revolutionary biometric id for every one of india's citizens. >> also, the housing bubble caused the crash. will a coming housing boon finally power this anemic recovery? >> first, here's my take. what to do about syria? western military intervention looked fraught with difficulties. but the situation on the ground is a humanitarian nightmare and is creating greater instability by the week. i have been persuaded they might be a path forward. the pressures on bashar al assad's regime are mountding. it's running out of crash and faces a real military threat from turkey. these pressures could be combined with smart diplomacy to push assad out of power, but it would mean trying to work with the russian government rather than attacking it. the u.s. has been bashing russia for shielding assad, coddling an ally at the cost of lives, some is true, some false, but all is unhelpful if the goal is to oust assad. unless the united states intends to ask iran for help, russia is the only country with any influence with the syrian regime. now, the first thing to realize is the extent of russia's links with syria are limited. the economic ties are weak. russia is syria's ninth largest trading partner. it's well behind the eu, iraq, china. political ponds are not strong, either. assad's first trip to moscow came place five years after he became president, well after he went to france, turkey, britain. russia's naval base is often described as highly strategic, yet it's rarely used. it's been allowed to scrcrumble. no russian shape is based there. it's deliveries to syria are marginal. less than a tenth of what it sends to russia every year. moscow could rush out and make their generals understand they could preserve the military if they assisted in dislogic the regime and moving to a democratic framework. that's what the egyptian military has done and why the revolution is not perfect, it's preferable to a long and bloody civil war. russia might be unmovable. its officials are paranoid about western officials who topple the regime. but they are also concerned about what would come after assad. in a country where 40% are minorities, especially if some long sectearian war would nr energize jihadi group. if they could be persuadined th assad is going to fall and the best way to prevent radicalization is to push transition now, they might be willing to help. it's a long shot, but it's not impossible that moscow would shift from being part of the problem to part of the solution. it's certainly worth the effort before we move toward a wider and deeper war. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time" magazine on at time.com. let's get started. >> joining me now to discuss this wild week in america and maybe we'll get to europe as well, jeffrey saks who served as kle columbia's earth institute, and peter ran for senate in connecticut. peter was president obama's first budget director. he's now a citibank executive. and katrina is an editor and publisher of the nation magazine. welcome to you all. the first thing we have to talk about is the supreme court ruling and none of us are constitutional scholars so politically, katrina, does it help obama because you can see both arguments, does it help obama or does it energize the tea party? >> on balance, it helps obama. it's a victory for obama, a victory for the american people, for forces who have been fighting for a sane health care policy for the country, human, moral. it also helps with legitimacy of leadership of the presidency. that was in question, and it helps in the sense of this renewed priorities because this president, if he gets out there and makes the case, explains provisions that show even republicans when it's broken down like this plan, he needs to get out there and make the case. sure, it will energize the tea party, but they're energized anyway. will it help with the independents, i think so if he gets out there as the democratic party needs to, and explains, provisions, pre-existing conditions, your kids can stay on your health cay particular. this is the kind of american many want to live in. >> peter, i take it you didn't like the ruling, but on the politics of it, do you think it will energize the tea party? >> probably, it gives you more of a reason to support romney. now we have to do it legislatively. this is not the kind of america i want to live in and i would disagree. you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to recognize this is a terrible decision. it diminishes individual rights, and the supreme court said that congress doesn't have the power to force us to buy something, but they can tax us if we don't. that's a distinction without a difference. i think more importantly, if you want to label this a tax, it's unconstitutional on its face because this is a direct tax on american citizens who don't buy health insurance. the constitution says it must be apportioned. this is unconstitutional. if they're saying the constitution doesn't apply and the federal government has unlimited taxing powers, it's a real sad day in american history. what it means to be an american has been irreparably changed, and it's a disaster for health care, for the economy, health care is going oo be more epensive, not less. it's not good economics, not good policy, and it's clearly unconstitutional. >> peter is one of the authors of the health care plan. what doyou think the net effect will be? >> health care costs in the last three or four years have decelerated and i don't think it's because the economy has been weak. we're moving atowards a digitized health care system. the dividing lines between providers and payers are eroding, and that's all good. so -- >> and there are provisions in the health care bill that will accelerate this? >> it will encourage it. we need to continue the progress. if we don't move away from the fee for service system, we will not succeed in slowing health care costs and we'll all be better off if we succeed. >> what do you think, jeff? >> i agree with what peter said and katrina. this is a good decision for the american people. it brings us to a fairer and more normal state and it's also creating a basis for getting our health care costs back under control. we're moving more towards the kinds of systems that other countries have which cover everybody and keep the cost s down. we have a system which is to quote most market ororiented, a what do we get? higher prices. and the things peter helped put into legislation make a difference. >> it's expensive because of government. we have to get government out of health care. we have to get individuals buying their health insurance the way they buy auto insurance, life insurance, fire insurance. we don't have problems there. >> all of the other countries have more coverage at lower cost and better outcomes and more government. >> just because other countruni make mistake doesn't mean we should emulate them. >> my take is that their systems are better. >> we did try it and we had a better health care system that was -- >> when? >> before the government stuck its nose in. >> before we had medicare and medicaid. before we had the tax code that -- >> old up, you would rather live with the health care system in the 1950s than the one you have access today? >> i don't want the technology of the 1950s but the free market of the 1950s. the would be a vast improvement. >> we have to move on. i want to ask about the economy in general. you have been bloomy about this recovery from the start, and you are unusually for somebody who generally is part of the left of center, you were critical of the stimulus because you thought it was too much fuel and consumption, not enough fuel in investment. >> i thought it was fueling the deficit but not providing much of a lift, and also not a lift when it was going to count, which is the medium term. unfortunately, the administration used the ammunition in the first couple years and here we are in the fourth year, a weak economy, not going anyplace. i would have rather seen a strategy that built out our infrastructure and that improved training and education skills and many other things over a decade perspective rather than putting everything up front, and i think we're in this situation right now where we don't have ammunition right now in the economy remains weak and the hend winds are not only internal, the kind that comes from this deleveraging process, they're not only unfortunately coming from europe which is the biggest mess in the world, but now they're coming from slow-downs in the emerging economies as well. we're seeing a kind of synchronization of slowdowns almost everywhere in the world. it's rather danger. >> a lot of the recovery has been fueled by exports and so those exports slow down, you have a problem. >> what strikes me about the election is it's an extraordinarily important election. at the same time, some of the enormous issues of the time aren't fully engaged in it. a global economic crisis in the planet. what's going on in europe, the campaign isn't fully engaged in, but i think at the heart of it, fareed, is that there is a kind of establishment consensus around some form of austerity, not growth. and unless this country, whether it's movements or electives, treat joblessness as the biggest threat to the country, not deficits in the shortterm, joblessness will become the new norm. and how do we address that? >> i have to let peter get his view in. >> i disagree that we have a recovery. all we did was borrow more money and spent it. as a result, we're in a deeper hole. but i think our problems are self made. the mess in america is bigger than the mess in europe. we're less capable of paying our debt than europe. we have a bigger debt, and more importantly, when interest rates going up in america, they're about 7% right now in spain and the world is wondering if spain is afford it. america can't afford 7% interest rates. we're less able to pay that than is europe or spain, and that's going to happen. and you're talking about creating jobs. we're not going to create jobs by creating government by expanding consumption or deficit spending. in order to create jobs, we need to get the government out of the way of the economy. we need more savings, more production, which means we need less government, less government spending. if we're going to expand government, we're going to destroy the economy. >> one of the main things quickly is public private investment in instrustructure. who could be oppose to that? >> i am. >> we have to take tabreak and come back and see if there's any agreement in europe. we'll try to city if we can agree on europe when we come back. >> if you look at countries that have their own central banks which means they have the ability to print money, none of these countries are having any trouble borrowing, britain, sweden, japan, the united states. [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ trouble with a car insurance claim. [ voice of dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good, now it's guaranteed. [ normal voice ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. are you in good hands? i tell mike what i can spend. i do my best to make that work. we're driving safely. and sue saved money on brakes. now that's personal pricing. and we're back with jeffrey sachs, peter shif, peter orzach, and katrina. if you look at countries that have their own central banks which means they have the ability to print money, none of these countries having any trouble borrowing, britain, sweden, japan, the united states, switzerland. the only countries having trouble are countries whose debts are denominated where they don't control. >> you live by the printing press, you die by the printing press. that's going to make it worse. eventually, our creditors are going to realize it's like get not getting paid at all. we're going to pay a heavy price for our bailouts. what europe needs to do is solve the problems. not kick the can down the road. europe has the resources to make that mistake. i don't think we do. a lot of people think we're suffering right now in america because of the problems in europe. that's the best thing we have going because people are so worried about europe. they're buying dollars, they're buying treasuries. but when europe finally confronts its problems, right or wrong, whether it pushes them down the road and makes them worse or deals with them now, the spotlight is going to move to america. >> we have a federal reserve. we have a central bank. to me, one of the great political dangers looking out at europe and what austerity has done, even to countries which control their own federal bank like the uk, is what a mitt romney and a republican party determined to slash spending in the face of a weak recovery, what that could mean for this country. it's clear putting aside our differences, that one of the grave needs is to put money in the pockets of people, consumers, how do you do that? joblessness may be the best way to -- job programs, to give people jobs, may be the best way to avertthe crisis. look at spain. >> how do you give people money without taking money? >> the right approach in my opinion is a bar bell one in which we're doing deficit reduction that is not taking place immediately -- >> that's what we need it right now. >> and investment up front to spur the economy. we can could do both. >> i think we mostly agree on that at least looking over a period of several years, you have to get your books in order, and it raises the most fundamental point and a point of pretty big disagreement between us about at what level should we balance the books. should it all be spending cuts. should it be tax increases so we can continue to do some kinds of spending? i think our biggest problem right now in this country is that the powerful political interests in both parties actually, though especially in the republican party, are so controlling the tax cut side that we have gutted the corporate income tax, gutting the personal income tax. everything is moving offshore more and more, so the amount we're collecting at the federal level is near historic low, basically historic lows over the last 60 years. about 16% of gross domestic product. we can't rub a normal civilized country at this rate. if key do that, we end up with the poor, without health care, on the streets. the democrats, though, while the rhetoric is different, they also have powerful interests that are saying don't go very far on that. both parties are basically tax cutting parties and we're bleeding in that way. we agree that the budget should come into balance, but i want rich people to pay something. >> first of all, government spending right now is as high as it's been, and it's not just the spending. i own a business and it kau costs me hoar to compline with taxes. it is a burden on society to comply with the taxes and the government sucks the capital out of the economy by running these enormous deficits. if the government takes money from the private sector and spends it, it destroys economic agati activities. we don't want jobs, we want stuff. we need more production, more supply, not demand. the government can put us all to work, but we'll have nothing to show for it. >> how about skills, infrastructure? >> that doesn't come from the government. >> excuse me, we have public schools, we have children that need education -- >> you're talking about the federal reserve. >> now you want to go back. you want no health care for the elderly, no public schools? >> but the federal government is broke. >> can we go to the supreme court? >> we're living at a time of concentration of wealth, income, and political power we haven't seen since the guilded age. they're at an all-time age. i think we need to take a measure of that. how do we limit that, end that, and rebuild the politics for the 99%? >> we're going to have to leave it at that. peter, katrina, peter, jeff, thank you so much. up next, what in the world? despite all its economic troubles, america does have one core strength that sets it apart from other countries. what it is? we'll tell you when we come back. ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪ a farewell long awaited. goodnight, stuffy. goodnight, outdated. goodnight old luxury and all of your wares. goodnight bygones everywhere. [ engine turns over ] good morning, illumination. good morning, innovation. good morning unequaled inspiration. [ male announcer ] the audi a8, chosen by car & driver as the best luxury sedan in a recent comparison test. chosen by car & driver as the best luxury sedan agents, say hello to the biggest hailstone in u.s. history. oh, that will leave a dent. which is exactly why we educate people... about comprehensive coverage. yep. the right choice now can pay off later. looks like a bowling ball. yeah. oh! agents, say hello to the second-biggest hailstone in u.s. history. [ announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ now for our what in the world segment, they say that all politics is local. maybe all economics is local as well. a sample of americans were asked how they rated economic conditions. 49% said thing were good or excellent in the city that they lived in. that percentage dropped to 37% for how americans feel about their state. it drops to 25% for all of the united states. to 18% for europe, and only 13% for economic conditions in the world at large. the more macro things get, the more despondent people feel. at the local level at home, things don't seem too bad. it got me thinking about housing, the most local of all financial indicators. it's making a comeback. this week, we learned that u.s. house prices have now risen for the third straight month. the case shuler index shows r residential prices in three key cities rose by 7% in april. sale of new homes rose by 7.6%. it highlights a trend and provides some small reason to be optimistic for the broader economy. why? history shows in the immediate years following a recession, housing leads the comeback. look at this chart. it shows data for the first year of the last four american recoveries. the bar in blue shows what percentage of gdp growth is attributed to investments in housing. as you can see from the last three recoveries, housing provides on average one fifth of the nation's gdp growth following a recession. 2009 was different, the housing burst kept home sales depressed. now, look at the second year of these recoveries in red. again, positive in the previous recoveries but negative in this one. that looks set to change. the latest data suggests finally, slowly, the u.s. housing market having hit rock bottom is heading upwards. vac a vaccancy rates are down, housing rates are up. production will increase, so will jobs, so will the economy. for all of the dooms day prophecies about the economy, one reason to remain optimistic is demographics. accounting for births, deaths, and new entrants, we have one new person every 13 seconds in this country, that wirks out to 2.5 million people a year. these people will all need places to live. we can count on a future growth in housing, construction, and therefore those jobs. compare our demographics with those of other rich countries. germany's population is set to decline by 170,000 people this year. japan's slowdown is already in large part due to the demograph