said went all the way back to the founders. and to me, that strongly suggests that there is a basis to confine the heller right to the home. thank you. >> thank you, dennis. nelson? >> okay. i just want to make a couple of short points. one, in response to dennis' remark a moment ago about scalia having said that bans on concealed carry go all the way back to the founders. it's true he tried to suggest that. he didn't quite say it. he included a long string site in his opinion to add to that impression that he was saying that, if you go actually read the case, it doesn't establish any such thing. the other short point i want to make is in response to alan morrison's comments about the standard of review. for those of you who aren't lawyers and aren't familiar with

this, the standard of review is basically a formula that courts use to express how much deference is given to legislatures when reviewing the constitutionality of various challenged laws. and they've developed a whole kind of hierarchy of standards of review. the lowest one -- the highest one is strict scrutiny. the lowest one, the one that gives the most deference to legislation is rational basis. then they have rational basis with bite, and one with two and a half bites. that's a joke. and intermediate scrutiny and all of this stuff. members of the supreme court on both sides of the ideological divide have said for a long time that these formulas don't really tell you how cases are decided. they're used to justify decisions made on other grounds. there's a lot of evidence to support that. my favorite is the groeder

decision involving affirmative action at the university of michigan law school, where they purported to apply strict scrutiny, the one that gives least deference to the legislature. when you read the analysis, it is indistinguishable from the least deference to legislature. the fact that the supreme court didn't articulate a standard of review or choose among the plethora of possibilities in their jurisprudence doesn't seem to me particularly significant. because if they had, it probably wouldn't have told us all that much anyway. >> thank you. alan? >> two quick points. one, alan may be sure that shotguns will be upheld, but he's got to explain to me why sawed-off shotguns are not upheld in terms of originalism. because that's what the court in 1937. the second, the question on standard review sounds lawyerly. and it is.

but what's underlying at stake here is the question of how much deference should be given to legislatures when they are trying to make predictive judgments whether society as a whole would be better off with one law or another, or one variation rather than another. and in general, we allow legislatures to make those kind of choices, when we think that the legislative process is likely to work reasonably well, that the affected interests are likely to be heard, and that for better or worse, the decision is one that's within the realm of reasonableness for most people. and it doesn't mean that the legislative choice has to be the same in arizona, or texas, as it is in the district of columbia or new york city. it seems to me that guns, and the regulation of them, are quintessentially legislative matters. as roger said at the beginning,

the gun debate has been part of our political debate for years. and in my view, it should have been kept there. and it should remain there within some very wide range of reasonableness for legislatures to do what they think is best. and that the court should grant deference, because there's no reason to think that gun enthusiasts and others who are supporting broad gun rights are not adequately represented and do not have adequate access to the legislators who are making the decisions in this case. there is no chance of a breakdown in democracy, in other words, and for that reason, no need for the court to aggressively step in, and protect those who lose in the legislative arena. >> now we're going to open up the discussion to those of you in the audience. please raise your hand. identify yourself and any affiliation that you may have. and also, identify the speaker to whom your question is directed. let's start with this gentleman right here in front, who has his hand up.

>> i'm a police lieutenant from new jersey. i have a very keen -- >> your name? >> steven rogers. i'm curious about something. the -- both sides of the argument, very good. however, mr. gura, you talked about the fringes seem to be getting all the publicity, and there's a problem with that. but mr. henigan, you said something that i think resonates with the american people. and it's something important that i think has to be expounded upon. by the way, i am a second amendment believer. okay? i believe in the right to bear arms. but mr. henigan, you used a word that i think needs to be used quite often, and that is responsible gun ownership. so i have a question for you, and then a question for you, mr. gura. am i to leave here today believing that your side, for more intents and purposes, are in favor of the second amendment, however, as long as it is a responsible second

amendment, as long as we have responsibility gun ownership, and then mr. gura, if that is the case, then why isn't our side, all right, in fact i came in here saying should i identify them as the right and the left, but then why can't we jump onboard and say, look, it's okay. we're fighting for second amendment rights. however, they're saying the same thing we're saying, but the word responsible needs to be injected in the argument. so what do i leave here today really concluding? thanks. >> that's an excellent, excellent question. and it's a question that i actually do address at length in my book "lethal logic." because i've been at this for over 20 years. and a key strategy of the gun lobby is to make the debate about banning guns. that is the way they make the debate most polarizing. it's the way they raise a lot of

money. and part of that strategy is to argue that those of us, like the brady organization, who do not advocate the handgun ban, but do advocate reasonable controls, are really being disingenuous. this debate, the nra will tell you, isn't about waiting periods, and it's not about limiting ammunition magazine capacity. these people really want to ban your guns. they really want to come after your guns. now, that's not to say that there are not americans who believe that guns should be banned, or handguns should be banned. there are. the polls show that. it's a distinct minority view. but it is not our view. and the slippery slope argument gets us into trouble. because every time someone comes forward and says, well, can't we at least require background checks for all gun sales. we've got them for sales by licensed dealers. they're working. they could work better.

but the brady bill has stopped about 1.9 million prohibited gun buyers. most of them felons, from buying guns over the counter. let's take that success story and extend it to all private transactions at gun shows, and even elsewhere. it seems like a reasonable proposal. but the response is, oh, that's just a step down the slippery slope. well, it was my hope, frankly, that after heller, and as a constitutional matter, i think heller was wrongly decided. but nevertheless, i said heller is a paradox. because even though it was wrongly decided from a legal standpoint, i was hopeful that it would, by taking gun banning sort of off the policy table, which is -- that was scalia's term, certain measures are off the table now, banning guns is off the table, we would somehow diminish the power of the slippery slope argument to adversely affect the nature of the debate. most americans, and most gun

owners, are in favor of these reasonable controls. recent polls show over 80% of gun owners want background checks for all gun sales. so do we. we ought to be able to come together on this kind of thing. >> alan? >> well, nobody goes out and supports the idea that we should have unreasonable laws, and that people should be allowed to be irresponsible. obviously the debate is about what is unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our side of the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on

those things. but speaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons to have guns. you're not going to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american understanding of the responsible use of firearms than the prohibitionist, minimalist view that dennis would espouse. >> next question? yes? >> i don't know what reasonable and responsible laws are. my view is that that's why we

have legislatures, and they ought to decide those rather than have courts decide what's reasonable and responsible. at least in most cases. >> so in other words -- >> substantial legislative -- >> you left the door open. >> yes, of course. we have a right. there's no question about that. and if the district of columbia passed a law, the purpose was to send something through the back door that was prohibited through the front door, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. but i'm perfectly willing to give the legislature the opportunity here, dennis and alan, argue what the particulars of a particular law, and decide it the way we decided it, by having the legislators vote on it and having the mayor or governor decide whether to sign it. >> david ritgers in the back, standing up. >> dave ritgers, cato institute. my question is for mr. henigan and mr. gura.

first, to clarify a couple of points, mr. henigan, your characterization is a little off. in fact, the phoenix shooter was not law-abiding until he pulled the trigger. he lied to purchase the gun. i'm not sure why you place such focus on having a gun-free zone sign there if he would disregard the laws against murder. moving on to discretionary permitting, which you recommend, it essentially means either that all permits are denied, the situation we've seen in the willlard case in maryland is litigating, or the discretion that are objectionable. in los angeles county, or new york, these are essentially sold for campaign contributions. or used in a discretionary manner, such as the one that martin luther king mng applied for. after a bombing of his house in 1956, he applied for a permit and it was designed for, i think, what are pretty plain reasons given the atmosphere in alabama, under their discretionary permitting system. so if it's from having no right,

or is it a right that can be refused in an arbitrary manner, how is that constitutional or defensible? >> i guess my answer is supposed to be briefer than the question. but that's a little bit of a challenge. the point i was trying to make about loughner is that the nra's program is to eliminate law enforcement discretion over who gets a permit. so that if you pass a background check, and he did, when you say he lied on the form, it's not at all clear to me that he fell into one of the prohibited categories. the point is, the nra says if he passes a background check, and he's a legal gun owner, they don't even want to impose an additional permitting requirement. that means he was a legal carrier under arizona law until he pulled the trigger. and that is the nra's vision of

what's supposed to happen across the country. if you can pass a background check, then you can carry a conceal. and it is a policy which is folly. and this horrendous event shows the folly of it. the folly of it has been shown before. this just dramatizes the folly of it. and certainly, the question of an arbitrary and capricious use of government power to deny a concealed weapons permit, there may be a remedy of law for that. i'm not arguing that government should be free of civil remedies when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously. i am arguing, however, that it is folly to take all the discretion away from law enforcement, if a law enforcement has discretion, if they look into somebody's background, you know, and they interview people who know the applicant, and they might have

interviewed the community college people and learned all these facts about this guy, they would have been in a position to make him not a legal concealed carry holder. and that would have been -- that's just a much better legal system to treat this issue. >> dennis, may i ask you very quickly, has the brady center taken a position on presumptions? in other words, is the presumption that you have a right, and then the burden is upon the government to show why you should not in this case exercise it? or is it the other way around that you don't have a right, and the burden is upon the applicant to show why he should get the permit? >> i don't know that we've taken a position on that. i mean, that is something that we would leave, i think, to state law. but the requirement that government act without being arbitrary or capricious is a fundamental principle of law that would apply to concealed carry permits. i would add on the issue of

presumptions, scalia's use of the trum presumptively legal when discussing broad categories of gun laws raises an interesting question about burden of proof. normally, you know, it's -- you know, the presumption is with the individual and against the government. but here, that use of that language raises interesting questions about whether the supreme court views it differently when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. >> alan, did you want to say something? >> first of all, as far as scalia's presumptive language, the reference is to carrying of arms in sensitive places. we don't know what sensitive places are. i suppose we all may have views about how the court can explore that. the suggestion that you can be banned from carrying arms in sensitive places is the exception that proves the rule that you must be allowed to carry them in non-sensitive places. the supreme court has also approved the right to keep and bear arms outside the home activities as hunting, practicing at a range, i don't

know too many people who go hunting with firearms inside their homes. against smaller creatures. and of course, in dennis' favorite case, u.s. versus miller, it concerned the application of a sawedoff shotgun, because mr. miller was driving it on the highways in arkansas, it was not inside his home. the reason the supreme court told the district of columbia that they had to issue heller a license to carry his gun in the home is because that's the only kind of license for which he applied. d.c. law had essentially two different licensing requirements. there was a license to carry publicly, and if you carried publicly, without the benefit of a license, that was a felony conviction. if you carried inside your own home without the benefit of a license, that was a misdemeanor. we challenged that law, and because we challenged the carrying in the home law, that's

the way the language of that came out. and of course, washington immediately repealed the carrying in the home licensing requirement. now, as far as the question raised by the questioner, the supreme court has a long tradition of requiring that in prior restraint cases, the licensing of the exercise of a fundamental right not be left to the unfettered discretion of a licensing official. we need clear standards, objective standards that are narrowly defined, that tell licensing officials when they shall and shall not issue permits. i don't have a problem with subjecting the right to carry firearms to an appropriate licensing standard. and in most states, in fact, do have perfectly constitutional laws about that. however, when it's simply a matter of whether the officials believe you have good cause, to

exercise your constitutional right, that's clearly unconstitutional. if you have the right to do something, your right to do it cannot be denied, because the government doesn't think you have a good enough reason to exercise your constitutional right. that is a classic form of prior restraint. and i can give you, in fact, in some of the briefs i do, provide chapter and verse, case upon case upon case where the supreme court has thrown out any kinds of licensing standards that rest upon these vague notions of what's in the public benefit, or when you actually need to exercise your right and all that kind of inappropriate language. >> this gentleman right here. just wait until the microphone is there. >> richard rise, private citizen from silver spring. what hasn't been discussed at all, and it's sort of indicated by what's going on in mexico now, that maybe it's the gun industry that needs some

regulation. and the first amendment -- i mean, the second amendment doesn't really come in there. we just say you can't make aka-47s except under very limited circumstances, and you can't develop -- i don't even know what they're called -- the bullets without letting your finger off the trigger. and that that's the answer to it, then it has nothing to do with the second amendment. you just regulate the industry. >> well, since we're here to discuss the second amendment, does anybody have a brief comment on that? >> yes, i think that's a very important topic that the questioner has brought up. there is a great deal that needs to be done to regulate the gun industry. and, you know, so many of the policy ideas that need to be discussed really do not have anything to do with the second amendment. you know, there's no second

amendment right to sell guns to straw buyers for drug cartels. there's no second amendment right to a very weak bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. we need to give the agencies greater power to crack down on corrupt dealers. we need to limit the number of handguns that can be sold at any one time to reduced gun traffic. we need to ban assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines. there are so many of these kinds of sensible policies that would save countless lives. and there simply is no argument that they violate the second amendment or set us on a slippery slope toward gun confiscation. >> the gentleman with his hand up in the front row, of the back. >> thank you. my name is george lawrence. i'm a semi-retired psychologist. i'm an avid hunter and

self-protectionist. one quick comment and one i think pretty quick question. it seems to me that it's absurd to talk about bearing arms within the home. as if you're going to walk around, marching around carrying a home. for better or worse, i think it's pretty obvious that's what it means, to carry a gun arnold. the question i have is having noticed and appalled at it, spokes people for gun organizations asserting the necessity for the private ownership of assault rifles with high-capacity magazines, justified by thomas jefferson's regrettable comment as a way to prevent encoaching government, makes me wonder whether there's any substantial body of legal opinion that supports a constitutional right to prepare for armed insurrection. >> nelson, you may be an expert on that issue. >> well, i don't know about

informed legal opinion, but in justice scalia's opinion in heller, he acknowledges that part of the purpose of the second amendment is to enable the citizenry to resist, or more importantly deter attempts at tierney. and i think he's right about that. and in fact, the -- it's important to distinguish between this caricature of the kind of argument that he was alluding to, namely that we have a second amendment right of insurrection, or something like that, which is not true, but there's a long tradition, articulated by james madison, for example, according to which tyranny is less likely to be imposed on an armed citizenry. why is that? because it's more costly to do it. and the fact that through technological and social

changes, there's certainly no doubt that the 101st airborne could defeat any group of american citizens with their hunting rifles. that's certainly true. that doesn't change the fact that in less extreme situations, government oppression, government violence can be deterred by the fact that there are armed citizens. because they raise the prospective cost, or raise the risk of engaging in tyranny. and there are examples of that. for example, durng the '60s in the civil rights movement, where the government and quasi government organizations like the ku klux klan were deterred by visibly and organized groups of blacks and civil rights workers arming themselves to make it more costly to oppress them. although this kind of operates at the margin nowadays, not in

the kind of ultimate extreme sense that people like to think of it, it does not mean that an armed citizenry is no deterrent at all against illegal government oppression. >> can i comment on that? >> the gentleman right behind the gentleman who spoke? >> right. i'm brian bishop from the ocean state policy research institute in rhode island. although anything i have to say certainly isn't considered a policy that our think tank has established. but i'm struck by the contrast that is attempted to be drawn between the first amendment and the second amendment, only because certainly the rhetorical resort in recent -- in the recent contemporary news cycle has been to suggest that indeed the first amendment was what was at fault in the shooting in tucson.

and so i think it's somewhat of a kinard to suggest there's a seemingly broader difference that the first amendment can hurt you and the second does. at least when not acknowledging that one's own camp, or many in it, are suggesting differently. i'm wondering if you've considered that conundrum. >> anybody wish to comment on that? >> yes. i mean, you know, it may very well be useful to have a public discussion at this juncture about the civility of our discourse, et cetera. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 guns and gun policy and in fact the supreme court case shows that, you know, to the extent that speak creates clear and present danger of

violence it is considered not protected at all. there's the fighting words doctrine that goes a long way back and so my argument is that from a point of view of constitutional jurisprudence there is no reason to leap to the analogy of the first amendment and to basically deride all second amendment law from the first amendment, and if you look at the experience of state courts to actually have been interpreting right to bear arms provisions for many years before heller and mcdonald because there were right to bear arms provisions in many state constitutions that clearly guaranteed an individual right, the state courts universally have developed a test of reasonable which i think is more differential than intermediate scrutiny which some people are suggesting as the test for second amendment rights. the state courts have recognized look, this is a very different

matter. having an instrumentality of lethal violence is very different candlefish than talking about instrumentality of violence. >> unfortunately we can't handle all of the questions. we are going to take two more and then call it quits. this gentleman has been very patient. we are going to have two quick questions and too quick answers and this young lady down here alaska last question. >> john lode of the brady senator kube i will be very quick to allen and the professor. do you think a ban on high capacity ammunition magazines would limit magazines of ten rounds is constitutional? >> i always hate to give quick off the top of my answers to questions because i continue to do a legal analysis, careful legal analysis before you decide these questions at the margin. i certainly think it is very

dubious it in part because such bans on high-capacity magazines are so silly in terms of any kind of a reasonable prospect that they could contribute to public safety and any significant way. but to provide a legal analysis i can't do that of the top of my intense seconds. >> the legal analysis would go something like this, after heller if you are looking at a law that addresses magazine capacity, the question becomes whether or not a gun with this type of magazine is an arm of the kind people expect to find in common use for traditional purposes. that is the test of color. the question is not whether the bad guys can use it. obviously the preferred weapon criminal is the handgun but it's also the preferred arm for law abiding people exercise and self-defense. the question is not whether the thing can be misused, the question whether people expect to find it in common use for traditional purposes. now if you are talking about in

an e 11 round magazine the fact of the matter is that the millions upon millions upon millions of normal hand guns come from the factory and ship with 15 or 17 round magazines and so i would imagine that that kind law would bear the common use and would be problematic under heller. but people don't often think about when they talk about these kind of laws is that there is only the cost exacting when you ban something and take it away from the access to civilians. and a real-world situation where people are firing guns in self-defense they are likely to mess and that is why the police carry guns normally contained in the frame 15 or 17 rounds. if the wall of the six were suspended and he wanted to carry a firearm for self-defense, you would take the one that had 11 rounds over the one that had ten because if you needed that the 11th round to save yourself, then that could be the difference between life and

death for you. so, this set of arbitrary limits that bans things in common use i think would probably not survive. >> the good shots magazine -- >> problem is one shot. it's not like you were in a great thing if you only killed three people. it's still a disaster. and, you know, we need to make sure that people don't get access to any kind of firearm and not to go after, you know, arbitrary bans on things normal people used for legitimate and lawful purposes. >> one real quick thing. the question is whether i thought it was constitutional yet to make a distinction i think alan correctly kind of tried to construe heller in a certain way. heller is not the constitution. so, i can't it's useful at least in your own mind to distinguish what the constitution means and what you think the heller

opinion means because they are not necessarily identical although the are of course treated as a man to win the courts. >> let me apologize for the malaise. we are under construction as you have undoubtably scene and the workers are under instruction to hold off their jackhammers and what have you one to one thanks 30 which is presumably a signal to me. [laughter] but in any event, we are going to have one last question from this very patient young woman right here. >> i, i and from town hall.com. for stila to start by saying i'm from arizonan and i feel much safer there because of the gun lobby and in washington, d.c. as a young woman. [applause] so my question comes seeking a majority of your argument is based on the fact guns can indeed be dangerous if people aren't trained and know how to use them correctly. consider driving a car on a daily basis as much more dangerous and your chances of dying every day are high gear

when you try and automobile. how do you justify the fact that the nanny state of the government can take control of people's decisions and decide when they should and should not bear arms inside and outside of their home, where does that mean the state and and how were you going to protect people from themselves essentially? >> first of all, the gun car analogy is one that teaches, you know, some lessons and in other ways it kind of breaks down. first of all, if we actually use guns the way we use cars come if the average of gun owner basically handled his gun as often as he drives his car, i fear was in the death rate from guns would be. so you have to control for the use of the product before you can actually make those analogies. however, bringing up cars does teach us something which is even

though cars are not within, and they are not designed to kill, they are designed to get us from place to place we do have a sensible regulation that we don't have with guns. we have licensing, and his registration, we have safety standards, we don't have any of those things of the federal level, so i think we can actually learn from the car analogy we ought to regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars. we don't come close to doing that right now. >> all right. with that that's have lunch upstairs but first let's have a round of applause. [applause]

up next to the inauguration of the audio was governor terry branstad. he was sworn in at the hyvee hall in downtown des moines. he cut spending to reform the state's occasion system. he was the 39th governor of all iowa from 1983 to 1999. he faced chet culver on november 2nd, 2010. this inauguration ceremony was brought to us from iowa public television. ♪ god bless america stand beside

her and guide her through the night with a light ♪ from the mountain to the valley ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ america ♪ america ♪ america [applause]

the children's choir from des moines. [applause] directed by mr. jim cacitorie. >> as the oath of office is ministered by mark the bible will be held by chris branstad and printed his name, terry branstad to read the same bible used on the four previous inaugural is for governor terry branstad. i would guess that this is not a position that chief justice mark thought he would be in administering the oath of office. >> he is new to this position becoming the chief -- >> i would invite to the podium chief justice marc cady to administer the oath of office to

governor-elect branstad. >> raise your right hand, please. i, terry branstad. >> i come terry branstad. >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that i will support the constitution of the united states >> i will support the constitution of the united states speed and the constitution of the status on the west and get the constitution of this to the volume >> and that i will >> and that i will >> faithfully and impartially >> faithfully and impartially selected the best of my abilities connect to the best of my ability >> discharge all of the duties >> discharge all of the duties >> of the office of governor >> of the office of governor >> in the state of iowa >> in the state of iowa >> has now >> has now spent or hereafter required by law >> or hereafter required by law. >> congratulations, governor. >> thank you. [applause]

>> and embrace and a smile of pride. >> they have done this so many times. this is the fifth and his wife looking on like wow, you are doing this again, but i think there is excitement on both parts. as he told you yesterday, a little bit of nervousness is good but he doesn't feel too much because he's been in this position. >> he admitted to butterflies. he said it wouldn't be right if i didn't. [applause] >> well, when you're speaking to more than a thousand people you are bound to. [applause] a standing ovation for the governor right now, governor e. liked terry branstad, well, now sworn in governor terry branstad. [applause] >> madam lieutenant govt govern,

mr. speaker, madam and mr. leader, mr. chief justice, justices and judges, legislators, he elected officials, distinguished guests, relatives and friends, senator danielson, thank you for presiding today. even though governor chet culver is not with us today, i want to thank him on behalf of iowans for his service. [applause] leadership meijer let me congratulate you on being the first woman elected majority leader in the history of our state. we are all proud of you. [applause]

your dad, dell, is smiling down on us today very proud. lt. governor reynolds, thank you for your inspirational remarks. in you, i finally met my match and energy and passion for iowa. [applause] and i look forward to the day when i witness the swearing in of our first woman governor of fallujah. it's about time. [applause] for the past 15 months, i've traveled all over our state from river to river, border to border, from to factory from cafe into office building. it's been an experience of a lifetime to reconnect with

iowans at their jobs, schools, places of worship and play to have a conversation about our state, where we are and where we want to go. but i would like to do today on this the occasion of my fifth inauguration as your governor. [applause] i want to tell you what i've learned, to make my humble attempt to distill our collective wisdom and a statement of principles a new covenant between the state and its people. this new covenant must have as its pulsar the fact that iowa is an exceptional place. we are blessed -- [applause] we are blessed with the richest

resources of soil and water. we are the envy of the world populated by hard-working, honest and caring people that feed and power the world and ignited by our ingenuity we have only scratched the surface of our potential. i yellow stand oppressiveness of opportunity greater than any time since our ancestors crossed the mississippi to view the expansive prairie as far as the eye could see. with the advent of open markets, a growing world middle class and the need for sustainable solutions to the world's problems, i aeolis its at the seat history -- iowa sits six at the catbird world is treated with some of the world is hungry for our food and biomass come in to visit our technology, pining for our productivity.

the economic winds, which were the center or more blumenauer face are now firmly at our back. dalia one is exceptional, indeed, our exceptional times. our challenge to seize the day. to those that say our goal of 200,000 new jobs in a 25% increase in family income is too high, i would say you ain't seen nothing yet. [applause] only wrongheaded policy choices can prevent us from entering a golden era of iowa history. and we must start with government. it must change licit dampen our opportunity and squelch the individual initiative which is our engine for growth. our old way of doing government business must be radically

altered to do the people's business. we must rid ourselves of the yoke of too much government, which taxes us to much, spends too much and regulates us too much. [applause] government must as abraham lincoln once said only that which the people cannot do for themselves. that is a new covenant principal number one. new covenant principle number one. we have too much government, state, county, school, local, and it must be reduced. for too long we favor of the

fact our appetite for government exceeds our pocketbook to pay for it. [applause] my 86 year old dad edward is sitting here in the front row and he would tell us our eyes are too big for our walnut. our state auditor tells us that at least 15% must be permanently eliminated from government in order to make our books balanced once and for all and i aim to make sure that we do it and that we do it now. [applause] we will all share in the sacrifice while protecting those that need our help. but we will remove the boots of excess government from our

economy and without that burden, we will be able to run like the wind in the race for prosperity. [applause] second, government must serve the people and not vice versa. leadership is about service, not power. i stand here again as your governor with my wonderful wife, kids and grandkids, and i here because i yearn to search. [applause] and i ask each government employee from the clerks to the supervisors to the department heads to never forget it is the people who are our bosses. [applause]

and we must serve each other without the compulsion of government. in 1835 french nobleman named alexis de tocqueville toward the united states and noticed americans were different than europeans. he said wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government france and england in the united states he will find an association of people and you know that's still true today. every day volunteers to make our state the wonderful places to live, work and raise a family. it is a great symbol of this. kids were coming to school and boone without a warm coat, tired, sick, were worried about their family, teachers like many others throughout osceola use their own funds to help these kids knowing students cannot learn when they're the six are

not met. those caring teachers started something called the boone hope foundation, and that foundation since 2005 has raised $129,000 from community donations to help students and their families in a time of crisis. groceries, medical bills, eyeglasses, snow boots and missions have all been provided to children in need because of community cares. let us inouye our commitment to get involved to help the homeless, feed the hungry, minister to the sick, pray for the wayward, to make each of our communities better by stepping up and stepping out and for those the most fortunate we bear a special responsibility to extend the ladder of opportunity to those in need. [applause]

we need to look no further than the record number of iowans currently deployed in our armed forces from salvatore giunta to anthony sellers of our service men and women protect us every day with their valor and sacrifice. we all know the story of salvatore giunta, our most recent recipient of the medal of honor to all iowans we're busting our buttons proud of this young iowans for his bravery, courage and resolve. [applause] [applause]

i doubt that many of you know sergeant anthony sellers of burlington, but i was privileged to meet him introduced to me by his proud father, kent. kent is a veteran himself confined to a wheelchair but in burlington team is beaming when he introduced me to his son who has completed two tours in iraq and is now at fort benning preparing for another deployment. anthony, like thousands of other iowans has answered the call of freedom and he embodies the spirit of selfless service that makes our state and our country that shining city on a hill that tom paine wrote about over two centuries ago. surely we can use their example as an inspiration to us all. [applause]

third, it's time to restore transparency and integrity to our government decision making process. in iowa we pride ourselves on a limited government services. when government said it would do something we did it and for the right reasons. our problems were serious but manageable and as a people of good faith, we rolled up our sleeves and salt then. but we have gotten off track. we have over promised and under delivered turning solutions into problems. iowans deserve better. [applause] and we will get back on track with a slim better managed and sustainable government that you could count on when you need it and will start by opening up to the people, our budgets, briefings and the like, sunshine

remains the best year for what ails our governments. [applause] the fourth principal of the covenant and iowa must be a renewed commitment to provide the best education in the world. [applause] providing children with a globally competitive education is key to their future and the future of our state. employers say they need a better prepared better treat work force. this means high your

expectations for our schools. sadly iowa's educational system was once the envy of the world today is the middle of the pack. our young people must be able to think critically, solve problems and communicate effectively. they need a strong background in math, science, english and social studies. the bar is continually being raised in this knowledge based economy. it's time to put in place reforms that are the hallmark of high performing school systems starting with assuring that there is a first-rate teachers in every classroom. [applause]

this is a time to put in place reforms that are hallmarks of high performing school systems, and as i said we start with having the first absolutely top three teacher in every classroom. but the new year is also an opportunity for iowans to have a conversation about how to accomplish this. how could we attract top students into the teaching profession. what do good experienced teachers need to become effective instructors, and how do we get rid of teachers whose students consistently do not learn enough even after those teachers are received coaching to improve? i plan to convene a summit, i plan to convene a summit with some of the top educational leaders of the nation and state to benchmark the iowa status and lay out a plan for legislative

consideration that will give our kids the best education in the world. [applause] it's not just our schools that must do more. teaching the children the value of good education is the job of parents. [applause] instilling the importance of lifelong learning not just by words but by example will help families and iowa prosper. it's time for all of us to get involved. finally, we must so the great success. our tax system, whether it be property or income taxes punishes those who create jobs we need to redouble change. both will be reduced and

simplified. [applause] the job creators will be rewarded. they are welcome here, and it's about time our tax system reflects that fact. as with our tax system, so much our attitudes toward success must change. well our modesty in the face of success is sometimes charming it can to often limit our reach. alex haley once said that we should find the good and praise it. in our state and in our communities we should find success and praise and reward responsible risk-taking for it

is through the creation of entrepreneurship that all parts of our state rural and urban will grow. it's the ticket for bringing our sons and daughters home and getting all who live here a chance to share in our bounty. [applause] that then is what i learned all my travel around our state. iowans has worked harder, sacrificed more, tighten their belts further and ensure the greatest recession since the great depression, and now it's time for government to do the same. it's time for a new covenant between iowans and their government, it is the covenant founded upon the principal of limited government, service about self, transparency and

integrity, world-class schools and so the writing of the success of iowans. these are the principles that will guide my days as your governor. the collective of wisdom of iowans will inspire me every day to give iowans a government as good as the people that it serves, and i ask all of you republican and democrat, liberal and conservative, yawn and old, to join me in that effort. not one of us has all the answers, but together, we cannot fail. one day on the campaign trail i was visiting with some folks in a small town cafe, and one of the farmers who appear to be in his 80s asked me what i wanted accomplished by running for governor again. well, i rattled off our goals