its intelligence military and security capabilities and a drawing from a full range of law enforcement tools and coordination with partners around the globe. that's what i have to say on that. >> almost on a daily basis the white house has been rolling out something under the banner. i know you have referred often to the fact the president did a lot early on in his administration, so why did he not face such an aggressive posture from the very beginning? >> it's somewhat ironic to suggest the actions of this president took from the beginning weren't aggressive, given that the criticism from the right is that they were too aggressive or too much to save -- >> [inaudible] >> welcome at times -- first of all, i think the agenda this

president acted on in the first year was historic in its scope. so i think we were quite busy around here from day one. taking action to that word in his absolutely necessary to prevent a total collapse of the global economy and the american economy, to take action that would present a depression in the united states, the likes of which we hadn't seen since the 1930's, the possibility of which could have led to unemployment in the 20's-25% range here in america. at the time, he was able to get the recovery act through. he was able to get provisions that were necessary to stave off depression through congress, and he did so and was able to act legislatively. he's also, consistently throughout his presidency, used his executive authority where appropriate to edit and his agenda for helping the american people as they manage and struggled through this difficult

economy. he is continuing to do that and stepping up this effort because of the instruction is some that we are seeing in congress from republicans. this is an urgent priority. we can't wait until fall republicans suddenly decide that it's the right time to help the economy growing and the right time to take measures that will help create jobs in this country. so he will do everything he can within his power, small, medium and large, to assist the american people in this economy, to help them with their student loans, to help underwater home owners refinance their mortgages, to provide facilitate access to federal government programs for small and large businesses. everything he can come a step by step coming and you haven't heard the end of it because again there is no high your priority than doing everything he can to help the american people as we emerge from the worst recession in the great

depression. >> it seems like for example the west side didn't need exit of order for that. >> it's a presidential memorandum. are you saying that we didn't do everything we could have done on the first day in office? he consistently and constantly was taxing his team here and in the administration and to come up with ideas and new initiatives and proposals that will assist in achieving this goal of putting people back to work and growing the economy and helping americans in this difficult economy. so as new ideas present themselves, as they are evaluated in the administration and here in the white house and the president signs off on them, he will act on them. >> on the occupied protest, you described the president's pa tolerance and the right to speak out what is the president telling them years that say they

are now facing expense of the local law enforcement are trying to clear these areas and running into violence -- what does the president say to them? just suck it up and bear the cost and the price of free speech? >> i think that you are presupposing conversations that you may imagine have taken place but i don't know that they have. [inaudible] >> i don't know that any kind of that conversation took place. >> look, i think that as has been true throughout our history, you know, there is a tradition of protests and demonstrations and exercise of free speech and expression, and obviously has to be done in a lawful way and it has to be done appropriately. but the frustration that is felt by -- demonstrated by the people who are out there is something the president fully understands and agrees to the heart of what we've been discussing today and what we've been discussing frequently hear about persistently high unemployment, about growth that's too slow,

and about the this functionality of congress, the fact that congress won't take action -- that their job proposals largely come even if you think they are good ideas, won't have an effect for a year or two or three, if they're positive all. and our point is the american people can't wait. it is not -- the status quo at 9.1% is not acceptable. >> there is a tradition of civil disobedience, too. does the president think that prolonged street demonstrations or citizens are worth the cost that that kind of free expression -- even when it burdens cities that are really stressed otherwise? >> again, i'm not going to get into assessments of individual cities and how they are responding or what their cost burden is. the president has said that he understands people's frustrations. he understands that those frustrations are felt very broadly by the american people

-- at least those frustrations that have to do with the fact that the economy isn't strong enough, that the fact that unemployment is too high command that the fact that washington is dysfunctional because of obstructionism by republicans in congress. i mean, to the extent that this has to do with wall street specifically, we have a situation happening in congress now where republicans explicitly say they seek to dismantle or water down the wall street reforms that the president of hard to put into place -- that are common sense answers to the problems that existed that allowed that kind of behavior that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the great depression. >> our local officials allowed to have frustrations, too? >> of course they are. yes, it. >> one of the things the occupy wall street people are upset about is the special interests having a lot of influence in washington and having their voices heard and not individuals

being heard. "the new york times" there's a story today about the campaign which the president made about lobbyists not being allowed to give money to his campaign. and yet, the story leaves out in great detail how there are a lot of people and not just giving but raising half a million dollars each, a lot of money, for the president's campaign. and they just don't register as lobbyists, but their livelihood is lobbying. how do you square those? >> first of all, you makes it sound like they don't register as lobbyists and they are somehow violating the law. this presidents record is unprecedented in terms of his rejection of money from pacs and lobbyists. what's interesting is your site in that story and not a story that demonstrated that lobbyists are lining up in record numbers to contribute to republican campaigns, campaigns that openly and willingly accept money from lobbyists. >> in 2008 president made a pledge that he would not accept -- we can go through all the other candidates but he has made that pledge. >> he has been more transparent and help himself and his

administration to higher standards than any administration in history and the record we are very proud. as the mckeldin and the story a woman who runs faizal's lobbying shop u.s. welcomed the bald lobby, she runs pfizer's lobbying company, yet she's raised $500,000 for the president's campaign. >> the point is this president has been the most transparent in terms of disclosure, the most ethical in terms of the money that he will accept and the money he won't accept. there is no one who compares, thus far. we hope that there will be. and certainly none of the republican candidates are even -- i mean, they don't even make an effort, it? and the fact is the president's record is unparalleled in this regard. >> but he's also the president right now. their candidates -- we don't know who's going to get the nomination -- the should be held to a high standard as well. but he's the president in

office. >> and he had a standard prior to when he ran for office, not just when he took office. >> and so the head of comcast will be in, david cohen, runs comcast's lobbying, raised half a million dollars billion this and he keeps saying disclosure and everything else, but how do you have somebody who is a running lobbying shop and the reason have a million dollars -- how does that square with the van? >> again, the president standards are unequaled in this regard. the practice has been unprecedented in this regard. the transparency, the disclosure, unequaled, again, by any other candidate. we're very confident that his record on this is exemplary. let me go -- yes, sir. >> thank you, jay. how is the national security adviser, donilon visit to china and india and what did he discuss with chinese leaders? >> again, i'll have to take that question to the i haven't had a chance to discuss that with him or his deputy.

laura? >> i just want to look on eric's first question to make sure understand what use it in terms of the part of the bill daily interview when he said there's both republicans and democrats who have been problematic, the democrats he's referring to were from the criticism from the left during the debt -- the grand bargain -- >> my point brawley was -- >> no, i know what you're point broadly was the one to what your specific point was. >> i'm not going to parse his words. the point is clear that as you guys have reported, that there have been times when not every democrat on capitol hill has agreed with the position the president has taken. and that was true most recently during the debt ceiling negotiations, although in the income as you know, this president had worked with the democratic leaders in both the house and the senate, and have the speaker of the house been willing to go forward with the grand bargain -- a was a balanced and fair -- we could have achieved something quite significant and historic for this economy. >> and democrats were willing to go along with it -- not everyone, no question, not everyone. a lot of democrats would not

have. but we would have been able to deliver enough democrats to get this done had the speaker not backed out. okay? but there's no question there hasn't been -- this president is making decisions based on what he thinks is right for all the american people. it hasn't always been in every case supported by every member of the democratic party in congress, but what i can say is that this president understands well the democrats in the house in congress have been his allies when it comes to the number one priority that the american people have, which is growing the economy and creating jobs. and in the house and in the senate, leader pelosi and leader reid have been terrific allies in trying to get this job sat through, and terrific allies and getting all of the important measures that this president has pushed for and got him down in congress and the nearly three years that he's been president. >> did you talk to bill daley before --

>> i can talk to bill daley every day, every morning. >> about the interview integration today's questions? >> i talked to him today, as i have -- i do every morning petraeus dak y come on the announcements today regarding the exit of memorandum, was it necessary for the president to issue a memorandum to create a website? >> i can give you more detail on that. you have to initiate action, you write a presidential memoranda and it happens to read >> -- the government agencies -- >> i'm not sure, mike. the point is -- the point i made clear is that he will take every action he can within his power, and to order that action taken, in this case, required a presidential memorandum. and we are not arguing that there's a silver will the measure in here that's sweepingly going to fight all the challenges we face in the economy.

in fact, some of them will be very narrow. some of them will be substantial. some of them -- especially the legislative once -- got up to 2% growth to the economy next year, and up to 1.9 million jobs, according to the outside independent economists. >> typically, you are talking about actions -- >> no, i'm talking about the american jobsites. i said legislative. so if you're point is that some measures are small and some measures are midsize or large, point taken and accepted. >> and do you have an estimate of the impact on the economy or jobs that some of these actions are going to be taking, specifically the ones today? >> i don't have a numerical estimate for you, know. but we do know that in the case of the business oriented options, that these are the kinds of things that small businesses and large businesses very much support and believe will have a very positive impact on what the duke. >> and one other question that sort of dramatic change of subject -- condoleezza rice just published a book and in it she outlined some of the very tense

negotiations in the last days of the previous administration. and according to her, the prime minister of israel put on the table and about winning a palestinian state and how it would relate to the israeli borders and so forth. and there's been some criticism since it was published that the current administration, the obama administration, when it came in ignored that, did not try to build on that, and as a result of that peace process is largely on life support at this point. i'm wondering if you take issue with that. >> welcome of the criticism as preposterous. the president's commitment to and focus on doing everything in the united states of america can bring the two parties together, facilitate the peace process i think has been well documented. the fact that this is a challenge -- i mean, it's ironic because you're talking about the waning days of the eight your presidency this also, not through lack of trying, but also did not reach a peace agreement between -- or help facilitate a

peace agreement between the palestinians and the israelis. and i think we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a hard task and it has been a hard task for many, many years now. the president's focus on it has been intense and his commitment to it has been intense because he believes that it is in the best interests of israelis and palestinians to find a two-stage solution that gives the palestinians the sovereignty that they deserve and the israelis the security that they deserve. bill. >> jay, could you give a quick read out of next week? >> you know, bill, i'll do that at the end of the briefing -- and i sure i'll forget and somebody will say "hey, the week ahead." cynical it's not the most serious topic of the president with jay leno the other night, halloween is monday and he said he and the first lady have a difference about whether they will develop fruit and raisins

or candy. >> so if there are hague's -- eggs on the house committee on monday you know what they are handing out? [laughter] >> there will be outside with eggs. any can be this year? >> i have to check. i'm sure there will be. all the way in the back. >> yesterday and today you said the president gets his information on the occupied movements from the news media. but on the other side of the -- >> well, right. >> but on the other side of that, has he as a result -- >> i mean my point is that this is not like secret intelligence stuff like he gets in the presidential daily briefing. >> i know, no formal briefing. >> it's all out there, yeah. >> but as a result of what he's seen, has he instructed anyone, whether it be dhs or anyone else, to sort of reach out and liaise or work with our allies in any way any local or state law enforcement on how to deal with these protests? >> not aware of camano. yes? >> jay grumet digit 20 next week, how aggressively with the president pursue reform in

china's currency? how much support does he have for that among the other g20 nations? and is there a concern about possible retaliation or repercussions from china? >> i don't have a lot new for you on that. you know our position, and we stated it clearly both publicly and to the chinese, but while there has been progress made on this issue, that the currency still remains undervalued, and we continue to work on that issue. i don't really have much information to impact about how that fits into the g20 agenda. i think primarily come as you know, we are talking about a lot in the days leading up to the key 20, the focus has been on europe and its crisis and the steps that it needs to take and has taken in the recent days towards resolving the crisis conclusively, and we look forward to the implementation of that. i think that will still be a primary focus of the to 20 in france.

>> you and your part of my question, but i wonder if the white house has gotten any more details about the eurozone agreement, or are you pushing to get more details ahead of the she 20? >> i think we have carried communication -- great communication with our european allies and friends and partners. we have extreme and regular communication at the level of the secretary of the treasury and the treasury department officials with their counterparts. so i think we are certainly getting the information that we need. but i don't have any more detail on that for you. you might go to treasury. >> yes, same topic. i was wondering, has the president called chancellor merkel or mr. sarkozy to offer any congratulations or anything? >> i don't have any -- i'm not aware of any calls to the chancellor or the president. as you know, they did have a conference call, those two with the president come up with the prime minister to respect that was last week? >> last week. but i'm not aware of any calls today, or i don't have any calls of this week.

>> as he has plans reid again, i don't have anything to readout or preview? >> all right. and on a really did -- a different subject, the capitol hill and the super committee. mr. boehner and pelosi seemed to show some flexibility in some of their statements that they made yesterday -- boehner saying that he could close loopholes in exchange for a reduction in some of the social programs. pelosi saying that she wouldn't at least shut the door on revising the formula for social security colas, and both saying that the super committee, it's imperative that they get an agreement by november 23rd. did you guys take note of that? do you see any openings? de uzi nei flexibility? is he planning to call people down here at some point? >> well, let me start from the end of your question. november 23rd is a deadline set by the legislation, so i would

imagine that there is a sense of urgency related to that deadline since it's a deadline. >> but both sides are saying that now. >> welcome to both sides are obligated under that deadline, as members of congress and the leaders in the house. that's obviously a good thing. >> we remain hopeful that congress will address this issue in a way that's balanced, that includes hard choices for everybody, but it it's done in a balanced way, does not unduly or unfairly shift the burden onto one sector of society while holding harmless, if you will, another sector, especially in this case, the most fortunate americans who have seen there in incomes rise dramatically in a period where middle class americans have seen their incomes stagnate or decline. so i think it's certainly the case that there needs to be balanced. and to the extent -- i think one question related with the speakers have suggested was there wasn't as much openness to the kind of balance that we think is necessary. but may your interpretation of

that and the incorrect. i hope that's the case. i hope there is a willingness -- we certainly do -- on the part of the republicans to approach this in a balanced way. because if you do it in a balanced way as everybody who's looked at this problem seriously has says -- ought outside commissions -- the president's fiscal commission, the domenici rivlin commission -- you need to take this -- tackle this problem in a way that's balanced, that includes revenue, includes spending cuts come includes reform of entitlements. if you do it that way you can actually accomplish something very significant that will be beneficial to the economy in the medium and long term. >> is he going to try and jump in through -- >> this is a congressional mandate election obligating a committee set up by the congress to deliver a product. we don't have any membership on

that committee. so the president, in fact, already submitted -- probably engaged on the front end of this by putting forward his own proposal. and he certainly will continue to urge the committee in congress in general to take the approach that is reflected in the detailed proposal he put forward. >> april, and then mark. >> jay, any white house comment on the final hurdle that has been cleared for the black farmers -- the $1.15 billion? the judge just peered into proved that last night. >> i don't have a formal comment for you, but i know that this has been an issue that has been worked on for years and years and years. it's clear, as you indicated your question, and number of hurdles, including since we've been here in office, and i know we support that. but i haven't got a formal statement yet on the judge's

decision. and this has been bipartisan. >> does the administration will get this black farmers settlement as a major federal the cap for the president obama, particularly as it took several presidents over the years for this to happen? >> well, i think it's important accomplishment for everyone involved, not least -- i mean, not just obviously the president, but a lot of people who were involved on both parties over the years in making this country conclusion in a way that is supported by the bipartisan majority. >> thanks, jay. >> i will take the last from mark. >> jay, where are the ideas for all the executive actions coming from? is someone designated in the white house to gather these ideas? have notes gone out to the departments and agencies to send us your ideas? >> well, i don't know if notes have gone out, but certainly it has been at the president's urging that everyone, both within the white house and broadly within the administration, look for

opportunities to take executive action that can become a broadly speaking, helpful to americans as the deal with this economy. and then that can be the kind of measures that were announced today that are targeting at business; the kinds of measures that were announced earlier this week aimed at struggling homeowners and students with debt obligations. and you'll continue to see measures that affect different areas of the economy in a positive way. depending on where the issue resides, different people are involved here at the white house. we have -- at a policy level, deputy chief of staff nancy-ann deparle is a chief of policy, if you will. but certainly many other people are involved. >> this week ahead? >> and then come back? >> the week ahead, ann reminded

me. all right. i know i have it here somewhere. will be brief. i'm all set. i've been -- magoffin dahuk. the week ahead: on monday the president will meet with former british prime minister tony blair the white house. on tuesday, the president will participate in interviews with local tv anchors from markets across the country. on wednesday, the president will attend meetings of the white house. and on thursday, as you all know, the president will travel to cannes, france for the g20 summit. thank you very much. have a great weekend. >> -- how many interviews on tuesday? >> i don't have a number for you but you will be here at the white house. >> and is it a regional -- >> yes, local, regional. >> many meetings in the white house -- general musharraf is doing a round. he's saying --

>> not that i'm aware but i don't know. >> thank you.

i don't want every story to be 1800 words.

next a look at the 2012 election with former vermont governor and dnc chairman howard dean. from this morning's washington journal, this is 40 minutes. >> host: coming up here in just about two seconds is governor deane, howard dean, former presidential candidate, and former dnc chairman. he now joins us from burlington, vermont. governor dean, how do you think the president is doing? >> guest: am i the perfect anecdote? >> host: you couldn't be better. [laughter] >> guest: i think the president has been doing great since the job speech. he's out there talking about -- he's got everything down to

three words which is what you have to do. pass this bill, and we can't wait, he's doing great. he's out there and his numbers are getting better he's leading in ohio which is a very important state for us. so, you know, who can complain? >> host: governor dean, you said since the job speech. there's been some indications and news reports that progressives and liberals have been a little dissatisfied with the president; do you agree? >> guest: this is the fourth quarter here. what i used to say when i was chair of the dnc is we are going to elect a democratic president and hold their feet to the fire. we held their feet to the fire and had battles for three years. this is the fourth year. this is when we get serious about reelecting the president. this is not a referendum on the president. this is a contest between two people and for anybody as a progressive person there's not going to be a serious contest. what the republicans represent is something very far to the

tradition of liberty and they say they are against big government but they are in fact for a very big government when it comes to your personal rights to make your own decisions about reproductive rights and things like that so this is a pretty straight of battle and it's going to be a close election and tough election but i think we are going to have differences of opinion after he is reelected and more fights to rate right now this is the fourth quarter and we have to win. ..

>> host: last week, you had a column on the electoral schedule. what's the essence of your column? >> guest: well, basically, the primary schedule is a bit of a farce, and the state -- not all the states, most of them are great, but you can rely on florida and new hampshire to cause a fuss, and they do, and we dealt with that very toughly, and i was a little disappointed in the republicans for not being as tough because we've got to put a stop to this nonsense. what we did four years ago is to say that anybody who moved their primary outside the zone set by the party was going to lose their delegates, and we made that stick. delegates from florida and mental anguish had nothing to say about who the nominee was. the republicans backed off a little bit so forth and so on, and the states don't have the right to decide when they go and when they are not. that's up to the national party. we tried to work it out with the

state, and we added nevada and south carolina because our party is diverse, and there's native americans and latinos had a larger role than where they would have in nemplegz and iowa, and we compromised and worked it out and then the florida folks and michigan folks tried to full a past one. we have to tough as nails about enforcing the system. they have the right to decide how they nominate the president, and that's ajust catted by the supreme court. >> host: serving in the national committee from 2005 to 2009. what do you think about the earliness of the upcoming season? >> guest: that always happens. this is no earlier than four years ago. i thought moving the primaries back was a good idea, but the republicans were not able to make that stick, so they are back where they were in 2008 and

in 2004 when i ran. i think it's better if they were starting if february, but, you know, that's up to the current chairs, not me. >> host: maryland, anne, you are on with howard deen. anny is a republican. hi. >> caller: good morning. i have not called in in a long time, and i'm as much a complainer of left as she is to the right. maybe you can even it out, but i thought a suggestion would be for congress would be -- both the senate and the house, if cut all of their salary by 10%, it would be a very right thing to do, save us a lot of money, and then if they started paying taxes on some of the ben fetes, the extra benefits they receive,

now, i know there's a lot of subtle work that if you do the same thing, it makes a big difference in our dealt. it's something that worries all of us, and if they would do that, it would really be a good symbol. it wouldn't solve the problem, but it would help it, and if they go through each thing, there's so many of them that just pay money out for nothing and it's been going on for years and years and years, and there's no oversight of it. >> host: governor? >> guest: i kind of agree with that, not the exact specifics, but i'd like to see them in the same social security system everybody else is in. i don't know why congress exempts itself from social security and has a different pension scheme. i want them to have the same health insurance as everybody else does, and then they're living in the real world and not talking about cutting social security and medicare all the time. i think your caller is on the

right track here, said a lot of good things, and i'd agree with a good many of them. >> host: next call from shreveport, louisiana. leroy on the democrat line. are you there? >> caller: i am. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: a few things to point out. first of all, everybody pays taxes. you pay taxes on your house. you pay taxes every time you go to the store. you pay taxes if you rent or if you buy something, anything. this idea that there's people out there to don't pay taxes is just really erroneous, and i wish it would be cut out because everybody pays taxes. now, income taxes, everybody don't pay income taxes. that's entirely different. >> guest: well, actually -- first of all, i agree with your major point, but -- and i think

it's incredibly disinjen ewe yows for certain partyings to say half the people in america don't pay the income tax. that's not true. if you work, and most people in america still, god bless us, do work, you pay payroll taxes, and the payroll tax is a stiff one, one and a third for medicare, and if you don't work for yourself, it's 7% for social security, and then over and above that, if you work your yourself, you pay 15% in social security, and a percent and a half for medicare, so this idea that there's a whole lot of hard working people that don't make money that don't pay income taxes is not true. the reason warren buffet's secretary pays more than warren buffet does is because the payroll tax that takes a big bite out of paychecks more than the income tax does. this nonsense that half the people in america don't pay income taxes so we ought to tax

them, is just a war in the middle class in the country. i really appreciate you pointing that out. >> host: markus from hawaii, you are on with howard dean, go ahead. >> guest: [inaudible] > host: go ahead, mark. >> caller: thank you very much, mr. slen. you washington jowrnt hosts are the ut tray marathoners of cable tv news, and dr. governor dean i believe? >> guest: yes. >> caller: you know, on this topic of campaign 2012 and democratic base, we have sort of an interesting race shaping up for u.s. senators since the long time u.s. senator daniel akaka decided to retire and two term governor linda facing off

against either mazi, the former lieutenant governor here -- >> host: what do you think about her in the race? did you like her as governor? >> guest: well, to paraphrase john mccain, she'll beat them like a drone. it's likely democratic nominee or primary winner because basically case was very lackluster and the house just as linda proved that she can work bipartisan because, as you know for the last 45 years, hawaii's been totally controlled by democrats. i mean there was one republican in the state legislature. come on. >> host: we got the point, mark. howard dean? looking ahead. >> guest: i don't know that much about the race. it'll be a great race, and i'll be happy to take the other side of that bet. >> host: fairfax, virginia,

rick, a republican. go ahead, rick. >> caller: yes, last year we spent $5.5 trillion on all government spending according to bea. if 20% of that is wasted, that's $1 trillion, and we also had about $2.5 trillion of indirect costs by government for regulatory tax system and excessive legal system costs. there's probably a trillion of waste there as well, so $2 trillion of waste in government related costs each year theansz more than the accumulated wealth of the bottom 50% of the population, and after just a year and a half, it's more than that group plus the top 400 richest people in the whole country. >> host: so what's the point, rick? where are you going? >> caller: my point is that we're wasting more in government

related costs in one and a half years than the accumulated wealth of the bottom 155 million people plus the top 400 richest people. >> host: dr. dean, any response for that caller? >> guest: people think the federal government wastes money, but there's reasons for every program, and that's why they never get cut. that's a bipartisan problem, not just a partisan problem. george bush cut taxes, but they never cut spending. the same thing is under democrats. the real problem here is that, first of all, i don't know how you got to those numbers, but i would never deny it's wasted, what i consider is wasted money at the federal level the problem is nobody agrees on what's waste and what's necessary. i like the idea -- i think this joint commission will fall on its face because they will not

agree with each other, but i like idea of having this approach because people just won't vote against the particular special interests that you and i think is waste, and one hand washes the other in congress and then you have to get rid of it, and every dime that's waste, there's somebody there to thinks it's essential, and that's the problem. >> host: governor dean, doyle has an op-ed in the "l.a. times" saying a third party is like lig because of howard schultz of starbucks because of his american elect and that could hurt president obama. >> guest: a serious third party is not likely, and i think certainly if there is one, i hope it's not from the more progressive side of the aisle because all you do then is elect a right winger or somebody who is beholding to the right wing, and i think that will be a

problem, so i actually am in favor of having a third party in the country, but i want it to be a legitimate third party. you don't start one in this country, and people proved this the hard way, but running somebody for president and having no base and not doing the work for four years. you start a third party by running in congressional races and city counsel races. you want to see successful third party, look at the greens this europe that started at local races, ran unscheffelly for a long -- unsuccessfully for a long time, and then ended up in the german government with impacts in the environmental policy. the idea you have to be a billionaire and run if president of the united states, you will not get elected. that's why bloomberg's in the going to run. he's been a great mayor, but he can't win, and he knows it. that's just the way the system is set up. i hope there's a third party one day, but it has to start from the bottom running in local races, not the top, and the only

thing it would be successful in is shifting the ground. >> host: what do you miss about being chair of the dnc? >> guest: very leal. it's a different job. i had a great time. other than being governor, it was the best job i ever had, but you work for yourself, and for the 470 people that vote for you, you don't work for the white house, and if i were at the dnc now, i'd be working at the white house directly, and that's not as much fun as doing things the way you think they ought to be done. >> host: mitch mcconnell took your name, or he talked about you on the senate floor. we want to play this for you and get your response. >> it's preposterous at a time when 14 million americans are looking for a job in this country, for the president to be

riding around on a bus saying we should raise taxes. completely preposterous for the president to be riding on a bus saying we should raise taxes on the very folks who create jobs. think about that. we have 14 million people out of work, and two self-yiefed conservatives for every liberal in the country, and the president's doing his best howard dean impersonation. >> host: governor dean? >> guest: i was deeply complemented. you know, the president's going to win because he's out there fighting like crazy for what he believes in, and that's what you do to win. there's a reason republicans don't like me because i hold a mirror up and call them out. he is going to win, and god bless him for taking my name in vain. >> host: what are you doing these days? >> guest: well, very long list working part time for a law firm

in washington, although i don't lobby. i work -- i'm on the board of a great democracy building group funded by congress, i'm on the democratic end as a republican group as well, and i'm going around the world trying to figure out how to help people become more democratic in these countries, and there's a long other list, i'm very interested in the charter school run by the american federation of teachers, especially in the 0-3 education because i think the stuff we do in education is a lost cause because we don't do anything about the kids coming into the system. we just fix it when they get there, and that's a mistake. there's a long other list as well. >> any medicine practice? >> guest: no, that would be malpractice. i have not practiced in 20 years, and the field is so much different than it was when i was practicing that i don't practice. >> host: pennsylvania, steve on the republican line, thanks for holding. you are on with howard dean. >> caller: good morning, governor dean.

>> guest: good morning. >> caller: and good morning c-span. my wife and i are registered republican, and never voted straight ticket and look at the best candidate, but looking at the democratic party that's been in power since 2006 and looking at it today, my wife and i are a lot worse off than we were back then. we have lost money, this last contract i went through with a corporation i work with starting the first of the year loses $4,000 a year paying for more medical because the medical system's changed. the democrats, president obama, was elected in 2008, and his first priority instead of getting people back to work and getting the economy straightened out was to get everybody to pay more for their medical, so that's the first thing i have to say, and the other one is journalism coverage of presidential races, i find is -- it swings way to one side or way

to the other. president obama on the campaign trail, he talked about keeping the people together, bringing them together to work together, but yet then he gives a speech after he's president, and he says we have to defeat the republican enemy, and so, you know, people need to pay attention to what is said all the time. >> host: governor? >> guest: first of all, the health care premium entries this year have nothing to do with the reform that don't go into effect in 2014. i disagree on that, i think that the health care problem is a serious one. i, as you know, personally, was not teshbly enamored, but there's good things in it. i have to say that i don't think it has anything to do with raising the cross because it's not in effect yet. secondly, truth it, the preponderate -- president wanted to work with the republicans. we only have one josh, and that's to make sure president obama is a one term president,

and if that's what they offer the country, that's not a good place to vote. we split the tickets to, and there's three republicans i votessed for, and they know what they are. there's good people in both parties and the situation in washington's very, very polarized, and when it is polarized, the president has a need to lead because that's what the american people expect from him, and that's what he's doing. without getting partisan about it, i obviously am supportive of the pratt bus he's working with a group of people with no interest of working with him, and it's time he pulled out the club and calmed things what they are, and that gets them reelected. >> did the three republicans win? >> guest: at least two of them did. >> host: kathy, independent in laurel, maryland, you're on with howard dean. >> caller: hi, i'm concerned about a few inconsistencies

about the republicans. first of all, the stimulus plan. when it came out, the republicans made sure that they had most of the stimulus plan tax cut, and they voted out almost two-thirds of the jobs that were originally in the plan so for them to say that the stimulus plan didn't work, it was by their own devise. also, the cuts they make in the government right now pretty much has resulted in up to 300,000 job loss in the government which, to me, seems like, again, a guarantee them to keep the unemployment rate around 9% because when there's over 1,000 job creation -- 100,000 job creation in the private industry, it seems to me with the 300,000 government jobs lost, that seems to me like a

net gain for the republicans to keep the unemployment rate up to 9%, and the only other thing i'd say is if the democrats want to try to win from the republicans who are saying they want to constitutional amendment for a balanced budget to keep their constituents happy, maybe the democrats might consider introducing a constitutional amendment to say that a citizen is a person because the people in the country will probably support that. >> host: leaving it there, kathy. governor? >> guest: good points, and the appointment i liked the most, and i think the people don't pay attention to is the point you made about jobs. the truth is we're gaining jobs. the private sector creates jobs every qawt, but we're losing more jobs than we're creating because the public sector jobs are going down because they are broke. the jobs bill that the president put out is it saves jobs of fire

fights, police officers, and teachers, and they are losing their jobs. i don't know how you expect america to be a better educated country and more competitive if the republicans are talking about it if you make it harder to get a decent education, so, you're absolutely right about that. because the republicans in the congress have stood in the way of the president's attempt to jump start the economy, we're losing states and local government which are really in trouble financially, are losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. the private sector in this country is making up for more than that josh loss, which is why the economy continues to grow like it did last quarter, up 2.5%, a big surprise, 10 our problem -- so our problem now is not the jobs created in the private sector. we need more of those, but the big problem is the public sector jobs which are good jobs, fire fights, police, teachers, sanitation workers, keeping our cities going and our towns going, those are the ones we're

losing. >> host: 10 minutes left with our guest, california, leo, democrat. >> caller: yes, good morning. governor, by the way, what i'd like to say is i would like so see you run again for senator. one thing -- >> guest: i like my senators, but thank you. >> caller: but you should do it again, but anyway, one thing i want to say is you should get the age of the caller in there when they call. what i called about is i lived here in orange county, worked as a union carpenter all my life, and i know the democrats support this -- the illegal aliens of getting them in and legalizing them. i've watched orange county go

from straight union carpenters where they came in from the orange groves and come in the carpenter feel, and as they did, this became nonunion. >> host: governor dean, any response? >> guest: well, i don't think it's fair they support illegal ail yean, but it's a net positive for the country, and if you don't believe it, look at alabama, georgia, and arizona, all the places passing immigration bills, and those folks are leading, including legal people because they don't want to kids to ask for the papers when they yous the street, and the other places are benefiting. some are moving other places. you know, my family was from an immigrant family. yours probably was too. now, i do agree with your point about the wage scales. i do believe that what you don't

want is people working illegally taking away american jobs. that does happen. and it's true in the last coupling weeks in arizona and alabama that there's a lot of jobs that are being worked at by immigrants who when the imgrants leave because they get pushed out by 5 crazy legislation they pass, and folks can't get their crobs in because americans won't do that work. it's estimated georgia lost $300 million in onions that rotted in the field because of the ridiculous bill. that's a solution to immigration. it's not to put up an electric fence or shoot them on site as some of the republican candidates have talked about in the presidential debates. it's to have a sense of policy. george w. bush had a sense of policy and was good on immigration. he had a thoughtful, senseful,

balanced policy, and we have to go back to than as a bipartisan manner. >> host: any lek drk elected office in your future? >> guest: never say never, but i don't have one in mind. >> host: david, republican line from florida. >> caller: hi, i came to florida from indiana, and in the last presidential election, i worked in the polls where mark won at about the camming levels as president obama did, and basically i saw the republicans that i knew vowing on the war issue and a clear change. and mccain didn't seem to have a clear difference from bush, and i believe this year if rick perry were to run against president obama, there's clear

delineation between the two, but if mitt romney wins the primary i believe, president obama will have a harder time. what do you think? >> guest: well, i was asked a version of that earlier in the show and i tried not to handicap republican politics, but i think rick perry still has a shot. he had a big problem with the entry because running for president is different than governor as i can attest, but, you know, he's raised a lot of money, he's got some firm convictions, and people like folks with firm convictions. it will be a great race in the republican side. i don't know who is the best, but it'll be a close election no matter who runs, i think.

>> host: ohio, bill on our democrat's line. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: good morning, gentleman. i want 20 ask mr. dean some fast questions. okay. the first one is i hear on the news greece is broke, spain is broke, the united states is break, this city is out of money, and this person doesn't have money. well, you know, i don't understand there. there's only so much money in the world, x amount of dollars. p we don't have it, greece don't have it, nobody else has it? where's it at? >> host: bill, what's the next question? >> guest: mr. dean, why are the republicans continually trying to take away from the poor the middle class, the elderly and give more and more to the wealth that are doing well. >> guest: that's an interesting problem, and that's a problem for whoever the republican nominee is. most people in this country

believe whether it's true or not and i have my opinion on this that republicans by 70% are in favor of the wealthy. i think that's true. if you look at the supreme court, the four right wing justices siting the cooperation with the same right as a person so they can buy elections, if you look at the tax policies of the republicans that are getting rid of medicare and all of that, but the problem with the republicans may be people may not like president obama because it's a rough four years, well, they like him permly, but may not vote for him, but the alternative for average middle class and working people in the country, they are not going to like. now, maybe the republicans can suddenly convince them in the next year or so they are for the middle class and working people. i don't think that's going to happen. i believe that president obama's going to win. the reason is it's not a referendum on president obama. they look at two candidates and decide who cares the most.

right know, the people believe that president obama cares more about working and middle class people than any one on the republican side. >> there's an article this something in "politico" newspaper, governor dean, that the party's over, talking about the decline of the dnc, the rnc, and the congressional campaign committees as well because of the outside groups now being funded. >> yeah, there is a decline if that continues. a caller sunlighted a constitutional amendment to get rid of the ridiculous supreme court ruling which is no were in the institution. speaking of judges that make up the law, i read the constitution, reread the constitution a couple weeks ago to give a seminar on the constitution at a college. not one place could i find a cooperation as the same right as a person. that was invented by the right wing justices. let's put the power of the country back in the hands of the

middle class which is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. . . >> guest: thank you very much. but i usually say to that is the first time you get into the

presidential race it's not so hard because you have no idea what you are about to face. after you've done it once you need to visit a psychiatrist before you decide to do it again so i appreciate the compliment very much. you know, i may or may not give it any thought, but so you know it's not so easy the second time because you know what you're going to face. >> host: pennsylvania, thomas, republican line. tom. tom is on we are going to move over to his old missouri. bob on the democrats win. hello, bob. >> caller: mr. governor, i'm proud to be able to talk to you. i am surprised. i remember when you were running and use it that you represented the space wing of the democratic wing and we certainly need somebody like that right now because it sounds like they just don't know how to invite the republicans.

why doesn't somebody have the sense enough to tell those people as voted as the special who probations and loopholes you wrote in for the people in those loopholes now and don't want to pay any taxes why doesn't somebody at least want to point that out? and so the president is running around talking about jobs. why doesn't he get mr. grayson on the bus with him, go down to florida, point out to the people that thousands of possible jobs with that expressed system he wanted to put in but he had applied for a two and a half million dollar grant. >> we are going to leave it there. thank you. governor dean? >> guest: you know, there is no question both parties are guilty of all kinds of chicanery in the tax code. on the other hand, i do think that getting rid of your marks is a good idea. i don't think it was a good idea

for my state because of course an earmark becomes years in an essential program but it does give the american people more confidence. but i am in favor of tax reform. i am very interested if the republicans would be reasonable for a few minutes they could probably get a pretty decent tax reform bill for the american public wants tax reform. i ought to be able to file my own taxes and i can't do that anymore. i have to get an accountant to do it and i think most people in this country ought to be but a final their own a taxes. you have to give up some deductions that all of us get. i use to be against giving up most of those deductions like the charitable mortgage. the canadians have the same ownership rate of homes and they don't get a deduction for their mortgage. so we've got to do something about the tax code. imagine the leal industry getting $53 billion for the tax payer money every year and nobody's done anything about it. the making money hand over fist. that is the kind of thing that makes people on both parties set

up with washington. >> host: governor dean, could you see a flat tax? >> guest: not a flat tax and one brackett, because it really does hurt people at the lower end and by the lower and i'm not talking about poor people and talking about middle class struggling to get by but i certainly can see reducing everything to two or three brackets and then eliminating enormous amounts of deductions. the only 1i do think we need is the chernobyl induction. i think that makes a difference in terms of people giving, and i do think many charities to very good things. but i do believe in the direction don't go as far as they do but we have to simplify the tax code. >> host: how does governor dean feel about term limits? >> guest: i go back and forth on that. a term-limits is one of the reasons california is in such a disaster financially right now. the term limits were well intended but they are so short that you get people in the

leadership of the house and senate who've been in their second term and i just don't think that works. on the other hand if you extend them out for a while maybe the limited service in congress for 12 years or something like that, maybe that would be something that's reasonable. i come from a small state. term limits hurt us because we get attention because our senators stay for a long time and achieve a lot of security. so it's a very difficult issue. i often of social going leasing that the new generation as much more focused on the working together and our generation is means of term limits we ought to have a rule that says you can't serve in the senate or the house unless you are under 50-years-old and maybe things will get a little better that way. >> host: peter, republican. you've got the last word. >> caller: >> host: peter we are going to have to hang up unless you have something jury quickly to say. >> caller: i do. okay, i think this regard to the

occupying of wall street is that we need to install of blowing all this money and stimulus we ought to start building factories research departments and corporations working together to bring this manufacturing backend. >> guest: he is absolutely right about that but i would add something. i stop wall street from trading their credit be felt swaps turning the place into a giant gambling casino and start addressing that money in exactly what peter is talking about. and we are going to do that. jeff who is the share of ge has a great letter to shareholders from a couple of years ago. he laid out what is going to happen and the smartest thing i've seen written about the economy in the last two years we are going to start focusing in bringing in a factory back to the country and the list the consumer driven society. the pain of making that change

is substantial. i think the caller is basically right. we have to get wall street doing their job again. this is a cut of people supposed to be allocating capital productive resources. there's nothing productive about treating collateral mortgage obligations and not knowing who owns the house, treating cds back and forth and turning wall street into a gambling casino. if it is a gambling casino we don't need it and right now it is and the people that run wall street have to get your act together and start figuring out how to invest in things that create wealth and jobs again for people other than themselves. >> host: are you supportive of the occupied wall street moved? >> guest: ibm. i don't want them to get violent. violent stuff is gone and the younger generation knows better than that, but i do think that this is a movement that basically is without leadership which is for better or worse not taken over by politicians but expressing something most people believe in this country which is this country has lost its way not just because politicians have lost its way and because the financial community has lost

its way partly because the elimination of glass-stegall which turns out to have been a terrible mistake and partly because the tax code and the tax laws favor investments and pushing paper back and forth instead of investing in things that really make a difference in ordinary people's lives. >> host: do you see yourself visiting in any of the sites? >> guest: i haven't done that yet. i'm sure i will get around to it at some point, but i've traveled a lot so i daresay i will. >> host: howard dean, as always, thanks for being on the wall street patrol. we look forward to have the back during the election season. >> guest: thank you.

this weekend on book tv on

c-span2, general william westmoreland let american forces into swetnam republican presidential candidate and texas governor rick perry spoke to the new hampshire union leader editorial board today in manchester. after filing papers to become an official candidate in the state presidential primary. he responded to questions about immigration, environmental regulation and health care

during the interview. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> a mehdi shlaes writes for bloomberg. >> "the forgotten man." ceramica they are confusing her piece on sunday about the taxes and how the governor of new york state's you've got to get taxes lower to make the rich productive. but i saw you on the zero riley program the other night, and you looked startled when he asked you what the effect on the government revenue was going to be on your plan, and i don't know why you were startled because the next morning in the papers your advisers at least cited specifics about how much

revenue would in fact be revenue neutral and eventually grow. estimate 2020 to balance the budget. >> yeah. >> you were intuitive, i guess, i didn't catch myself being startled. it may have just been the reason -- >> o'reilly made a big deal afterwards with it about -- i was an intuitive, i was just agreeing with him that i would have thought he would have been like this on that, but you in effect said i will have my people give you the figures the next day. >> guest: actually, we were having an economic model done and we did not have the hard numbers from the standpoint. i know what you are making reference to because he did ask a specific question about what is this going to do from the government revenue? some people have said this is going to blow a hole in the that

the first few years, and i did not have those at that particular point in time because we were having an economic model finished actually that day, and i did not have -- what i did know is that you put these all in to play whether it is the 20% flat tax, 20% corporate tax rate. it is addressing social security, medicare, medicaid, non-defense discretionary spending cuts, and by 2020, that budget will be balanced now. i did not have, if that's what he was asking the allies of the because pos you are correct in that. i didn't have a welcoming cheers -- a few examples on take to the department of education and to take the secondary at the elementary programs, cut them in

half and half of it back to the states for them to decide how to of lamented as education programs you save $25 billion. i will be honest with you. i am less worried about whether or not we've got some budget holes to fill in the early years than i am given her the confidence the job creators can actually go out and arrest their capital and have a chance to have a return on their investment and create jobs. >> that part you got right with o'reilly and he gave you credit for that which is the trust of i think your plan which is to get money into the hands of the people who can use it. explain to cut down to like five per cent plus change in taxes for offshore revenues. >> we are somewhere around 1.5

to $1.7 trillion of u.s. companies with profits of sure that today get taxed at 35% if they bring to leave your common sense tells you that money is not going to come back and it is going to leave it sitting offshore and look at ways to invest in their revenue and bring it back for the privilege of getting 35% of it to the federal government. a host of economists and others who are familiar with those dollars and what is a reasonable rate to tax that to bring it back and five and a quarter seems to be the happy medium if he will to bring it back again the american chamber of commerce for instance estimate there's about $360 billion worth of economic activity bring that

back into the united states. >> again i'm all about creating jobs. i don't get into the class warfare. i think the president and those on the left and someone on our side of the aisle who wants to talk about class warfare and somehow or another the wealthy are going to come out better on this tax plan. i don't have time for that because i'm about getting americans to work. there are people sitting around the attaching to the kitchen table today don't have jobs, 14 plus million americans one of six work that's why more about and built on the premise if you create an environment for job creators to risk their capital and it's really two things. it's taxes, but even more importance regulations and

regulations were the real job killers. we have driven millions of jobs offshore because we've overtaxed and overregulated, and the overtaxing side is a symptom of the spending problem that we have in washington, d.c. but to cap those taxes 20% with personal and 20% of the corporate side, five and a quarter on the offshore money to repatriate it and then you balance the budget through a number of issues of ways, one being a balanced budget amendment in the united states constitution, and i don't plan to talk about it in the state of the state address and about my business. i plan on traveling to the states that requires and either

of controlling or threatening or whatever other way i need to. >> of the constitutional amendment is it can't be done, takes too long. was giving 18-year-olds the right to vote to read depends on what it is talking about it in some form or fashion to actually in the united states senator state who's up for reelection in 2014 and asking them to support and asking those legislators for it. there has been the one that had the commitment to the balanced budget amendment in the united states i don't think america has got a revenue problem. as a matter of fact i would look for ways to reduce revenue coming into the federal government particularly if i think it's quite be spent on

programs that aren't helping create an environment for job creation when. regulations. i move substantial amounts of regulation back to the state. >> give an example. >> i think the governor of any state and the environmental protection agency has a better, best interest -- has a more vested interest and better ability to address the issues of the environment in their state appellate than the epa and i will give you as an example in the decade of 2000, texas had a flexible permitting process for our clean air. i think the clean air act, the clean water act were good pieces of legislation. don't paint me with a brush that so broad that says he doesn't care about the environment.

yes i care about the environment and we did something about it in texas. weekly and our era up more than any other state in 2000 and we did it by an incentive based flexible permitting. what i mean by that is that if there is eight smokestacks in a plant we had a total amount of emissions at that plant could be met from began checking each smokestack, each source if you will, and we were able to lower hour levels by 27% and our nitrogen oxide levels by about 58% during that time period. this administration wants to take that process over and put their oversight in place. from the comptroller's study we know what that will do. it will cost huge numbers of

jobs, 360,000 to be exact. it's no different than of the response we've seen to the deepwater horizon tragedy. we know now that the private sector has the ability to address an event like that and actually cap the well that had that same event in one day because the technology has been developed. the last thing the industry want is for that type of an event to occur again. so they have developed the technology to be able to protect our environment in the gulf, yet this administration rather than allowing for regulators that actually go out and do their job they just basically put a slowdown on providing 400% longer to get a permit today, 80% fewer permits for drilling in the gulf. those are just two examples of

the knee-jerk reaction that this administration has had dealing with regulations that when you audit them for their beneficial impact on whether it is the air or water or the safety of people is minuscule at best but the costs are monstrous. dodd-frank banking regulation is another in example of a knee-jerk reaction by this administration and congress to put into place a mother who had leader of regulation that's not going to -- adam as a matter of fact it puts into law it codifies too big to fail, and it makes community banks and endangered species. it makes capital jerry hard to come like -- to come by and i know the time over the board of this regulatory world but that is an example of taxes are too

high, and i will suggest that it's not a tax structure that is killing the jobs, that is impacting the confidence of the investor whether it's a big business or whether it is a mom and pop. it's the regulations that are out there, both the environmental side, the department of interior, the banking regulations. so, two weeks ago, as i leave out phase one of this economic plan, i talked about the energy side. 1.2 million jobs could be created if we wind up our federal land for exploration, land and water. 300 years of energy america has access to. we've proven reserves at 300 million years.

i'm kind of an all of the above fellow. texas is now the number one wind energy producer. people like texas, it's easy to be governor of texas. you've got oil and gas. we've only had 2% increase in our oil and gas production in the last decade. >> how come you didn't say all of this in a one minute debate answer? >> because how long have i been talking here? >> that is light. you said something for your campaign did yesterday about number of debates. is the guy may be a very good debater but -- >> it assumes you are going to do more but not necessarily every -- >> 18 debates seems like -- i just ask if a more than passing observer of the process it seems like just an incredible amount of debate. >> we get the mark that as of

today i think that there were 34 candidates that had registered for the new hampshire presidential primary. and if we put them all and won the date it would last until january. but you've been exposed to this process now. do you have some specifics you were trying to get across in the debate format how would you suggest -- the news media have to be careful building behind the screen deciding who gets to be in the debate. how do you improve the level of discourse in the presidential campaign? >> being here is one of the ways and choosing the forums i can go and actually lay out for the people in this case of new hampshire and the surrounding states and obviously with c-span, in national audience

that here is the plan i'm laying out to get americans working and it's not just rhetoric. if you want to know how someone will perform in the future look for almost 11 years this is what i've been doing in the state of texas is creating an environment with our legislature so that our private sector has confidence they can raise capital and under anyone accept the jaundiced eye we have done that. a million jobs have been created in texas while the rest of the country lost 2.5 million. and allowing the states to take over those environmental regulations, allowing the states to deliver health care, medicaid, allowing the states to make decisions from their young people on education policy makes abundant sense to me because

what you will do, bobby jindal was a brilliant governor, she is also a technocrat when it comes to health and human service issues. in congress he has run a university system and he has also run their health and human systems. he is a uniquely qualified individual. bobby will come up with ways to deliver medicaid, whether an optional program or insurance copay. he will come up with a lot of different ideas, and will cross the border and pick and choose which of those will work best in my home state and that's how our founding fathers i believe force of this country as it was growing. i have no idea if they had any idea there would be 50 laboratories of innovation out there, but they realize that the federal government needed to do a few things even stay in the military, secure the border,

look after the general welfare of our country and then the states would -- just as the tenth amendment says. >> that is a good segue if we had governor romney in here a while back. and i asked him the same questionnaire asking you. you plan to romney care and say that's a state's rights issue coupons to your allowing illegal immigrants to get in state tuition and you say that's a state right. can you see the other position on that? >> what i can tell you is here is the difference. i never wrote in a book that i thought that what we did in texas was good for the nation, which is what he did in his first rendition of his book he said romney care is what would be the cure for america.

he wrote it in his book. >> it was in the book and then he took it out in the paperback. that's my point is that i am consistent if nothing else. i have stayed true -- unless i've been wrong and i admit being wrong on the issue of human papillomavirus. i stood up in front of my state first and then the nation and set listen, i handled this wrong. i still hate cancer, i still to think this vaccine should be available but it shouldn't have been done with an executive order should of gone through the legislature. estimate of the house department suggested just the given -- >> at the end of the day i am right on the issue. i was long on the delivery. the difference between romneycare and the issue with the institution -- and i want to address that if i could i've

never said as a matter of fact i said multiple times this truly was an issue for texas i would never go to oklahoma or new mexico or any other state and say this is what you need to do. not on that issue. that is one that to of the state has to deal with. the bigger issue is that we are forced to deal with this because of a federal government to secure the border. i've been dealing with it for better than ten years. i carried border sheriffs to washington to meet with congress to meet with homeland security to talk to people and the last two administrations about the drug cartels and the violence and the moving of weapons and money and drugs and people across the border because the federal government failure to

secure that border. i passed an identification bill and signed into law. i vetoed a driver's license bill. i mean, i have from the standpoint of actual dealing with immigration issues i've got a very strong record, $400 million we have dedicated to border security of the texas tax payers' money. but we have done those things because we have been forced to deal with them because the federal government's failure to act in a secure the border. i know how to secure the border. you're strategic fencing in of these places and there are places along that border strategic fencing where it works well. boots on the ground now, and i'm talking a spectrum of boots on the ground, both military, law enforcement and then i'm talking state, federal and local law enforcement but the key is we are talking earlier while there

is present predators wones there are a couple of predator jones dedicated to the border but that is nowhere near. we need to have enough predator drones on the border look down, looking down real-time giving that information of real time to those boots on the ground. then we will know when there is activity along that border and we can immediately respond to them and at that particular point in time of the individuals involved in a collective cities will know soon that the game has changed. but we have the technology we just don't have a president or the administration that is dictated to securing that border. when the president of the united states comes to el paso as he did earlier of this year and makes the statement of the border is safer than it has ever been, either he has some of the

poorest intelligence or he is telling the american people a known of all. falsehood >> some of your competitors are continuing to harp on these. they are trying to make this issue because there's a different view [inaudible] how do you do that -- >> if i'm right before we get off of the illegal tuition will issue, texas had two choices.

because the federal government failed to secure the border, then the federal government also demands that we get health care and education to these individuals. i don't have the privilege to stand on the sideline and say here's what i would do or here's where you made a mistake. we have to deal with these issues in the real time in our state, and we had two choices. we could kick people to the curb and pick up their cost of being in our state through other sources, social programs including incarceration because the unskilled workers and what might occur in that scenario, or just like we do with anyone else in the state of texas if you've lived in texas for three years, if you've done your high school work, and in the case of these that have been brought by no fault of their own require that

a person's citizenship in the united states, pay for in-state tuition, there is no subsidy this is all in-state tuition, then those individuals become tax paying contributing members of our society and the united states citizens. so, for us it was we want to create tax wager's or taxpayers. >> not in the position to show that illegal immigrants the door and tell them they've got to get out of the country? >> you can't. i mean, we've had that conversation in this country. the idea we are going around 12 million people and say you're out of here? america has had that conversation. it's not going to happen. there may be some people out there that say that's the answer from devotee that's not a u.s. citizen. i'm not going to pander. if becoming president of the united states requires me to change a decision of great

import or candor to a different group then i won't be the president of the united states because i know how to govern the state of texas, and when 181 members of the legislature votes on this issue of how we are going to deal with these individuals and there are only four votes that is the will of the people in the state of texas, and i agree that that is a texas decision, and i stand by that. but i'm not going to change my position by virtue of well i think i will go to new hampshire and say let's build 2,000 miles of fence and that will take care of it because it won't. strategic fencing in places is very important. it works and helps slow down that high traffic area, but obstacle without observation is no obstacle all and you have to

have the observation both boots on the ground but more importantly the technologies that are fascinating and how they work. this is an aside to read i was there for a week ago last sunday, and my instinct is there was a young american pilot watching mr. ghadaffi's compound from there in nevada waiting for the opportunity to impact the regime of. that technology is there and available and we need to direct money to the border with mexico to fight these drug cartels. we know hezbollah, hamas, and now we know the iranians are using mexico as a base of operation in which to penetrate into a very border with the

united states to harm either american citizens or the case of the iranians a saudi diplomat. >> [inaudible] to turn these if you will to taxpayers? >> the issue is to secure the border because once you secure the border and then you start alleviating this number of people come and then we can have a conversation from eight debate, a discussion with congress and the american people about how we are going to bring the individuals who are here who may have been here for 20 or 30 years out of the shadow of the illegalities to deal with the issue. i don't know if i have the --

>> how would you start that conversation as president? >> you're talking about immigration, immigration reform? i think you start looking at some type of a program where people come out of the shadows of the illegality where they were on the basic program. that's from my perspective amnesty is never on the table. i'm not for the dream act, i'm not for amnesty in any form or fashion. i for citizenship the old-fashioned way and that is the reason that we require these people in texas. you have to be working towards united states citizenship. >> one tracks the progress toward citizenship? >> the universities do. that was the way that piece of legislation was written in the university's. and then you don't have the 50 different immigration policies and that is the problem with what we have today with this border is you got arizona which i didn't necessarily agree with

everything about the arizona law. i did join them in the amicus brief to support them and their right to pass that as we did with alabama. but having 50 different immigration laws it's not good public policy needs to have one immigration policy in place for the united states that is actually one of the things that they should be doing, but in lieu of them doing their job, the mistakes to have the right and i respect that right out putting issues into place, what to go back and not put too fine a point on it that the issue of creating a work visa program for individuals here's where you pay your taxes here's where you get a driver's license, here's where you become a contributing member of society because, you know, one of the box on what is going on now is that these individuals

are not paying their fair share and they are taking advantage of the social programs that we have. but again the federal government is forcing the states to deal with this, so i think we can have a debate in this country to find a way for those individuals who are law abiding, who pay taxes, who can contribute to the society to have the ability to move back and forth, and i happen to think we need to get back to having immigration policies that actually look at what are the needs of the work force in this country, and to allow for individuals who can help create highly technical work force in a lot of the different areas that we don't have the engineers etc. and federal government again that is

quite inept it just getting paperwork done. >> i know you talk a lot about your record on jobs in texas and your opponents of stated the unemployment figures in texas being high year in getting hired. how do you explain the two? you created the jobs within the unemployment happened? >> we still keep growing in jobs, and as you would suspect, that's not a secret that texas has created, as we have a huge influx of people coming in the state of texas, but in this environment, even texas has as good a job creation climate as we have created we can't keep up with the influx of people, so just the number out to say your unemployment rate went up to 8.1% or whatever it might be that they were pointing to, yes, but we've created a million jobs in that decade.

>> has nafta and good for the united states? stat yes, sir free trade agreement as a matter of fact i believe with colombia and panama we still have treated three minister sitting and waiting for the president's signature i believe there's one with south korea as well but right here in our own embassy we have to that haven't been signed and i have no idea why. free trade -- americans if you will not overtax them and overregulated them and compete with anybody in the world i truly believe that we can bring manufacturing jobs back from china that have moved their. when the chairman -- the chief executive officer of coca-cola says that it's easier to do business in china than it is in the united states, that says

volumes about how difficult we have needed to do business in this country, and that's where we need to pull these regulations back. we need to audit every one of them since 2008 for their beneficial impact versus the cost and this is an instinct, i know this. we will find that the vast majority of them it cost far outweighs the benefits. >> what about the wage cost in mexico, china and other third world countries how do you compete? >> i think that because the cost of doing business and the united states particularly on the regulatory side is so onerous that we may never compete from the standpoint of the hourly wage, but there are a number of

issues. davis-bacon i would do away with the idea that you have to pay union wages. i'm not anti-union. i am pro jobs. as a matter of fact, i happen to think that if you create an environment in this country where the private sector entrepreneurs feel comfortable they can risk their capital that's good for the unions. that's good for -- i am a right to work state governor. the teamsters endorsed me every election that i have had as governor, and the understand that all i care about creating an environment where jobs can be created because whether you are a non-union worker or you are a union worker there's more jobs out there that's good for your rank-and-file. so, i happen to believe that america can compete again in the manufacturing side, but we can't

if we continue to pass regulations that don't help safety, don't help the care, quality, don't help the water quality, don't improve the environment. all they do is create a cost of compliance that dennett drives the jobs offshore. >> what you do about the global situation we have now where there are companies and multinational companies and they have no particular allegiance to the united states of america? how do you get them to want to rebuild american manufacturing if they are a component there that they don't care in the old days what was good for general motors was good for the country etc., and now you have companies which it's the bottom line wherever the taxes are the least and the lever is the cheapest they are going to go to.

does that figure in at all? >> sure. that's the reason they left to begin with is a was the bottom line and we overtaxed and overregulated them. this is not rocket science. i tell people, i said for a decade in texas we operated with for a pretty simple principles. don't spend all the money, and it's one of the reasons in the balance and growth program i talk about cutting the spending and there's going to be some hard decisions. there's going to be some pain to reduce the spending. i just signed a budget in texas that for the first time since world war ii we cut our spending more than the previous budget come first time since world war ii, and there was smashing of teeth and it's the end of the world. but the job creators will

understand that they get and they are not going to raise our taxes and they are not going to put additional burden to keep more government. >> part of the reason so that you said they went overseas is because we overregulated. they also went overseas because we changed the trade law with and made it easier for them to go offshore to do this. we lowered trade tariffs and barriers to the international trade which free-market economists say has lifted all boats but in the meantime the general electric of the world are doing more of their business over there because it is cheaper, not just because of regulation but because the tariffs are no longer in place which protected their building companies here. >> i happen to believe that when you look at this plan and part of their decisions to leave have been tax loopholes and other

beneficial treatments that corporate america has received. i am for removing all of those. i am for putting up a level playing field for instance on the energy side of things. i don't think we ought to be paying any subsidies or tax credit to any energy source, period. not for wind, solar, not for or real, not for ethanol. they all need to participate on a level playing field. not for solar, either. if the state wants to put into place an incentive to have a particular type of energy developed in that state i don't have a problem with that because states are supposed to compete against each other. be the laboratories of innovation. we put a incentive in place in texas for alternative energy.

the wind energy people said we can go compete in texas and now we are the number one wind energy producing state in the nation. i think it's smart to have a very broad portfolio of energy whether it's wind or solar or nuclear or coal, petroleum or natural gas or whatever the alternative energy source may be, but government, not the federal government doesn't need to be picking winners and losers. the marketplace will do that. states want to compete against each other, i completely and an agreement with that. but these companies that have gone offshore have gone offshore i think for two reasons. tax policy, regulatory and tax loopholes. and we need to remove the tax -- as a matter of fact we need to remove all three of those from my perspective flat 20%

corporate income tax rate, have the regulatory climate reduced where they know there's going to be stability and predictability in the environmental community, and then have those tax loopholes gone. there is a reason she doesn't pay any taxes. they've had a really good lobbyists and those need to be removed. you need to have a president that will stand up and basically have the courage to do that, have the courage to veto the spending bills spending more money than what we have coming in. >> governor, who is marcus? >> marcus -- >> the guy with the black bean who didn't cast it? >> marcus futrell. >> what is his story in connection with your family? >> he is a former navy seal who wrote the book lone survivor and

we had a family meeting we figuratively each had a white bean and a black bean about whether or not i was going to be a candidate for the presidency and we talked about all of the implications that our lives would be changed forever that sydney, the young right out of college 24-year-old, her life would be forever changed. griffin who's just married and would have to probably change his company work because he couldn't help his dad and they all agreed that the country was worth making that sacrifice for. >> apco in afghanistan? >> he's been a navy seal in a lot of different places. afghanistan was the place that it occurred where his four-man

team he was the only one to come off of the mountain. i hope he will get a copy of it. it's a great tribute to american heroism roi. he really did not want me to do this hot from the standpoint >> personal, family? >> i read this in the parade magazine and a big hullabaloo was raised the other day because you answered a question relative to president obama on his birth certificate, and i heard this on the radio the national sandinista radio and i went back to parade to find this and i couldn't find it. it was only in the online thing. one does that say about the editor? that the editor was done or

maybe this wasn't a big issue? >> it wasn't a big issue. as a matter of fact i think i have had the dinner with donald trump the night before, and it was more of a humorous back-and-forth. he is a funny fellow, and i can't speak for him. he may think that the birth certificate is a real issue. i think frankly it is a humorous issue that the media would become so focused on that i think it is a rather destructive issue. i'm pretty sure people are a lot more interested in how you are going to get to the dignity of the job. >> the are interested in the obama birth certificate and other herman cain's campaign manager smoke according to the national news. [laughter]

five monopolized this. i want to ask you one last question. what are we doing in afghanistan? >> porth i think we are fighting the wrong kind of war at this particular point in time. having been there on multiple locations, having had a number of conversations with young men who are under my command until i followed them to the federal government to go and serve that the change of rules of engagement to think this is a special operations to the floor mat particularly as our technology advances so quickly being able to find a summit in london -- osama bin laden, to find ghadaffi come to find all of these individuals were not

found because we had huge massive numbers of troops on the ground. now, we need to be able to train of the afghan forces to be built to defend and protect their country, and there is some time line out there to bring our troops home and transition that country's protection over to the afghan security forces. i don't know when that is. and even if i did, we wouldn't be having that conversation in public. i think the president has made a huge error too late to his base it to say i'm going to bring everybody home on x date. we have the ability to impact the war on terror and a

substantially smaller footprint than we are engaged in today. when we reduce that footprint and how needs to be coordinated with commanders on the ground but again, i would substantially increase the amount of funding for our technological research and development side of the military. i would never put the military's budget on the chopping block from the standpoint of we are going to cut this percentage. the question shouldn't be what are we to of both -- honchar we going to cut out of the military budget. the question should always be what is it going to cost to keep this country secure? and so that's not to say that

there aren't places that we need to have good solid discussions about reductions of places that may not be inappropriate expenditures on the military budget but the r&d shouldn't be one of them. that's how we stay hopefully ahead of the chinese, but all of our foreign policy issues go back to one thing and that is if we don't first of an economy that allows us to have the resources to pay down this debt and create the wealth to drive this country, drive this country forward, then foreign policy really doesn't matter. >> host: you said you were not a great debater. if you get the nomination you are going up against a really glib and slicked sharp guy.

how are you going to beat him in the country if you can't be a great debater? >> if the american people what a great debater and live and slick politician, i don't think the last three years is going to be very good proof of how that has worked out for us. >> but isn't that a lot of people make their judgment? >> i don't think so. i mean i truly don't think so. i think that in 2008 was the most interesting election cycle, and when you are sitting at home and your wife and children are sitting around the kitchen table or in the living room together and you don't have a job, i don't care how glib, houseleek or house mood that politician is. when there's s