you have to be honest about the choices and doug is proposing we take income taxes zero. it's 40% of the state budget. >> medicaid is voter protected so if you want to seek a zero income tax you will have to cut k-12 education.

>> i said i would like to improve our tax code. i think we should have a tax code that looks like somebody wrote it on purpose and i think we should simplify our tax code flatten it and make it more fair. my opinion it's the viewers money. they have earned it and i want them to keep more of it. we can go in a better direction with our tax code that is going to take time. it's going to take a term or two as governor and it's going to take a growing economy and a more effective government. >> threat you propose $4 million in additional spending. >> that's a ridiculous notion. what i'm saying is we should enforce a supreme court which is the voters are clear in their intentions that we pay back these schools were the cuts we took. you want to appeal it. you want to defy the order. you are looking for every opportunity. the question started with you opposed it.

they would have been more cuts or schools. every opportunity we had to make a commitment to education you have been on the other side. >> i have sat on the board for teach for america and trust me there's a state university. i want to spend the dollars responsibly and get them to the classroom to support the teacher not just blow more money to these brocker seas. >> what we have got to talk about is redefining education in arizona. we are last in the nation and our nation is down there in the world like 39th or 41st. we used to be number one and a lot of it has been they have gotten us away from the competitive schools. that's the whole way that innovation and imagination comes into play. i'm sure we are going to talk about common core at some point but when you are talking about funding its really not about the money. it's about restructuring it. i do when we have lots of money going into the schools because of jan brewer restocked tuition

for college going up incredibly. how did that translate to the students quickly think of more ubiquitous ubiquitous kind of education is a lot smarter. m.i.t. started it. you can't argue with them is distance learning for you can get a far better education than the brick-and-mortar counterparts without the spreading of disease and without the spreading of bad behavior in the logistics of security in all the other stuff that comes with these government schools. >> i note you have got connections here but you had better have a lot of connections to make up for hundreds of millions of dollars year after year. >> i have a nonof this plan which is a plan that i created and will take people to the dream of the business of growing their existing business and put them into the five-year plan for they can go public if they would like to end retire and become ceos. my plan is that solid and not good greatest barzee industry, the hemp industry that is not a

smokeable plant. >> but it's a product that will replace everything from rubber to fiberglass and that's huge. that's an industry well into the trillions of dollars. >> do you think the idea of doing a tax on marijuana. >> that's legalizing cannabis and we should do that as well. we should go ahead and legalize it and tax it like we do alcohol. >> dug the gap is growing and we are going the wrong direction. the national average seems to be increasing. or go -- job recovery is not where the national averages. what's going on out there? >> these issues should weigh on all of us and we want to point out to these people are. these are our seniors. these are our single mothers and their children. it's unacceptable. my commitment is to serve all arizonians so we can have a better future in the way to do this to have an economy that's growing. i want people to imagine in

arizona where existing businesses are growing and hanging out help wanted signs and were companies look to arizona look to arizona's look to arizona's are perfectly suited different -- this is something leaders do. i want to go to california and bring businesses here. where are ready chicago's favorite suburb. the businesses are going to indiana florida and texas. let's bring them to arizona. that's how we will get the economy going in the right direction and let people out of poverty. >> moderator: what do you think the reason is that the poverty rate is higher in the job recovery rate is lower. >> the poverty rates are going down in the rest of the country and going up in arizona and that's why think we are headed in the wrong direction. our economy is not recovering the way we needed to an increasingly what i hear from businesses looking to relocate around the country as they look at the tax rate and see arizona has made progress and they look at the regulatory environment

and they say it's not bad and then they get to the core question will my employees have the talent i need to be successful? will my children and employees children have good schools to go to? we have to be able to answer that question. we have to show them a commitment to our schools and the scots. today there are 500 classrooms with no permanent teacher. the largest class-size as i said in the united states. we are not making the assurances that businesses need to see from us. >> moderator: you have talked about tax cuts repeatedly. i'm sure you're aware of what's happening in kansas. implemented tax cuts in their growth is zero. have a budget deficit as high as it is in the nation. they have schools closing and classes closing and teachers bailing out. so what we want? >> that's kansas. let's talk about taxes, let's talk about florida. let's talk about comparable states where people are already moving to. we need to know how to educate a child in the state.

we have three of the top 10 high schools in the country more than any other state in the nation. no other state has that. we are spending $10 billion for 1 million schoolchildren in many places we know how to do it well but the last decade there has been a decreasing percentage of resources going to the classroom to support our teachers. that's going in the wrong direction. i want to see every available education and supporting teachers teaching and student learning. that's where you make the difference. >> can you compare arizona with texas, florida arkansas when it comes to low or zero income taxes? >> my plan calls for eliminating the income tax and personal property tax on a moral basis. you can authorize government even if they are government and they come with a gun and they say it's for children. how do we raise the money? i propose the transaction tax to

be cap combined with a single tax on businesses. for% on the gross no deduction. i will create the environment to bring the jobs here and the money here. we can't have politicians going and picking and choosing who they are going to visit and try to get them to come here. we have got to create an atmosphere where we are very business-friendly and open and honest and i think i would be very important. along with that we have to fund their education of course but i think we have gone overboard on education trying to teach all of our students everything about every job when in fact we should narrow the focus to be able to learn, the skills to learn so they master those and allow the corporations to come in and then further the education for what they specifically need. it makes better sense to pinpoint the education at that point been trying to teach everyone everything and is not going to work. >> i would argue comparing texas is apples-to-oranges.

property taxes are different. i can you care -- compare arizona to texas and florida when you have kansas sitting out there like a sore upon? >> i don't think any of them compare. they are all different states and they have different geographical differences. the states don't compare, the students do not compare. the tax cuts can compare because we have different needs and different ones. i can tell you clearly how we can take someone, any people that want to create jobs. i detail exactly where the funding comes from. >> the water company? >> i detail where the money would come for the water company to be a local company if you want. >> i think it's more important to get government out of the way. we signed california two weeks

ago where they repeal where they repealed one law and created 1000 businesses in three days. that's how government creates businesses is by getting out of its way and allowing it. >> i think kansas is a warning sign to avoid a race to the bottom and their complete collapse in the bond market and they are investing in their schools. employers are very concerned they won't have the workforce they need. the schools are making massive cuts. we want to stop the cuts and get back to investing in our children's future. >> the big spenders want to take one year and become an alarmist. there are nine states in the country that have a better more preferable tax code. not only are we comparable to places like florida and wyoming and new hampshire we are competitive. states compete and governors compete. these companies are leaving california and illinois and are looking for a place to go. we have a quality of life or

this is a great place to live work play recreate retired visit the many places did in education. we have to stop the blame arizona first mentality. as governor polsinelli are stated and talk to leaders business owners and influencers and we will drive our economy in the right direction. >> i hear what you are saying but california is just the devil on the west coast esparza business and economics. they are always at the top of job creation and always at the top of wages. companies are moving to california to benefit from a variety of things that it seems like an arizona we are still debating on things like education and such. how do you square that? >> california is driving people and producers out. this is not a well-run state. this is than the largest growth in our state net migration from california and illinois to the state of arizona.

they are doing everything they can to kill the golden goose fair. it may not be good for the country but for the next decade until they straighten her direction now the governor of arizona should take full advantage of it. i just visited the company last week that moved here from california. they couldn't take the tax burden or the quality of life. >> how to explain the fact that california leads in job creation and all these other metrics and we don't? >> they invest in their universities. those are gifts that keep giving because they are going after 21st century innovation in biotech and health silicon valley etc.. the idea that we can beat texas on the data, they have -- they capture their revenue someplace else. the pressure would probably go to the school district or a sales tax.

if you're going to repealed 40% of states revenue you either cut education which is what i believe he's going to do or take it someplace else. >> that's a distortion of my record but now we do have a clear choice. we know the model state is california in my model statist texas. i will take the path the rick perry and you can take the path of jerry brown. rick perry retires at november 14. texas has led the nation in economic development job creation and business relocation. i want to be an ex-governor in november of 2014. i believe arizona can lead the way in that direction. >> i did not say that. i said investing in education is something that is worked across the country. it's time for us to make sure children have the skills to succeed in life. your proposal to cut educatio education -. >> i am saying that i want to settle this lawsuit but i want to see these dollars go into the classroom.

i have no power to set up a lawsuit. >> i would much rather pay teachers than pay lawyers so yes but the baseline on the lawsuit is important. we have scarce funds and i want to make sure we can be responsible going forward. i would sit down and this is a hypothetical. it's dangerous in a debate that i would like to put the appropriate amount of money and k-12 education but any executive would ask where these dollars being spent and how we best serve our teachers and children? >> so you would take the settlement? >> no i said i would settle the lawsuit. i want to negotiate the baseline. the baseline is important. the offers on the table. >> i am open-minded. i'm open-minded to a settlement. i want to see us have a smaller baseline to protect her budget going forward but you have

$4 billion in general funding. >> stop it. >> fred if that's math at least at my house it delivers a buck or 200 my sons below. at your your house they leave an iou because there won't be any money left but the amount of spending you have in front. >> my 6-year-old lost his tooth last week and i assure you he got his money. >> you-all mother to carry is not real. >> we have to be careful at looking at job creation in california. they get a lot of them because of more legislation and that's what's making that whole circus go around. they're not long-term high-paying jobs.

>> but the circus is going around as opposed to standing outside with a ticket in your hand waiting to get into a circus. >> requires higher taxes and more legislation. >> well is that an option? >> now with me. >> what about you? >> if you are picking states i would pick arizona. arizona would have success that did not party politics getting that way. someone with a good idea should not have to bribe it republican or democrat to get a vote to make something good happen for state. that is why we are at rock bottom. >> john is right. ever since i got here in 1980 the border issue has been exactly the same. not a republican and not a democrat has moved to correct anything or change anything but the same is true of our education system. we have got to really step back and take an intelligent look at reshaping our government how it interacts with the people. i think that's really critical.

>> the way everyone is talking i'm amazed anyone lives in the state of arizona. this is a great state. i ask in every room who was born somewhere besides the stated verizon that it seems like 70% of the hands go up. we need to bring businesses here. we need to maximize the population growth and economic development job creation and when more companies coming here ted and is very doable. the chief executive who will be accountable for this can make it happen. >> lets get executive government out of the way so businesses can come in. >> we hear a lot about this cutting income taxes and giving corporate tax credits in tax credits and these sorts of things. republicans have been in power for quite a while at the capitol only of seeing these things going through. when are we going to get the arizona turnaround? >> when you get a libertarian governor who will break the tie in this gridlock and take some sensible action based on the idea is not the party.

i'm literally the only one in the race that can walk the aisle without fear of political repercussion or reprisal and i have brought all the groups together just last year in an historic moment. over 35 years and 35 tries putting forward his citizens referendum on some of the most egregious laws that have ever been devised trying to steal the elections. we turned it back on them and made them beat it. it took everyone from the super liberals to the super conservatives and i was the only one they did bring that together as an architect of it. >> i am the other guy, the one that has no ties who doesn't care about a political life. i'm the guy that has the plans written down. i know i'm beyond a longshot. let's just say i'm not elected. everyone here agrees to at least hear me out on the sum of this plan because it's the only thing that's going to save arizona right now. legalizing hemp would be a great plus.

it would take us from zero to hero. >> i want to get back to what doug was talking about regarding people badmouthing arizona. those arizona, what is arizona's image around the country? we have heard the of jokes on some programs and yet people keep living here. >> i love arizona. i love every part of arizona. we have an opportunity to remind the rest of the country how innovative we are, how much we are a startup economy what a great environment this is to start businesses and grow what we have to answer the question about public education if we are going to get the kind of job growth we have had in the past and want in the future. >> do you think arizona has an image of intolerance? >> no i do not. i think we have issues in the state of arizona but whenever you are in a state where so many people have moved here from all across the country have a place that's warm and welcoming and

optimistic were good things can happen but there've been some folks that are communicated some issues that i would do differently and that is what i talk about what i say want to take charge of the direction of our state. there's only one candidate is the table that is built the brand that is known and loved drama country. i think of arizona in many ways is a blank slate. this is a great place in so many ways. i want to communicate that out. >> you think there's no reason to attempt to repair arizona? >> i think we have to go forward. you were here in 19951 someone was striking down martin luther king day. the nfl took the super bowl away. we are going to have january were the eyes of the world will be focused on her stay. there's nothing like a new governor to set a new tone and a new direction. >> i think it did do damage to her reputation and thank goodness the governor got right in the end. that was an event we could

renegotiate. these things are culturally divisive and bad for describing who we are. we are at our place. we need to celebrate our diversity, grow with our diversity and make sure we are communicating a place where talent no matter who they are. >> would you look again at 1062? >> i said that i would veto that but i said within the issue i'm going to bring people to the table. i built the broadest coalition of anyone in this race. you heard when i kicked off tonight is that this is a democrat sitting state legislator. catherine miranda has joined my campaign. i'm reaching across the aisle to show i will do us in the best interests of all arizonans. my campaign is about opportunity for all. i'm running to be the governor voca people and you can tell a lot about how someone will govern by how the campaign and our coalition is something you want to continue to broaden. i said i would listen to

everybody just like they listen to parents and teachers across the state. >> i agree with doug on this. my coalition includes hundreds and i included a full-page ad that included 20 some elected republican legislators. we built the phoenix freeway system. we did the groundwork of some of the greatest bipartisan achievements in the state of arizona. we were growing in succeeding in a bipartisan collaborative way. i have carry that experience in my life and as a result i'm a problem solver and i can demonstrate my capacity to the collaborate with both parties. >> i can see it problem with that just saying bipartisan. there are more than two and that arrogance is pervasive. i think that's ridiculous but when you are talking ted about the reputation of verizon i think most people separate our more colorful personalities from arizona itself because they hear

from all of us. it's a great place. we have great weather other than yesterday in the day before. >> our businesses hearing that? >> business is not so much because they are not excited about her diplomas meaning virtually nothing. let's go to competency test. it doesn't matter for you get your education. we don't care. we just want to make sure you are educated and you pinpoint your weak spots so you can actually work on them without the whole blanket idea. i think we have got to bring businesses with the idea saying we are going to do something different. we enjoy being arizonans and here's what we are going to offer corporate america bring your own schools here and teach the kids what they need to know to work for you. >> your investment ideas can work if arizona doesn't have a strong enough image that attracts business. >> yes because they are based on arizonans becoming the people they want to be.

not at all if arizona wants to sit around living on minimum wage or welfare whatever it might be. there are millions of people in their zone of the want to. we have dodd-frank. we need to get beyond that. we need to work above and across and totally squashed that law. >> let's get to immigration laws. no drivers for undocumented status with the idea being the rule of law has to be applied at some point. is that valid? >> i think this is a mistake. 48 states allow dreamers to drive and we should join the rest of the nation. there are important reasons why. the streamers are part of our community. they have been successful here. they have served in the military or they are going to school. it's in our interest that they be all that they can be and they contribute to our economy and beans as successful in life that they can be. will be the first thing i do as

governors to repeal this coalition. it's important for public safety reasons that they be ensured for everybody's safety but this has been a divisive way of treating members of our community and it's bad policy and i will change it. >> do you agree with the governor's decision to? >> i believe we need to step back and look at how we got here. the discussions around border security and medicaid -- immigration. it isn't really one party's ball. this is the federal government that is not paid attention to its first duty to arizona. i have agreed with the governor's decision because i'm going to have respect and compassion for everyone but i don't think anyone gets the privileges and benefits of hard-working arizona families that are paid for by hard-working arizona taxpayers. we are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws. >> critics say it's a mean-spirited move and counterproductive. how do you respond? >> i say to our federal

government what you're doing on our southern border? we have a state that has a wide-open and unprotected border in the tucson sector and this has been going on for years. we have border patrol agents by the thousands that are in a state that they are not inside the border counties. i would like to see us be able to work not only with our county sheriffs, our law enforcement agents so that we can address some of the real issues that are happening in the states and then we can deal with some of the other issues around immigration. >> so not mean-spirited and not counterproductive? >> i want to start the border security and then talk about immigration. >> it is counterproductive and mean-spirited and it's bad economically. we want to make sure the streamers invalid and should be to our economic growth and success. they are part of our community and it's important to give them

the tools they need. >> really quickly do you think dreamers should be deported? >> i never said that. i said i'm for opportunity for all of our state in a subtype of governor want to be but i have talked about the priorities is how i would like to see the issue unfold. >> so the law at some point no deportation? >> i said let's start with border security. >> i have at the opportunity to travel in a lot of a lot of countries in drive and i took their test and got the driver's licenses like fred has said so you can get insurance. otherwise people are still going to drive except they are going to drive uninsured. that's a big issue these days. it's not just the dreamers either. anyone should be able to come here on a visitors pass on if they want to work we can tag them with 5% which i propose for nonnationals working here to go into a fund if they want education or medical care or whatever they want. let them do that for access to

our markets rather than impose it on american taxpayers. that is where the distinctions have to be made. government unfortunately does not run like a business. there runs the opposite of the business and that would become scary. you've got to know how to spend money and that's what you have got to know what government. with the business you have to know how to make money. >> do you want to see government run like a business? >> we can't run it like a business because there's no profit. we need to break even and we are not even doing that because we need those businesses to exist to pay and the taxes and as i was stating before the property taxes from businesses that are not normally taxed. >> again the idea of running government like a business does that sound palatable to you? is a something you think government should look harder at? >> there are elements of business that apply to government but it's a different function. government isn't it function of

safety and creating private sector opportunity. i did that on the board of regents and proposed an entirely new funding system that moved to her productivity based metric. those are applicable to state agencies. >> i asked the question because businesses in the business make a profit. government isn't the business of service. do you really want to run government like a business? >> businesses are intended to grow and businesses are intended to make a profit but what you can do with the government is there are business principles like paying the proper attention to the people in which it serves. our hard-working taxpayers, on being accountable and actually living within your means. when you are in a business setting a budget actually mean something and government oftentimes it doesn't.

i think those business principles meaning what you say and saying what you mean paying attention and serving in this case not the customer but the taxpayers i think is the best principles of government that you can add from the business community. >> let's go to dark money. dewars on a boaters no matter who's paying for the ads attacking you or attacking you do we deserve to know that? >> i wish there was full disclosure of who was part of dark money. i issued a challenge, please join me in calling out the dark money and saying don't come here. we will conduct this campaign to candidates voices. no one took me up on the offer but this has become very corrosive to our ability to have an exchange of ideas between candidates. it's been taken over by people who are nameless and faceless and don't even live here and don't know the candidates are the issues. >> how do you find out the names and faces?

>> they should be disclosed and we should have state and federal laws that require disclosure. they're not going away. under the current supreme court protocols so the best thing we can do is to get them expose. >> i would like to see transparency as well. i think it's distressing that fred said that because you are the money ad for the democratic governors association the same organization that's running these ads. you are the person i collected the money to buy these ads in your past career. i'm curious as to your position now. >> we have had millions of dollars spent by the republican governors association to attack may come in millions of dollars and before that in the primary you did that with christine jones and you have been succeeding by tearing down your opponents. i think we should just stop it. this is about creating affirmative agenda for summit. >> i want people to judge me by

what's coming out of my campaign a pro job creation message. fred we we are both playing by the same rules but i'm new to politics. people know what i have done with my career. i've been selling ice cream and you have been peddling influence. you have been a lawyer and a lobbyist and you have been a democratic bagman for these ads in the past. >> you know my background because it's completely open. everything that i've done my life is public. you sold a business that -- what happens in that arbitration? people need to know whether or not you were accused of material worse -- misrepresentation? >> what was there was the people that purchase cold stone creamery said there was complete satisfaction that i built a great company. >> everything about my background is public. >> would you expose your list of

clients for lobbyist? >> doug beyer on your tv ads. they are all on your tv ads. i would like to know what happened with the arbitration of whether or not you will answer the question where you accused for holding material? you did not answer my question. >> when we talk about dark money we are talking about money that's not supposed to be coordinated with the campaigns. i would think it would be a great penalty of any of these groups because they have the right to expression of course if they did coordinate with them it would disqualify the candidate and make it something serious. even more so there's dark money in front of god and everybody and it's like the two debates that john and i were excluded from on channel 10 and channel 12. that is in-kind advertising for the republicans and democrats. that's all it is. that's a stark as it gets.

the rest of the money is shameless. >> by question is when it comes to these ads that are attacking these two gentlemen should we be able to know who is behind at? >> we know who is behind the ads. democrats and republicans. >> a little deeper than that. >> the individuals are tied to democratic and republican parties. that is where the trouble comes from and that's where it'll stay. >> all right let's move on. texas expansion/restoration. if arizona do the right thing? >> the governor and the legislature have done what they have done and i've spoken out aggressively against obamacare and that i'm no fan of it. i think it's a disaster and a monumental failure but as our governor what i want to focus on is the budget situation so that we are spending the proper dollars to restore k-12 education and to move our economy and the right direction.

i'm not a big fan of an expansion of government. what we have right now is a three-year guarantee from our federal government. this is something our next governor will have to look for ways to improve and reform. some ideas i have for that or price transparency in health savings accounts and that's how i'm going to do with a going forward. >> at the legislature passed a repeal of the expansion restoration hypothetically what would you do? >> if you look at our project my first job will be protecting arizona taxpayers because we do have a guarantee from the federal government. i think we would not want to do that. >> you would not repeal it at least not for the next three years. >> an opportunity that i would like to dive in on this is for reform to have a better program. everyone wants to have access to a superior health care system. i want to see that as well. i just don't think our federal government has done a good job in delivering that.

>> you said the governor and legislature did what they did. it's what they did a good thing? >> i'm running on the issues of the future. i would have wanted to tinker with reform. some of the states have gone for waivers en bloc grants. our innovative and inventive but i think our government -- governor was not -- she was leader in the case and i have said what i have said. >> what do you think? is that a good enough answer for you? >> it didn't answer the question as to how we would handle the repeal. this is a legislature that wants to repeal the restoration of medicaid in the next governor will have to make a decision. doug has a variety of decisions. he was silent on medicaid and now he -- i've had one position on this through my life. i helped build access in the 80s. it's a national best practice. extremely proud of the bipartisan coalition that negotiated this out and took it

to the white house and received the first waiver of the kind that enabled us to do this successful model. the restoration was the right idea and a bipartisan team of legislators that the government to put together. to repeal it will devastate health care and knock hundreds of thousands of arizonans off of their health care. would be a very harmful thing to do. >> we have an access problem here which is second to none. everybody wants to get on access. unfortunately they are. that becomes a big problem because $1000 a month or more per person on it becomes a real burden to the taxpayers that i would like to see the taxpayers absorbing some of the risk of being alive like we used to. we do have to scale back access. it's not a plus to say it's growing and expanding. it is like a welfare program, now we have 50,000 people on it. that is an abysmal failure as far as i'm concerned. we don't want people on the

government dole or dependent on government because like we saw with the access to the welfare cards in maryland they shut down for a weekend and it drove people into a panic because people were totally dependent on government. i want to see in arizona where we get back to the self responsibility and may take care of ourselves and we encourage others to do that so when the power goes out we have a battery pack on our house so we don't go out. i think that kind of forward-thinking is a smart idea. i want to make arizona a fun place to live where we are innovative not just trying to hold onto the past and see what we have got now. >> we can do better. access has its problems right now. they're cutting people off of access that have cancer and certain treatments are cut off. that is where we are sitting. we can't deal with that type of a system. we can do better. i have a very detailed plan in

my book that explains how we can get the best insurance for every arizona and plus some. >> i think it should be health care. i saw this whole argument switchover to let's give everybody insurance. i want to revitalize the county hospital programs that people are dying in the street. but is not government's responsibility to cover them for insurance for crying out loud. >> more people are injured because of the expansion. the care of the hospitals is getting to be a more tenable situation. is that again a bad thing for arizona at? >> whenever we have more people that are protected i think that's a good thing. my concern is what happens over the course of time? that's why i talk talk about health care system that's putting the patient in charge of the doctor patient relationship or that the employer insurance company. think there's an opportunity for improvement in american health

care that comes from the government. i think we have the best system in the world but i don't think we have the best distribution system. what we have seen is a redistribution of insurance benefits and i think we can do better. there are many doctors refusing to take access. why do we want to put more people on insurance program that many doctors don't want to accept? we can do better and that's the point. >> i think the circuit breakers a good idea. i worked with governors across the united states and i'm very confident that the federal government will not walk away from its commitment. the reimbursement rate in access is very high. they do have three years we have got the circuit breaker but we have got a 90% reimbursement rate. it's arizona taxpayer money that will go to the states around the set of taken the opportunity to

do restoration. >> did fred just say he's confident the federal government will not walk away from its commitment to? >> we have the circuit breaker and i believe we need to move forward and not repeal it. >> i just don't think the federal government, they are going to help us. >> what i do believe is the circuit breaker is the right tool and we should not use the fear around this issue to not take advantage of this opportunity to stabilize our economy to ensure health care opportunities and to do it with reimbursement. >> talk about tools that makes more sense to get government out of people's health care because the estimates are burning between 60 and 80% drop in all aspects of health care. these are from people who do the compliance and all that nonsense but the whole point would be we would be able to handle our health care out of her hip pocket. i think that makes more sense

than devising these convoluted insurance programs. >> we are running out of town. very quickly talk about the federal government that they would take their end of the organ. how was arizona supposed to work with things like your immigration and other aspects where our relationship with the federal government is important that we have an antagonistic toward? >> first we will have new leadership in the federal government in two years and in the interim i want to make the case for what we want to do in the state of arizona and i'm willing to work with them. the endorsement i announce shows that i will reach across the aisle. i want to be the governor that brings the most innovative and inventive ideas. what i would like to did do was get her dollars back in the state so we can be in charge of many of these programs. i will work with the federal government but i'd like to be the governor of the state and take charge of the direction not have it run through washington d.c.. >> very quickly some folks i

believe think it's a federal intrusion. how do you avoid that federal intrusion on working with the federal government? >> you have to speak for arizonans and frequently washington d.c. is out of touch. it doesn't understand there are some night and arizona's governor has an important role to play in making sure what is unique to arizona, that they respect what is unique about arizona and we can chart our own destiny. it's who we are. we are pioneers and innovators and we have to have that kind of voice but the same time we have to have a functional relationship with the federal government to make it work. >> each candidate will get a one minute closing statement and going in reverse order of the opening remarks we start with barry hess. >> writers want to say hope everyone has seen a good debate here and you've gotten ideas of our personalities and you understand there's this whole idea of growing government by both the republicans and democrats as a poison cake. mit's goodenow and the we will

offer universalize but it's going to haunt all of us that i want to ask everyone to please go to hess for governor.com and see complete issues where we have put them up there for people and is pretty serious. on common core it's an idea that wants to homogenize all of education. that is what destroys education. what made us great with their innovation and are competition. when i was a kid we used avail to say that my school is better than your school and get back it up. with common core the kids say my school was just like yours. please don't let that future verizon arrest on sameness and their lack of innovation. i ask for your boat. >> thank you very much. doug ducey with his closing remarks. >> my name is doug ducey and i do want to be an ex-governor. it's been great joining you for this debate that i'm running under real world experience as a businessman and a job creator. i've spent the last nearly four

years managing $12.5 billion of your assets that by any measurement are in better condition and growing faster than they were just a short time ago. i built the broadest coalition of any candidate and i will continue to reach out. you can tell a lot about how someone will govern by how they will campaign. i'm proud to have catherine moran on my team and i'm proud in a spirited primary to have everyone every one of my republican opponents endorsing his campaign unifying the party moving forward. i want to be an independent voice to kickstart our economy so they are arizonans that have been displaced by the downturn can find a job and a fulfilling career. i want to restore the greatness of our k-12 education system and i want to take charge of the direction of our state. doug ducey.com and doug ducey on facebook if you are more information. thanks for having me. >> thank you and now for next closing statement we turn to john mailer. >> hi i am john mealer, j. l.

mealer.com if you want to check out my web site. we have arizona needs to runners on the creditably the parties are acting in the best interest. they are located in d.c. or outlying areas. that is where the money is coming from and i don't think there's really a debate. is the money paying for the candidates or elected officials later? it will be paying definitely for elected officials. we have been in statehood and it has not changed. d's play for d's and r's play for r's. we need someone who can create jobs as a plan on the table someone that's willing to do what needs to be done and doesn't have a -- to worry about. >> thank you very much and fred duvall with his closing statement.

>> thank you ted. we have a lot of work to do in arizona but we are filled with opportunities to do that. it all starts with making sure that all of our children have tools to succeed and we need to stop the cuts to our education system to provide that kind of future. my vision is in arizona where test scores are going up, where class sizes are coming down where teachers are paid a livable wage so they stay in the classroom and give our students the skills they need to succeed, where we transform our education system in a way that provides the skill and work for the future. when we do that businesses will come in new technologies will come. they are covering for an educated workforce for the future and that's the kind of arizona we want. it means jobs and means opportunities in a new day for a summit. thank you. >> thank you candidates and that is it for now. i am ted simonton thank you so

much for joining us. you have a great evening. >> of obama obamacare we are losing our choice of doctors a higher deductible higher premium pay. that inhibits or choices and that is something that virginia holds dear. >> health care is going to get more expensive. it's going to be more costly for small businesses. this administration has put a big damper on our way of life and our love of freedom. >> i am shelly moore capito and i approve this message.

>> when she was a week old our daughter delaney had open-heart surgery that saved her life. friends family and folks across west virginia. with us. the insurance company called her. existing condition. i know health care reform wasn't done right. there is a lot i will do to make it better for west virginia but i will never go back to the days of leading insurance companies deny coverage to her children. i am natalie tennant and i approve this message. >> said to say we are seeing politics that is worse. my opponent is attacking my personal integrity but that's that are blatantly false. i'm disappointed but not surprised because she has shown from the start that she will say and do anything. it's leaving voters on purpose just to get elected is not a west virginia value. i'm going to fight just as hard for mine as i have for all of west virginia is. i am shelly moore capito and i approve this message. >> i am natalie tennant and i

approved this message. >> what do we know about congresswoman shelly moore capito? he helped bankers get rich. in return they have given her nearly $2 million but there's more. west virginians were losing their jobs and savings to wall street she gave her husband a wall street banker insider tips and they make more than $100,000. congresswoman capito keeps getting richer and west virginians pay the price. >> i am kay hagan and you have seen a lot about me lately. our state special-interest are spending millions distorting my record that i approve this message because i'm tough enough to keep taking the punches that

you deserve to hear what i'm really about. fighting to create jobs and build an economy that works for everyone standing up for our troops and veterans and protecting medicare and social security so the next time you see those false attack ads ask yourself, whose side are they on? >> my first job, a paper route. at 15 i was a short order cook. instead of college i went to work, got my degree two decades later. 25 years in business at ibm. my story is not special. and american happens all the time that the train wreck in washington but satirist. i am tom tillis and i approve this message. washington has it wrong but americans can make it right. >> i am anna and i'm from black mountain. education was my way out but i worry it won't be for my kids.

under tom tell us' leadership they have cut textbook binding so much that i can't help my son with his homework. i think it's clear that tom tillis wants only a certain class of people to have opportunities. i'm a middle-class mom. his agenda is tax cuts for the wealthy and that's not working for my family. >> i am kay hagan and i approve this message. >> see those ads attacking tom tillis? they are false. tell us fire the staffers. do you know who's paying for the sleazy as? is harry reid. reid is trying to fool republican voters meddling in our primary. the press is that democrats feared to list lose the most. tell us by the conservative revolution to raleigh and that's when he we need him in washington. don't be fooled by harry reid. >> i'm tom tillis and i approve this message.

>> louisiana -- louisiana governor bobby jindal presented his plan in washington d.c.. the governor criticized the president's foreign-policy strategy and spoke about national security and the american enterprise institute. this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> hello everybody. thank you for joining us here today. i am. hess: -- danielle pletka at the american enterprise institute. we are very pleased and honored to welcome governor bobby jindal here to the american enterprise is to to to give a talk on rebuilding american defense. governor general has an enormous lead impressive bio, so impressive in fact that i'm not going to go through all of it with you here today. quickly he is in his second term of its governor of louisiana. he represent way sam's first district in the house of representatives was his freshman class president in the house and while the rest of his biois available on our web site as will be the text of his talk here today. after the governor speaks he will sit down for a chat with the codirector of aei where the center for security studies and take questions from the audience. you all may ask why is the

governor of louisiana giving a talk on defense here at aei? setting aside the american servicemen and women who are based in or are from louisiana i want to point to a larger reas reason. the world is falling apart just in case you hadn't noticed. from hong kong to crimea to the south china sea to libya, syria, iraq, yemen, iran, mali somalia, liberia and i could go on here. this maelstrom of war, terror, death and disease has implications for every american not just for white house political strategist. as we had a e. i have been the alarm on this issue for some time now i am delighted that this is an issue that more americans are beginning to think about because the fallout from these crises if they continue unmanaged, if we fail to lead

leave, if we cannot afford to leave will affect every one of us. [applause] >> thank you all very much. thank you for that generous introduction. i want to thank or hosted aei and the terrific work you do not only an issue we are going to talk about the several topics as well but i want to recognize and thank the co-author of the paper we are releasing today that goes into greater detail on the topic we will talk about today. thank you for your friendship and leadership on these important issues. as we draw to a close of a politically relevant portion of the obama presidency figures in which the president have had the power to get anything done in the interest in doing it. we are at a point where we can assess the nation and the world that president obama is leading

us. much of the recent media coverage of the obama presidency has focused on the frustrations of the president with the political process. time and again he turns to the third person to explain the ineffectiveness of his leadership. it's always day who stand against us. day who botched obamacare, day who underestimated the threat suffices. this president there is always somebody else to blame. for all that has been written about president obama's negative impact on american businesses i will give him this read no president has done so much for the strawman industry. every day he says one on fire. whatever you want to say about his golf game this guy knows how to use a flamethrower. but i would argue this blaming of the third person is actually wrong because for the most part we actually live in the america that president obama wanted to create. we live in the country in the

world the progressives wanted. where we are didn't happen by accident. it didn't happen because president obama was frustrated by the political process. happened because as richard weaver told us ideas have consequences. what is an america governed under those ideas on the domestic front. we are a nation faltering slowly through a lackluster government fund that is marked by profits gathered by the well-connected and stagnant wages and dim prospects for those of us who are now. it's a nation with effectively a cradle to grave welfare state where the federal government that bribes the states with taxpayer dollars borrowed from china that her kids will have to repay. to grow entitlement programs for childless able-bodied adults would strap them in a lifetime of disincentives for success. it's the nation marked by exhaustion and discouragement and pier where wealth and power are centralized in a man's an

out-of-control federal government. it is a nation where people feel they no longer have a voice where the mass cronies seek to control almost every aspect of our lives. it's a nation of backroom deals where regulators run the show and those that play ball get bailouts. on the international front things are arguably even worse. here peer president obama's idea has even less restrictions so the consequences are clear. ..

>>

that is not what president obama has done. he is not reconsider whether his approach to leadership is perhaps a part of the reason the world seems to be spinning off of taxes. instead he once again views himself as a noble the thinker takes his timing gets it right. peter baker recently wrote an interesting piece in "the new york times" about a series of off the record dinners president obama has held. of course as it always is in washington not even the president can really go off the record. the attendees were called the president sarcastically imitating his adversaries saying quote it's a shame when you have a professorial president with no foreign policy other than don't do stupid things. i do not make apologies for being careful in these areas even if it doesn't make for good theater.

now i don't get invited much to this white house. i wasn't at that dinner. if i had been i can tell you what i would have said when he rolled out that strawman -- respectfully mr. president this isn't about good feeling. this is about life and death. this is about freedom and despotism order and chaos. this is about the role of the united states of america as the leader of the free world. this is about nothing less than whether we will squander america's ability to continue in that role or whether we will pass onto our children a nation that is secured, well-armed incompetent in its ability to sustain a just peace in the world. as walter russell mead wrote the real criticism of the president

isn't that foreign policies to deliver it. it is that deliberations don't seem to end with policies that well, work. ..

>> >> a policy expert would have come up with better answers. but instead you just have hillary clinton. how did we get to this point? just ask the people to be honest what happened. asked former defense secretary leon panetta to says he and others advise the president to negotiate the status of forces agreement with iraq that could have forestalled the rise of isis but asked former ambassador to iraq the city was abandoned and ignored by secretary clinton and the outgoing seats. who says the world today is

a city time since the 1930's. today we are living with the consequences when it comes to foreign domestic and defense policy. those a set america on a path to cram more conflict and rules. secretary rumsfeld and ambassador bolden and others understand the weakness. what we see time and again from this president is a projection of weakness. this causes infinitely less from blood and treasure in this more to be precipitated by weakness. president, has missed use the tools to drag imposing sanctions to a river yet useful for cessations but when the crowds applauded overseas at the beginning of

his administration he never effectively used america's authority to challenge the human rights record now he does that have a global stature to do so. military strength should not be the primary means for which united states executes foreign policy. of all the mistakes president obama makes this is the most dangerous. the disarmament leading to the thirties is now down the road to a military that cannot do what it needed to do when it needed to do with. with the asymmetric weaponeer is spreading and the ability of non state

actors to put terrible destruction on innocent citizens is only increasing. and a growing gap in the wake of these humanitarian efforts to president bush understood the need to modernize the armed forces and anticipated in the absence of the threat of the soviet union we could invest heavily in technologies giving a smaller and more lethal force. the september 11th the tax cut that to a halt the vendor sells in boris that we assume would never occur again. the defense budget was increased substantially.

but the money did not rebuild their military. that eat up by the cost of the wars by the aging inventory and higher operating costs in personnel costs. with the spending increases that we as a nation are better positioned with natural defense in fact, reverse is true by the time obamacare taken office the american military was increasingly fragile condition. the nav fewer ships than any time since world war i, the world for it -- air force inventory older since the inception of the service. and to support the surgeon iraq in 2007 both services lacks the personal they needed. forcing far too many units to serve multiple tumors of jury duty add increasingly

cost by the fighters. secretary gates identified cost-reduction with an additional $70 billion fiscal year 2012 the effect was to cancel the much as station program including the f-22 fighter that will harm our military capabilities for years to come. created by congress a savior the panel issued a unanimous report in spring 2010 their recommended heading in the opposite direction. they supported substantial additional funding for the military from increasing the size of a navy. they warrant their aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services. with the escalating personnel entitlements and procurement costs and the growing stress on the force

means a trade wreck is coming in areas of personnel, acquisition and structure. and spring 2011 secretary gates responded these recommendations by offering a tenure proposed budget with modest increases. and not as far as the recommended but it is a step in their direction. the two months later president obama threat out. he announced his intention to reduce the budget coming his own administration defense budget by approximately $40 billion per year. won the number four defense spending out of thin air. the analysis of the funding levels of national security the president's proposal in the budget control act

followed by the sequestration lot to have the effect of cutting another half a trillion dollars from the defense budget over the next 10 years. think about their approach to government and in the course of one year the budget priorities with the analytical process with a high leave respective secretary of defense was jettisoned with the ad hoc and highly politically driven fronted production process. but that's coming over the decade are unacceptable america will now have a global tv anymore we will be 100 ships smaller the army in the air force will shrink dramatically we have just seen a bypass not -- bipartisan panel support the talks about the declining condition creating to

national defense panels both panels are bipartisan. and they're both to make the case to restore the strength of the national defence but yet the president goes in the opposite direction. you have all seen the tomahawk missiles that our navy fighters at isis they will be fisa under obama his plan even without a replacement ready. just 100 next year and zero after that "investor's business daily" did the matter after what night president obama used 47% of next year's planned purchase is. to sustain that we can only fire at that level 85 days before we run out of missiles. we must take steps to rebuild america's military.

we must return to the 2011 budget proposed by secretary gates the last time there is any real analysis or a threat assessment to determine what ought to be spent you must also take steps to build procurement and engage in immediate reforms to support readiness. as experts here at eight e. i. and elsewhere suggests, we should set as the guidelines for percent of america's gdp on defense. there is less in the military if it is feared and respected the best approach of global risk to move decisively to rebuild the tools of military power. this should be used carefully not to nation-building overseas

combat as a deterrent to eradicate threats to american lives in interest. to a low material to rest a indicated only delays the day of reckoning with united states will have to address these threats to increase the cost of time and treasurer of doing so. inaction in this regard will put america and the increasing weaker position putting fighting men and women in greater risk to decrease our ability to respond to the increase threats obama leaves behind. i am a fiscal conservative. as calvin coolidge said i want the people of america to work less for the government and more for themselves. the with in the arena of national defense then need is for more funding, not less not motivated by

priorities or what threats around the world is saying that causes wasteful defense spending for the worst kind of waste and that leaves forces unprepared and ill-equipped that is why i support the bipartisan effort to demand the pentagon provided every other department already does, an audit of the books. there were to be ready for audit this year we must also demand these taxpayer dollars be spent wisely and we know where the money goes into what it does now. not later the defense of our country is too important to tolerate waste and irresponsible spending.

it does not mean cuts are justified but we must spend what is needed based on the threats we face even as we fix the procurement process to do any less woods me any less than years to come politicians like to talk about waste and fraud but that alone will not make up the funding gap that prevents us from having a modernized force that we need. because i am a fiscal conservative i believe we need to shrink the cost of our government in other ways than the debate to have to deal with expanding impediments spelled conservatives' push for a plan with subsidies as a method for obamacare i think we need health reform focused on the cost burden for the consumer and taxpayer so my health care plan would rely on reforms to lower cost and save taxpayers billions while fixing equity in the tax

code. as we seek to bolster the military force many to be willing to use the economic weapons at our disposal while we understand the disincentive to lose the ability to trade with us we have another powerful weapon at our disposal. that the rest of the world wants and needs, our energy supply to have the enormous benefits of the economy and job creation to represent a tool in our arsenal to effectively blackmailed our allies the more that government removes the barriers the more we can balance against adversaries without firing a shot. it is no accident the

threats to america are now growing because the obama administration repudiated all the operating principles of the effective global strategy by leading from behind to a b&l in the long term allies to effectively use the tools of soft power to cut the size of armed forces growing because ideas have consequences and we must be prepared to face them. without a strong defense our allies will not take promises an adversary's monopoly cover threats. the most important task of our government is to defend our homeland from attack from the common areas to preserve the stability with a watchful eye on those that will do us harm. all nations have vital interests.

the difference between the united states and other great powers is that america defines her vital interest in the benign way. all-america seeks is to live in peace, secure the homeland and enjoy the rights for all nations in a world where it is feasible blessed by power incursion said rules in the commitment to resolve disputes peacefully. , what is the object of defense? to preserve. to preserve it is easier than to acquire. preserving peace is difficult the founders understood piece is not an entitlement. it is not automatically bequeathed to future generations it has to be in its own way in each generation. you must be willing to pay

the price. we must undo the spending pattern to insure they have the tools that they need to also send a powerful message to allies and enemies overseas that america will not shirk her leadership role in the world and would make actively engaged to promote and defend her vital national interest. and as to the corinthians st. paul asks the question for the uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battle? for far too long our country has given the uncertain sales and hoping to avoid conflict only to find america's enemies have taken the battle directly from us.

it is time for politicians once again to embrace the postwar consensus of the need for strong national defense having learned the lesson the best way to avoid battles is to prepare for them. thank you very much for letting me speak to you today. [applause]

[no audio] are we ready to go? governor i would like to exercise the first prerogative to ask a couple of follow-up questions before we go up to everybody else. extraordinarily strong to take their way through the issues if i'm a first of all, to talk about american leadership second that of the building of america's military what it would look like men to talk about the politics of each. i like to do this in a couple of years from now to give a chilling assessment of where we are today that is easy to see that things

are likely to be worse when the next president takes office with the budget cuts and the withdrawal of forces and then of course, in the context that is a hard-fought election campaign. so talk about leadership and where we will be in two years and ask ourselves what the task for a president might be? >> i thank you are right we have two more years of this president's dangerous policies not just rhetoric but policies and disengagement from the world than two years of america leading from behind. for the next administration to rebuild and i will

emphasize it was a bipartisan post cold war consensus i may conservative republican but this is the american and repair imperative to rebuild the strategic consensus that america cannot leave from behind or disengage from the of world that is indispensable to restorer that belief and american exceptionalism i believe this is the first president that i can remember that does not believe an american exceptionalism even before that budget changes their needs to be en strategics positioning a new strategy without the investment of the military will bring hollow as it is with the bipartisan step to increase the investments of military

for things like modernization. getting at 4 percent gdp i don't think we simply give the pentagon as a blank check but at the very least we should go back to the secretary gates baseline the first on there was a comprehensive insistent analysis done with a realistic budget of the military establishments that they meet we zero men and women in uniform the readiness they need with a growing realization is our oceans don't keep us safe. those that take us through biological warfare therefore we have that commitment over the long term.

i do the kit will take time to rebuild the credibility that the new administration supported by congress can take decisive steps pretty quickly to rebuild that role. nobody else can fill the vacuum left on the stage. >> what is enormous in scope to have a portion being at risk people had underestimated isis capability we have consistently underestimated in the shins as capabilities and turning to the middle east even if we compare it to a 2009 when ex-president

may inherit of war with isis that has no positive direction. is it possible to prioritize or is it necessary to get this back on the path? >> we do need a comprehensive approach but i have three challenges that are of concern. the president as a late tuesday's terms but we are in a war with basis calling it that or not but we exterminate basis we have to complete that effort and one of the things i say a mile-long paper we must

prepare the defense forces not just to win wars but decisively win them and act as a deterrent against future conflict what concerns me the most the greatest concern with a short-term and medium-term horizon is the lessons that iran is taking from america's failure to lead the last two years the world cannot accept a nuclear-armed iran not only an existential threat to allies in the region but to the united states as well i worry one year ago we announced this reprieve with no meaningful follow-through there will be strengthening their abilities to the day they become a power so that second concern is america's lack of decisive less --

decisiveness and third the president's pick it to asia was at least the shell of a good policy he was right to announce our intentions unfortunately was not followed up by the resources we look at the growing strength of china in the immediate term you have china now who wants to exercise more influence and its region including allies like south korea and japan working on leadership and countries not aligned even like vietnam working on leadership willing to join with america under the leadership but unfortunately rhetoric is not good enough the president did a great job of his speech to put resources their bill without the investment or the resources it will ring hollow and they will not

unless we follow-through. one example is look at russia they do think this is a situation where america is serious about backing up the rhetoric with the resources you will see a safer world. i think the more we withdraw the more chaos there is and you mentioned that europe is no longer, you are right it is hard to believe publicly and has gone from where was to where it is today no coincidence he is threatening ukraine licking its unilateral withdrawal would happen with our treatment of georgia to quickly join nato and he took notes of the president's weakness. we could still teacher

russia or secure europe if we could put brigades to work within that framework if we don't have the manpower to detour russian aggression it is more dangerous but it is not inevitable it is proof from the disengagement of china to lead from behind spirit you mentioned the gap of strategic needs the posture in the world and the resources available that is another whole we have dug that has not bottomed out yet. you mention the tip of the iceberg but there is a few

modernization programs to invest in with the big enthusiasm for inventing new things. can you imagine the buildup to be necessary in the next administration? >> we're not calling the 4% of gp overnight but to do that you're looking at approximately a billion dollar increase their not capable of spending that money even if we gave it to them today. we're not wrapping this up over the short-term over a number of years but what we called for is to develop that seven year window

otherwise those set are suspended or canceled it is already obsolete so i am calling for more investment but also talking about the procurement process to get projects approved so that nobody has from the multi source to hold cloaks' accountable but i want to be very clear we have to weed out that waste and abuse leaving as was prepared without the training or readiness or the equipment that they need. that should be the excuse for disinvestment in the

military forces to defend the nation. is pure cure those cycles but that is not an excuse to leave men and women without training or resources that they need a faster increase investment as a successful example the oslo to deploy those soft power tools the freedom movements you saw a great things happen the cold war famously without firing a shot we're getting a hollowed out military things

to the neglected and disinvestment. >> id remiss to let this go by that we have been told the past 67 years that we as a nation under any sense we would never deploy ground forces. the nbc poll is not exactly but take it for what it was the question is would you agree with the deployment of ground forces with the administration and? forty-five% americans said yes 63 percent of republicans said yes 66% of people identified as the party members said yes.

and 32 percent of democrats said deal think the politics of the issues are shifting? >> if there is any american and the virginia their political movement or party who wants to use that in the first place but the point that we make the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it peace through strength is better than war through weakness but it is very foolish for this president to unilaterally announce we will not do he seems inclined every time there is a challenge to say but we won't do as opposed to what we will do that we will not deploy a new ground troops nobody argues but to take

the options off the table unilaterally is a foolish way to win the peace. but the poll results they think the american people shown time and time again decade after decade through two world wars after challenges they want to rise to the challenge with a trust the leadership they realize there is effective leadership meeting is to protect our nation's battle interest there is overwhelming bipartisan support and you will see that whether ices or anyone else. this is a bipartisan consensus and it should be

so again with the bipartisan consensus. my hope is there are responsible leaders from both parties as well across the country to say this is vital to america's interest here. our federal government is now doing things our founding fathers never intended that doesn't do core responsibilities well the first and most important is to secure the homeland and our nation is in the constitution what it is ordered to do is to secure our country we're at a time the government is spending a record share at the same time we're spending a record low amount defending our country post world war ii.

we're spending more of our economy at the same time we spend less. the american people understand the federal government has priorities the first and most imports responsibility is to defend our country and by the way there is -- it is more effective and better for us with it danger to our country than to try to feed from behind. >> we have 10 minutes for questions. i will begin. and then please put your statement in the form of a question.

>> the elephant in the room when you talk about spending on defense not something i had to face was the sequester. in fact, leon panetta and ickes -- complained when he argued against the sequester nobody would back him up. presumably if there is the change and a couple of years we will fight to get rid of the sequester. is there any possibility before the next two years are up? >> i am hopeful harry reid will be retired as majority leader and nancy policy will not be returning as speaker. but they were an absolute mistake on top of the obama is owed reductions through the secretary gates baseline

than sequestration with nearly $1 trillion of production then what the pentagon actually needed. i would argue it did not go far enough but there was a reasonable threat analysis for in the space of a speech to throw his own secretaries work been taken arbitrary number? i think it is a mistake for republicans to except sequestration and we do indeed to have that other forces in the budget bill when it comes to defense if they were honest they played as a bad game of chicken and we all lost they put the bad

policy on the table for political reasons it is irresponsible with the men and women in uniform who suffer the most is simply irresponsible to send them with the tools they need to complete those missions. we need that within the pentagon portion of the budget spent i thank you for your terrific targeted speech. millions of americans many of whom were worried about obama believed him waging a software against the united states himself should we be lucky enough to survive this dangerous policy what tool

or what kind of arsenal tools do we have? >> i would encourage everyone to be reactive this november's start taking the government back right now with these elections ahead of us. i have been a vocal and for cystic critic'' but with these policies the replacement of obamacare and the department of education and common corer and hypocritical and immoral i call for air colder to be removed from office with "fast & furious". i am not a fan of this administration's. [laughter] but i will say this for quite have been very specific that i think is true i still believe this is

the greatest country in the history of the world after this administration it is within this generation to renew the principles of freedom it isn't inevitable. in with those resources but that does not make it inevitable. the founding fathers got it right. not only in the political dna but every generation has to fight for its freedoms. it is up to us. as a world -- a word of encouragement there is not 1.you can point to that it is better are safer. remember this was the

administration i remember he gave a speech in cairo that would solve everything and instead the world is much more chaotic and more dangerous but i don't want the people to become so frustrated to think i should stay behind. that is not true. this country is within our grasp. we have work to do but we also have work to do here at home restoring the american dream through policies and rhetoric the american dream is not about government dependents or redistribution but the quality of opportunity. another speech for another day but one of the most dangerous things the president has done is to be a great work to do their. the good news is from nearly 50 years ago the dream is

still possible we have work to do to ensure it remains possible. >> that gentleman needs to be rewarded. >> is a dimension of all we have the resources to reaching an mean by dash maintain investment without some pretty uncomfortable reform with entitlements? >> first, we actually have the resources in my mind. that the commitments that it takes based on a strategic analysis. but over time. that is the federal government for its responsibility then we can

see what else we can do as a country the first obligation is to defend the country but we have to reform our programs separate and apart from defense. the reality is they are not sustainable what did this president to when he came to office? we cannot already afford what we promised to do today? but to maintain that promise specifically medicare/medicaid social security for future generations we do have to do that program on health care reform. absolutely we need to reform those entitlement programs but that is to maintain the promises we have made in

strengthen and improve those and that is simple math. i will tell you that is just one example to run out of resources for the health care benefits for baby boomers and others to reform the intimate programs. on the future of medicare supported by republicans and democrats including "the wall street journal" and ana it is possible in a bipartisan way. but that is regardless if people agree with your not. >> i m sorry about that.

with this conversation it was important. if you could go to the white house to give the commander in chief advice but it may be hard to get in there. [laughter] >> only if you carry a weapon, i think. >> things for joining us. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

live coverage of this yvette from the cato institute on c-span2.

including the threat of. >> host: the ebola outbreak in the midterm election. this discussion is part of a newsmaker series from california. it is one hour 10 minutes. >> good evening. i do enjoy coming to these newsmakers series every year it is such a pleasure and to be a special guest i am particularly excited about the two speakers instead of hearing 122nd sound bites

we will listen to the to esteemed politicians with an "in-depth" robust conversation about important topics going on in the world today. let me start by first introducing former and potentially future senator scott brown and as mentioned he made a significant effort to keep his pledge to appear here since he is in the middle of a campaign less than five weeks away. >> guest: the 2010 special election to serve out the remainder of ted kennedy's term then became the first republican senator in massachusetts since 1972 problem you also seek to challenge elizabeth ward in 2012 and worked as a political commentator on television and then later moved to new hampshire where six months ago he announced he was running for u.s.

senate. "the boston globe" rode his campaign has picked up speed in his bid is possible in fact, he told me he is four points ahead right now and with the control of the senate in the air it has national implications. the reagan republican, socially moderate fiscally conservative he also served 35 years in the army national guard before retiring with the rank of colonel. another title when he was first on the national scene in 1982 when aulos student he won the cosmopolitan contest as america's sexiest man. [laughter] that led to modeling jobs that paid for law school and here he is today. more than just a pretty face.

[applause] now today's other speaker former senator joe lieberman graduate of yale college and yale law school elected as a reform democrat 1972 the connecticut senate serving three terms as the majority leader and state attorney general before winning election as u.s. senator in 1988 and actually i covered one of his campaign stops when i was growing up in connecticut and. he was reelected to the senate three times as a third-party candidate gaining a reputation as a thoughtful effective legislator working across party lines for the good of the american people. today the leaders of a new project to hit islamic terrorist groups where it hurts the counter extremas m project and i look forward

to hear more about that tonight. from 2,000 running without glory he became the first jewish candidates and lieberman won the popular fort by more than five 1000's a loss the electoral college. and not the little fact one of my favorite lines that senator lieberman said with accepting the nomination for vice president we all know what is behind a really successful man of really surprised mother of all. [laughter] -- mother in law. senator lieberman. [applause]

welcome to both of you we appreciate you coming here from the east coast. with topics we are discussing old ask each senator questions that we will go back and forth making get a free for all but one of the biggest questions has to do with national security. there are challenges going on right now with airstrikes hands isis french al qaeda groups, ukraine and russia, and of course, the intruder in the white house last week. senator lieberman, what do you feel is the biggest threat we face today and how should our country respond? >> let me say thank you. good to see which can. -- to see you again.

and also to the foundation what they contribute to use of quality of life here. . .

these groups threaten order, not just in the middle east but in many other parts of the world, and they threaten our homeland security. as we know they attacked us brutally on 9/11 to begin this period of history. in my opinion they clearly do not represent anything beyond a minority of the muslim world. when these groups, like eye cities or al qaeda take organization most of the muslims run because they don't want to live under that kind of resuppresssive regime. so we have to try to work to defeat them and also to give people within the muslim world the courage to stand up and fight them. the group i'm part of forming, very excited about, called the cep, the counter-extremism project. it's focused on one trying