Advertisement

Governors Granholm & Daniels on "Fox News Sunday"

Governors Granholm & Daniels on "Fox News Sunday"

By Fox News Sunday - October 11, 2009

WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace and this is "FOX News Sunday."

America's economy on the road to recovery, but with a big problem: Where are the jobs? We'll get answers from a panel of experts -- Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Republican governor Mitch Daniels from Indiana, businessman Steve Wynn, chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts, and top economist Mark Zandi, who advises both political parties.

Then, the president wins the Nobel Peace Prize as he considers how to fight the war in Afghanistan. We'll discuss it all with our Sunday group -- Kristol, Easton, Cheney and Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week works to keep us safe 24/7, all right now on "FOX News Sunday."

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. As our economy slowly recovers, the shortage of jobs continues. Just look at these numbers. Unemployment is now 9.8 percent. The number of job openings in August was the lowest since the Labor Department started tracking that figure back in 2000.

And 6.3 unemployed people now compete for each available job. That's the most ever. So what can be done? For answers, we turn to two governors whose states have been hit hard by the recession, a business leader who's one of America's richest men, and a top economist.

Governor Jennifer Granholm, let me start with you and your state of Michigan. You have 15.2 percent unemployment. That's the highest in the nation. You've received $3.7 billion so far in federal stimulus funds. Do you see any signs of recovery? And how much has the stimulus helped you?

GRANHOLM: Well, clearly, the stimulus has helped, although, of course, unemployment is at a ridiculously high level.

And in Michigan it's a unique circumstance because we are in the middle of both an auto recession, and we've been sort of a one- industry state for 100 years, so we are really focused on diversifying.

And then you layer upon that the financial recession and it's really doubly hit us. We've lost about 72 percent of our auto jobs since the beginning of the decade, so it's really been a very, very tough time. The auto suppliers are completely in contraction, in addition to the bankruptcies of our major employers. So we have a circumstance where we are really focused on diversifying, and I can tell you the stimulus has been helpful in terms of creating or retaining about 36,000 jobs. But of course, only 40 percent of the stimulus has been spent yet.

But in addition to that, Chris, I think the most important thing for us has been the stimulus' efforts to really help us invest in diversifying our economy, so one of the greatest examples is the battery that will power the electric vehicle.

Michigan got more than half of all of the battery grants, 12 projects, businesses that will come to electrify the vehicle, which for us is a great way for us to build on our strengths but move into new sectors.

WALLACE: Governor Daniels, your state of Indiana has 9.9 percent unemployment. You've received $2.3 billion in stimulus. Same question: Where is Indiana in terms of recovery? And how's the stimulus made a difference?

DANIELS: Well, it's coming very slowly, if at all, Chris. And the stimulus -- I didn't oppose the idea of it, but I don't think you can point to much effect so far.

We've used it as aggressively and more quickly than almost any state. We were the fastest state to use the highway money, fastest in clean water. And you know, here and there I suppose it's made a difference.

But you know, government spending doesn't create jobs, doesn't create wealth. We've got to maintain and, I think, improve the conditions and the environment in America in which people will invest and take risks so they can create wealth for each either.

WALLACE: Steve Wynn, unemployment in Nevada is 13.2 percent. That's the second highest in the nation. Your company, Wynn Resorts, has more than 20,000 employees. Do you see any turnaround yet?

WYNN: No, in the sense that I think that the priorities of the administration should have been more directly focused on job creation from the day of the inauguration forward. That's the thing that changes America.

People will buy cars in Governor Granholm's state. They'll buy homes they can afford. They'll shop and they'll have a positive attitude towards tomorrow when they've got a job.

Health care and all of -- and all that other stimulus should have been held back, and the priority should have been job creation. And the most powerful weapon and the tool that the government has for that is its tax policy.

They seem to be going in exactly the opposite direction. And if the government had used its power to restrain its tax collection, they would have given everybody who runs small businesses, large businesses, a chance to hire more people, and that could have been done in an entirely different way.

With eight or $900 billion, we could have created 4 or 500 -- 4 or 5 million jobs, which would have made a big difference. My...

WALLACE: All right. I'm going to pick up -- Mr. Wynn, I'm going to pick up on that, but let me bring in Mark Zandi, if I can.

You advised John McCain during the campaign but you helped the Democratic leaders in Congress with the stimulus package.

I want to put up some projections by your fellow economists and get your reaction to them. They are now saying that unemployment is going to peak at around 10.5 percent next June. It could be 9.1 percent in 2011 and still over 8 percent in 2013, which is four years from now.

Is it really going to take the U.S. economy that long to bounce back?

ZANDI: Yes, I think so. Ten point five percent is a very reasonable expectation for the peak in unemployment. But I think it would be measurably higher if not for the stimulus package.

The stimulus, in my view, is working. It's gotten overwhelmed by the magnitude of the economic crisis that we've been in, but it has been very helpful.

It helped unemployed workers, extended benefits for those workers, has kept them spending. They'd be cutting back much more significantly if they had not gotten that money.

Almost every state governor would say that they've been helped by the stimulus quite significantly. They'd be cutting even more aggressively if not for that. The tax cuts -- there's -- of the $787 billion stimulus package, $300 billion of that was tax cuts to individuals and to businesses, Cash for Clunkers, tax credits for home purchases.

I think all these things have been very helpful. Now, they've gotten overwhelmed, and the problems we face are very serious and continue to be very serious, but the stimulus has been very helpful.

WALLACE: I want to talk about getting overwhelmed.

And, Governor Granholm, I want to put up video of the scene in Detroit this last week. Thirty-five thousand people lined up for federal stimulus money to help pay for mortgage and utility bills, but that is only enough money for 3,500 people.

And as a result, there were fights and almost a stampede and people arrested. Has the Obama administration misjudged the size of the problem and the best way to solve it?

GRANHOLM: Well, clearly, you have to be able to provide people the means to be able to survive during this very tough time, especially in states that are hardest hit, and Michigan is clearly a state that's been hardest hit.

What you saw there in that video is -- are people who are very desperate to put food on the table, to stay in their homes.

And it's one of the reasons why, Chris, the stimulus -- a third of it went to protecting people, whether it was foreclosure or unemployment rate. A third of it went to tax cuts and a third of it went to job creation. It was a broad-based effort.

But clearly, in some states there needs to be additional help, and this is why I think it's so important that Congress pass another extension to the unemployment benefits for -- in fact, it's -- I hope the deal has been cut and that we see that this week, because there isn't -- there aren't jobs on the back side right now.

We know that employers are acting very cautiously. We know that there isn't a huge uptick in employment. That's certainly true here when the employers, especially our auto employers, have just shut down.

And so we need, in states like Michigan, to be able to extend unemployment benefits and those other things that will help people get through this very difficult period.

WALLACE: Well, Governor Daniels, you expressed some skepticism about the effectiveness of government spending to solve this problem. The answer here in Washington seems to be more government spending.

DANIELS: Oh, I'm not against it in selected ways. Yes, of course we want to help people who are out of work. But you know, before Washington could spell stimulus, we had a pretty robust program almost accidentally here in Indiana.

We're in the middle of the biggest road-building, infrastructure- building, project in state history. We did it without -- by the way, without a penny of taxes or borrowing. You really couldn't spend a whole lot more than we are in that respect.

We cut property taxes big time last year. The average Hoosier homeowners got $500-plus more in their pocket this year. You know, but there are just limits to what can be done other than to, as Mr. Wynn said, try to create more favorable conditions for natural growth in the -- in the private sector.

And you know, I'm very much concerned, as he expressed, that meanwhile an awful lot of energy and an awful lot of policy in Washington is headed just the wrong direction.

You know, this -- the business of this cap and trade bill would be a incredibly unfair burden, to no good environmental effect I can find, on the Midwest, on states like Governor Granholm's and mine, and I just wish that energy was...

GRANHOLM: Oh, I totally disagree with you.

DANIELS: ... going in -- now, I just wish that energy was going into creating a pro-growth policy so we could afford things like that.

WALLACE: Well, let me -- let me bring in Mr. Zandi, and then I'm going to bring in Mr. Wynn on this.

Mr. Zandi, as somebody who helped write the first stimulus, do we need, if not another stimulus, at least more stimulative things?

And how do you answer -- you talked about Cash for Clunkers. Some people are saying, "Look, what we end up doing is borrowing money we don't have to move demand from the future to the present, but we don't actually increase demand."

ZANDI: Well, to answer your first question, I do think the economy is going to need more help. I think the recovery is going to be very halting, very fragile. I think the risks are to the downside. I think we need to guard against that.

So I would advocate extending some of the things in the current stimulus into 2010. Governor Granholm mentioned more benefits to unemployed workers -- absolutely. If you've got 10 percent-plus unemployment, people are going to be out of work. They're going to need more help.

More help to state government, because if they don't get more help, their budget problems in fiscal year 2011 are going to be very severe and they're going to be cutting and raising taxes, exactly what nobody wants.

I think the housing market could also use some more help through an extension of the first-time home buyer tax credit into next year to try to keep this recent stability in housing values permanent.

So yes, I think we should extend more of these things going forward. And you know, the idea behind stimulus -- stimulus isn't magic. It isn't going to -- it isn't going to solve all our problems.

The idea behind stimulus was to bring an end to the recession, to provide a catalyst for future growth and then to let the private sector take over, and it's done exactly that. The recession is over. It's no accident that the recession has ended when the stimulus is providing its maximum economic benefit.

WALLACE: Steve Wynn?

WYNN: Chris, Chris, the economists have had their moment. Really, everybody who has absolutely no experience in insuring people, creating jobs, have had their moment.

ZANDI: Excuse me...

WYNN: The housing...

WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait, Mr. Zandi. Let Mr. Wynn speak.

Go ahead. WYNN: The housing market -- the housing market will improve when people have a job so that they can buy a home that they can afford or a car that they can afford.

The stimulus package, which is antithetical and counterintuitive to Washington, is to restrain, restrain government power. You can -- the most powerful tool is tax policy.

Had the president stood up the day after he got inaugurated and said, "We're going to pass a bill that says if you can prove to the IRS that you've increased your permanent employees, with health insurance, we will subsidize 30 or $40,000 of that in the form of a tax credit," there would have been jobs created in this economy within 60 days in every corner of the economy, not just in civil construction, no, no, no, not at all.

There would have been jobs created everywhere, because businesses -- you pointed out -- have cut back out of fear. They're suffering from a lack of consumer confidence. The day that that unemployment figure goes from 9.6 and climbing to 8.9 is the day that consumer confidence will return, and this country will be on its way out of the recession.

WALLACE: Let me bring the governors into this at this point, because one of the things that Mark Zandi mentioned, Governor Daniels, is the idea of more aid to states, and that is gaining a lot of currency here in Washington because, obviously, the states, which have to balance their budgets next year, if they don't have that money, are going to have to lay off people.

But the question is why should a state like yours, of Indiana, which has been very responsible and, in fact, has a billion-dollar surplus -- why should taxpayers in your state through their federal taxes bail out other states like, for instance, California, that have been less responsible?

DANIELS: What a great question! I completely agree with you. You know, we've been practicing economy -- we had to out here. Our state, as it happens, was broke about four or five years ago. We dug out, paid all our bills, and put some money in the bank. And for the moment, we have a AAA credit rating and we're solvent.

But you know, if this economy doesn't recover some time over the next year or so, even our savings account will eventually be depleted. And in that context, really, it would be incredibly inequitable to arrange a -- if the next bailout is to bail out California or other states who spent themselves into trouble even before the recession got here, I think almost anybody would find that unfair. We sure would.

WALLACE: Governor Granholm, how do you respond to that?

GRANHOLM: Well, I mean, we've been a donor state, Michigan has, for as long as anybody can remember. We've been giving money, our taxpayer dollars, our tax dollars at the pump, to other states, to pave roads in Alaska and elsewhere. We would like to see some of that back as well. But the bottom line is this stimulus itself can be -- there can be a second look at this, but not as broadly, perhaps, as the first time around.

I mean, in other words, it would be good to see another targeted tax policy, which I think everyone, it sounds like, on this -- in this panel would agree would be helpful. If you can target tax incentives to job creation and job growth, that might be one way to look at it.

But I do think that you cannot turn your back on the fact that you have to play defense and offense simultaneously. In other words, you have to protect people during this very difficult time while the employers get back on their feet.

And there's one other thing I would say, is that in this nation we have really abandoned manufacturing in large measure, other than recent actions to try to shore up the auto industry.

Well, if we can make sure that in this stimulus that those manufacturers who, in large measure -- I can tell you in Michigan anyway, the auto manufacturers and the suppliers have been turned away by banks, people who have worked for 30 years, have been good employers, have always made payroll and now find it very difficult to have access to capital because the industry itself has been semi- redlined.

If there could be additional access to capital for manufacturers, if that TARP money could be put into banks and encourage those manufacturers to have access to it so that they can make payroll and can diversify, I think that would be another good form of stimulus that's targeted to job creation and saving jobs.

WALLACE: Governor Daniels, I want to -- I want to step back here for a second. You had the nickname -- you earned the nickname "The Blade" during your time as budget director for Bush 43 in 2000-2001.

We just racked up a $1.4 trillion deficit this year, 9.9 percent of GDP, in our effort to bail out the economy. What about these deficits, and what risk do they run to the economy?

DANIELS: First of all, Chris, I don't think I earned that nickname. I wish we'd been more successful than we were in persuading Congress to limit spending then.

But you know, the deficits we argued about then are so minuscule compared to what we're doing now. Now, the fundamental reality, which, again is going unattended right now, is that the biggest threat to the long-term future of this nation isn't even these breathtaking deficits that we're now facing.

It's the entitlement overhang that sits out beyond that. And this I wish desperately was a bigger priority of this administration. In the meantime, to make -- to build deficits that are three and four X anything we've ever seen before is only to make a very serious long- term situation worse.

You know, how long the Chinese and others are going to loan us money so that we can spend beyond our means is not clear to me.

WALLACE: Steve Wynn, where do you draw the line between the proper role of government in all of this and the proper role of the private sector?

WYNN: Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason, that simple truth has evaded everybody.

The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor, whether it's you and I, Chris, or anybody else.

The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America. And soaring rhetoric and great speeches, with or without a Teleprompter, aren't going to change the truth. And the truth is the biggest enemy, the biggest obstacle, that working middle class America has is government spending.

WALLACE: Wait, let me -- let me...

WYNN: And until the...

WALLACE: Steve, let me -- let me bring in Governor Granholm. It looks like she wants to come out of her seat at this.

GRANHOLM: Well, I mean, it's just so...

WYNN: It's OK with me.

GRANHOLM: ... simplistic to say that, with all due respect. I mean, to say that government has never created a job or increased the standard of living -- you know, I mean, there are a lot of people who are grateful that in this country we have a minimum wage.

There are a lot of people who are grateful that they have access to Medicare and Medicaid. And I hope that we get access further to additional health care for those who are right now uninsured.

I mean, there is a balance here. To say that government is all evil -- this is a democracy. It's the greatest country in the world. We happen to have...

WYNN: But I didn't say that.

GRANHOLM: ... a lot less government than many other countries do. But I'm telling you, to say that there is no role for government is just -- I mean, it's just...

ZANDI: Chris, can I make a point?

WYNN: But I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all.

WALLACE: Let me -- Mr. Zandi, I promise I'm going to get you in.

But go ahead, Mr. Wynn.

WYNN: I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the source of government revenue, the source of well-being in this country, is employment. That allows companies to pay taxes, employees to pay taxes. That's the source here. And it's gotten out of focus. There's no...

GRANHOLM: I agree. I agree with you.

WYNN: OK. That's my point, Governor. I'm not making any other point. And believe me, ma'am, I've got 20,000 employees. I've had as many as 150,000 families that I've been self-insuring. There's nothing simplistic about my approach to this problem.

WALLACE: All right. Let me bring in...

WYNN: Nothing simplistic.

WALLACE: ... let me bring in Mark Zandi, if I can. And I want to throw something else into the hopper as I ask you about this, Mr. Zandi. The other policies President Obama is pursuing at this point -- a major health care reform which will include added taxes, a cap and trade policy, big government programs, big government spending, and some more taxes as part of that -- how does that affect the decisions that private businessmen like Steve Wynn have to make?

ZANDI: Yeah, good point. Let me -- just one other thing about government and the role of government. I agree with Mr. Wynn that in most times, normal times, that government should stay out of the way, that the private sector should be allowed to do what it does because it's historically done a very, very good job at that.

But at times of crises -- and I think this last year and a half describes a crisis, a very unprecedented time -- we need to come together collectively through our government to try to support our economy and get us out of this mess.

And so far, it's done a pretty good job. I mean, just think back to where we were nine, 12 months ago. Major financial institutions were evaporating. The stock market was plunging. Housing values were falling.

Today, the financial system's not normal, but it is stable. Stock prices are up. Housing values have improved. So we've made a lot of progress, and that's largely because government has stepped into the breach left by panicked private sector.

WALLACE: Mr. Wynn, as a businessman with 20,000 employees, I want to ask you the question I just asked Mark Zandi. As you look at cap and trade, and health care reform, and these huge deficits, how does that factor into your balance sheet and the investments you make?

And let me add into that the falling dollar. You're a big investor in building casinos and resorts in China. So how does all that factor into your business decisions?

WYNN: Well, health care, something I know about, is a complicated technical issue for which practically everybody in this administration has absolutely zero experience. It was not a priority.

Job creation was the priority from the day that this president was inaugurated. It has been eclipsed by a technical, confusing conversation in which hardly anybody has read the small print on a thing called health care.

That's a proper subject, along with infrastructure, for a healthy economy. But infrastructure and health care are things that come later. Right now our concentration should be on job creation, and I...

WALLACE: But you're not answering my question, Mr. Wynn, and that is...

WYNN: I'm sorry. WALLACE: ... as a businessman, how do you -- how do these things factor in to you making a decision as to whether to invest more or invest less, whether to go into...

WYNN: I'm going to...

WALLACE: ... China or not to go in?

WYNN: I'm grateful that I'm in China generating foreign currency. But my decision -- I hired -- I'm the only one in Nevada so far -- I hired 5,000 people this year. My return on investment is not exactly handsome. I've never laid off anybody in 40 years.

But if this president and this administration and Nancy Pelosi get their way, I and all other employees -- employers like myself will be hit, with my employees, with a barrage of taxes that will result in more layoffs, that will not be helpful, and will be counterproductive to the very goal that we should have as a nation.

WALLACE: Let's -- Governor Daniels, let's try...

GRANHOLM: If I can just...

WALLACE: I'm going to give you a chance in a minute, Governor Granholm.

GRANHOLM: Yeah.

WALLACE: Governor Daniels, let's talk a little bit of politics here, but you can also jump into this debate if you want.

If the economists are right, and Mark Zandi says they are, and if unemployment is up over 10 percent well into next year and over 9 percent into the following year, are Republicans in a very favorable political climate in November of 2010 and are Democrats in real trouble?

DANIELS: Honestly don't know, Chris, and it's just such a relatively unimportant question to me right now when we've got people hurting as they are, businesses struggling as they are.

I do think that the American system has a propensity to seek an equilibrium. We've been pronouncing last rites over first one party, then the other, for a long time. And I think you'll see balance come back just because, God bless them, the American people don't trust politicians and they want them to watch each other.

But whether it'll be a major recovery, political recovery, or not, I don't know. Let's just hope -- really, I really hope that I'm wrong and I hope the recovery's going to be a lot stronger than anything I can see in the borders of our state or when I look nationally today.

WALLACE: Governor Granholm -- and you can weigh in with Steve Wynn if you'd like to -- but the last time unemployment was over 10 percent during a congressional election was back in 1982 with Ronald Reagan. The Republicans lost 26 seats in the House.

Why shouldn't, if it continues -- and that's what the economists say is going to happen -- why shouldn't they hold the Democrats, who control the White House, the House and the Senate, responsible?

GRANHOLM: Well, I do think it's way early, and I completely agree with Governor Daniels. We're all trying to make sure that people can put food on the table, that they can stay in their homes, and that they have the means of getting through this recession. That's what everybody's focused on right now.

But there is -- I just want to jump back very quickly on the health care piece and on cap and trade, too, which is something that Governor Daniels raised. I think that especially in these times, but really on a long-term basis, for the economy to rebound we have to look at what our competitor countries are doing.

And just as an example, in Michigan, you know, we -- you spend as a consumer $1,200 to $1,600 in every vehicle, if it's a domestically made American vehicle, for health care. Now, that's not what is being spent by other -- for consumers of other products that are not -- that are from other countries, because other countries provide some assistance. There is a partnership there. The full burden of health care is not on the backs of the private sector.

So in this country, we have an opportunity to have a shared responsibility so that our businesses can be, in fact, more competitive.

More cars were built in Ontario than they were in Michigan two years ago and last year because they were -- they weren't going to Canada because of taxes or regulation, but they were going there because health care got a greater assist than it does in the United States. So that's an important public-private partnership opportunity to make us more competitive.

On cap and trade, very quickly, I think that we have the means, especially in the industrial Midwest, to go from rust belt to green belt, to make the products -- because we know how to make things -- to make the products that are associated with reducing global warming and increasing energy efficiency.

So I don't think we should be afraid of this at all. We know that the globe is going to need those solutions. The technology and the expertise, the universities and the manufacturing capacity are here in the Midwest, so let's embrace that and be the place where those products are made.

WALLACE: We've got less than a minute left.

Steve Wynn, since I think she was responding to some of your comments, you get the last word.

WYNN: Punishing attitude -- take it to the government, we know what's best. I don't think they do. I think these are complicated subjects. Job creation, the chance to build more cars, comes from people having a job. Focus on that simple truth. Simple truths hold institutions together. We've lost our focus, and that's my opinion.

WALLACE: Well, thank you all so much, Governors Granholm and Daniels, Steve Wynn and Mark Zandi. Thank you all for coming in today. And let's do this again. Please come back.

GRANHOLM: All right.

WYNN: Sure.

GRANHOLM: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next, President Obama wins an award for peace while deciding how to fight war. Our Sunday panel weighs in on both when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH: He's not only the first post-racial president, he's also the nation's first post-accomplishment president. He has risen above incompetence. He's now judged on wishful thinking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Well, that was just two of the reactions from the president and one of his toughest critics about the surprise winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

And it's time now for our Sunday panel -- Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard; Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine; Liz Cheney, former State Department official, daughter of the former vice president and first-time panelist; and Juan Williams from National Public Radio.

Well, Liz, I have been waiting all weekend to ask you, what do you think of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

CHENEY: Well, Chris, I think the president himself understands he didn't earn this prize, and I think, therefore, the notion that, as the White House has said, he would go to Oslo to accept the prize would just sort of add to the farce.

But I do think that he could send a real signal here. I think what he ought to do, frankly, is send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military and, frankly, to send the message to remind the Nobel Committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because of the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today.

So he ought to take an opportunity to send that kind of message.

WALLACE: Do you agree with the widespread analysis that the Nobel Committee was sending a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney policies? CHENEY: Well, I think what the committee believes is they'd like to live in a world in which America is not dominant. And I think if you look at the language of the citation, you can see that they talk about, you know, President Obama ruling in a way that makes sense to the majority of the people of the world.

You know, Americans don't elect a president to do that. We elect a president to defend our national interests. And so I think that, you know, they may believe that President Obama also doesn't agree with American dominance, and they may have been trying to affirm that belief with the prize.

I think, unfortunately, they may be right, and I think it's a concern.

WALLACE: Juan, let's talk about the citation. We're going to talk about Afghanistan in the next segment. But this does give an insight into how the world views Obama's foreign policy and how Obama views his own foreign policy.

And I want to put up on the screen the citation, the award citation, from the Nobel Committee. It said, "Obama has, as president, created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."

And they went on, as Liz said, to say something about once again the United States, the leader of the world, is pushing the values of the majority of the world's people.

What does that say about how the Nobel Committee views Obama's foreign policy? And what does it say about Obama's foreign policy?

WILLIAMS: Well, first and foremost, I think it's a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy, the idea that this nation should be based on my power and might, and bellicose in its response to any perceived threat, that there should be some consideration of working in a collaborative fashion with other countries around the world to try to staunch the likes of Iran or Afghanistan when there are threats to be perceived and to be handled.

So I mean, clearly, President Obama has not earned this award yet. So in some sense it's early. It's premature. And you wonder about people who actually are facing bullets and strife, people in China or people in Latin America, political opposition leaders in Africa.

So I think that what they're doing here is saying, "We feel that there is such a dearth of willingness to take diplomatic action, to work together, to speak about shared values about things like climate change, about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons," and President Obama speaks their language, and they are so appreciative of that.

WALLACE: Bill? KRISTOL: Well, it's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know, "pundits for peace." I think pundits have been underrepresented by the peace prize. I mean, I deserve it pretty much -- I mean, President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think.

(LAUGHTER)

He's given some good speeches. I've written a few columns and -- well, of course, what can I say? You know, this is a prize that this committee gave, this Nobel Peace Prize Committee. It's not clear to me it speaks for the world. It speaks for five Norwegians. They gave it to Kofi Annan in the U.N. in December of 2001, right after 9/11.

With all due respect to Kofi Annan and the U.N., what have they done in the preceding decade? Presided over genocide in Rwanda, not intervened in Bosnia -- President Clinton had to intervene without U.N. sanction -- had an oil-for-food scandal, other kinds of sexual trafficking scandals.

And they gave it to them because they wanted to send a signal, "We're not giving it to the firefighters and the people who rescued people on 9/11. We're not giving it to anyone who intervened in Afghanistan in a universally acclaimed mission to remove a horrible Taliban government that was sheltering Al Qaida."

So this is an anti-American committee. They've now given the prize to President Obama. And I think he should have refused it, respectfully. But I think the second-best thing would be to go over and give a pro-American speech on December 10th.

WALLACE: Do you think, Bill, that the committee is right -- I mean, we know what they think.

KRISTOL: Right.

WALLACE: But do we think they're right about Obama, that he shares their view that America is another country, and that it's an end to sort of the idea of American exceptionalism, that American values have a special place and a special role in the world?

KRISTOL: Well, President Obama himself said himself in answer to a question in Europe I think earlier this year, when asked about American exceptionalism, "Well, I believe in American exceptionalism just the way the British believe in British exceptionalism, the Greeks behave -- believe in Greek exceptionalism."

So I don't think he's a believer in it in the way that perhaps some previous American presidents have been.

On the other hand, I don't think President Obama is so foolish as not to realize that American -- and he's said this a couple of times -- that American military power and might is the single most important contributor to peace and to freedom in the world. And he hinted at this in his statement on Friday. He made a reference to our brave soldiers who were fighting.

So I don't think he shares entirely -- I hope he does not entirely share the point of view of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

WALLACE: Nina?

EASTON: Well, of course, Barack Obama came into office January 20th and the nominations were due by February 1st, so that was the -- he had done even less back then.

I view this as -- as parents, we were at one point told to praise our kids whether they did anything -- just for trying, just for effort. And it turned out -- the research came back, and actually, it takes away any kind of self-motivation, and it's pretty destructive.

I think politically -- I don't know what's going to happen on the international stage, but I think politically at home it hurts him, because it feeds into the storyline that he's a show horse and not a workhorse. It's a storyline that was building when he just signed a stimulus bill that was created by Congress.

It's a storyline that continues with the health care battle where he hasn't weighed in with the kind of leadership that both sides thinks he should weigh in, and I think it exposed him to ridicule.

It was hard to find anybody in this country from right or the left who's concerned about him accepting this prize with Afghanistan on his plate. It's hard to find anybody supporting this.

WALLACE: Liz, I mean, obviously, the most important factor of this would be if -- it is a nice award, and the money isn't bad. But is it going to translate into specific action in the international community?

Are we more likely to get support from our European allies and Russia, maybe China, on Iran sanctions, to get more help from NATO in fighting the war in Afghanistan? Does this get translated into specific help from the international community?

CHENEY: No, I don't think there's, you know, any evidence of that. And I think, actually, we've got now nine months of watching this president try to conduct a foreign policy that's based on incentives and appeasement.

It's based really on this notion that we're going to sort of, you know, have an outstretched hand, no matter if the mullahs in Iran are shooting their own people in the street and providing resources to kill Americans in Afghanistan, for example.

So he's got nothing to show for this big shift in U.S. foreign policy. But I think that if it continues, it will, in fact, make us weaker. And you've seen no evidence -- the Chinese continue to supply a major portion of Iranian gas needs, for example -- no evidence whatsoever that they're willing to stop that in an effort to impose sanctions.

WALLACE: Juan, we've got about 30 seconds.

WILLIAMS: Let me just say that when you see Gordon Brown, when you see Nick Sarkozy...

WALLACE: Prime minister...

WILLIAMS: Yeah. When you see international leaders standing next to President Obama and saying now is the time that we have to join together to take action against Iran, I think you're starting to see some evidence of his diplomatic efforts beginning to pay off.

When Bill says this is an insult to America, I -- I'm just shocked. I mean, I don't get it. Our president just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think that he has earned it at this juncture, but they just honored the United States and our stature as the lone superpower in the world and our ability to bring peace.

And that acknowledgment is nothing that's intended to insult America or our military.

WALLACE: All right. We have to step aside for a moment.

But when we come back, we'll continue the conversation. We'll also discuss the president's impending decision on Afghanistan. While the Obama war council debates, our group will tell us exactly what they should do, right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The United States and our partners have sent an unmistakable message. We will target Al Qaida wherever they take root.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: There are a number of options, but the option that's presented by our military commanders in the field should be given, obviously, additional weight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Obama and Senator John McCain debating the question of the moment here in Washington: What's the best way forward in Afghanistan?

And we're back now with the panel.

Bill, the White House says the president has made no decision yet, but there seem to be -- officials there seem to be outlining what's, it seems to me, the general shape of what they're looking at.

And that is that it's enough to weaken the Taliban in Afghanistan but not to eliminate it, and that won't require a major increase in U.S. troops. First, do you think that's where they're headed? And do you think that will work?

KRISTOL: I mean, it sounds as if that's where some of them want to be headed. I actually would be amazed if the president signs off on that.

I mean, as commander in chief, he's going to tell U.S. forces over there, "We're weakening your enemy a little less than we could, if we actually did what the commanding general asks, but, you know, go ahead and fight against an enemy that's stronger because I'm reluctant to send enough troops?"

And why? I mean, that's what's crazy. He's taken withdrawing troops off the table. He's not going to pull out of Afghanistan. There is a respectable left-wing argument for that -- right-wing argument for that -- but he's not doing that.

He's taking pure counterterrorism off the table. We're not going to go offshore and just use drones. So he's -- we're fighting a counterinsurgency. He called it an insurgency less than two months ago, what we're fighting. So we're fighting a counterinsurgency.

The general who's in charge of fighting the counterinsurgency says, "We can do this with the best effect, we have the best chance of winning, we're going to make the most progress, we'll have the fewest casualties to the U.S. if we adequately resource this counterinsurgency."

I don't see -- what's the rationale, then, for saying, "Well, you know, that's a good point, General McChrystal, but I'm going to fight a counterinsurgency, we're just going to do it a half-hearted way?"

So I think -- I think at the end he might surprise us and go with General McChrystal's recommendation. I just don't see what the rationale for not taking it is once you've agreed that we're fighting a counterinsurgency.

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, it's not just 40,000 or bust.

WALLACE: Well, actually -- wait, wait, wait. It now turns out this week...

WILLIAMS: Right.

WALLACE: ... that the top request that was made was 60,000.

WILLIAMS: Correct.

WALLACE: Forty thousand turns out to be the...

WILLIAMS: Our middle.

WALLACE: ... preferred middle option, not the...

WILLIAMS: Correct. So I mean, there are... WALLACE: ... not the high end.

WILLIAMS: ... several options on the board coming from General McChrystal. But the way that it's being presented here is, "Oh, you've got to give General McChrystal all he asks for."

And don't forget, President Obama gave him 21,000 already this year. So the question is where are we going. And what we've seen, if you look at the projections, is as we increase troop levels, we have more and more casualties, not that suddenly additional force means that we are additionally in command.

So what we've seen in the past week is intense fighting in Pakistan. We see as the Pakistani government tries to do more to restrain Al Qaida, which is the real problem -- we don't want the Taliban getting a secure base in Afghanistan because we don't want them to be a host for Al Qaida.

So if, in fact, the real fight is in Pakistan, why don't we just make sure that, for example, the Pakistanis are stable enough to keep the Taliban at bay and then go after Al Qaida?

WALLACE: Let me -- let me...

WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that be wise?

WALLACE: Let me -- let me pick up on that with you, Liz, because there's an anecdote in the latest Newsweek" with Joe Biden on the cover in which Joe Biden makes the point to the president the U.S. is spending $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 it spends in Pakistan, and yet Pakistan is where Al Qaida leaders are, and it's also the country with nuclear weapons.

And the argument seems to be you can beat Al Qaida, which, after all, is the real threat to the U.S., without winning in Afghanistan.

CHENEY: Well, I think that's just clearly wrong. And I think that you've got a situation now somehow where the president made a decision in March about the strategy, that he was going to go with counterinsurgency, and you've suddenly got Vice President Biden being portrayed as some sort of expert on counterterrorism.

General McChrystal is the expert on counterterrorism. He knows how that works. He did it for four years. And he knows that that alone can't work in Afghanistan.

Now, Pakistan -- we've got to be able to shore up the elements inside Pakistan who want to go after the Taliban. There are elements, particularly in the Pakistani intelligence services, who want to ally themselves with the Taliban.

If we make a decision as a nation -- and frankly, the dithering that we've seen now over the last couple of months -- we make a decision that we're going to pull out to any extent at all, we make a decision that we're somehow not going to be aggressively doing what it takes to win, that will send a very clear message to elements inside Pakistan that, you know, making a deal with the Taliban is a better bet for them.

It will weaken those people like the chief of staff of the army who actually want to go after the Taliban. So these two things are clearly linked. We cannot win in Pakistan if we do not win in a counterinsurgency fashion in Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Nina?

EASTON: Well, I think what we're seeing -- Juan talked about harsh fighting. I think we're seeing harsh fighting inside this White House. What you're seeing is, on one side, Defense Secretary Gates, Hillary Clinton -- and the president himself, who said, "We've got to destroy the Taliban" -- just in August he said, "We have to destroy the Taliban or Al Qaida will use this as a safe haven for attacks against Americans." He said that August 17th.

But you've got political advisers inside the White House who are looking at 2010. It's a midterm election in which the Democrats are concerned anyways. You've got an unpopular war. You've got troop increases -- if he goes with troop increases, it will happen mostly in the summer moving into that election.

And I think as this president -- and you have a president who wants to -- says he wants to win this war but doesn't seem to want to sell it. You've got to go out -- whatever he does, if he does increase troops, he's got to go out and make that pitch and throw his heart into it and sell it. And you just don't see that coming from him at this point.

WALLACE: I mean, I know there are political pressures, but I would like to think that this president -- and I do think that this president is trying to make the right decision.

There is no guarantee if you give McChrystal the 60,000 troops, I mean, that it's going to work, particularly given the nature of the government that is in control in Afghanistan now.

KRISTOL: But what is better about giving him -- quote, giving him -- why do we use that formulation? The president is sending as many troops as he thinks -- he should send as many troops as he thinks best to accomplish the mission, unless he wants to abandon the mission.

But he doesn't want to abandon the mission. What argument -- what grown-up, serious argument is there that sending 15,000 troops is going to be better than sending 40,000 troops, when the general, General McChrystal and General Petraeus, think 40,000 is what you need to adequately resource the counterinsurgency?

Maybe we shouldn't send too many bullets either, or send too -- shouldn't send too many vehicles. It's very expensive. I mean, this notion that we're sending -- we're going to have more casualties is ridiculous, Juan.

Short-term, of course, if you engage the enemy, you might have more casualties. Ask any soldier or Marine over there, "Would you prefer to have 110,000 of you or 70,000 of you?" We are stretched too thin, if you read the accounts of the recent battles. If we're going to fight, let's fight the war.

WILLIAMS: So you explain to them, Bill Kristol -- you explain to their parents why are they there. They should be there because they are fighting for a stable government that's going to be able to withstand the incursions coming from the Taliban and ultimately Al Qaida.

And if we don't have a clear sense of that mission, then I don't think you can say to the parents...

KRISTOL: Then we should get out.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... your child...

KRISTOL: Then we should get out.

WILLIAMS: But no, we have...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: You're telling the parents we're fighting it in a half- assed way.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: No, you can't tell, but don't you think we have -- I'm sorry, go right ahead. Go. What were you saying?

CHENEY: We're not -- we're not committed to doing what it takes to win. We've got a clear sense...

WILLIAMS: Of course we...

CHENEY: ... of the mission, but we're going to only do...

WILLIAMS: You said weaken.

CHENEY: ... 50 percent of what's necessary?

WILLIAMS: I don't see why anyone thinks that the -- why is anybody thinking that we want to weaken American forces? We are American forces. And I don't think the president has done anything but committed.

WALLACE: Well, panel, thank you. I'm glad we settled this. Now, this is a perfect plug. Don't forget to check out the latest edition of "Panel Plus," where our group here is going to continue this argument on our Web site, foxnewssunday.com, shortly after the show ends.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1968, Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission, was launched. The crew conducted an 11-day orbit of the Earth and transmitted the first live TV broadcast from space.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HERSMAN: We always see her in the worst of times after a terrible accident. But it's what she does off-camera that makes her job so important. Here's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HERSMAN: Most of us were at home when we got the call about the -- about the midair collision over the Hudson.

WALLACE: Deborah Hersman is chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and she's talking about the 24/7 nature of her job. In August, a helicopter and single-engine plane collided in New York. Within hours, she and her team were on the scene and in charge.

HERSMAN: The accident occurred in very complex airspace.

WALLACE: With a staff of just 400, the NTSB investigates every civil aviation accident and any significant rail, highway, marine and even pipeline mishap. Their job: to find out what happened and recommend changes so it doesn't happen again.

HERSMAN: We say this is what we see, and it's not sugar-coated, and we're not trying to kind of please anyone except for the public that we serve.

WALLACE: It starts in the communications center where staff often gets first word of an accident from the media.

HERSMAN: These guys put out calls and pages to all of the team members and start putting into place all of our launch activities.

WALLACE: Fifteen to 20 people deploy to a crash site. Eventually, they study every part they recover and do simulations to try to re-create the accident.

HERSMAN: I loved reading Nancy Drew novels when I was a kid, and I think that for many of us, getting to do a job where we get to solve puzzles and find out what happened -- and it is very CSI-like.

WALLACE: But amid the detective work, Hersman never loses sight of the human cost.

HERSMAN: Every accident that you go to, you remember, and there's always a little piece of that. It's hard to let go and, you know, you remember the families.

WALLACE: And that is what drives the NTSB. While it has no enforcement powers, the agency will take on big companies and even public officials, demanding change.

HERSMAN: We've issued about 13,000 recommendations, and over 80 percent of those have been adopted or closed out in a favorable way.

WALLACE: But the NTSB doesn't always get its way. It publishes a most-wanted list of proposed safety improvements. At the top now, setting stricter work hours to prevent fatigue and banning operators from using cell phones and texting.

Deborah Hersman has been interested in transportation most of her life. HERSMAN: My father was in the Air Force, and I soloed in a Piper Cub before I got my driver's license.

WALLACE: Knowing how many things can go wrong, are you a terribly nervous traveler?

HERSMAN: One thing I always do when I -- when I get on an airplane -- when you're listening to the briefing, you need to look at where those emergency exits are, and count how many rows is between you and that emergency exit, so if you get into a dark situation or it's not well lit, you know where you want to go.

WALLACE: You literally do this every time you get on a plane.

HERSMAN: I absolutely do it every time I get on a plane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Hersman says plane crash investigations on average take about a year, but after that collision over the Hudson, the NTSB made recommendations in two weeks on how to better manage the heavy air traffic around New York City.

Up next, we hear from you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Time now for some comments you posted on our blog, "Wallace Watch."

Alan and Jean Hodge wrote about our future involvement in Afghanistan. "How is it that Senate Democrats must ram through health care reform at once without debate, but have no problem agonizing over whether or not to fight the Afghan war while our own troops die for lack of support?"

And Charles Radow (ph) sent us this about a U.N. agency announcing plans to check out that Iran nuclear plant later this month, "That's just like telling a robbery suspect that you'll be inspecting his place in three weeks. Just what do you think he'll do? He'll get rid of all the evidence."

Please keep your comments coming. You can find us at foxnewssunday.com.

And that's it for today. Have a great week, and we'll see you next "FOX News Sunday."

END

WALLACE: Let me -- let me pick up on that with you, Liz, because there's an anecdote in the latest Newsweek" with Joe Biden on the cover in which Joe Biden makes the point to the president the U.S. is spending $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 it spends in Pakistan, and yet Pakistan is where Al Qaida leaders are, and it's also the country with nuclear weapons.

And the argument seems to be you can beat Al Qaida, which, after all, is the real threat to the U.S., without winning in Afghanistan.

CHENEY: Well, I think that's just clearly wrong. And I think that you've got a situation now somehow where the president made a decision in March about the strategy, that he was going to go with counterinsurgency, and you've suddenly got Vice President Biden being portrayed as some sort of expert on counterterrorism.

General McChrystal is the expert on counterterrorism. He knows how that works. He did it for four years. And he knows that that alone can't work in Afghanistan.

Now, Pakistan -- we've got to be able to shore up the elements inside Pakistan who want to go after the Taliban. There are elements, particularly in the Pakistani intelligence services, who want to ally themselves with the Taliban.

If we make a decision as a nation -- and frankly, the dithering that we've seen now over the last couple of months -- we make a decision that we're going to pull out to any extent at all, we make a decision that we're somehow not going to be aggressively doing what it takes to win, that will send a very clear message to elements inside Pakistan that, you know, making a deal with the Taliban is a better bet for them.

It will weaken those people like the chief of staff of the army who actually want to go after the Taliban. So these two things are clearly linked. We cannot win in Pakistan if we do not win in a counterinsurgency fashion in Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Nina?

EASTON: Well, I think what we're seeing -- Juan talked about harsh fighting. I think we're seeing harsh fighting inside this White House. What you're seeing is, on one side, Defense Secretary Gates, Hillary Clinton -- and the president himself, who said, "We've got to destroy the Taliban" -- just in August he said, "We have to destroy the Taliban or Al Qaida will use this as a safe haven for attacks against Americans." He said that August 17th.

But you've got political advisers inside the White House who are looking at 2010. It's a midterm election in which the Democrats are concerned anyways. You've got an unpopular war. You've got troop increases -- if he goes with troop increases, it will happen mostly in the summer moving into that election.

And I think as this president -- and you have a president who wants to -- says he wants to win this war but doesn't seem to want to sell it. You've got to go out -- whatever he does, if he does increase troops, he's got to go out and make that pitch and throw his heart into it and sell it. And you just don't see that coming from him at this point.

WALLACE: I mean, I know there are political pressures, but I would like to think that this president -- and I do think that this president is trying to make the right decision.

There is no guarantee if you give McChrystal the 60,000 troops, I mean, that it's going to work, particularly given the nature of the government that is in control in Afghanistan now.

KRISTOL: But what is better about giving him -- quote, giving him -- why do we use that formulation? The president is sending as many troops as he thinks -- he should send as many troops as he thinks best to accomplish the mission, unless he wants to abandon the mission.

But he doesn't want to abandon the mission. What argument -- what grown-up, serious argument is there that sending 15,000 troops is going to be better than sending 40,000 troops, when the general, General McChrystal and General Petraeus, think 40,000 is what you need to adequately resource the counterinsurgency?

Maybe we shouldn't send too many bullets either, or send too -- shouldn't send too many vehicles. It's very expensive. I mean, this notion that we're sending -- we're going to have more casualties is ridiculous, Juan.

Short-term, of course, if you engage the enemy, you might have more casualties. Ask any soldier or Marine over there, "Would you prefer to have 110,000 of you or 70,000 of you?" We are stretched too thin, if you read the accounts of the recent battles. If we're going to fight, let's fight the war.

WILLIAMS: So you explain to them, Bill Kristol -- you explain to their parents why are they there. They should be there because they are fighting for a stable government that's going to be able to withstand the incursions coming from the Taliban and ultimately Al Qaida.

And if we don't have a clear sense of that mission, then I don't think you can say to the parents...

KRISTOL: Then we should get out.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... your child...

KRISTOL: Then we should get out.

WILLIAMS: But no, we have...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: You're telling the parents we're fighting it in a half- assed way.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: No, you can't tell, but don't you think we have -- I'm sorry, go right ahead. Go. What were you saying?

CHENEY: We're not -- we're not committed to doing what it takes to win. We've got a clear sense...

WILLIAMS: Of course we...

CHENEY: ... of the mission, but we're going to only do...

WILLIAMS: You said weaken.

CHENEY: ... 50 percent of what's necessary?

WILLIAMS: I don't see why anyone thinks that the -- why is anybody thinking that we want to weaken American forces? We are American forces. And I don't think the president has done anything but committed.

WALLACE: Well, panel, thank you. I'm glad we settled this. Now, this is a perfect plug. Don't forget to check out the latest edition of "Panel Plus," where our group here is going to continue this argument on our Web site, foxnewssunday.com, shortly after the show ends.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1968, Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission, was launched. The crew conducted an 11-day orbit of the Earth and transmitted the first live TV broadcast from space.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HERSMAN: We always see her in the worst of times after a terrible accident. But it's what she does off-camera that makes her job so important. Here's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HERSMAN: Most of us were at home when we got the call about the -- about the midair collision over the Hudson.

WALLACE: Deborah Hersman is chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and she's talking about the 24/7 nature of her job. In August, a helicopter and single-engine plane collided in New York. Within hours, she and her team were on the scene and in charge.

HERSMAN: The accident occurred in very complex airspace.

WALLACE: With a staff of just 400, the NTSB investigates every civil aviation accident and any significant rail, highway, marine and even pipeline mishap. Their job: to find out what happened and recommend changes so it doesn't happen again.

HERSMAN: We say this is what we see, and it's not sugar-coated, and we're not trying to kind of please anyone except for the public that we serve.

WALLACE: It starts in the communications center where staff often gets first word of an accident from the media.

HERSMAN: These guys put out calls and pages to all of the team members and start putting into place all of our launch activities.

WALLACE: Fifteen to 20 people deploy to a crash site. Eventually, they study every part they recover and do simulations to try to re-create the accident.

HERSMAN: I loved reading Nancy Drew novels when I was a kid, and I think that for many of us, getting to do a job where we get to solve puzzles and find out what happened -- and it is very CSI-like.

WALLACE: But amid the detective work, Hersman never loses sight of the human cost.

HERSMAN: Every accident that you go to, you remember, and there's always a little piece of that. It's hard to let go and, you know, you remember the families.

WALLACE: And that is what drives the NTSB. While it has no enforcement powers, the agency will take on big companies and even public officials, demanding change.

HERSMAN: We've issued about 13,000 recommendations, and over 80 percent of those have been adopted or closed out in a favorable way.

WALLACE: But the NTSB doesn't always get its way. It publishes a most-wanted list of proposed safety improvements. At the top now, setting stricter work hours to prevent fatigue and banning operators

For more visit the FOX News Sunday web page.

Fox News Sunday

Author Archive

Follow Real Clear Politics

Latest On Twitter