tv Neel Kashkari on the 2008 Financial Crisis CSPAN February 21, 2016 6:30pm-8:01pm EST
with presidential candidate bernie sanders. the democratic primary is this saturday and we will have live coverage of the results on c-span. the republican primary yesterday was one way donald with 32% of the vote. marco rubio edged out ted cruz for second place. speaking of the race and the campaigns moving forward. >> i was a member of the gop,lishment of the a proudly. i gave $350,000 to the republican governors association before i ran. i gave tremendous amounts of money to people in the republican party. very establishment. once iran, i said what is going on, that is not supposed to happen.
people,e to control the the senators, the congressman. when they go for military awards, pharmaceutical awards, they make sure they will get it. right for the is country. i am the only one that is a self funder. in that way it is different. it will ultimately be good for the party. polls came out recent -- recently right beat hillary clinton. i do not think bernie sanders will be the problem. i think i will be competing with hillary. host: this is not an election like others up to this point. we had an unusual circumstance. i was being attacked from all sides. you can only take on so many people at one time. this is not about going after donald trump. this election is about who is best capable to run the
republican party. i know that i am. he is a front-runner when you have an seven people running. we need to remember over 70% of republicans have said we are not voting for donald trump. as long as that 70% is being divided up by five people, of course he is the front runner. someone whoominate will bring us together in the party that will grow and take the message to people. more importantly, that can win in november. we cannot lose this election. i give our party a chance to nominate someone as conservative in this race. i can unite this party. we won iowa with a big margin. we came in third in new hampshire. the state with a said a conservative could not do well in a moderate newington state. last night, we tied for second. int combination has resulted
only one strong conservative remaining in this race who can win. our game plan from day one was do well in the first four states and consolidate conservatives to go forward into super tuesday. we are positioned to do that. >> more than 70% of the voters were born again. won them, but trump over. how do you explain that? how do you feel going into super tuesday? to beald trump has given a formidable candidate. one of the things the first three states have shown is that there is only one campaign that has beaten or can beat donald trump. 70% of people across the country, 70% are republicans. they do not believe donald trump is the right candidate to beat hillary clinton in november. one of the things we're saying coming out of last night -- people across the country are recognizing, if we want to be trump, ted cruz is the only one that can do it. >> publicans had to nevada to
campaign in the republican caucuses on tuesday. senator ted cruz with a rally in las vegas to we will have it live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow evening, donald trump is campaigning in las vegas. he speaks to supporters at 10:00 p.m. eastern. we will have it live on c-span. every election cycle we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed to -- way.think it's a great >> my colleagues are going to say i saw you on c-span. >> there's so much more that c-span does to make sure that people outside of the beltway know what's going on inside it. by congressman smith of washington. the top democrat on the house
services committee. he is a member of the select committee on benghazi. here in the studio with questions. with richard. >> good morning, how are you? to start with a question about the defense budget. your counterparts in the house armed services to misty, the republicans are calling for a major increase in a budget of for 2017. describe the president's budget as underfunded to deal with the threats that the u.s. is facing around the world. they described as the most severe threat since world war ii from north korea, which refuses to stop its nuclear program, to islamic state. i will like to get your thoughts on this increase and whether or not you believe the president's budget is adequate to deal with the threats that u.s. bases around the world. we face is no question
a severe threat. north korea, russia, isis. there are no end of challenges. we need to be prepared from it security standpoint. if presidents budget, once you count the overseas contingency, as well as the base budget and some other areas with defense or money is spent. underllion dollars -- six $9 billion is a significant amount of money. this is the number that the republicans agreed to in a budget deal. the agreement that was made before last year's -- four last year's funding and this year's funding. you're going over the top when you are talking about woefully inadequate. the difference between $609 billion -- they proposed 15 to 20 more. it is not as republicans
say the amount of money we spend, it is how we spend it. whether or not you are spending it wisely on current programs. in a lot of areas, congressional efforts to block the savings that the pentagon has proposed makes it more difficult. how estimates about overcapacity we are and inability to fill the spaces. six under $9 billion is a solid starting point. i'm opening to the idea that maybe we need a little more. this is an over the top election year. we are talking about the difference between six under $9 billion and six and a $20 billion, it's more partisan. we need to have a discussion about where we will spend the money and whether -- that.follow up on
lawbasement is capped by war budget, the overseas contingencies account is not cap. republicans consider to be a minimum that should be spent. >> that is not what they agreed to. it was not said that that was the minimum. it was considered in last year's budget agreement which included fy 2016. it was part of the agreement. let's put it this way. if you are going to increase defense spending by any amount, unless you rewrite the budget law regarding to base budget caps the money would have to come in an overseas account. less thanill spend
the number stipulated in a budget agreement for the overseas account. would you support that? would you be open to adding to it in that way? semantics forgely the purposes of republicans clinging to the notion. personally, if i was in charge, the way i would do it -- we decided the defense needs another $5 billion or $10 billion and i would raise the budget gap. i would spend accordingly. impact on thee deficit and the debt long whether you raise the budget caps or play the game. if it was up to me, when we decided there was next are $10 billion, i would raise the gaps. that but norsed to will like to attend it is
anything other than gamesmanship. it's not the way i would do it. it is the nature of government to have to compromise. $609 take a look at the billion figure. i can make an argument that the department of defense needs more money. i am open to the discussion. not covertly opposed if the case is made. >> and i talked about the need for honest budgets when it comes to meeting the country's defense priorities. what does it mean. if this is an honest budget that the president has put forward? >> i believe so. we are still in afghanistan. syriafighting in iraq and . we launched an attack in libya yesterday. we have done a tax in somalia and elsewhere. a legitimate force and of this is overseas contingency
operation money. it's a legitimate way to do it. i think what the republicans try to do last year where they insisted on keeping the budget $38 million to yoko, we have to put it there because conservatives a lot let us do it any other way. it is a semantical argument. i do not think it is wise. presidents the budget, there is stuff that belongs in the base budget. when you are facing right-wing key party republicans who refuse to raise the caps, but somehow or are ok with putting money into yoko, when you're facing it happens to -- be in charge of the united states house of representatives, you have to make compromises. >> congressman, one last
question on budget. the department's to properly manage the money it gets. a number of sectors of dod are considered high risk areas by the government accountability office. you have a $2.4 billion cost overrun on the florida aircraft carrier. this has become routine and we rarely see people held accountable. how do you make a case for giving a department more money when they cannot manage the money they have? >> couple of points. you say they cannot manage the money they have. -- i think there are areas in the department of defense with a spend the money more wisely than people give them credit for. clearly, the last decade, 15 years, has been not good on the acquisition side -- in terms of
staying within the budget. ant is why i am leading acquisition reform. one of the biggest problems is the way these programs it changed along the way. the uss ford has been added to and added to. if we were building the same aircraft carrier that they told us to build when it was bid, we would be under budget. astbury five, the they did this thing with a started building it before they fully tested it. they trusted a computer model to test instead of flying it. these are things that need to be .hanged accountability, you are right. because the programs are so big and last so long, you pass from one program manager to another. when cost overrun happens, they say he was in charge of that. we have got to shrink the number
of program managers and people in oversight. put a specific person in charge and hold them accountable. that is part of the acquisition reform we are trying to do. you are right, it needs to be fixed. we have wasted too much money in the last 15 years. 35.ichard mentioned the f you said they started building it before it was fully tested. you use the past tense. this is the going on. >> yes. >> they will have built an estimated 500 planes, 20% of the total before they start doing a full combat testing in 2018. do you have any intention of altering the approach to this program, slowing it down or requiring more criteria to be
met. the current -- the pentagon put out scathing's report about deficiencies in the report. >> that is a discussion we will have. the president budget cuts back on the number of planes being bought. one of them is closer to being, ready than the other two. senator mccain, the -- is very concerned about this issue. the problem we have had is that because of the way the program was constructed in put in place, it is set to replace 90% of fighter aircraft. too big to fail. that is what the f 35 program the game. .eplacing outdated aircraft
we are very dependent upon it. it has to work. it has put us in a bind. the way the program was put together his acquisition malfeasance at its greatest. we are going to try to fix that. there is no great outcome. we are spending more money than we should have. >> you mentioned the strike in libya overnight. if we talk about islamic state for a little bit and how the u.s. and allies in the mideast deal with the threat. you caution against overreacting to isis. no shirleyd there is military solution to the problem. isis has moved into libya. slightly.ers are down how does the u.s. get its arms around the problem and are we in perpetual war yack --?
perpetual fight against isis and other ideological groups. ending anytimee soon. think the reason they thinkrinking in iraq -- i they are shrinking because they are beginning to fail in the sense that they cannot continue to get territory. our airstrikes have made a difference, push them back. there has been tiny progress in terms of the iraqi military, especially the special forces. as it becomes obvious they will not continue to grow, one of the biggest selling points is building a caliphate. they are not winning anymore, they're losing territory. there are many stories about how they have had to cut back in paying people.
they have begun to struggle because they are completely incompetent, violent and psychopath that it when they take over a place like moles all, they are incapable of running it in a way that does not completely terrorize the local population. it does not succeed in anything. as people see the failure, they are not willing to follow along. that is the good news. the bad news is that the ideology, the violent extremists, the perverted interpretation of their religion is not going away. iraq in syria,in it is in many places. -- it is just like al qaeda, we knocked them out of afghanistan and pakistan. then they wind up in yemen. we are seeing the same thing
from isis. we may be able to keep them down in one place but the ideology has metastasized. it is not just a military solution but the military has to be a part of it. these guys are coming after us and our allies. need is allies in the sunni world who are willing to lead the fight against these extremists are at a western force will not be able to do this. it feeds into their ideology. they're all in esther ideology is that they are the ones defending islam against western aggression. too many countries in arab sunni world have not been willing to step up and take on isis with the consistency necessary. it will be a long-term fight. i do not like the phrase perpetual war, but it is an ideological struggle not unlike the cold war.
this is civilization against the violent extremists. they are not going away anytime soon. we have a little under 10 minutes left with you this morning. on the question of u.s. allies, this u.s. need to get turkey and kurdish by search -- kurdish fighters to win this fight against isis? it is a problem for which i do not have an answer. we need sunni allies. right now, the most reliable sunni ally we had are the kurds. they have had an infective fighting force. they have primarily been responsible for taking back territory from isis in syria and iraq. there are a few problems.
turkey being the biggest. turkey and the kurds are still fighting. there are terrorist attacks in turkey -- there are different kurdish groups. turkey sees it as the same group. to get to someay sort of pause and hostilities between turkey and the kurds would be critical. because we need them both. arab states like saudi arabia are fighting against isis as well. it is a twisted mix over there in terms of trying to find the right coalition to take on isis. i will him flat -- i will him flat -- i'll emphasize it has to be locally driven. , the sunnieda moderates need to reject this
violent extremism and fight. if theould be great sunni moderates would step up but they have not heard -- they have not. do you think we need to do anything new militarily given the absence of a local combatant force in iraq in syria? even though they have retreated and lost territory, they still control major population centers. you have them growing in libya. should anything be changed in the current approach? >> we need to keep pushing forward with the current approach. there are many challenges to it. it may be that adding more special forces people in iraqi syria, some number of them could be helpful. it depends if we find the right people to train. we could add some forces. the more forces we add, the more
it looks like a western fight. we could wind up in the situation where the extremists will argue that the west is attacking islam. one of the biggest things that needs to happen is the iraqi government needs to stop shoving the sunnis out of the government. it is a major problem. iran needs to understand that if they feel threatened by crisis, and they do, then they need to stop forcing the iraqi .overnment to push sunnis aside if the sunnis felt vested in the government than we would be more likely to have a partner there. the reason that the sunni military in iraq has joined isis are refused to fight them is because the baghdad government -- it is still keep up sectarian, to shia and not -- inclusive enough. we need to maintain vigilance to
see where various branches of isis pop up. they are popping up in afghanistan as well. strategy doesn't need to change but we need to keep moving on it. an alternative is drop 100,000 u.s. troops into the middle of this mess, it would make it worse, not better. -- stayingentative the current course in trying to improve upon it seems to make more sense. i have not heard a viable alternative that would not make things worse. >> your committee will be hearing from the commander in chief in the pacific. -- army commander in terms in charge of the armed forces there. i imagine the conversation will be about north korea, which tested a fourth nuclear test in january.
they launched a satellite into used as a can be delivery system for a nuclear weapon. could you assess north korea for us. how much is provocation, how much is serious threat? we have a large number of troops in south korea. what do you make of north korea and its refusal to stop its nuclear program? >> i do not have a sophisticated analysis, nor do i think one exists. isolated,a is crazy, and in possession of nuclear weapons. .hey are unpredictable it makes for a dangerous situation to which there is no easy answer. have millions of people that are starving to death in north korea and they do not care. they do not care how isolated they are. living outside of the rest of the world and thinking
in a way that makes no sense. to predict how they will act, react, how to contain them is difficult to do. the sanctions make sense. we have to maintain them, contain them, we have to make it clear we are supporting south korea. militaryt to make a attack on south korea would be suicide. we have to try as much as possible to work with china. they have the best relationship with north korea. . will be honest about that china's greatest fear is that north korea collapses and they are facing millions of refugees coming across the border. they do not have a great incentive to crack the regime. it is a terrible and dangerous situation that we need to work to contain. i do not think anyone has an answer that will solve it.
going back to iraq for a second, i want to get your take on the debate happening in the republican presidential primary anddecision to invade iraq 2003. what are you thought of about that debate as it plays out on national television? >> i have watched the republican debates. how can you intelligently comment on that? they are attacking each other ruthlessly. i am not going to comment on their positions on anything, much less in iraq. i do not attend to understand where they're coming from from one minute to the next. you an opinion on what donald trump, take crews, off -- ted cruz, all those other guys are shouting at each other. >> back in 2003 a press release that you put out after the
invasion happened said let's not forget about the countless in dissent in iraq is to suffered under saddam hussein. you said we must keep a cabinet to them once saddam has been removed from power. have it done this since 2003? long span ofor a time. weisagree with those who say should have stuck around longer and in greater numbers and everything would have worked out. that comes back to my point about how dealing with isis and all of these crises in the middle east has to be locally driven. the reason that iraq fell apart is not because -- we did not make a whole lot of medscape -- mistakes. chance to build an inclusive government, iran chose not to.
they chose to sentenced to death the highest ranking sunni government official. the excised sunnis from government positions. they allowed shia militias to carry out genocidal attacks in sunni neighborhoods. do not think there is anything that the united states can do to fix the sunni shia split. work with and help the moderates who are there. this is a problem driven by their own violent intent. their inability to get along and they are the ones that will have to figure out how to fix it. , these we invaded or not problems would undoubtedly exist. you can imagine that if saddam hussein were there, he would be facing the same civil war in iraq that they are facing in syria. as the arab awakening happens. i think it is a problem to
define our ability to simply reach in there and fix it given the centuries of history of violence and discord that exists in that region. >> we will have to end it there. thank you for being a newsmaker this week. andeturn to the roundtable are joined by john donnelly. a want to begin with you here at u.s. the congressman to name a change in the current approach withaq and syria dealing the isis threat. the basic strategy does not need to change. he has not heard a viable alternative. what are the tigers men's colleagues on the armed services committee saying? >> they would say it is a false sits betweenhe po targeted strikes and a mass occupation of 100,000 troops, as
he put it. but there are things in between, a variety of things in between. in some ways, that amounts to a bit more than what we are doing right now. more special forces on the ground, maybe a little bit more forward positions. loosening thee rules of engagement, because a big part of the problem is that the terrorists are enmeshed in urban areas, with innocent civilians. they are doing it on purpose. we are limited, we are limiting ourselves as humanitarians in what kind of strikes we conduct. some people want to take the gloves off. those are the kinds of things that are being proposed. republicans say there are more options that are greater than what we are doing right now. up an congressman brought important point, which is having allies, sunni moderates in the middle east will lead the fight. that has been the problem and
continues to be the problem. you heard him describe the history of violence between the sunni and shia factions. it does not leave you optimistic that this problem will ever be solved soon. thingsan do all sorts of , we can put more special forces in there, loosen the rules of engagement, but until the countries in the middle east deal with this on their own, one doesn't, were not terribly optimistic about the outcome, which is why i ask about war. we are just sort of trying to contain things as best we can. that doesn't seem like a long-term solution. >> even if we knock them out of muzzle or falluja --josul or falluja, you will have to have some kind of sunni investment. >> in a minute or two, the other major topic the congressman was
budget,about the digging into the details of the budget, acquisitions reform was something he had gotten into. there was a discussion. where are we in terms of acquisition reform. if you someplace where the armed services committee agrees? >> i think they do. but anybody who has covered the fence for any length of time, this is, every president comes into office declaring that they are going to finally get their arms around the waist and the cost overruns and they will get weapons from the drawing board into the field more quickly, more cheaply. it never happens. i applaud their efforts. i think they are sincere. but this is very difficult, especially when you have programs that are so large. >> in our final minute. >> what they really do is
penalize a program by cutting its budget. if they don't perform well. take the f-35. last year, they added a bunch of planes. they have been cut back in the air force, but they have grown. the net effect is a plus eight at 35. do better, but keep building. do better, but here is more money. help beingte your our newsmakers this week. >> i am think we are going through a progressive revolution. i consider bernie sanders and hillary clinton both to be progressives. one will be the next president, i believe. so now is a good time to take stock and see, how would this guy do that we thought was a real progressive? what can we learn from that experience?
as we move to the next administration. >> tonight on "q&a," radio talkshow host and author bill press talks about his new book, how obama let progressives down, taking a critical look at the obama presidency. senator bernie sanders recently spoke out in aber of the book. >> the blurb does not endorse ae book, the blurb repeats point that he makes in every campaign speech. which is twofold. one, we need a political revolution, and that is his phrase. the political revolution means that the progressives have to really keep the pressure on the next president, whom we hope will be a democrat and a progressive, bernie or hillary, to really stick and be true to the progressive agenda and follow it through and not compromise it. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a."
>> a look at the 2008 financial crisis with the president of the federal reserve bank of minneapolis who spoke at the brookings institute about the to fail," andig the impact of new regulations of the financial sector. >> thank you, david, for the kind introduction. it is great to be back at the brookings institute. i would like to thank the hutchinson center for hosting us. i would like to thank you for coming out. we have tough weather, washington has been hit a lot. i appreciate you braving the elements. our distinguished fellow , thank you all for being here. i want to remind everyone that the views i am expressing today are my own and i am not speaking on behalf of the federal open market committee or board of governors, which sends regulatory and supervision
policy on the -- on behalf of the federal reserve system. i offer my assessment of the current status and outlook or ending the problem of "too big to fail" banks. i come at this of the perspective of a policy maker on the frontlines, responding to the financial crisis in 2008. when congress moved quickly to cast the dodd frank act in 2010, i strongly supported the need for financial reform. i wanted to see the act implemented before i drew firm conclusions about whether or not it solved "too big to fail." in the past six years, my colleagues across the system have worked diligently under the reform framework that congress established, and are fully utilizing the available tools under the act to address "too big to fail." while significant processes been made -- progress has been made to strengthen the system come i believe the act did not go far enough. i believe the biggest banks are still too big to fail, and continue to pose an ongoing large risk to our economy.
enough time has passed that we better understand the causes of the crisis, yet it is still fresh in our memories. now is the right time for congress to consider going further than dodd frank, with bold, transformational solutions to solve this problem once and for all. of federal reserve bank minneapolis is launching a major initiative to develop an actionable plan to end "too big to fail," and we don't -- we will deliver the plan to the public by the end of the year. congress must decide whether such a transformational restructuring of our financial system is justified, in order to mitigate the ongoing risks posed by large banks. although to big to fail banks were not the sole cause of the financial crisis and the recession, there is no quiz and -- question that their presence at the center of the financial system contributed to the magnitude of the crisis and the extent of the damage. even the scale of -- given the scale of foreclosures, job
losses, and costs to taxpayers, regulate -- regulators agree with must solve the problem. we know market make mistakes. that is unavoidable. but these mistakes, endanger the rest of the country. when roughly 1000 savings and loans failed in the late 1980's, there was no risk of an economic collapse. technology bubble burst into thousand, it was painful for silicon valley and technology investors, but it did not pose a systemic risk to our economy. large banks must similarly be able to make mistakes, even very big mistakes, without requiring taxpayer bailouts, and without triggering widespread economic damage. that must be our goal. since 2008, legislators and regulators have worked hard to address the "too big to fail" problems. my colleagues in the federal reserve are working closely with
have regulators, and they implemented tools and regulations that are making the financial system stronger. regulators have forced large banks to hold more capital, and have deeper, more resilient sources of liquidity. our stress tests check whether the most important institutions can withstand a serious shock to the economy. in some cases, institutions have responded to these higher regulatory work elements by reducing certain activities, considerable progress has been made and these are steps in the right direction. but regulators know that despite these efforts, banks will still sometimes make mistakes and run into trouble. to ensure that banks can fail without requiring massive taxpayer bailouts, regulators are using the living will review process to try to address the hurdles that make large banks so hard to resolve. they are establishing a resolution approach intended to give regulators the ability to restructure large banks without massive spillovers, and they are
proposing requiring large banks to issue debt that would help recapitalize the firm if necessary. all of these measures are sensible. toicymakers are committed seeing these important efforts through. the question is, should we be satisfied with this approach, or should we do more? the lessons i have learned during the 2008 crisis strongly influenced my assessment of new regulatory measures to address the "too big to fail" problem. i learned in the crisis that determining which are too big to fail, depends on economic and financial conditions. in a strong, stable economy, the failure of a given bank might .ot be systemic the economy and financial firms and markets might be able to withstand the shock from such a failure without much harm to others, other institutions or businesses. in a week economy, with skittish markets, policy makers be very
worried about such a bank failure. the failure may trigger .ontagion and cause a downturn thus, although the size of an institution, its connections to other institutions, and its importance to the plumbing of the financial system, are all relevant in determining whether or not it is too big to fail, there is no simple formula that defines what is systemic. i wish there were. it requires judgment from policymakers to us -- -- assess conditions at the time. i know this is unsatisfactory to many, but it is the truth. maybe one day we will have better tools to make the determination analytically. a second lesson for me from the 2008 crisis is, almost by definition, we will not see the next crisis coming, and it won't be, it won't look like what we expect. if markets recognize an imbalance in the economy, market participants would likely take action to protect themselves. when i first went to the treasury in 2006, treasury secretary henry paulson directed
his staff to work with financial regulators at the federal reserve him and at the securities and exchange commission, to look for what might trigger the next crisis. they sent his experience, we were due for a crisis because markets had been stable for a few years. we looked at a number of scenarios, including a large bank, individual large banks running into trouble. or a hedge fund suffering large losses. we didn't consider a nationwide housing downturn. we didn't see it as, it seems obvious but we were looking. we must assume that other policymakers in the future will not seek user -- future crises coming. a final lesson, the externalities of large bank failures can be massive. i am not talking about just the fiscal cost of bailout. even with the 2008 bailout, the cost to society from the crisis in terms of lost jobs, lost income and lost wealth were staggering. many trillions of dollars and
devastation for millions of families. failures of large financial institutions pose massively to society that policymakers must consider. we had a choice in 2008. spend taxpayer money to stabilize large banks, or don't. and potentially trigger many trillions of additional costs to society. of ade analogy is that nuclear reactor. the cost to society of letting a reactor meltdown is astronomical. governmentsost, will do whatever they can to stabilize the reactor before they lose control. regulatory reforms since the crisis of focus both on making banks safer so they are less likely to fail, and on creating tools to resolve troubled banks on creditorssses without destabilizing the economy. based on lessons from the recent crisis, i evaluate these restructuring tools by asking the following questions.
when policymakers responding to a future crisis actually use them? and how likely are they to be effective? to answer these questions, i consider to banks and areas. first, an individual large bank runs into trouble while the economy is -- and financial system are otherwise strong. number 2, 1 or more large banks run into trouble while there is broader weakness and risks in the global economy. my assessment of these tools under the first scenario, the healthy economy scenario, is that they do have the potential to deal with the failure of an individual, large financial institution without requiring a bailout or triggering widespread economic damage. but we don't know that for certain. work on these tools is incomplete and slow. the reviews of the largest banks ' living wills find that they have shortcomings. the government requires the banks to try once again to make themselves able to fail without massive follow-up. until this work is complete,
which could be years from now, we must technology that the largest banks are still too big to fail and even then, we will not know how effective these tools will be until we have actually use them. unfortunately, i am far more skeptical that these tools will be useful to policymakers in the second scenario of a stressed economic environment. given the massive externalities on main street of large bank failures, in terms of lost jobs, income, and wealth, no rational policymaker would risk restructuring large firms and imposing large losses on creditors and counterparties using the new tools in a risky environment. let alone a crisis environment like we experience in 2008. they will be forced to bailout dealing institutions, as we were. supportnot forced to mergers, that we knew would make it worse in the long-term. the risks to the economy and the people were to write -- two
great to do but it -- to not do whatever we could. we need to them -- complete the work, so we are as prepared as we can be to deal with an individual large bank failure. given the enormous cost associated with another financial crisis, and the lack of certain tea about whether these tools would be effective in dealing with one, i believe we must seriously consider boulder transformational options. some other federal reserve policymakers have noted the potential benefits of considering more transformational measures. i believe we must begin this work now, and give serious consideration to a range of breaking ofluding velarde into smaller, less connected, less important turning large banks into public utilities by forcing them to hold so much b virtually can't fail with regulation at kin to that of a nuclear plant, taxing leverage throughout the .inancial system
options like these have been mentioned before. in my view, policymakers have , policymakers and legislators have not yet seriously consider the need to implement them in the near term. the financial sector has lobbied hard to preserve its current structure, and thrown up objections to fundamental change. immediate aftermath of the crisis, when the dodd frank act was first passed, the economic outlook was perhaps too .ncertain to take bold action but the economy is stronger now and the time has come to move past parochial interests and solve this problem. the risks of not doing so are too great. many of the arguments against the option of more transformational solutions to the problem of too big to fail is that the societal benefits of financial giants somehow justify the exposure to another financial crisis.
i find these arguments unpersuasive. finance lobbyists argue that multinational corporations do business in any countries, and therefore need global banks. but these corporations than it thousands of suppliers all around the world -- manage thousands of suppliers all around the world. can they manage a few more banking relationships? createlieve they economies of scope and scale. no doubt, this is true. but cost-benefit analyses require understanding costs. i do not see the benefits of scale of large banks outweighing the massive externalities of a widespread economic collapse. u.s.argue if we limit banks in size or scope, they would be at a disadvantage relative to banks and other countries with looser regulations. countries want to take extreme risks with their financial systems, we can't stop them. but the united states should do what is right for our economy and establish one set of rules for those who want to be --
those who want to do business here. given the complexity of the issue, any bold land will be imperfect. there will be unanswered questions that skeptical experts can point to. how can we define which forms are systemic, and dangerous, and need to change? how can our plan adapts and endure as the financial system evolves over decades? what is strictly regulating some pushes risks onto less regulated firms, and how will the new rules impact families and businesses' abilities to make investment? what will that mean for growth and employment? experts also correctly point out that there is always the possibility that an economic shocks could hit us in the future that is so large, or so different from anything we have considered, that it overwhelms all of our efforts. in that scenario, the balance sheet of the federal government would be strong enough to stabilize the federal system as
was required in 2008. these are important considerations. there are many more. we must work to address them. but if we are serious about solving "too big to fail," we cannot let them paralyze us. any plan we come up with will be imperfect. those potential shortcomings must be weighed against the actual risks and actual costs that we know exist today. standard,nnot be the better and safer are reasons enough to act. otherwise, we will be left of the default path of incrementalism and the risk that we will someday face another crisis without having done all we could to protect our economy and the people. as david said, the federal reserve bank of minneapolis has been on the forefront of understanding the risks and challenges posed by large banks and hazards for a long time. our work goes back to net -- to the 1970's with work beginning in the 90's.
feldman, who is here today, and one of my predecessors, authored the original book on this topic, arguing in 2004, three years before the crisis, they argued that policymakers would not stick to their no bailout pledges. they were right. building on this important work and worked on since the crisis, the federal reserve bank of minneapolis is launching a major initiative to consider transformational options, and to develop an actionable plan to and "too big to fail." starting in the spring, we will hold a series of policy symposiums to explore various options, from expert researchers around the country. we will invite leaders from policy and regulatory institutions, and yes, the financial sector, to offer their views and test one another's assumptions. likely consider the benefits, costs, risks, and implementation challenges of these options. and we will invite the media to these symposiums and lifestream
them so the public can follow along and learn along with us. following the symposiums, we will publish a series of briefs summarizing our key takeaways on each issue, so all can provide bedback and the feedback can taken in. we establish a website where anyone can share their ideas for solving "too big to fail." if you are a researcher, if you work in the financial sector, if you have a good idea for solving this problem, wherever you are, share it with us at minneapolis fed.org. we will use this work to inform "too big toend fail," which we will release by year and for legislators, policymakers, and the public to consider. created the federal reserve system to help prevent financial crises and inflicting widespread damage to the u.s. economy. doing everything we can to address the systemic risks posed by large banks will be an important step to fulfilling the mission. crisis, is after the
believe it is now time to move forward and and "too big to fail." thank you very much. [applause] >> monday, on "the communicators," gordon smith, president and ceo of the national institution of broadcasters, discusses concerns with the sec chair's proposals for opening the set top rocks market. he is joined by communications daily's editor. >> i respect that the chairman else,king at, if nothing to his credit, fostering competition. he is looking at one of the real costs, one of the real cost centers in the pay television industry. i understand why he is doing that. myself,e, as a consumer taking off my broadcaster hat, i am saying, who is the new gatekeeper?
is at amazon, google? if it is one of those, the now,ion i have is, right we have tough negotiations with direct tv and satellite and dish , or with comcast and cable. time warner, you name it. those retransmission consent negotiations are happening all 99.9% of them and without difficulty. but they are paying for the content, so if it goes to a new set top box with a different gatekeeper, my question, putting my broadcaster hat back on, is, how about my copyrighted material? will they sell ads on that? if so, do they have no responsibility for what they take for broadcasters? communicators," monday night on c-span2. michael hamlin, back at our table from the broken institute -- from the
brookings institute to talk about syria. john kerry announced he is over there, trying to broker some sort of peace deal. he says there is a provisional one in place. what do you make of the word provisional, and what you think? x i am skeptical, because first of all, as you know, he has been trying to negotiate humanitarian relief, a temporary five day or seven-day respite on the fighting so we can get food into places where people are literally starving. a much less ambitious goals and even an extended cease-fire, and less ambitious than a peace deal. i don't see who is going to accept the other side's terms or come halfway. the opposition wants to get rid of bashar al-assad. that looked possible until he year ago. now, russia is on his side, and bashar al-assad is winning tactical victories and controlling a systemic -- a substantial amount of the country.
on its face, it doesn't make much sense. i will have to hear a lot more before i could be persuaded that there is a hope of this. there is actually question as to whether we should even be trying to negotiate this kind of a deal right now, rather than focusing on strengthening on the battlefield, some of the more moderate factions, who have been losing the war, until they are in a better position to hold their own, at least, i do >> this is something secretary has been working on for weeks, if not months. when you are the working with iran, jordan, saudi arabia, on these countries, but the opposition within syria, also at the same table. >> i don't know if it is possible on the terms that kerry seems to be pursuing. what we have said we want is to
defeat isis, of course, but also to see president assad replaced by a transitional government, and then a cease-fire, a self enforcing cease-fire, which is oxymoron. i don't see the basis for that. what i think you could see is a compromise with a bosnia model, separate autonomous areas and a very weak central government. assad could have control in some areas. maybe another 15% of the population is christian and 10 inprint -- support assad many cases. maybe he could rule in that sector. there could be a sunni arab sector, kurdish sector, and a small community government. i think that kind of compromise is comfortable, everyone keeps their core equity. beyond that come i don't see the bases with a peace deal with the moderates being so weak right
now. >> what is happening on syria and the ground, who is fighting who? we have learned the u.s. is starting to strike isis in libya, because isis is leaving syria and going to olivia instead. >> and that last piece is very concerning. isis has an established stronghold in a lot of central libya. not just a strong -- small pocket. we just hit one pocket. they have been the mastermind of some big terrorist attacks. are shaking the dynamics in libya, not yet. but it is complicated enough in syria. we have president assad, and his allies. that is one group. his allies are hezbollah, russia, and some iranian, and even afghan and iraqi fighters. that is the assad coalition. and then, there is isis. that is primarily holding
territory in the east. there is the al nusra front, just as extreme as isis. that is the al qaeda affiliate. this front and isis are at loggerheads with each other. it is not particularly ideological, it is more personal. after all of that is said, what you might call the good guys, who we are trying to work with. that is a coalition of kurdish fighters, interested in what happens in the countries north. they are at loggerheads unfortunately, with our ally, turkey. it is not a clean break.but let's leave that for the moment . and then the various moderate sunni arab coalitions, some of which are more moderate than others, they were trying to work with -- that we are trying to work with, and sometimes with each other. if i would break it down, it is isis and his allies, out mr., even though they are not in alliance and the various,
people who will work with us, but they are often fighting each other. those three broad groups, a lot of dissent in each one. except that assad is fortunate, he has good solidarity in his allies and that is a problem for get the> before we calls, i want to read a little bit from the washington post reporting. they report that john kerry said he spoke sunday morning to a russian foreign minister for the second day in a row, and the final details would be ironed out in a phone call between president obama and vladimir putin. among unsettled details are held bases there will be enforced and the breaches will be resolved. to russia will be up to get bashar al-assad and a run to agree to conditions, and up to the united states to enlist the acquiescence of major opposition groups and other members of the multinational group pushing peace talks. what is your reaction? >> my reaction is to be even
more wary. we have not heard any substance on the deal, who is going to control which parts of the country. by the way, they had a parenthetical who would enforce the deal, as if it were an afterthought. there bosnia deal, where was a relatively equitable distribution of territory by 1995, we deployed 50,000 nato troops to make sure it stuck. syria is bigger and more dangerous than bosnia. there is not going to be an afterthought of keeping mission or capability. the cease-fire or p still will not enforce itself. the different groups -- peace will not enforce itself. the only deal the russian foreign minister will agree to is victory for assad. if we are prepared to have victory for assad, we could, but all the if -- opposition groups are not. they will keep fighting.we will not persuade them to let assad control the territory he
currently holds. >> what do you make about the details are up to president obama and vladimir putin to iron out? >> again, the only way i could see a deal is if we are prepared for russia to actually win the war with assad, and control all the major cities. it is only one major city right now that aside really doesn't really doesn't hold, that is aleppo. prepared to concede aleppo to the moderate sunnis, you could do a deal. i think we are going to have to work hard to get the moderate sunnis stronger, so they can actually win battles near aleppo, and then maybe you have the basis for a compromise. if you have a confederation model, where assad stays in charge for his own people, and maybe the christians. and then the sunni arabs have their own leader, their own security forces in a different sector, plus an international peacekeeping force along the
lines that divide. to me, that is the only basis given current realities. >> we go to new orleans. joe is our first phone call, a democrat. question or comment? >> i have a question. is the brookings institute a conservative organization? >> we don't -- go ahead. likealso have -- it seems agreementn-pooi the that kerry is trying to broker. my other question is to greta. that arees the guests to discuss a certain topic? do the hosts do that, or is there a committee who will decide the topic? it seems like to me that very often, especially with you,
greta, most of the time you referred to newspapers or organizations that are conservative. you are going to disagree with me, but say for instance with newspapers. you might choose, out of 10 newspapers, seemingly you are going to choose one that has a conservative point of view. i just don't like that. >> ok. jo is all about balance. we have a team for the washington journal that we do research. we have topics. generally it is driven by the news. we also look at things that are not necessarily in the news cycle that are related to public policy and politics. we are doing research to find out. i am part of that team. we all wear different hats. we don't just host the we are also producers for different programming. we are doing research to find out who would be the best person to talk about it, who has a
perspective on it, whether it is liberal or conservative, and we out.o balance that whenever the topic is, we try a balanced approach so we can hear two different sides.that is the same with newspapers as i -- as well, leaving in conservatives and liberal newspapers, if that is your perspective. it is all about balance. it is not perfect, but we do our best. go ahead. >> first of all, brookings does -- have an old theology ideology. we are neutral. we probably have more democrats on staff then republicans, but we don't make any effort to tabulate or enforce a partisan agenda.ogical i would consider myself a moderate to conservative democrat. -- abouthow has been a issues like russia, or china, or the iran deal, you would have heard me being more supportive of president obama's policy, because i am more supportive than a lot of people, including democrats.
but on syria, we have to face reality. this war has been a terrible tragedy, and president obama's policies have not worked. i will stay wary of a peace deal, the terms of which are not being discussed, the enforcement mechanism being described as an afterthought, and five years into a conflict in which a division has hardened, and the good guys have been weakened, because we have not been good at leaving a coalition to support them. on syria, i am not going to mince words. i think our policies have been failing, and they probably still will fail until we face up to what has been going on. >> that was our conversation this morning with breaking news from secretary of state john kerry, that there is a provisional peace deal in the work. from new york, you are next. >> how are you? i have a question. what is the problem with negotiating with russia, for example, a balanced power approach to the conflict?
it seems the united states is becoming increasingly arrogant and try it -- about trying to world.the i don't think we are able to do this from a financial standpoint or militarily. and we don't have a moral authority in the situation. it seems as if there are other opinions on this matter. we police the if world, we should at least clean up our own house from a moral perspective. i'm talking about the old republican conservative values, colin powell example, the balanced power approach. i think that is a huge mistake to go out there unaccompanied with a few hangers on like the u.k., and police the world. we are doing a bad job of it. >> i want to take that point. i think it is a good question. the idea i was getting at earlier, about a confederation, i see it as a compromise. i see it as a reality that acknowledges we don't have the moral authority, especially in
syria. i think our motives have been fine. but our policy has been so ineffective. in the meantime, 300,000 or more syrians have died, maybe 12 million have been driven from their homes. 4 million are refugees. hundreds of thousands in europe. this happened not because of what we did, but because of what we failed to do. we did not back up the policy with any military on the ground or diplomatic. i don't think we have more authority in syria, because good motives are not enough when that much human suffering has occurred. russia has moved in, opportunistically, somewhat dishonestly, but they are there. i think there is a compromise that acknowledge their interests. president assad will not be driven from power. however, what he should do is roll over only his own people, his fellow aloe lights and those who live in the area. have a negotiation about the central city where they have
been intermixed with different ethnic groups. there has to be a fair allocation of which side, which zone controls which cities. then, an international peacekeeping force helps up for that, and then you create a small umbrella government for the country.i think that's the way to compromise. >> henry is next, republican. gentleman, it is so absurd to hear you speak about , as if the heritage foundation has any concern for -- about human suffering. >> i am not from the heritage foundation, sir. >> ok. and you say we should help the sunnis moderates? that is ridiculous. you are talking about supporting the radical wahhabi-ism?
>> that's not what i'm saying. you will not twist my words. i said we have to defeat isis and al nusra. >> those are the sunnis, the ones in there right now. i wish that people would get it straight that isis is a u.s. creation intelligence operation. >> that is wrong. >> we really have no business being in syria. i wish we would come out and stop pushing propaganda of who and what isis is. >> ok, let's listen to michael's answer. >> there's nothing to say except that everything you said was wrong. president assad said everything you said. he says every sunni arab is in the same group, saying they are all terrorists and that need to be killed. that is what he said to justify his bombing and use of starvation as a weapon, and complete attacks on sunni innocent civilian populations throughout the conflict.
he deliberately has tried to create the very storyline that you are buying into. there are not equivalent groups among the sunnis. there is isis, which beheads people it does not like. there is al nusra affiliated with al qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11. there are a lot of other sunni muslim groups, some of which are more moderate than others, most of which are weaker because we pulled the rug out from under them. we promised them help and never delivered. that is the battlefield. that is the reality. >> bill is a democrat and maryland. you are next. >> first time i would like to say that i stand for -- i forgot. let me go back to say this. -- it is aideal, not group of misdirected terrorists. you can never destroy an ideal. you have misdirected terrorists,
in the christian faith, you have it in the jewish faith, in every religion and faith that there is. you will never be able to destroy isis, just like you will never be able to destroy the misdirected terrorists that condoned slavery. you also, in reference to the united states, being able to control what is going on in leavesour country manifest destiny. in order for us to be secure, we have to involved in what is going on around the world to be strategic. but as far as controlling other countries and what they do and work, thatovernments needs to be moderated. >> bill and alabama says this.
you think negotiating peace in syria the primary role of the u.n. rather than member states? >> the u.n. does have a very good negotiator. he is the lead negotiator. secretary kerry is trying to support his role. the problem is right now, the better field realities -- battlefield realities are such that the most extreme groups are the most powerful. i don't think we are in a position where focusing on peace talks alone will get us anywhere. we will have to strengthen the moderate forces first. in terms of build earlier point, you are right at one level, that you cannot eliminate an ideal. you cannot eliminate every terrorist. but goodness sakes, the scale matters. we don't have christian or jewish terrorists in control of large swaths of the middle east, but we do see ice is in control of substantial areas of territory and population belts from libya, to syria, iraq, boko
haram in nigeria is swearing a allegiance to isis. has brought down a russian airliner, they have attacked paris, san bernardino. we cannot let it go on as if it is an idea that cannot be exterminated. we have to challenge those who are using violence. it does not mean you try to eliminate every single vestige but you have to defeat the groups that are trying to organize and use violence against others, including us. >> james, from washington. independent color. caller.-- >> good morning. franceld we have felt if had jumped in? during our civil war? i think we are only compacting
our error. we were the ones who started the war in the middle east. it is our fault. i'll be people are dying. all these people running away from their homes. and climate control did have a , killing their corn and silly prizes. terrible, but we should not be in the middle of their civil war. they should be taking care of their own. >> said james, it is not just obviously syria impacted. for turkey, high-stakes as troubles intensified, europe is feeling the impact. turkey, extraordinarily under duress. 2 million refugees in turkey alone. attacks from isis or sometimes their own kurdish extremists, every few weeks. turkey has suffered enormously.
the notion that we started this, i think we can all have a long debate about whether we made all the right decisions in the last years. 20 the answer is no, we made a lot of mistakes. but i don't think it is right to say we started the war. assad and his father before him have been brutal leaders of syria for decades. saddam hussein, which we perhaps should not have overthrown, he started the war and had one million people's blood on his hands before george bush invaded. it is true we have to be a little bit cautious about what our own role can be and whether we can contribute. on that point, i understand president obama's motivation, but i think he has carried it to far towards virtual paralysis. we see what happens when we don't engage. theory a is a war which we haven't really engaged -- syria is a war which we have not
engaged, but everybody else has, and now we have one of the most tragic humanitarian situations. >> how important is our relationship with turkey? >> it is crucial. turkey is a nato ally. we are sworn by treaty to uphold their security or help them. second, even though we don't care for the current leader, er dogan, taking things in a ion,what islamist direct less than other parts of the middle east, but still a strong this democratic approach, is a relatively ok country, it has been doing relatively well in terms of progress and human terms. it is a moderate sunni islamic state. it is a treaty ally of the u.s., under great stress. >> given what you just said, let me read this. russia, turkey's oldest and
nearest rival is expanding presence around turkey's borders and syria to the south, and crimea and ukraine to the north, and armenia to the east.on saturday they announced the deployment of combat helicopters to an airbase outside the armenian capital, 25 miles from the turkish border. are they feeling surrounded? >> they do have a strong rivalry with russia. i would not go so far as to say they are surrounded. crimea is across the black sea. is a place where vladimir putin used entirely inappropriate tactics, but it has been historically russian for a long time, and it is far from turkey. armenia is a place where the turks have a complicated history, and not an impressive one. and of course, the armenian genocide a century ago is something the united states feels important to honor and commemorate armenian friends, to criticize turkey for its role.
to the extent that armenia has, been a problem for turkey i think turkey has caused as much of that problem if not more than and has suffered. low earlier, it is not credible armenian armyn from these. they have a limited area of territory where they have been present. they have been driven from a lot of the classic armenian territory in eastern turkey. turks who are listening are probably getting angry with me, because this is something they feel we exaggerate, and we do not see both sides of. my point is in the context of what you are discussing, this is not an area where russia will watch some kind of military pressure against turkey, and not from crimea. i think turkey is feeling the pressure from the south. that is whether real pressure is coming from. the syrian civil war is right next door. and also in their own territory, they are mishandling the kurdish issue.
the kurds, an important minority in their own country, who have sometimes wanted more autonomy, and perhaps some of them this has been a long-standing difficulty for turkey and how they handle the problem. they have often used to much violence against the kurds, not given them enough historical and political right, but turkey will have to manage that better. that is where the problems are, to the south, and in their own population. >> let's get back to calls. randy, republican. >> good morning. for john kerrydd to go out there and say he has instructed a peace deal with no substance whatsoever, just like you havesaying before, saudi arabia sending troops to turkey, turkey arming the borders. they are lining the more the -- northern border, but saudi
arabia is manning the southern border. john kerry time, goes to saudi arabia and makes secret deals with the saudi arabian government of what the market with oil and punish for not tryingy, to hold the ukraine invasion -- not ukraine, crimea. i just think there is a bigger picture no one is really, indulging in are telling the american people. >> randy, i want to get michael scott. >-- michael's thoughts. right to underscore the actors involved. it is very complicated. i'm sure you would agree with me, maybe you are more of a critic of president obama and secretary kerry, but both of us would see happy to see the syrian were concluded, even if it winds up being to the benefit of a president you might have voted against.
i voted for him, and i think he has generally done a good job, but on this issue i am very wary and skeptical there could have been a rabbit pulled out of a hat overnight secretary kerry. that is what i would see if a peace deal, it's an act of magic. the power balances are not conducive to an act -- lasting deal. i am skeptical it could stick, but i would love to be proven wrong. >> obviously more details to be coming out on sunday as secretary of state john kerry tries to work with russia, asking russia and assad to bring iran to the table, and work with the groups the united states has been working with. patrick in new jersey, a democrat. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question. your guest approach a prime syria, there is not one set sympathetic to the united states.
you says to choose the lesser of mass, trying to stop killing of people, when history has proven that when we have done that with osama bin laden in the 1980's, reagan gave him arms. he also gave saddam hussein arms in the 1980's, with the big picture of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam hussein. and then we go in and disrupted them country -- and completely on stabilize the middle east. anything we have done in the middle east has turned into crap. we have wasted american money and american lives. >> ok, your reaction to what he said? >> i think patrick, you probably are buzzing a lot of the concerns in your own words -- invoicing a lot of the concerns
in your own words, about what president obama feels. i'm sure a lot of americans are in agreement, that we just don't seem to be able to find the right touch. so isn't it better to limit our own exposure and stay out? i am not advocating another big war or american intervention, but going to the extreme we have gone, we have seen the results of doing too little. in iraq, we learned the dangers of doing too much. in syria, the dangers of doing too little. now we have threats to the entire western world. not on a scale of existential to our existence, but paris, san bernardino, those kind of attacks. i think we will have to be clever and learn the lessons from all of these interventions, including when we have done too much or too little. the last point, we cannot say that the united states is incapable of having alliances with the sunni arab world. we have a lot of major partners in the sunni world, and in the sunni faith more generally.
turkey is a sunni muslim country primarily. jordan is primarily a sunni muslim country. the gulf states, whether you like our affiliations are not, we have had to work with them over the years. if we look at a lot of these parts of the world, afghanistan, primarily sunni. indonesia. these are countries that are allies or imparting partners. -- important earners. 1.5 billion people. two bit of the world's population to say we cannot get along. we do want to clarify have a lot of important partners among the sunni populations, and i think we have no choice but to try to work with those we can collaborate with. the difficulty in syria is there are a lot of small groups, small sunni arab opposition groups, and they are militarily weak, and the battlefield. it is hard to go forward, but i would not say we are incapable of working with them. >> tonight on c-span, "q&a,"
with a radio talkshow host and author bill press. and at 9:00, yesterday's-year-old mass or antonin scalia -- yesterday's the supreme for justice antonin scalia. ♪ talkshoweek on "q&a," brian host bill press. he talks about his book, "buyer's remorse: how obama let progressives down", and the controversies raised by senator bernie sanders' endorsement of it. bill press, when did you think about writing this book? i could not give you the date, but it was when i was sitting in the white house briefing room,