A participant in today's ceremonies honoring President Ford with the dedication of this wonderful school for the Ford School of Public Policy here at the University of Michigan. It's a tribute, as has been said many times, to President and Mrs. Ford for the dedicated service they've given to the country. And so I'm honored to be here as an admirer, as we all are, even if we may have held differing views. The type of leadership that was served by President Ford through all phases of his life and his career is an example. And perhaps that's the best we can say for what is important as we think about ethics. I'd also like to make a comment about my colleague here on this panel, Alice Rivlin, because I served on the Budget Committee in the Senate when I first went to the Senate. And she had to testify from the CBO to the Budget Committee. And as I told her, everyone always respected what she had to say, although she took a lot of abuse from those who wish she hadn't said it. And my admiration for her is keen as well. I would just like to say this topic of personal ethics and public decision making has caused me more heartburn over the past several weeks as I've thought about it than almost anything else that I've thought of for a speech in recent years. It isn't an easy topic and I would like to begin with a quote that I saved from an article that President Ford had done, I don't know how far back, six years maybe, and it was an article that was a piece that he wrote on not slamming the door on therapeutic cloning. But this was something from that article that I thought was that column that he did was very good. It's a troubling paradox of American politics. All too often the issues that most cry out for thoughtful, dispassionate consideration are reduced to sound bites. Whether distorted in the name of ideology and partisanship, they can become oversimplified to the point of caricature. And I think as we try and sort through what we represent and how we can exemplify the best of valor and judgment in making decisions, it was best exemplified by the ability to think through the issues that are before us. I've served on two ethics committee. One was the early ethics committee in the state of Kansas that was appointed by the governor.  And through the various discussions both places, often you spend hours trying to decide how many angels could dance on the head of a pen. And I'd like to just review a little bit of the history of my thinking at this point. We all have a role to play. I think each and every one of us, whether it's small or large in helping shape policy decisions, every single person in this room, every single person that attends this school has a role to play. And since the beginning of time, societies have struggled to hold and check the striving for power and money. And today in business and in politics and in education, accountability is the new mantra. So regulations and rules and legislative mandates are designed to provide a check on corruption and greed. I worked hard and was a strong supporter of campaign finance reform because I believed that so much money was going into political campaigns that we were finding it hard to be able to or lost the ability to be able to individually get out and go door to door and the base grassroots that became important in politics, I thought. And now with the advent of ever more negative ads and the ability that we thought we had with regulations that were drawn up for campaign finance reform, only loopholes occur. And so you have loopholes upon loopholes and more paperwork and more paperwork in education, more requirements to do testing and standardized testing. Where do we find an answer? I personally think that it really starts at young age and it really relies on education as much as anything. I think that by example, it's what as President Ford, I love the quote in the speech that was given this morning that he was prepared to give when he said this was something he grew up with, work hard, tell the truth and come to dinner on time. For those of us of a certain age, getting to dinner on time was important or you tended to miss out. But I think that ethics in our decision making comes from how we view history, how we view the values that come from those either as a parent, a teacher, a neighbor that we see, that we're with, that we know. A security in recognizing there are times of conflict and decisions and you may have a buddy in school that is doing something wrong. You know it's wrong but he's a friend, what do you do? Do you try and tell him it's wrong? Do you go along with him? And it goes with us all through life. And that's why I believe the strength that comes from a sense of the importance in that very quote given by President Ford who I think stepfather had that as something that was important in his life, really says it all with a sense of self-discipline and respect. I don't think we can legislate tolerance. I don't think you can legislate honesty or respect. And I think it has to come with a sense that we have, for a better understanding of history, a better understanding of what we're all about and that's why I believe something like this School of Public Policy has a very important role to play and I'm sure President Ford would be particularly proud to have his name associated with an arena where we can come and look at the different balances, the different questions we each have to ask. I was always asked, do you pay more attention to your constituents or your own opinion? And I always liked Edmund Burke's answer when he said it's important to be mindful of your constituents and exercise your own judgment as well because otherwise what good does it do to be there helping serve in public service, but to bring your views that come with a background of knowledge, a background that has been given you through education and through which we can gain by having those around us who we look to for strength of ethics. It really is a sense of judgment I think that comes from those that we are surrounded by who at some point it may be a peer, it may be a parent and particularly I would say a teacher that gives us that essence of ethics, personal ethics that we bring to bear on our own judgments. Thank you. I too am privileged to be part of this wonderful event honoring President Ford who was certainly a calm, steady hand at a chaotic moment in United States history and the nation owes him a great debt. He also has been for quite a long time now a wonderful ex-president and that's an important role. I was privileged in 1988 to serve on a commission or committee or something or other that he and President Carter pulled together to see if we could fashion some bipartisan advice for the next administration, whoever it was and those two sensible men working together were a sight to see. It was very, it was very inspiring. Unfortunately, the partisanship gap has widened since then and Senator Casablanca and I, as she said, go back a long way and I've admired her ability to keep her focus on what was good for the country and work with her colleagues of both parties. May you may have forgotten that she worked a lot with Ted Kennedy and tried to put together legislation with bipartisan support in several areas. Despite her family heritage, she is not an ideological or deeply partisan person. She's more focused on getting to the right decision. So through the leadership of President Ford and the generosity of Sandy and Joan Weil, I've got 10 minutes to impart what wisdom I have on the relationship between personal morality and public policy. I want to use those 10 minutes, not actually to talk about my personal morality, this is an example of ignoring the questions, or my own public policy career, but to talk about yours, you the students of the Ford School and the opportunities that you have for moral leadership and some of the conflicts and obstacles that I think you may face. Now, you've made a moral commitment just by coming here and devoting a couple of precious years to learning how to be effective in the world of public policy. You came here because you wanted to make the world a better place. You wanted that more than you wanted to make a lot of money or to be a compassionate medical professional or to prove how tough you were in the courtroom or to explore how creative you could be in the arts. You're here because you think public policy matters and you want and because you perceive that there's a lot of room for making it better, and there is. And you thought that if you learned the tools, you could influence public policy and improve the lives of other people. Now, public policy career doesn't necessarily mean working for the government. It may mean implementing, writing about, influencing, teaching about public policy from lots of different vantage points, which may well change as your career progresses. But I applaud you for making the choice to be here and for putting in the effort that it takes to complete your studies at the Ford School and plunge ahead on a public policy career. So what are the obstacles to turning your idealistic moral vision into a satisfying reality? Let me start with two I think won't happen. First, you may picture yourself in a national or state administration where the leadership is pursuing a policy you disagree with and you have to decide whether or not to resign. Well, actually, I think this is a rare dilemma and I believe almost always it is best resolved by continuing to do your job well and trying to improve the public policy rather than by making the grand and usually feudal gesture. I was a young assistant secretary at the Department of Health Education and Welfare as it then was at the time of the Vietnam War. And we were trying to improve programs of the great society, make them work better, evaluate them, administer them better. But a lot of my friends from graduate school were out marching against the war and calling me up and saying, how can you stay in this government that's doing these terrible things? And I would say, well, I'm not in charge of the war. I'm here trying to make health and education and welfare better. And I don't think my resigning would do any good. Colin Powell faced a more difficult dilemma, but I didn't know him terribly well, but I knew him well enough to know he wasn't going to resign. He was too good a soldier to do that and I think it was the right decision. Second, I doubt that you will be tempted to put personal financial gain ahead of service to the cause or to an organization. You're not that kind of person. And if you cared a lot about personal wealth, you probably wouldn't be at the Ford School. But more important, the world of public and nonprofit organizations just doesn't offer much opportunity. Sure, there are some crooks in the government, the kind of people who put Gucci handbags on their government credit card or steer a contract to their brother-in-law. But actually, there aren't very many. They usually get caught and the stakes are laughably low. It's much harder in Sandy Wild's world where the stakes are enormous. So if Andy Fastow is your role model, drop out of the Ford School right now. But let me give you four other dilemmas that I think you will face repeatedly and you'll watch your colleagues dealing with. And all our questions, as Nancy said, of finding the right balance. One is the exhilaration that goes with personal power. The danger is losing sight of the public good because it feels so good to be in charge. And yes, fellow females, it's okay to feel good about being in charge. When Nancy and I were girls, it wasn't, but it is now. The problem is that leaders in the public policy world, like those of the business world, have to have self-confidence. They have to believe in themselves. They have to be optimists. They have to have the ability to inspire others to get things done. But there's the ever-present danger of getting carried away, of believing too much in your own gut reaction. So leaders need constant reality check with smart, sensible people that don't work for them, giving them some feedback. A related threat is excess loyalty to the organization because that leads to turf wars. And again, it's a balance question. We need team spirit and pride in an organization. We need commitment and loyalty to the organization to get things done. But like personal charisma, it can get out of hand. And then the CIA doesn't talk to the FBI, and the Army tries to beat the Navy, not on the football field, but in the battlefield. And I think the turf battles that arise are one of the real threats to good government. And another, something related to that is excess partisanship. And again, it's a balancing act. I believe in the two-party system. We need that to surface and articulate differences. But when the election is over, we need to work together to move the country forward. And we seem to have forgotten that. The level of partisanship now is too high for the country's good. Everybody is blaming, finger-pointing, and that doesn't get the job done. We seem to engage in debate, but not dialogue, and they're different. Debate is when you try to score debaters' points and win. Dialogue is when you talk about the differences you have and how to get how to resolve them and get the job done. There are not very many people working on this. I watched James Baker and Lee Hamilton, two of my own heroes, the other night on Jim Lehrer's news hour, and I thought, they didn't say anything, actually. But the important point was they were there together, and they are trying to find a way out of the dilemma in Iraq. And finally, I think there's the danger of thinking too small. There's the danger of getting immersed in the details of public policy and the policy analysis and never saying, wait a minute, maybe our whole approach is wrong. Maybe we should do something quite different in this situation. Warren Buffett once said to me, he'd never regretted speaking up. He often regretted not speaking up. And I think that's really right.  In sum, I think the moral issues of public policy require constant balancing, and that's why it's so challenging. And that's why it's important that the Wiles and the University of Michigan have given you this opportunity at the Ford School to sharpen your skills and think hard about the moral judgments that you actually make every day and that you'll be making for the rest of your life. Thank you. As an alumnus of the Ford School, it really is just a fantastic place and I see a lot of friends and it's very much a family. And in fact, Professor Levenson's first cousin is one of my best friends in the school and still is to this day. I think it's obvious, your first glance, who doesn't fit on this panel? And yesterday at dinner I had the privilege of sitting with Brent Scowcroft, Paul Neal, Susan Ford Bates and their spouses and me and I think it was obvious as well who was the newcomer to the table. And to be here speaking about my personal convictions in public policy making is really just quite an honor. I want to thank the school and I want to thank Dean Blank for that honor. And I want to apologize in advance because you got me a month out from an election here in Michigan where certainly we are having tense campaigns and probably the most well-funded campaign per citizen of maybe any state ever in terms of our gubernatorial campaign and hugely important campaigns for the state house and the state Senate. And I am very much engaged, particularly in those state house campaigns and as a candidate for the House Democratic leader. And sometimes it's tough to shift gears about what are my personal convictions and how do they affect public decision making? But maybe it's the exact right moment actually to be thinking about those questions because I can tell you that spending three to four hours a day on the phone raising funds, creating teams which sometimes means making so-called deals about the leadership team that will run the House Democratic Caucus.  Now the topic, personal convictions in public policy making. And I just want to reread what Jim Levinson said, one of the questions was that I received from Dean Blank, when should private beliefs and ethics, including religious beliefs, influence public actions? When shouldn't they? What are some of the criteria that might distinguish public issues where private benefits are relevant and where they are not? I mean, wow. I mean, for a legislature, is this the restatement of the famous Burkean Dilemma, the English philosopher Edmund Burke on whether or not I represent my constituents or whether or not I do the job to the best of my ability? It was Dean Blank asking me for my personal philosophy of secular humanism and how it relates to being a legislature. And probably for me, more importantly, given that I'm in the midst of all these campaigns, where's the money people in the room and where are the swing votes and how do what I say, how are they going to influence those issues? I regret that President Ford was not able to be with us over the last evening and today because all I heard last night was how much he brought a sense of personal integrity and sound public policymaking and a desire to do what was best in every situation. And I heard that continuously in the conversation at my table last night. And Secretary O'Neill's words, he said he always asked for the facts and always asked why you had drawn your conclusion. So he not only said, can I see the stats on that? Can I see the analysis? But he said, well, why is the analysis saying that? And why did you pull that way? Or why did you study that factor? And Secretary O'Neill last night went on and sort of lamented that it seemed like so few public policy makers cared about the facts and what the data said and had already drawn their conclusions. And I assert that this is a real problem for the Ford School and for an institution that is training people in thinking about public policy from a rational scientific method and to deal with the modern political agenda that is so often based on foregone pre-drawn conclusions and partisan ideology. I think it goes even deeper than that as than being just a problem for the Ford School. I think the founding fathers would be shocked to learn what comprises American politics in the modern era and that if they thought through and we had some of our founding fathers or even great leaders in the last century talk about personal convictions and public decision making and then reflect on what is the current climate of affairs. I'm just gonna go through a litany of maybe what it looks like to me sitting in the seat that I'm sitting in and in the midst of it all right now. We have candidates who are forced to take positions on issues such as guns, abortion, illegal immigration, gay rights, flag burning if it comes up that I can tell you they do not personally espouse. I see it time and time again in dealing with candidates that are running for office on both sides of the aisle. We have voters that are gonna make decisions based on issues that have been hand served to them by campaigns that will never actually see the light of day once we get into office. We didn't have any death penalty votes in the 93rd legislature in Michigan and we're probably not gonna have any in the 94th. Last year, this past summer in New Hampshire they passed a sweeping set of protections against illegal immigration. This is in New Hampshire okay. A third sort of ill of the system is that we have sitting raps and this happens day in and day out on the house floor who are fear casting votes on the Birkin side of the issue on how they personally feel and they fear that they're going to be attacked for the votes that they take. And I'm happy to say that the 30 some Democrats who I sat with in my caucus room when they voted for an English only bill on the house floor those 30 I think to a person they probably were holding their nose as they took that vote. There are a number of people in this state who voted on giving civil immunity to anybody who was shot during a home invasion or anytime anybody personally feared for their safety who probably didn't feel that way. I think that majority of the house members who voted to put a citizenship check box ID mark on their driver's license here in the Michigan house probably didn't think that that was a good idea. Even those who probably repealed the SBT in this state and said, you know what? I think the best business strategy is to go forward into 2007 and tell businesses, we have no idea what taxes you're gonna have. That's the best thing to do to attract businesses to the state of Michigan or those who vote continuously in our state legislature to take to Detroit water. We have sitting raps who cast votes out of the needs to finance their next race, okay? And those issues are a little stickier but who literally sit next to me and you either overtly or covertly, you see the wheels churning. Where is the money on this? And there's no doubt that when more than half the legislature signs a bill to ban a mail order wine shipments and the largest pack lobby in the state is the Michigan beer and wine wholesalers that before the bills even considered, you have a bet that a lot of people are paying attention to who writes the checks for their campaigns. We have a legislature that won't take up ethics laws that are obviously in the public interest but maybe against their own personal ones. We're the only one of three states that has no personal financial disclosure. If I ran for US Congress, I'd have to reveal where I get my personal money from but if I run for governor or state rep in this state, you don't have any right to know which companies are paying me, well how much they're paying me and I could be a consultant to any company that I wanna be and I'm not required to disclose it. We do have an ethics requirement that I self disclose any conflicts once I'm in the legislature but you as a citizen voter don't get the right to check up on me to make sure I'm doing that job. We have a revolving door, I can lobby the same legislature and my colleagues the day after I walk out and then we can get into the meals, travels and gifts. And then we have the last ill that I wanna talk about before I get to my own views on this is are the campaigns that we run that destroy our societies and that some of these issues that we run in these campaigns have long-term impacts. I can tell you that I've been driving around this state and the city that I represent legislators across the state are being attacked by 527 that a lot of, I mean it's obvious, I'll tell you the Democrats, our state house party has our 527, the state republicans have their 527. I don't know if I have the proof to say that but it's obvious and I stand behind that. But their 527 has faulted Democrats for sending money to Detroit and then citing a bill that says Detroit gets $8.8 million more in education for children. Now first of all, I didn't know that that was a bad thing that we put $9 million to educate the least affluent of our citizens across the state but it's a bill that passed 103 to three. So all our republicans voted for this exact same bill but the fact that you can say they sent $9 million to Detroit and then cite the bill number and just say, you know, public act such and such, roll call vote such and such. It doesn't matter that the candidate that they're arguing that you should vote for would have voted the same way. That creates division in our state and that creates an attitude where we have the most racially polarized region, the greatest segregated region of any large city in the country and it may be no accident that it has the highest poverty rate as well. I think that the answer to these issues is the need for the people of this room to be engaged and the need for us to support the Ford School and what it does so that it educates and empowers citizens who are gonna go forth and bring sound public policy. I don't think the question to the, to the, that the question is really, what are my personal convictions and how do they influence my public policy decision making? And it's not a question of, you know, where do I personally stand on abortion and how to secular humanism inform my own decision? We are going to have different views on that based on our religious and our personal beliefs. The real question is how do we engage and utilize the tools of sound economics and sound public policy? And the real question is, and the real problem is how do we build on the foundations of learning that comprise the coursework and education at the Ford School and ensure that those principles are shaping our government. We can lament that American politics have devolved, but we, the people in this room, the believers, I think, in sound public policy are responsible for engaging the system. And so as somebody who never thought, even while I sat through four years of education in the Ford School and the law school and even while I was working on Capitol Hill in college and president of my young Democrats chapter in college, I never thought I would run for office. And I wanna encourage all of you to rethink that question, that the people with the Ford School degrees are the people we need to run for office and are the people we need to assume the mantle of leadership. The people in this room need to support the candidates and need to make decisions on those candidates, not just on party lines and not just based on your religious and personal ideology, but you must bring the politics of sound public policymaking to your donations and who you give money to. And that if you have a candidate out there who's not doing those things, you say, I'm not gonna work on your campaign. I'm not gonna provide that check. And then give your time and talents to those who are doing the right thing. And finally, I think we need to bring the ethics of sound public policymaking to the jobs that we do as budget director and the administration, working for other members of Congress, working for the local school system, teaching in classrooms, working in businesses, et cetera. Because if we don't, we, the believers in sound public policy don't reform American politics and the government, who will? My question is based on the advent and increasing use of negative campaigning and what you think we should do about negative campaigning? Pretty much everybody hates negative campaigning, but if you look at a focus group, everyone says, oh, we hate negative campaigning, but then what they remember about the other candidates, what is stated in the negative campaign, right? And so what do you think should be done about negative campaigning? Should anything be done about negative campaigning and how did you work that in your campaigns? Mrs. Kousenbog, we have grown in your current campaign to try to limit those influences. You're in it now, so you go first. Well, I, first of all, I have the privilege of being in state house races on a personal level, and it's a different race. I'm not on TV, I'm not in the newspapers, and so it's a very much a one-on-one door-to-door kind of thing, and while in my second race, my opponent took on negative campaigns on myself, we thought about going there, but we thankfully didn't do that and we didn't need to do that, and so I've never had to deal with that on a personal level. I can tell you that there's a whole, even as an office holder, and I believe me, I had a lot of people say a lot of horrible things about me the first time I ran, the second time I ran, even just seeing that, getting that robot call at my house and getting that piece of literature, there's a sinking feeling that it has on a personal level. I think that we, as I said, we, the believers in good public policy-making, need to be responsible and use our leverage on a personal level to not support those kinds of issues. Now, is it realistic that I can withdraw my support from the current gubernatorial candidate who I do believe in on a personal level because I don't necessarily appreciate what the Democratic Party has done with this trade issue in the state of Michigan? I don't think it's realistic that, that I'm not gonna go out and support my gubernatorial candidate, but the hope is that the next gubernatorial candidate will say, you know what? Certain things, maybe that is over the top, maybe I won't do that. I do think the electorate has some sensibility on this a little bit, although not as much as we would like, and that as somebody who's, I've been walking door to door in probably a dozen districts across this state, and these are the swing districts, and this is where the real mud flies, and when it gets to be, I mean, we have a candidate who was a Howard Dean supporter, and so she's now supporting terrorism. That's clearly what the ad is saying, and I think the voters see through it. You know, this is a Sunday school teacher.  So, I think that sometimes voters are rejecting it more and more, and the question is, I think we have to engage the system. I might just say, I think times have changed, even since 1996 when I left the Senate. In 78, in my three campaigns, we really had no negative ad advertising. My hardest was in 78, and there were not really negative ads. There were, I had protestors and so forth, but it was not the same environment it is today. But I think it's important to remember that there's been scurrilous, maybe even more so than today. Flyers that went out, newspapers that were printed just for one candidate or another from the very beginning of our country. Today, the difference is, I think, it's television. It's constant. It's on talk radio and chat rooms, and you can't get away from it. I think, and I know there are people who say, and there are pollsters who say negative ads do make a difference, and it catches the public's attention for a while. But I think the overall effect is deadening, and I think it is ruining the ability to have an energy and a creativity in our political process. And I think we have to stand up and say, even if you lose an election, I will not use negative ads. And I think the public is willing to accept that. If everyone would be willing, if even one or two people in a campaign would be willing to stand up and say that. It might start a whole new, you might start here in Michigan. Or Kansas or Tennessee, I'm not. But I do think we have to be willing to look at that. I'm Gil Oman with faculty and donor, and welcome all of you. At the local level, we have a fight in many states, including Kansas, about what should be taught in the science classroom at a time when the math and science preparation of our students to be competitive for jobs that are internationally competitive is lacking. We have a problem in this state that was recognized in the early 90s, but not addressed at this university or in the legislature. The governor had a plan to move imprisoned persons from Detroit and other cities to the most lily white counties of the state. In a prison building program, it was jobs creation. And with no thinking of what would happen to these people and they were finally let out. No address was made to that set of issues, I'm aware of. And finally, at the federal level, we have this persistent problem about health insurance that our employers are living under a scheme that was a quirk of World War II wage and price controls that our employment based health insurance started in 40s. And it's just a burden which is not shared by the international competitors where there are government supported and otherwise funded health insurance schemes. Any one of those subjects would be a good one. Thanks, Gail, large order. The health issue, both health coverage and health costs is a huge issue that needs national dialogue, but it can, I believe, start in public policy schools. It's got to grow from there to a much broader arena. But the polls show Americans are concerned about the health system. They know it isn't functioning terribly well. There are a lot of people who aren't covered. The costs are rising too fast. But they aren't clear what the solutions are and even what the big questions are. That's where I think the public policy schools could take a good deal of leadership and put into dialogue form some of the major questions about how to resolve the health issues and debate them in classes, not in some class on conflict resolution, which is sort of separate, but in all of the classes that address, in one way or another, the question of healthcare. Then I think we've got to escalate it to a more national level. Engage the media, get a national dialogue going on a major issue like that. One of the recent issues was this so-called Michigan civil rights initiative that the signatures were gathered by fraud and by misleading people who signed that thing. And yet it's still gonna go on. What can we do to make sure that something like this will never get to happen again? Again, I think that's incumbent upon us to stay involved in the political process. And I know that it's frustrating because now it seems like there's new tactics and there's new negative ads and there's new, these paid canvassers and up and down the line, there's tough issue after tough issue. This is maybe not as emotional, not as on point, but I'm a strong believer in the city of Detroit where one of the very few seats, it doesn't have council by district. So as a result, our city council is totally unresponsive to local community needs. And I firmly believe in districts, but the issue is people keep saying, well, you as a legislator, won't you support that in Lansing? And the idea of legislating what canvassers can say or the idea that I'm gonna mandate from Lansing how Detroit should govern its own city council to me is we have to get beyond that. We have to not be so focused in terms of talking about how to deal with the new kind of tactics to say that we're gonna outlaw those tactics, but really just redouble and reengage our own efforts and go out and do the hard work. And that means, and the issue of the city council by district, that means going door to door and getting voters and explaining to them so that they will put it on the ballot and pass it. I've been on the wrong side of ballot initiatives before I supported Proposal E in the city of Detroit to give more centralized power to the schools. I didn't do enough work. You have to live with the results, but I think the answer is to work harder and to be smarter about how we work rather than to try to outlaw the process. You're going to have constituents who disagree with you on policies that feel very important to you.  That's a good question. And I sort of tried to answer it with the Edmund Burke quote, but I'll give you a specific example on a vote. I was very supportive of banning semi-automatic weapons. It was a gun control issue. It was bitterly fought by the NRA as a Second Amendment right, which I didn't think that it really was, but that's been an issue that has been strongly held by many people. Most of the rest of the Republicans were supporting banning semi-automatic assault weapons, and there was a lot of pressure to vote against it. I had thousands of phone calls. It was probably the most vicious issue, and that includes abortion that I faced. I felt, and it was my own view, that you don't always hear from those who support an issue. You hear from those who are opposed. So everyone was opposed, most of them saying the same thing, because they had scripted what they were supposed to say. On the other hand, it was a very strong, I heard from some very close friends of mine who could not understand how I could vote on that issue in banning those weapons. But I felt, and that's where I suppose my own judgment came into play, that it was important to do. And I went out to Western Kansas right after that vote, because that's where a lot of strongly felt opinion, as well as the cities came from, and I had one farmer say to me, well, you don't know how it is out here with the prairie dogs. And I said, well, it certainly doesn't take a semi-automatic to get a prairie dog. As you know, in this last Congress, the reauthorization failed. So the ban is no longer in effect. But that's one example, and I would have to say there's where my own judgment outweighed what I heard from those who called and wrote. And I think, wouldn't you say that most times you do hear from people who, you don't hear from supporters of an issue, you hear from those who are opposed, and maybe that's a given in a democratic society, and you don't wanna lose sight of the importance of that. But I think you do have to weigh certain things out that you feel, and then let the voters decide if that was the wrong thing. I think that, first of all, the first rule in politics, answer the question that you wanna ask, not the one that it is asked, but no. I think you have a core set of principles and beliefs, and you bring those in, and you absolutely don't compromise those. And then there's a lot of procedural votes and all those other kinds of things, and you weigh the pluses and minuses each time you do it. I think that the sickness is the weighing of your own personal reelection and campaign finance as opposed to, well, I might not feel this way, but my district feels this way, and while I don't necessarily agree with them, I understand why we're going this way. So it's, and there's no easy answer. I take, I don't know how many thousands of votes a year, and I'd say every fifth one you end up with one of these questions like that, so. I think it was Lyndon Johnson who said, it's not doing the right thing that's so hard. It's knowing what the right thing is. But let me give you an example, and I have not run for elective office, but I found myself by appointment with a lot of power over the district of Columbia as chair of the so-called control board that the Federal Reserve, that the federal government put in when the city was in bankruptcy. And one of the last things that we did, and we had the power to do it, was close the public hospital. Now, that was a very controversial thing to do. It was absolutely necessary. This hospital was badly managed. It wasn't serving very many people. It was hemorrhaging money. But as you can imagine, this became a black-white issue, a rich-poor issue, and it attracted not only the leadership of the genuinely affected, namely the labor unions who represented the people who worked there, but the crazies from all over the country. And young people who didn't come from the city at all came in in droves and protested and picketed. But it was the right thing to do. And it didn't sound like the right thing to do. What we did was close that hospital and create something called the D.C. Health Alliance to pay for the healthcare of low-income people who were not eligible for Medicaid. That made a lot of sense. But those of us who took that position are still living with it. For a long time, I got heckled everywhere I went, as did the mayor, and he had to run for reelection. If I may just add to when you speak, though, to the larger issues like healthcare or social security, which is a huge issue that we need to continue a far, far more serious dialogue on President Bush initiated it, but there were pros and cons, but there's where I think on the bigger issues, you compromise. You have to compromise. The emotional issues, sometimes there are no compromises, but the bigger issues, it doesn't mean you lose your own sense of value and principles that guide you. But to achieve the end result, it does take a give and take. And that's where I think partisanship, as Alice pointed out earlier, has become so mean, spirited, that it's very hard to reach some of the compromises necessary. I'm worried about my vote about that as well, and how do you think we ever got to a point where in this country we have a way of voting with no way to see if it really does come with some kind of paper trail? I don't know the answer to that question, and again, I'll answer the question I want to answer. No. But the fact that you're worried about your voting is more of a symptom, I think of, and it should go on my list of the ills, is that we have people who worry about voting, and it's become so competitive in the system that we're fighting for every vote, and we have this huge debate about who should vote, and all the machinations, and the IDs, and the this, and the that, and what the system is gonna be in both sides. There are sort of radicals on each side, alleging that massive voter fraud is going on on both sides, and so I think again, if you had more faith in the people who were writing the rules and the laws, and you didn't see them bickering with all the negative ads and everything else, you'd probably be sitting in your seat with maybe even the same or a similar voting system and not have to worry that your vote didn't count, but I think it's more, I only see it as much, mostly as a symptom, and I don't wanna get into all my politics on it, but in terms of personal decision-making. So you're satisfied with your decision? No, no. And my question sort of takes off from Dr. Rivlin's comment about the dangers of thinking too small, and my question is about any ideas, any of the panelists might have about ways to alter incentives or institutional structures to try to have greater consideration given to issues that occur over longer time horizons than quarterly earnings and the next election, and the specific case I'm thinking about is global climate change and the ways, so I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about tactics or strategies that you might feel effective at changing people's value systems in order to generate the kind of political will that's necessary to bring about rather substantial policy changes in a rather short period of time to try to address those kinds of issues. Let me start. That's a wonderful question and I've worried about it a lot. Climate change is a good example, but one I've thought about more is the federal budget. The president yesterday or the day before was touting the fact that the deficit has come down to only a quarter of a trillion dollars. In the current year, and that's good. It's lower than it was, but what nobody's talking about is what is going to happen as medical care costs continue to rise and the baby boom generation retires and we're all living longer. And anyway, you look at it, those projections, and they're not terribly uncertain, are daunting and nobody is talking about it. In the political discourse. I don't know what we do, but some of us have been writing about it, going out on something we call the fiscal wakeup tour, which is taking a couple of conservatives and a couple of liberals in the middle of the road people and going around the country saying, this is a problem. People have different solutions to it, but this is a problem. Listen to it, pay attention. I think the political system underestimates the intelligence of the American voter and the interest that people have in the longer run, including older people. The way to get older people focused is to say, what kind of world do you want for your grandchildren? And they're very willing to think about it, but politicians often just don't realize that. They think that people only think about the near term. Sometimes you might disagree with something that you're charged to do.  And if you weren't possible, if that wasn't possible to bring about the change that you were thinking or even the thought that you were thinking, at what point would you consider leaving? I know Dr. Rivlin talked about how oftentimes that's not very prudent, and so I was just wondering how, I just got through reading Robin Cook's Book of Time to Leave, and so I was wondering like what, I think it's a tough decision, and so I was just wondering what your thoughts were. I hope you understood the question. Yeah, very nice. Let me just recommend a book that I think is wonderful is Doris Kearns Goodwin, a team of rivals, and those of you who are interested in politics and public policy and leadership, I think that's an important book. You know, how you deal with something, now I, this passed after I was in Congress, so, but leave no child behind the educational legislation that passed. I would say now I have to believe I would have voted against it. It is not legislation that as a former school board member in a rural area, I think addresses some of the needs, we really need to think about it, and it moves federal education into elementary, secondary education in ways it hasn't been there before. But saying that, it's now law. Do we work to address ways it could be changed that would make it more effective and beneficial, less mandatory and costly? Does it really aid us in improving our educational system? I mean, those are questions that are good for public policy debate, because it's there as law, what do you do? And that's a responsibility I think, both at the federal level, the House of Representatives and the Senate don't exercise very well as oversight. Oversight legislation that's passed, so that you can review it in committee to see what's working and what isn't, and be willing to try and either eliminate or improve or change it in such a way. So yes, those are things, I think there are very few elected officials, well not officials, elected representatives in the Congresses or in the state legislatures that would resign as such. You might not be re-elected, which I think is the way to handle it if you don't like the way your representative is voting. But I think on the appointed level, if a president's can, I can remember when Cyrus Vance resigned because of, at the time of the Iranian, you're too young to remember, but. I don't know who Cyrus Vance was. Secretary of State at the time of the Iranian hostages being held, and he objected to the policies of President Carter. And so, but that's rare, and the question always is, would you do better staying and trying to make it work or resign at protests? But that's where I think at the cabinet level, it would be more likely. Yeah, I think within an administration, it is a very interesting question. We have pretty much, I think, in administrations that work well, a spirit of it's a team. You argue your position in the team, and if you lose, then you support the policy. And in a sense, it depends how important it is. If, and the leak question has come up a lot recently in connection with Iraq. Leaks aren't always handled well, but I think occasionally the moment to leak comes, the Pentagon Papers probably were a very useful set of documents to get out into the public domain, and those who did it paid the price. But I'm glad they did. But those occasions come rather rarely. A lot of leaking, unfortunately, isn't concerned with the right policy. It's more concerned with turf battles. Those guys didn't do this right, we did it right. That sort of thing, which is unfortunate. So I think it depends on how important it is, but in general, I think you don't have a well-run government if people can't trust their colleagues to keep a secret, and if people don't feel that they have to support the policy unless it's a life and death matter after you've had your say and you've lost.


Hi welcome to Visual Studio Toolbox. I'm your host Robert Green and joining me is Phil Jepixi. Hey Phil. Hey Robert. How are you? Great. We are continuing in our series of design patterns, and we've moved into the Studio B Just a little behind the scenes. We're taping this over the course of two days. Two days. Yesterday We did five of what's we think is going to be wind up being ten episodes. Yes And then we are here for the second day in the smaller studio different shirts different shirts different environment More comfortable chairs These are more comfortable But I think in the in the order of things one of the episodes that we taped yesterday is going to wind up being after this one Yes, so there will be some back and forth. Well, that's a TARDIS time effect that we have. Yeah, exactly Today we're talking about the observer pattern. We are. And we will also talk a little bit about Publish, subscribe. Yeah, I mean they're a long time. They're similar. Well, they're used interchangeably a lot academically They are different. Mm-hmm. So we're gonna talk about that. Okay. The code samples are all about the observer, right? Most people don't write their own pub sub. They're using something like in service bus or yeah Or something along those notification hubs or something, right? You don't you don't have to write your own pub sub plumbing, right? So let's jump into the definition again, we're leveraging Wikipedia for this So the observer pattern Has an object typically called the subject Maintains a list of observers and notifies them when any state changes using by usually by calling a method called notifier update The biggest problem with the observer pattern is memory leaks So in dot net I'm gonna have to have a strong reference to each of those observers Mm-hmm if that observer gets set to know outside of the subject The subject will not let it go. So even though you can't access it in your own code outside of the subject Mm-hmm. It's still in the list. It will never be garbage collected. Is there is that? Is that happen a lot? Do we have to worry about that or is it just a edge case you need to bear in mind? Well, so it does happen. There's a lot of documentation out there about Events and delegates and how they hold strong references But fortunately, I'm gonna show you a solution in dot net using a weak reference class. Okay, that gets past the problem. Okay All right, so let's look at the code Again, we're driving Most of this through unit testing.  We'll wait Okay, this is us waiting back So we have a Subject that's a sports aggregator.  So I wanted to come up with an understatement Come up with a baseball reference. So the subject is just going out there and gathering information wherever it could Wherever it can about different sporting events. Okay, and then it will Take the list of observers in this case. I've got a newspaper and a radio station and They subscribe to the service. Okay, so we register that or register them as an observer Results with the Reds beating the Cubs and oh man, because we're in here Not this year. That's true. We're doing but we we are having some struggles with starting pitching We added game result to the subject. So however that happens. That's not really part of the pattern It's just a subject gets a new game result. Somehow that's going to trigger the notify And what we want to do is make sure in our tests that we still have the observers in They've gotten notified. They've received the game score. So we make sure that they have the game results in their list And then we unregister the observers we have to specifically say I'm not paying for the service anymore Okay, and that's the only way we can free them up And then we just check to make sure that the observers are zero So let's look at how we Code this we have a very simple interface because we always want to program to an interface And it's just I subject for lack of a more creative name And then we're gonna do an entire episode on that subject On interfaces. Yeah, we can Why you say that you should always program to an interface. Yes. What does it look like when you don't and then What does it look like if you do and what does it gain you? Just that's just uh I'm just an aside. Okay, but let's do an episode on that. We will because you keep saying that I do I do keep saying it Okay All right, so I can register an observer. I can unregister an observer and I can notify the observers pretty simple, right? So here I have my sports aggregator Which implements I subject has a list of observers When the game result gets added to Irrigator now, I'm not holding on to them because again, this is just demo code Mm-hmm. I just call notify and notify simply goes through Each observer one at a time and calls the update method. Okay Now the observers also have an interface One method that we really care about which is the updates and then the list of results So the newspaper gets updated it adds this game box score to the results Okay, now the newspaper can choose what to do with it, right? It's not part of the pattern That the subject sorry that the observer does anything The pattern is that it gets notified, right? So for example a radio station can break in And say hey breaking news reds beat the cubs newspaper might have to wait till they actually print the next Paper right gonna say episode but paper or they could put it on their website, right? So it's up to them when they act on it But the pattern is we need to notify them notify one or two Now I said there is a problem with memory leaks and let me show you in this test Properly named doesn't handle no objects correctly. We set it up the same way Got our sports aggregator got the newspaper patient we register those observers We then set the first observer, which is the newspaper to know we force garbage collection But then we go through and We realize on this line right here That we still have an observer in The collection, okay, I can't unregister the observer this line won't work Because it's no because it's no right, so I can't force an unregister The observer sorry the subject doesn't know that it's been nullified because it's still holding a strong reference So this item will live on has the subject lives on Okay, no Time when we're coding things using delegates or events or even I notify property change Which is a good example of the observer pattern. Mm-hmm when that window goes out of scope and gets closed Or where the subject gets garbage collected then it'll free up all those resources Okay, so you asked how much of a problem it is it really depends on how you code your subject if the subject is the core of your program and Is around for the lifetime of your application. Mm-hmm. It's a big problem If it's just one window in a WPF application, for example, it's probably not such a big problem. Okay, right? Now I did say that there's a fix for this and That's using the weak reference class within dot net So this is something I discovered fairly recently and I think it's really cool Although it's got very specific uses What a weak reference does instead of saying hey, I want to hold on to a reference of this particular object I hold a weak reference. Mm-hmm and That allows garbage collection But it does change how we code the sports aggregator You notice it's a list of weak references of I custom observer We're registering weak references as opposed to I custom observers Mm-hmm, and when we notify we have to change things a little bit We have to instead of just saying call notify because we're Holding on to a list of weak references. We need to get to the target of that weak reference. Okay So we call try get target and this is a new feature in C sharp 6 where we don't have to declare the variable before we Make it an out parameter If it's null we go ahead and unregister it so we set it to null in our calling code and We get a notification it goes through and says hey, I'm going to let this thing go okay because it doesn't exist anymore Otherwise, I just call update normally When we look at the test for this one It's exact same test But we can unregister the weak reference even though We have set No, let me change this because I screwed up Little live coding here, so we will sorry. We're looking at the wrong test. Okay, that's the problem being live All right This is the same code. Mm-hmm. I Register a weak reference or get a weak reference back. I Set the observer to null Mm-hmm Call garbage collection but now I can Unregister if I wanted to Because it's the weak reference. It's not the actual object, but I don't need to do that Because the subject itself says hey the target of this weak reference doesn't exist anymore I'm gonna let go of the weak reference The cut the observer has already been garbage collected. Mm-hmm memory leak solved. Okay, cool. So that's Something to keep in mind as a tool if needed Yeah, and like I said, I think it's it's pretty specific where you would need it if you're doing an observer pattern and Your subject again is a long-lived item. Mm-hmm, then you need to consider this. Okay, so let's let's talk a little bit about This versus the pub sub pattern because That in the code We're we're waiting to be told that that a game Has result has occurred right right so and you mentioned that I notify Property changed is a classic example of the observer pattern. Yes, so there's a difference between needing to know or Needing an expectation that you do something versus a pub sub model where I'm Publishing you've subscribed, but you may or may not do something. Well, maybe we should talk about the definition of the pub sub. Okay So the pub sub is a again a messaging pattern, but the publishers do not send directly to the receivers Mm-hmm. There's some sort of intermediary and that can have filtering that can have routing those types of things But the publisher has no idea if it even has any subscribers it's just broadcasting right and Hopefully somebody picks it up. If not, so be it, right? So if we look at the just a comparic and trust Between the two what happened we lost the screen So we're recording blank right now. Did this come out? I don't know Hold on. There it is. Oh, now that I've unplugged it and plugged it back in There we go, okay, so we want in the studio, so we will probably cut some of that We will cut that part. Okay. All right, so we want to compare and contrast very simply. Mm-hmm, right? So the observer Pattern everybody knows each other Right. I know you you know me. I have your cell number Mm-hmm, so you can text me and you know that I know that you know that I know your cell number Right, right, and if I call you or text you the intention is that The intention is that you're going to respond, right? So like I know if I property changed You've made a change in a text box. It's changed a property the intention is that Somebody knows about it and acts accordingly. Yes, right? It's a more direct model, right? The intention is that you do something about it Yeah, and again that the intention isn't really part of the pattern, but yeah, that is the practical application of it, right? You send and receive one at a time Mm-hmm, so instead of I know that in texting you can have multiple recipients on a text, right? But this is more you text me you text while we go through the whole list of people. We're trying to organize dinner It's all one at a time. Yep, right, and it's like we've said direct communication, right? The pub sub model Is is different in a couple ways and I think they're significant So the sender and recipients don't know each other. I Send out once. Mm-hmm. It's a like a multicast delegate for example on net I just you send a text message or better yet you put a tweet out and I might see your tweet. I might not see your tweets Mm-hmm if I have filters set up and you're talking about Microsoft and something at work Like you guys have a baseball game or something while I'm filtering it out So I don't work for Microsoft, right? But if you're talking about getting together for dinner at C star or some other awesome restaurant here in Bellevue Then I want to receive that right. So there's an intermediary involved Right, and it's the third party. So that's when we talk about things like service boss or message broker Those types of things. Yep, and those are really the biggest differences and and again with the pub sub you publish people have subscribed but there's no Again, there's no expectation. I'm not writing the code with the intention that Once you broadcast Something or somebody has received that and then is notified. It's it's The message is out there you may do something with it you may save them up and do something later on there's really You know direct or indirect or almost immediate versus potentially delayed Is yeah, it's kind of the way I think about the two is that yeah No, I think that accurate There's also something that you can add on to the pub sub which is reliable messaging to make sure that actually gets there And you're still using an intermediary, right? But again, if we just talk about the two patterns, right? If I'm talking to somebody directly there is kind of an expectation that you're gonna do something right Can you meet me for dinner? Yes or no, right as opposed to sending out a broadcasting anybody who wants to meet for dinner We're going to this restaurant at seven o'clock, right? Yep, so and those are the biggest differences I don't know that anybody really writes their own pub sub because there's so many frameworks out there to do that Mm-hmm Or the observer pattern I think is very valuable to have in your toolkit right when you have to do that sort of one-to-one Notification yep and truth be told we do it all the time in dot-net probably without thinking about it with I notify property Changed mm-hmm subscribing to events and those types of things right and speaking of I notify property changed Now I didn't do a test for this because if you've been doing any sort of WPF or XAML then you're familiar with this Yeah, right, so here's the observer it subscribes to the property changed events and When that event gets fired Again the expectation is we're going to do something right update the UI, you know change something And that just is again driven by events So we have an event the property change event handler This is all built into the framework, and it's a perfect example right out of the box right of the observer pattern Yep, and and when you would use it and why yes Cool great all right So that's observer pattern and a little bit of pub sub and we'll see you next time on visual studio toolbox And we will continue our discussion of design patterns. Yeah, thanks for listening


There is an attack on Assam. If Assam is India, then India is Assam. There will be nothing with hatred. You have destroyed the entire Indian country. You have destroyed our strength. Greetings. Greetings to all of you. Thank you very much for joining me for the interview and special in the holy dance. So first of all, thank you. Happy holy. In Assam, there is a school of opinion that your party has done reasonably well in the fast phase. That's my first question. What's your take on that? Yeah, I would agree with that. You would be better than Hindi? Yes. I agree. You would be better in the fast phase. Our performance here is good. So how much do you expect? I don't go into expectations. I don't predict the future. I don't predict the future. I don't have the capability. But I am in a positive mood. And I have made a lot of choices. So the result will come. The entire election you have done, the entire thing is based on a word called guarantee. You have given five guarantees. What is this guarantee? What is it? We have experienced this in 36 homes and in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. We had a clear cut commitment in 36 homes and Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. If we win the elections, then we will give it to you. There will be no words to say. We won't say 50 things. We will say four or five things. But we will do that. You go to 36 homes. We made two or three commitments there. We made a commitment to forgive the farmers. We did that within six hours. And we did that in Assam. What we felt was critical. We didn't say that. We ran the manifesto process. We went to the people of Assam. We went to the tea gardens. We asked them what it is. They gave us the input. We said that they would guarantee the Congress party. You gave us one of the biggest guarantees. The car was a very sentimental and emotional and touchy subject. You said that the car will be repealed or replaced. We spoke the language. How it is possible? We will not allow it. We will not allow it. You are giving a mandate to run the state. It will be done in the assembly and we will not allow the car to come into Assam. Simple. Can you explain? We are not going to allow it. Is it a central law? We are going to pass it in the assembly. We are not going to allow it. Is it possible? Yes, it's possible. We will do it. How can a central law stop in Assam? We will pass in the assembly that the car will not be applicable in Assam. We will not implement it. At the end of the day, we are going to have to implement it. We won't implement it. This is against Assamese culture. This is against Assamese history. This is against the Assamese idea. We are not going to do it. Do you think that your anti-car posture has taken... Look, it's not only an anti-car posture. This is not just an anti-car posture. This is a pro-Assam posture. This is against Assam. This is an attack. On language, on the idea, on history, on culture. This is a way to attack Assam. We won't accept it. We won't let it happen. This is what I am saying in Tamil Nadu. If Assam is India, then India is Assam. It means a relationship of respect. A relationship of equality. There won't be a relationship of supremacy. We won't allow it. This is the difference between us and them. For us, India is a union of states. Union of ideas. Union of languages. Union of religions. Union of imagination. For us, all languages, all histories, all cultures, all history are equal. For us, one is not greater than the other. For us, whether Assam, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, they are all one place. Uttar Pradesh is a very big state. Assam is not that big. But equality should be there. This is an idea that cannot be suppressed by the other. This is the idea. And this is the idea behind the guarantee. This is the idea behind the kaha. We are doing well in this current fast pace. Assam and the country have a structural problem, a foundational problem. There are two or three deep problems. The first problem is that the youth are not getting a job. Assam is not the only problem. The second problem is that the machine that gives a job, which we call economy, is closed. This is also the idea behind our five guarantees. That we should start that machine. We should put fuel in that machine. That is why our five guarantees are putting money in people's pockets. What is the idea? Why has the economy stopped? Because there is no money in people's pockets. You have already said that we will not implement this. This is a central act. We will not do it. We will not do it. We will implement it. Is it possible? We are going to do it. Anyway, next come to the next. Your guarantee is 5 lakh jobs. Is it feasible? 5-6 lakhs are total employees in Assam. No, look. We have not said that 5 lakh jobs will come from the public sector. We have said that select jobs will come from the public sector and will come from the private sector. What is the problem? The economy is closed. The engine of our job creation is closed. The job will not come. If your economy is closed, where will the job come from? We have made the promise of jobs. The first step is to fill the vacancies. The second step is to start the economy. How will we start the economy? By investing money in people's pockets. The logic is that I have invested money in your pockets. You have bought something. When you have bought something, you will have to make someone. The factory has started. People will get a job in the factory. Today, everything is closed. Today, the entire money is going to Gujarat, to Delhi, to Syndicate. What is Syndicate? I have heard that there is a lot of Syndicate in Barak Ghali. Syndicate is an idea that the people of Assam should not run Assam. Selected people should run Assam. And we are against that idea. There is a lot of problem. Fundament or problem? You have given a very, very touchy issue about the tea garden 365. I want to get it. Without tweaking the plantation labour act, how will this be feasible? We will not destroy the tea industry. We will not destroy the tea industry. We will give 365. And we will support the tea industry. We have to tweak the plantation labour act. Look, please understand one thing. That we understand economics. The BJP does not understand economics. There are two things that you need to know. How can you say that? I can tell you. Tell me what is the GDP level? What is the growth rate today? Now tell me what is the demonetization? Tell me what is the GST? The whole Indian economy is ruined. You have finished our strength. You do not know how to run. You are getting money out of everyone's pockets. How will the economy go? Coming back to the main story. Let me answer, please. In 2004, we had this situation. What was the problem? We needed economic growth. What did we do? We did Manregha. What was Manregha? Manregha was a direct tax injection in the village. All the journalists asked us what the Congress party is doing. They are wasting money. They are ruining the poor. What happened? As soon as we invested money, the rural economy started. Someone bought a toothpaste, someone bought a shoe, someone bought a soap, the engine started there. That engine started the urban economy. The same economist who was telling me, what are you doing? Two years later, he said, this is magic. He said, he is going to study in the future. See, this can be a win-win. Tea leaves. Tea leaves can be a win-win. Because if we give 365 days a week and we don't manage the AAC, the industry will be ruined. We won't let that happen. That guarantee you have master's degree. Of course, we will be up. Because the industry is very much worried about it. Please understand. Everybody wants to pay 365 days a week. Please understand how compound interest works. Yes. Compound interest works over time. Compound interest works when money makes money. Right now, money is not making money. The whole system is jammed. It is trapped. And you are fighting in that.  It won't start. Two things are needed for the economy. First and foremost, everyone in Assam will have to understand peace. There will be nothing with hatred. Please don't interrupt me. There will be nothing with hatred. First peace will come. Congress will come. After that, dialogue will start. dialogue will start with stakeholders. What do you want? What do you want? We want to do this. Now tell me, how do we do this to balance? What should we do? It won't be unilaterally. By talking to people with love, involving stakeholders, we understand that T-Gardens are fundamental to Assam. It is a balance. It is a balance between owners and workers. We are going to maintain that balance. We made a commitment to workers. We will maintain the balance.  That's not what we want. It's the pride of Assam. And we understand. We understand that both the constraints are kept. It is not a one-sided constraint. If there is a constraint on Labour, then there is a constraint on the owners. And we will manage it. We have that capability. We talked about GST. We said we will do GST. What was the idea of BJP? Mr. Modi said that he will do it at night. With the smoke, instead of the fire, there was a function. We did it on the stage. We didn't do any negotiation. We didn't talk to anyone. We didn't talk to stakeholders. And then we saw what happened. We did not stop. We didn't ask anyone. We didn't ask the Cabinet. We didn't ask the Finance Minister. We didn't ask the idea. We didn't ask the idea. We have experience. We have understanding. We have brought Assam together. We have made Assam work. So you would like to give an assurance to the industry both the Labour as well as the industry. But how can we ever imagine that the tea industry will work without a balance? It cannot. We know that. And we are certainly not trying to destroy the tea industry. We are trying to create a positive cycle. We are trying to create a win-win. And we are good at it. We are very good at it. Please go to Chhattisgarh. We are good at doing it. Because we talk. We talk. We listen. We made manifesto. We didn't make it in the Cabinet. We made it by asking lakhs of people. These five guarantees are given by the people of Assam. We didn't close the notes of Rs. 500,000. No. We went. We asked what we had to do. We knew that we had to invest money in the economy. We knew that we had to give the model of injection cash. Now we had to understand how we had to give it. We said that we had to give it in the clear tea gardens. A word you have told me, Nafrat. In this fast phase, no one knows who will win. Neither you nor me. But we all know. Those who are at least walking in the field. Fast phase has completely rejected hatred. Whatever provocation we had on a particular person, on a religion, and that he hasn't flatly rejected. We had a very good, very good, very good provocation. I am saying it again and again. I will tell you again. Assam is the state of balancing. What you can do in UP, without balancing, you have to do it like this. You can't do it in Assam. And if you have done it, it will be a fire. So Assam, the way to run Assam is, first of all, meet everyone. Meet everyone. Think of everyone's complexity. And then, tell the stakeholders, we are taking this path out. Do you think this is right? No, it's not right. Okay, tell me. How do we treat it? Okay, treat it like this. Yes, okay. Do you think it's right? Yes, it's okay. If you haven't done this process in Assam, you can't do it in Assam. The complexity of the water, the language, the region, means a total genius state. It's a mini-India. Mini-India. One of the most sensitive and emotional things is class 6. I have seen that in your electioneering, manifesto, you didn't see the approach so proactive in class 6. As much as you said in your ears, but not in class 6. There's nothing wrong with class 6. Why? Why are you a little bit hesitant to talk about class 6? We're not hesitant to talk about it. We're not hesitant to talk about it. But we are fighting a campaign and we are fighting the central issues. For us, the central issue in Assam today, number one issue, is how to get the economy started. The central issue is how to get jobs done. The central issue is how to take everyone together. We are fighting elections. We are pushing the central issues because we believe in those central issues. And so that's our idea. We are very clear that without solving the job problem, without solving the employment problem, we're not going anywhere. And we know that the job problem, the employment problem is pinching. People are in pain. We want to resolve it. So that is why we focus on what we think is the central issue. We love to criticize the BJP for giving the caste. Today, it's Rs.3. Now, it's Rs.3,000. Your manifesto is Rs.2,000. So why is this transpiring the caste? We are... We are... So what's the difference between the BJP and you? This is up to you. This particular issue. They don't do it. They're transpiring the caste. They said it's Rs.3,000. They said it's Rs.3,500. They didn't do it. We said we'll forgive the caste in Rs.4,000. They didn't tell us. The BJP is promising Rs.3,000. You're promising Rs.2,000. It's the same thing. You're free to deal with the problem. It's not that. You're free to deal with the problem. Give me your pen. Give me a second pen. Look. This is a pen. I told you, take it. I gave it to you. This is one way. Take it. Take the pen. You don't see the difference. I mean, there's a total difference. We're making a commitment. You see, 365 is going to happen. The question doesn't arise. Good. Meaning this pen... My question was different. You're giving someone a fish every day. No. And you teach it to fish. No, no, no. Give it to me. Look. I'm always for the fishing. They'll do it themselves. We wanted it. The press said it. So, why are you giving the money for 2000? Listen. Understand the logic. What logic is this? There are two fundamental problems in the economy of Hindustan. The first one is that it's frozen. If we didn't consume the fire, the economy would never start. We are believing that. BJP is believing that they can start the economy from the supply side. We don't believe it. From the consumption side. We are saying, put the money and start the consumption. When the consumption starts, the supply side will start. They are saying, put the money in the supply side. The consumption has started. We are saying, put the money in the supply side. If people don't have money on the consumption side, then how will the economy start? So, the fundamental difference. Number one. Number two, what has happened in India? Inequality has increased a lot. The selected people have lakhs of crores of rupees. And lakhs of people don't have anything. To resolve this inequality, we have a concept which we proposed in the Lok Sabha election. Direct cash income support. That is a concept behind our mind. That we need to attack this inequality. There is going to be a big problem with this inequality. That's why we are putting cash in it. Start an economy from two different logics. And then raise the question of income inequality. The question is that post-election. Even the Congress has tried. It couldn't bring the regional bloc in Mahajot. Will you be open to the regional bloc for the post-election? Look, our goal is to defeat the ideology of BJP-RSS. Whatever the formation, non-violently, without violence, with brotherhood, with unity, with our basic ideology, we will fight with it. In this election, your rival party, BJP, has two strong faces as the Chief Minister of Canada, Sunwal and Mr. Hemant Abhishekarma. Both are wearing the different things. They are not strong faces. Is it? They've got very huge problems. Anyway, that's their internal problem. No, no, no. It's an external problem. I would not consider them as assets. I would consider them as liabilities for the BJP. For the BJP? Now, assuming that you got the party to get this much of votes, this much of seats to form a government, you have totally a vague, hazy picture about your leaders. Hidden assets inside our party. That will be made visible to you once the election is over. They have liabilities. They have two liabilities. We have hidden assets, many, many people. And our MLAs will decide which one of those hidden assets will run. Anyhow, my last question is that, what is your expectation of the phase two? I feel, I feel that the central problem in Assam is that the BJP cannot address it. The central problem is employment, the central problem is the economy. I have talked about the income difference, the income differential. And the hatred that you have talked about, I feel that Assam will reject the BJP. Assam's culture and history will reject it. Thank you very much, Mr Gandhi, for giving me time on a holiday. Thank you. So there is a... You can't even shake. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nice talking to you. Thank you, nice talking to you.