PBS NewsHour - 2008-10-23

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:09] Good evening. I'm Jim Lara. On the

[0:12] NewsHour Tonight, the news of this

[0:13] Thursday. Then today's congressional

[0:16] hearing on why the financial crisis

[0:18] happened with former Federal Reserve

[0:20] Chairman Greenspan. A left behind story

[0:23] on home foreclosures in a California

[0:26] community. Today in the presidential

[0:29] race with McCain in Florida, Obama in

[0:32] Indiana, a media unit look at press

[0:34] coverage of the campaign and the

[0:37] troubles at airports. Act four in our

[0:40] series on infrastructure.

[0:43] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[0:45] Ler is provided by

[0:49] the world is changing and how we use

[0:52] energy today cannot be how we use it

[0:55] tomorrow.

[0:56] There is no one solution. It's not

[0:59] simply more oil, more renewables, or

[1:01] being more efficient.

[1:04] It's all of it. Our way of life depends

[1:06] on developing all forms of energy and to

[1:10] use less of it. It's time to put our

[1:13] differences aside. Will you be part of

[1:15] the solution? Chevron, human energy.

[1:18] What has made Grant Thornton a truly

[1:20] global accounting organization with

[1:23] access to resources in more than 100

[1:25] countries? Is it their global

[1:27] capabilities or is it their passion for

[1:30] how they serve their clients? Grant

[1:32] Thornton,

[1:35] Pacific Life,

[1:40] Vestus,

[1:44] and the National Science Foundation

[1:46] supporting education and research across

[1:49] all fields of science and engineering.

[1:55] and with the ongoing support of these

[1:57] institutions and foundations.

[2:03] And

[2:04] >> this program was made possible by the

[2:06] Corporation for Public Broadcasting and

[2:09] by contributions to your PBS station

[2:12] from viewers like you. Thank you.

[2:18] >> Wall Street fought today to regain some

[2:20] ground. The market swung back and forth

[2:23] again amid more disappointing news about

[2:25] corporate earnings. In the end, the Dow

[2:28] Jones Industrial Average gained 172

[2:30] points to close at 8691.

[2:34] The Nasdaq fell more than 11 points to

[2:36] close below 16004. Most of the major

[2:40] indexes in Europe and Asia were down

[2:42] again as well. The former head of the

[2:45] Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, blamed

[2:48] banks and investors today for the

[2:50] financial crisis. He told a House

[2:52] hearing, "Too many investors bought

[2:54] securities tied to subprime mortgages

[2:57] and did not consider the risk." And he

[3:00] acknowledged he was partially wrong in

[3:02] believing banks would be more careful.

[3:04] Those of us who have looked to the

[3:07] self-interest of lending institutions to

[3:09] protect shareholders equity, myself

[3:12] especially, are in a state of shocked

[3:16] disbelief.

[3:17] Such counterparty surveillance is a

[3:20] central pillar of our financial market

[3:23] state of balance. If it fails, as

[3:26] occurred this year, market stability is

[3:29] undermined.

[3:31] Greenspan warned the country faces much

[3:33] higher unemployment. He said the

[3:35] situation will not turn around until

[3:38] housing prices stabilize in the US and

[3:41] he said that could be many months in the

[3:43] future. The numbers on home foreclosures

[3:46] in the third quarter painted a grim

[3:48] picture today. The private data firm

[3:50] realy track reported the foreclosure

[3:53] rate jumped 70% over last year to

[3:56] 766,000

[3:58] homes. It said one-third of all homes

[4:01] for sale in the US could involve

[4:03] foreclosed properties by the end of the

[4:06] year. Also today, the government

[4:08] reported housing prices kept falling in

[4:10] August by more than half a percent. Top

[4:13] members of the Bush administration

[4:15] talked today of helping homeowners. They

[4:17] said part of the $700 billion financial

[4:20] rescue plan could go to guarantee

[4:22] troubled home loans. The head of the

[4:25] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

[4:27] Sheila Bear, backed that idea at a

[4:29] Senate hearing.

[4:31] >> Everyone agrees that more needs to be

[4:32] done for homeowners. We need to prevent

[4:34] unnecessary foreclosures, and we need to

[4:36] modify loans at a much faster pace.

[4:39] Preventing unnecessary foreclosures will

[4:41] be essential to stabilizing home prices

[4:43] and providing stability to mortgage

[4:44] markets and the overall economy. At that

[4:48] same hearing, the Treasury official

[4:49] running the overall rescue effort said

[4:52] it's already having a positive effect.

[4:54] Neil Kashkari said there have been

[4:57] numerous signs of improvement, but he

[4:59] acknowledged the markets remain fragile.

[5:02] General Motors and Chrysler moved to cut

[5:04] more jobs today. GM said it's going to

[5:06] dismiss an unspecified number of

[5:09] salaried and contract workers and it

[5:11] will halt matching payments to 401k

[5:14] plans. And Chrysler announced it's

[5:16] cutting 1,800 jobs, partly by closing a

[5:20] Delaware plant one year early. In the

[5:23] presidential campaign today, with 12

[5:25] days to go, Republican John McCain

[5:27] issued his strongest criticism yet of

[5:30] President Bush. He told the Washington

[5:32] Times the president piled up debt and

[5:34] abused executive powers. And in Florida,

[5:37] McCain charged Democrat Barack Obama

[5:40] will say anything to get elected. Obama

[5:43] spoke to 35,000 people in Indianapolis.

[5:46] He said McCain wants to keep on putting

[5:48] corporations ahead of workers. We'll

[5:51] have more on the campaign later in the

[5:52] program. A roadside bomb in Afghanistan

[5:55] killed three coalition soldiers

[5:57] overnight. The soldiers nationalities

[5:59] were not given. In Pakistan,

[6:02] intelligence officials said a suspected

[6:04] US missile strike killed nine people.

[6:07] They said it hit a religious school

[6:09] linked to the Taliban in a key town

[6:12] along the Afghan border. No students

[6:14] were believed to be there at the time.

[6:17] And Iraq today, the US handed back

[6:19] control of the southern province of

[6:20] Babel. It was the 12th of 18 provinces

[6:24] to revert to the Iraqis and it included

[6:27] the region once known as the Triangle of

[6:29] Death. The transfer ceremony was held

[6:32] near the ruins of the ancient city of

[6:34] Babylon. The number two US commander

[6:37] said attacks have fallen about 80% since

[6:40] last year. And that's it for the news

[6:42] summary tonight. Now, Greenspan on the

[6:45] financial crisis, cleaning up after

[6:47] foreclosures, Obama and McCain on the

[6:50] stump, the press and the campaign, and

[6:53] airport troubles.

[7:02] Judy Woodruff has our financial crisis

[7:04] story tonight.

[7:06] >> The former chair of the Federal Reserve

[7:09] and one of the best known names in

[7:11] finance, returned to Capitol Hill today

[7:14] for the first time since the financial

[7:16] crisis began. Alan Greenspan, who headed

[7:19] the Fed for 18 years until early 2006,

[7:23] appeared with the chairman of the

[7:25] Securities and Exchange Commission,

[7:27] Chris Cox, and former Treasury Secretary

[7:30] Jon Snow, at a hearing examining the

[7:33] role of federal regulators in the

[7:35] current crisis.

[7:36] >> We are in the midst of a once- ina

[7:39] century credit tsunami.

[7:41] Central banks and governments are being

[7:43] required to take unprecedented measures.

[7:46] Greenspan has been criticized for

[7:48] decisions he made earlier this decade

[7:51] that some economists charge helped to

[7:53] foster the housing bubble.

[7:55] >> And my question for you was simple. Were

[7:59] you wrong?

[7:59] >> Uh partially.

[8:01] >> Democrats on the committee led by the

[8:03] chairman Henry Waxman of California

[8:06] pressed Greenspan on whether his

[8:08] fundamental economic philosophy was

[8:11] mistaken. The question I have for you is

[8:13] you had an ideology. You had a belief

[8:18] that um that free competitive and this

[8:21] is your your statement. I do have an

[8:23] ideology. My judgment is that free

[8:25] competitive markets are by far the

[8:27] unrivaled way to organize economies.

[8:30] We've tried regulation. None

[8:32] meaningfully work. That was your quote.

[8:34] You had the authority to prevent

[8:36] irresponsible lending practices that led

[8:38] to the subprime mortgage crisis. You

[8:41] were advised to do so by many others and

[8:44] now our whole economy is paying its

[8:46] price. Do you feel that your ideology

[8:50] pushed you to make decisions that you

[8:52] wish you had not made?

[8:53] >> Well, remember that what an ideology is

[8:56] is a conceptual framework with the way

[8:59] people deal with reality. Everyone has

[9:02] one. You have to to exist. You need an

[9:05] ideology. The question is whether it is

[9:08] accurate or not. And what I'm saying to

[9:10] you is yes, I found a flaw. I don't know

[9:14] how significant or permanent it is, but

[9:17] I've been very distressed by that fact.

[9:19] >> You found a flaw in

[9:22] >> flaw flaw in the model that I perceived

[9:25] is the critical functioning structure

[9:27] that defines how the world works, so to

[9:30] speak.

[9:30] >> In other words, you found that your your

[9:33] view of the world, your ideology was not

[9:36] right. It was not working. It had

[9:38] precisely no I that's precisely the

[9:40] reason I was shocked because I had been

[9:42] going for 40 years or more with very

[9:45] considerable evidence that it was

[9:47] working exceptionally well.

[9:49] >> When he was Fed Chair Greenspan made

[9:51] many appearances before congressional

[9:53] committees and was generally treated

[9:56] with deference. His opinion was widely

[9:58] sought and his words heated. But today,

[10:01] in the aftermath of the financial

[10:03] meltdown, Greenspan faced a much rougher

[10:06] reception from Democrats. Ohio's Dennis

[10:09] Cusinich.

[10:10] >> Now, Mr. Greenspan, before the collapse

[10:13] of the housing bubble, didn't you also

[10:16] say that the US has not experienced

[10:19] housing slumps to justify your policy

[10:22] that there would be no bubble? And can

[10:24] you tell this committee uh when you it

[10:27] occurred to you that there was a housing

[10:30] bubble?

[10:30] >> I knew uh uh the housing bubble became

[10:35] clear to me uh sometime in early 2006.

[10:39] In retrospect

[10:41] uh I did not forecast a significant

[10:44] decline because we had never had a

[10:46] significant decline in prices. And uh

[10:50] it's only as the process began to emerge

[10:53] that it became clear that we were about

[10:55] to have what essentially was a global

[10:59] decline in home prices.

[11:01] >> Republicans sought to shift the focus to

[11:03] the role of Fanny May and Freddy Mack,

[11:06] the governmentbacked mortgage entities

[11:08] in the crisis. Idaho Republican Bill

[11:11] Sulli asked SEC Chair Cox whether those

[11:14] responsible for the crisis will pay a

[11:17] price. Are the people that have caused

[11:19] this, is somebody going to go to jail?

[11:24] >> There's no question that

[11:26] somewhere uh in this uh terrible mess,

[11:32] many laws were broken. Uh right now the

[11:35] criminal authorities, the civil

[11:36] authorities, not only in the federal

[11:38] government and the state governments,

[11:39] but uh in other countries because this

[11:41] is now, as you know, a matter of

[11:43] intention, international focus, are

[11:45] working to make sure that lawb

[11:47] breakakers are held accountable and and

[11:49] people are brought to justice.

[11:50] >> Greenspan and Cox contended regulators

[11:53] cannot predict crisis. Chairman Waxman

[11:57] took issue with that. Well, I want smart

[11:59] regulation, but I want to point out that

[12:03] what I'm hearing from our witnesses

[12:05] today is they just didn't know. Uh they

[12:08] couldn't make projections about what the

[12:10] future was or they're not always right.

[12:13] The truth of the matter is that there

[12:15] were a lot of warning signs. The reasons

[12:17] why we set up your agencies

[12:20] and uh gave you uh budget authority to

[12:23] hire people is so that you can see

[12:26] problems developing before they become a

[12:29] financial crisis. To tell us afterwards

[12:33] when we are now faced with the the the

[12:36] disaster that we're seeing that you

[12:39] couldn't have foreseen it. It it just

[12:41] doesn't satisfy me. Greenspan who was

[12:45] once dubbed the oracle in the world of

[12:47] finance said his predictive powers were

[12:50] limited.

[12:51] >> So it strikes me that if you go back and

[12:54] ask yourself how in the early years

[12:57] anybody could realistically make a

[13:00] judgment as to what was ultimately going

[13:02] to happen to subprime. I think you're

[13:04] asking more than anybody is capable of

[13:07] judging. And we have this

[13:09] extraordinarily complex global economy

[13:13] which as everybody now realizes is very

[13:16] difficult to forecast in any

[13:18] considerable detail. And Mr. Chairman, I

[13:21] know I agree with you in the fact that

[13:22] there were a lot of people who raised

[13:25] issues about problems emerging. But

[13:28] there are always a lot of people raising

[13:30] issues and uh half the time they're

[13:33] wrong. And the question is what do you

[13:36] do? I mean you point out quite correctly

[13:39] that the Federal Reserve had as good an

[13:41] economic organization as exists and I

[13:44] would say in the world if all those

[13:48] extraordinarily capable people were

[13:50] unable to foresee the development of

[13:53] this critical problem uh which

[13:56] undoubtedly was the cause of the world

[14:00] problem with respect to mortgage backed

[14:02] securities.

[14:04] I have to think I think we have to ask

[14:06] ourselves why is that and the answer is

[14:10] that uh we're not smart enough as people

[14:14] we just cannot see events that far in

[14:18] advance and unless we can it's very

[14:21] difficult to look back and say why

[14:24] didn't we catch something

[14:26] >> to get some perspective on today's

[14:28] hearing and what was revealed we get the

[14:30] views of two people who've watched the

[14:32] Fed closely over the years, one from the

[14:35] inside and one from the outside. Alice

[14:37] Rivlin served as vice chair of the

[14:39] Federal Reserve in the late 1990s. Also

[14:42] a former director of the office of

[14:44] management and budget under President

[14:46] Clinton. She's now a senior fellow at

[14:48] the Brookings Institution. And John

[14:50] Cassidy, he's a staff writer at the New

[14:52] Yorker and contributing editor at NAS

[14:55] portfolio. He has covered Alan Greenspan

[14:58] for both magazines. Thank you both for

[15:00] being with us. Alice Rivlin to you

[15:02] first. When Alan Greenspan says we were

[15:04] just not smart enough, uh, no one was

[15:07] smart enough to be able to forecast what

[15:09] was going to happen. First of all, do

[15:10] you agree with him?

[15:12] >> Not completely. I think what we failed

[15:14] to do was look at where the incentives

[15:17] in our system were going to get us into

[15:20] trouble. Now, one was in subprime

[15:24] mortgages. We were not regulating the

[15:28] lenders that were putting out a lot of

[15:32] bad loans in retrospect.

[15:34] >> So you're saying that information wasn't

[15:35] available?

[15:36] >> Well, no, I think it was available. Uh

[15:40] these institutions were not federally

[15:42] regulated banks mostly. Uh they were

[15:46] mortgage lenders who were regulated by

[15:48] the states if at all. But as this

[15:51] housing bubble grew and took off,

[15:54] lenders were making a lot of loans that

[15:57] they shouldn't have made and borrowers

[15:59] were borrowing when they shouldn't have

[16:01] made them. And then there was another

[16:02] complication, several more, but uh these

[16:06] loans were being packaged and sold to

[16:09] somebody else to be backing for

[16:12] mortgagebacked securities. Now, in the

[16:15] old days, the lender really had to watch

[16:18] out that the he wasn't making a bad loan

[16:20] because he might not get repaid. But in

[16:22] this new world, he didn't have to worry

[16:25] about that. Uh he could sell this loan

[16:27] to somebody else and then uh take the

[16:31] money and make another loan. So, we'd

[16:33] got the incentives wrong there.

[16:36] >> So, you're saying that the information

[16:38] was there and people did have should

[16:40] have known better is basically what

[16:41] you're saying. Let me bring John

[16:43] Cassidy. And how significant is it this

[16:45] this uh statement by the Mr. Greenspan

[16:49] that people just didn't know enough to

[16:51] do anything about it?

[16:52] >> Well, it was a remarkable appearance all

[16:54] told if you think back to 10 years ago,

[16:56] even 5 years ago, how um you know, in

[17:00] what Greenspan was was held. like cover

[17:02] of a lot of hearings on the hill and uh

[17:03] he was treated with great deference as

[17:05] your report said but actually I think he

[17:07] didn't really change his tune that much

[17:09] during the speculative bubble of the '9s

[17:12] he used to say this is too complicated

[17:14] nobody can really understand if it is a

[17:16] bubble then we had a second bubble the

[17:18] housing bubble um which was obviously

[17:20] linked to the subprime problem and now

[17:22] he's saying well that was too

[17:23] complicated too nobody could really

[17:24] understand that either now if you think

[17:26] about that what he's really saying is

[17:27] you know he's the top regulator in the

[17:29] country he's the head of the central

[17:30] bank but he can't really do anything

[17:32] about the major problems in the economy.

[17:34] And I think, you know, that that's just

[17:36] um pushing it a bit.

[17:38] >> So, Alice Rivlin, uh is is this

[17:41] essentially what Alan Greenspan has said

[17:42] before? We just didn't hear it clearly

[17:45] enough.

[17:46] >> I don't think so. Um and I wouldn't be

[17:49] as harsh as Mr. uh Cassidy. We can't

[17:52] blame all of this on one person. There

[17:54] was blame to go around. We were victims

[17:56] the whole country of a collective

[17:59] delusion that housing prices would keep

[18:01] on going up. And I think we lost control

[18:04] of our common sense. Uh many uh uh

[18:08] people who bought mortgagebacked

[18:10] securities and who bought other

[18:12] securities that were related to them

[18:14] didn't ask one simple question which was

[18:17] what happens to the value of these

[18:18] securities when housing prices go down

[18:21] as they eventually would. Now uh Mr.

[18:25] Greenspan said that today basically he

[18:28] said uh the models were based the models

[18:32] of risk were based on the past and

[18:35] that's right but you didn't have to be a

[18:39] genius to know that this couldn't

[18:40] continue forever and that the question

[18:43] what happens when prices go down should

[18:46] have been asked by a lot of people uh in

[18:49] the whole system

[18:50] >> you're saying beyond the Fed

[18:52] >> be certainly beyond the Fed

[18:53] >> John Cassidy the other Go ahead Yeah,

[18:55] >> I I mean I I agree with that. I don't

[18:57] think Greenspan is wholly responsible.

[18:59] Obviously, he's not. Um you know, the

[19:01] investors were responsible, the bankers

[19:02] were responsible, the media was

[19:04] responsible for not reporting more

[19:06] aggressively on this. But, you know, the

[19:07] head of the Federal Reserve is meant to

[19:09] be the most senior regulator in the

[19:11] country. And in this instance, you know,

[19:13] he stands accused of making two major

[19:15] mistakes. One, keeping interest rates

[19:18] low for too long and allowing a housing

[19:20] bubble to occur. and B advocate

[19:23] adicating his responsibility as as a

[19:25] regulator. He didn't really address the

[19:27] first of those things today. He did

[19:29] address the second and said he made a

[19:31] partial mistake in not agreeing to the

[19:33] regulation of credit default swaps, but

[19:36] that was the first time he said anything

[19:37] like that and it was a semi mia culpa I

[19:41] guess you'd call it, but I don't think

[19:43] it went all the way.

[19:44] >> Well, and Alice Rivlin, what about that?

[19:45] But I mean he did acknowledge today he

[19:47] said he's found a flaw in his

[19:48] understanding what had been his

[19:50] understanding of how credit markets

[19:53] work.

[19:54] >> Is that I I significant?

[19:57] >> Oh I think that's very significant and

[19:59] it isn't just Allen Greenspan. A lot of

[20:01] people were very committed to an

[20:04] ideology, to use that word, that said

[20:07] markets work perfectly or almost

[20:11] perfectly to channel capital into the

[20:13] right places and to correct mistakes.

[20:16] Well, they don't. When we get into a

[20:18] situation where we have this collective

[20:20] delusion that something that can't go on

[20:23] forever is going to go on forever, we

[20:26] need something uh to pull us back from

[20:28] the brink. And I think we'll now have

[20:30] more sensible regulation. I hope we

[20:33] don't overregulate, but regulation that

[20:35] is somewhere in the middle between

[20:37] markets always work and markets don't

[20:40] work at all. We need markets, but we

[20:42] need to correct the rules and modernize

[20:45] the regulation so it keeps up with the

[20:48] fast changes. John Cassidy, is it so

[20:50] clear that if the decisions that the

[20:53] committee was grilling Alan Greenspan

[20:55] and Jon Snow and Chris Cox about today,

[20:58] if those decisions had been different

[20:59] that everything we're going through now

[21:00] could have been avoided or what?

[21:03] >> I mean, that's an impossible question to

[21:05] answer. I mean, Greenspan supporters

[21:07] would say that he couldn't have made the

[21:08] the difference. As I say, I don't think

[21:10] he the counterfactual is impossible to

[21:12] define, but I think it would have made

[21:14] some difference. I mean, these markets

[21:16] just weren't regulated. the credit

[21:18] default swaps and as as Ellis says the

[21:20] mortgage markets were only regulated at

[21:22] the local level. There were people

[21:24] inside the Fed who were raising raising

[21:26] issues about these things. Ned Grammlick

[21:28] the late Ned Garlick who was a Fed

[21:31] governor did issue some warnings to

[21:33] Greenspan and was ignored. Brooks Lee

[21:36] Bourne who the ex- head of the commodity

[21:37] futures trading commission tried to get

[21:41] her agency to regulate some of these

[21:42] derivatives and Greenspan brushed her

[21:45] off. Now, would that have made all the

[21:47] difference? I don't know. It is very,

[21:49] very difficult to deal with a

[21:51] speculative bubble once it gets going.

[21:53] But what you can try and do is try and

[21:54] stop one beginning in the first place.

[21:56] And I think, you know, most of the

[21:58] mistakes were made early on.

[22:00] >> How much difference do you think it

[22:01] would have made?

[22:02] >> I think it would have made some

[22:03] difference. I don't agree that uh

[22:06] keeping interest rates uh too low, too

[22:08] long was a major part of it. With

[22:10] hindsight, it might seem to be, but the

[22:13] Fed was in a difficult situation because

[22:15] the economy wasn't growing very well.

[22:17] There wasn't any inflation. They're

[22:19] supposed to look after the whole

[22:20] economy. And the real question is,

[22:23] should they have used interest rates to

[22:26] slow down a housing bubble and punish

[22:28] the rest of the economy? I don't think

[22:30] that would have been possible. Uh it

[22:33] would have meant raising interest rates

[22:35] so high uh that it would have killed

[22:37] economic growth. and some of the same

[22:39] people that are fussing it Mr. Green's

[22:41] band now would have been outraged by

[22:43] that.

[22:44] >> Does does today John Cassidy does what

[22:46] we heard today provide clarity in terms

[22:49] of what should be done in the future?

[22:51] >> I think today was more about you know

[22:53] what happened in the past? Everybody,

[22:55] even Greenspan, it appears now agrees

[22:57] that there needs to be some form of

[22:59] regulation of these products. When

[23:01] you're getting into the details, it's

[23:02] very complicated about what actually

[23:04] needs to be done. I think what's going

[23:06] to have to happen is the next

[23:07] president's going to have to appoint

[23:09] some sort of bipartisan panel or some

[23:11] experts panel perhaps um led by um

[23:13] Greenspan's predecessor Paul Vulkar or

[23:15] somebody of that stature to come up with

[23:17] a set of detailed um suggestions which

[23:20] Congress can then deal upon because one

[23:22] thing we've seen and as Greenspan

[23:23] stressed today quite correctly the

[23:25] financial system is now incredibly

[23:27] complicated with all sorts of markets in

[23:29] all sorts of places interconnected so

[23:31] you know you can't rush into regulating

[23:33] as Ellis says there is a danger of

[23:34] overregulating but I think something

[23:36] needs to be done.

[23:37] >> Alice Rivlin as we referred in the in

[23:40] the report there Alan Greenspan was

[23:42] called the oracle the maestro. What is

[23:45] his reputation? What how has all this

[23:48] affected him and the regard in which

[23:50] he's held?

[23:52] >> Well, I personally have a high regard

[23:54] for Alan Greenspan. I worked with him. I

[23:56] enjoyed it. He's very smart. But he is

[23:58] ideological. He did stand in the way of

[24:02] modernizing our regulatory system and I

[24:06] believe that was a mistake and maybe he

[24:08] does now too. We uh the financial

[24:11] structure was changing very very

[24:13] rapidly. New products, new institutions

[24:16] and we didn't modernize the regulatory

[24:19] system to keep up with that.

[24:21] >> Well, we are going to leave it there.

[24:23] Alice Rivlin, John Cassidy, thank you

[24:25] both. Thank

[24:26] >> you.

[24:33] Now, the impact of home foreclosures in

[24:36] the Southern California County of

[24:38] Riverside. We have a story originally

[24:40] produced by KCT Los Angeles for its

[24:43] program SoCal Connected. The

[24:46] correspondent is Lisa Ling.

[24:52] You could say that these guys are a

[24:54] home's most unwelcome group of guests

[24:56] because they're here to grab, throw,

[24:59] bag, haul, and generally destroy

[25:02] everything left behind by the owner of

[25:04] this foreclosed home.

[25:08] The mission is to fill this dumpster as

[25:10] quickly as possible so it can be taken

[25:12] to the landfill. That's right, the

[25:15] landfill. Nearly everything left in this

[25:17] house is going to the dump.

[25:21] Why would people leave a a big TV like

[25:23] that?

[25:24] >> Well, I think that uh they didn't have

[25:27] the money to get a moving van, and so

[25:30] they uh they took what they could, threw

[25:32] it in their car, and they're off. We

[25:34] don't even know where they would go, but

[25:36] uh maybe to relatives, to a hotel.

[25:39] >> John Pler owns a business that contracts

[25:41] with banks and mortgage companies to do

[25:43] this dismantling, which he calls a trash

[25:46] out. the word he says he came up with

[25:48] because it so perfectly describes how

[25:50] homes are emptied. Is this house typical

[25:53] of a lot of the ones that you trash out?

[25:56] >> Yes. Uh newer home, newer neighborhoods

[26:00] over the last five or six years. Those

[26:02] are the people that participated in the

[26:04] subprime loans and they're the ones that

[26:07] are really taking the beating. Even

[26:09] though he's done this now for several

[26:11] years, Pler says he's still surprised by

[26:13] the personal things people leave behind.

[26:16] >> People always say that the first thing

[26:17] they take if there was some kind of

[26:19] disastrous photographs, but

[26:20] >> no, we find pink slips to automobiles.

[26:24] We'd find birth certificates. Now, those

[26:26] types of things we keep and we we

[26:28] attempt to uh

[26:30] >> computers computers, printers.

[26:31] >> There's a computer. It's all t

[26:33] >> two computers.

[26:34] >> Yeah. Two computers in there. Table.

[26:36] >> Incredible. Incredible.

[26:38] >> We found dozens of things, but one of

[26:40] the things we found just recently was an

[26:42] urn that somebody's remains. They had

[26:45] been cremated and they left their earn

[26:47] at the house. And we called the bank and

[26:49] says, "What do we do with that?" And

[26:50] they said, "Do not trash that."

[26:52] >> And although people know for months in

[26:54] advance that they're headed for

[26:55] foreclosure, they often leave in a

[26:58] hurry.

[26:58] >> Yeah. You've got rotting food here. Uh

[27:00] these people didn't take much. Uh, they

[27:03] took what they needed, perhaps their

[27:06] wallets and their purses and the shirts

[27:08] on their back literally, and they're

[27:10] gone.

[27:10] >> I guess if you're going to lose

[27:11] everything, what's the point of cleaning

[27:13] up, right?

[27:14] >> I think that people that finally get to

[27:16] this point are depressed. They've lost

[27:19] their home and they're probably not

[27:21] thinking straight. They've lost

[27:22] everything and as you can see, a lot of

[27:24] good stuff is still here and so they

[27:26] must be in great despair.

[27:29] >> A few years ago, Pler had three

[27:31] employees. Today he has 73 trashing an

[27:34] average of 15 foreclosed homes a day.

[27:39] >> So it must be a little bit of a a

[27:41] bittersweet kind of experience because

[27:42] on the one hand your business is

[27:43] booming, but you're from here and you're

[27:45] seeing all these people's lives

[27:46] destroyed essentially

[27:47] >> and friends too. Uh we've got people

[27:49] actually in our company that are losing

[27:51] their homes. I've got many many friends

[27:53] that have lost their homes. This is a

[27:54] disaster on a on a grand scale. This is

[27:58] not something that we're excited about

[27:59] doing. That sense of sadness isn't lost

[28:03] on the Trash Out crew.

[28:04] >> I wonder what I would do in their

[28:06] situation. I wonder how I would feel,

[28:09] what I would leave behind. What I would

[28:12] tell my kids before I leave. I mean, I

[28:16] have to pick up these their children's

[28:17] toys. I mean, I pick up dolls. And I

[28:20] wonder I wonder if this was a little

[28:23] girl's best friend.

[28:25] I wonder what this was to somebody else.

[28:27] And now it's going into a dumpster.

[28:32] Everything that's left behind is left

[28:34] behind because they want to leave it

[28:36] here. There's no coercion. Uh they're

[28:39] not being forced out of the house

[28:40] immediately. They have plenty of time to

[28:42] take it out. So, it's their decision,

[28:44] not the banks, not ours.

[28:47] >> Pler says he's tried and tried to donate

[28:49] everything to charity because it makes

[28:51] ecological sense and would cut what he

[28:53] pays in landfill fees.

[28:56] >> 1699.

[28:58] Now it's worthless.

[29:00] >> But his crews move at a blistering pace

[29:02] and the logistics of hooking up with a

[29:04] charity truck has never worked out.

[29:06] >> Off to the dump.

[29:07] >> What happens is they don't show up when

[29:09] they say they're going to show up. Uh

[29:10] they leave things because they don't

[29:12] think it's valuable and then we have to

[29:14] come back and pick it up or we get in

[29:16] trouble because we did not finish the

[29:18] job.

[29:20] >> Pler says he's contractually prohibited

[29:22] from leaving anything on the curb. Every

[29:25] house has to be left ready to sell. So

[29:27] crew members are encouraged to keep

[29:29] anything they like so long as they can

[29:31] carry it off the job that day. It's

[29:34] >> a very nice lamp. Want to take that?

[29:37] >> I don't know where to put it.

[29:38] >> Let me take that.

[29:40] >> Anybody want the uh end table? Nobody

[29:43] wants to take it home? I don't think so.

[29:44] It would have already been cleaned.

[29:46] >> Even the guys that are seasoned in this

[29:48] business, I think it's caused them to

[29:50] think, how could this happen? And we're

[29:52] just seeing all kinds of things happen

[29:54] that I don't think we would have thought

[29:55] were possible. No matter which

[29:58] neighborhood you go to, the story is the

[30:00] same. Auctions, bank-owned properties,

[30:04] short sales, which is when an owner owes

[30:06] more than the house is worth.

[30:08] >> About every third house is foreclosed,

[30:10] uh, right past the golf course, right

[30:12] down in the golf course area down there.

[30:14] >> There's two or three this way, there's

[30:16] three this way, and there's like five

[30:18] across the street that are foreclosures.

[30:20] Yeah. So, we have an auction, a short

[30:22] sale, a short sale, bankowned, two more

[30:25] foreclosures, another foreclosure down

[30:27] here, and a another um I believe a short

[30:29] sale.

[30:29] >> Hey, we need to go to the dump

[30:32] >> like now.

[30:33] >> I don't think the United States or at

[30:34] least California could handle another

[30:35] one of these foreclosure crisis, but

[30:38] we'll go through this process again. In

[30:40] the short term, yes, everybody's burned

[30:41] their hand and they remember that burn,

[30:43] but over the long term, 10 years from

[30:46] now, we might be back here.

[30:49] That was an excerpt from a longer

[30:51] program. To see the piece in its

[30:53] entirety, just go to pbs.org,

[30:56] scroll down to Newshour Reports, and

[30:58] then look for a link to the KCT website.

[31:09] The presidential candidates, they were

[31:11] all out in battleground states today.

[31:13] And NewsHour correspondent Spencer

[31:15] Michaels has our report.

[31:19] Barack Obama made one last stop in the

[31:22] traditionally red state of Indiana today

[31:24] before flying to Hawaii to visit his

[31:27] ailing grandmother. The visit coincided

[31:30] with a new Big 10 battleground opinion

[31:33] poll that showed the Democrat with a

[31:35] 10-point advantage over John McCain in

[31:38] the Hooser State. At an afternoon rally

[31:41] in Indianapolis, Obama accused McCain of

[31:44] favoring corporate tax breaks that would

[31:47] hurt American workers.

[31:49] >> Just yesterday, John McCain strongly

[31:52] defended the Bush policy of lavishing

[31:55] tax cuts on corporations,

[31:57] including those that ship American jobs

[32:00] overseas.

[32:02] He made kind of a strange argument that

[32:04] the best way to stop companies from

[32:06] shipping jobs overseas is to give more

[32:09] tax cuts to companies that are shipping

[32:11] jobs overseas.

[32:15] More tax cuts for jobs outsourcing.

[32:18] That's what Senator McCain proposed as

[32:20] his answer to outsourcing.

[32:23] He said that's quote simple fundamental

[32:25] economics. Well, Indiana, my opponent

[32:28] may call that fundamental economics, but

[32:30] we know that's just another name for

[32:32] Wall Street first, Main Street last.

[32:34] That's the kind of economic philosophy

[32:36] we've had for the past 8 years. And

[32:39] that's fundamentally wrong.

[32:45] If Senator McCain wants to defend tax

[32:47] breaks for companies that ship jobs

[32:49] overseas, that's his choice. But I say,

[32:51] let's end tax cuts for companies that

[32:53] ship jobs overseas. Give them to

[32:55] companies that are investing right here

[32:56] in Indiana, right here in the United

[32:58] States of America.

[33:00] >> McCain campaigned today in Florida where

[33:03] another new poll, this one from

[33:05] Quinnipic University, showed the

[33:08] Republican trailing Obama by five

[33:10] points. At a morning event in Orman

[33:13] Beach, McCain criticized Obama's tax

[33:16] proposal and his move earlier in the

[33:19] week to tweak his plan by adding a

[33:22] requirement that people who get a tax

[33:23] cut have to work.

[33:26] >> Obama wants to spread the wealth around.

[33:28] Senator Obama wants to spread it around.

[33:31] That means

[33:33] fewer jobs at their businesses and fewer

[33:36] jobs here in Florida.

[33:38] You know,

[33:40] this week, this week we learned that

[33:43] Senator Obama is concerned that his plan

[33:46] for wealth regents redistribution

[33:49] is seen as welfare.

[33:52] >> So he just added a work requirement 12

[33:56] days to go. 13 days ago in this

[33:57] election, he changed his tax plan

[34:00] because the American people had learned

[34:02] the truth about it

[34:04] >> and they didn't like it.

[34:10] It's an another example that he'll say

[34:13] anything to get elected.

[34:17] >> So now, if you're unemployed, Senator

[34:19] Obama's plan won't help you at all, even

[34:22] as his tax increases make fewer jobs

[34:26] available to you so you can get back to

[34:29] work. And that's the problem with

[34:31] Senator Obama's approach on taxes. He's

[34:34] more concerned about using taxes to

[34:37] spread the wealth than creating a tax

[34:40] plan that creates jobs and grows our

[34:43] economy.

[34:46] >> Republican vice presidential nominee

[34:48] Sarah Palin, meanwhile, stumped in Ohio

[34:51] where she blasted Obama for favoring tax

[34:54] credits rather than real tax cuts.

[34:58] Democrat Joe Biden held a rally in

[35:00] Winston Salem, North Carolina, and said

[35:02] a major goal of an Obama administration

[35:05] would be to revive the middle class.

[35:08] Tomorrow, Biden campaigns in West

[35:10] Virginia, McCain in Colorado, and Palin

[35:14] in Pennsylvania and Missouri.

[35:17] Now, covering the coverage of the

[35:19] presidential campaign, Jeffrey Brown has

[35:21] our media unit report. In a campaign

[35:24] that's generated enormous interest and

[35:26] seemingly more coverage than a 24-hour

[35:29] day would allow, are there consistent

[35:31] trends or themes in the reporting? A new

[35:34] study, Winning the Media Campaign, from

[35:36] the Pew Research C Center's Project for

[35:38] Excellence in Journalism, offers some

[35:40] answers. Mark Jerkwitz is the associate

[35:43] director of the group and a former media

[35:45] reporter for the Boston Globe. Also with

[35:47] us is Cali Crossley, program manager at

[35:50] the Neman Foundation for Journalism at

[35:52] Harvard and a contributor to WGBH

[35:54] Boston's media program, Beat the Press,

[35:57] and Robin Abcarian, who's been on the

[35:59] campaign trail with the candidates as a

[36:02] staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.

[36:04] Mark, uh, the headline, I guess, on your

[36:07] study, the coverage of your study of the

[36:09] coverage,

[36:10] >> you write, "The media coverage has not

[36:12] so much cast Barack Obama in a favorite

[36:15] light as it has portrayed John McCain in

[36:18] a substantially negative one." And what

[36:20] does that mean?

[36:21] >> Well, the period we looked at, Jeffrey,

[36:23] was from September 8th through October

[36:25] 16th. So, it's a crucial period in the

[36:26] election, basically from the end of the

[36:28] Republican convention through the the

[36:31] all of the presidential debate. So, a

[36:33] crucial moment. And what we do is we we

[36:35] look at what we call the tone of the

[36:37] campaign. We actually evaluate stories,

[36:39] hundreds and hundreds of them, to see

[36:42] whether there tend to be more negative

[36:43] assertions or positive assertions about

[36:45] a candidate in a story. And we're

[36:47] actually very conservative about the way

[36:48] we do it. We have a lot of stories that

[36:50] are neutral by negative.

[36:51] >> Well, negative could be anything from a

[36:53] source to the journalist himself saying

[36:55] anything from this campaign looks like

[36:57] it's in trouble or uh this, you know,

[37:00] he's been accused of this or that. It's

[37:02] really an assertion that in some way

[37:04] casts a negative light on the candidate

[37:06] or his campaign.

[37:07] >> Can I give you an example from today's

[37:09] paper? Sure. A lot of lot of lot of

[37:11] stories today about expenditure on Sarah

[37:13] Palin's wardrobe.

[37:14] >> That would be in all probability

[37:16] depending on how the actual story looked

[37:18] a negative story about Sarah Palin

[37:19] >> even though it is a reported straight

[37:22] reporting.

[37:22] >> If it's straight reporting and there is

[37:24] no you know hint whatsoever then it

[37:26] would be a neutral story. But if people,

[37:28] for example, are criticizing, if there

[37:30] are two or three sources or stories as

[37:32] we saw today, you know, with perhaps

[37:33] people saying, "Boy, I don't want my

[37:35] money spent that way," then that would

[37:36] be a negative assertion as opposed to a

[37:38] positive assertion.

[37:39] >> But what you're you're essentially

[37:40] saying is that the the the stories

[37:43] followed the kind the polling or the the

[37:46] the tone of the campaign.

[37:48] >> Well, what we clearly see in the

[37:49] overarching coverage of the campaign and

[37:51] Barack Obama in the period we looked at,

[37:53] his coverage was a little more positive

[37:54] than negative. John McCain's was

[37:56] considerably more negative than positive

[37:58] is we see sort of the interconnectedness

[38:01] between the coverage of the campaign

[38:02] itself and the strategic dynamic of the

[38:04] campaign. And what would the simple

[38:06] message of our report is that winning

[38:09] begets winning coverage. If a candidate

[38:11] is perceived to be and is seen as be as

[38:14] doing well in polls, uh if the strategic

[38:16] dynamic of the campaign is favoring him,

[38:18] then he tends to get better coverage and

[38:21] that happened. Cali Crossley, what what

[38:23] do you make of that in terms of what uh

[38:25] what uh drives the coverage?

[38:28] >> Um I think Mark is exactly right. Um one

[38:31] thing to to to really underscore here is

[38:33] that political scientists have said for

[38:35] years that people really start to pay

[38:37] attention right after Labor Day. So this

[38:40] is a critical time period for us to look

[38:42] at media coverage because I think it has

[38:44] more of an impact on people who are just

[38:46] really beginning to pay attention to

[38:48] what the issues are and concerns. So, I

[38:50] think that when you have a story like

[38:51] the Sarah Palin one in the wardrobe, it

[38:54] becomes important because this is how

[38:56] she described herself. This is her

[38:58] story. And so, if it appears to be going

[39:00] against her, she said she was a Walmart

[39:03] mom and now there's $150,000 being spent

[39:06] on a wardrobe for her, then that's

[39:07] definitely a negative. And I think

[39:09] people are definitely paying attention.

[39:11] So, I would agree that um the

[39:13] negativity, if if at all, it seems to be

[39:16] even worse if if that's possible. It's

[39:19] grown exponentially and it also grows

[39:21] because we know there's an echo chamber

[39:23] out there with regard to how media is

[39:25] covered. Mark has mentioned that and so

[39:27] on the web and that these days how

[39:30] people get information is quite viral.

[39:32] So this stuff goes around and around 10

[39:34] times more than it might have been if

[39:35] just people were checking in with

[39:37] traditional media. So this is a very

[39:39] important survey I think. Now, Robin,

[39:41] Karen, you've been on the road,

[39:42] including with uh McCain and Palin, and

[39:45] and at times in this campaign, they and

[39:48] their audiences have been very critical

[39:50] of the media for the coverage. So, what

[39:52] do you make of this study?

[39:54] >> Well, I I take issue a little bit with

[39:57] the idea that negative or positive

[39:59] coverage can result in uh affecting the

[40:03] outcome of the campaign. I mean, we

[40:05] don't really know whether that's the

[40:06] case yet. When it comes to Sarah Palin's

[40:09] wardrobe, I think that two very

[40:10] legitimate issues were raised. One that

[40:13] Calie alluded to, which was here's

[40:15] somebody who is portraying herself as a

[40:17] hockey mom wearing the very finest

[40:20] high-end American and ital and European

[40:22] fashions, and what does that say about

[40:24] her consistency? It also raised

[40:27] questions about the FEC regulations and

[40:30] whether uh it was a legitimate outlay

[40:33] for the Republican National Committee to

[40:36] spend $150,000

[40:38] on personal items for the candidate.

[40:41] >> Robin, you know, there's always talk

[40:43] about covering the issues versus

[40:45] covering the horse race versus something

[40:47] we call, I guess, uh temperament or or

[40:51] judgment. Those are more subjective

[40:53] things. How do you think about that when

[40:55] you're covering uh covering the

[40:57] campaign?

[40:58] >> Well, what I think is that policy is

[41:00] very very important. The candidate

[41:03] stances on the issues equally important,

[41:05] but I also think that American voters

[41:07] make their decisions based on all kinds

[41:10] of intangibles. How they feel about the

[41:12] candidates, whether they think the

[41:14] candidates are trustworthy, how they

[41:16] look. So, I think there's many levels

[41:18] that American voters are judging the

[41:20] candidates on. And so stories that are

[41:23] not strictly policy I think are totally

[41:25] legitimate.

[41:26] >> Mark, what I mean maybe the biggest

[41:28] question here is what your study tells

[41:30] us about perceived or actual bias in the

[41:32] coverage.

[41:33] >> Well, everybody of course has asked that

[41:34] question. And the one thing that's

[41:35] important to say is although terms like

[41:36] negative and positive coverage seem

[41:38] loaded. We're not saying that's the same

[41:40] thing as unfair coverage. We're not we

[41:42] we're not suggesting that all coverage

[41:44] should be neutral. Uh those are two

[41:46] completely different things. We've been

[41:48] asked a lot about is there bias

[41:50] throughout this campaign. There have

[41:51] been allegations of bias. There were

[41:53] allegations, frankly, from the Clinton

[41:54] campaign in the primary season that the

[41:56] media were favoring Barack Obama. The

[41:59] truth is complex and nuanced. And what

[42:01] we really do say in the in the study is

[42:03] the data don't give us a conclusive

[42:05] answer to that. Uh what the data do

[42:07] suggest, and to use the word bias

[42:09] loosely, is that the bias here does tend

[42:12] toward the sort of winning strategic

[42:14] narrative. And what we actually saw in

[42:17] the arc of John McCain's coverage was

[42:19] when our study began right after the the

[42:22] convention, he was having he was doing

[42:24] well uh strategically the pale he had

[42:26] gotten a bounce in the polls. He was

[42:28] ahead. Sarah Palin had energized the

[42:30] base that week. He got positive more

[42:32] positive than negative coverage. Obama's

[42:34] coverage was more negative than

[42:36] positive. Once the economic crisis hit

[42:38] and and set off sort of a a link of

[42:40] reactions and act some actions by

[42:42] McCain, some actions by Obama, changes

[42:45] in the poll, that's when the tone of the

[42:48] coverage began to change for for uh John

[42:50] McCain.

[42:51] >> Kelly Crossley, you you raised this um

[42:54] the echo chamber and the just the sheer

[42:56] volume out there, the the internet

[42:58] obviously, doesn't that allow anyone to

[43:02] find almost anything in terms of

[43:05] coverage? uh more speeches are

[43:08] available, more factchecking is

[43:10] available. Uh certainly more opinion is

[43:13] available. How does that change your

[43:15] thinking about how the media, whatever

[43:17] that means nowadays, covers the

[43:19] campaign?

[43:20] >> Well, absolutely. It allows people who

[43:22] want to do that to go find information.

[43:24] There are some excellent sites to do

[43:26] that. But I think when people use the

[43:28] web as they've been using it in this

[43:29] election and it's been shown over and

[43:31] over, they tend to go to sites which

[43:33] reflect what they already believe. So at

[43:35] this point uh in the campaign coverage,

[43:37] people are looking for something that

[43:39] supports where they are. For those

[43:41] people who are, as I say, soft voters, I

[43:44] think the prepundonderance of the

[43:46] coverage and that tone may in fact

[43:48] influence them. So back to Mark's point

[43:51] about success be getting success. If

[43:53] there are more and more stories about

[43:54] Obama seems to be winning, it's all over

[43:56] blah blah blah. I think that may have

[43:59] some impact on people. We won't know

[44:00] until November the 4th, of course, but

[44:03] it's it's heavy. Um, and there's been so

[44:06] much horse race coverage out here, and I

[44:08] think it's driven by the polls, and the

[44:10] polls then are interpreted to be

[44:11] negative or positive, and it just gets

[44:14] it's you feel assaulted, I think, if

[44:16] you're a consumer of news. And Robin,

[44:18] one last issue that this raises is a is

[44:20] a concern recently, even in the last few

[44:22] days about whether some in the media

[44:26] have have essentially are starting to

[44:28] treat this race like it's over.

[44:31] >> Yeah, I mean I I do think that's a

[44:32] legitimate concern and I have I have

[44:34] worried about that myself. The problem

[44:37] is every news organization, every

[44:39] website has its own take on the

[44:41] election.

[44:42] Each individual take though can add up

[44:45] to a torrent and then a deluge of

[44:47] opinion and I think that can have uh an

[44:50] an effect on how voters will pull the

[44:52] lever once they get into the booth. But

[44:54] I do think we are doing our jobs and if

[44:57] the tone of the campaign either goes

[44:59] negative or the polls start to reflect

[45:01] that McCain is struggling, we would be

[45:03] remiss as journalists if we didn't

[45:05] reflect that in our coverage.

[45:07] >> All right. I know there's a lot more in

[45:08] your study if people want to go to it.

[45:10] Is the website you want to give that?

[45:11] ww.journalism.org.

[45:13] A good one.

[45:14] >> Okay. Mark Jerkowitz, Cali Crossley, and

[45:16] Robin Abcarian. Thank you all very much.

[45:19] >> Thank you.

[45:28] >> And finally tonight, Blueprint America,

[45:30] our series on infrastructure produced in

[45:33] collaboration with W&E New York. We've

[45:36] examined roads and bridges, ports, and

[45:39] urban sprawl. Tonight, Ray Suarez from

[45:42] Chicago examines the problems of the

[45:44] nation's airports.

[45:46] >> Tango tango.

[45:48] >> From their 260 foot high perch,

[45:51] controllers in the tower at Chicago's

[45:53] O'Hare airport preside over a complex

[45:56] ballet of planes landing, taxiing, and

[45:59] taking off.

[46:00] >> American 1898, contact ground. It's the

[46:03] second busiest airport in the world. And

[46:06] as any frequent flyer knows, delays at

[46:08] this vital hub can cause travel misery

[46:11] throughout the system. One bad storm

[46:14] anywhere near Chicago, and much of the

[46:16] nation's air travel can come to a

[46:18] standstill.

[46:19] >> Brian Zalonus is an air traffic

[46:21] controller and union official. He says

[46:23] the airport is operating at the margins

[46:26] of what it can handle

[46:28] >> right now. to to meet airline capacity.

[46:30] Just in terms of scheduling, everything

[46:32] has to be perfect. We have to have a day

[46:33] like this.

[46:35] >> The strains show up in official

[46:37] performance rankings of the nation's

[46:39] major airports. O'Hare comes out at or

[46:42] near the bottom of the chart based on

[46:44] the punctuality of arrivals and

[46:46] departures over the first 7 months of

[46:49] this year.

[46:51] But work is underway on a multi-billion

[46:53] dollar plan to reduce those delays and

[46:56] boost capacity at the airport which is

[46:58] owned and operated by the city of

[47:00] Chicago. City ownership means the mayor

[47:03] controls a crucial node in the nation's

[47:06] aviation network. So we're basically

[47:08] going back to a simple formula. East

[47:11] west runways, not crossing. So we always

[47:15] all time landing taking off landing

[47:17] taking off 24 hours 7 days a week. even

[47:20] in bad weather, unless it's it's so

[47:22] dangerous no one could land.

[47:26] >> This new runway, due to open soon after

[47:29] decades of conflict with suburban cities

[47:31] and towns, is just one part of the

[47:33] city's 20-year master plan for the

[47:36] airport, known as the O'Hare

[47:37] modernization program,

[47:39] >> has been instructed to call New Tower.

[47:41] >> It's the kind of project the agency

[47:43] charged with the safety of civil

[47:45] aviation supports. At the same time, the

[47:48] top official at the Federal Aviation

[47:50] Administration conceds his power to get

[47:53] them built is limited.

[47:56] >> With respect to building runways, it's

[47:58] just a bully pulpit for me. I can point

[48:00] out where we have the problems, where we

[48:02] have the challenges, put pressure on the

[48:05] local leadership, but it really at the

[48:07] end of the day, it takes the local

[48:09] leadership to build, you know, for the

[48:12] future.

[48:13] >> That future is expected to get

[48:15] progressively busier. The system handled

[48:18] 769 million passengers last year. The

[48:21] FAA expects that number to grow to a

[48:24] billion by 2016 and keep climbing,

[48:27] doubling by 2025.

[48:30] More crowded airports, airplanes, and

[48:32] skies. Hardly an appealing prospect for

[48:35] passengers already facing long lines,

[48:38] delays, cancellations, and lost luggage.

[48:42] Sheay Odet and her husband from Lake

[48:44] Zurich, Illinois, are trying to track

[48:46] down their daughter's missing car seat

[48:48] after arriving at O'Hare. Air travel,

[48:51] they say, is becoming harder.

[48:53] >> I think our biggest issue was charging

[48:56] for baggage now. So, um, now we're

[48:59] packing lighter, we have to carry it on,

[49:01] and it was more difficult to find

[49:02] overhead space and having children, it's

[49:05] difficult, too. The FAA's plan to cut

[49:07] delays hinges on the next generation air

[49:10] transportation system or nextG. FAA

[49:13] officials say there's no way the current

[49:15] air traffic control system could cope

[49:17] with aviation's expected growth given

[49:20] its reliance on decades old groundbased

[49:23] radar technology. Central to the new

[49:26] multi-billion dollar concept is a move

[49:28] toward global positioning using

[49:30] satellites, GPS for short. GPS gives us

[49:34] more precision, more accuracy. It's

[49:37] going to allow us to move traffic more

[49:38] efficiently and safer.

[49:43] In addition to a reduced risk of

[49:45] accidents, other advantages cited

[49:47] include cuts in noise, pollution, and

[49:49] fuel consumption. At its core, NextG

[49:52] would provide a much more accurate

[49:54] realtime picture of an aircraft's

[49:56] location, allowing planes to fly closer

[49:59] to one another and yet remain in safety.

[50:02] The Air Traffic Controllers Union

[50:04] complains that NextG does not address

[50:06] what it calls a current crisis in

[50:08] staffing levels as a wave of veteran

[50:11] personnel retires to be replaced by

[50:13] controllers with less experience. Union

[50:16] officials also argue that better

[50:18] management of planes in the air is only

[50:20] one piece of the puzzle.

[50:21] >> First and foremost, we need more

[50:23] runways. We need places to put aircraft.

[50:25] And no matter what equipment and

[50:26] technology you bring us, if there's no

[50:28] place to put the airplane, there's

[50:30] really no piece of equipment that's

[50:31] going to change that landscape.

[50:33] >> FAA Eastern.

[50:34] >> For its part, the FAA is pushing for

[50:37] better ground infrastructure while

[50:39] warning some parts of the country are

[50:40] headed for trouble.

[50:42] >> As we look, you know, five, six, seven

[50:44] years from now, Southern California and

[50:47] San Francisco's Bay Area, we don't see a

[50:49] solution coming down the road for those

[50:51] that's going to meet the projected

[50:53] capacity growth. You can't wait until

[50:55] you've got a problem to solve the

[50:57] problem. You've got to look out into the

[50:59] future and get these things online. They

[51:01] can take anywhere from, you know, 5 to

[51:03] 10 years to build a runway.

[51:05] >> It can take that long because of places

[51:07] like Bensonville, a small town right at

[51:10] the edge of O'Hare.

[51:12] This neighborhood, now largely

[51:14] abandoned, is the focus of a bitter

[51:16] six-year legal battle over the airport's

[51:19] future. It's a reminder of the price

[51:21] communities are asked to pay to benefit

[51:23] others. In a highly controversial move,

[51:26] the city of Chicago took legal action to

[51:28] condemn hundreds of homes in this

[51:30] neighboring jurisdiction to make way for

[51:33] airport expansion. Most residents sold

[51:36] their homes and moved on, but a few

[51:38] holdouts are hoping for an 11th hour

[51:40] legal reprieve to save the places

[51:42] they've invested in. It's like walking

[51:44] on eggshells, so to speak, because you

[51:46] don't want to really put too much more

[51:49] in because you don't know, you know, are

[51:51] they just going to say, "Well, get out

[51:52] or, you know, who knows?" I'm hoping

[51:55] that because I say this is America. I

[51:58] believe it's America and, you know, I

[52:00] don't think they can just come and take

[52:03] your home.

[52:05] >> It's the latest round in a decadesl long

[52:07] struggle between Bensonville and its

[52:09] giant neighbor Chicago. Critics of the

[52:12] expansion argue the city's plans will

[52:14] never find full funding and wouldn't

[52:16] have the beneficial impacts its

[52:18] proponents claim. Prominent opponent

[52:21] John Guiles sees the real solution to

[52:23] congestion as the modernization of

[52:25] O'Hare and the development of a third

[52:27] regional airport. There's no need to

[52:29] devastate a community with a

[52:31] high-handedness of the city of Chicago

[52:33] to make an airport plan uh a reality

[52:36] that's not going to meet the the need of

[52:38] reducing delays and increasing capacity

[52:40] for the region.

[52:42] Raising the temperature of the debate

[52:44] still further is the fate of St.

[52:46] Johannes, a church cemetery now

[52:49] surrounded by O'Hare. Consecrated in the

[52:52] mid 19th century, the graveyard is

[52:54] slated for forced relocation to make way

[52:57] for airport expansion. And this

[52:59] controversy too is the subject of a

[53:01] lengthy fight in the courts. As a big

[53:04] city mayor responsible for the airport's

[53:06] future, Richard Daly calls for a

[53:09] longerterm vision and a simplified

[53:11] process when it comes to upgrading the

[53:13] nation's major infrastructure

[53:15] >> by federal laws. federal laws, rules,

[53:18] regulations, court decisions, and

[53:21] private uh uh lawsuits. It's very

[53:24] complicated and I think we have to have

[53:26] a rethinking of the complications that

[53:29] we have in infrastructure in America.

[53:31] >> Complications which in the case of

[53:33] O'Hare have national implications and

[53:36] for as long as they remain unresolved,

[53:38] passengers across the country can expect

[53:40] more travel uncertainty at the nation's

[53:43] airports and in its skies.

[53:46] Tomorrow night, we conclude our series

[53:48] with a look at Boston's Big Dig and a

[53:51] discussion about big government

[53:53] infrastructure programs.

[54:02] And again, the major developments of

[54:03] this day, Wall Street fought to regain

[54:05] some ground. The Dow Jones Industrial

[54:08] Average finished up 170 points. And the

[54:11] former head of the Federal Reserve, Alan

[54:12] Greenspan, said the financial crisis has

[54:15] become much worse than anything he'd

[54:17] expected. We'll see you online and again

[54:20] here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields

[54:22] and David Brooks among others. I'm Jim

[54:24] Lara. Thank you and good night.

[54:32] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[54:35] Lara is provided by

[54:38] With soaring energy prices and global

[54:40] climate change, there are good reasons

[54:42] for believing in wind. Wind energy is

[54:45] clean and plentiful and it answers the

[54:48] call for sustainable ways to create the

[54:50] electricity we need. We know because our

[54:53] sole focus is developing technology that

[54:56] uses the energy of the wind to generate

[54:58] electricity. America has some of the

[55:01] world's most abundant wind resources and

[55:04] Vestus is here to help harness them.

[55:09] Pacific Life

[55:14] Chevron

[55:19] Grant Thornton,

[55:22] the William and Flora Hewlet Foundation,

[55:24] working to solve social and

[55:25] environmental problems at home and

[55:27] around the world.

[55:30] And with the ongoing support and is best

[55:33] prepared to be Oregon's Secretary of

[55:35] State, Brown offers bipartisan

[55:38] leadership to get our economy moving

[55:40] again. And she'll conduct rigorous

[55:42] audits to make sure tax dollars are

[55:44] spent on our priorities.

[55:46] And Kate Brown cracked down on

[55:48] initiative fraud. And we'll make sure

[55:51] those who break election laws are

[55:52] prosecuted.

[55:54] >> Under my watch, we'll always have

[55:55] elections you can trust. Kate Brown for

[55:58] Secretary of State.

[56:00] >> I'm Mike Ericson and I approve this

[56:02] message.

[56:03] >> Economic crisis, turmoil, financial

[56:05] meltdown. Kurt Trader Plan pass the

[56:08] largest tax increase in history. A

[56:11] devastating blow. No surprise. Traders

[56:14] voted for higher taxes and fees more

[56:16] than 70 times, including a massive sales

[56:18] tax. And after raising our taxes, Kurt

[56:21] Shrader didn't pay his 17 times. Now,

[56:25] Shrader's high taxes threaten to do even

[56:27] more damage. We can't afford Kurt

[56:29] Schrader.

[56:30] >> I'm Rachel Bristol, executive director

[56:32] of Oregon Food Bank. In these tough

[56:35] times, our 20 regional food banks are

[56:37] busy. Over 200,000 people a month eat

[56:40] meals from an emergency food box.

[56:42] Oregonians have always been generous,

[56:44] but Bill Seismore's Measure 64 will make

[56:47] it harder for people to help Oregon

[56:49] charities. Measure 64 is unfair and

[56:53] could mean more people will have to go

[56:54] without. Please join Oregon Charities in

[56:57] voting no on Measure 64. The grand

[57:00] opening of Oregon's largest flooring

[57:02] center.