the narrow scope of this ruling. Certainly, you were hoping more than just something that affects only California.

DAVID BOIES: Well, we think the reasoning of the court does.

And let me just respond to the suggestion that somehow Proposition 8 was not -- involved just gay and lesbian marriage, but somehow is against plural marriage. No one has ever suggested that. And to begin to try to defend Proposition 8 on the grounds that it's really directed at polygamy at this stage of the debate I think just shows desperation.

That's not what the proposition was about. It was clearly targeted at gay and lesbian marriage. That's what all the advertisements were about. That's what all the publications were about. And that's what the court held was simply unconstitutional.

And they held it because the evidence was absolutely uncontradicted that this didn't help procreation, it didn't help different-sex marriage. There was no justification for this. As the court said, in order to believe that this served a rational purpose of procreation, you would have to believe that people are going to procreate more if you don't have gay marriage.

And they said that's simply not plausible. There isn't evidence of that, and no one suggested that.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Mr. Eastman about this rational basis test which the courts applied in this case, in which they said what Mr. -- a version of what Mr. Boies just said, which is that there was no rational basis to impinge on someone's 14th Amendment rights.

JOHN EASTMAN: Well, the rational basis is the lowest standard of review we have in constitutional law.

It basically means is, if there's any legitimate purpose furthered by the classification that supports some interest of government, the enactment of the legislature, or in this case an initiative of the people, has to be upheld.

And the notion that -- we recognize, for example, that men and women procreate in a way that two men do not and two women do not. To create an institution that fosters that purpose and to give it the benefits of society because there's some benefit to society from fostering that purpose clearly passes the rational basis test. And it just belies reality and biology to suggest otherwise.

GWEN IFILL: Are you, Mr. Eastman, going to take this to the Supreme Court?

JOHN EASTMAN: Well, I'm not representing the proponents of the initiative.

But I think one of the things that all of the judges here agreed with that is the proponents do have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. And I suspect they will. I think David and I would agree that it's a close call up at the Supreme Court. Most people think it's a 5-4 decision one way or the other, with Justice Kennedy likely the swing vote. And I think we all expect we're going to end there sooner or later.

GWEN IFILL: Do you agree on that, Mr. Boies?

DAVID BOIES: I think we're going to do better than 5-4 on the Supreme Court.

I think that this is an issue that, that under the Romer decision, particularly given the careful way and the limited way that the court crafted this opinion, that it is four-square under Romer. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to go backward on this issue. I think it's going to go forward.

And I'm not giving up on any justice on this issue. And I think it's definitely going to be better than a 5-4 in our favor.

GWEN IFILL: And, finally, to both of you, do we think that this decision today now means, starting with you, Mr. Eastman, that there is going to be weddings that are about to happen, that the stay is now lifted and couples can marry?

JOHN EASTMAN: You know, I haven't gotten to the last few pages of the 90-page majority opinion yet, but I understand that their stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court has a chance to decide whether they're going to take this case, in which case, we won't have any change in the landscape in California in the short term.

But I'd like to ask David if he would like to wager a dinner next time we're together on a panel if the vote is 5-4 my direction or even only 5-4 his direction.

GWEN IFILL: He can answer that right after he answers my question.

JOHN EASTMAN: I will wager you that dinner.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. That's fine. And we settled that.

What do you think about a stay? Are people going to actually be able to get married before this thing works itself out?

DAVID BOIES: What the court did was continue the stay until its mandate issues.

Now, that mandate is going to issue at some point. And if it's delayed because the proponents of the proposition seek to have, for example, a rehearing, we will go in and move to have that stay terminated.

You now have a thoughtful and comprehensive district court opinion holding Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. You now have a Ninth Circuit court of appeals decision holding that it's unconstitutional. It's time to allow people to get married in California.

GWEN IFILL: And would that create any chaos at all if perhaps, for some reason, the court were to reverse itself again?

DAVID BOIES: Well, remember, you had people getting married before Proposition 8 took place. That didn't create any chaos. There's no reason that people ought to be deprived of their constitutional rights now that those rights have been affirmed by the court of appeals. It's not going to create any chaos.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Eastman?

JOHN EASTMAN: The reason would be the -- the reason would be the right of the people to decide for themselves a very fundamental policy question about whether we're going to continue to have an institution of marriage that is rooted in biology, with a purpose of procreation, as it always has been, or whether we're going to allow the courts to mandate a dramatic alteration of that institution, with potentially devastating consequences to society.

So, it's the right of the voters of the people of the state of California to have their judgment about the basic policy question at issue here affirmed. And if the Supreme Court takes this up, I believe the Supreme Court would issue a stay until they have an opportunity to rule on that.

GWEN IFILL: John Eastman, David Boies, thank you both very much.

DAVID BOIES: Thank you.

JOHN EASTMAN: Thank you, Gwen.

DAVID BOIES: Thank you.

Does the U.S. Tax Imports?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:25:00 EDT

The Arsos container ship is unloaded at the Port of Miami in Florida; Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Marc Whitehead sends the follow-up question below after reading Paul's thoughts on tariffs from early January: If we put a 15 percent tariff on all imported goods, how much money would that tax generate each year?

Question: Paul, I don't think you are calculating 15 percent on all imports, only an increase on goods that are currently taxed. I believe that almost all imports are currently un-tariffed. What do you say?

Paul Solman: Good point, Marc. But it doesn't much affect my withering conclusion in the post of Jan. 5: that wiping out the federal debt and "entitlement" obligations by hiking import duties (aka tariffs) is a non-starter.

After reading your question I went online, and have now seen estimates as high as 67 percent for the share of imports that's tax-free. That might require a tripling of the numbers I estimated on Jan. 5. But even if we were to do so, the U.S. would still fall hundreds of billions of dollars short of covering our annual budget deficit with tariffs. Not to mention looming Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. To rid us of all our obligations? I stand by my recent bottom line: "we're surely talking tariffs that would be many multiples of the price."

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.

Follow @PaulSolman