therefore can't run their business prudently while also having a great deal of leverage. .. minister sitting in the front row that they drew on a well-designed substantial loan

from the united states and from the imf, a $45 billion recommended that the europeans put in place the same sort of external financing facility of some kind. now why don't think he was saying europe needs a loan from the united states it is a currency quite different from mexico, 1994, but there is agreement or a lot of thinking along the lines of a package of support within the year rose known for example banks stopping by italian debt. so i asked the question if it was $45 billion to save the day in 1995, how much is it today? we had good discussion and afterwards a very distinguished former senior, okay, it was paul volcker.

[laughter] came up to me and said simon, the number is 1.5 trillion. i said that's great. is that dollars or euros. he said that's a good question. euros. so 1.45 billion in 1995 goes to save the day or helps to save the day. today, it's 1.5 trillion perhaps for euros, $2 trillion. some friends of mine in a scenario with hedge funds and other former officials came up with the answer you need a 4 trillion euros package to stabilize the markets. this is serious money. bigger than the gdp of germany. perhaps the europeans could construct something around that. a fascinating discussion to talk about and you can follow it on my blog if you want. [laughter] the blog i should say i just plugged it we have no advertising or revenue. during the financial crisis, sorry, the first part of the

financial crisis in 2008 someone wrote and said i love your blog but it has the appeal of a hospital emergency ward. [laughter] which i said that is exactly what we are trying to get across. perhaps the europeans can do it with a great deal of subsidy with unconditional generous support of the monthly from the european central bank running to the italian government. raising the question of course if you were a german taxpayer how much exactly would you be willing to pay to keep the lifestyle to which he's become accustomed. [laughter] [applause] that the european question. i don't know if you are german or italian. german. okay. you can tell us in the question and answer. these are massive shocks to the world economy spreading through

the derivatives market that are not transparent, markets that this administration has consistently refused to make transparent. i see in the audience dallas has worked very hard on this point to try to convince for civil treasury the men market should become more transparent. not yet with success i think we should say. unfortunately. what is the situation in the united states? how we do it is our financial structure to what is coming at us. well, let me ask you this. if goldman sachs what hit a rock, hypothetical, i'm not saying they have or they will but if they were to hit a rock today, friday, who in the room thinks that goldman sachs, a bank with a balance sheet fluctuates around $900 billion

-- who thinks goldman sachs would be allowed to fail, an incumbent of any said rescue, any other kind of bailout? could goldman sachs failed like lehman brothers failed with big, and initially at least on noble goal losses for the creditors? could goldman sachs fail? i asked this question to many audiences and people in the financial sector and far from the financial sector only one person ever raised his hand in new york a big position on goldman. i think it's a new york thing actually. [laughter] i'm not sure if sheila bair talked about this it might have been the finest moment that the fdic. the group requested a bailout, demanded a bailout in the fall

of 2009. they said if you let us feel it will be disruptive to the new global economy and have small and medium-sized lenders in the united states. that is a special niche. treasury, to my understanding, wanted to bail them out and the secretary said no and it didn't happen. see i.t. went bankrupt and restructured its debt. no one i've talked to, i said everyone if you know the country tell me now or after words, i have not found anyone, any evidence that the failure of the cit group destructive markets damaged the customers. nothing. cit group had a balance sheet of $80 billion. the largest financial institutions we let fail without any kind of bailout since the collapse of lehman brothers. 80 billion can fail.

900, 800 billion you just said couldn't fail. why? because goldman sachs is big. goldman sachs is not just big. it's also complex and cross border. the resolution authority in dodd-frank and there's a lot of confusion. i find there's no confusion at all. there is a considerable degree of misrepresentation. can i see that without it being defamation were is the borderline? there is a great deal of wishful thinking. to be very, very clear. the resolution all authority of dodd-frank gives the fdic working with the fed and the treasury greater power and greater authority to manage the so-called orderly liquidation of the non-bank financial the institutions and banks holding companies. it doesn't apply to a dingley goldman sachs. it isn't a cross border resolution of 40. you can't -- the u.s. congress cannot pass across the border

resolution of 40 or create that mechanism. it doesn't have the jurisdiction. there is no cross border authority or mechanism or framework, and at least when i talk to my former colleagues who are working the g20 for various countries, some europeans, people who were the responsible delegates to those summits. i ask them how long until we have a cross border resolution authority that can handle something like the failure of goldman, a pre-commitment on the part of bankruptcy, authorities and other relevant authorities from other countries? so, you know -- remember when lehman brothers failed we didn't know who would get what, how and when. we still don't completely know, and that's a big part of why we have a global panic. how long until we have a global resolution mechanism? again, my colleagues, the people working on this, working on the

g20, the senate say it's never going to happen. not in my professional lifetime, even the youngest student in the room. maybe they are wrong. we will see. there's nothing. we've got nothing. if goldman sachs or bank of america or jpmorgan chase or citigroup or morgan stanley or on the brink of failure, you're choices are available now, protect the creditors, would inform some conservatorship to the 100% protection or let them fail and take the consequences. and i naturally with you. i think the consequences of goldman sachs failure in this economy with a european financial situation where it is, the consequences would be catastrophic.

goldman sachs is too big to fail. this kind of statement sometimes confuses people, because they think i'm somehow representing some creasy left-wing ideology here. well first of all i'm not a lecture in person. i'm the former chief economist of the monetary fund. they have a test that screams out crazy left-wing people. [laughter] i did very well on that test. [laughter] second, let me quote some of my favorite thinkers on this issue are absolutely from the right. jean farmer, the father of the efficient market view of finance. professor at the university of chicago said on cnbc last year too big to fail is not a market, it's a government subsidy scheme. and he's right. tom, the of doing recently retired president of the fed has nailed this point again and again. and robert is brilliant on this

topic. john was kind enough to mention 13 bankers. the intellectual -- which is about regulated capture and state captured brought about by the too big to fail financial institutions and the massive distortion. the intellectual shoulders, the giant on whose intellectual shoulders we stand in that book is george sigler from the university of chicago. this -- and i say this to every moodie on the right -- i said to peter actually in his thing here i said peter, i think your view that fannie and freddie were central to the crisis of 20007-2008 is exaggerated but there is no question that feeney and freddie behaved badly. they took on excessive risk, the and we too little capital, they lobbied for the right to have even more leverage and they blew

themselves up at great cost to the american taxpayer. absolutely correct. no problem -- i have no problem at all with any of that analysis, but i would ask you think about the underlining incentive structure. who are the fannie mae and freddie mac today? who can borrow more cheaply because of the implicit government subsidies? now the advantage that goldman were jpmorgan chase or citigroup have is debatable. estimates between the basis points i think at the moment i would go somewhere in the middleware of 50 at this point. it is a big funding advantage in this market. and i know the credit rating agencies have changed their view a little bit on the value of the government support here. and if you believe the

assessment of the credit-rating agencies i have a number of bridges i will show you after the show. what does the management of these companies want to do with the funding advantage? what is the vision? its to become bigger, more global. the ceo of citigroup says they would like to rename the image of walter reston's. some of you can tell by the gray hair those people who were laughing walter built city of the 1970's on the recycling petrodollars exporting countries with the money banks we used to call them that included in city they made loans with that money to latin america, communist poland, communist romania. that wasn't a good idea. [laughter] citigroup blowup in 1982, they've blown themselves up in the past years this is an agreed narrative with the veterans.

emerging-market debt and the 1980's the commercial real-estate and several times 2008, 2009 on the residential real estate. anybody who says this crisis happens once every seven years is not read the newspapers. so they want to become more global what does mr. geithner say, the sector of the treasure, one of the key architects from the administration started thinking about the financial situation including what was done to save the system and reform. what does mr. geithner say with regard to this vision? he told the new republic he thought of this terrific. he said the emerging markets are growing. they are going to need financial services to provide on a globalist basis from the united states. now citigroup when it blew itself out in 1982 was about 3% of u.s. gdp tomalin said. that was a substantial bank in

the day. it was bailed out, there's a lot of forbearance as many of you know. when it blew itself out, i'm sorry it ran out of liquidity -- i always get those things confused -- of the end of to those in need, it was about 17%. 17% of u.s. gdp. $2.5 trillion bank when you include all of the off-balance sheet liabilities. now the bank of scotland, when it blew up at the end of 2008, had a balance sheet that was 1.5 times the size of the u.k. economy. put that in u.s. terms that is 20 trillion-dollar bank. i don't think citibank is right to become, or jpmorgan chase, the current number one guy is going to become a 20 trillion-dollar bank anytime soon. but, i would -- i'm just pointing out to you they can borrow cheaply, they want to get bigger, they have the support in this administration, they have the support of many people on

the republican side of politics as well, can come back to that. they have massive subsidies. your subsidies. they will get bigger. you can't deal with them now -- you cannot handle the failure, okay? there's nothing in dodd-frank to let you handle the failure of these banks. when there are 3 trillion, 4 trillion come 5 trillion-dollar banks, the problem is going to be bigger or smaller. and the incentives, think about the incentives. think about the money. actually, think about the money on both sides of the equation. according to some research on tv to done, the ceos on the top financial institutions between 2002 to 2008 received, in cash salary bonus and stock options

they actually exercise, they receive $2.5 billion. that is a large sum of money. within that 2.5 billion it turns out to billion was received by five people, five gentlemen actually. according to the study. hank greenberg of aig built it up to be big and left before the collapse. sandy lyle, who built city and was also not on the scene when it collapsed. angela mozilo to build countrywide and of course sold to banc of america local is a big part of our current problems we can talk about. number four, dick folde who ran lehman brothers, and number five, jimmy kaine, who ran bear stearns. there's one person missing from the study because this person sold his share after leaving the company come so was not disclosed and the same way, but this sixth person is hank

paulson, who built goldman sachs up. goldman sachs was one of the world's best investment banks by the way in 1998. it was a 200 billion-dollar bank, 280 billion in today's money. when it failed, sorry, was saved from a failure by you, the american taxpayer commence a tender, to those in need, allowed by the federal reserve to convert to a bank holding company and therefore have access to the discount window. at that moment it was a $1.1 trillion bank, and i think the question is what did you get. what is the society get from the nonfinancial sector debt, what did anybody get from that increase in size from 1998 to 2008? we know what hank paulson got. it was hundreds of millions of dollars including a very nice tuck >> because he sold after he became treasury secretary. so five people get $2 billion. what's the cost to you of that

crisis? we can talk about the recession, we can talk about the jobs lost, we can talk about the millions of homes, we can talk about all of the disaster around the foreclosure, but i suggest we just focus on the fiscal impact. siskel is the mood of the day in washington right now, so let's talk fiscal. compare the congressional officers forecast from before the crisis, the early 2008 before the crisis became at its full intensity and after the crisis. now, i should say, i don't think i had a chance to mention this on the panel of the economic devices on the seal the these are not my numbers, these are their numbers although they keep moving in my direction so i don't object to them so these are their numbers. according to the cbo, which forecast that out to 2018, in before the crisis until we can compare the 24 tests before and after. the increase in government debt, federal government debt as a result of the crisis is a

percentage of gdp. m let's call that roughly $7 trillion. so, 5 trillion people get $2 billion, that's a pretty good job if you can get it. they walk away it seems with the cash, perhaps the legal cases count but i don't think so. they take 2 billion cash. you get 7 trillion on the national debt. now, 7 trillion on the national debt is not cash out of your pocket right away, but down the road, i can assure you you will leave with higher pay in taxes or you or somebody else will be receiving lower social security, lower medicare, or medicaid when your old. medicaid is the ultimate backstop for people who become old and run out of money and need long-term care. all of us face that risk. all of these programs are going to face pressure because of what the banks did. how does that make sense?

how is that acceptable, how was that a reasonable choice? surely the politicians are clamoring to change the situation. surely everyone agrees that too big to fail is too big and we can do plenty of other things. we can work on a higher capital requirements and you can follow the work of the professor from stanford on those issues. you can really sort out and move towards better markets for derivatives. you can talk to dennis kelliher about that. you can make the banks smaller as a part of that policy. if you can talk to me about that. surely the politicians are lining up to take this on because it's an idea that cuts across the right and the left. now the left doesn't like with the to list the abuse of power. the left doesn't like the fact it's not a market. it's a subsidy scheme.

it is an insane, inefficient, the interest subsidy scheme. how many politicians do you know who are willing to come out and say too big to fail is simply too big? in the republican primaries, the run-up to those primaries, you would think this would be an appealing idea for many republicans who think they emphasize the free-market, and i think there are a set of what we might call main street republicans who are very much on this page. the wall street republicans want so much but many of them seem to be aligned with mitt romney. so why not run on exactly this issue. so far won presidential candidate has taken this up, jon huntsman. that's it so far. we will see if others do. and on the left, the obama administration, well, i don't

think they are going to go after this issue not after missing so many opportunities, not with mr. geithner still firmly at the treasury department. in 1901 when teddy roosevelt decides to take on the trust using the act which had never been done before, jpmorgan come the original came to see him in the house. he was behind the securities which the government was pursuing the first of these cases. and jpmorgan said if we've done anything wrong sandy your men to see my men and we will fix it up. thank goodness teddy roosevelt as attorney general said no. we don't want to fix it up. we want to stop it. i would emphasize a shift in the

consensus. in 1901 in a room like this fall of people like you everyone was shocked that roosevelt had taken this action it seemed the audit because people to beat to it was good business was more efficient and more modern and roosevelt was just acting out some strange ideas. in 1911 when the government moved to break up the standard oil into a 35, 36 pieces it wasn't particularly controversial. at that point the consensus shifted, the main street consensus actually i think particularly on the right of american politics interestingly. the consensus has shifted. they understand it's gone too far. the monopoly could be abusive. it's a completely integrated idp

three devotee gets this. high school students get this, middle school students get this. i'm still working on the elementary school. [laughter] everybody understands an individual becomes too powerful but it's bad for democracy. that in space systems and other businesses. it's bad for the nonfinancial sector. by the way it's broken up and they've made money on that. most went on to do very well. it's a great american outcome. it's not the only thing we need to do. it's not the only thing we need to do three or even to the financial system. i'm happy to give you a long list of things that have not been done, opportunities missed and things we should continue to press for the first and foremost, i must insist on one point, too big to fail is simply

too big. thank you. [applause] >> you can see why i would enjoy going back to college to have him as my professor. thank you. [laughter] we have time for questions, and simon has agreed to stay even after three if people want to ask. so please take the advantage of this opportunity we have someone holding microphones and there are lots of other things simon didn't get to paris to make a quick question. on the credit-default swaps of american banks were the numbers that you are seeing in the critical swaps in american banks have issued to backstop the debt i'm not seeing any numbers i believe what trust and that is a part of the problem the lack of transparency in the market.

i talk to people in the officials sector whose job is to know these numbers. i know don't think they would tell me if they did know but when i talk to them my feeling as somebody on the other side of the table listed don't know either. that is the profound nature here. i don't think by the way it is the cbs agreed dead or d'italia in debt. what we have seen in many previous crises called contingent is other assets, price of other assets booked on the long term capital management in september and october of 1998 was not actually its exposure to the emerging markets it was the effect on the other class of security they bet on the prices converging which the model said they should for sure, almost for sure. one of my favorite quotes from the 2007 episode of the financial crisis is the

technical guy quote in the newspaper saying our models are good apart from the events that happen once every 10,000 years and we have had three of those this week. [laughter] >> yes, in the back. microphone over there. >> there was a lot of commentary in the fall to those in the the u.s. government should actually nationalize the biggest banks, the banks that were too big to fail. what would you suggest going forward? was it why is they did not nationalize even the largest banks? we did in some sense nationalize aig and we are still working through that, but what prescription would you provide the too big to fail as a desirable force? >> that's a good question to the it's a very fair question. look, if my choice is global

calamity or on savory bailout, and i believe that is the choice, i'm going to just bailout and i think i work pretty hard to make sure that's not the choice i face or other people face. if we are doing the bailout, the key point for me in devotee is what are you doing to the credit shareholders should be wiped out. that is best practice. you can go talk to them if you don't believe me. management should be fired. understand in the book that required more was being fired by steve ratner in the spring of 2000 - the same moment the bankers were meeting with president obama and getting very

different treatment and i asked some become a senior obama administration official who will remain nameless white didn't you fire or change the board of directors of citigroup and this gentleman said they took the view of the disturbed a hair on the head of a single director that would have worsened the crisis and deepened the recession. i don't believe that and we rode our book in part to go through that at a technical level that you can react to it and tell us if we are wrong but that is the belief if that is where we are going forward that is a very bad place to be and i think we need to move away from that to a situation where nobody is too big to fail. i'm not saying we should encourage. we should have high capital

requirements. it's a standard fact of banking banks don't care about this bill over as the externality they will pay themselves on the unadjusted risk basis and to do that they want a lot of leverage. they don't care so much about the downside if you get a guarantee they care even less but even after their guarantees there should be capital requirements, but the kind of thing we are seeing right now in the united states bank of america being allowed to move its merrill lynch derivatives to the fdic insured bank i'm sure sheila bair covered that in her remarks. it's not just ridiculous or economics. i was at a boston fed conference and have the chance to talk to the management of the record. who approved this exception?

the fdic has to go along with it. people who are close with six of the said pressed for it. we are increasing the taxpayer subsidy, helping it get bigger? pushing us more towards the kind of point we get to make the decision that we protect the credit or not and if you don't protect the credit of goldman sachs, goldman sachs or anybody else hypothetically in trouble now, what happens? with the scale of complexity and openness we have to steadily. it's a time bomb. we must defused the bomb and to get smaller. everything that we have done, with all due respect to people who have worked hard on dodd-frank and people did, i know. but honestly, the net effect of the bailout what has happened subsequently, despite the legislation, despite in some points it is worse, the situation is worse than it was before to those and seven. the figures are distorted.

if given the to to address as the cycle changes gets bigger. they absolutely do not have enough capital to withstand the shock. if the had enough capital, the bank -- of bank of america, if merrill lynch had enough capital to withstand the shock now coming to them, they wouldn't need the 23 a exception to its case closed. that's the smoking gun. >> any other questions? yes. over there. we've got a microphone. >> how big is too big to fail? do you have a number in mind as the size it should be an investment bank? >> that's another good question. our data on this is pretty limited. the group failed at a tense moment. it was $80 billion. i don't know if that's the limit

or not. people who study the economies of the scope say there's no social benefits above 100 billion of total assets so the burden of proof should be the other way the burden of scale but jaime dimond for examples proposing. we know what the costs are. we can see those but what are the benefits? and i've gone through the work of the bank settlements and i talk to the new york fed about their work, i've made fun. there is no compelling evidence, i can't find people in the sector who can explain to the war will even come out in public and say why they need mega banks at that scale. now the amendment to the daughter frank legislation said a hard size cap, would have set a cap on the largest banks to% of gdp for the risky investment banks, this is total assets, 4%

of gdp for the relatively boring retail banks and that would push them back to where the war in the mid 1990's. the largest six banks now have assets more than 60% of gdp. the same banks back to the mid-1990s had assets and 15 to 17% of gdp. it got bigger. we got no benefit out of that. so the amendment close middle sensible proposal and got 33 votes on the floor of the senate. bad news is 33 votes in the senate doesn't get you very much. so it's not going to happen. it doesn't matter what i think should be. it's not going to happen. there's not going to be anything like this. the banks are going to remain to be to fail and we are all going

to live with the consequences. by the way there is something beyond to big to fail. i try to go out on an encouraging positive note that this is not it. [laughter] there is something beyond too big to fail, too big to save. what happened to ireland? this is an incredible story. ireland was considered to be fiscally prudent for the last decade. the the genuine economic miracle until 2000 and made a commercial high realistic mode. three banks began to times the size of the irish economy when they blew themselves up the cost and in direct to the irish government was more than 100% of gdp to they go from fiscally prudent supposedly by everybody in the credit markets to bankrupt essentially and having to borrow from the imf.

the banks will ruin you literally. fiscally unless you stop them. yeah, it's economics, but economics are the simplest most direct incentives. if people follow the money they will build bigger banks, the banks will be more dangerous, they will be highly leveraged and they will blow themselves up and then you have the choice. do you save them, do you save yourself at a great cost or do you step back to liquidate which is very tempting and in many ways a social thing to do. but that can lead to the global conflict. don't go there. it's not necessary. >> we have some questions on the

other side. yes. >> i know that you are advocating that it's too big to fail but it's hard to determine the size is why couldn't we have a tax on the bank and that would be an incentive to push them to a smaller size of 2 trillion than a lot of taxes that will convince them every day that this should reduce their assets and return more profits to the shareholder. >> jon huntsman proposed that in "the wall street journal" this week and i support if i think if you can do it with taxes if you can have a tax on the size perhaps the tax on leverage above a certain scale the idea would be to remove the subsidy they have the can borrow more cheaply than the other banks it's harder to do directly or only through a tax where we have a tax but we also have some sensible quantitative limits

that we debate on what we can agree on what we can do it for capital requirements and differential so if you get a bigger you need to have a larger capital plan that how are we doing by the way on the capitol requirements on basil iii a remember the compliance many of them. the leverage isn't quite so bad in the united states, but but didn't like bank of america was highly leveraged, 17, 18 times leverage. it's not enough capital. jean farmer, again, a chicago, says we should have capital 40 to 40%, not 10%, not risk weighted. i agree. capital clement to be clear there's a lot of confusion on this just saying we want banks to be funded with more equity

relative to the debt some say they have to hold more capital. it's completely the wrong verb there is no holding involved. capital was not involved on the asset side of anyone's balance sheet, it is a liability. equity funding. it is a buffer against losses so let's do it with differential capital requirements and how do they react to the capitol requirements? yes, exactly, they are outraged. it's unbelievable you are going to destroy the economy. the threats that you hear from them are serious and these are big banks you should take them seriously when people threaten you. [laughter] you should think about why they are big and why you want them to be big but i would go for the quantitative size. if somebody came to you and said look good news on a invented the one device that will protect all perlstein against failure i think he would say that's great, let's use it, but let's have the

other systems in place, too just in case your system doesn't work. >> i think we had one more question. >> are you aware of any too big to fail institutions that are organized as a partnership? the reason i think that might be a relevant issue is that sure they've done a lot of cities dhaka with his personal assets or not on the line as it would be under a partnership model the and you have to wonder if that would have the effect the managers wouldn't want to grow beyond the two big to manage size at that point. when wall street moved away from the partnership model to what we have now to the public corporations and to much less skin in the game as the management things changed i

don't think we can live bacteria devotee to conduct the partnership era matured absolutely right just to reinforce the point on the incentives on the money. who made the big money on the last cycle it wasn't people who were incidental to what happened the 546 characters are central to the story with a walk away when it's all said and done in personal wealth we walk away with a great deal of problems and much to pay and it is that in balance we have to confront so a good point about the partnerships and the incentives for not going to be able to go back, not to go back to that. >> do we have time for one more? >> we are going to have to -- it is running a little late unfortunately but maybe to come up and asks women afterwards. please have him join me in thanking simon.

[applause] you are always very thought-provoking and enlightening and unfortunately very sobering. thank you and we hope to have you back soon. would you like to see something? >> just a couple quick points. first of those who signed up please ensure to sign out so you get full credit. once again, thank you to the sponsors state buckley and thing to do all of you for coming i think was a great day. we had wonderful palace and speakers let's give simon another round of applause. [applause]

former senator and republican presidential candidate bob dole was on her this evening in washington, d.c.. but democrats and republicans, former and current lawmakers were on hand. speakers include former congressional colleagues. current senator pat roberts and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. he served as u.s. senator from 1969 to 1996 and from 1985 to 96 he served as the senate republican leader. this is 50 minutes. [applause] >> bob, the kansan's trusted you to represent them in washington for 35 years. and you never betrayed their trust. and many of us wish that you were still a leader in the united states senate, right?

wonderful it would be to see senator dole working his magic in the united states senate today. i remember in 1983i had just got him elected to the converse for the first time. candidly i was looking over my shoulder left you wondering how bad and how hard senator dole would come at me in the next election in kansas, and it is interesting because our first vote, the first tough vote we had was the social security reform of 1983. and i've often thought back to that time comparative to today because the social security trust fund was bankrupt. they were saying the checks would be leaked by april or may, and everybody was a loner this -- a little nervous and that is putting it mildly. people were terrified because they knew it had to be done. the we were going to have to change the eligibility age which

we did. we raised it. the new we were going to have to cut other benefits, which we did coming and they knew we were going to have to raise revenue, which we did. senator dole joined them with president reagan, speaker o'neill, danny rosten, the ways and means committee, and lead us through that mess and that challenging time. and one of the things, bob, that i will always deeply appreciate about you, is that yes, bob dole is a partisan leader. that was his job. the thing i deeply respected about him is when the doors close and the tough decisions had to be made, you could always count on bob dole doing the right thing to do could always count on bob dole looking at the facts and doing with the facts required coming and i think the reason he did is because this man loves this country more than he loves his political party. and that to me is the sign of a great patriot, and that is what i consider you to be. [applause]

let me just conclude because bob said don't talk more than two minutes. [laughter] i don't know whether i've gone over that or not, bob, but let me just say that i salute bob dole for what he did on the battlefields of italy in world war ii. i salute you for 35 years a remarkable public service to the people of kansas and the people of this country. and also salute you for being one of the toughest human beings i have ever met. [laughter] [applause] and i also want to say that i salute this man because he has a heart as big as kansas and that's the thing i really appreciated. i treasure our friendship. thank you for being here and supporting the institute. [applause]

to read >> please welcome the former senator don riegle. [applause] and i tell you if i were a leader in the senate today there would be a lot more happening. i can speak from experience in that regard. and i want you to know, speed, pete domenici yielded me his time when he left. [laughter] i'm not going to use it all. i want to maybe start with that wonderful tribute to you in the other room. we say certain things and hopefully things that are in no different from each of us but her words of tribute i think are going to be hard for any of us to match. only a select few of our national leaders and our long history as a nation ever rise to what he would call a truly extraordinary level of public achievement over their lifetime

and to have won city here in bob dole. if you think back in the last 150 years, not a very big group that he would probably name to put on the list, and he's one of them. i've been very privileged to serve with a bottle to the trustee in both the house and the senate and it may be hard to believe but it was 44 years ago in the house his fellow republicans and we started first working together and later for 18 years united states senate at that time we were in different parties in the house we were in the same party but i've been privileged to see firsthand both places his exceptional intellect, his leadership skill and strength there's nobody stronger or tougher. his decency and razor wit and

commitment to the broad public good to confuse and other young and thoughtful people that need to take and make this democracy what self-government work the way it ought to work because nobody has a monopoly on the good ideas or of a good ways to solve problems and so we have to learn how to sit down together and talk it out and we will always find the best answers that way. i believe bald would have been a great president. i think he would have been a great president because of the talent and his goodness of heart, and i think that he would have used those things to read this nation. i think he would have done it with a very deep belief that in taking our country ahead we don't leave the wounded behind. whether they are in our society with disabilities or without food or returning veterans needing our help, in each of the resistances and many others he personally led the fight to help

all of them advance and have a decent chance to lead a full and productive life. what better work is there for any of us to do than that? i know for a fact the passage of the americans with disabilities act would never have happened without his leadership. when you see somebody in a wheelchair or somebody that has a difficulty to move down the street and come down off the sidewalk and off the street and go and do what they are about to do more of think about them because we wouldn't have the situation we have today as much improved as it is if it weren't for him. he cares about people and to me that all people especially the little people, and we need more political leaders like that today who think and act in terms of our whole nation and not just part of it. he's also supported the basic needs of people in need in other countries through the food for peace program, which has now served, get this, over 3 billion

people worldwide since its inception. his commitment to the global food security was awarded the prestigious world food prize in 2008 along with senator george mcgovern. as great leaders to come he attracted the truly great helpers' along the way. sheila burke is here tonight, and marshall harris and others and the great staff by the and the enormous love and a standing support from elizabeth and many others that could be named. i want to thank all of you here tonight for supporting the institute. it's one thing to say nice things and another thing to get out your checkbook and write a check to make the thing happen and give it to the life in this sense of urgency and purpose that it needs. i want to also note this.

his long and successful effort to build a world war ii more along the mall, to honor the sacrifice of what many have called the greatest generation was not about bob dole. those of us who know bob dole know that. he's never wanted or needed monuments to himself. his legislative and public service record of the marks he is left are there for all to see. with the world were to memorial his purpose was to recognize and honor all of those anonymous regions of men and women, dead and alive who served and who by their service save the future for all of us and all of mankind. he wanted us to remember them, and more than that, to be prepared to make our own investments and sacrifices when we are called upon. that's what it's all about and that's what he is all about. so he has made a giant mark for the good on the important history of the country. he has answered every call to service to read every single

one. so, he deserves the honor that he's getting tonight and on the other evenings. and in the rotunda of the u.s. capitol, and for those of you that may not have had a chance to see the close there now stands a wonderful statue former president gerald r. ford, and i urge you when you are there the next time to stop and walk over and take a close look at it and take a look at the quotation from former house speaker tip o'neill that on the basis of that statute on the left side of the base by the way. [laughter] but it's a truly wonderful bipartisan tribute to jerry ford for his great decency and effective leadership in pulling the nation together at a difficult time, and to me when i saw and read it and i've seen and read it more than once know, it says much about how things

should work in the congress between the parties to a bottle made them work, and i mentioned this about jerry ford because tip o'neill was right about gerald ford, and we saw that jerry's choice for vice president as his running mate in 1976 was the man sitting right here. so tonight we are all privileged to be here to the gathering for special man and it permits us to join in the task of carrying for his work. thank you for coming. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the secretary of the department of health and human services, the honorable kathleen sebelius. [applause] >> mr. leader, it's my great privilege to have a chance to join with fellow kansans, with wannabe kansans -- [laughter] with illustrious members and former members of the congress

and the senate who had the privilege of serving with you. i also want to bring greetings from another former governor of kansas, more parkinson, who is here in the audience to light and wanted to be here as a part of this tribute. you know, i was thinking listening to jim flout dirty and don riegle that i have a father who served in the second world war, and then went from military service to communities service to public service. i was privileged to marry into the sebelius family, and also my father-in-law went from military service to communities service to public service, and that is exactly senator dole what you did, and it is one of the great attributes that to be having kansas. i think the embodiments is the

dole institute, and your belief that public service is honorable to engage students in a robust discussion to make sure that the young people of the next generation understand that civility and humor and intellect are part of what we need in this democracy. and for that we will always be grateful. i had the opportunity also to thank and introduced the chancellor of the university of kansas, my alma maters and i have been brought to kansas by a wildcat but i went to k.u.. [laughter] on the showdown we are chair in washington with great civility. [laughter] cementer roberts couldn't figure out what the right color was for tonight. [laughter]

came to k.u. as chancellor, as the 17th chancellor just after left the office of governor in august 2009, but but she was in that active search while i was in the state and watched people screening a whole variety of candidates and feel that they have by far the best leader we did have a the university of kansas when they chose the chancellor and i have been able to watch her and interact with her in two and a half years she has been in a position and watched her continue to grow the university to reach high marks to make sure the university of kansas excels in all of its efforts and particularly to focus on the institute as a vibrant part of a space dialogue

in the great status kansas, but also watch it in the leadership of the new national level. the dole institute is renowned all over the country. lots of people in the the fact that we have that kind of institution in lawrence kansas certainly they don't have a bottle in various states of the country but they also don't have a goal institute -- dole institute and i want to thank the chancellor and make sure that stays in a vibrant institution and introduce the university of kansas bernadette little. [applause] >> thank you, secretaries sebelius. it is a great pleasure for me to be one of the guests here, to be a guest will be just as kansas but to be here to the present a

person and an institute that is important to the nation and to the world and to also honor someone who is one half of a true power couple. the university of kansas is proud to host the robert dole institute of politics, a vibrant center for honoring and continuing senator dole's service. when he first started discussing the creation of the dole institute, cementer dole made it clear that this wouldn't just be a repository for the records and memorabilia. he wanted to be an engaging in place and k.u. has made sure that it's just that. ..

we've posted president that the united states late george h. debbie bush and bill clinton and foreign nations like the length of poland and the terry shankill of the ukraine. we have hosted leaders and government and politics such as former mayor and california house speaker, willie brown and then fdic chairwoman, sheila bair. like secretary sebelius, sheila bair has the distinction of

being both a graduate of very high distinction and is being recognized as one of the most powerful woman in the world. and we've hosted reporters and commentators, such as bob woodward and david broder, one of broder's public appearances is that the dole institute. we are home to the told fellow where they hold seminars given them the opportunity to learn first-hand friend leaders in the field. those fellows had a prior patterson precedent have included congressman dennis moore and walt wakes, press secretary to senator dole. i would encourage you to compare the quality of programming at the dole institute to the institute of politics at harvard. and i know you'll be impressed with the dole institute. all of the events we hold our free and open to the public and keeping at the institute

engagement possible because of support from the university like those of you who are here have made this the team. so on behalf of the university and half of the dole institute i want to thank you for your generous support. it's also possible because of the generous personal contributions of dolts themselves with abdul being honored as a ku endowment life trust you. you know all of the events -- about the events i've been to at the dole institute, one of the most inspiring is the annual swearing-in of new citizen and i make sure that whatever is going on, that i get to that event. i had the opportunity to attend this event each year since becoming chancellor and it is truly fitting that the newest citizens of our nation take

their oath of citizenship in institute built by and in honor of someone who devoted his life to defending and serving this nation. in recognition of his service, i want to personally salute a man whose leadership has changed this country who has changed countless lives, senator bob dole. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator pat roberts. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the high road of humility is not battered by heavy traffic in this town. [laughter] but i feel very humbled to be

here on behalf of my leader, a great senator and a great man, my friend bob dole appeared at several housekeeping duties. squier, where are you. senator warner, where are you, sir? [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] speaking up behind you, bob. yet to show your face, john. that's required. right over there. all right, although they. and the other know they have, chancellor from the president of the university and the curators is down here. we have yet to make up our mind. i'm sorry -- [laughter]

well, as henry viii said to one of his lies, i will keep you on. [laughter] is anthony said to cleopatra, i am not here to talk and she reportedly pride, i'm not prone to argue. so just think about that. last night come on come you. we get that out of case day. anyway -- bob, hold it down. i'm just going to give some random chips off the old russ tom back and just a couple of experiences, everybody else's? poetic and told the truth about you. so i think it's my turn. my first meeting with abdul in 1959 when i was down at quantico in the united states marine corps, your 9/11 force in readiness commemorated to the gold seal of the enemy at any

time. at any rate, i want dan and bob leaned over to me and said you're going to meet the greatest potential candidate that you would ever meet. and they'll cast as fair, your longtime administrative investment. it was sort of a combination of george clooney and tyrone power. last night for those who don't know tyrone power, he's a pretty nice-looking fellow. at any rate, i had a talk and he took time to talk to him, which is unusual being from the army and everything. but at any rate, i was tremendously impressed and bob was right. and you see what has happened in regards to his public career. and what a great career and what a great time we've had. i was privileged to be the administrative assistant to greg carlson and kate sebelius and then on my own out in the house are being others said the

delegation and we had a great time in the security wasn't quite as tight as it was -- as it is today. nih's site though walter and caught alexander and bill katz and bill taggart intruding to serve and of course sheila burke, why does go on the floor and say, what kind of nudity and? and she would say what kind of mood is the other hand? [laughter] so you got things done back in those days. we at the time and we had this creepy guy that came in at the cowboy hat from texas, where else -- so he came in and he had those thoughts with him. he said i have to get this box to henry kissinger. in case abilities that i have to go to a committee meeting. i got them in here, pat roberts here, who is a former marine and is a top secret clearance.

so he goes into the office and opens up the boxer carefully. i look in here and say what on earth is this? there's a huge and huge ball of tinfoil with flashing lights on it. and i said wait a minute, i just have a top secret clearance. this is much higher than not. [laughter] i said please shut that. i shouldn't even be seen. but there is a guy that you should go me. and that is bill katz and bill taggart over in bob dole's office. [laughter] three said really? i said yeah, bob dole. okay, sure. up over there. don't worry about security. you say is clear that you're going to see bill and you're going to see tiger. so off he went. so i called the secretary server there is a pathetic i was a big box is going to make a great big contribution. [laughter] and so in he went. and i didn't answer the phone to anyone in the dole office for three days.

[laughter] by that time i thought he was a member of congress, so basically i said we've got to put a stop to this. meeting was being held at 10:00 and telling all the farm organizations and commodity groups and everybody connected with agriculture i can't change the criteria.

there's a moratorium now until after the wee hours. of course taking credit. [laughter] but this is the kind of guy that he was and so all of us on the house side or at least myself, i would sort of assume they would

assume what ever i was for bob was four and so consequently my leverage went up and we got some things done. there is another little story and i'm going to quit. bob i think this holst's -- holding started when a great individual and the editor of the phillipsburg daily news at any rate was going from topeka to his many duties up to phillipsburg and he was driving along in his cadillac and all of a sudden saw a light on the second floor of the courthouse in russell. during those days what he would do is stop the car, go in and turn off the light coming you don't want to waste any energy. as a matter of fact is mandated now in the administration you have to do that, but at any rate, he goes in the court house, never met bob, goes in the courthouse, second floor and there he is, slaving away 10:40 at night doing his job as the

county attorney. he walks up and says i'm the national committee man for the republican party in kansas and who are you? , he says i'm bob dole, public a county attorney. he later told the story he said, you know, you ought to think about running for public office. i don't know if i am a democrat or republican. he said well it's about five or six to one republican and he said well i think i will be a republican. [laughter] but in honor of that tremendous first meeting it really started bob and sam and hawken boyda the lagat fathers really. there were many other godfathers and godsons around here that were coming out of the woodwork but at any rate it was a great expanse come bob coming and i wanted you to have this this is the last three way light bulb available in the senate. [laughter]

[applause] it does give off heat but i don't think they can detect you quite yet as the source so i'm going to give you that and if you can read to your heart's content should do want to do that you know the other ones we have to buy now they are the little squiggly things that are sort of iridescent, incandescent blight weare [inaudible] at any rate to this is the light bulb that started and that's what i want to give you. there's one other thing. our address jerry moran does as down to the world war ii memorial, his memorial -- he will say that but that's what it is -- he's a rock star, an absolute rock star and these

folks come from all parts and have young people with them and write down the memories of these veterans that have never really talked about this before, put it in the paper and that history is preserved. i've been waiting and i know of either stay away from him quite a bit and say there's bob dole standing right with him and then you are part of the rock star group. what is it in a man that would have people come to him from that memorial, some balk, somewhat pretty slow, some don't walk come up to him with tears in their audiences a look, there's bob dole, look, look, there's bob dole. bob, you have a gift. you have touched so many lives and made them better and we thank you for that. god bless you, sir. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> i think i can make my remarks in a couple of minutes but i want to thank you for being here and thank tom donahue who i've known for a long time, chamber and my friend, dolph lumbered who works at the chamber in a very high position job and a lot

of people in this audience used to work with me in the senate and the house and nobody here worked with me in the kansas house, that was 1951, but you know, i've had a great experience in politics and it was all by accident because we had a democratic library and named beth bowers who passed away about four years ago who was telling me the more young people to get involved in politics and she talked into running for the state legislature and i got elected, i didn't know much about politics. i think pact was right i didn't know what party to belong to until looked at the registration numbers and was a great experience and i really enjoy it. i think the only law that was

passed we got a law passed that gave disabled veterans preference in parking where they could park in certain spots to make easier for them to go to the story and all of that. so, not a very big legislative record but i enjoyed it and i decided well maybe i will run for county attorney. they were having trouble finding anybody and so i spent about eight years in the county attorney's office has a perfect prosecution record we never prosecuted anybody. [laughter] it was always pretty quiet out in kansas. [laughter] and then when i left, when i was there every lawyer in town wanted to be the county attorney, and i think i ran against every different democrat

and republican and when i lifted the had to draft someone to fill the job and it is a true story. a friend of mine from the democratic friend of mine who also became the county attorney because they couldn't get anybody else to run and that's sort of how you get started, and a fellow named smith nobody knows here but he was about another foot taller than me always had a big hat on and was representing the sixth congressional district -- we are down to for now -- and he was going to retire from congress and so it opened up his seat and we had some good friends and good candidates. sebelius was one. philip doyle was one. bob dole was one of the people running. and i could go on, but people

didn't know the difference between bill -- doyle and dole so we served pineapple juice all over kansas. [laughter] i remember when it was over he said huge around me and pineapple juice. [laughter] and then he came back to be a great congressman and real friend. but i just had a lot of friends and my little home town got me sort of started in politics and then maybe in my state got me started in politics, and i think i learned a lot of the hospital in world war ii about getting along with people who had different problems and different attitudes you learn if you work together you might get something done. i remember daniel inouye, the

best bridge player in the hospital in battle creek michigan he weighed 93 pounds, he since put on a pound or two. [laughter] but he was a very close friend of mine and we both came to congress about the same time. in fact he tells the story i told him in the hospital that we both want to run for congress and i'm not sure i ever said that, but it's all right with him it's all right with me. [laughter] but he got there before -- anyway, and then the chance to replace senator carlson who was one of the most decent men you will have ever met during his lifetime in kansas and they are honoring him i think next week. some special program for senator frank carlson. he sort of decided -- i think

pat helped him out a little bit -- that i should be the republican candidate. and so i was the republican candidate and was elected and served five terms, something like that. [laughter] left the senate voluntarily, but i didn't leave politics voluntarily. [laughter] i kept asking i said i think there should be recount. [laughter] i kind of fuel in some of those states if we had a recount like the president, but in the meantime we had become great friends and got along and i guess my -- all i want to say and then i will sit down is that i found ayaan mauney political life the one word that means a

lot is trust. you've got to be willing to trust one another if you are going to get anything done. and if i tell you i'm going to support this and that's all nobody's going to come you're not going to get anywhere you have to have a little flexibility and that is what they say i am a man of strong principle, one of them is flexibility. and he's right. sometimes you have to give a little. ronald reagan used to say get me 70, 80% and i will get the rest next year. so he wasn't as hard right conservative as some people portray him as today. but in the way, that was a great experience. then i left the senate in june of '96 and it was kind of a

tearful departure because you've got a lot of friends there and a lot of staff, and if you don't have a good staff you don't do a good job and i had a good staff and some of them are here this evening and they never got any credit but they did most of the work. i think keeping your word in whatever you do is vital. i remember one day on the senate floor i offered an amendment to a bill, and it was not controversy the land was passed easily, didn't even have a vote, had a voice vote. and then i heard that tom daschle had wanted to offer that amendment and thought he was going to have that promise that he could offer, and i checked and found out that he was right and i was wrong. so we did what we call the

sheeting of the proceedings and this sort of white it out and tom daschle got up and passed his amendment and everything was fine. tom was a good friend of mine coming and i think -- i don't know, it just seems to me some of that is missing today. some of the trust and some of the friendship, and i don't say -- i don't want to criticize the place i was a part of for 30 some years, but i think we can do better and i think we will. people are going to rise up on the democratic and republican side and there are going to be leaders on both sides who are going to say i can't get it all but i will take x and the other side says i don't want to give all that but i will take xy or something like that, how it works. my family -- i would have a

meeting with all the people working on the bill, and i would just say work it out. you get it worked out, come and see me. and worked pretty well. we got a lot of things worked out. .. i would just close by making certain or if you have any doubt in your mind money -- none of the money race here will end up in any political campaign.

it is going to end up in the dole institute of politics and that is where it belongs. we were all young once. it is harder for me to remember than you, but it means a lot to young people to have this experience and it doesn't mean much to them if they have got to go if this is going to make this a bob dole republican policy group or somebody else's democratic policy group. so, we do work on a bipartisan basis. barbour is here somewhere, isn't she? she is also on the legislature in topeka and is does a great job there. i think it's fitting to say that the institute i believe and the chancellor can correct me, is one of the busiest places on the campus. i think is four out of five

nights a week or something, and president carter dedicated it for me even though i didn't vote for for the panomock nl. [laughter] and so, that is kind of the way it has worked. we have had some of my republican friends say when we going to get a republican speaker out here? we have had republican speakers. my friend joe biden has been there and of course president clinton has been there and a lot of republicans. we are going to hope to get some of the candidates on the republican side, because obama doesn't have an opponent before november. but, finally, thank you for your long friendship. it means a lot to me. i've been recovering a little bit from a health problem but i'm getting a little bit better

each day. i spent about 11 months at walter reed hospital in 1210 and it is a great hospital but i never thought i wanted to spend that much time there. [laughter] but they got me out of bed and got me on my feet and i can walk around pretty well, and i never could write well so that is not a problem. but, the bottom line is, as i see it come as you go through life, did you make a difference? it doesn't have to be a difference for a million people. did you make a difference for one person, or to persons? and i try to, my own little way every day, try to maybe call somebody or do something so i can say at the end of the day well, you know i made a little difference in that person's

life. we talked on the phone. pat mentioned the world war ii memorial. it is a veterans memorial because we raise 195 million. it is not a government memorial and tomorrow morning there will be about 300 world war ii veterans from six states who will calm about 10:30 and i will be there and elizabeth is a great help to me and she will be there, and we will try to greet as many as we can because they are your fathers, your grandfathers and the people who really made this country great. thanks for coming and we will see you at at the next allude. i am not sure where it is going to be held yet. [applause]

>> the please welcome the director of the dole institute of politics. [applause] >> thank you very much. i can imagine a greater honor and salute to senator dold and the extraordinary group of bipartisan leaders on the stage tonight. that is just really remarkable and it shows what he accomplished during his career. i'm going to speak very recently and thanks for your support. we appreciate it very much in thanks to mike glassner for heading up and organizing a tremendous team that pulled this event off. [applause] i do intend to talk to mike after tonight because i want to

know why i am posting tonight after all these wonderful speakers instead of him. we will talk about that later. thanks to the university of kansas, it chancellor gray little and her predecessor bob hemingway. they been extraordinarily helpful to the dole institute of politics. we have had extraordinary guest beginning with the dedication. we had three presidents. we had three supreme court justices. the sitting vice president, a former vice president, hundreds of political leaders and practitioners. it is just been on believable. i hope that everyone has picked up and i see them lying around so i know you have the old report that will tell you what we did over the last two years at the dole institute and i would encourage you to pick that up to see how far we make your dollars go. i want to tangle my team. i have five of my team here. i hope you had a chance to meet them. if you want to know who they are they are the individuals who

passed out when senator dole announced we were going to have programs on 80% of the evening. it is really close to that senator but it is not quite that global yet. senator dole has a remarkable legacy which makes our job the dole institute very easy. it also makes doing her job imperative. is something we all feel very strongly and very passionate about and i can imagine a greater honor than being here tonight with you celebrating this wonderful american later. thank you are coming out and thanks for a great evening. we appreciate your support. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ♪

every close call should be made in favor of economic growth. every tie should be in favor of growth of the private sector. >> worked as an adviser in the reagan white house. omb director and george w.

bush's administration and as governor of indiana he implemented spending cuts that produced a billion dollar budget surplus. sunday night mitch daniels on his new book, the economy and his decision to not run for president in 2012 at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. candidate herman cain today announced a plan for creating opportunities zones in poor neighborhoods as part of his 999 tax plan. he was joined by updated king

binnie said martin luther king jr. and michigan state officials in roseville park in detroit. this is just under an hour. >> how are you guys doing?eviv >> welcome ladies and gentlemen to the revival of our urbannt center.lc welcome. [applause] welcome to the revival of our yo country. you know one of the reasons we are here today is to celebrate the candidacydida of herman cair celebrate his ideas and his vision for our country and for a depressed community. i comties. i can't think of a better symbol of a dessed

can't w we see behind us. this significant, historic relic that is empty and unoccupied because of politics, because of regulations, because of taxation, and we're going to start the program now, and we'll start the program with the blej of allegiance and we are going to start the program with the pledge of allegiance, but due to regulations, we are not allowed to bring an american flag to the podium, so i -- [audience reacts] but herman cain being a problem solver said we're still going to do the pledge of allegiance. you go right to my lapel pen. [cheers and applause] michael, want to start the pledge of allegiance? >> please say the pledge with me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it

stands one nation under god indis visible with liberty and justice for all. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> think we're going to do the opening prayer. do i have someone to do the opening prayer? yes. >> thank you, sorry. sorry. ladies and gentlemen, bishop collins with the opening prayer. >> thank you, niger. let us bow our heads in prayer. all mighty and eternal god, supply the needs of your people by calvary's cross. bring forth your hand and strengthen this great man you have risen to the fore front of leadership for such a time as this.

envelope him with your mighty power as he yields his life, fortunes, and sacred honor to serve the nation. as he takes this country by storm, touch the hearts and the minds of those who are voters to encourage them to move to the polls to put this man in the white house, to transform this country that we may return to those somedays in -- days in which the constitution lives in the heart of every american in which we enjoys the freedoms and liberty and the prosperity you ordained. keep his family, bless his children and his wife, bless all of those that are part of his cabinet. god bless america. god keep america in the name of christ, and everybody said amen.

>> good morning. i'm niger innis. one of our country's oldest civil rights organizations. i've had the privilege to witness up close and in person this magical historic journey led by herman cain that started over ten months ago. herman cain has captured the imagination of the american people with his wit, his humor, his optimism for america. his message and his vision has electrified conservatives and non-conservatives alike. at a time when america is in economic, spiritual, and political crisis, problem solver, herman cain, is the right man for difficult times. [cheers and applause]

we all remember in 2008, candidate president obama said he was fundamentally going to transform america. well, promises made, promises kept. he has made a proud people feel ashamed of their country, made the most powerful country in the history of man a ridicule, an object of ridicule and assassination attempts by lesser nations. he has taken the greatest engine of economic growth, the american people, and filled them with anxiety and dispair. in 1908s, ladies and gentlemen -- 1980, ladies and gentlemen, destiny called on a leader. in 2011, destiny is calling again, and in 2011, destiny is calling on herman cain and herman cain is answering the call.

[applause] the beauty of herman cain's quest is not only that he inspires america with charisma and his personal story, but he stimulates us, he stimulates our minds with his ideas. his innovative 9-9-9 plan reset the entire economic debate. his 9-9-9 plan forever changed the economic landscape, and the way that herman's 9-9-9 plan reshaped the economic discussion, his opportunities, which we are here today to unvail are going to change the way we think about economically depressed communities all across our country. today, the unemployment rate is over 9%. for latinos, 12 percent. for african-americans, 16%.

for african-americans in cities like detroit and many cities like detroit, the unemployment rate is over 25%. this is the depressioner ray status -- era statistics, ladies and gentlemen, but where some see decay, herman sees opportunity. where some see economic decline, herman sees fertile soil for economic development and growth. [applause] herman's opportunities owns plan will target these communities and create an environment where production can drive economic revival and promote economic opportunity. herman cain is well practiced at creating success where others see failure. he's turned around failing enterprises for four decades as a main street business man, and what he's done for the burger

king corporation, the national restaurant association, he knows he can do for america. [cheers and applause] it is because herman comes from humble beginnings that he knows in every corner of our nation and every depressed urban center or rural center, there's untapped human capital that just needs an opportunity to succeed. the opportunity that will be catalogized by the opportunity's own. god bless you and thank you for being here today. [applause] now, i want to bring to the stage to make some remarks, state senator joe hewn from the 22nd district. >> thank you, thank you. [applause] what an honor and privilege it is to be here with the next president of the united states. i told mr. cain even though this

region is home to a few other pizza joints, with his plan and vision for this country, we'll make room for the god father of god father's pizza. just take a look around. you will see obvious remanents of failed, liberal policies. but look at it on the bright side with a vision, the principles of mr. herman cain, we can get those failed liberal policied sailed right out of the window. and as folks in this region know, we certainly have had some problem, but the auto industry's making a come back, and, again, with herman cain on our side, he has a plan, a tax plan, that

they are targeting every single day of the week now, but i'll tell you what, it's the american people who count, and it's the american people who are on herman cain's side. he's got a plan to put a better tax structure in place, a plan to do some tough love with entitlements, and a plan to get government the heck out of our way. [cheers and applause] so today, i have the honor and privilege of spending time with the next president of the united states, a conservative, principled, intelligent, and capable god father of today's conservative movement, mr. herman cain. [applause] before he comes forward, i have the opportunity and the privilege to introduce our next

speaker, dr. alverta king. thank you. [applause] >> well, hello, america. this is our opportunity. if you did not get cain's vision today, make sure you get it. don't leave here without it. it's excellent, yes, yes, yes. revise, renew, rebuild. 9-9-9 now is our time. hush little baby, don't you cry. now is the time for a lull buy. to all the hungry children in america, have hope. to all the people crying for jobs, have hope. now is our time. can a nation be born in a day? only if we listen and obey. hear the still small voice. america now is truly our time. people are crying. people are dying, yet there is

truly hope in america. yes, jesus loves me for the bible tells me so. remember that song? our children will sing their nursery rhymes again. our boys and girls will stay in school and not rot in jail. in 1963, my uncle, dr. martin luther king jr. had a dream, that there be one human race, not separate races, and we would come together in a beloved community then white men, black men, women, children, gentiles and jews would come together and sing, free at last. economic freedom can be a reality. take hope. listen. follow our leader. mr. herman cain is a leader for america. he is ready to be our leader for this hour. america has economic power. our companies can come home from overseas and bring our jobs back

home. our troops can fight for peace again and war at seas. bring the jobs home. america, we can do it. this power can be revealed in the diligent hands of a proven leader. that's why so many krisics fight the -- critics fight the 9-9-9 plan. they didn't think of it first, and it's a solid plan to bring the jobs home. how will herman cain, our leader, bring our jobs home? think about it. right now, america pays the high education corporate tax rate in the world, a staggering tax penalty. this incredibly punitive business tax makes it extremely difficult for our companies to compete with countries like china and the global market. this punishing tax penalty forces our companies to seek cheap labor on shores far away from home. when mr. cain brings 9-9-9

relief from penalties to our jobs from 35% to 9%, the lowest business tax rate in the world, we will once again be competitive leader even with countries like china. we can go back to work and have our paychecks again. once freed from the dragon of massive corporate taxes, america will bring our jobs home. 9-9-9 means jobs, jobs, jobs. [applause] then, we can be charitable again and help others because by embracing 9--9-9, we also help ourselves. 9-9-9 offers hope and opportunity for americans of every walk of life, an opportunity to live in a good quality of life again. no more fear of how to feed and educate our families.

9- 9-9-brings jobs back from overseas. want to know why critics fight 9-9-9? it is because they didn't think of it first. a leader leads. that's why you are going to hear about opportunity, power from our leader. he has a plan. opportunity and economic justice for all. in 1963, uncle ml spoke of a check mark insufficient funds breaking the backs and hearts of america. our leader is ready to put the money back in the bank. he is ready to not only show us the money, but to give us the money. we will have jobs again. america, rich man, poor man, beggar man, safe, listen, there is hope for america. my country tis of thee, let freedom ring of thee i sing. life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

america of thee i sing. no more killing babies, sick people, and old people, no more denying people jobs and homes and compassionate health care and healthy families. there is enough for everyone at the table. america, i am dr. alveda king. i have a dream, i am the dreams. i present the next president of the united states of america, mr. herman cain. please welcome him. god bless america. ! [cheers and applause] >> wonderful, thank you, thank you very much. thank you for being here today because this is a day that we have an opportunity to explain 9-9-9 without six attacks at one

time. if you know what i mean. some people have asked me how did you come up with this? what do you know about economics? earlier in my career when i was at the pillsbury company, one of my jobs at one point of director of business analysis where i oversaw economic analysis for the pillsbury company. some people think that's just pepperoni between these two ears, but i used to work on economic analysis. in the early 1990s, i was asked to serve on commission with jack kemp, the economic growth and tax reform commission. we started the fair tax, the flat tax, and came to some wonderful conclusions about what a good tax structure ought to be. let me introduce before i go any

further my senior economic adviser, the co-architect of 9-9-9, mr. rich lowry out of cleveland, ohio. [cheers and applause] i'm happy to be in detroit, but more importantly, i'm happy to be in america where opportunity is born and this is where dreams can be achieved. [applause] i know you heard a lot of disinformation about 9-9-9. don't believe it. look it up for yourself. this is why i want to review that before i get to the opportunity zone. first, 9-9-9, we had five simple principles that we wanted to satisfy. we wanted it to be simple. we wanted it to be transparent. so that you would know when and how you were going to be taxed. we wanted it to be first time.

how many people here like spending money to get your tax returns filled out? that's not very efficient. it costs $438 billion a year to file and comply. we wanted it to be fair, not according to washington's definition of fair, but webster's definition of fair which means everybody gets treated the same. that's fair. [cheers and applause] we wanted it to be revenue neutral. the 9-9-9 plan throws out the current tax code. that's where we start. we have been complaining about it for decades. we know it's messed up, and so because we put a bold solution on the table, some of my fellow contenders have accused me of being too bold.

this economy cannot wait. it is our life support. we need a bold solution, which is why we put together 9-9-9. [applause] the other thing the 9-9-9 does is level the competitive playing field. you see, on that first 9, the business can deduct purchases, capital investments, and net escorts. what that means essentially is it makes goods and products produced in the united states on a level playing field with everybody else in the world because we take out many of these embedded taxes. the third thing this approach does is it expands the tax base by adding in the national sales tax of 9%, the third 9. some of my opponents in this

republican race have said, why do you want to give government another mechanism to tax us? my response is -- i want to take away the 10 million ways they have now to tax us. i'm not worried about one. i'm worried about the 10 million in the current tax code. [applause] one of the reasons that they are not going to turn 9-9-9 into something else any time soon, you can never they they will never change it. there's two reasons why they are not going to change it any time soon. number one, i'm going to be the president. i'm not going to sign it. [applause] they keep forgetting that. number two, because it's visible. you know what it is. you understand it. they start talk about raising it

for no reason other than their still overspending, you are going to let your voices be heard. visibility of this plan is one of the biggest deterrents we have to keep the politicians honest. now, the opportunity zone feature has been in our analysis all along, but just like i accused my opponents the other night of having not read the plan, we now have proof they didn't read it. if their staff had done the proper job and read it all the way through, they would have discovered what i'm about to share with you because first of all, 9-9-9 captures revenue to equal existing tax revenue from five sources. the payroll tax -- you don't have to pay that anymore.

corporate income taxes -- they are in the first 9. personal income taxes -- everybody's rates are betwe .. replaces capital gains taxes and the death tax. capital gains -- what if an investor wanted to do something with the bill behind us? what if they wanted to spend ten million to turn it into a mall or restaurant facility or a destination facility in this city? under 9-9-9, they would be able to deduct that capital investment in the year that they make it, and not have to deal with depreciation schedule as they call it, which are punitive to businesses. the fact that capital gains goes

away, it allows that entrepreneurial spirit in this country to be financed by people with money to get together with people with ideas. imagine every one of these facilities that we are surrounded by having an entrepreneurial and an investing getting creative in order to do something with these depressed economic properties. that's what built america. [cheers and applause] we need to renew and unleash that same spirit, so here are two of the features my competitors didn't get to when they didn't read the plan. number one, how do we deal with the poor? those that are at or below poverty level? we already had the provision in there and we still raise the same amount of money. if you add up the below poverty level, your plan is not 9-9-9, it's 9-0-9. say amen, y'all.

9-0-9. in other words if you add below the poverty level based on family ties because it's a different number of each one, then you don't pay that middle 9 tax on that income. this is how we help the poor. the other way is we get the economy going so we can let people find jobs. for economically disstressed cities, detroit has an unemployment rate of over 20%, and there are other cities just like that. it's getting worse, so the opportunity zones will allow cities like detroit to qualify for additional exemptions relative to the first nine. right now in the first nine, you can deduct purchases if you're a business. you can deduct capital expenditures, net exporteds, but --

exports, but for those cities that qualify as opportunity zones, you will also be able to detucket a certain -- deduct a certain amount of payroll exeanses, so you will be insented to put people to work. the other thing about the opportunity zone is that it just doesn't apply to certain kinds of businesses located in the zone. all businesses would qualify for those kinds of extra exemptions. [applause] another thing i believe in is helping cities to empower themselves, empowering workers and individuals to help themselves. this is not an entitlement program, and so the cities have to step up and remove some of the barriers that are within their city limits such that if the cities do what they can do to help themselves, we will have the 9-9-9 legislation so

structured that they will get additional benefits, and so it starts with the national opportunity zone, that if you are at or below poverty, your plan is 9-0-9. now, some people will say if you're at poverty, then you're not concerned about that first 9 anyway. that's not true. i know a lot of business people that are barely making it. barely making it, and so, yes, they would get 0 for the middle 9, and, yes, nay would get special deductions if their in an opportunity zone, so all of the critics who want to say that this plan is not this and not that, i invite them to take a look at an article that was published just a couple of days ago by one of the most renowned economists on the planet. he worked with president reagan

during the reagan administration. he is currently head of his own company. i'm talking about dr. art laffer. he's currently head of laffer associates and the laffer center for supply side economics and author of "return to prosperity," and he wrote an article published in the "wall street journal" the other day that refuted all false claims made against 9-9-9 the other night during the debate. before i say what he concluded was his own analysis, it never felt so good being shot at. never felt so good being shot at because as aveda king says, they didn't think of it first, and they don't have a credible plan. to the activation that a new sales tax could be raised in the

future, dr. laffer responds so could any other tax. what makes that one any different? to the accusation that it is not revenue neutral, dr. laffer concludes, i believe his plan, herman cain, would indeed be stat tick revenue neutral and with the boost it would give to the economic growth, it would bring in even more revenue than expected. two, -- to the accusation that this will not generate economic growth, dr. laffer points out, output will soar as will jobs. tax revenues will also increase e enormously, not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates will

decrease under the 9-9-9 plan. bottom line, folks, 9-9-9 means jobs, jobs, jobs. [applause] let's renew the economy of this nation. [applause] this is the greatest country in the world, and we have people that are apologizing for america's greatness. as your president, i will never apologize for the greatness of america because of the spirit of america that build this great country. ronald reagan, one of our greatest presidents, used to describe this nation as that shining city on a hill, but in the last several years, that shining city on a hill has slid

down to the side of the hill because of this struggling economy, because this administration is weakening our military, because of foggy foreign policy around the world, and because of a severe defirst deficiency of leadership. i believe that the american people are saying loud and clear that they want to move this shining city on a hill back to the top of the hill where it belongs, and i believe that we can do that in november 2012. [applause] there's two things that people haven't figured out yet. some of them are still trying to answer the question, why is herman cain doing so well in the polls? he doesn't have the greatest amount of money. a lot of people didn't know who he was. i can tell you what's happening

that they don't get yet. number one, the voice of the people is more powerful than the voice of the media. [cheers and applause] you, the people, and you're listening. [applause] secondly, message is more powerful than money. america is hungry for solutions and not more rhetoric. that's what they are paying attention to. not only our 9-9-9, jobs, jobs, jobs, plan, but our approach to the many other crisis we face, and we have become a nation of crisis, but the good news is we can fix things. the american dream has been hijacked, but we can take it back. i know that because i have lived my american dreams, and then some. so have many of you. ever since my first grandchild

was born in 1999, and i looked into that little face for the very first time, and the thought that went through my head, which it had to be coming from god al mighty, what do i do to make this a better nation and a better world? this journey has unfolded for the last 12 years, and i am convinced that the spirit of america is boing to renew america -- going to renew america, and i'm convinced the american people are ready for a problem solver in the white house, and not another politician. ronald reagan, who i'll refer to again, describes this thing we call freedom as something very fragile, very delicate, and if we allow it to get away from us, we might not be able to get it back. reagan reminded us that freedom is never more than one

generation away from extinction. we can't pass it on in the bloodstream. it must be fought for and protected for one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren when the united states of america used to be like when men were free. i'm not going to have that conversation with my grandchildren, and i don't think you want to have that conversation with your grand kids. in the fourth verse of the star spangled banner are some words that people rarely recite. on all of our currency, it says, "on god we trust," but right in the middle of the fourth verse in the star spangled banner, it

says in god is our trust, and that's why we are going to take that shining city on a hill back to the top of the hill where it belongs. this is the greatest country in the world, and we are going to keep it that way. thank you for being here. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, all, so much. suspect it symbolic of this campaign and the future of our country that as herman cain was speaking, the sun came out. [cheers and applause] can we say 9-9-9 is morning in america again? [applause] i just want to close out by introducing my two fellow co-chairs of the opportunity zone, herman cain, has asked us to join his army, and we saluted

geraldo oregon -- gonzalez, of the business round table, thank you. with these two fine gentlemen and over a dozen advisers, volunteers, and supporters, we plan to take these opportunity zones to every depressed region in the country and change our country as we help elect herman cain, president of the united states. [applause] let me ask to close out bishop holmes to do a closing prayer. thank you, all, for coming. >> thank you, niger. this time with bowed heads, almighty, eternal god, creator

of the universe, we bow our heads in the spirit of humility giving thanks with this gift of a leader you have imparted untoe this nation for such a time as this. as we are confronted with life and with situations of challenge, we ask that you restore the hope of america. you give vision and clear and con size revelation to this leader, and as he embarks upon this journey from the grass roots to the white house, set his feet in the white house to bring redemption to this country, wrap your living arms around him so no evil can harm he and his family, in the end, let us all enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. war without end, god bless america, and god bless you today.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it spans the base, take care of the poor. see, they going to ask me what do you think about their plan. i'll say, well, i'm going to read the plan before i comment on it.

>> [inaudible] >> i'm going to read the whole thing, and then make my assessment, you know? >> hey, herman cain, can you sign this? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you know, we are in a few organizations. >> sure. >> but i just admire you, you know, and the 9-9-9 --

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i'm not personalizing it, i have too many to do, but i appreciate it. talking jobs, jobs, jobs, how are you? >> you said you got one plan, you got two because you have 9-9-9 and 9-0-9. >> that's right. >> you got to say both of them. >> all right. >> last one, and then i have to go to this media.

[inaudible conversations] all right, got to go to the meeting. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> what is the scientific evidence that being gay is a matter of choice? can you point to studies that determine that position? >> well, show me the scientific evidence that says that it's not. next question. >> there's plenty of scientific evidence. the fact is you can't point to anything that supports that

notion. >> my question is over the last couple days, there's back and forth on -- [inaudible] do you see yourself as flip-flopping? your opinion on guantanamo, abortion, a series of them. >> in a couple instances, and we have to take them one by one, i said i misspoke because of the pace of the particular entity. i don't flip-flop. i'll explain to people what i really meant. let's take the guantanamo. we were talking about israel and the decision that the prime minister benjamin netanyahu had made, and i tend to make a point he has to consider a lot of things, i'm sure, before we make that decision, so on the surface, i couldn't say whether or not i agree or disagree, and then changing the subject so you know, you think you would consider doing something, and i didn't immediately associate that.

i didn't backtrack. i explained that i misspoke, and then i moved on. i was misinterpreted talking about the whole abortion thing. it's clear where i stand on abortion. i'm pro-life from conception, no exceptions. i will sign anything to defund parenthood, i will not support government money spent on abortions, on down the line. when you talk the abortion issue, the different components of it, and they took it totally out of context. i would rather correct something that i said than to try and leave it out there such that it can be misinterpreted. >> sending mixed messages -- >> no, it doesn't send mixed messages. it shows i'm willing to correct myself, you know? i'm willing to correct myself if, in fact, i need to correct myself for clarity. that's what i'm trying to achieve. >> mr. cain, what do you see as major obstacles to winning

michigan especially with mitt romney from the state? >> the biggest challenge in winning michigan will be getting my message out to the citizens here in michigan, going up against the amount of money that i'm sure governor romney will be able to throw against it. >> how do you overcome that then, sir? >> i'm just going to be here a lot. that's how you overcome it. we have a plan to be here a lot in order to directly take my message to the people. >> herman cain? >> yes, sir? >> when you step out from front of that building behind you? >> when i look at the building behind me, i see opportunity if we get capital gains out of the way. there are a lot of people in this country that have money, and capital gains is a wall between people with money and people with ideas. this economy was built based upon people with ideas that entrepreneurial spirit, but because taxes and regulations have gotten so bad, people with

money don't want to take risk. one of our guiding principles for the whole 9-9-9 plan is that risk taking drives growth. that is the growth opportunity right there if we open it up for people who have money would be willing to take the risk. [inaudible conversations] >> the attacks in your plan is unfairly going to -- [inaudible] >> it was in the original analysis. i simply -- we simply chose not to talk about it earlier such that we should get people used to the whole concept. we didn't want to put it all out there at once even though it was right there in the analysis. we wanted to treat this separately so people could build upon the information we had, but it's been in the analysis all along, people just didn't read it, and they dent get to that point, and 5 lot of these false

accusations are now proven wrong. >> have you talked with the owner -- [inaudible] >> no, i have not, no, i have not. >> he's a billionaire, he had the building for 20 years, he's allowed it to rot. how does capital gains have anything to do with that? >> well, it would depend what he wants to do with his money. maybe it's not that billionaire. maybe that billionaire is sitting on the building waiting to sell it so he can avoid capital gains. i don't know because i don't know that billionaire. if you remove the wall, maybe he will do something with it. >> [inaudible] well, it would still be 9-9-9, but on the first nine, the choice, if they qualify, would make additional deductions that everybody else could make. for example, and it would require some analysis and the reason that i can't give an

exact number is because there's a lot of things in the tax code we have to work out, you know, with congress through the budget. here's an example. right now, the first nine, business can deduct purchases that they make from u.s. companies, especially, to produce their product. you can't deduct payroll, but if you qualify as an opportunity zone, you might be able to deduct part or all of the payroll which lowers the amount and lowers your taxes. that's just one thing. >> well, thank you all very much, and remember, 9-9-9 is jobs, jobs, jobs. thank you very much. >> will you give us a song next time? >> probably not. [laughter] >> it wasn't that bad. i saw the youtube clips. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, sir, thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hey, how are you? >> i'm great. >> roger, yeah, i remember you. how are you doing? great to see you, man. >> mr. president -- >> who said something about backing down. >> i did. >> i ain't backing down. >> thank you for that. [laughter] >> appreciate it, appreciate it. very good.

[inaudible conversations] >> i got -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> got to do it while we walk, while we walk. thank you, sir, thanks for being here. thanks for being here. hey, young man, hey, did you get it? can you get it? hold the pen. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> appreciate it, man. >> thank you, appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] >> i appreciate that, thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate that.

[inaudible conversations] >> all right, i got you. thank you, ma'am, thank you for being here. let me sign that. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, darling. thank you for being here. keep me in your prayers. thank you, sir. >> keep the bus on the move. >> all right. thank you. how are you doing? thanks a lot, folks. thank you, thank you for being here, it's wonderful. how are you? hi, michael, how are you doing? good to meet you. thank you. thank you very much. i appreciate it. okay. [inaudible conversations]

>> thanks 5 lot. how are you? >> good. >> thank you for being here today. thank you so much for being here. here we go with these baseballs again. you all know how hard this is? [laughter] that's right. there you go, man. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> two more. one, two, three. >> appreciate it. it's a pleasure, pleasure. >> i hear you. >> thank you, detroit, thank you.

11 at a youth rally. at the university of iowa. it was part of a two day campaign tour and the state. earlier in the day he was in newton, davenport and burlington tomorrow she travels to des moines to participate in a safe and freedom coalition presidential candidate forum at the iowa state fair grounds. we will have live coverage beginning 7 p.m. eastern. the road to the white house campaign event is 45 minutes.wa i was told this was a special

weekend and not many would show. up. thank you for coming. [applause] i do want to introduce my famil members here. my wife, carol, please comee stand. [applause] and two granddaughters, lisa and linda. [applause] it is great to see such a nice and enthusiastic crowd. i give speeches on occasion in washington. i don't get any applause at all. [applause] and, you know i'm very sympathetic to the younger people, those under 30. they seem to understand what liberty is all about, so much better than some of those individuals that have been in washington wait too long and they don't have the idea of what

liberty is about. [cheers and applause] but tell you what, i get encouraged a whole lot when i visit with the young people, the college students, because i know that the future looks bright when i meet with you. so enthusiastic. i hope i can encourage you because the stakes are high. the stakes are very high on what's happening and that is what is happening is people are coming to realize this. but liberty is my real issue to talk about economics and balanced budgets and foreign policy and federal reserve and a few other things but the issue was liberty. i believe our country has been the greatest and the most prosperous because we have a better understanding about liberty than any other country. we didn't have a perfect constitution. but it's very in perfect now not because it became more imperfect but because the people who were

supposed to be following it became less a perfect and totally ignored so we need a new generation that cares about law and the constitution. [applause] i think of liberty as being very simply self ownership. who owns you, who owns your life, who has the responsibility for you? i come from a natural rights the point which is similar to what jefferson talked about, natural rights, god-given rights, that our lives and our liberties come outside of government. the government was not created there to allow us to have liberty. if we are going to have government, and which should be limited, should be precisely to protect those liberties that are rightfully our own. [applause]

the misunderstanding of ownership of course it means it's your body and people shouldn't tell you what to do with your body. it tells you what he can do with your liberty. you should use your liberty for my viewpoint and my advice use it in a productive manner. i see liberty as the release of creative energy coming into the purpose is to work for excellence and virtue. believing that once you deliver that responsibility, the government, all they do is undermine liberty coming and it ruins the efforts to be productive and to improve oneself. but if one is convinced that we have this responsibility it means two things, one, you deserve to keep the fruits of your labor which means there shouldn't be an income tax. [cheers and applause]

now that part is easily understood. the second half of it is n now that part is easily understood. the second half of it is not quite as easy, accepted by some. but that is if you have your rights to your life and liberty and property, you also have to assume responsibility for any bad choices and you can't go to your neighbor or your government to bail yourself out. [applause] it is accepted in this country that these principles been you have a right to deal with your spiritual life any way that you see fit. you can ignore it and not pay any attention to it, or you can practice your spiritual life any way you want as long as you don't hurt other people. you are also allowed to pursue your intellectual life any way that you see fit. we don't hopefully never get to that point. we shouldn't be in the business of book burning and saying you

can't study this, you can't study that. it should be you that makes the decision, and for the general -- in the general sense, the american people have accepted this motion fairly well. far from perfect but very well. i fink where we have fallen down, and this is across the political spectrum, it's this idea that it's your own body. that means if your spiritual life, which is a serious responsibility and your intellectual life is a serious responsibility, why is it that if we assume that you can have free decisions there, why should we have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body? [applause] [cheering] spiritually we can argue if you

make mistakes you have to deal with that and maybe another life. intellectual if you make mistakes you have to deal with that yourself. but if you make mistakes, making decisions about what you do with your own body to consider the consequences. but, if you want to embark on this notion as our country has now for hundreds, you know, hundreds of years essentially that we have reneged on this and assume that the government will protect us from ourselves, a very dangerous mission if the government assumes its responsibility to protect you from yourself it has to deal with every habit that you engage in and it is impossible to do that. and still of a free society. it is a wonderful thing because i see it as opening up the opportunities for creativity. but if we accept this notion that the government should tell us how to run our lives, the most important practical or in practical result of this is that

it destroys to the productivity of all of us. it means you will be poor. if you have this idea that we should all be free and prosperous and do what we want on our own and be responsible for ourselves we will be prosperous. the evidence is overwhelming throughout history that the free society no more prosperous the society and that is what our goal ought to be. [applause] now there are many new challenges to the notion of a way to the extreme communist socialist viewpoint to the extreme welfare who believe the government has to regulate the economy for the benefit of one group over another but it does create the prosperity but one of the hardest parts for people to

accept is if you have a free and prosperous society where you can use your own incentive to advance yourself guess what, you don't have an equal society, and that is sometimes hard for people to understand, but if the results are that you have the most prospered, the largest middle class, the best distribution of wealth by far it is the best system to argue for it to work for. [applause] >> if it is the government's job to make anybody equal the are capable of doing it. right now they are working very hard on equal the. but guess what, we are working on the quality of poverty. that's what we are working on unfortunately. [applause] now the free-market austrian school of economics teaches one thing that government

intervention doesn't work. it doesn't even come close to achieving what it pretends to achieve. but there is another basic principle when it comes to the monetary policy. any society that the marks on the destruction of the currency, that is by inflating the currency, increasing the money supply without anything behind the currency itself and devaluing the currency, there is essentially always a transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy. and just think of this today how what is the main complete? there is a large segment who is hurting and there's a small segment getting very, very wealthy. i see this as very important, and also a little risky on how we deal with this because there are in a free society i said it was unequal and there will be some rich and some poor. but if it's -- if a person is rich because the of the unsuccessful, and because the tiffin voted to be rich by the consumer, see, the only

democracy of course is a risky venture, pure democracy undermines the minority, and we don't want pure democracy. but in the economy, democracy really her veils because every single person that spends every dollar on voting on the product, and that means if we could have a society where nobody does the special privileges, where nobody got benefits, nobody got the age by the government force and a government contract, and then somebody is capable because they are white and they will work harder and produce a product that week, the consumer like, the individual becomes wealthy we have voted him his wealth. we voted him the wealth because we like this product. but if an individual becomes wealthy because they have an inside track to easy money and easy credit, and also when they gamble with this money in the derivatives market and they go broke and then they go crying to the government and say look, we are broke if you don't bail us out there's going to be a depression, give us more money,

if that happens, if they got rich the wrong way and get bailed out the wrong way, they deserve a lot of criticism. [applause] unfortunately we have a lot of that going on. everything from subsidies and special privileges and special contracts and of course we have this whole idea about how we spend our military money. that is, you know, enriched many. bonnie weapons we don't need and bridging the military industrial complex. that is complicated by people being talked into for patriotic reasons you can't resist any military spending and you have to endlessly fight the war if not you are not patriotic. so, in order to attack that we

also have to understand foreign policy, and the foreign policy of a free society in a society that protects your individual rights, the free society under those conditions says we as a country have the right to defend as if we are under attack but we have no moral authority to force ourselves on other people coming and we have no moral authority -- [applause] the have no moral authority to accept this notion of preemptive war. degette sound fancy like we have the preemptive war because they're going to attack us some day and they might get a weapon so we have to go and get them. that just is open-ended. it's also called aggression. we are drafted in the direction, and the world doesn't like it. we don't win friends around the world. what we do is we based our money. we become more in danger, and we

develop more enemies. so, -- [applause] so we have to address the subject and your generation will have to do it because this system won't work. i have argued for many years about and on interventionist foreign policy and i have been convinced i will win this argument. we will win this argument. our side will win. i wish they would win just by being convinced on a moral basis and that the constitutional basis and on just practical reasons that we shouldn't be doing this but we will win the argument about getting our troops home. not for those reasons as much as we are going broke, and we can't afford any more. the sooner we bring all of our troops home the better it will be for our economy. [applause]

[applause] this is not just bringing them home from the war. we bring them home from the left over from the old war. why are we in japan? come home from japan come, from korea, come home from germany. there's no reason for us to be subsidizing them. [applause] now come as a constitutional president, i would be very cautious to be looking toward the proper procedure and working with the congress. but in the area of foreign policy and the movement of military troops, the president does have this authority. i don't even have to ask permission to move the troops around. there are no declared wars.

so if we are able to achieve this victory, we can immediately bring the troops home instead of building more and more bases overseas like we are doing now -- we have 900 basis, we are building more of these strong bases just aggravating the people of the world -- i would say bring the troops home. open up some of those bases to close in the 90's. the close the bases in the 1990's at the same time they were building bases in saudi arabia, causing more trouble. so it's really time at least to get those troops home immediately. let them spend the money here at home for awhile. that would give us a bit of a boost. [applause] one of the reasons i went into medicine -- because i do remember world war ii and korea, and i haven't decided what profession to go into -- one of the things that motivated me to go into medicine was the fact that i never wanted to carry a

gun. i never wanted to shoot anybody, and i thought well, i will probably be drafted some day and i certainly not going to play that game in war. and lo and behold all i was drafted in 1962, ended up being in the service for about five years. but the military draft, if you think about it, it's still on the books. you still have to register. it's always the assumption that position taken to make sure that the government knows that they own you and they will take you and put you in the military when they want to. so, in a free society you normally don't have registration, but you never have a military draft either. [applause] we should be willing to defend our country, and it should be across the spectrum. age shouldn't matter, sex shouldn't matter if we are under

attack. but this idea that we go and look for wars to fight because we are spreading our exceptional some. you know, america had been an exceptional country. but this whole idea that we are exceptional now that we are going to force it down the throats of everybody if they don't accept us we are going to bomb them to oblivion and we call that american exceptional was some i would say -- i would say that if we want to spread our goodness and our good value it's become good and become valuable -- [cheers and applause] before we preach to others and enforceable law or to enforce the laws of the practices of practicing civil liberties, make sure everybody in this country is protected from the -- from our government interfering with our civil liberties. that's what we need to protect, setting a good example. [applause]

you know, the claim that we are the war against terrorism, and the use that term rather loosely because terrorism of course is in the country how can you declare war against terrorism? it is a tactic. it is a wicked and a amine tactic. timothy mcveigh was a terrorist in that sense. but because he was an american, nobody decided well, we have to attack america because timothy mcveigh was an american. so this whole idea that we have to have a perpetual war going on is only there to make sure that we are intimidated and that if you don't obey exactly what they want, that you are unpatriotic, just like what happened in world war ii. the bigger the war, the unlikely they are to underline our personal liberty. just look during world war ii how we had concentration camps for the japanese americans. once again, it was a violation of the principal of who owns that life? the people who were incarcerated didn't commit a crime, and yet it was assumed that the

government owns that life and they can do what they want. the tax code is built on this assumption that the government owns your life because they say that if you are -- tax rate is 40% and i offered to limit to 30%, the people in big government come back and say you can't do that, that will cost the government to much money. think about that. how was it going to cost the government money if i am giving your own money back or not taking as much from you? it's based on the assumption the owner of your income and you'll get to keep a certain percentage under conditions. so, thinking about this ownership of your life and economic terms or in personal liberties of the draft, very important. but we have gone and drifted away from that come in and i have been too casual about it. it is easy to blame a lot of different sources and a lot of different people for this. we certainly can plan our government because they've been negligent whether it is the

executive branch, the judicial branch or the legislative branch. but in reality, the government reflects what the people have allowed to happen. so it is a responsibility of the people as well. and this is why we need to get a whole generation, plus many more, energize in the understanding of what the true liberty is. we were on the right track to constitution gave a pretty good start. we don't even consult with the congress anymore. we don't get a declaration of war so vague not only do not have a president that consults with the congress, just think of libya it's a great victory the president bragging about it i got another one. you know, but how can we be proud of that? no matter how bad, whose responsibility, it's the

responsibility of the people of libya to make their self-determination and deal with that we've in the up paying for this. it was our bombs and weapons that do this and believe me it will be a burden. it's not going to go away. just think of all of the billions of dollars that we gave to egypt to prop up and pretend that we have peace in the region. then finally, our dictator its overthrown and now it is more dangerous than ever. this is what we did with saddam hussein, he was our ally and gave him support and then finally, you know, we decided we had to change that, and we did it with noriega and we were involved in iran. they were on their way to developing it for the democratic system so in 1953 we said no we don't want you to have democracy might keep all of your oil. as we wanted to have our dictator in so we installed the shock and was brutal. then after what, 53 at 79, what

did they do? a stir up hatred, antagonism, not only against the sharnak but against us. and just look at the problems. there is a long time ramification. the unintended consequences, the blow back from it. what about when we were in afghanistan actually attempting to be on the right side of the issue when the soviets were in their. we were actually on the same side as bin ladens a look they have invaded this country and we are going to help to throw them out. the whole problem is after the soviets got thrown out, we decided it was our country and we were going to stay. it makes no sense whatsoever. it's a schizophrenic foreign policy. you know, i've always said that we only have two options. one, we tell the dictator what to do and if he doesn't we give them a lot of money. if he doesn't do it, we kill him. i thought those were the only two options. what if you look at pakistan, they have actually come up with a third option and the third option is we will do both.

we will keep bombing you and telling people and making them at their own government because their own government supports us and we give the government money. and we wonder why there is chaos in that country. but i tell you what, there is another option of those three. and that is the one that the founders and feist, george washington and feist very strongly in his farewell address. and that is making friends with as many people who want to be friends and trade with as many people who want to trade. not to try to get involved in an internal affairs, not to get involved in entangling alliances. i can't think of anything more entangling than getting involved in the imf and the world bank and the united nations to go into the war. [applause] [cheering] so as bad as it has been over these decades of a sliding into the and declared war it is

actually getting worse because we went into libya, now in ugonda, with no consultation, no consultation with congress and say this is the problem we have and try to make the argument is for the national security. none of that. it's just totally ignoring the people and the congress and going and getting permission from the united nations and the troops going in and the money going in under nato. this is a major step towards world government. and also, many that like world government are very much aware of the same thing that many others are aware of, that our financial system is very, very shaky and there will have to be a new monetary system because money printed out of thin air eventually self-destruct and we are in the middle of seeing this self destruction. so most people realize there will have to be a new currency. finally good way to get started on that. why don't we look and find out what the constitution says? it says only gold and silver can

be legal tender. there would be a good start in the right direction. [applause] but there are many planning that the reform would come there will be in the currency. would be paper money loosely tied to gold that would be run by the united nations. this is when we would have to make a major decision on whether we think we should maintain our national sovereignty. you know, i think the state should run most of the government. the government was never meant to be large in washington. [applause] but over the decades we have allowed so much of the government to go to washington and now shifting into international government. but once again we have to decide where our national sovereignty comes and personal liberty comes from and decide what we want from our federal government.

the founders, the question why should the role of government be and they didn't like the world. i tell you would come from my estimation and others, the role of the king was rather minor to what the king in washington is doing to us today. [applause] but there is no doubt this government could not be this big if we would not have allowed the control of money to get out of the hands of the marketplace and out of the hands of something of real value and of course that occurred in 1913 with the introduction of this notion that we should have a federal reserve system. they do a lot of mischief and the very first thing that we should be demanding which i have been demanding for years and we got a partial done that is the need a full-fledged audit to finance exactly who their buddies are and who is getting the bill. [applause]

[chanting] so you know the next step. very good. [applause] the fed will be ended but it will be ended like what we have to come home from overseas. but the thing that i would like to do is help prevent the crisis from coming. we end up and literally with runaway inflation. it is the great danger. the destruction of the dollar, the abandonment of the dollar and the rapid transition into the inflation that could have been rather rapidly any time. right now we are they are still taking our dollars and the bible, the bond and the dollar bubble is still building. but it should not really sure anybody and it isn't because the world is in flux. all you have to do is look get the news. you don't have to go to greece to find out the unhappiness and

the how disgruntled people are. all you have to do is go to a few of our cities. so, people will becoming very much aware of a serious problem. the big question is what are we going to replace it with? hopefully we will have the right explanation to replace it with the proper form of government. the kind of answers that our founders gave us and they read a document which was intended in no way to restrict you. it was written to restrict the federal government. [applause] as long as there is a federal reserve system and it is allowed to exist, it facilitates the deficit financing. if you have sound money and if you couldn't print money out of thin air and you have somebody that wants to spend a lot of money on the entitlement system to buy votes or allo