>> god bless america. thank you so much. [applause]

>> conservatives and republican party activists gathered in washington today for the values voters submit organized by the family counsel. several candidates spoke at the event. first texas governor rick perry. >> thank you very much for that powerful welcome, and pastor

jeffrey, thank you for a rowing introduction. he knocked it out of the park as we like to say, and a fellow on any given sunday is working with 10,000 in his church, and i want to say thank you to quite a leader. i'm proud to be joined today by my best friend, swouns who's done -- someone who's done for to enrich my life more than any ore person, she will be a fabulous first lady, my wife, anita. [applause] it's good to be with all of you. i want to thank tony perkins for the invitation to speak at the event today, and for his work in advancing the conservative

constitutional principles that built the greatest nation in the history of civilization. tony, thank you. you know, -- [applause] so many have come to the gathering of value of voters, and, you know, it really strikes me as interesting. there's no voter in america who is not a value voter. it's just a question of whose values that they share. you know, you think about that, and some have a wolfed view that government -- wolfed view that government must be central in our lives and serve as our caretakers. they seek more than equal opportunity. they seek equal outcomes. you know, those in the white house today don't believe in american exceptionalism. they'd rather emulate the failed policies of europe, but we see what their policies have led

to. 14 million americans out of work. 45 million americans on food stamps, and according to wednesday's "wall street journal," bob, nearly half of americans now receive government benefits. in response of the economic misery, liberals pointing the blame to successful employers, under the guys of fairness, but when they utter phrases like "fair share," you just know they're once again playing fast and furious with the truth. [laughter] and the truth is you can't rev up the engine of economic growth by heaping higher taxes on job creators. you can't spread success by punishing it. you can't unite the country by

dividing it. the answers in a positive optimistic vision with policies rooted in american exceptionalism. see, american exceptionalism is the product of unlimited freedom, and there is nothing troubling our nation today that cannot be solved by the rebirth of freedom. nothing. i happen to believe in this country of ours. i believe in the capacity to create prosperity through private i think newty. i believe in the values of the american people. americans know anything worth achieving in life requires hard work, not government handouts. this present generation of americans, they are not looking for government to lead the way. they are looking for america to get out of the way so that they

can make the most of the freedom for their families, but you can't live free if you can't find a job. you can't live free if you inherit $46,000 bill in the federal debt. you can't live free when the government gets between you and your doctor. it's time to revive freedom for our families and employers. if we're going to get entrepreneurs and small businesses off the mat and on their feet again, we need to freeze all the pending frame regulations out there for the next six months. freeze them all. [applause] we need to cut taxes for families and employers because the only kind of stimulus that will work is the kind that puts more money in your pocket, not government.

[applause] we need to repeal the job killing bureaucratic nightmare known as obama care. [applause] you know, there's three pillars that serve as the foundation of our country. a strong economy, strong families, and a strong military in my home state. we created 40% of all american jobs since june of 2009. our success is based on four rather simple principles. one is don't spend all the money. number two is keep the taxes row. three is provide a fair and predictable regulatory climate. and four, stop the frivolous lawsuits. they kill jobs. [applause] we passed the most sweeping tort

reform in the nation of which i might add includes a new loser pay law in the state of texas. [applause] you know, at the same time as the fed chairman warned that the recovery is close to faltering just yesterday, the texas comptroller's office said our tax revenues have rebounded to prerecession levels. [applause] our august home sales rose. our employment expanded. our exports increased. manufacturing activity started climbing again, and yet, there's president obama standing in front of the white house press corp. doubling down on the same failed strategy that had worsened our economic crisis and doubled our deficits.

it just goes to show you those blinded by tax and spend, big government ideology will never see the truth. every day, every day it is clear that the united states economy and for it to grow and succeed, we need new leadership. [applause] president obama's commitment to the same old protax, progovernment, proregulation policies, they failed our nation. america needs a new leader with a proven record of job creation and sound economic policies. you know, texas is not immune to the effects of the national economic environment, but recent reports show that low, flayed, and fair taxes, reasonable and

predictable regulations restrained government spending is a proven recipe for job creation, the key to prosperity is liberty, yet the larger government grows, the smaller our circle of freedoms. the most basic unit of government is family, and as a conservative, i believe with all my heart that the government closest to the people is the best for the people. there should not be a single policy coming out of washington, d.c. that interferes with decisions best made by the family. [applause] i'm proud to be the son of two

tenant farmers. where we grew up, we didn't have much in the way of material goods, but we were sure rich. we were rich in spirit. we were awe bun adapt in -- abundant in faith, devoted to family. happiness was not a product of what we had, but what we believed, and we believed we were blessed to live in the freest nation on this earth, that we were fortunate to grow up where there was a strong sense of community, that there was nothing that we couldn't achieve in the land of the free and the home of the brave. in fact, my little country school where i grew up and graduated had a motto. it was, "no dream too tall for a school so small." [laughter] you know, there are millions of americans that are born into less than ideal circumstances.

maybe they were born into poverty, born without a parent, but as a society, we must stand for the principle that every life, every life is worth living, regardless of the circumstance. in america -- [applause] many america, it's not where you come from that matters, but where you are going. as americans, we must affirm the value of life, not just in our declaration of independence, but in the ways that we live. for some candidates, pro-life is an election year slogan to follow the prevailing political winds. to me, it's about the absolute principle that every human being is entitled to life. all human life, all human life

is made in the image of our creator. [applause] and every innocent life must be protected from the most frail who are elderly to the most vulnerable who are unborn. that's why as governor, i have consistently worked for pro-life legislation. policy such as parental consent for minors on abortion, a ban on third trisemester abortions, a confirmed consent law, and i'm proud to fight for and sign a budget that defunded planned parenthood in texas. [cheers and applause] [applause]

[applause] our obligation is not only to protect life and bestow freedom on future generations, but it's also to instill character. young americans must never be taught about rights without also learning about responsibilities. we must not -- [applause] we must not proclaim the responsibilities of a free society and ignore the speedometers of free -- responsibilities of free individuals. we must never mistake liberty for license. one's a right. the other leads to bondage. for more than a generation, our culture has emphasized a message of self-indulgence at the

expense of social obligation. we have reaped the consequences in the form of teen pregnancies, divorced and broken families, the cycle of incarceration that joins young men with their fathers behind bars. the fabric of our society is not government or individual freedom. it is the family, and the demise of the family is the demise of any great society. [applause] this great country of ours has never been steered off course when we advocated policies that promote strong families, but neither can it be preserved without an unwaiverring commitment to our national

security. you know, as americans, we're blessed to have the greatest fighting force for people in this entire world. our men and women of the united states military. [applause] you know, there's some out there, some misguided souls that say, you know, you can't find heros anymore. my, my, are they ever wrong. we have heros today. they are fighting in the mountains of afghanistan and the sands of iraq. there are those on covert missions and places we don't even know about to find and destroy the enemies of this country. they put their lives on the line every day so that we don't have

to. over the years, i've been so hop norred to have met a great many of those american heros as i've traveled to the outposts in iraq and afghanistan, and i've signed letters to their loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice. i consider myself so fortunate to have been able to wear the uniform of our country, and that experience forms my perspective about our defense policies. specificically, i believe we must never put the military on the chopping block for arbitrary budget cuts as part of some political spray, never. [cheers and applause] [applause]

[applause] the question we must ask is not what we can afford to spend on our military, but what it costs to remain secure and free. see, a real key component of keeping america secure is keeping israel secure. [cheers and applause] [applause] we can never forget. we can never forget that it was israel that took out the nuclear capabilities of iraq in 1981 and of syria in 2007. israel is our ally. they are our friend, and when i'm president of the united states, america will again stand with our friend. [cheers and applause]

[applause] >> we're not going to compromise when it comes to our national security, and that is true when it comes to defense spending, and it's also true when it comes to border security. let me say this about border security. i have lived and breathed this issue for over a decade as a border governor. i've signed budgets that contain a total of $400 million of state security operations along that border. i've dealt with the carnage of dealing with weapons, drugs, and people. as a border government, i know firsthand the failures of our federal border policies, and i know the answers to those

failures is not to grant amnesty to those who broke the laws to come into this country. [applause] i was proud to sign legislation requiring a photo id to vote in order to protect the integrity of our elections. [applause] for the obvious security reasons, i vote -- there is no home land security without border security. let me repeat that. there is no security without border security. make no mistake about it. what we are seeing south of our border is nothing short of a war being waged by these narco terrorists. they represent a clear and present danger to our country. they are spreading violence to

american cities. they are peddling poisens to our children. in the face of this threat, we shouldn't take any options off the table including security operations in cooperation with the mexican government as we did with colombia some years ago. you can't have liberty, you can't have opportunity, you canted have prosperity without security. the issue before our leaders of both parties is securing a better future for all americans. you see, economic security is the topic of discussion at millions of dinner tables cruet this great country of ours. in the past two months, i've had the great privilege to travel across this country, and i've listened to thousands of

americans, and they are not under any illusions about the current state of our country. they've never mistaken hope for a handout because they want to earn their keep. they are not looking for soaring speeches. they are looking for common sense solutions, and they know our first order of business to getting america working again is sending our current president to the private sector. [cheers and applause] [applause] like all of you in here, i still believe in the exceptionalism of america. to paraphrase lincoln and ronald reagan, america remains the last best hope of man kind.

we must never forget that the exceptionalism of america can be traced right into our founding principles. the fact that the framers of our constitution were the first in the history to declare that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, the hand of providence has guided america throughout our history from those first columnists to arrive in the new world to the courage of george washington during those darkest hours of valley forge to the defeat of tyranny during two world wars and the cold war. time and time again america has been the source of light in a world that's been beset by

darkness. like a lighthouse purr muched on the -- perched on the shore, we provide a light for those who have been in a sea of economic misery. we can still be the country we aspire to, a source of light and hope to all who live here and those who come here anchored by our ideals, we can rebuild on the solid foundation of truth instead of the shifting sands of moral relativism. we can restore hope at home while projecting our values abroad. we can be the freest, most prosperous people to ever occupy the planet if we remain one nation under god. god bless you, and thank you all for allowing me to come and participate today. bless you.

[cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ [cheers and applause] >> love you, love you, thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ thank you very much. now, as i was backstage and i heard finishing remarks, did i hear you all saying, yes, we cain? [laughter] was i hearing things? i want to thank tony perkins and his organization for inviting me, but more importantly, i want to thank you for being here

because that means that you get it. you know how important this upcoming election in 2012 is, and you're not going to let the liberals take this country down. [cheers and applause] one of my heros, dr. mays, used to remind the young men of moore house when he said let it be born in mind that the tragedy in life does not lie in not reaching your goals, but the tragedy lies in not having any goals to reach for. it's not a tragedy to die with dreams unfulfilled, but it is a calamity to have no dreams. [applause]

the american dream is under attack. the american dream is under attack because we have become a nation of crisis, and that shining city on a hill that roomed reagan talked about has started to slide down to the side of the hill because of all of these crisis. we have an economic crisis. we have an entitlement spending crisis. we have an energy crisis. we have an illegal immigration crisis. we have a foggy foreign policy crisis. we have a moral crisis. [cheers and applause] we have a severe deficiency of leadership crisis in this country.

[cheers and applause] you know, i may not have ever held a high political office, but i know what leaders do. leaders make sure that they are working on the right problems, that they find the right priorities, that they surround themselves with the rights people in order to put together the right plans, in order to fix stuff instead of continuing to talk about stuff. that's what leaders do. [applause] i happen to believe, i happen to believe that even though the american dream is under attack, the founding fathers got it right. those same principles, those same values that they had when they envisioned this great nation with the declaration of

independence, when they envisioned our laws with the constitution, they got it right. when they said we are endowed by their creator with certain uninalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they said certain unalienable rights, 245 among these. i happen to believe they were talking to others in the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. i believe they had in mind that one of these other unalienable rights was the right to protect yourself, protect your family, and to protect your property. we call it the second amendment. [cheers and applause] inalienable rights. [applause] and just to set the record

straight, you know, when you run for president and you move into the top tier -- [cheers and applause] i'm just saying, you get this bull's eye on your back. [laughter] people take shots left and right, but i don't want you to be unclear about where i stand on certain things, and you won't be confused by some of the garbage that people are going to throw out there because they are a little bit afraid that this long shot may not be a long shot any longer. [cheers and applause] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- i believe in life from conception, period, no exceptions.

[cheers and applause] [applause] i believe that marriage is between one man and one woman -- [cheers and applause] and i would not have asked the department of justice to not enforce it. i would have asked the department of justice to enforce the marriage act. [applause] i happen to believe the founding fathers put it in that order, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a reason. you with pursuit happiness whenever you want to, as long as you don't tread on somebody else's liberty. you can pursue liberty all you want to as long as you don't tread on somebody else's life, and that includes the life of the unborn. [cheers and applause] [applause]

so, the pursuit of happiness, just like my parents pursued that definition of happiness. mom was a domestic worker. dad was a barber and a chauffeur. when dad walked off the small farm, dad went to per sue his american dream with on the only equity he had, sweat equity. [laughter] he was able to achieve his american dream. he and my mother, and dad wanted to give us a little bit better start in life, and they did. dad wanted to headache sure that one -- dad wanted to make sure that one day he could buy a house for the whole family. in atlanta, we lived when that we called a half a house. it was a six room house with three rooms on one side, three rooms on the other side. we lived in half of it. my brother and i, being typical

kids, used to say, dad, why do we live in a half of a house? [laughter] dad said, it's a duplex. [laughter] we didn't know that dad was saving for his dream one day to buy a whole house for the family, and he did. dad knew that the pursuit of happiness meant working those three jobs. dad also knew that the pursuit of happiness meant the three things that they instilled in my brother and i if you want to achieve your american dream, and that is, your belief in god, belief in yourself, and belief in the greatest country in the world, the united states of america, and we are exceptional. [cheers and applause] we, we might be the shining city on a hill that has slid down to

the side of the hill temporarily, but we are still the nation that all the other nations in the world look up to because we are an exceptional nation, and i'll never apologize for america's greatness. [applause] one of the questions i get asked sometimes running for president of the united states, mr. cain, didn't you grow up in the civil rights movement? yes, i did. raised in atlanta, georgia in the 50s, 60s, before the civil right movement, during the sigh rights movement. i was around when they signed the civil rights movement of 1946, when they signed the voting rights act in 1965. this nation made it through the civil war. this nation has made it through the struggle we had with

slavery, jim crow laws, civil rights, and a reporter after me just yesterday, well, around you angry? [laughter] about how america has treated you? i said, sir, you don't get it. [laughter] i have achieved all of my american dreams and then some because of the great nation, the united states of america! [cheers and applause] what's there to be angry about? angry? [applause] one of america's greatest

strengths is its ability to change. we have weathered those changes. that's what makes this nation great. one of the reasons i'm on the journey that i'm on is because i want to make sure that our children and my grandchildren and your children and your grandchildren have an opportunity to be able to pursue their american dreams, because you see, it's not about us. the pursuit of happiness, as long as you don't tread on somebody else's liberty, those demonstrations on wall street, they are anti-capitalism. they are anti-free market, and when a reporter asked me the other day, well, what do you think about those demonstrations up on wall street? i said, first l -- of all, wall street didn't write the failed economic policies, the white house did. why not move the demonstrations to the white house?

[cheers and applause] that's why you don't have a job. that's why you don't have a business. [cheers and applause] move it to the white house. [cheers and applause] [applause] get back to working on the right problem. they are not working on the right problem. wall street didn't write those failed policies. wall street didn't spend the trillion dollars. wall street's not asking to spend another $450 billion. you can demonstrate all you want to. the problem is 1600 pennsylvania avenue. [cheers and applause] that's the problem. [applause] if you never work on the right problem -- [laughter] you're never going to get the

right answer. founding fathers, they got it right. let me tell you one other thing they got right which is why you are part of the citizen's movement going on across this country. they got it right because of the caller to my radio show one night when i was on the radio, when you run for president, you become unemployed. [laughter] i haven't figured that out yet. [laughter] you become unemployed, my friend, but it's not about us, but about those grand kids. a caller says, mr. cain, i'm frustrated? why? i don't like the direction of the country, and i don't know what to do about it. i said, well, do you vote on a regular basis? yes, sir. you vote in the next election? >> yes. that's good. i said, do you have a copy of the declaration of independence? he said, yes. i said, go get it.

he got the copy of the declaration of independence. he came back, a few seconds later, he's flipping through the pages. i said, did you find it? he said, yes, sir. i said go to the section everybody is familiar with, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. flip, flip, flip, he found it. yes, sir? i said, now this is what you do if you want to change the direction of this nation. he said, what's that? i said when you get to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, keep reading. [laughter] [applause] because it says when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. we have some altering and some abolishing to do! it's our right. [cheers and applause]

[applause] alter and abolish. [applause] under a cain presidency, we'll alter obamacare and repeal it, amounter dodd--- alter dodd-frank and repeal it. [applause] a reporter said, what problem do you have with dodd-frank. i said i only have three problems with it. i said the first one is the catalyst to our financial melt down of 2008 and 2009 was because lack of oversight on fannie mae and freddie mack, so they wrote a new legislation that still does not include oversight over them. that's the first problem with dodd-frank. my other two problems with dodd-frank, dad, --

dodd and frank. [cheers and applause] it's not complicated. [applause] they were the same two who didn't do their jobs the first time. now they want to rewrite legislation the second time, so we got to repeal that. we got to abolish dodd-frank. we have to abolish all of these regulation that this administration is pushing down the throats of american businesses. just with all of these crisis, let me give you some good news. we can fix them. we can fix them, folks. [applause] time does not permit for me to go through my solutions for every one of them, so let me use my remaining time to ill laws strait -- illustrate how i approach to solving problems to which how i would lead the nation. let's start with foreign policy. my foreign policy philosophy is

in an extension of the reagan philosophy. his philosophy was peace through strength. [applause] the cain philosophy is peace through strength and clarity. we must clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are, and stop giving money to our enemies. [cheers and applause] [applause] and as we clarify who our friends are, then tell the rest of the world who are our friends that we're going to stand by so they will know not to mess with our friends like the nation of

israel. if you mess with israel, you're messing with thenitis of america. [cheers and applause] what are you going to do about iran? here's what i'm going to do about iran. [laughter] i'm going to utilize the capability that we have that most people are unaware of. i learned about these capabilities when i served on an advisory board for the strategic air command before they changed it to strat. we're the only nation in the world that has the baa list tick missile detection capability at sea as well as on land better than any other country in the world. we have the ability to upgrade those ballistic missile defense systems on our of our warships, and we have the ability to double the number of warships and strategically place them anywhere in the world to detect

missiles fired from those locations towards a friend our towards us and knock it out of the sky before it reaches its apex. i would upgrade, make it a priority to upgrade all of our surface to air ballistic missile defense capability on all warships all the way around the world, make that a priority, and then say to ahmadinejad, make my day. [laughter] [cheers and applause] [applause] peace through strength and clarity make it clear where america stands with its

friends. one more example. this economy's on life support. we cannot keep tinkering around the edges. this is why i along with my economic advisory team develop a bold solution, not another simple mess around the edges kind of solution. this solution starts with throwing out the existing tax code which is a mess. [cheers and applause] replace it with my nine, nine, nine plan. 9% flat corporate tax. 9% flat personal income flat tax. 9% national sales tax. those three taxes would replace the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax,

corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, and it will save all of us collectively $430 billion a year that we spend to fill out the stupid tax code! nine, nine, nine. [cheers and applause] i told you about the bull's eye on my back? the critics are already trying to prove why nine, anyone, nine is not a good idea. there's serious thinking in it. it's designed to be revenue neutral. when you see reports saying it doesn't do this or that or this or that, they have changed the assumptions. if you want to know the assumptions, come to me and my people, and we'll explain to you what the assumptions are. they don't want to do that. nine, nine, nine does something fundamental. three additional benefits.

number one, it provides certainty to the business community because businesses get out of the survival mode and go into a growth mode, and nine, nine, nine means jobs, jobs, jobs. [applause] what are the benefits of the nine, nine, nine plan for our economy? we know it be boost it. we had it evaluated by outside sources. the other thing it does is get government out of the business of picking one of the losers. all businesses are created the same. there would be no loopholes other than the small deductions you can make personally, charitable contributions, and investments. if you buy ingredients for your product from u.s. companies, you deduct it before you apply the 9%. if you buy ingredients and components from foreign

countries, none deductible. it's called leveling the playing field. [applause] it gets government out of the business of picking winners and losers, and allows the free market system to pick the winners and losers. that's what the nine, nine, nine plan does, working on the right problem. working on the right problem. [applause] one of the other questions i often get as i close, why are you running for president? [laughter] to be president. [cheers and applause] [applause] what did i miss? [laughter] i'm not running to go to disneyland. [laughter] america has problems. i'm a problem solver.

that's why i'm running. [cheers and applause] my challenge to you, my challenge to you is to stay informed because we are up against a lot of stupid people in america who do not have a clue. that's why you have to be informed. secondly, stay involved. come to conferences like this. go to rallies. go to house parties. go to parties where you watch the debates and do your own evaluation. go to websites. do your own research. stay involved because it's the informed and the involved that are going to make sure that we change the outcome of the november 2012 election different from what the liberals want, and then thirdly, stay inspired. they want you to believe that we

can't do this. just like three months ago, the pundits, the political pundits said herman cain can't get the nomination. he can't win the presidency because he doesn't have high anytime id or a billion dollars, and he's never held a public office. what me tell you what the american people are saying, they don't care about a trillion dollars. america wants to raise cain, not raise more money. [cheers and applause] that's what the voters are saying. [applause] [applause] so stay inspired. i'm running for the president because i'm inspired, not because i'm worried about me and

my wife of 43 years, no. it's for the grand kids. i have three grand kids. not about us, folks. it's about the grand kids. i remember the first time i looked in the face of my first grandchild in 1999. the first thought that went through my mind is what do i do? what do i do to make this a better nation, and to make this a better world. i didn't know the answer then. it took me 12 years at engrace of god to figure out -- and the grace of god to figure out what my journey should be at this point in my life, and just like every major decision and every major challenge i have faced in my life after a lot of prayer, a lot of soul searching, a lot of prayer, a lot of soul searching, once i made the decision, i never look back. that's why when i work with my publishers to come up with the

title of my book, "this is herman cain, my gorpny to -- journey to the white house." they said, that's a bold statement. i said, i know it is. i put it on there for a reason because i'm going to the white house. [cheers and applause] i did it for a reason. [applause] this is what i want you to help me do. i want you to help me as the republican nominee and as president to help push that shining city on a hill back to the top of the hill where it belongs. we can do that, folks. we can do that because we've got the resources. we've got the determination, and

because we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and because it is our right and our responsibility to do some altering and abolishing, we will be able to push that shining city on top of a hill back to the top of the hill. ronald reagan reminds us just how fragile this thing called freedom and this thing called liberty really is when he said freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. you can't pass it on in the bloodstream. it must be fought for and protected or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what the united states of america used to be like when men were free.

i'm not going to have that conversation with my grand kids, and i don't believe you want to have that conversation with your grand kids. help me put united back into the united states of america and lets retake the hill, the shining city on a hill, the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪ [applause] [applause] >> you know, you're here at a

historic moment. i think this is the first time in american history that two georgia yags running for president have been back-to-back talking 20 -- to an audience. [laughter] i was comparing notes with herman off stage, i don't know if you watched it, but the elite media said two weeks ago this is now a two-person race. we decided they may be right, but it's the wrong two people. [cheers and applause] it is kind of interesting that the two guys who have the most money lost the most votes. the guys with the most ideas have the most votes. maybe there's more to politics than fundraising and maybe having a heart and a brain actually matters a lot. [cheers and applause] now, i think we are in a period

of enormous challenge. i think that part of that challenge is president obama, but frankly, i think it's much deeper. we have pure bureaucracies out of control, judges who don't understand the constitution. we have teachers who don't believe in american history, we have an academic class in many ways alienated from the american people, and an elite media which frankly i think has no understanding of the origins of the united states and the nature of american civilization. we have a lot of work to do. recently, i released, and you can see it at newt.org, a 21st century contract. it outlines a scale of change and a legislative program and a first day program, a very specific executive order. let me give an example. imagine about 3:30 or 3:43 on inaugust gracious day, the address is over, said good-bye

to folks, take an hour and a half; and sign between 50 and 200 specific orders moving the government awe -- away from obama and back to towards the american tradition. [applause] now, i don't -- you can go to newt.org, and there's a section open for you, we'll release all executive orders by october the first next year. it's all part of the closing month of the campaign, if any the president says he's for one of them, we'll print it out, and he can sign it. [laughter] but, but, i can -- i don't know what all of them will be, but i can tell you what the first one will be. around four o'clock on the afternoon of the inauguration, about the time that president obama gets to andrews air force base to go back to chicago --

[cheers and applause] i will sign executive order number one which will abolish as of that moment every white house czar. [applause] now, i want to come today to talk about a historic crisis that only up directly relate -- indirectly relates to the president. you know, abraham lincoln said, "if you debate somebody who does not agree that two plus two equals four, you probably can't win the argument because facts make no difference." ..

i want you to think about the absurdity of this. do any of you believe that five appointed lawyers decided to plus two equals five in the press would probably change our school textbooks, change our accounting systems. i mean, some people may not fit well explain obama budgeting system. [laughter] but obviously, this is absurd. you can't possibly be true that the founding fathers wrote into the can't do to shin a very elaborate complex process of amending the constitution. said however, supreme court has led for before or between

liberals and conservatives and justice kennedy could up in the morning. he becomes a one-person constitutional connection. if he gets up and feels conservative that they must be conservative constitution. if he feels liberal that day, you must be a liberal. this is absurdity. foisted on us in 1958, there is no judicial supremacy. it does not exist in the american constitution. [cheers and applause] let me be clear. judicial supremacy is factually wrong. it is morally wrong and it is a front to the american system of self govern. one of the major reasons that i am running for president of the united states is the ninth

circuit court decision in 2002, the one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. that deficiency may have the same effect that the dred scott decision extending slavery to the whole country and abraham lincoln. i thought if the american appeals court could be so radically out of touch with america they could seek to block children from seeing one nation under god is part of their description of where america, we have come to a point he needed a constitutional crisis to reassert the legislative prerogatives to teach the judiciary that they cannot be anti-american and expect us to tolerate them radically changing our society by judicial big tape. [cheers and applause] now, what i'm saying to you is

in the best tradition of the american revolution. read the declaration of independence. a very large numbers of civic charges against great britain involved dictatorial judges. the fact is the founding fathers deeply distrusted judges and thought that the lawyer class is dangerous and that you could not give them unbridled power or they would undermine and destroy a free society. [cheers and applause] now, this is not some marginal position. thomas jefferson asked about judicial supremacy, said that is an absurdity. that would be not american. and so i think we are faced by one of the great crossroads and it's definitely dangerous because it judges think they are unchallengeable, they are inevitably corrupted, corrupted in a moral sense. i mean taking money, but in a sense of arrogance, a sense of imposing on the rest of us in

the weather is one judge in california deciding he knows more than 8 million californians about the definition of marriage -- [applause] whether the judge in san antonio a few rules that not only can schoolchildren not say a prayer at their graduation, they cannot use the word benediction. they cannot use the word invocation. they cannot use the word god arrest the audience to stand in if they do these things, he will block a new superintendent. not the idea of an american judge becoming a big tater of words is so alien to our traditions in such a violation of our constitution as i will explain in a moment that that particular judge should be removed from office summarily. [cheers and applause] lord acton warned in the 19th

century the power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. notice he dropped the word tents. in the course of the last 53 years approve it. each passing decade, the judges have become more hostile to the american tradition. they openly talk about using foreign sources of information because after all the american constitution is so old and so antiquated. the justice he believes that shouldn't be serving on the american bench. [cheers and applause] we have a very lengthy paper and years of effort by another candidate against tv, which will publish it this afternoon at newt.org, which outlines step i step out fundamentally, profoundly come ignorantly come

anti-american and a current judicial is that it's taught in virtually every law school in this country. it is profoundly wrong and sdk has pointed out, one of the major impediments and threats to democracy stays the very behavior of the law schools with teacher usurpation of power in a way that is utterly unsustainable. the founding fathers designed a constitution based on modest discomfort to the balance of power. we're supposed three have three coequal branches. there can be no supremacy if there are three coequal branches by definition not a race to have a superior branch into inferior branches. this person not. if you read him attend the federalist papers, he says the courts couldn't possibly take in the executive branch because they would inevitably use. what did he mean by that? this is one of the most important things we will explore the next year and because this is a more complicated topic than a 32nd answer during a game show version of a presidential

debate -- [cheers and applause] as the republican nominee, i will in my acceptance speech challenge the president to seven lincoln douglas style three-hour debate with a timekeeper and no moderator. [cheers and applause] one of those debate shall be on the declaration of independence and the constitution, federalist papers and the nature of the american judiciary. [cheers and applause] jefferson is the most clear example of taking on the judiciary in the judicial reform act of 1802, the jeffersonians eliminated 18 out of 35 federal

judges. to impeach them, just abolish their offices, told them to go home. now let me be clear. i am not as bold as jefferson. the judge in san antonio be an important initial signal and i think the ninth circuit court should serve notice that it runs the risk of ceasing to exist. [cheers and applause] jackson in the back of the united states, which he said was overly centralized as the earlier said it's constitutional. he said that's their opinion. he said i have a different opinion. they get their opinion in court. i get my opinion in the white house. he spent a large section of his natural address explain what the dred scott decision may be the law of the case and cannot be

allowed to land and lincoln refuses to enforce the dred scott decision while he's president. so people come in and say zero, as nancy plessey once said, if the court speaks it's as though god has spoken. that is an important step in the right direction. [applause] on the issue of god in american public life, a country created because we are endowed by our creator, the parts of the historically wrong at least since the late 1940s and have gotten worse and worse, more and more anti-religious, more and more secular and more and more hostile. and the question national security in the last two years in the courts are out of touch with reality. the reality that the courts are now going to take up on responsibility for the united states is a clear and

fundamental violation of the constitution and a fundamental violation of the executive branch's power and the congress should pass a lie repeated eating every interference of the courts in national security issues and returning them to the congress and the president where they rightly belong. [cheers and applause] on abortion, the courts are wavering all over the place and clear definitively decision over here in my site at least twice a then. the fact is robbie george of princeton may be right and we should explore very seriously whether we could use the 14th amendment to define life in a congressional statute and insist that be in fact the law of the land and i think it's something we should look at very, very seriously. [cheers and applause] on marriage, should be quite clear on issues like the

defensive america act we should simply say can't be appealed. it's very clear in the constitution that congress can decide and exclude that things are going to the court judicial reform act of 1802 hear about it for 14 months until they file the judges. establish a fact on the ground before you get to hear it. this is clearly written in the constitution. i mention jefferson, but there's other steps he could take out of wiping out the other judges. one, you can hold hearings. i think for the congress to bring in judge barry from san antonio and say to him, explain to us your rationale by what label you to hate speech to the american people? how can you take your court order and the first amendment and tell us this is about free speech?

judges who knew when they were radically wrong they be hauled in front of congress would immediately have a sobering effect about how much power they have. second -- [applause] the precedent of lincoln, i would construct the gingrich administration to ignore the recent decision of the supreme court on national security matters are interposed the presidency can say is commander-in-chief we will not enforce this. and by the way, the source of that is franklin delano roosevelt. in 1942 come a group of german saboteurs who landed in florida and long island. they were all picked up within two weeks. result prodded his attorney general and said they will be tried in military court and they will be executed. should happen within three weeks in the writ of habeas corpus i

will not honor it and therefore they should not issue it. and the commander-in-chief in wartime. they aren't. [cheers and applause] congress has the power to limit the appeals that i mentioned earlier. congress had cut budgets. congress settled right in the future the ninth circuit can meet will have no clerks. by the way, we are going to pay the electric bill for two years and since you seem to be wondering justice in the dark, you don't seem to major law library either. this is by the way -- i'm paraphrasing hamilton and the federalist papers in which he is defending -- he says flatly commit the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches. the modern model is just totally opposite the american tradition.

[applause] obviously -- i'm only outlining for you. item nine of the legislative part of the 21st century contract of america and that you can tell just from this, this struggle we're going to have with the lawyer class over shrinking their power in their dreams of the people who take tea to america how we should behave. just about one's own, imagine how big it will be. you have other zones. how do we create jobs? how do we get the national labor relations sport under control so it's not attacking a bowling other job creators? how do we protect environmental agency with the environmental solutions agency that is common sense, cooperation, takes into the account the economy. how do we control the border by january 1 of 2014, which you can do by the way if you pass a law

early in 2013 that says we are suspending any regulation or law which would inhibit us from the national security act of securing our border. the statement, no confusion. get it done now. [cheers and applause] each of these steps will be met with substantial resistance by the reactionary forces who had dreams of creating a radically different america. in each of these steps has to win before going to give our children and grandchildren the free, safe and prosperous country that our children and grandchildren -- their parents and grandparents gave us. i came here today because i think this is going to be a tremendous struggle. i did not come here today to be ask you to be for me because if you're for me you're going to vote home and say i sure hope newt does it. and i can't.

no one person can do this. under our constitution, the president can lead the american people and educating the congress and changing this. if we shrink the power of washington by applying the 10th amendment, we have to grow citizens back home to fill a vacuum. [cheers and applause] so i can today to take this opportunity to outline for you one of the great historic decisions we will make over the next few years, whether we take that to the courts, we rebalance the constitution, we insist on judges who understand the constitution and i can promise you again, only people who are dedicated to the original document in its original meaning book at any court appointment at any level. [cheers and applause]

[applause] so let me just say that while a few, i am here to ask you to be with me, to ask you to be with me for eight years, to ask you to stand side-by-side to make sure that we want to reclaim america from the forces of socialism, from the sources of class warfare, from the forces of secularism from the forces who would try to get us to not teach our children about the history of this great country. if you will be with me together we will decisively defeat barack obama. we will defeat the democrats in the senate and over the next few years, we will decisively reclaim america as the land of the free in the home of the brave. thank you. good luck and god bless you.

[cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much, friends. and i really do mean friends. it's great to be back here at the values voters summit and i'm here every year because i'm a value voter and i believe in the things that she believed then and again, it's an honor to be here. i am here with the family today.

you'll get a chance to meet them in a minute, but i wanted to mention my wife, karen. we have seven children that we are raising. thank you and i just want to share a little insight with you. one of the things i do is tell people when you look at someone determining whether they are going to be the right person for public office, look at who they lay down with that night and what they believe. who is the person at their side who has the closest counselor to that person? if you want to find out whether that person who you are going to be voting for is going to stand tall and stand tough, i doubt where the saucer that person is. while i will tell you, there is no one who is more strongly committed to the values of the people in this thread and you have a track record having written books about it and having been a lecturer cross on wife in marriage and the family then my wife, karen santorum and

i matter she will be here with you today and we're going to spend the whole weekend with you because we want you to know that we are part of the family. this is something that those of you here know we've been here. we worked together. we got things done together in the city where let's say most politicians when it comes to these issues tend to put them on the back burner. you know that i've never put social issues and values issues on the back burner. i've been out there fighting and leading the charge here in washington d.c. [cheers and applause] we fought together and we changed the country. we forget about that sometimes. i know the frustration people have about these issues, the let's go back to the late 1990s and the issue of partial-birth abortion. at issue, as much as we sought and failed, were kept failing.

clinton would veto it if we fail. but guess what was happening? year after year after year the front page of "the new york times" or "washington post" on television shows were talking about the issue of life. and for the first time, the issue of life in the issue of partial-birth abortion brought to the reality that the choice was a little baby because in a partial-birth abortion you couldn't miss the baby. it was in the dark pants. it was a lie that would otherwise be born alive. and guess what happened? thanks be to god attitudes on abortion are the first time in this country change. you look at what young people in this young country are more pro-life than previous generations because for the first time, we worked together and brought forth an issue that put a human face on the issue of abortion. it actually changed people's attitudes in congress. all share a story with you. in the 1990s did they, we have been debating this issue for four years. and i'm managing the bill and

opposite me is barbara boxer. we were having epic battles and some of you were in those battles in and? patrick leahy from vermont. he locks up and says i want 20 minutes of your time. i said about 20 minutes of my time? he's voted against this bill, spoken against this bill. he says i want 20 minutes every time. be sure you want 20 minutes of her time? [laughter] in typical leahy faction come he said give me 20 minutes or in turning around and i'm going to vote against you. i said take 25. [laughter] and he went not been after four years of arguing this bill, of waiting out my heart and soul on the floor of the senate, he stood there in an opinion fashion and finally it noted that the arguments i was making, that we are making on the floor about this bill and about this horrific procedure were just too

overwhelming to resist and he voted with us. [applause] people are saying, where his leadership in washington? why can't we get together? you bring truth. to bring honesty. you bring authenticity to this office and people will see it. they may not always agree, but you'll bring people because you're not trying to castigate people and split and debate the country. karen and i homeschool our children. [cheers and applause] i am a teacher. yeah i'm a leader, but i'm a teacher and the best way to bring people together is to find a common foundation of knowledge by which you can pull people together. and we've done that. we did it on tama.

we passed a defensive back. not negative though. it was put into place and now, look at what's going on with tomei. we were able to get together and welfare reform. and about this. we ended a federal entitlement to welfare. we ended income payments. we put time limits on welfare. we put work requirements on what they are and in spite of bill clinton vetoed it twice, he eventually signed it. why? because we made compelling arguments to the american public and he was afraid prior to his election to lose the election if he didn't do the people wanted, what we've been communicating. did we sacrifice our principles? no, we motivated the public. if you want a leader who can do that, look at the track record we've been able to fit together. we have been able to put together his value voters to recognize what the poor that poverty is not a disability, but

as a temporary condition and that we believe in the value integrity of every human life that they can achieve and succeed in america is given the opportunity. that's what america's all about. that's what we have to do is work together. on national security, believe it or not the two major pieces of legislation just described to the state of israel and the suffering, when dealing with their arch nemesis, syria from which continues to be in one dealing with iran, both were opposed by president bush. both were eventually signed by president bush. and i was able to get democratic sponsors, not initially. in fact, i couldn't get democratic sponsors the a republican funded their bills, but i kept working and they passed overwhelmingly. why? because we continue to go out and teach and lead. that's what we need in this time in this country, someone who cannot principles and yet read this country. and now, look where we are. the defense of marriage act.

the president of the united states won't even defend the law in court. an abomination and worse than not, just recently he has been struck against military chap was to marry people in direct contravention, in direct contravention to the defense of marriage act, which defined marriage between a man and a woman. so not only did the president not defend the law, he has now instructed people in the military to break the law. we need someone who can go out and lead and educate america and lead america at this very vital time. look at welfare. food stamps are at the highest level. by the way, 1996 we passed welfare reform, welfare is at the highest level. we were able to change that. remember, believing in people. and of course a state of israel. this president has done more to destroy the bonds between israel and the united states than any

president in our history. he is isolated israel. he has brought contempt for israel to the point where even encouraged a year ago that the palestinian authority should bring a resolution to the united nations and then have to feebly veto it, to stop them from something he started an affair place by suggesting in doing things over the course of the year to isolate israel. ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical time, morally, economically and from the national security point of view and we need a leader with experience who can get the job done, who can motivate people, who can lead in a very clear and authentic direction who has a track record of standing up and fighting for those idols in winning those battles. together, we can reignite this economy. i know there is a plan up there that is the 999 plan. i've got a better plan.

it's been 000 plan. [applause] one of the great problems in our economy if you look at it and the democrats had on this and it's a popular thing, but there's a truth that the middle of america has started to disappear. middle-income america. why? because of manufacturing jobs, folks. 21% of the people working in this country when i was growing up were involved in manufacturing. now it's nine. we need to get those jobs back. how? zero. corporate income tax from any manufacturer or process in this country. [cheers and applause] because as manufacturing jobs left this country, there's $1.2 trillion in corporate proffer it sitting all over the world to welcome back because of taxes. zero corporate tax on all of that money brought back its if invested in plants and equipment in this country, we will create

a huge boom with $1.2 trillion of investment in building plants in purchasing equipment in this country and zero -- will zero out and repeal every single regulation d. upon administration has put in place that is $100 million to business and more. [cheers and [applause] we need a president who believes in free people and free markets. that is the basis of our society. it's the basis of our economy. it's a moral enterprise that is america. our declaration of independence is the life america says we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. rights come from god, not any god, but the god of abraham, isaac and jacob. that guy. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause] deseret. and god didn't give us those rights. our founders didn't recognize the rights from god and say do whatever you want to do. no, no, there are laws. there are laws that we have to live by. we have responsibility that comes with those rights. ..

>> to live lives freely in conformity with god's law to help ourselves, our family, our community and our country, and we will build the greatest country in the history of the world, and guess what? it worked. we changed not just america, we changed the world. that is what we have to get back to. that is the foundation. people talk about economic plans, and i just did. but we cannot have a strong economy unless we have strong families and strong faith in this country. [cheers and applause] people talk, people talk about, well, the moral issues have taken a backseat. that's because people don't understand how moral issues are absolutely essential for the economic success of this country. look at this statistic. what percentage of families that have two parents heading that family are in poverty in america? answer, 5%. what percentage of single head of household families are in

poverty in america? 30%. you want to have a successful economy? the single thing you can do is to nurture and support the institution of marriage and fathers taking responsibility for their children, building that solid foundation upon which society rests. [applause] and that means standing up and defending the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, not backing away from it. [applause] standing up for it. [applause] and there's one candidate in this race who has gone to state after state and helped fight those battles not just for the federal marriage amendment, but understand what the left is trying to accomplish and marriage is what they did with abortion; pick off a few states, get the courts to say, ah, we can't have different laws on the issue such fundamental as

marriage, and then have the courts decide it. we must fight to make sure that marriage remains between one man and one woman, and as president i will do that. [cheers and applause] final issue is national security. national security is a, an issue that i know a lot about. again, we've seen with this president experience matters. [laughter] when that phone call comes at 3:00 in the morning, ladies and gentlemen, i will be up and waiting for the call because i will know what's going on in the world around us. they won't have to get me out of bed. [applause] we have experience. experience is eight years on the armed services committee transforming the military. you saw in the debates, i get all the moral/cultural

questions. i get the questions on abortion and don't ask don't tell and marriage. you know what? bring it on. [cheers and applause] don't you want a president that's comfortable in their shoes? talking about these issues? don't you want a president who by virtue of the fact of who they are? see, that's the difference here. i want to bring out karen and the kids just for a minute, and i want to share a story with you. because being president -- come on, karen. [laughter] [applause] [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you.

[applause] being president is not just about passing laws, folks. it's about leading. one of the things i learned when i was a united states senator is one of the greatest things you have in power is the power to convene, the power to talk about something and have people have to listen because, well, you're in a position where people write about it. how many conversations have we had over the past couple of weeks talking about class warfare, talking about millionaires and billionaires and pitting one group against another at your kitchen table? why? because the president is talking about it. you see, the president by talking about it can really lead. we have seven children in our family. we have a little girl who's not here with us who's 3 years old who's a miracle to be alive. the world would look at her as a special needs child, a disabled child. but she is the most able of all

my children because she is pure love. she is a little girl who shouldn't be here. all the textbooks she should have been gone from us years ago. but we loved her. she's the center of our home. we care for her, and she is, in fact, the joy of our lives. imagine the example of this, quote, disabled child being that light for people to see the value of every child of god in our world. it's by example that you lead. we have the opportunity to have a debate about things just by talking about the family, talking about life. that's how we change with partial birth, because we've talked about it. if you want to know whether i'm going to stand there and be tough on the issues that we all care about, let me just share a story with you. some of you may remember the debate in 1996 on partial birth

abortions. it was a debate where we were going back and forth on the, on this issue of, you know, having this procedure available late in pregnancy when the pregnancy would have gone awry. that doesn't mean the health of the mother was in jeopardy, no, it was the health of the baby. and mothers decided late in pregnancy that that baby they were expecting was not anymore what they wanted because of a disability. i'll never forget dianne feinstein getting up and talking about how this procedure had to be available because children might be born with no eyes or ears or legs and as a result they should be killed. and i got up and said, you know, karen is pregnant with our fourth child, and i have a sonogram, we have a sonogram in a week. imagine what are you saying to me that if i would go in there and find out that maybe something was wrong, what would i think, that my reaction should be to terminate the pregnancy, to kill our child because he has

or she has a disability? well, we continued to fight that battle, and a week later we had that sonogram. and the doctor looked over at karen and me and said your son has a fatal defect and is going to die. we were stunned. we were angry. but mostly we just cried. but we didn't give up. we didn't end his life, we gave him a name that very day, gabriel michael. and we fought for his life. karen, we even had surgery done to save his life, and it worked. but then karen got an infection and went into labor and delivered our son, gabriel michael. he lived for two hours in our arms. they say that he had a very short life, but he had a life that knew only love.

at the end of that, karen went on and continued to write. she always kept a diary of all of our children. and she wrote about gabriel. through this difficult time and afterwards. her mother encouraged her to publish those letters called "letters to gabriel." that little book sold 25,000 copies. more, i might add, that the book i published by the way. will[laughter] laugh karen wrote a second book that also sold more than my book. [laughter] you can tell who the better one in the family is, but you got me. sorry about that. [laughter] and so we have this book that even today people come up to me and say, thank you, thank karen for sharing her story. it saved the life of our child. we didn't have an abortion, or it helped us heal. but i want to share with you a little miracle. because one of the things we struggled with when we lost gabriel is that how could we being faithful -- because it was the first year, 1996, that i had

ever spoken a word on abortion on the floor of the senate. i was afraid. i represented a tough state, the last thing i needed to do was to go out and talk about abortion. but i felt compelled to do it. i felt called to do it. and here my answer was that god would take my child right after that. and something happened during that debate which i reflected upon, in fact, karen did at the end of her book. and i'll read it to you and share it to you as a conclusion so you understand how deeply rooted these issues are in our life. this is from her book, "letters to gabriel." during the partial birth abortion debate, the senator was thanking people for coming forward with their story. that senator was barbara boxer. and there was a group of women who would intercept members and try to lobby them to defeat this bill. boxer said, they're crying.

they're crying because they don't understand how senators could take away an option. they're crying because they do not believe that these senators truly understand what this meant for their families. karen continues, daddy, these are letters to our son. daddy said in response, quote, the senator says he hears the cries of the women outside this chamber. we would be deafened by the cries of the children who are not here to cry because of this procedure. "the washington post" described what happened next. quote: republican senator rick santorum turned to face the opposition and in a high, pleading voice cried out, where do we draw the line? some have likened this procedure to an appendectomy. that is not an appendix, he shouted, pointing to the drawing of a fetus next to him. that's not a bloc -- blob of tissue, it's a baby. it's a baby. the post continued. and then impossiblily in an

already hushed gallery in one of those moments when the floor of the senate looks like a stage set with its small wooden desks somehow too small for the matters at hand, the cry of a baby pierced the room. echoing across the chamber from the outside hallway. no one mentioned the cry, but for a few seconds no one spoke at all. a coincidence, karen continues, perhaps. a visitor's baby was crying just as the door to the senate was opened and then closed. or maybe it was the cry from the son whose voice we never heard but whose life has changed ours forever. ladies and gentlemen, i am committed, we are committed to the cause of life and family and american exceptionalism. please join me in that fight.

thank you and god bless you. [cheers and applause] if you♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bios and the latest polling data, plus links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> coming up on c-span2,

questions about the economy and new unemployment figures at today's white house briefing. then our interview about the federal debt with former senator judd gregg followed by more of today's values voters submit in washington. on sunday michele bachmann will hold a town hall meeting in new hampshire. we'll have live coverage beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span and c-span.org. >> some people say that to succeed in this world we need to be more like india or china or brazil. i say we need to be more like us. >> on this final sunday of british party conferences, conservative leader and british prime minister david cameron sets the tone and goals for his party in the upcoming year. watch his keynote address from the conservative party conference sunday at 9 on c-span. and live wednesday look for the return of prime minister's

questions on c-span2. >> at today's white house briefing, spokesman jay carney fielded questions about the economy and the president's jobs bill. the u.s. added 103,000 jobs last month with the official unemployment rate holding at 9.1%. this briefing is 50 minutes. >> two-minute warning. [laughter] >> it could go easy. >> that's why i scheduled this early, for an earlier time and starting still earlier but not as early as we'd hoped. with that, i don't have any announcements to make, so i'll get right to your rapid-fire questions, and we'll move quickly on this gorgeous friday through the daily briefing. thanks for being here. ben. >> thanks, jay. a couple of topics. i wanted to ask about the president meeting senate democrats, is that meeting still going on?

>> it just ended moments ago. it was -- i don't have a broad readout for you. it was a good meeting with senators reid, durbin and schumer and, obviously, they discussed the american jobs act, the plans that the senate leadership has to move forward on that with a vote next week. >> could you give us a sense of whether the goal of that meeting was to dig into how the democrats are going to get this passed? i mean, specifically was the president looking for some sort of assurances that the millionaire tax would be enough to get together the votes needed? >> i don't want to get into too much detail about the meeting, but i would say that they did focus on the american jobs act. the president's very pleased with the fact the senate's going to take it up. we're absolutely confident that the overwhelming majority of democrats will vote for the american jobs act, both in the senate and if they get a chance to vote on it, in the house.

what will be surprising if this comes to pass is that so few republicans will vote for it in spite of the fact that everything in it, every provision within it is the kind of thing that republicans as well as democrats have supported in the past and in spite of the fact that it's entirely paid for so will not add to the nation's deficit. it's surprising, too, if that comes to pass given that the american public so strongly supports the provisions of the american jobs act and is demanding quite clearly that washington take action on its number one priority, on the people's number one priority which is to do something about the economy to get it growing and to get hiring accelerated. >> jay -- [inaudible] >> she was not here. i don't think she was able to make it. >> jay, one other economic question. the president said yesterday in his news conference that the jobs act is an insurance policy against, as he put it, a possible double dip recession,

and i wanted to follow up on that. understanding that you want passage of this bill, is the white house genuinely concerned at this point that the economy is headed towards a double dip recession? >> we do not believe that it will happen, but there is no question that the economy has slowed, growth has slowed and job creation has slowed. employment is still too weak, and it is, i think, obvious to everyone virtually that we need to take action to improve that situation. the american economy has faced a number of substantial headwinds this year as we've discussed which has affected forecasts as well as real growth and real job creation from what economists expected it would be this year prior to the arab spring, prior to the terrible earthquake and

tsunami and its impacts in japan and prior to the situation in europe which, obviously, has also had an impact on the american economy. so it is simply the smart thing to do to take action that's paid for that includes both investments to put construction workers back to work, teachers back to work, first responders back to work and tax cuts for every american who gets a paycheck, for small businesses, tax incentives for businesses to hire veterans, all these things make eminent sense. and as you know, outside economists have judged the package, the american jobs act, to be very beneficial to the economy if it were to pass. as i think the president mentioned yesterday in his press conference, it would be interesting to see what those outside economists would say about the republican job proposal such as it is that we put forward -- that they put

forward. and i think many of you probably read in the paper today that the chairman of macroeconomic advisers said of the republican proposal that while the republicans have reasonable ideas, he believed that the proposals, quote, would have little immediate effect relative to a plan that stimulates aggregate demand, that is a plan like mr. obama's. the chief economist at moody's analytics similarly said that the republican proposals, rather, are generally good longer-term economic policy, but they won't mean much for the economy and job market in the next year. now, and we've said that. again, you may agree entirely with what is contained within the so-called, the republicans' so-called jobs plan. even if every idea within it is good, there is no doubt that those ideas do not have an impact on the economy today. and everyone agrees, i think, that we need to take action to

do something about the economy today. because is the answer that washington should just wash its hands of the problems that we're facing, that we should do nothing? and if so, explain why. so that's the president's position, and it's why he believes so firmly that congress needs to take action on the american jobs act. >> unemployment rate's now been above 9% for two years or more. is this -- and projections for the white house itself that rate through 2012, is this new normal? >> well, economists should evaluate that in terms of the, um, economic models that underlie what drives unemployment, but i will simply say it is not an acceptable level as far as this president's concerned. we are emerging from the worst recession since the great depression, catastrophic infraction of the economy, catastrophic job loss the likes of which most people alive today have never experienced.

and the hole created by that terrible recession is deep, and we have climbed part of the way out of it, but we have further to go. and that's why, again, the president believes we cannot sit pat and do nothing in the face of an economy that's not growing fast enough and in the face of, as you say, unemployment that is far too high. >> jay -- >> yes. >> two questions, one on foreign policy, one on politics. >> uh-huh. >> is the united states changing its policy towards myanmar, considering relaxing u.s. sanctions of -- [inaudible] >> i'll have to take that question and direct you to the state department. i haven't, i don't have anything for you on that. >> [inaudible] um, on politics has the president commented or chatted with you or any of his advisers this week about the republican field after governor palin and

governor christie have both decided not to run? >> not, not much. the, um -- [laughter] he, well, i'm not going to stand up here and say, you know, conversations like that never happen, but the president's extremely focused on the business at hand which is that we need to take action to help grow our economy, put people back to work. that is his focus, and as he said yesterday, it really is kind of nutty to say, well, you're out this campaigning as if there was something wrong with campaigning for a piece of legislation that would help grow the economy and put people back to work. so the answer is, yes, he is going out across the country to talk about the very thing that is on most americans' minds, the very thing that worries them the most, the very thing that they

think washington needs to do something about. and he is explicitly saying if you think washington needs to take action, if you think that the proposals that the president's put forward are the right ideas, then let your voice be heard in washington with your representatives and can senators. so that's what he's focused on. and as he said yesterday, you know, he would be elated if rather than doing nothing, congress was aggressive about doing something on this most urgent priority. >> even with that focus which, um, you said before and which he talked about yesterday, he must have an eye on the potential candidates he'll be running against next year. what's -- >> look, there are people who are working on that for him, he has a campaign. he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about it, i promise you. i spend a lot of time with him, and i know that for a fact. what we do know is that there

will be a nominee from the other party chosen through its primaries and caucuses, and when the time -- when that happens, then that nominee will be running against the president in the 2012 election. but that is a, still quite a long time off from now, and as we say about other things whether it's tsunamis or the arab spring, you know, what we focus here on the things that we can control. we need to take action on the things that we can control. how the primary process shakes out in the other party is nothing something that we spend a lot of time on or even thinking about because it's not something that we have any particular role in. i'm going to mix it up a little bit. yes, voice of america. >> thanks, jay. you probably heard some of mr. romney's comments on foreign policy among other things -- [inaudible]

says the president has had three feckless years of policy, i think at the end of it eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is not leadership, so i wonder what your view is on that. also on afghanistan he said he would undertake a cleat review of -- complete review of policy, one that is enforced decisions that would be free of politics. so wonder what the reaction -- >> well, i suppose he has to say something. [laughter] and the fact is that this president's record on foreign policy and national security policy is excellent. and, um, i suppose that what might be interesting is if mr. romney, governor romney were to debate the highest elected republican in the land about the president's success in foreign policy. he said, and i quote, i've been very supportive of the president's decisions in iraq and afghanistan. i think so far the president's done just fine. when you look at the prosecution of the war effort against the enemy in the tribal areas,

there's clearly been more done under president obama than there was under president bush in terms of a more aggressive effort focused at them. so said john boehner, speaker of the house, highest elected republican in the land. jake. were you -- sorry. yeah. >> um, i wanted to ask you a question about romney's comments as well. specifically, that if you do not want america to be the strongest nation on earth, i am not your president. you have that president today. >> again -- >> iraq and afghanistan, if you could address the idea that this is a common scene republicans are making, that the president does not believe in american exceptionalism, does not believe america should be the strongest nation on earth. >> again, jake, i think they have to say something, and it doesn't make any sense because from the moment barack obama became a national figure, it was

based on the idea that america is the exceptional country around the world. that was the essence of the speech that he gave at the convention in 2004 that put him into the public consciousness. it is something he repeats all the time. he ends many speeches, i believe, i hear him say often that this is the greatest country in the world. he believes that, and he lived it. he has lived it. separately, you know, his record on foreign policy and national security policy speaks for itself. we are stronger, we are safer, we have taken the fight to our principal enemy with a level of aggression and success that is unprecedented, we have improved our relationships around the world with our allies and our partners, and we have made great strides in engaging with the far east, for example, with the

pacific region in a way that was neglected prior to this administration. we, i think we have every reason to be, um, quite proud of the record that this president has in foreign policy and national security matters. >> yeah, but can i ask a questions on jobs? another disappointing jobs report for the president. if the economy does not significantly improve by next year, can president obama be reelected, and does he deserve to be? >> well, first of all, i think that the jobs report actually was better than expected, but as we said and others have said already this morning, it is far from good enough. >> [inaudible] >> well, no question. no question. and that's why we need to do something about the economy and job creation. that's why the president is out there every day talking about the need to pass the american jobs act. and if others have better ideas or good ideas that will help the economy grow and create jobs now as opposed to sometime in the future, then he wants to hear them, and he's eager to have

conversations about it. >> hasn't boehner and cantor requested a meeting with the president, and he hasn'ted responded? >> look, well, the president's met with them. i think any american who has watched this president engage with members of congress of both parties during the time that he's been in office understands well that he has made every effort to consult w cooperate with, negotiate with republicans in congress, and he will continue to do that. the president's put forward a plan. again, it was designed with the idea that it would be filled with things that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. it is a plan that is paid for, so it is not an issue of contributing to our deficit. and he believes the congress ought to act on that plan. the republicans have put forward a plan, as you know. elements of that plan that this president believes are completely meritorious he has supported and in the case of patent reform signed into law and looks forward, hopefully, signing into law the free trade agreements as well as taa in the

relatively new future. those are important things that will not have an immediate impact on jobs, but are important, and he supports them. what we haven't seen yet from the republicans are jobs proposals, or proposals that have an field impact on economic growth and jobs. you know, the idea that deregulation is the answer to our economic woes is just unfounded as many economists and economic advisers to -- i mean, senior economic adviser to president reagan and bush 41 made that case clear based on the data, based on the information -- >> i don't want to change the subject, but the question was -- >> your question was, can he get reelected? absolutely. >> can he get reelected if economy does not improve, and does he deserve to? >> yes. and here's why. the election will be about whose vision for america's future is best, whose ideas for moving america forward are best, and what we confidently believe is that the american people will

see in president obama's vision for the future the right answers. what we also believe is that if republican nominee once he or she emerges runs on the proposals that have been generated so far which are, essentially, mirror images or not mirror images, but exact replications of the policies that got us into this mess, the american people won't think that is the right answer. what we don't need to move forward is to reach back to implement the things that got us into the mess. one perfect example of this that's moving right now with regards to the president's nominee to be a consumer watchdog to look out for consumers who have been in the past taken advantage of by financial institutions, the efforts by republicans, the explicit determination by republicans to prevent that nomination from coming, from being approved and, basically, to roll back all of the beet reforms -- wall street reforms

that this president fought hard to put into place. wait a second. everybody knows that the worst financial crisis this country has seen since the 1930s occurred in part because of lax regulation. is that the argument, that we should remove all of the protections that the, that this legislation put into place precisely to prevent the kind of collapse we had or near collapse we had in 2007? that should happen? to insure that the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that occurred last time will never happen again, that should be removed? i just think we're happy to have that debate, and on the merits of that debate, yes, the president will be reelected. yeah. >> on the millionaires surtax, the president enforced it yesterday, but he said he's fine wit, he's comfortable with it. those are kind of lukewarm adjectives compared to other ones he could have used. why not a stronger endorsement? is. >> look, the president made clear that from the beginning

that how we pay for the american jobs act was something that could be decided by congress as long as it met his principles. first of all, the first principle being it had to be paid for. that's why he put forward a proposal to pay for it. the alternative that the democratic leadership has put forward is fine with us. it meets his principles. and that's essential. and it pays for all of the provisions within the american jobs act. so it's entirely consistent with where he's been from the beginning since he talked about the jobs act, and we look forward to the senate taking the bill up, debating it and, hopefully, passing it. hopefully, exceeding, you know, the 60-vote threshold that, you know, has sort of artificially been established for any vote in the senate because we believe that these are the kinds of

ideas that republicans as well as democrats should support because they've been supported in the past. and those senators who don't will have to explain, well, wait a second, don't you have teachers who have been out of work -- >> but -- >> give me one second. jake asked about the jobs report. absolutely, not strong enough, not good enough. and while i think for the 16th or 19th straight month we have had private sector growth, now 2.6 million private sector jobs, a reality of this jobs report which has been true now for many, many months is that while the private sector has been growing, the public sector's been shrinking. and once again 34,000 jobs last month were lost in the public sector, overwhelmingly in the education area. teachers being laid off. that's a problem. who has a solution? the president. the american jobs act. if you're opposed to it, explain why. >> okay, but on the surtax, i mean, does it undermine his push in the future for to level sort

of the line he's drawn for $200,000 or more for individuals, 250 -- >> no, of course not. >> it doesn't can undermine? >> well, first of all, a surtax is different from not renewing the bush-era tax cuts -- >> the drawing the line -- >> again, i'm telling you, it doesn't affect that. they're different policies just like the buffett rule is a principle that would inform tax reform, and we certainly hope tax reform goes forward. if it doesn't, the president's position is as it has always been which is that the upper end, the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, those making over $250,000, are simply things that we can no longer afford. they are part of the reason why we have the tremendous deficit and debt that we have now, and they should be allowed to expire. >> someone like senator schumer, you know, he represents a state where money doesn't go as far as

it would go in other states, you know? if you're outside the new york metropolitan area. so, you know, if you have a family in the new york city area, $250,000 thereabouts, i mean, does the president think that that is, that's a wealthy, that's a wealthy family? >> the president's position has not changed, and it also happens that the public overwhelmingly supports that position. this is only about insuring that as we make choices because we do not have up limited resources, that we make those choices in a way that is fair and balanced and that people, that everyone pays their fair share. i don't think members of the middle class out there are thinking they somehow got a great deal in the last decade. right? do you know anybody who feels -- as they've seen their wages stagnate or decline? and this is lean prior to the great recession. do they think they got a great shake out of the dance code?

i don't think they have. what we do know is the wealthiest americans have actually seen their incomes and their share of the national wealth increase a lot over the same period. and, you know, it is simply a matter of making sensible choices. and if the choice on one hand is do you not do anything about the fact that all around the country teachers are being laid off or do you look at a possibility to prevent that from happening through the american jobs act by asking the most fortunate among us to pay a little more to insure those teachers get back in the classroom, that they're teaching our children which is a value in and of itself and helps make america stronger in the future, i think most americans would side with helping those teachers.

>> the pakistani doctor who aided the u.s. in the search for osama bin laden, is there an obligation? he could be charged with treason. should the u.s., are we doing anything to help him? is there an obligation? >> you know, i don't have anything on you for that. i'd refer you to the pakistani government. let me -- do you have something, bill? >> [inaudible] when senator reid was here, as you mentioned before, at the white house a short time ago, last night he had a dust-up with senator mcconnell where the democrats changed rules, senator mcconnell quite upset with that but, basically, with 51 votes you can potentially yet a lot more done. does the white house think that's a good idea? >> well, i don't know the particulars about the arcane details and almost anything about the rules up there are pretty arcane. yes, we think it's generally a problem as i just mentioned a minute ago that the filibuster has become a tool that is

supplied so broadly to measures that normally required only a majority vote, that that's an issue. again, that's a general principle. as regard to this, i'm not sure. what i do understand, though, you know, once you've stopped debate and then want to add an amendment to it, i think that was the issue here that drove that. but i only know what i've read about it. >> so senator mcconnell becomes majority leader in 2013 and president obama's in office -- >> we don't foresee that happening -- [laughter] >> which part, i guess? [laughter] >> we don't foresee a change in leadership in the senate. >> okay. but you just mentioned teachers being laid off. yesterday the president at the news conference said, quote, i had a chance to meet a young man named robert recently from massachusetts, got three pink slips. and he said that need to pass the jobs bill, quote, puts somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids. the boston herald has a story in

the paper this morning saying the president never met this morning. >> the president -- he was in a group of people, i mean, he was this close to the president as you are to me, and, you know, the president knows his story. as i would, i would simply refer you to "the boston herald" where mr. bare row said, quote, people who want to fuzz over the word choice are missing the point. it's about our informing in education and commitments. yes, i did lose my position three times within four years in the boston public schools. to me, the emphasis was on like robert, it's people who are like me -- highly qualified and are not working -- that's the spirit of it. i mean, it's just indisputable as we found out again this morning that all around the country teachers are being laid off. the president has a plan to solve that, okay? be or to address that problem. >> so why not use an example of somebody -- the man has a job right now. >> the man has been laid off three times in four years. it is indicative of a problem.

and the fact that he got as i think is reported in the herald's story, the fact that he was hired again after the fact often to be the result of the kinds of assistance provided by this administration through the recovery act to give assistance to states to insure that teachers were hired back or weren't laid off to begin with. so, i mean, i think the principle is just indisputable as robert himself makes clear. yes. >> majority leader eric cantor this morning says he's increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying wall street and other cities across the country. does the president share that concern? >> well, the president spoke to the occupy wall street movement yesterday, so i'll point you to those comments. i sense a little hypocrisy on bound here because i think that what we're seeing on the streets of new york is an an expression of democracy. and what i -- which i think i

remember mr. cantor, is how mr. cantor described protests by the tea party. and i don't understand why, you know, one man's mob is another man's democracy. i think both are expressions that are totally consistent with the american democratic tradition. >> today a very auspicious day, the ten-year anniversary of the war in afghanistan. um, with everything that's happened there and the seemingly endless supply of bad news with the assassination attempts w the assassination of roubini w the elevated amounts of fighting, the conflict between president karzai and pakistan and in the past president karzai and this government, what evidence can you point to that the surge, the president's policy, is working? >> i would point you to the objectives that the president laid out when he put forward his policy, his strategy on

afghanistan. or the afpak region. what was the primary objective? disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al-qaeda. by any standard, including one i just quoted, the president has had substantial success in the number one objective, the number one objective of his policy and strategy. the fact that the effort in afghanistan is difficult, that there are setbacks as well as successes is, also, not something we would dispute. it is the truth. and we are enormously grateful. this president, as i said the other day, is just profoundly grateful for the sacrifice and the patriotism and the remarkable skill of our men and women in uniform. and what they've been able to do in afghanistan as well as iraq and elsewhere around the world. in addition to that number one objective that the president

laid out which was an important part of the review of afghanistan policy because, as you know, i mean, our situation in afghanistan, our approach was entirely adrift when this president came in. and he decided we needed to dive deep, focus on what our true objectives needed to be and pursue a policy that could succeed, could achieve those objectives, and that is what he is doing. part of that policy was to surge forces which he did and then to given to draw those forces down -- begin to draw those forces down which he is doing. as you know, by 2014 we will draw down to the point where we can fully transition security lead, and continue to be on track to do that. >> can i follow on that, jay? is. >> certainly. >> british government review is going to say there is a significant risk of an afghanistan civil war or taliban takeover when we do withdraw in 2014. and general stanley mcchrystal said yesterday we're maybe 50% of where we need to go. if you were to be candid about

the white house's position on where things are, would you concur that there is, in fact, a significant risk? >> i was enormously candid just moments ago, that there is, there are significant challenges in afghanistan as we strive to meet the goals set out, laid out by the president, and part of that process was to make the goals clear and focused as opposed to broad and unfocused which they had been in the past. and we continue to work towards achieving those goals. remember, the principle goal was to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al-qaeda. i don't think there's any dispute that we have had some success in achieving that goal, although there is work still to be done. it is also to prevent the government of -- the space of the afghan government as it continues to take control and to give us time to train up afghan

national security forces which we are doing. and that process is continuing. and, again, 2014 -- as you stated, it's 2011 now, 2014 is when we will hand over lead, security lead to the afghan national security forces. and we hope and expect to continue to make progress toward our goals as we move towards 2014. this is not easy work, and we have been absolutely candid about that fact. >> the afghan government, though, is rampant with corruption and now not talking to pakistan, um, so you've got some problems there also, right? >> >> absolutely. if there were an absence of problems, we wouldn't, you know, be focusing as much attention and resources on the issue. this is, i mean, you're restating, you're stating totally legitimate questions, but we are acknowledging there are challenges. but i think it's important to also acknowledge what the process this president went

through in absolutely adhering to the promises he made during the campaign which is that we needed to, that our policy in afghanistan was adrift, that we needed to focus attention on afghanistan, we needed to focus on what our primary objectives were. don't forget that it was out of afghanistan from al-qaeda that the threat emerged that resulted in the terrorist attacks on september 11th in 2001 led by osama bin laden, that the reorientation of our process, of our policy as we have ended the war responsibly in iraq and focused on afghanistan has been entirely consistent with what this president said when he was running for office back in 2007 and 2008. this is, this is hard stuff, and it continues to be very difficult. and the extraordinary service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform as well as our civilians in afghanistan is what makes success possible. challenges remain, there's no question about it. >> when do you not leave troops in iraq if you can't solve the problem of immunity for our

troops -- >> well, i refer you to what the secretary of defense said on that, and we are complying with an agreement made, actually, by the previous administration but honored by this one to withdraw all of our forces by the end of this year, and we are on track to do that as this president has committed to doing. what is true is that regardless of the discussions that we're having now related to that issue, we will have a robust and serious relationship with iraq as we have with countries all around the world. and, you know, that's an important relationship that we intend to continue to focus on beyond the end of this year. paula. >> um, the president yesterday promised that he would move forward with elements of the jobs package if congress wouldn't pass the whole thing. i just wondered, is there any priority order that he'd like to see? because one of the -- >> that's like saying which one of your children do you love best.

>> well, you could always, like, split it up. >> no, i think they're all valuable. they all do what they're designed to do which is help the economy grow, help put people back to work. yes, mark. [laughter] and i tried not go there. but the -- [laughter] there are more than two options here. there are more than two elements of the proposal. so, no, we don't have a priority here. we, obviously, want the congress to take up, vote on, pass the entirety of the american jobs act. as we've said from the beginning not just yesterday when the president gave a press conference, if congress sends him a portion of it and as long as it's paid for in a way that meets the president's principles, then he will sign that into law and then say where's the rest of it? if they send us an extension and expansion of the payroll tax cut for american workers, for everybody who gets a paycheck,

we will say, fantastic, this will help. it's part of my package, it's paid for, i sign it into law. what's wrong, you know, where's the rest of it. >> where's the provision that puts teachers back to work, construction workers on the job rebuilding bridges and roads and schools? where's the provision that gives incentives to businesses to hire veterans going back to the question earlier, veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan? >> it's funny you should mention that one, though, because that of any of them there is some school of thought would have the best chance getting through. >> well, again, i don't know how to successfully divine the future, especially as it regards what will happen in the house of representatives. but the -- we believe that every element of this package should have broad bipartisan support, the kinds of things that have had broad bipartisan support in the past. if you're suggesting by your question that members of

congress will be willing to allow, you know, not renew or at least renew if not expand the payroll tax cut and, therefore, have, you know, 150 americans see their taxes go up next year, i think that would be surprising. but, you know, it's been a year of surprises. >> politically, it's been considered that of any of them if you pick that and have it, well, why wouldn't people support this and have it paid for by a surcharge on the wealthy that would be one of the ones that perhaps would be -- >> what we're saying is it's entirely consistent with what we said. if pieces of it come up, we hope -- we know the senate will vote on it, we hope it will pass. we know the house will vote on it, we hope it will pass. that is the american jobs act. if it does not, if bill itself in many its entirety does not pass, then we will certainly

urge, the president said yesterday, that congress take action on tax cuts, on tax incentives, on putting teachers back to work, on putting construction workers on the job. all the elements of it. until, and, you know, unless and until it's entirely done. you know, as the president was asked, you know, campaigning against a do-nothing congress, he would like nothing more than be prevented from doing that because the congress actually acted on the nation's most urgent priority. all the way in the back, yeah. >> thanks, jay. the president issued a statement earlier today which say that is the united states is responsibly ending the afghanistan war and iraq war from a position of strength. and my question is, what does the united states intend to do with the stalled -- [inaudible] afghanistan from its position of strength? >> the, this goes to some of the questions i just got a few minutes ago. we have a strategy in afghanistan. it has met with significant

successes. it meets with significant challenges. one thing that we do support that is very important is an afghan-led process of reconciliation. ultimately, reconciliation is essential to the prospects of peace in afghanistan. and we support that process. and we will continue to support it and believe that it's necessary. but again, going back to the answers i gave previously, there is no question that there are significant challenges in afghanistan. there is also no question that we have had significant successes in meeting the goals that the president set out when he announced his new strategy on afghanistan and pakistan last year. so -- or maybe even the year before. december. so, i mean, that -- it's very similar to the answer i gave just a few minutes ago. >> [inaudible] >> go ahead, yes. >> thank you. two questions.

um, according to -- [inaudible] the president said many times that there cannot be instability in afghanistan without cooperation from pakistan. now, yesterday the president said there is some cooperation from pakistan, but also at the same time some elements -- [inaudible] involved with al-qaeda. >> he didn't say that, but -- >> my question -- or helping. my question is -- >> he didn't say that either, but go ahead with your question. >> my question -- [inaudible] which is involved with isi still killing americans in afghanistan and also indians and also they are supporting al-qaeda around the globe. where do we go from here? because according to a big poll inside pakistan, according to pakistan -- [inaudible] number one enemy in pakistan according to the people of

pakistan is -- [inaudible] my question, what, is the president taking any steps or is he worried about -- >> i think he answered the question, actually, in great detail. he had a question, i think, from reuters about pakistan yesterday in his long press conference. so i don't expect i'll be able to improve on his answer, so i won't try except to say that as i've said all along we have an important relationship with pakistan, we have had enormous successes through our cooperation with pakistan. we -- the cooperation we have with pakistan is extremely important in terms of our national security objectives, in terms of protecting americans, in terms of taking the fight to al-qaeda. and that's why we continue to work with the pakistanis and try to build on that cooperation. we have also made clear that we have issues with pakistan at times and that it is a complicated relationship. and i think the president addressed that very clearly and

fully yesterday in his press conference. mark. >> one question, please? thank you. again, after talking so many time here and going -- [inaudible] 30 million people. i think the president -- does the president think it can bring billions of jobs today by giving some kind of status to those illegals in this country and also in the future they will pay the taxes just like anybody else in this country? >> you know this president supports comprehensive immigration reform. he hopes in the future that we will see the kind of bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform that used to exist not that many years ago. two of the leaders of the cause of comprehensive immigration reform in the republican party were the priest -- previous president, president bush, and senator john mccain.

and so we hope, and we continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform. mark. >> jay, does president obama believe that the 5% surtax would bring wealthy americans to fair share status in their taxes? is that going to achieve fair sharesome. >> the president believes that there needs to be, that shared sacrifice as well as shared prosperity. as i said before, we have choices to make. if we had unlimited resources, we could all take a vacation because some of these difficult choices wouldn't have to be made. but they do. and if we're saying that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of teachers are being laid off around the country because of the economic stress that states are under and localities are under and we want to do something about it because that's an important objective both to put those individuals back to work, but also to insure that our children around the

country are getting educated and helping build the foundation for the future of this country, then we have to figure out how we can make that hawaii -- happen. and rather than say depending on what your economic policy is, rather than say, oh, i know, let's make senior citizens pay for it by turning the medicare program into a voucher system, or let's slash spending and transportation or elsewhere or education which happens to be the case with some of the proposals we've seen, we believe that those who have benefited enormously in the last decade or so should pay a little bit more. you know, in terms of does that constitute, it certainly constitutes more fairness. the president's principle, which has been described as the buffett rule, applies to overall tax reform. >> but not complete fairness. >> again, i -- i'm not going to project what may or may not happen once the senate acts and this provision, hopefully, or

rather the american jobs act with this provision attached to it takes effect. the president's focus is on taking the action that we absolutely have to take to insure that our economy grows significantly next year, to insure that it creates jobs. there is no higher priority as most of your questions recognize as a premise. ..

position on should the bush tax cut for the wealthiest americans expire? the answer is his position has not changed. i think i can just point you to the president's comprehensive deficit and debt reduction proposal which includes a number of measures that would increase revenue to help reduce the deficit and get a hold of hard hat and a balanced and responsible way. revenues on one hand and cuts and entitlement reform on the other. and i would point you to this to say that ever going to be serious about deficit and debt than other measures have to be taken on the revenue side. >> the president met with prime ministers. they have elections coming up. is there any concern to the u.s. congress to pay off the democracy that somehow make it derailed --

>> i would say two things about that. this is a significant is it because it the first prime minister of tunisia to visit the white house and this is the first country has gone through transition because of the arab spring to be holding elections as you note. and the president very much looks forward to the meeting. if you're asking me and generally speaking in the whole region is this process tenuous? in general it has to be because this is the mexican, significant change. i can't remember a month or so ago, six or eight weeks of guys asking about why things are moving slowly in the middle east and i had to step back and say wait a second, things had happened in this nine-month period that were unimaginable for years and years and years. so there's a lot of change happening at once, but were very encouraged by the progress and the president looks forward to this meeting.

>> just a quick follow-up. while the president read the endorsement -- another secretary of state has proposed the march, but there is anything -- >> without getting it specifically may have more relation related to that will be provided too little later. i just don't have the details for you. thank you very much. one day i'll remember to read the week ahead. one friday. here we go. >> why does the president intervening to prevent the enforcement of the new alabama immigration law? >> ec that like yeah, i haven't even been asked. i think abc has sturdy cotton it. the justice department is reviewing the next steps. i would refer you to the department of justice for

questions on this specific case. generally the president had an clear that efforts to address the issue of american broken immigration system three patrick abbas will make create more problems than it solves. >> does he think this law is working a real hardship? has received reports of people fleeing the state? >> i haven't had a discussion with them so i would want to characterize. i would point you to the department of justice. >> they filed. >> welcome you should ask them about it. the presidents principal has been well stated and restated moments ago by me. guidance for the week of october 10, 2011. on monday the president of the united states will travel to the army richard walter reid and he will visit with them to service members. on tuesday the president will travel to pittsburgh, pennsylvania curb on pittsburgh the president will international electrical workers local number for a training center. during time at the ibew local number five training center the president will take a tour of the ibew facilities.

convene a meeting of the president's longjohns and competitiveness and deliver remarks. later that day the president will travel to orlando, florida to attend campaign events. >> to know if any of those campaign events will be open, jay? >> well, with regular policy where paul comes in for remarks at campaign events every time he has one, so i don't know specifically about this event. >> not to be picky, but doesn't walter reid have in your name or is it the same name in an old place? >> about the transition -- >> it took place in september. >> i will adjust accordingly. is that the naval walter reid -- >> something like that. >> visiting servicemembers. >> houses smoking? >> i'm sorry? >> he brought up the physical. houses smoking? >> the president does not smoke.

on wednesday the president will talk remarks on the heritage fordham in hosted by the white house and u.s. department of the interior to celebrate the past and ongoing contributions of america latina who have helped shape america's rich and diverse history. on thursday, president and first lady will host the president lee and first lady can of the republic of korea for a state visit. the president and first lady. this visit will highlight the strong alliance, global partnership in deep economic ties between the united states and republic of korea. the visit will also celebrate the strong bonds of friendship between the american and korean people. details about friday's schedule will be released as they become available. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> a fact-based story on a topic of your choosing. every story is a good beginning, solid metal and strong ending. >> this year student cam competition.

you don't have the best video equipment to have a winning project. today flip can stir great job of catching video. if you don't have access to better video equipment, don't let that stop you. if you need more help, go to student cam.org. >> c-span will help you stay organized. i find it useful to read the words carefully and then make a checklist of what you need to do. don't worry, process becomes clear once again started. >> another great thing is that if you work alone on a project or you can work in teams. if you're a good writer but not handy with the camera, get a friend to help out. not only will you learn something but you'll increase your chance of winning. >> you don't need to be an expert as video production to make this work. you can use your parents, other students, teachers and c-span as resources for you along the way.

this process is both fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of that for, anyone can do this. >> we talked to judd gregg about the federal deficit. three term senator from new hampshire chose not to run for reelection last year. this is 45 minutes.

>> host: and now i'm yourntinue. screen is former republican senator from new hampshire, judd gregg rejoins us from manchester, new hampshire. we went to get his dead as a he toed senator on the budget and some of the tax reform issues the super committees have before right now and of course judd gregg served as chairman of the senate budget committee for well.if we cod star senator, if we could start with the super committee, which iscot still made in a massive deadline coming up in a recent article,te in the hill newspaper he said this is going to be a unique opportunity. i want to take advantage of what you said there have you slaind out a little bit hard. but if you could give us a us little now that you cannot at the senate a while, this debate has been about cuts in medicaret

versus tax increases on theon t rich. is that a fair way to look aticf thisair debate? >> guest: no, no it's not. but let's step back east at peter because it's important that listeners appreciate how think your listener should appreciate just how significant this is. never before has an entity been created like this. we are a checks and balances government. the senate is, of course, the ultimate checks and balances situation. protecting the minority from the abuses of the majority. this super-committee takes us to a parliamentary form of government. 12 people. six republicans, six democrats. and a majority can vote on the

bill. totals jurisdiction over the issue. then it goes to the floor of the senate and house and it must be voted on. and it cannot be amended. basically, you have the ability to produce something significant to get our fiscal house in order. how should it be framed? medicare or tax on the rich. the simple fact is that what -- " we have as a government is having more than what we can afford to spend. it has taken the government the last two years, relative to gdp, now the government is up to 22.5% gdp. a huge explosion in the size of the government. basically, we have to slow down

the rate of growth, bringing it to some point where we can afford it. i worked on the simpson bowls commission. it was led by simpson and bowls, superb people. we agree that it would be around 23.3% of gdp. you do have to reduce entitlement spending. most of it is in medicare. medicare alone has $65 trillion in unfunded liability. $65 trillion more than we know we are going to get it from. it is not just medicare spending. you will have to get more revenues. you do not get that by raising rates on rich people, like the president wants to do.

you will get nowhere near the amount of revenues that you want. avoiding taxes, instead of getting more jobs as a result, you do it along the lines of some symbols. -- since and bowls -- you dramatically reduce the rates. 9% for low income people. 15% for middle-income people. the revenue that that proposal supposes doing, by eliminating exemptions, exceeded revenue by $100 million per year, so, it can be done, it just takes more courage. we are going to have a fiscal crisis pretty soon. a big one.

unless we get our fiscal house in order. the super-committee has the power to do that. there are original charges a meaningless charge. $1 trillion over 10 years is not to get to get the house in order. they can do it bite adjustment entitlement account. >> you know the players on the committee. and you know the senate. guest: there are two interesting facts. pundits from washington, people put on this committee, going across the aisle without being traditionally bipartisan, that is true in a historical context, but there are some very smart, very capable people.

this is a very church hill-like moment. they can put the company back on a path to fiscal responsibility. i know that people like john kerry tried to talk publicly about going to the big numbers. i think that there are enough people on that group that want to get there. i think that the leadership is smart enough to realize that they should get there. i hope it will happen. second, the fact that if they do actually put forward a proposal that gets to the bigger number and take some major entitlements, they have to do both of those things. because they have the confidence of the base on the left and the right, they will be successful. that will be very good. like sending nixon to china. people saying that they can do

that because they have the confidence. >> what are the chances of overall tax reform -- host: what are the chances of overall tax reform? guest: very good. i proposed it in a major tax reform bill about one year ago. widening growth, i said we need a signal. that basically became the template for the memo off of which simpson bowls -- why did both sides like tax reform? progressives and liberals like it because they look at the deductions and exemptions to special interests. conservatives like it because they want to take the rates way down, people investing for the sake of jobs rather than

avoiding taxes. both sides like it because it means simplification. you have max baucus on finance. he's interested in this issue and a talented senator. i think the cards are there to do major tax reform. host: you can talk to former senator judd gregg. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. if we get your comment on this video from president obama

yesterday. >> one of the most important things we can do is to cut taxes. the jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. a small business owner that raises wages, you would get another tax cut. if you hire a veteran, you would get a tax cuts. one company is considering hiring more. host: senator gregg. guest: i think reducing the burden of taxation is a good idea. i think he should do this with a comprehensive tax bill. this is one of the problems we have had here. we have set up exemptions and deductions. what happens is you end up with

things like solyndra. because of the tax breaks and subsidies, you have a company wasting $500 million of american tax dollars. i would rather seek a comprehensive tax reform than just a bunch of little things here and there. i don't think that's a good way to govern and an efficient way to use our tax law. host: joining us is judd gregg. violent, new jersey -- vineland. caller: i am a mother, a wife, a taxpayer, and a democrat. i think -- a couple of weeks ago when the president spoke to congress and the united states

forever by to come together to work on some kind of plan to get people back to work is very important. from my point of view and the way i'm seeing in it, i kind of honestly believe what the president says. the republicans are sitting on their hands. we cannot wait -- is about 13 months before the next election. people out there are out of work. i believe that they are using this as a way of using a to work their campaign trail as far as the republicans, to get into office and to vote. it is not fair for the poorest

people in america, the working class. there is now working class and more. guest: there is a lot of politics going around. the president is running for reelection. the public is running against him and members of congress are running for reelection. some of the actions that should be taken are for the purpose of sending a message. look at what the senate -- look at what happened in the senate last night. he is now the president of blame and divide, as far as i can tell. this economy is not moving forward because people are worried. people could do the investing and small businesses, they are concerned about expanding and investing and creating more jobs. they don't know what their tax

burden is going to be. they see a massive expansion. they see the government borrowing at rates at numbers they cannot afford to pay back. that will cost them to us to pay more for their borrowing. people are worried about the direction of this country's fiscal policy. if the super committee came back and said we have a plan that is specific and real that reduces the deficit over 10 years by a $3 trillion, you would see the economy explode. people would have confidence in the future. they are taking this action. you would see great action. i think the american people are ready to be creative and use that unique entrepreneurship and

to make us grow and to create jobs. it's being held back by the certainty of politics on taxes, regulation, and debt. host: chris from illinois. caller: thank you for your service. i have a big problem with any republican that signed grover norquist's pledge by not to raise taxes by even one dime. guest: i do not think grover norquist has been an instructive voice. people on the left are equally destructive. social security is not allowed to address the fundamental issues of how to save it. there are folks on both sides of the aisle that to not appear to be interested in resolving our

fiscal problems but to raise money for their own agendas. those folks are not credible players as far as i'm concerned and i do not listen to them. host: we have a tweet -- guest: i disagree with him on that. defining "super committee." the congress has the final say. the congress is part of the process. the regular order doesn't work on these big issues. we know that. we have tried that before. people come along and poison the well before you can get the bill

on to the floor of the senate or the house. that is why it doesn't work. this is set up by the congress. the congress authorizes the stature art event. -- the statuary event. both sides are on the committee. a more accurate description would be a super conference. congress has the right to set up this committee. is the committee going to use the extraordinary opportunity it has been given to straighten out our fiscal house, or make a major step so that this country can feel like it's back on the road to fiscal responsibility? the american people are upset and they have a right to be upset. we're going to double the debt

and then we will triple the debt. our children will inherit a country that is bankrupt. this will take us longer than greece. you cannot run up all these deficits and debt that we're running up and expect to maintain our standard of 11 and expect to be a strong nation. this committee has the chance to step up and change that course. otherwise we'll have a serious problem. host: sheila from massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel super committee has to much power deciding what will be cut. he entered the question pretty well.

i'm wondering what will happen when obama's health care ads 80 million people more to medicaid. thank you for taking my call. guest: there are two things driving the massive expansion. one is obama's proposal on health care which will increase the spending by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years and it will add a huge number of people. the second thing driving this huge fiscal imbalance we're confronting is the demographic shift. the baby boom generation is going into retirement and we're going from 35 million retire

.illiopeople to 70 million some people will not be able to retire because of their fiscal situation. all of our entitlement programs which benefit retired people -- medicare, social security, medicaid -- were conceived of as pyramids. there were 16 people paying into social security for every one person taking now. today, two people are paying in forever one person taking up. in 2025, it will be one to one. the numbers do not work. these adjustments are not draconian. some people will not even feel them and they will be