focal point of that. so we think that's something the congress really needs to address. >> final question, tim starks how would you address it? >> we hope the public would realize when parton that this is and come to their elected representatives this is something they want to get done. >> harlin mcewen of the national association of chiefs of police, jack brown of the arlington county office of emergency management, and tim starks of the congressional quarterly. gentlemen, thank you for being on the communicators. >> thank you. >> thank you. recognizes the

gentleman from which is currently numbers, >> members of congress held a ceremony for the victims of 9/11 at the u.s. capitol. coming up, we'll here from john

boehner and other congressional leaders. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening. members of the united states congress are gathered tonight on the steps of the capitol to mark the 10th observance of the events of september 11th of 2001. at this time, the marine band will lead us in the national anthem, and i would invite us all to join in on the singing. ♪ oh say can you see

♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilights last gleaming ♪ whose brought stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ oer the ramparts we watch ♪ we're so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh say does that star spangle ♪ ♪ banner yet wave ♪ oer the land

♪ of the free ♪ and the home of the brave [applause] let us pray. god of help and earth, we give you thanks for giving us another day. today we remember a day begun in terror and violence and ended in heroic effort and courage. we mourn those whose lives were snatched from them and wish to comfort those left behind who strive to cope with their loss. may you, oh god, give them peace and healing. we thank you again for the

almost universal international response to a great american tragedy which all the world recognized as theirs as well. all your children of good will could see the horror of actions by men who would presume to act in your name causing so much death and destruction. may your spirit of peace and justice continue to fill the hearts of people of all faiths, races, and nations. help us to recognize your creative love and the lives of all who share this beautiful planet. be present with us this day as we gather again on our capitol's steps. bless the men and women who serve this great nation in the senate and house of representatives. united then and united today in

our shared citizenship, they have been given great responsibility by their fellow americans. may their show of unity auger a hopeful future of concerted effort to do what is best for these united states, and may they be confident in the knowledge that all americans stand behind them in their common effort to forge legislation that will reflect a resill yept greatness of our nation in building a vibrant economy into a safe and secure future. may all that is done this day and in the many days to come be for your greater honor and glory, amen. >> over and over again we say

that when we visit the memory of september 11th, we are treading on sacred ground. on that day, as we all know ten years ago, we witnessed a world that was changing before our very eyes. scenes of horrific attacks on our nation and fellow americans. as we watched images of destruction in new york, pennsylvania, and at the pentagon, we bore witness to courage, to bravery, to heroism and patriotism of those who ran to the rescue of those in danger, who searched for survivors, who risked their lives to save others. long after the buildings fell in the weeks following, many of us visited the site, and we heard silence. silence as workers sifted through the rubble, sifted

through the rubble with great strength, with great dignity, and with silence. sacred ground indeed. every day is a day we are indebted to our first responders to them at that time, but every day sense to our service members and their families to all who work to keep us safe, and earlier this year, people in congress and throughout the country had the privilege of stitching the flag that flew over ground zero on that fateful day. it is now mended with portions of other flags, but i mention it now because those fragments of piecing the flag together including threads from the flag that covered president lincoln's body after his assassination. a connection across generations from one terrible tramming di for our nation to another.

again, across the country, portions of flags from every state united by those blue threads from lincoln's flag. when i saw those blue threads, i thought of what president lincoln had said in one of his earlier speeches. he talked about the silence artillery of time. i hope that the silent artillery of time does something to lessen the pain of those who lost their loved ones, but it will never diminish or lessen the memory of those who gave their lives and those who came to the rescue. as i say, we honor them -- we should honor them every day. ten years ago, we stood on the steps of this capitol. we sang "god bless america". it's a tremendous memory for all of us, a very poignant one. we know god has truely blessed

america with the service and leadership of men and women in uniform, wherever they serve. our first responders, and all who keep us safe in our country. may god continue to bless the united states of america. >> like all of you, i remember everything about that day. when the first plane hit, i assumed it was an accident. when the second plane hit, i knew we were at war. elaine and i spent most of the day just like everybody else watching it all unfold on television calling colleagues and friends hoping it wouldn't get worse. for many of us, the nightmare began to dispate a little bit right here on these steps when

even the fiercist of political adversaries found themselves standing shoulder to shoulder singing "god bless america," and the terror of the morning began to yield to spontaneous expression of unity and the collective belief that, yes, we would get through this as a nation. the reaction to the attacks was uplifting in a way that we didn't expect. we all just came together united by the sudden realization of what connected us. first, profound sadness for the victims and their loved ones. second, our shared values as americans, and third, our growing resolve to fight back. it wasn't until later that we learned the unity we experienced didn't begin in the aftermath of the attacks; it began in the midst of the attacks, inside the

hijacked planes and the buildings themselveses. we learned of the men and women at their desk doing ordinary things one moment and suddenly found themselves risking their lives saving people they had never even met, of strangers on a plane who formed a team and hatched a plan over the skies to tabaret the hijackers, not to save themselves as to save the people on the ground they knew the hijackers were really after. we learned about people like the two men in the north tower who lifted a stranger out of a wheelchair and carried her 68 floors to safety. when they reached the bottom, they placed her in an balance and walked away. of the firemen racing towards a fire while they ordered others to run away from, and so many others whose courage that morning is part of our nation's

story as the battlefield heroics that we read about in school. ten years later in new york and shanksville and the pentagon, the name of every single person killed that morning is now recorded in a permanent monument, assign to the world we ascribe value and dignity to every life. we come together ten years later not simply to honor america's resilience, but to honor every single person we lost that day. we honor them today, the heros of 9/11, and we also honor the countless men and women who gave so much over the last decade to protect others from a similar fate, particularly those who made the ultimate sacrifice. the attacks of 9/11 inspired an entire generation of heros who

did extraordinary work and made it possible for us to mark this anniversary for the first time knowing the man behind 9/11 will never plot again. i don't suppose there was a single person in this country that morning who thought we would be able to stand here today, ten years later and say there was not a single major attack on our homeland since then, and we have the men and women of the u.s. armed forces with scores of intelligence personnel to thank for it. they have proven beyond a doubt that al-qaeda was wrong about the united states, and as long as we are individual leapt and hold fast to the policies that have guided their good work, we'll continue to prove it. some us of may have wondered on 9/11 whether america had it in her to respond, but today there should be no question. we didn't hide. we fought back. we showed the terrorists what america is all about. you can destroy our semibles,

but nod -- symbols, but not our spirit. a decade after 9/11, i'm with those who believe america is stronger today than it was then. yes, it's been a long and challenging decade indeed, but we've done more than endure. we've shown ourselves and the world that freedom is indeed the strongest force on earth. >> it has been ten years, tuesday morning an s219, i was the first to get to that room, senator from montana said turn on the tv, there's something going on in new york. a tower was building. we thought how could an airplane

run into that tower. we turned the tv off to get the meeting started. senator daschell was leading that meeting. he was taken out of the room, came back quickly, and said we have to leave as quick as we can. there's a plane headed for the capitol. well, i can remember walking out of that room and looking out the window and seeing the smoke at that time billowing out of the pentagon. that day was an eventful day in many different ways. i was taken with senator laut and with vice president cheney where we spent the day. we came back to the capitol, we were able to have our heat meeting in the capitol that

night a half hour later than it is today because of the courage of the people in the plane that was heading here. the ring leader of the evil band made the decision it would be the capitol, not the white house because it was a much easier target. that night, we didn't know that when we met here. we know it now. like every american who is alive that day, i'll never forget that day. yesterday the nation paused, as it should, to remember those who died in this coordinated cowardly attack on american soil. we mourned yesterday the thousands of innocent lives lost in new york and virginia and over pennsylvania. we honored the firefighters and rescue workers, both living and dead, who rushed to the scene and entered the twin towers knowing the risk that they

took. we gave thanks yesterday to the many dedicated americans who serve in our armed forces and state department, intelligence community who have given their lives to prevent a similar attack from ever happening again. today we also pay tribute to the spirit of unity and determination that carried us through the ten years since our world was turned upside down. here, ten years ago, we reaffirmed in our own way that our commitment was for freedom and democracy that makes america the greatest nation in the world, and little did we know then the effect that barbara suggesting to us, members of congress here assembled, that we should sing "god bless america." we did. it was the sweetest song i ever heard. i'll always remember that as i will as we hear it today from the military band.

i'm grateful for those people who made yesterday such a success and who in the process protected us from further harm. >> ten years on, there's still sadness imparting with those that we lost. may god give their families comfort and peace. the 11th of september will always be a day of remembrance. we also have this day, the 12th, that represents renewal. where better to stir our hearts today than the capitol which was likely saved by brave patriots who on instinct banded to together to thwart the enemy.

it was clear that needed to be done. no one had to tell them. they saved countless lives. they studied our country before a watching world. our war fighters took up the charge and now persevere in tough conditions. having felt the call to serve on september 11th, many carry the names and pictures of people they never met nor ever will. no one asked them to do this. their valor inspires, and they save lives every day. no burden compares 20 that born by the families of the fallen. yet when vigilance is needed most, it comes first from those who lost the most. no one has asked them -- asked this of them. no one expects this of them. we're blessed to call these men

and women fellow americans. memories as powerful as these come easily. capturing their meaning, though, is much tougher. we turn to the wisdom of our forebearers, the declaration of independence does not guarantee happiness. instead, its pursuit is entrusted to our good sense and our god-given nature. this remains an awesome charge, but no -- but americans have always met no matter what the cost, otherwise this great nation will not stand above others as a beacon of life and liberty, so it is up to we who live on, particularly we who serve, to never forget, to never yield, but to hold fast until we have preserved the blessings of freedom for those who come after us. if we are successful, no one

will have to tell them what to do. they will know and they, too, will never forget. god bless america. before we hear the benediction, please join me in a moment of silence to honor the memory of september 11, 2001. [silence] [silence] [silence] >> let us pray.

lord god almighty, creator and sustainer of the universe, we pause to honor the memory of 9/11 and to acknowledge that in everything, you are working for the good of those who love you. today, as we have remembered that tragic event, we pray for the families that lost loved ones, for those who lost friends and colleagues, and for those who lost companies, jobs, and resources. we pray also for those who have suffered and sacrificed in the wars and conflicts that followed 9/11. today, we also thank you for your grace that has protected

and sustained us since that sad day. may our gratitude for your sustaining providence mote vase us -- motivate us to strive for greater unity, to be more aware of our mortality and to work to lead this world better than we found it. now bless us and keep us, make your face to shine upon us and be gracious unto us. lift the light of your face upon us, and give us your peace we pray in the name of him who has been our help in ages past and our hope for years to come.

amen. ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ land that i love ♪ stand beside her ♪ and guide her ♪ through the night ♪ with a light from above ♪ from the mountains ♪ to the prairies ♪ to the oceans with foam ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home

[applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

amol conversations [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] fun

the former co-chairs of the presidential deficit-reduction commission alan simpson and erskin bowles spoke to reporters earlier about the new joint congressional deficit committee which meets again tomorrow. a bipartisan group of economists and former lawmakers wrote a letter urging the new debt committee to exceed its goal of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. this briefing at the new america foundation is about 35 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. it's a good thing as in the press conference because spending too much time with alan simpson makes you laugh and

laugh, and erskin bowles of course is very hilarious as well. anyhow, thank you for joining us. i am maya macguineas in light of the committee for responsible budget and we are here today to release a letter that we just had over 50 experts in fiscal and budget policy former members of congress, former heads of the congressional budget office, treasury office of management and budget sign on to all for the purpose of urging the new special select committee of ours known as the super committee which is going to be working on finding 1.2 to $1.5 trillion in savings over the coming months to actually take this mandate of there's which is not going to be easy on its own, but to enlarge it and as we say to go big. so with the thinking here is that coming up with love of savings the of been set at is not sufficient to actually stabilize the debt so that it is no longer growing as a share of the economy and it wouldn't be sufficient on its own to

reassure the markets or the rating agencies, and what we really need to do is bring together a bipartisan plan that would tackle the largest parts of the budget challenge to those being entitlements, health care, retirement and the tax code and that all parts of the budget to put in place a fix that would deal with the situation. so i am pleased today to be able to release the letter we have so many wonderful letters available for everybody in there will be on the web site the committee for federal budget what we've been joined in this effort by christie todd whitman and bob rubin, christie roemer, george shultz, pete peterson, david cody, alice rivlin, pete domenici, laura tyson, judd gregg, bob kerry, and i think most importantly, the two former co-chairman of the fiscal commission from erskin bowles and alan simpson. i want to quickly mention that right now there's an awful lot of focus both on the need for an economic recovery plan and a deficit and debt plan. and really putting in place a

multi-year plan to gradually brings down the debt so it stabilizes the share of economy is one of the most important things we can do as an economic growth and recovery plan. without more stability to the business environment, it would lead fiscal space up front for there to be more effort to create jobs and grow the economy and would tackle the long-term drivers of the debt in a way that i don't think will be able to be addressed until we go big and put together a full plan. so if you look at what's happened over the past month, we've had numerous deadlines we almost had a government shutdown. we almost had a government default and each time the kind of squeeze out with the plan that moved the ball forward but it was never big enough to fix the problem. we keep going to the lowest denominator. what we've done in the letter is bring together a bipartisan very diverse group to urge the special committee to go big and actually this time go to the highest level and put in a full fix. so it is my privilege and honor

to turn this over to al simpson and erskin bowles will talk about their experience on the fiscal commission and why they are urging the super committee lending their support in this whole effort to put together a real plan and go big. thank you very much. >> thank you. an actuary here. it's all there. everything is available to them. i think it is critical that we realize that it's going to be very, very difficult, but we recommended a $4 trillion shot in ten years and don't forget, so did the president and his speech with george washington he came up with a 4 trillion-dollar figure over 12 years.

ours was ten, and this is an interesting thing people have forgotten, and 1.2 frankly is peanuts as they used to say in the grandstand but they are going to have to go for more than that. there isn't any question about it and if they don't, then there's this terrible job that will, where half of it comes out of defense and half of it out of, "on defense. you will find everyone getting their dictionary out to find out whether they are defense for non-defense and when it comes it is going to be a horrible situation. i will leave that to leon panetta in the defense department. he will do that himself. you give him enough rope and he will do the things he knows how to do. he's been a budget committee chairman and he's a wonderful friend and he knows what to do. so we can't let it go to that. but erskin bowles and i were there and we are not guiders or mentors or anything else.

but we are sure there to help and we know that four of them are on the commission so we know who they are and i are good people. so, with that, is there any serious question about figures or percentages of those to erskin. >> thank you both very much. we are glad to be here. we do want to encourage the commissioners to go big, to be bold. i know that and washington it's difficult for the congress to ever do anything big old all at once. as i fought back on our experiences in when we did balance the budget, you know, we didn't do it all but one time. we did it when we had fleabites the apple in 1990, 1993 and

1997. so it's difficult. we did under two different presidents with multiple converses so it's tough. at that point in time we had the luxury of time. we don't have that anymore. we need to act and we need to act now. we need to do this to reassure the markets. all you have to look at is the fluctuation in the market on a day-to-day basis and you can see the problems we have to read and we also need to give it to restore public trust and to restore the trust that was lost during the whole debt and desalt debacle that occurred in july and august as i think americans lost him a lot of the confidence and trust of people and companies and countries around the world. so we got a chance to get it right now. the 4 trillion-dollar number that he brought up is not a

number we made up. i've said often that is not -- we didn't get to that number by the number four bus passing this on the street, and we said well let's just do 4 trillion. 4 trillion is not the maximum amount we need to do. it's not the ideal amount. it is the minimum amount we need to do to stabilize the debt and put it on a downward path as a percentage of gdp. and it's going to be tough. but i have talked to several of the members of the commission, and i have some optimism that these members understand the gravity of the situation. i think they understand the problems the nation faces and how important it is for us to resolve this problem and i am optimistic they will go big, and i am for a couple of reasons.

first and foremost, there are lots of good ideas out there, ideas that came from our commission from the roof when domenici commission and from the other groups that have come for what of the ideas of downtown. so there are lots of good ideas for them to choose from. they don't have to start from the very beginning to be a secondly, they don't have to get 80% as we did on our commission in order to advance something to the congress for a straight up or down vote. the only have to get 50% and don't forget we got a super majority over 60%. and so third, i think the politics have changed quite a bit since december of last year when we came forward with our report. i think if you look at the polls today, the majority of republicans and a majority of democrats and a majority of independent want this commission to do something serious.

they want them to do a deal let will solve the problems facing the country and the gives me a lot of hope to see that and that is very different because a lot of education has come since we came forward with our report and last, the thing that gives me the most optimism is that there is a lot of pain if they don't come forward with the solid report and that will come in the form of a 600 billion-dollar cut to the defense and $600 billion to the non-defense. so i'm hopeful, we hope that we can provide any help possible to encourage this commission to go big. i think if they do the future of the country is very, very bright. thank you very much. >> are there any questions? yes. >> i'm from the washington post. two quick questions. i was wondering what he made of the obama proposal of the committee to also take on the

job plans and would be paid for mostly through the eliminating reduction and tax break for the wealthy and so forth. wondering what you make of that and in the politics given what happened in terms of the debt limit debate, why do you feel more encouraged, not less encouraged that the committee -- >> those are a couple of questions. first of all i think it would be irresponsible for anybody to support a stimulus that wasn't paid for in this kind of environment. and so i'm glad the president made the decision to not only when he offered the stimulus but to make sure that he said every single dollar of it would be paid for. i don't know how he's going to choose for it. there are lots of opportunities and alternatives out there. as you know, as a part of our package one of the things we did look at is eliminating such

deductions and credits and if you were to even many of these deductions and credits and use as we recommended 92% of the money to reduce rates at 8% of the money to reduce the deficit can reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next ten years and you can reduce the rates to 8% at $70,000, 14% to $210,000 again at a maximum rate of 23%. you can take the corporate rate to 26% and you can go to a territorial system which would free up all the money that is captured overseas now to bring it back home to create jobs and opportunities over here. so i think having that as a part of any plan makes a lot of sense but i would like to see how the president proposes to pay for it before i comment on his specific proposals. i had a chance to travel all of the country with al and we have

met 40 to 50 different groups separately and together and any time we've had a chance to talk to people about this we've got to not only standing ovation, but whether it is a liberal or conservative groups they really understand the necessity of going forward with something that is real and bold and doing it now. does it mean that you have to have all of your kutz now as we have been very careful in describing the principles that we didn't want to do that anything that disrupted the fragile recovery but it does mean you can address this and address it now so i'm pretty encouraged. i think the whole debt default is an area that we went through and it brought a lot of attention on the subject to the american people i think the understand it better and i think that they are putting pressure on the members of congress to do something and do something bold >> i think there was a recent report that said that if you want it, pay for it, it's very

simple we all don't have any trouble with graphs or if you say if you spend a buck and borrow 42 cents he's got to be stupid this is where we are right now and today this government has borrowed $4,000,600,000,000, 4,600,000,000 every day and you've got to be duty to do that. and we tell them that. we just say look, here's where we are. somebody said what is a trillion? well, they're have been various views of that. we don't want to get into religion but one guy said it used in the million the day since the birth of christ you wouldn't be at petroleum late yet and the other was to say perfectly of religion the big bang theory 13,600,000,000 years ago 1,050 times more than that. that's where we are.

>> if we change to be to the tea will begin to dig out. [inaudible] on the talking about [inaudible] or is the group in favor of gaining credit devotee and then -- >> i think the good thing in the current piece of legislation in the first part it's $900 billion worth of cuts, 350 all of defense and 550 out of the non-defense and the second part is $1.5 trillion that the super committee is supposed to deal with, and the key word is at least $1.5 trillion there is no limit on where those funds can come from or how much we can do. so actually all of the funds can come from the revenue and can come from cutting entitlement

spending and all can come from defense. so there is no limit on what we do and i think that gives the commission a maximum flexibility to actually deal with the problem and the trillion dollars of deficit reduction over the next decade so that we can stabilize the debt and reduce it as a percentage of gdp and put the fiscal house in order. some people aren't realizing the reason nobody with a credit agency isn't mincing around with great britain or france or germany is simply because they have a plan. they may not get there. we don't have a plan they have to say do nothing else than to give a plan and if they don't do that then watch out all of the cards will begin to crumble >> one of the benefits of going big and putting in a big package as it leaves more space up front for the economic recovery to take a look. so if you're only going to go

into the sort of a criminal changes and the focus on that year you do a lot more on spending cuts and tax increases that year and you have no strategic plan for where you are headed and you have no stability but if you put in place a multi-year plan that does by you breathing room in order for the economic recovery to take hold and as long as you walked up with different kind of spending caps and triggers and mechanisms it really allows the confidence to know where you're headed without having to do anything on the economic recovery in the short term. >> or any of you seeing indications that republicans are willing to deal or cap the reform that is the revenue positive because informality they're unwilling to do anything that raises revenue or the designed neutral. do you see any indication that that is changing and is it possible -- >> any responsible judgments from that on anyone we have basically everyone -- i will be giving some of that, erskin will be doing some of that we are not

singing be sure to take over proposal we are just saying are you flexible, are you ready this is the first time that i've seen in my long tenure in politics the sheet, the real heat because of these guys can't come around with this i tell you they won't want to go home. >> very clear that everything is on the table and for us to reach this grand bargain everything will have to be on the table if we are really going to address our long-term fiscal problems. >> social security is 20 funded in a -- 20 trillion in unfunded liabilities. they're paying into a program that is going to do this. do you agree with this statement and do you think that it is limited? >> all you have to do is do the math and then you can make the judgment yourself.

we need to know that in the year 2036 you were going to go up to the window and check for 23% less. a year ago that was 2037 and 22% less so in just one and a half years they picked that up and that's all do need to do and if you can't raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050 because people might be confused we don't have a prayer in the way. >> some say the model was personal and the social security do you think that would be a good idea as well? >> chile and the united states are slightly different. >> i would add to that one word, know why don't. >> i can tell you it wouldn't fit the economy, the demographics. that makes no sense. i've heard that for 20 years. if we did what charlie did we would be okay.

forget it. can't possibly function. >> let me make a quick point on and on social security because i think it's -- >> totally agree. everything. but i think that social security is a great example about how the earlier you make changes to a program the more time you have time to save them and the more gradual they can be in some ten years ago or 15 years ago when people talk about private accounts and social security there could have been a discussion on it because there were surpluses in the program. there aren't cash surpluses anymore. we've now wait until the cash surplus has disappeared and it makes reforming the program even more urgent even though there are credits and the trust fund those our claims on other government resources and think the social security is a perfect example of why getting ahead of the problem you know is out there as quickly as possible you can put in the changes gradually is the right way to go rather than waiting for the last minute when you are forced to make changes abruptly and you have fewer policy options. i don't think the private accounts for a credible option because we waited too long to even have the discussion but it does make the case why we should

talk about things like raising the retirement age, changing the structure, looking how the tax and finance system as quickly as possible. >> there's a very key thing happening here. using the flash words, this commission, our commission never talked of the privatization and the social security. not once. and you read about it and these will fail, too because we are talking about the privatization. none of us have talked with the privatization with the red hot issue it brought down everything bush tried to do and it will do it again. >> social security today is about $45 billion -- social security today is on an annual basis of the $45 billion of cash and that is before the reduction in the payroll taxes that are now being used for the stimulus. what we tried to do is to put forward some recommendations that would make social security sustainably solvent for the next

75 years so that it actually would be there for your generation. that can be done and we obviously recommend that it should be done. >> you say that you are optimistic that it's been to be successful and -- >> i think i've been optimistic, not very optimistic. >> last week after the sort of organizational material of the committee senator mcconnell i guess what is your response to that and both of you were on this committee so what is your initial -- what would you do? >> i think senator kafeel has said from time to time he may not have been quoted correctly on that. but i will say is we have an imaginary deficit in this country where the source of the deficit, that imaginary deficit is waste, fraud and abuse,

foreign-aid all subsidies, and nancy pelosi's there planned to do so that's like the imaginary deficit. the real deficit and the real causes of our deficit are a couple things fears to the covers of all we spend twice as much as any other country, a developed country on health care, and that's true whether you look at it as a percentage of gdp or on a per capita basis so that is one of the big problems is the amount of the health care and the growth on the health care cost. the second is that we spend more in the next 14 countries, the largest countries combined on our national defense. and that simply is not sustainable and it also causes us -- it causes the hollowing out of the country because they are not the resources available to invest in things like education and infrastructure and high value-added research. and if there is that we give away half of the tax income and

deductions and credits and people wonder why we have a relatively high tax rate and yet have the money that should be coming into the country it is because we have these deductions and credits so those are the three big causes of the deficit and those are the three big things everybody is going to have to deal with if you are going to solve a problem on a long-term basis. >> i think the commission will see what we learned about the defense department. we said how many contractors to you have and they said there's quite a range it's between 1 million to 10 million. it's just a small range. and then kent conrad asked for an audit years ago as head of the budget committee and the said we are an audible agency. we have no ability to audit ourselves, nor can anyone else audit of the defense department. there's health care plans that cost 53 billion that the fact

2 million veterans. i'm a veteran. i'm not interested in chris of fighting veterans but if you have to look at it and when you look at it to the bases overseas, i was overseas in germany and you don't need the base i was in any more. >> hang on tight. >> mature everything is on the table. you have to deal with these issues if you are going to address the long-term problems that face the country. >> one question to follow-up. maya said that making the deficit reduction but also frees up potentially more money for things like an economic, things that can stimulate the economy. do you think that investing money in things like president obama's proposal to reduce the taxes temporarily as well as invest in infrastructure i'm not asking you to sign off on that particular plan but do you think investments like that would help the economy right now?

>> al and i have said many times that this country if it is going to be competitive in the knowledge based global economy has to invest in things like education and infrastructure and high value-added research. but what we have said is we have to do that in a fiscally responsible manner. when you have limited resources it tells you one thing you have to make choices. let me give you two examples. i spent six years as the president of the university of north carolina, and one of the things that i fought for the hardest was for us to do our part to improve k-12 and you have to turn out not just more teachers but better teachers, so the first thing i looked at is what is the federal government doing in this area? and i quickly found out that the federal government has 82 progress to improve the quality of teachers education. do we need to or three good ones? absolutely. but we don't need 82.

we did $1.5 billion worth of annual research at the university of north carolina paid for by the federal government, paid for bye taxpayers. of the $1.5 billion i can't tell you how much of that would be described as high value-added research, but all of it is not. we are doing research today on the 3,000 colleges and universities. you know, what we have to do is we have to make choices. there was a great noble scientist. his name was referred to the co rutherford, and when he was running out of money he turned to his team and said we are running out of money now we have to start thinking. that's what america has to do. we have to start thinking and make choices. we have to prioritize our spending. we have to get a bigger bank for the dhaka, and once we do that then we also have to think about can we spend more and where we

get the capitol to do that. how do we pay for it. >> that's good. nobody else thought it was but -- [laughter] >> two months until thanksgiving to make the recommendations of the special-interest lobbying on these issues you solve this what would your advice be to them as far as what to expect? >> would be destroyed copies of every paper that comes out daily because there will be full page ads by every sacred cow and they will say you can't do this to old people, you can't do this to homeowners or seniors contador braking the bedpans in hospices it will be outrageous. it's been to be savagery. i mean, savagery because when we put this out when they laughed. we sat around and chuckled and said these guys are goofy, can up with something here that

possibly cannot work and now with two months ago they know exactly what's happening. they are zeroing in all the stuff that they did in the gang of six and everybody out there with a brain they have nowhere to go and so these special-interest groups would europe nationally advertising television which would be savagery. >> i will tell you we had people come in one day from 9:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night and we didn't have anybody come and say check my budget. everybody said ours is the most important. we need this money. it's like my mom said i'm really proud of you you are doing the right thing. you know, you should be fiscally responsible but don't mess with my medicare and that is what everybody thinks. do this but don't mess with theirs. you have to mess with everybody's because again it's got to be shared sacrifice. if we are going to get there.

the problems are real, the solutions are hard and there is no easy way out. if there are no more questions and just going to -- >> the group didn't have enough time [inaudible] >> i think you've got plenty of time and i can tell you the more comprehensive that we've made it, the easier our job of and the easier it was to get to the majority rather of and try to do little pieces of it. >> the tougher we make the proposal more people can afford, and i think that same thing can happen with the super commission to the estimate just to close out, i can't help but give a huge thanks to erskin bowles and al simpson because they did when they came up with a plan is the set the gold standard for how to

actually fix the budget, and for writing a decade before then we haven't been talking about the fixes were realistic changes, and it has completely changed the discussion in washington and the country, and i never thought would be possible that two people could hit the road and get the standing ovations for the budget speeches. i've given up the budget speech is to know that you don't get standing ovations. so they've got around the country and if you listen to them it's really inspiring how much support there is outside of washington to do the right things. and on their work could lead to the work of the gang of six in the senate and there are many colleagues in both the house and the senate who supported what they did and came together in a bipartisan way to say let's take these ideas and put everything on the table and put a fix out there and get ahead of this problem which is something we know is unsustainable and changes have to be made. and so the purpose of releasing this letter was to bring together these voices of the jury come very impressive group of people. all the former members of

congress and the heads of the treasury department office of management and budget, people who have been there in the trenches and know exactly what is needed and try to lend support to the 12 men and women working on a new super committee and hopefully help them come with a plan that is going to be difficult either we but i think the observations of erskin bowles and al simpson that you can get more and when you put everything on the table and a good deal may be the jury thing that helps them so hopefully they will hear so many people in the country are wishing them support and success and we hope they are able to go big. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i would just say what we say to people is we are here to talk to you. we don't do bs and we don't do much and if you are looking for bs and mushed just look at every conagra's person who tells you nothing about how to deal with it.

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> we just heard al smith and erskin bowles talking about the goal of the joint congressional deficit-reduction committee. the panel was meeting tomorrow morning and we will hear from congressional office director douglas elmendorf. you can see coverage at 10:30 eastern on c-span3.

right now a republican presidential candidates are debating in tampa florida. the debate is expected to go another half-hour and then we will have live coverage to hear from the campaign to see what they have to say about the debate. we will have that life for you just after ten eastern on c-span2. senator jon kyl is a member of the joint congressional deficit reduction committee which we heard of another last program. today a policy event in washington he said he might quit the commission if its recommendations include defense cuts. here are some of senator kyle's remarks on the floor today. then you'll hear from indiana republican senator dan coats.

>> president obama is about to s rule out another jobs plan he talked about last week.irst this is two and a half years tfter the first stimulus billabu which with interest to about $1.2 trillion, and his economict advisers have confirmed the fact that this stimulus concept isd o economic theory, and as our republican leader noted last week, unfortunately there areico now 1.7 million fewer jobs in of america are according to theicsn bureau of labor statistics than president' before the president's first stimulus bill. so the question is whether it iy better in theory than it is in practice. and i wanted to talk today a littlebasi bit about the twocono different basic theories of a economic growth and when you doh in aav situation of economic downturn like we have today.stim how should we be looking at the

stimulation of job creation and economic growth, the two competing theories of course are the keynesian theory that i mentioned and what some have called supply-side economics. bn there's no question that themic theory has been one of theas usd president's economic advisers generally to adhere to. it was used to justify the 2009, stimulus program and other m programs for example the one that sticks out in my mind is fr the so-called cash for clunkers, but there were other transfer payments and others. but the feeling in the cash for clunkers is a good example is that a recessionary time if the government spends money andves t gives it to people so that they cano t spend at, that willerefoe therefore stimulate consumptiono the business will respond by increasing p production and that kill j create jobs and for examc

the agriculture secretary tom vilsack said that because of a theoretical multiplier effect under this model food stamps, government money taken fromr taxpayers given to people whofod are entitled or eligible for wou food stamps that they would facr actually stimulate the economy by the factor of 1.84 or in stap other words a dollar of food dollar 84 cents in economicthat activity. there are a lot of problems witt that theory. the first is the multiplier tffect itself has been fac discredited as not something that in fact actually happens. a harvard economist by the namet of robert pearl has explainedxp this and let me quote from one e of the things he read. theorizing aside, the keynesiani policy conclusions such as the wisdom of additional stimulus geared to the money transfers k

should come down to the and there is zero evidence that that deficit financed transferso raise gdp and employment. not to mention evidence for a s multiplier of the to it secretary vilsack were this would be truly miraculous. the administration from the evidence and wanted multiplierse around to buy consulting large-scale models which substitute assumptions for w identification, end of quote. in other words, economists can prove the multiplier in theoryh- with- these models but there iss no empirical evidence that it ir ever occurred.e m it is a bit like money growing s on trees. from me somewhere. and of course it comes out ofs o the pockets of taxpayers or thee government borrows it and wit eventually has to be repaid with the taxpayer's tax dollars.

the second problem is that toths the extent that one assumes the problem is that americans are too broken to spend the money the question then is how can thp government make that up for us?m aren't theen people thehe government? doesn't the government get its money from the people in the form of taxes or if it borrows, heople's taxes eventually havekt to pay back the borrowed money in other words we have to pay back later.hange third, people tend to change their spending habits when they know that they will have greatet consistent income over time like when they receive a raise at work. if you just give people a s onetime payment, the evidence has shown they either save thatw for shift future consumption's forward in other words and they may buy something now that they were going to buy leader that's when the cash for clunkers program failed but it doesn't

permanently increase the work effort or their incentive toedeo invest which of course is what is needed to jump-start economie growth. like the job creators that themselves, they tend to know that they're going to have permanent tax relief foreceive a regulatory relief not just whent they receive a one time paymentt for something and it's only fors as good as it lasts.vide t as long as it lasts but it prosc doesn't provide a consistent long-term prospects for incomeah the person committing to be that person over time. fourth, the keynesian theory as soon as the government has theos foresight to determine or us co president juan's national economic council larry summers said of the stimulus to charge p the spending programs would best create economic growth but that rarely happens. the obvious problem with thiss d assumption is that the congressw

does not spend the taxpayers'in money wisely. we see time and time again how d well intentioned piece ofecial legislation gets loaded up withl special projects frequentlyostlo which are costly to the question, to the public and vere questionable in their value andh that is one of the things wronga withck the stimulus packageorkis itself. t there is in on the opening set en papers that reveals the trutc about this and daniel jones and rothschild took a lot of studies and other things whether congress did a good job of targeting th te stimulus funds that the unemployed workers and the weak sectors of the economy they surveyed hundreds of firmss that received stimulus funding and gathered more than a thousand voluntary anonymous responses from employees and to oanagers to help shed more light on what happened to the stimulus organizations that received stimulus funds and here's whatf they want. the survey finds no evidence oft

such keynesian targeting successfully, and of quote.$4 for example, one city is given $4 million to improve energy efficiency even though a budgeto shortfall had just forced to lay off 185 public workers.truc in another case study the expeni contractor was instructed to purchase more expensive titles than he needed for a particular project. the theory was in that wen tha e government could claim the stimulus money was getting out the door faster.r this isn't the way to spur m economic growth. and i think even most keynesian believe it matters what the ksin government actually spends its moneyse it on. moreover, this study that i referred to also found that lesu than half of those hired with a stimulus funds were unemployedne about 42.1%.e jobs were simply moving from one place to another when the thing authors of the study road hiring is not the same as the net jobor creation. job this suggests just how hard it wo

isrk for the keynesian job creation to work in the modernef expertise economy, and of quote, in other words while an employet might steal an employee from another employer, thatfr is note the same thing as creating a ne job. so the bottom line here is there is a major misconception that consumption fueled by government spending actually creates jobs. it turns out that it doesn't. a it just inefficiently moves thel borrowed money around with a red bill that has to be repaid that later. economi i think it's also important to remember that economic growth stems from combining three inputs, labor, capital and three technology. outpu these three factors of then consume and this is the beginning of the difference between the keynesian philosophy and the supply-side philosophy, which focuses on productivity and what is required for ther, society to be more productive? y

labor, capital and technology. n and if properly applied, when ae these three aspects of the economy are well aligned, the be economy can grow, jobs can be ty produced, people will consume, u dut they will be consuming prode things that have been producedss by the businesses of the country. be without the labour capital and cons ochnology, there can be no consumption. i mean, that's obvious.stimate o focussing on the policies that stimulate the consumption targets the wrong side of the equation. in order to get the economy going, you need to focus on the inputs. and there's an incident a problem here. stimulating the consumption alsw freezes prices which is exactlyn what we don't need. when you stimulate input or productivity you produce more oe the quality goods people wantprn and the prices of the productstu are down if there is enoughbu wy productivity but when you try tn stimulate the production for the fixed number of goods obviously

the price of the goods rose up.y there's a fear of inflation in this society today, and that is precisely what this kind ofesiat keynesian stimulus will produce. ints, as i the matter of focusing on inputs, as i said, is where the second philosophy of economic growth comes in. supply-side economics, which focuses on productivity.ics is t the fundamental principal of thy economics is the people worke harder and they take more risksi when there are more opportunityg for the economic gain and lessgs government intrusion. translating this economic philosophy into the policy meang several things. first of all, reducing thegovert government con consumption by cutting spending thus leaving the resources and private sector. when the government spends monea -- i ask unanimous consent to continue to speak as long as the time i may consume. >> is there an objection?eernmen >> when the government can onlyd

spend money, the government can only give money to a food stampa recipient by taxing that money from someone else or from borrowing the money, and eventually that money needs to be paid back. it's paid back by taxpayers paying money to the government, which can then repay its debt. money that the government stand is the custom is to stimulate ce economy has to come from somewhere and the only place itn can come from is the american taxpayer. so the bottom line is of theplus keynesian stimulus spending there is no free lunch the mone. doesn't just materialize of to nowhere it isn't free for the government to inject this money into the economy by giving it the favored groups or to withinr redistribute it to people withit our society so they can spend ae

and that's why the factor some people talk about we get more i money back then wen put in is wrong in two ways first as ith pointed out before there is no empirical evidence that everhaso aid,ened and second eventually the money has to be repaid and t if it was taxpayer money toith, begin with that's a dollar lessr taxpayer money that taxpayer has to investor. to consume and it's a business person to hirevate someone in the private businesse the problem is the government money isn't free. and so the whole premise of keynesian economics and that we get a free dollar someplace thae produces benefits by people than t inding it is wrong aboutving i leaving it in the pocket of theo person who wants to spend it in the first place. the chances are f that person can mn more intelligent decision aboute what he or i she needs in the ai

united states government. and second, as i sit here, we is are talking about incentives ine the marketplace, which are basen on every economic study on long-term policies, long-term tax policies, long-term and regulatory policies and individual small businessmen fon example wants to know the lawe e will be to win three and fourthy years out before they decide to hire pay taxesha for that he's goingo health benefit for certainly the salary and if he doesn't think g the policy over that long term is going to enable him toot continue to employ then the individual he isn't going to higher than in the first place. another thing that supply-sidees economics means is the worst thing you can do is especially

b raise taxes on any one but notto i the very employers we count on to hire more workers. who was it mr. president that he are the first to hire coming ous of recession? its small business. so the very people that we areor asking to hire more americans te people who would be impacted byo the taxes that the president tag e --ed about the other night.ot he's talking about taxing, ans." quote, will figure americans.ea? what does that mean? who that means people who make incomes of about $200,000. that happens to be the group that represents the bulk of the small business entrepreneurs in america. is paid in the top to income tax brackets to the president wouldl raisee taxes on. so the very people that we want to hire more workers we aren, going to impose more taxes on

and expect them to hire more and to reduce unemployment so that we can have a greater economicka growth it simply doesn't work hs that way and more and more the k president seems to be acknowledging that the run away gulations regulation of his administratiob are actually beginning to harm business and job creation. this is why effort to try to streamline they regulations and get rid of any that don't work. the why he withdrew the proposedprot regulationection from the environmental protection agencyc recently did would have had a very negative impact on tt business. he's beginning to recognize that because the burden of stimulatee regulations. you cannot stimulate the economy or job growth with a governmentn in posing more and more costly regulation on american businessn every day.

the president said it proposed choice in his speech the other o night.y he said we have to do away with these job killing regulations. e but he said i will not do away roth the regulations which f protect the american people froy and then he named a litany of things he wants to take the american people.egulations nobody's talking about emitting all regulations or having unsafs food or unsafe products forike. little babies or the light. we are not talking about that.he we are talking about the issue o of the thousands of thousands oh pages of new regulations every month by this administration.amr and the cost american business with very little regard for a ft cost-benefit in other words, tor the society benefits for the i cost the record delete regulations imposed by businessi and by the way when i say thest cost imposed on business whoe in pays? business are the people in the d business and the consumers end up paying the cost of thessed

regulations which are obviouslyh passed on. so this is again anotherhy indirect tax on the american people. and that's why i said before noe tax the especially in a time like this whether direct oridea indirect is a good idea becauset job creation so the bottom line of all of this mr. president is there are two basic theories, gt the one with erie basically says you can get something for nothing the government will get money, forget where he gets it but when he gives it to people n spey will spend it and when they spenden it, then what ever they spend it on that producers toso produce more of those things so they have to hire somebody to make more of them.ackwards. but it's backward doesn't work s that way. money didn't first the money didn't come toet the government freely. it had to take out of thethe goe they have a dollar less to spend or it gives an audio deutschhat

means eventually the taxpayers have to pay the taxes to repaykf the iou. there's not a dollar there in the private sector for anom entrepreneur to hire someone with or to produce something.nos and so the supply side economico says let's look at the other side of the equation rather than focusing on scum the consumption of its focus on productivity where the technology and labor c and capital can produce more ane make a society more productive, more wealthy where more people can have work and better paying. jobs what they produce has greater value and people are willing to buy it as a result oe which they put more money back p into the economy and that is the cycle that produces wealth and it's the cycle that has caused n economic growth and job creation and wealth generation in this country now for over 200 years it is the proposition that job

growth starts in the private jo, sector, the government doesn'tst create jobs that money starts with the people, the taxpayers they generate the income and tho government gets a piece of that with the tax revenue the money belongs to the people, not themw government and the there's no magic when the government somehow gets order a dollar in r to redistribute it so somebody can buy something with that youm have eto remember the dollar cao from that didn't materialize out of thin air it started with a da hard-working taxpayer thatt to t earned the dollar and paid ithe for the government and taxes or is paying it in taxes to repay the debt the government incurred in order to borrow money for the ctimulus package.conomi i hope we can keep these economic furies in mind. no there is no free lunch, there is no free money eventually the tax

payers or who creates the wealth and the job creators create thes ind,. and if we keep those principlese in mind we look more skepticallt on the notion we can justreation somehow target job creation with stimulus bill that's us been to get us out of our economic woes now. now. if my colleagues will keep the principles in mind i think wewil will make wise decisions and even deeper into debt and try to focus on long-term so the bu business can actually make necisions based upon the long ta term thinking rather than basedf upon the ephemeral effects of short-term stimulus. >> eight republican presidential candidates have just finished debating here at florida state fair grounds in tampa. of debate was about an hour work and 50 minutes long, a little shorter than expected boosted by the tea party express and cnn. our live coverage now from what

is called the spin room where folks from the campaigns go after the debate to give their take on what happened to. the national politics reporter for politico is covering the debate. hello, charles. what we are seeing are the major issues talked about tonight? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

>> it's not just the commonwealth of massachusetts where he's been a change agent. he did the same in the winter olympics. there was a scandal and budget problems. he turned that around and staged the most successful or best olympics held on u.s. soil.

there were many companies troubled, he turned those around as well. i think absolutely mitt demonstrated again why he's the best candidate to lead during these challenging times. >> some said tea party support and more people who had tea party supporters backing perry, but he seemed at ease tonight. >> i think he was. matt romney told it like it is. on social security, i don't think people -- i think people were closer to where rick perry was which we ought to dismantle the program and give it to the states to run. that's what mitt romney does, and we continue to believe it would be a mistake for the republican party to nominate as it's standing there somebody who believes social security has been a failure from its

inception and that it does violence to our founding principles. mitt romney does not agree with that. he believes we should save and strengthen social security. >> democrats are worried he'll be the defender of social security. >> well, mitt romney thinks the republican party should be known atz pear who strengthens social security. they provide insurance, old age pensions. it's valuable and it's worth saving. what we shouldn't do is attack its very formation or suggest that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of providing pensions and raise the possibility of giving it over to the state. what state would want to take over the unfunded obligations of the social security program? we ought to fix it and fix it at the federal level. >> [inaudible] >> i'm erick, a senior adviser to the romney cam pin.

>> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> largely invented is boeing, do you think there's a conflict of interest with power given what was spoken about south carolina? >> well, mitt romney hasn't been there since 1999 and his personal investments are in a trust. those are investment decisions made by a trustee, not by mitt romney, but i will say -- what i will say about boeing and the rolling of the nrib with respect to the south carolina plant, this is another example how the obama administration is suppressing job creation in the country and discarding the rule of law. if there is a company that wants to locate in a right to work state, they ought to be allowed to do that. that's not an unfair labor practice. we should be encouraging job growth in south carolina and elsewhere. >> it's a no-conflict interest?

>> all investments are in a blind trust. he does not personally manage them. they are managed by a trustee. >> [inaudible] >> he is a government that mitt romney has respect for, but we're proud to have the endorsement of tim pawlenty. that was announced this morning, and somebody like mitt romney who ran as a conservative in a blue state and governed as a conservative like romney did in massachusetts, he was a tough part in the primary, but we're proud to have him on board. >> what do you think -- [inaudible] contracts there, any squabbling? >> i think rick pine from abc news had it correct when he said perry left with a social security problem, but left with

a conservative problem. he had to not only back himself on a vaccine decision he made, but the taxes increase, the spending and debt that went up, and his decision to provide in-state tuition benefits to illegal imgrants. >> romney didn't seem to get applause. >> i think with mitt romney is he didn't move to the crowd. he's a republican, proud to be a republican, shares with members of the tea party their concerns about spending, but at heart and at the bottom, he's a republican. yes? >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> he demonstrated leadership, and we understand what it's going to take to put the country back on the right path. >> interseed in a position in the administration? >> no, i got the best job in the world, governor of the great state of louisiana, running for reelection why i endorsed rick is because he'll do a great job for the country. i'm worried under this president our debt is $14 trillion. he just proposed to raise taxes to spend more money, borrow more money, put the children further into debt that's not sustainable. that's $45,000 for every american, 42 cents of every

dollar they spend in washington is borrowed. he's grown the government to 24% of gdp. perry understands to grow the economy, we're not going to tax and borrow, but he's held the line of first governor and decades in texas, decrease spending, implemented aggressive reform -- >> [inaudible] >> i got a great job in louisiana. the reason i endorse him is i don't want a job from rick, but i want him to create millions of jobs in the country with our fellow americans. i want him to be the next president. i want president obama to be a one-term president. i think rick perry has the conservative ideal, but the executive track record and experience. the mistake we made in electing president obama is we elected a president without executive experience before, had not run anything before, became president of the united states. it's on the job training. we need a president who -- perry has a proven track record. he created 40% of all the jobs

created in america were in texas while he was governor. the economy in texas surpassed new york, the second largest economy in the country. he shows conservative principles work. he'll redporm the laws, will not raise taxes, cut spending, cut borrowing, cut the debt, give a predictable regulatory environment so the private sector can create jobs. president obama made the mistake of believing government creates jobs. when the government creates jobs, it costs taxpayers money. when the private sector creates jobs it gives the taxpayers money. #we need more private sector jobs. we need an end to the borrowing, find out how it's over a trillion dollars of the debt by some estimates and maybe more than that. this is not a sustainable path to the country. the debt exploded under the president. we need a fiscally conservative record. there's a proven track record. >> [inaudible] >> governor romney was trying to

scare seniors by raising questions on social security. do you agree with that he's trying to scare seniors? >> i think president rick -- i mean governor rick perry deserves credit to bring up the issue of entitlement reform and social security. there's an important point and may it clear he wants to protect social security for seniors, those nearing retirement, but made the point social security as it's structured is not sustainable. last year for the first time since 1982, social security paid more than it took in, but the trust fund will not be there. bithe time i retire, the trust fund will be broke. he made the very, very important point we got to protect social security for the seniors in it, those nearing retirement, but we need to preserve and improve social security, preserve social security for the younger workers, for whom it will not be there unless we take action now. the second point is i want to honor president reagan's commandment about not

criticizing fellow republicans. i'm not here to criticize others. i don't think any republican candidate should be engaging in the demagoguery and political attacks we expect to see from the democratic party. every time folks like paul ryan or rick perry talk about entitlement reform, we see attacks that this is an intergenerational attack or class warfare. we see those attacks over and over. i'm not here to contribute site republican candidates, but to support rick to be the next president. he deserves credit for pointing out the bold steps we have to take, that we have to take action today to improve social security, and, by the way, i believe we have to do that for medicare also. >> also credits for illegal immigrants. did he answer those questions well enough? >> look, the fact he was taking a lot of attacks, a lot of the questions shows he's a front

runner, other folks are aiming at him. 245 comes from the territory. rick is a tough guy being governor of texas for 11 years. he can handle debate. i'm not interested in who wins or loses a debate. i'm interested in a proven track record and executive leadership. i think rick did great tonight, was stronger than when he started the debate. what's more important to me than talking points or the best joke or best line, and by the way, the candidates had great lines up there. a lot of great lines, but what's most important to me about rick perry's record is the fact that he's up to create jobs in texas, this economy -- it's about the economy, about creating jobs. we're now in the worse recession since the great depression. i know washington economists said we're out of the recession, but so many millions of americans are without jobs, the reality is we are still in a recession until more people are working. i think that's -- >> immigration did not go over well. they didn't want to hear about

education. >> rick perry's got a great track record with creating jobs. this election is about the economy. that's the most important issues. voters say the most important issue is which nominee, which candidate will be best qualified to lead the economy forward, get us back on the right track. rick perry fills that criteria on the understanding government doesn't create jobs. his understanding the debt is a serious challenge to our economy and our american dream and is understanding that the solution's not more government spending, borrowing, and taxes unlike the president, who, by the way, with the second stimulus bill shows his stimulus part ii shows he doesn't get what it takes to -- >> governor, what's the response to the trn comments? >> -- treason comments 1234 >> we need to secure the border. he didn't get a chance to respond at that specific allegation. when you listen what he said, using more troops, more aerial

assets. >> what's your reaction? >> i support defense. i support the additional measures that governor perry was describes. third, look, i think that a lot of candidates are trying 20 get attention for themselves. i think governor perry, unlike the others up there, has not just talked the talked, but walked the walk. unlike the other candidates up there and other potential nominees up there, governor perry's governed a state that deals with border issues. >> [inaudible] >> look, you can ask governor huntsman and their advisers. the reality is the fact that a lot of candidates were attacks governor perry is the finest rep. the fact a lot are going after him is a good sign. [inaudible]

>> he says what he means, he's authentic. we elected -- we elected a president one the best -- we continue to have one of the worst economies we've had in a generation. we don't need to elect just a great specker, but somebody to govern and lead on day one, governor perry's proven while being governor for 11 years, he's proven the record, aggressive policy on holding the line on taxes, cutting spending, aggressive reform, he's proven there's the ability and skills we need for him to lead on day one. i'm not looking for the most polished speaker necessarily, but the best leader. governor perry has the qualifications, the experience. i thought he did great tonight. i think that if he wins, the reality is no one wins or loses the debates. the tv stations just make it that way. governor perry did a great fine

job tonight. the debates are great. voters need to see the debates, have a chance to see the candidates being tested. the reality is the republican party for a long time were accused of being a party selecting on based on whose turn it was. i'm glad we're not doing that. it's an open election where there are a number of different candidates vying for votes. >> [inaudible] he doesn't need my help for vice president. i just want him to be elected. >> will you be his vice president? >> no, i will not be his vice president. i will be governor of louisiana. >> [inaudible] >> look, call it what you want, what was clear to me today is you listen to the candidates, they essentially spoke up on social security and they agree with governor perry's position. he deserves create to boldly, clearly state with obvious about the program, to be approved for younger workers -- >> do you agree with the observation?

>> look, i don't care what you call it. what's important is it's absolutely true if we don't do anything, it will not be debatable for younger workers. it's paying out more than it's taking in last year and this year and for the foreseeable future. it's clear the trust fund will not be there by the time i retire. call it what you want. the bottom line is it's not sustainable. it needs to be fixed. people in texas talk differently than louisiana. whatever you call it, it's the point he was making which is this -- now is the time to make changes, and he deserves credit for being brave enough. everybody says don't talk entitlements, but the american people are looking for a levered who a brave and honest enough to look them in the face and say what we are doing is not sustainable. $14 trillion in debt is not sustainable, boar ring 42 cents is not sustainable. borrowing a trillion dollars from china is not sustainable.

he was the first to raise the issue during this campaign season. the others are now agreeing with him. he deserves credit for being so specific and so aggressive on saying we have to do something about the entitlements. >> governor -- governor? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> she's passionate and core convictions are consistent the year, and is passionate talking about overreach of government, overuse of executive power, calling things mullgan, forcing people to take injections for their kids. this fires her up. you saw tonight she shines a light on it, and her record shows 245. >> shows michele bachmann in the

polls in a nine-person race, and palin who is not running for president at this time. do you think her performance may have resurrected her campaign giving her the boost she needs going forward? >> there's just one poll out, and we won, so we're not worrying about the august poll. tonight you saw her consistency in our message and consistent sigh in the passion of why the country needs to turn around and why 2012. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i think the debate we had on

the issue of the cervical cancer drug points out what governor perry did is important to understand, he does not back away from his position, just how he did it. he still believes government should require 12 year olds, 11-year-old girls to have a vaccine that says the government thinks you're going to have sexual intercourse, and therefore, therefore we are going to vaccinate you against that. that's the only reason you have to get that vaccine. for the government to say that sends a very bad signal to young women all across texas, and for the governor of the state to continue to advocate that was proper approach shows how he is more like president obama about being the nan any state. look, there's a health concern, sure, but trust parents to make health care decisions about

their children and certainly not the federal government or state government. >> the vaccine was not designed to encourage sexual activity. >> how do you -- no, i know qliewr going to -- going to say. >> they will at some points in their lives. this is to protect them against -- >> the government's saying that you are going to get this vaccine unless your parents find out about it in time. the government is taking the roam of the parents, and with the presumption that at the age of 11 this is something you'll be engaged in without your parents knowledge. if governor perry wanted to put forth a program, even an opt-in that i said in the last debate where he makes 2 available, talk about health classes, ect., that's fine. it's a serious issue to be talked about, but for the government to come in and say, again, vaccines are used to stop

the spread of diseases. they are not used in schools to promote a specific health agenda. if that's what it's used for now, require all sorts of things that the government's going to tell you are bad for you because you happen to be going to school -- i don't think that's the role of the government or the school. he did not say -- he said he went about it the wrong way. he still believes the policy was the right policy, and that's the problem. >> constitutional credibility -- [inaudible] >> i, you know, my understanding is that that issue was solved. there's evidence to the contrary, then they should be bringing it forward. >> your father is not a natural citizen, qualifications are your parents have to be -- >> he was born in the country so it gunpoint matter.

it doesn't matter. >> we have to be individual lent in making sure that they want to segregate themselves from society which is what is happening in europe does not occur here in the country, and we have to have a discussion about it and so what is going on in europe is something that is absolutely appropriate for a public policy. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a more detailed evaluation of strengths, and that's what you are witnessing right now. if the next couple of weeks, you know, this week and an ex week's date, and by the end of september still at a good lead, you know, that'll make him a strong candidate. >> were you taken back at all by

the comments -- [inaudible] >> well, you know, he's got a different perspective, obviously, than the rest. i mean, it's interesting to see when this all flushes out what percentage of republicans are going to look for that message. it's clearly a different one. >> 1% of the room. >> well, this was always a different group. >> where do you find rick perry particularly wrong? >> i don't know, that's up to the opponents. i'm here to make sure that whoever wins the nomination is the strong as he can be. obviously, you know, he's been a successful politician, never lost, and the owner of a big state for 11 years, and so he knows his way around. look, some of the weaknesses that you may have mentioned in as far as the reaction from the crowd tonight may be positives for the general election, you know, like some of the immigration posters, so it all

depends in what point in time in the campaign process do you go for a particular position on particular issues. >> questioning in the first period seem like a strong -- >> actually, he should have gave the answer that herman cain gave. that was a great answer. he said, look, in this time in texas, i think it was glendale, texas, he said, listen, those guys broke away from this thing or those people put their savings are doing better than anywhere else in the country, 2-to-1. he made another mention how people using is an option, the ability -- i thought you have taken herman cain's answer, perry could have left that issue in a lot better shape. >> do you think he's vulnerable on social security in the

republican primary? >> look, i think in a republican primary, everybody's going to agree that all entitlements, not just social security, needs reform. they want to defend the electorat has a reasonable response to it, but they are expecting to fix something, 10 the democrats theory say, oh, he's got a problem with social security. i think those days are gone. i think they are well-informed now, including senior citizens. i don't think people will fall for the scare tactics, and so, you know, the answer will be everybody's going to be for social security reform. the answer is which -- the question is which answer will the people like the most. >> [inaudible] >> well, it works well in texas, and it's been -- the way he's been, and he came out of the thing still in the polls shes

he's the number one candidate. there's something about his personality that makes voters believe he can take it to the president. people are looking for someone to stand up and deliver a policy so the other side in the congress, and he exudes that fighter personality and people like that, and i think overall that's probably his major strength. >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> seniors that are here, that's why we show florida, and also the number one reason we chose florida is because the tea party movement is so well-connected

here and they work so well together, and they are an example for the rest of the country. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely, absolutely. we had activists from, i believe, in the audience from 31 states tonight. we had over 150 tea party groups that were co-sponsors of the debate that represented every state in the union, and the audience tonight was heavily weighted with florida activists, so i think it's florida's very important. >> give me your full name. >> i'm amy kremer chairman of the tea party express. i live in atlanta, but i live on trains, plains, and automobiles. >> was there a clear winner, loser? >> you know, i mean, i need to go back and watch the debate again. i know, you know, the candidates, governor romney clarified his position on romneycare, and perry clarified

where he was on the hpv vaccine, an interesting discussion on immigration, but i need to watch it again really because it was surreal sitting in there knowing we, the people, made this happen. >> many tea party members get behind romney, did you sense that remains a problem? i realize you can't speak for 2 million people. >> yeah, i definitely don't speak for all the tea party activists out there, but what i will tell you is this are definitely candidates that have been on the front lines with the tea party movement for a long time, and, you know, there's no denying michele bachmann's been out there and even governor perry is working with a tea party movement in the state of texas. he's billboarded up, and we go through texas on the bus tour, and, you know, obviously ron paul, the god father of the tea party, and herman cain has been

on the front lines. >> [inaudible] >> you know, i wanted to beat president obama, and i want the field narrowed down, narrowing down the field to be laser focused on the issues that are so important to most americans. >> [inaudible] >> the tea party express will absolutely make an een dorsement at some point, but not ready to do that right now. >> what do you say to people who say the tea party made up their minds. they will never support a mitt romney. what happens in debates like this? >> we saw it in the primaries last election cycle, and when i see activists across the country, they need to get out there and work with the candidate. now, the candidate they think is the most and they believe will volunteer money and time, dedicate time to then. they will be -- i believe we're not all going to support the

same candidate, but i believe in the end we are going to do what we can so that we defeat president obama. let me say this -- let me say this -- this is the important thing. the tea party movement is not here to send a republican to washington, but a conservative to washington, and we're not going to accept what the republican party hands us. we are going to choose the next republican nominee. >> would you put up the tea party where you are not satisfied with a republican candidate that you will fund a third party? >> no, i don't. i mean, i don't think there's any -- >> a force in the republican party, but there is a tea party to not jump outside of it. >> no, we want to defeat president obama. we have two parties we need to work within. this movement is a record of people being frustrated and angry with both parties, but especially the republican because they have gotten away from their conservative values. you can see everybody moving to

the right, not only the republicans, but the democrats. when in washington have you seen democrats talk about cutting spending? >> pushing argument further and further right these days, and ron paul gives the republicans being too far to the right. regarding the military comments, has that distanced himself from the tea party? >> you know, i don't know. we're going to have to wait and see how that plays out. you know, congressman paul, i will say, we get a lot of flak from his supporters because they say we don't include him or support him and whatnot. i can tell you that we just did a two week bus tour from napa california to tampa, florida, he had an open invitation to come to the spots, and he didn't show up. it's hard for us, you know, to work with somebody that doesn't come out and support the movement in the way that the movement is going on and growing. >> with regard to the comments

with the military, do you think his thoughts are going to, you know, the terrorists attacks and everything, does that reflect -- [inaudible] >> well, we are a very patriotic movement. we don't focus on the wrong policy. we focus pretty much on the fiscal issues in the economy, but i will say that most of the people within this movement want to support our troops and make sure that they do have what they need while they are in harm's way. >> your name? >> amy kremer and i'm from atlanta. >> with? >> tea party express. >> okay. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> online coverage from tampa is

wrapping up. tampa is the site of the 2012 national republican convention next august which c-span will have live for you. another gop debate in florida next week, that one in orlando. for more coverage leading up to next year's elections, go to c-span.org/campaign2012. >> watch more videos of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, canada bios, polling data, and links to partners in the early and primary caucus states all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> that other piece of paper --

>> the republican presidential debate, the committee chair, debbie wasserman schultz from florida talked to reporters about republican candidates' view on social security. she was joined at the news conference at the florida state fairgrounds in tampa with local residents. >> what do you mean? i'm going to talk. [laughter] >> well, good afternoon. i'm deb deb, member of the -- debbie wasserman schultz, member of congress representing south florida and i chair the democratic national committee. joining me here today are two local florida residents, peggy and norm. peggy is a lifelong floridian, lived in the state for more than 60 years. before retiring in 2006, she worked as a licensing specialist for monitoring and licensing child care and child placement agencies. having just turned 61 this past weekend -- i'm not sure why we

are telling your age, but -- >> i don't mind. >> you don't even look it. she's looking forward to enrolling in medicare and social security in a few years. norm, joins us today from the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. he's a st. petersberg resident, retired from the social security administration after more than three decades of service, so thank you. he worked tirelessly to ensure seniors received the benefits they earned thought their careers. they know how important it is to have a president to make sure vital programs like social security and medicare are there for working middle class americans who have paid into it their entire lives. after my remarks, we'll have norm and then peggy speak. excuse me. good afternoon. tonight. i think we are likely to hear the republican candidates for president continue to worship at

the alter of the tea party. throughout this primary campaign, we sadly have not heard a single new idea from the republican candidates, and toped, you shouldn't expect that to change. it's given -- if given the chance, they will bring the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, economy shedding more than 750,000 jobs each month when president obama came into office, and what is their message to middle class american families? they would advocate for policies that just set us up for the next big burst bubble, repealing protections in place to prevent another financial crisis and giving more tax breaks to special interests and tax cuts to the wealthiest and most fortunately americans. if you struggle as a result of the financial crisis, the mortgage crisis, or just having trouble finding a job, you won't find a candidate on stage tonight with a plan that we're all too familiar with and got us

into this mess in the first place. for seniors and anybody looking forward to aging with dignity, you can expect to see the leading republican candidates calling for changes that would do great harm for social security, if not dismantle it entirely. social security, like medicare, is something americans have earned. we paid for it. we're counting on it. the republicans would shred it to bits, breaking a decade long compact with the american people. at least rick perry was honest about the social security, calling it a ponzi scheme. he was not -- a scheme that is rhetoric. mitt romney has you believe otherwise. he's been running around attacks rick perry on the issue. the hypocrisy is beyond galling. he would gamble with the social security in the stock market, a scheme that would devastate

social security and leave seniors twitching in the wind, and he's said so publicly numerous times. republicans like mitt romney, rick perry, and george bush before him have had sights set on destroying social security. these candidates have come to my home state of florida and florida seniors don't want rick perry or romney's approach in dismantling social security and they already expressed opposition to these candidates support for the ryan republican plan to end medicare as we know it. ending medicare and dismantling social security are curious positions for candidates campaigning here in the sunshine state, but that's what the republicans support and believe. florida seniors need to know that. each of the republican candidates in this race is desperate to appease the tea party. they rubber stamped an agenda to end medicare as we know it, erode social security, eliminate

millions of jobs. meanwhile, president obama and democrats are building an america that is poised for success in the future. on thursday, the president offered a bill that would create more jobs right now because the american people demand immediate action. as soon as congress passes it, businesses will be able to hire more workers and middle class families can keep more of what they earn. there's no reason for delay, and as the president said, there's nothing in the bill that's controversial. if your goal is to create jobs for middle class families. this is a matter of values. the idea that hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded. the president's bill reflects the values. the americans jobs agent creates jobs and helps the economy now helping businesses hire and grow by cutting payroll tax by 50% putting more money in the pockets of middle class americans, lowering their taxes.

the average family gets to keep $1500 more from their paychecks each year, putting people to work in jobs that keep us safe today and strength b our future including thiefers, first responders, veterans, and construction workers. while the bill creates american jobs, it will not add a dime to the deficit. this bill is sound policy that will ensure that middle class families are protected and that their are rewarded for their hard work. the republican candidates opposed this common sense plan because they are not interested in solutions. they'd rather see middle class families struggle than to give up the effort to give more tax breaks to special interests to the wealthy and most fortunate. this is not a question of partisanship, but a question of values. these republican candidates are making a pretty clear statement of who they value. they care about one job -- president obama's. democrats care about american jobs. tonight you'll hear a lot of talk about the president, but you won't hear any plans to

create jobs now or to protect social security without privatizing it, or without transforming medicare int a program that benefits insurance companies and increases health care costs. republicans have no plan for middle class families because they work for the special interests. their plans to deregulate wall street, give tax breaks to insurance companies and big oil and extend tax cuts for millionaires does not create jobs or make thicks easier on middle class families. floor rid yaps need to know democrats are on their side and the republican message is you're on your own. at this debate, and for the entirety of the campaign, we'll make sure voters know it. thank you very much. norm? >> i'm up? okay. in my 30-plus years with the social security administration, i took applications from literally thousands of people, people who told me on frequent occasions, norm, if not for social security, i don't know what we would do.

i'm retired now, and i still talk to people in a volunteer role, and i hear the same thing. i don't know what we would do without social security. i want to read two quotes, very brief, one is from governor romney who said to put it in a nutshell, the american people have effectively been defrauded out of their social security. for you fact checkers, it's in the book -- no apology, believe in america, page 72. check that out. governor perry wrote, "by any measure, social security is a failure." a failure? i say to the two of the gentlemen to interview and listen to the 55 million people who can and do depend on getting a social security payment every single month. this program, the definedded benefit program of social

security has been paying benefit s on time since january, 1940 there has never been a default. that is why this program is so successful. actually, it's successful because of american people have demanded it, and congress has responded. now we hear, oh, it's bankrupt. it's not bankrupt. you know that. i would like to comment on the business -- their motivation is to privatize social security. i say the private markets are fine for private moneys. the free enterprise system has served us well. social security has served us well as a social insurance defined benefit program and paid benefits on time, and according to the congressional budget office, that office which congress relies on to make their decisions, the payments will be made no equivocation for the

next 27 years, on time in the full amount, and, yes, there will be a short fall of about 20% at that point if we do absolutely nothing, so our discussion and argument is about what -- how to make up the 20%. one of the most frequently commented and recommended by all americans, virtually all americans is to raise the taxes upon which the tax base of which the fica tax is paid, to raise that, and that would help to improve substantially and continue the program and also when i hear the topic of a ponzi scheme, i get really excited. to compare this to a ponzi scheme, i say to governor perry -- who i have a certain respect for -- sir, you have it dead wrong. this is not a ponzi scheme. how can you say that when

benefits have been paid on time since 1940 and they are projected, according to the current actuary demographic and economic projection to pay benefits for the next 27 years? how many corporations, how many government agencies have an insurance of paying benefits that faff into the future? when you say it is a fraud, when you say it is a failure, you are flat out wrong, and i would encourage you to become better informed because when you say that, you show yourself as not well informed and perhaps a little disingenuous. we respect you, but i respectfully say you're wrong on that. i think my time is up. thank you. >> thank you very much. peggy? >> good afternoon. great to be here. i'm a retired chapter member here in florida. i lived in this beautiful state of florida for more than 60

years. ives born here. when i retired in 2006, i was a licensing specialist for the department of children and families and was responsible for monitoring and licensing child caring and child places agencies in several counties across the state. as someone who worked and raised a family in florida, i know how important it is to have a president to make sure social security and medicare are there for seniors like me who have paid into them our whole working lives. we need to be able to trust that our president will keep the fundamental promise if we paid in throughout our career, we would be paid out in retirement. we need to make sure the president shares the values in protecting and strengthening social security and medicare. i can speak about the e mori nows -- enormous help medicare will be to me and my daughter, an overage dependent on my health care policy. i pay over $10,000 a year in health care premiums. last year in new york, i had to remove a kidney stone that i paid more than a thousand dollars out of pocket because my

hmo did not cover me. medicare will help to lower my health care costs when i travel and help me live a comfortable life in retirement. it's unclear what it means for a republican to be in office. what is clear beyond a doubt is that none of the current republican candidates share our views or values on the issues most important to seniors. all of the gop candidates have followed the lead of republicans in washington and endorsed plans to end medicare and erode social security. the clearest example of this is rick perry who in the last republican debate called social security a ponzi scheme. he's not alone. romney called for changing the retirement age and made the case for social security. all this goes to show you how out of touch the republican candidates are with middle class working families who are doing their fair share and just hoping to receive a fair shake. it's not only people my age who depend on the programs, but people younger than me who have

been paying into these programs and deserve to receive the benefits that they've earned throughout their careers. when a republican presidential candidate talks about preserving them for the current seniors, an entire generation after them has to bear the burden. what's the plans for my daughter's future? will she have the same promise i was given? tonight at the debate, there's a hoof dozen individuals claims to get america back on track, but they'll continue to talk about an america that breaks promises to our nation's seniors and future generations. is this the kind of nation we want to leave to our chirp? the kind that no one cares for the elderly, or do we want to leave our children a nation that stands tall and keeps promises to all americans? thank you. >> glad to take any questions.

>> you talked about the candidates trying to outtea party each other as it were. why wouldn't they though -- co-sponsor of the debate, what do you think of cnn working with the tea party to do this debate? >> i think that's a media outlet's decision on who they partner with. >> do you think, you know, gives them more acceptance? >> i think that the tea party -- the tea party's views are so far out of the mainstream that they wouldn't ever be embraced by moderates where the majority of americans are who just want to work together, want us to fight to help the middle class get ahead, work together to get the economy turned around and create jobs. anyone else? well, thank you all very much. oh, yes -- >> wondering with president obama's approval rating with, you know, voters is taking a

down turn in recent weeks and reached the low point last week, but at the same time, republicans are fairing no better, maybe worse. are they concerned voters will be home next year, and what are you doing to be sure they show up and bring the numbers they did four years ago? >> we do have and will have a very aggressive outreach plan to identify, communicate with, and turn out la -- latino voters in support of president obama. the agenda of the president's and of democrats' is going to help bring latinos -- bring more latinos, you know, to our candidates, and in support of our candidates, making sure that it's clear that democrats supports comprehensive immigration reform and that the republicans support driving immigrants out of the country. i mean, time and time again,

they have demonstrated there's a dramatic contrast between democrats' view of how we should deal with the immigration policy and republicans' view. this is a nation built on imgrants. it's a nation that have benefited and improved as a result of imgrants, making sure that we address it in an appropriate way, undocumented immigration, make sure that there is a comprehensive approach to dealing with the undocumented immigrants here now, and their contribution to the economy which is real and which is necessary is dealt with in a way that we can all hopefully come together so that we don't have to continue to treat them the way republicans seem to have treated -- chosen to which is with the back of their hand. >> aggressive approach demonstrate in any way that democrats are concerned about turnout next year?

>> no, on the contrary. democrats have always taken the latino vote seriously. it's a high priority for us. the natural place for the la teen know voter in the country is the democratic party because we are the party of diversity. we're the party of -- that embraces the policies that help -- that help close the education gap that exists for latinos in the country in terms of the graduation rate, that helps close the employment gap that exists. we want to make sure that latino voters, voters in this country have an opportunity to get ahead, and dramatic difference in the policies of president obama who has fought hard for the middle class, fought hard for small business owners. those policies benefit the voters. the tea party republicans that they would continue to go further and further to the

right, and i -- permly, if my own district representing 30 #% of my population that is latino, i don't hear extreme right wing conservative views coming out of my latino voters, and i don't think that's going to be at all appealing to them. yes, hi. >> cnn. the debate is semantic debate. >> semantic? >> that's right. rick perry wants to keep social security the same for current retirees and for near term retirees, but he wants to fix it over the long term, so how is that different from the democrat's perspective? so -- so if you're 55 years old, you have to fly a kite basically. it doesn't matter that we have social security, that we have

ensured for 60 years that there would be a safety net through which we were not going to allow seniors to fall through. every one of those republican candidates, rick perry, mitt romney, and all of them would dig the hole that would allow seniors to fall through. thank you, all, very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> according to a recent study by the pugh center, his panic wealth by 66% from 2006 to 2009.

>> coming up, a discussion on latino community and the economy. we'll hear from housing secretary, don and the institute hosted the event as parts of the annual conference marking national his panic heritage -- hishispanic heritage month. >> it's about preserving the american dream. there's a need to increase opportunities and continue to keep the promise to the next generation of latino leaders. this morning's session on the u.s. economy and the impact of change in demographics and how it will impact this entire nation as we refer to the critical imperative. the 2010 u.s. census documented that we all expected these numbers, that the hispanic population grew nearly four times as fast as the population

at large during the last decade. latinossing thed for more than half the u.s. population growth for that period, and this growth no only occurred in the border states, but it happened all over this country. it's -- [applause] in fact, we were a majority of the growth in 21 states, but not all the news for our community is so positive. recent studies have reenforced what many of us already knew, that the economic downturn hit latinos harder than anyone else. we lost our jobs, homes, and lowe's most of the little wealth in savings we accumulated. the recent study showed that hispanic household wealth fell by 66% from the years 2005 to 2009. about a third of his panic households, 31%, had zero or negative net worth in 2009 compared with 15% of white

households, a significant drop from just four years earlier. plummeting home values had the greatest effect on the wealth of all groups. however, hispanics were affected because we drive nearly two-thirds of the wealth -- we derive nearly two-thirds of the our wealth from home equity. about a quarter of all his hispanic households, 24%, had no assets owner a vehicle. these are just examples of the data on the impact of the recession on our latino communities. now, before i take my seat on the panel, it is with great pleasure that i'm going to be introduced our moderator, ray suarez. how, he's a senior correspondent on the award winning, emmy nominated u.s. news hour seen five nights a week on more than 300cbs stations across the

nation, host of international news and analysis public radio program, america abroad and public radio international, and he may tell you that he travels at least two months out of the year internationally, and he hosted the national public radio program, talk of the nation, from 1993 to 1999. in his more than 30-year career in the news business, he has also worked as a radio reporter in london and rome as well as los angeles, correspondent for cnn. please welcome our friend, and i'm a big fan, ray suarez. ♪ [applause] ..