>> i think we have talked quite a lot about the chinese role as a new leader in the new order. i think, to make it short, in order for china to become a bona fide, genuine g2 global leader, it has to take on certain values that are universally accepted. and. and i think in that sense, the chinese position on north korea will be a litmus test as to whether china is able to both go beyond the

power that it already is. the the soft power, its position on north korea will be significant. i understand why china takes the position it takes now because it still serves a purpose in terms of a strategic a strategic buffer, but i think the longer china continues to be a patron of this road state that has been determined by the united nations as a country that commits crimes against humanity, that turns a blind eye to the nonproliferation regime, it is going to be a huge burden on china increasingly. i believe in the mid- to long-term perspective, the sooner china is able to shut this headache the sooner china will become a leader that we will are in its respect, and certainly from

south korea. >> professor moon. >> yes, a pressing priority for all of us. very short-term thinking on my part, which is lunch. [laughter] >> thank you again. let's give a big hand to our prestigious speakers. [applauding] [inaudible conversations] >> q&a is ten years old, and to mark a decade of compelling conversations we are featuring one interview from each year of the season today author kenneth feinberg looking at his role of special master of the fund created to compensate victims of the september 11 terrorist attacks at seven eastern on c-span. right after that the

problems and challenges facing cancer research, describing an environment of unprecedented innovation with shrinking resources. here is more now. >> it is amazing to see the insights coming out of all sorts of technologies that we did not have before, imaging. the things we can do with images are phenomenal and getting better, the genomics revolution, the efforts to understand the details of clinical phenotypes and the advent of electronic health records. all of these things coming together in a way a way i would not have imagined would happen in my lifetime, and yet we are not nurturing that engine of discovery the way that we could be. a statistic that i think is particularly troubling and often times discouraging to young scientists thinking about getting into the field

is the following. what is your chance if you have a great idea about cancer research, preclinical, not something you are working in a company but have that next idea. where do you go to get funded? the nih. the chances of your grant getting funded or about one in six. traditionally over the last 50 years it has been one in three. the cancer institute, one in ten. >> that was part of a conversation with nih director francis collins on cancer research. and here it is book tv and prime time with authors and books by former obama administration officials. first leon panetta. after that, robert robert gates talks about duty. book tv all this week and prime time on t-1.

>> tomorrow on washington journal the national association of realtors discusses housing and mortgage trends. after that author cheryl atkinson on her book examining her struggles covering the obama white house. your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. life tuesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on is the c-span networks.

that is this christmas day on the c-span networks.

quex, a discussion on the us economy and what the 114th congress should focus on held at the heritage foundation. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. we appreciate those joining us on the web. i ask everyone in house if you would be so kind to check that cell phones have been turned off. internet viewers are always welcome to send comments or questions anytime. following, of course, we we will have time for questions and answers and would ask that you wait for the microphone.

opening opening our program this morning and making a special welcome to our guests is the current president of the heritage foundation, former senator jim demint. please join me in welcoming senator dement. >> thank you, john. merry christmas to all who are tuning in to the heritage network or c-span. this is a great day to come together and talk about the power of ideas. it is our job to help to shape the debate, build consensus around ideas that we will make life better for people all across america and the world. part of that process is bringing in people from all walks of life, experience in the media, business, the think tank world and do affect different ideas and set priorities as an

organization. that is a big part of what we are doing. i appreciate steve moore leading this. i am sure larry will introduce our panelists. i cannot think of a better panel. the idea idea is to do this and have other guests to bring america and and help america see those ideas that really will build a stronger country, brighter future, and better life. what we want to deliver to members of congress, presidential candidates, and the country as a whole is a conservative policy reform agenda that focuses on opportunity for all and favoritism for non-. that is where the dividing line is.

division on the left, breaking people into groups, playing one group against another, trying to get special carveouts, whether it is crony capitalism for other types of giveaways versus the idea that we are all americans. we all want to build a better a better country, and that is an inspiring message i don't no of any american's -- i am sure their are some -- but most do not want to be part of a minority. they want to be americans and have the same opportunity and don't like the government, whether as a state or federal level, that is picking favorites, winners and losers. it is not fair, and it is not equitable. that is our focus. what you will here today, i'm sure, a lot of good economic messages on what we can do. i cannot think of a better group to think of a better group to talk about that and really dig down into the issues. kaysix will larry kudlow will facilitate. one of my favorite people in the media. one of the brightest minds

in the world, and i have told him several times, i love being on his saturday radio show where we can sit back and dig in for 30 minutes, an hour and talk about ideas. thank you for being here. i will leave it to you. welcome to heritage. [applauding] >> many thanks to senator jim demint who is truly a great american. okay. i am larry kudlow of cnbc. we have a distinguished panel. we are going to try to talk about ideas to promote economic growth, growth, the application of free market principles to promote economic growth. there are their are a lot of angles and subheadings. from my own standpoint, domestically the greatest challenge to america in the

next decade is to restore economic growth and to at least, at a minimum, get us back to the post-world war ii trendline, which is about three and a half percent per year. we have gone way beyond that trendline. we need to do that, create jobs, incomes, social mobility, families, and his stretches over a number of things, taxes, energy, all deregulation including obama care, spending limits to what dollar and monetary policy and trade play important roles. i notice senator elizabeth warren who is one of the cochairman of the sandinista wing of the democratic party has come out today against the trade promotion bills,

both the european bill and pacific bill, which bill, which is a perfect example of congress sending the wrong message and failing to understand what causes growth and what contains growth. that is essentially what we're trying to do. to my left immediately is ms. carly fiorina, and old friend. by way of introduction -- actually, arthur said the greatest part of her backdrop is that she started as a secretary and rose to become chief executive officer of hp hewlett-packard, the most remarkable and american thing imaginable. we are fortunate to have her here pitching in for the principles that we believe in. she is also the chairman of opportunity international and good 360, chairs the

american conservative union and chairman of unlocking potential, which is a group to engage women in the political process at the grassroots level. my bride saw her speak in new york the other day and was ready to sign up. james pethokoukis is the dewitt wallace fellow at the american enterprise institute,, distinguished blogger and columnist and contributor to cnbc. arthur laffer is the head of laughter associates. i have known him for coming on 40 years. father supply-side economics, and i believe one of the most important economic forces in the 20th century. [applauding] finally, as you know, steve moore, another head

economist here at heritage. i won't say most notably but importantly as a member of the editorial board at the "wall street journal" for many years pumping out exactly the kind of stuff that we need pumped out on the benefits of free market economics. i can only assume a large percentage of congress has no reading skills because of their bad education background. their failure to read the "wall street journal" editorials, which steve moore wrote. we would we would all be better if they had. without further ado, i will be the moderator, let each of the panelists speak for about five minutes or so. then we we will go back and

forth. i will ask questions. we questions. we will have low-key, relaxed crosstalk. let me begin with my friend, kayfor. on the measure of growth -- i will try to shape this a little bit. on the matter of promoting economic growth what would you see, what would you say are the three most important ideas in your mind, if you were given a magic wand to run the country? >> well, thank you, and it is a pleasure to be with everyone this morning here at heritage. we have to start with a recognition of what the most important resource we have really is. the most important resource we have, the only limitless resource we have is human potential. this this country became the greatest economy on the face of the planet and in all of human history because we created an economic system that unlocked more human potential.

i started out as a secretary , and one of the most important things that happened in my young life was when two men came up to me and said, said, we thank you have potential to do more than type and file somebody took a chance on me. and in truth, everyone needs someone to take a chance on them. on them. i'd share something called opportunity international. we lift people, mostly women, out of poverty, destitute circumstances by giving them a starter loan of $150. and that experience demonstrates that everyone has potential regardless of circumstance.

our founders knew that. they meant everyone should have the opportunity to use their god given god-given gift to fulfill their potential, and we created a system where more things were more possible for more people. we did that in large measure because small businesses thrived and entrepreneurship was a valued. i started a nine person company. most most people do. small businesses, not big businesses give two thirds of americans there first job , employee half the people. we have to understand that if we want to grow our economy we have to focus on the most important resource we have, human potential, understand one of the ways to do that is to revitalize

mainstream entrepreneurship, recognized that today we are now destroying more businesses that we are creating. big businesses are doing great. the stock market is doing great,, but small businesses are struggling because they cannot handle the crushing load of complexity, bureaucratic inertia and regulatory thicket that the government puts on them. today in this country we are wasting potential. one in six in six people with an poverty. income inequality is advertised level in decades. by the way, it is highest in places like california where liberal economic policies have been in place for 30 years. our innovation rate is slowing. i think to focus on economic growth we must focus first

on how we ensure that every single american has a chance a chance to fulfill their potential. that means every single american has to be given a helping hand, not a way of life called dependence and entitlement. our systems today trapped people in a lifetime of dependence and entitlement. we have to recognize and unlock the potential and give people education, tools, training,, make sure we have jobs for everyone. we have to revitalize mainstreet, reach rain america and fundamentally reform and simplify government because it is literally crushing the wife out of this economy and people who are trying to fulfill their potential. the final thing i would say

is that i do i do think that -- you know, senator jim demint spoke eloquently about what unites americans. he spoke eloquently eloquently about opportunity for all and favoritism for none one of the things that unites americans is i think i think americans believe we are now losing something important. i think what they think we are losing is a sense of limitless possibility. what you see is americans think they do not have limitless possibilities anymore. their children don't. we used to be a nation where people thought, i can be what i want. we are losing that, and and it is tragic and has economic consequences and consequences in people's lives. what americans think we are missing is a a leader that

recognizes everyone has potential, deserves a chance we save lives when we provide jobs and training. we can solve every problem, but we have to start by recognizing the most important resource we have, and that is human potential. it is limitless. thanks so much. >> thanks. [applauding] i want to go out of order for one second. just following on her remarks, you have written a lot of good stuff on the decline of america's startup brace which really, i think, quantitatively is the most productive form of job creation, actual startups. why is that? >> first of all, thank you to the heritage foundation. also, let me say i will

follow what larry said about dr. arthur laffer here. 100100 years ago -- 100 years from now they will hear about john maynard payne, milton friedman, and arthur laffer. a historical a historical figure who came on the scene when the united states was on the verge of going into permanent decline. >> all right. i have written a lot about what is going on. people. people think, is it really that important of an issue? i use google and facebook and twitter. it seems like startups are doing great. no web applications. and it looks really well, except when you look at the numbers where we have seen a

steady erosion in the number of startups. that in itself may or may not be a bad thing. we have a lot of big box big-box retail stores which pushed out a lot of the mom-and-pop stores. people work at those big-box retailers earning higher wages, and people get, you know, less expensive goods. that may explain. that may explain part of it, but we are also seeing a decline, not just in startups overall but in the high-tech startups, the fastest-growing, what business consultants might call a gazelle. that is extremely important and worrisome. not only do they create a lot of jobs, they create a lot of innovation, a lot of good middle-class jobs. this job polarization over the past 20 years.

and in addition to supplying innovation serve an extraordinarily important function, providing competitive intensity with big companies that have a choice. if you have a start up you can do two things, try to innovate or go out of business. business. wait, there is a third. you can hire a lobbyist and try to get a tax break or regulation to give you some sort of advantage. so i think -- and i am supposed to be writing a book on this -- the decline in startups and the entrepreneurial, which currently mentioned, is extraordinarily important. that is our big advantage. we don't want to become like scandinavia. scandinavia. guess what? we are with a huge welfare state. sometimes we sometimes we hide it, but we have a huge welfare state.

our only edge is our entrepreneurial sector. those countries did did not do what they do if not for our innovations which they are able to use. looking at the dynamism in the us economy and the decline is a lens through which i hope i hope the next congress looks at all the policies. >> is there a single overriding what.did preventing these startups? >> there is a lot of research. we are an older country. less dynamic, less entrepreneurial. that may play a role. a role. do i think our tax structure and regulation -- we do a

town of work on taxes. taxes. focused on taxes, but we also have to remember regulation. i can't i can't say that this particular regulation is killing american dynamism , but anytime congress passes a regulation , does it make it harder, not to start a business but to grow the business and does it give an edge to an incumbent company. >> thank you. let me go to arthur laffer. [inaudible conversations] >> worth noting that 70 percent of small business owners described the federal government as hostile to them. is there one single regulation to back no. have we ever repealed a regulation? not that i am aware of. that is a pretty heavy burden. >> so tax reform has been

mentioned. i here a lot of talk about it. i don't here a lot of specifics. the growth in the 80s and 90s had much to do with broad-based tax reform, lower rates, broader base. what are you thinking? >> first week, 70 percent of finding the federal government hostile, the other 30% are selling to the federal government. sorry, government. sorry, i had to add that. let me, if i can, we have had lots and lots of years of experience in this country. 175 other countries for which we have enormous reservoir data, 50 states that have been performing

experiments. we have huge amounts of experiential base on which to look at success and failure and economies. if you look at the conclusion comes out, to have success what you need is a five-point program. number one, low rate, broad-based tax, broad-based tax system where you replace all existing taxes and put them into a low rate broad-based. you need spending restraints government spending is taxation. the tooth fairy no longer works at the us treasury. every treasury. every dollar they spend they take from someone else. low rate broad-based flat tax, spending restraint, sound money. there is nothing there is nothing that can bring an economy to its knees quicker than an

unsound monetary position. the position. the prime interest rate was 21 and a half percent. so low rate broad-based, free trade. there are some things we do better than foreigners. there are some things foreigners do better than we do. it is a win-win, call the called the gains from trade comparative. free trade is essential to economic growth. lastly, regulations, but what you want to make sure you don't do is go beyond the specific purpose at hand and create a system of regulations that have collateral damage. no one would suggest you should be able to wake up and decide which side of the

road you we will drive on. on. you need focused and directed regulations. if i can -- and i want to mix a little a little politics into it. those are the five things. the government should get the hell out of the way and let the private sector's off the problems. you should not be picking winners or losers. when you look at low rate broad-based flat tax, i did jerry brown's flat tax when he ran for president against bill clinton,, he replaced all federal taxes except for syntax. for two flat rate tax taxes a 12.8 percent tax on personal unadjusted gross income and a 12.8% flat tax on business net sales, or you may want to call it value-added. a flat rate tax across the

board. if you did that, he would match all revenue, static revenue neutrality. can you imagine what would happen if that is what we had? a low rate broad-based flat tax. he would not even have to pay taxes. you could get rid of the irs you don't even have to report. if you mow your neighbor's neighbor's lawn for ten bucks, yes, you're going to have to send in 12.8 percent, but it would be amazing. on the politics side of it the closest we came was in 1980s. we would have taken clinton out in the primaries. this is a democratic democratic primary. we would have taken him out,

except three weeks before the primary jerry brown announced his running mate. but still, just so you know, he had the second most number of delegates on flat tax. tax. the democrats like it. the 86 tax act. we cut the highest marginal income tax rate in america from 50 percent to 28 percent. just in case we missed a couple of people, we cut the corporate rate from 46 to 34 we raised the lowest rates. we got rid of a lot of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions, but that is what we did.

we replaced 14 tax brackets, 15% and percent and 28 percent. that is it. can you imagine that today? the vote was 97 to three. three democrats voted against it. i mean,, we have people like alan cranston and teddy kennedy and bill bradley and dick durbin and harry reid. they know it is right. if you go back and read their press releases, this was the program agenda. it can be done. my motto is, is, don't just stand there. undo something. get rid of the damage, the overhang.

that should be our primary agenda, undoing stuff and letting this wonderful country solve its own problems. >> why can't we get that done now? >> we can. we will. we are right in the middle of 1978. we just won the elections. it took jimmy carter to create ronald reagan, and in the same breath that it took jimmy carter to create ronald reagan, you cannot imagine the great presence that was going to follow, barack obama. [laughter] >> steve moore, let's pick it up. it looks to me judging from the white house that pres. president obama will come out against the keystone xl pipeline. governor andrew cuomo has now come out against tracking, largely on the

recommendations of robert f kennedy junior and your kono , his energy advisors. and -- [laughter] >> zero, right. so what is going to happen when obama signs away? what will the republicans do? >> energy is the biggest story of the american economy. i want to back up for a minute and get to your.that you made. how do we get that 4% 4 percent growth? we had that throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. one of the contributions of barack obama as he has set up this interesting experiment about these two

competing models, the keynesian model of government spending and activism as a stimulus and the reagan model of unleashing the supply side of the economy. this this is an important.that we have to hammer home because this lesson must be learned. the american people are starting to understand. let me give you one amazing statistic. reagan came in during an incredible economic crisis, but barack obama came in during one also. here is the amazing thing. they use diametrically opposite approaches to dealing with the crisis. as you just said, reagan cut

tax rates, deregulated, cut spending under control. the spending under control. the private businesses rebuild the economy. obama came in with a stimulus plan, the so-called so-called multiplier effect, obama care, tax increases. barack obama has pretty much from the entire keynesian boat at this recession. here is the amazing thing. if you compare the records, something that drives people on the left crazy, in the five and a half years of the start of the reagan recovery versus the first five years of the obama recovery, just over 4 percent under reagan and just about exactly 2% under obama. that may not seem like a big difference, but difference, but it is enormous because of the compounding effect. the growth deficit, a huge mantra of progress

republicans is we are now facing an economic growth deficit. $2 trillion. what that means is the economy had grown as fast as it did under ronald reagan. 2 trillion more gdp. imagine how imagine how much better off the american people would be. if you took that amount and prorated it, that's $15,000 more income. here is the key, something that came through loud and clear, the american people are angry and filled with anxiety, anger and anxiety that they are not seeing the kind of middle-class increases, and not just jobs but incomes. here here is one other statistic. the average family in america, the average

middle-class family has lost $1,600 in income. that is devastating. americans just him believe it. i will simply say that it was, if we were sitting here seven years ago and i told you all that america will go through the biggest economic boom in the history of the country and we will see oil prices down to -- who knows how low they we will go, you would have thought i was crazy. just as recently as a few years ago barack obama was running around saying america was running out of oil and gas. the dividend, the dividend,

the growth dividend is so enormous, and i get so angry at some of your friends on wall street that somehow falling oil prices is bad for the economy, it is craziness. this pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy. it is good for manufacturing >> wait a minute. i basically argued this four days that week. abcaseven i am told by some of the best portfolio managers and particularly hedge fund managers who basically missed the stock market rally, a lot of shorts that recovered yesterday, but that is another subject. they told me that it is bad because first of all, you cannot make any money.

even though at the wellhead we are producing oil. john pons will collapse. the whole banking whole banking system we will collapse. this is 2,008. one guy accused me of not understanding. >> these are the people who want oil to go back up to $200 a barrel. >> they are convinced that we are not going to have a systemic banking/energy/junk bond global default. >> that is how horrible place my last.,. >> that is great news. news. you and i will be on tv a lot. >> i asked them if they drive cars. many do.

when you go to the sh, which is about $2 a gallon, do you see a lot of motorists weeping at the new gas price? i i just want to ask you, how do you no that lower oil prices are good? >> to argue that oil and gas prices are bad for the economy because it hurts hedge funds, it hurts people there are always some people who are losers. they will struggle, and some will go out of business. there is a manufacturing renaissance because we have the lowest energy prices in the world.

my only point, the shale, oil, and gas revolution is transforming this country, the world economy, it is not going away. this gets to your.about human ingenuity and innovation. this whole story is all about innovation and technology. >> all about animators who innovators who actually bought the system works that is a great. i love the story. these were small wildcat others. >> who were tough as nails and said, we can figure out how to do this and did it. they did they did it in texas. >> to finish the.quickly there is a huge story. the democrats are completely on the wrong side. it is craziness.

republicans have to drive this message, talk message, talk about pipelines, something you talk a lot about, overturning the ban on the export of american oil and gas. they have to take on the radical green that are anti- growth, and the development and anti- progress. and if you do those things, this can drive a real expansion. >> the guy who is weeping over the decline in oil prices is probably close to a nervous breakdown, vladimir putin. >> exactly. >> a lot of scholars here, so correct me if i am wrong, but if he goes down, would that not be a good thing for america? >> not just vladimir putin

but isis. we can defund our enemies. i no the saudi's act act in their self-interest and want market share does nigeria and other places are discounting like crazy. i think the saudi's gave us one on this. they don't like putin a ram, and that was part of their decision not to try to meddle with the market. >> i agree with you. the saudi's understand that oil and oil prices are a strategic weapon, and they used it that way. >> i want i want to ask you, come back to regulation and tax. hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling our technology breakthroughs. i look at this aztec

breakthroughs that happen to be in the energy business. aren't these principles going to be applied in other areas of the economy? >> of course. that course. that is why it is so distressing that we are making innovation and entrepreneurship more difficult because it transforms every industry. i mentioned that small businesses innovate it seven times the rate of big business. there is a reason for that. when we were at hewlett packard by the end of my tenure we were generating 11 patents a day, a rapid rate of innovation. imagine the small businesses, why does that happen back it is not by accident. innovation requires risk, flexibility, ingenuity, creativity. they are difficult in big

bureaucracies, and possible and big government, but actually more difficult and big companies with a lot of rules and procedures. you need the dynamism, flexibility to have entrepreneurship and innovation. innovation transforms every industry. one of the things we ought to think about when we think about providing jobs and opportunity for everyone, economic leaders in the 21st century, we have to be the innovation leader, continue to be the entrepreneurial leader, but we also must lead in the industries that we will define the century, and we no what those are. energy, biotech, aerospace. all of those industries and of course information technology, social technology, social media, those are going to define

this century, and we have to lead in those. we are beginning to lead in energy. we continue to lead in information technology. aerospace, space technology, biotechnology and health tech as well. we are making it far more difficult. one last thing, president obama continued obstructionism with the keystone xl pipeline is an example of the hypocrisy. the facts are clear. if you are truly worried about greenhouse gas emissions, what we are doing today, that is transported by rail, that is far worse for the environment than the keystone xl pipeline. this is the triumph of

ideology over economic growth. and let's not forget these poor communities in kentucky and west virginia where drug abuse is now at 40 percent. liberal ideologues don't like how they make a living, and innovation is making coal mining safer and cleaner as well. no matter how many families whose livelihoods we destroyed in west virginia, the chinese are going to continue to burn coal. >> you know, the leader of the north dakota balkans tracking, told me that as they went in there and bought a plan, they made a

lot of small dirt farmers a lot of money, created a lot of millionaires which i guess in america today is not a bad thing. he also gave a lot of jobs to field hands and roustabout's and people to operate the fields. my question to you is, if tracking creates $80,000 a year jobs, waitresses in north dakota makes 35,000 year. but there are more millionaires, which is creating more income inequality. the way i look at it is the rising tide cliffs all boats, but but i am an antique. that was reagan talk. we are all happier when we are all working. scholars are telling me that

inequality is growing. your friend wants to tax everybody 80 percent. what is the answer. >> there are two kinds of inequality. we should be concerned about and the kind we should be less concerned about, i think. if someone is billionaire and he or she became a billionaire because they thought of a great idea, a great knew service, new product, that is fantastic. we want those sort of entrepreneurs. the us, we actually have more of those than any other

big economy and the world, more than germany. germany. at the other end of the spectrum, like france. >> they have all left. >> they have all left. switzerland has a lot. that is good. we want policies to create more entrepreneurs, not because i care so much they have a billion dollars, but all the other good spillover effects like jobs. but if that wealth inequality is because you work in an industry that is protected by the government in some way or somehow you're able to negotiate a great pay package that has no link to your actual performance, that kind of inequality i am i am a lot more worried about. so when we talk about innovation and dynamism,

another is crony capitalism, the reason we have inequality is because of a lot more cronyism in the economy, too big to fail financial system where banks are bigger than they were before the financial crisis. if something happens to one of these big banks despite what is on the books we we will bail these banks out again. that is the history of banking. that is the kind of inequality and cronyism that i am worried about. >> at 12.8 percent flat tax, 12.8 percent flat tax for everybody would be a substantial tax cut for the rich.

that is that is the argument. there are people on the left who oppose that, even some conservatives oppose cutting the top tax rate. rate. what is your feeling about that? how does that tie into the flat tax? >> let me, me, if i can, to say we have tons of data the irs is extraordinarily competent. the first publication in the english language -- well, in great britain was a a doomsday book, the collection of taxes in great britain for the king. we have tremendous records on income tax returns starting with the income tax in 1913. right now when we went from a zero tax to a 7 percent

tax revenues went up. i will concede that. just joking. we have we have records by 1919, the highest marginal income tax rate headrest -- risen to 77 percent. we cut the the rate from 77 percent to 25 percent. the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% went through the roof during the 1920s. a beautiful economy. in the great. in the great depression we went from 25 to 92. tax revenues actually declined. the longest, deepest deepest recession, in my view, because of higher tax rates. then cutting the highest

rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, plus he put in the investment tax credit, cut taxes on traded -- traded products. he was a taxcutting, supply siding crazy guy. went way up during the go-go 60s. johnson, nixon, the largest assemblage probably ever put on planet earth. you remember all of those taxes. tax tax went down during that time. we had a depression slowdown then we came -- excuse me, me, does anyone have any water? i'm just joking. ronald reagan was nominated and elected. he is still in my heart. we cut tax rates on everything. if you look at revenues,

they revenues, they went from 1.5 percent of gdp in 1978 to 3.7% of gdp. massive tax rate. massive tax rate reduction. it is incredible. that is what i want i want to see. let me, if i can, i want to emphasize, it is not republican or democrat. it is not left-wing or right ring. it is economics. this this is independent of your ideology. economics is all about incentives. if you tax people who are poor and pay people who don't work, do i need to say the next sentence? if you tax rich people and give the money to poor people, you we will get lots

and lots of poor people and no rich people. if you have two locations producers and manufacturers will move. it is economics. it costs us revenues. that is the one area everyone agrees. agrees. it does. lowering tax rates provides a lot more revenues, and that is exactly what we need , low rate flat tax to bring the system into providing the most revenues we need in the least damaging fashion to the economy, and hopefully we can spend those monies in the best way possible to create growth and prosperity , rather than paying people not to work or produce. >> james pethokoukis, you have a different view. you want republicans to avoid tax cuts and focus on the middle class directly and others.

how do you respond? why is your program more efficient? >> for folks on the right, we have had a tremendous victory over the past 30 years where we have gone from a 70 percent top tax rate, a a tax code that was not indexed for inflation to one that is. even now it is at 40 percent , the top personal income tax rate. i am all for dropping the top tax rate, but when you look at where taxes were then, where they are now and the fact that 45 percent of americans don't pay personal income taxes. we are not at 70 percent anymore, and the growth gains we get, i think the

fact you have to take into account are, one, are, one, most americans are not going to get a tax cut. a good chunk of americans are not going to get a tax cut. this will be a revenue loser i may not care so much. so you we will lose revenue. you are not going to -- a good chunk of the american people we will not get a tax cut. if i was going to come out of the box with a growth plan the number one thing would be cutting taxes for high-end taxes for wealthy americans who have been doing very well. ..

then they asked these exact same people all right do you want economic growth? do you want opportunity? what policies do you think would get you opportunity and the number one policy, well that's pretty good reduce regulation on business. excellent. that's what we have been talking about. increase the minimum wage. that's 58%. guarantee all workers are living wage, 57%. high-end income and job creators, 40%. cut taxes on high income earners 36%.

i'm more interested in the policies than the politics and the messaging. given the fact that middle income taxpayers have not had a raise in years and i think the corporate tax code is in much worse shape than the personal income tax code. i would like to see, is there anyone else who wants to look at the idea coming out of the bo box -- the box with the policies directly addressing the concerns of the middle-class voter including take-home pay and also includes whether they can send their kids to college without saddling them with enormous debt. i think again having your lead idea cutting the top personal tax rate i'm not sure that would be number one on my priority list. >> webpages follow-up and i will let everybody react. you also propose coming and others have proposed a

significant 2500-dollar increase in the child tax credit. is that the middle-class tax cut that you think will work and i want to put -- put the politics aside for a minute. in economic terms? >> it's indisputable that if you let people keep, and this is a tax credit which can be applied to both your income and payroll taxes. it's not refundable. it's indisputable that if you allow people to keep more money they will have more money. if you let people keep more money they will have more money and i think that's a good thing that they can spend on childcare or they can spend on getting their kid -- tutoring at one of them has trouble in math.

it's part of a broader portfolio of a pro-middle-class agenda. when combined with the source of the regulation i think business tax reform i think that's a very powerful thing and that's appealing for growth but also appealing for policy to middle-class america basically saying republicans have nothing to offer them. but mitt romney showed no empathy for them and i think the republican presidential nominee for 2016 if voters go to the voting booth and they think this is the man or woman who think their priorities cutting taxes on the job creators and wealthy people hoping they will work more and invest more i think that's a political loser and i'd be interested on economic grounds if it's not a top priority. >> jerry brown in the democratic

primaries we were going to beat the tar out of bill clinton by having a flat tax lowering rates on the highest income workers in raising rates on the lowest flat tax. people understand the flat tax is fair. you make 10 times as much as i do you should pay 10 times as much in taxes but that is what it is. when you get to this fuzzy-wuzzy land you really don't have a standard. that's a good standard and it gets rid of all the bureaucracy. >> why do people flock to the romney tax plan? >> he wasn't a bad messenger. if you read the whole planet was terrible. romney wanted to do tax cuts for people other than wealthy people. yet separate provisions. they wanted to increase the progressivity of the tax code and i did vote for romney but that was not because i thought romney was any good. i voted for him because i thought obama was worse but the truth of the matter is we haven't had a program agenda for a long time since bill clinton and bill clinton was one of the best presidents we have always

had and one of the most disgusting people we ever had but a great president and i voted for him twice. >> he cut taxes for from where it is currently to calvin coolidge -- calvin coolidge levels. >> i would cut it to ronald reagan levels at the highest rate but i want to have a flat tax. look at warren buffett. he pays 61 hundredths of his tax and gets to his family foundations you name it. he doesn't pay taxes. if you go to the top 100 to 500 people they all have their income and unrealized capital gains. they have far -- their 501(c)(3) -- and excuse me for your foundations but what you can do is get rid of all that stuff and have a low rate so it doesn't matter. we all make choices based upon what we think is right. it's really wrong if you spend 40% of your money in taxes you

will spend 40% of your time trying to avoid them. get that rate way down so people that lose their interest in their taxes and don't look for lawyers or accountants or deferred income specialist and favorite grabbers and let them make money and grow the economy. >> do you think telling a voter here's where i'm going to do. i'm going to cut the top tax rate for people who are doing very well and by the way i'm not going to tax it for you. and as some people on the right would do whatever 45% who are paying taxes. you have to contribute. that's a wonderful strategy. >> there something in this argument. i think we can argue about the rate but at least have the problem with our tax code is its complexity allows people to game

the system. the tax code is used -- but by big companies as well. the tax code is used to further certain people's interests. it just is. so we have to fundamentally reform the tax code. not just in terms of rates, absolutely in terms of its rates but also in terms of its complexity and i also think we get it wrong when we say that as a requirement for tax reform, my view of tax reform is fundamentally simplification of the tax code as well as a discussion of what the rates should be. but i think we missed something when we say you know whatever we put forward should be revenue-neutral. let me just say this government takes in too much money. and the only way to begin

fundamental reform of governme government, fundamental simplification of government, fundamental focus on performance in government instead of just out-of-control growth year after year after year regardless of who's in charge is to actually start sending less money to washington. how many people, you all know this but i started my career in washington d.c. working for at&t after i got an mba after becoming secretary and i -- the federal government and anyone who has done business with the federal government knows that in the last six weeks of each and every fiscal year every government agency spends every time they are entitled to whether they need to or not. and they do so because they want to make sure that the appropriations process is focused on the rate of increase for the following year.

not one if you banter whether you need to spend it so if we are going to reform the tax code, let's start with the principle that we must fundamentally simplify it, get it as simple as possible and let's actually have a debate about whether it needs to be revenue-neutral at all or whether we actually should start down a process of having government spend less. >> we have done some polling heritage on the subject of tax reform. we make it the number one issue for economic growth and carly i think you are onto something here. when we do these polls what we are finding polls what we are finding is when you asked people about tax reform the one word that comes shining through and we may not like this but the word people want from the tax system is fairness. what that means we have to do is display -- defined to people what fairness means. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but what most people know in their bones is if it's so

complicated that i can understand it it's not fair. most people know that. if i can understand it i can figure out whether it's fair or not. if i can understand it any easier. >> that's certainly right and i also think somebody else is getting something. >> and they are right. >> these rich people are getting off with not paying a lot or the company is not paying what it should be. i have really come to the conclusion if you are going to do a change in the tax system precisely because where you are talking about the discussion you've got to do the big bang. you have to just blow up the system and start over. what's interesting about the last presidential election and the one people -- thing that people remember republicans had a pretty lousy field last time but what's the one thing people remember about that field? 999. they remember that and i think you might've had a hand in that

but people want something that's understandable. they think everybody needs to pay their fair share. given the scandals we have had over last year it dramatically reduces the role of the irs in our lives. >> by the way i want to get to an e-mail coming in about the fair tax. "cnn" -- the earned income tax credit which i generally favor along with the child tax credit are two of the highest fraud tax parts of the irs system. i was reading in the surprise me. i didn't know that much about it. child tax credit has problems. people are not even sure of the definition of children especially when it comes to things like adoption or abandonment for example and we will get to that in a little while. those are issues. steve i know in your distant

dark past you have flirted with the fair tax sales tax. i think you have overcome not but i want to get to the specificity. we have an e-mail or dave camp has introduced the tax reform act of 2014 blah blah blah. he thinks it's a band-aid for tax reform. this person wants us to push the fair tax act h.r. 25 which will be 131 page bill that has been buried under the table and the irs needs to be abolished in the fair tax accomplishes this. my only point, i always thought the fair tax is the flip side of the flat tax for putting that aside if we had a fair tax and we abolish the irs i don't think so. you have so many complications with the fair tax. you will have give up sin carveouts and poor people and whatnot. are you still on the fair tax thing? >> i like the idea of a national

consumption tax. i do think it would mean every time you go, you don't have to fill out at 1044 and the irs doesn't have to moderate how much income you make. whether that's achievable right now, probably not. i like grover's idea much more of some kind of flat tax system and by the way that might be the stepping stone to just moving to a consumption tax. as you know larry you and i have done a lot of research and we have a nice little experiment here. a tax on sales and consumption. a lot of states like new york and connecticut and new jersey my home state of illinois and your state where you ran for senate in california have high income tax rates. we find pretty conclusively larry, pretty conclusively that states that tax consumption and don't have these high taxes and by the way when we talk about the one or two or 3% with all due respect let's remember who

those people are. they are the employers of this country. they are the people that create the jobs. that's really important thing. my old boss used to say liberals love employers but they hate jobs. they hate jobs but they love employers. you can't have one without the other. i view the problem that you identify jimmy as a pre-tax income problem not a post-tax income problem. the middle class of problem isn't so much that they are paying so much income tax, is that their salaries are rising. >> the tax plans, doesn't cut their taxes. what you are telling them is instituting a tax plan which by the way will require blowing up the current system so first we have to move it below the current system we tell employers and now i'm going to put a new plan. i look at a new plan that will we help increase economic growth

so down the line you will get a better job and have more income. the economics of that i think a better tax code will do exactly what you said. a better consumption tax. all different flavors will create more economic growth and give people better lives. i think that's absolutely true but as a political matter it can be extraordinarily difficult to do that. i think there's a whole spectrum of issues. we have talked a lot about taxes so while republicans are talking about tax plans and i do a lot of blogging and every commenter on my blog has a tax plan. every conservative in america has a tax plan. we are talking about tax plans and democrats -. >> it's all we talk about. >> we are talking about finding

the perfect tax plan. democrats have been working on health care plans, college plans regulating the internet. finance reform and i think it's the intellectual oxygen that we are not focusing on these other things. we are very focused on taxes and again i think business tax reform is more pressing which we haven't talked much about. >> i want to stand up to that point. i agree. the work coming out of aei shows a real benefit here of business tax cuts is the middle-class workers, the working wages and it should be sold frankly as an income booster for the middle-class. it's not butter should be solved that way. it's also competitive for businesses but as long as you stick the pastor is in their

unit got yourself a hell of a middle-class tax cut. that is what ryan wants, to put the pastor is into that so they can drop back to the lowest. >> can i add one thing? what you end up with a piece of legislation comments how you go in. i don't think we should negotiate with ourselves beforehand and compromise the plan. you threw in what you think is the right plan but of course you are willing to negotiate and compromise to get a good plan. i think you are right on that stuff. you should never let the best be the enemy of the good. when i look at the fair tax i think it's a great plan. i would vote for it every day of the week and twice on sunday. tax reform, what i don't want us to do, i don't want us to pre-negotiate with ourselves and put in all the things in and get in there and find we have absolutely nothing.

>> there's a certain level of plausibility and i think coming up with a tax plan and we have a cdl and these private tax policies. we need the republicans to come out with a tax plan which says this is going to lose $400 billion a year. for most voters that's not going to pass the smell test. >> those models are right. >> but with jerry brown we had a huge revenue increase which was plastered all over the world. that's why jerry brown did very well in the democratic election. >> by the way i want to note on the way to work i pass through new jersey. each of those states has a very high income tax. each of those states has a very high sales tax. each of those days has a very high corporate tax so each of those states is declining and

drinking. so that's kind of a problem i have with 999. when i heard 999 i heard connecticut new york and new jersey. you could start with nine in the beginning and i worry about that. i don't want to commit the sin that all we do is focus on taxes. i think there are other issues to focus on and in our remaining time -- how far have we gone on this? we will give it a little more. i want to raise the point to carly fiorina the issue that i fret about a lot typically lately is the issue of marriage versus family breakups. i do worry that we are creating a permanent underclass. i do worry that the bottom quintile has lost its social mobility. on these points i'm certainly

reading what the left liberals have to say because it's the same data we are looking at. is it brad wilcox from aei? this guy is doing some great work. also i read the daily signal every day which i love. married families make a whole lot, not a little but a whole lot more income and wealth than unmarried. that's point number one in point number to the issue of family breakups seems to be the key to poverty, to any quality and to do you know closed-door, the upward path in america. maybe i should throw education and their two. these are big things are a part of it is economics, part of it is culture.

it's got to be addressed. anyone who runs for president has got to address it. >> let me just the way that by saying on this debate about tax reform or any of our debates about policies i think sometimes conservatives start with a policy and try and relate it to someone's life. i think we need to do the opposite. i think we need to start with people's lives and talk about our principles and our policies in relation to their lives. in and politics matters because it impacts people's lives in real ways. and policies matter because they impact people's lives in real ways. and i think sometimes we get very abstract and we talk about big models in big numbers and

what people are thinking about is the microeconomic reality of their life. and they need to understand how is what you are imposing going to make my life better? which leads me to your point. i think the data is becoming unmistakable. i'm a business person so data matters to me. results matter to me. it matters to economists. doesn't always matter to politicians by the way but to your point art the data is crystal clear about the impact of certain policies on economic growth. we also now see in the united states we have empirical evidence that supports the data. we have 30 out of 50 states run under republican policies and economic growth is better. we are starting to see real differential between a state like texas and a state like california.

that's hard to deny and people feel in their lives. now we come to the question of poverty and i think the data is pretty clear. the data is pretty clear. getting a high school education is an incredible determinant to someone's future earning power. so if someone doesn't have an opportunity to get a decent high school education because they have no choices really to get a good education or they have no chance to have a real teacher in front of the classroom that cares about them, then they are going to be stuck in a life where they cannot fulfill their potential and earn as much as they are able to. we know that. the data is clear and i think conservatives on that point need to be crystal clear. liberals and democrats are on the wrong side of this issue. look at what happened when now

mayor bill de blasio said in his campaigning that he wanted to limit the choices of schools in new york city. who is it who walked across the brooklyn bridge in protest of those policies? it wasn't high income families. it was low income families. hispanic and african-americans thought you were going to take away the only chance my child has so we know education matters. yes we know marriage matters. we know if you have a real family unit everyone in the family does better. we know as well that we have almost 40% of children now being raised in single-family households. we also know, so i think we need to be careful with this, we also know that too many women live in a situation of violence and abuse in their homes. so it's kind of hard to tell a woman that has perhaps escaped

from domestic violence the answers for you to get married. that may not go over so well but i think the point is we have to be focused on what are the things that make someone's life better and we know what they are in education and opportunity to get a job. and yes a stable family environment. so when we look at our entitlement programs and those entitlement programs make it more difficult to get a job because of all the things you have got to give up when our entitlement programs make it actually difficult to get married because of all the things you are going to give up and the liberals defend those programs they are the ones destroying people's lives league -- livelihoods. >> tax policy. >> they're the ones destroying people's livelihood so i think we have to position or policy from a position of empathy and compassion and belief in

everyone's potential to live a life of dignity and purpose and it is why i am conservative, because i know our policies work better to lift people up. but we can't talk about it in the abstract. we have got to talk about in the personal. >> by the way remarriage is okay to write? >> yes, absolutely. >> remarriages were you married the same person the second time. >> the majority of years you are married you are in better shape. >> we have done a lot of work on this issue at heritage and i think -- i'm sure all of us have experienced this when you talk to your friends on wall street we don't want to talk about the social issues. no social issues, just focus on economics and one of the things that came through is the social

issues are economic issues. they are at the core. you said it very well where you said marriage is one of the greatest economic plans out there. the job is the ultimate stimulus plan and what we have to do is and i'm socially conservative myself is talk about these issues that carly is, you are trying to preach to us. this is about behavior verges that lead to good life and success in life. it is not complicated. it's the old formula if you want to get out of poverty don't have kids out of wedlock, you get married you don't do drugs, you graduate from high school and you have a small chance of being in poverty. we have to talk about the social issues in economic terms because these are what lead to success

in life. >> i think would be a good idea as carly noted the data is there and the data is really compelling and indeed overwhelming but i think to a great extent you need leadership and have political people talk about it. it's not inconsequential. the other thing you mentioned de blasio, my favorite mayor. the guy doesn't want choice in schools. he doesn't think we need a police force in new york city. so he routinely throws us on the -- them under the bus and refuses to defend them. i think all these issues are related and they are social issues. democratic party has been socially very conservative not

unfortunately the last couple of days but the democrats used to have white working males and females but males particularly manufacturers co-workers may have left the democratic party because there's no cultural discussion of values anymore which i think that her a lot they have migrated to the republican party but the gop doesn't talk about it either. >> your point about social issues are economic issues in the democratic party doesn't talk about those issues anymore. let's just talk about life. i am pro-life but if you want to talk about economics you will find that there are a lot of people in the african-american community who understand it the communities devastated by abortion. if you want to talk about the war in some states about demographics working against us because we have an aging declining population and then

you think about the number of lives that have been ended in this country through abortion that's an economic issue. we are not going to all agree on all aspects of abortion in this country but even on that issue that people tend to shy away from there is clearly common ground. on the social issue it is the democratic party that clearly has become incredibly extreme. i get asked all the time how can you support the republican party platform on abortion? i say how can you support the democratic party platform on abortion clinics what it basically says is any abortion at any time for any reason at any point in a woman's pregnancy including now in new york, the legislature wanted to pass a non- doctor could perform an abortion up to nine months. that is extreme. it is inhumane and is also

really bad economic policy. >> latinos, african-americans, asians. you are absolutely dead right. by the way we have a population decline don't we? or growth rate of population is slowing down. that's an issue for growth. countries with declining populations tend to be less innovative. if you are going to try to talk to people, low income people or whatever again you can't have that kind of message. i think a marriage and pro-life message when at the same time you are saying let's cut the minimum wage and i'd like to cut medicaid and eitc and not having something to supplant them with is going to be an ineffective message. >> i haven't said any of that. >> not you personally. >> republicans want to cut eitc but they don't really have a

good idea. they don't have a good idea on what to replace it with. >> i think you're absolutely right that conservatives must offer solutions. i happen to believe we have a lot of solutions. my point is i think we have to communicate those solutions in the context of people's lives. not in the abstract terms but in the context of people's lives. >> can i just say one of my other beefs about the current environment is there's too much pessimism. there's a psychology of pessimism in this country that drives me crazy. i am a reagan guy and the value and the truth of optimism from my own life. i have had my ups and downs. i think if you believe in a higher power, you believe in god you have to be an optimist.

i think we need more of that in this country make is my final thought is we need positive agendas, positive. we are talking about pro-growth, positive agendas. that's the gop. i don't think -- i don't care if the democrats and one of positive growth agenda. i'm fine with that. my point is positive optimism, lifting up rather than tearing down. i still believe america is the greatest country in the world and i will tell you this there's no reason why a candidate for president in either party cannot say here are the problems but here are the solutions. and we can do this. we can actually do do it in a short period of time. i learned that from reagan and i will never forget it.

jim demint carly fiorina, art laffer and james pethokoukis thank you. thank you to the heritage foundation. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

up next vice president joe biden attended the wedding ceremony at the national menorah on the south lawn of the white house. this is about 20 minutes. >> the word chanukah relates to public view to ceremonies and celebrations like this one but

the word chanukah also has its roots in hebrew in the same word as education. they dedicate, we educate, we live, we celebrate. as part of the celebrations we in america have instituted a new rabbi's national menorah as a contest where we have children from across the country explain what chanukah means to them. so i would like to call semi semi-from pennsylvania to read her winning essay for us today. [applause] >> what chanukah means to me. hanukkah is a special meaningful

holiday for me. it is a great way to remind us of the shams great miracles. hanukkah in english means dedication. i think the word dedication beautifully describes the way we are dedicated to judaism. we fear and love him. he is the one who creates are great miracles, and chanukah is one of those amazing miracles. just seeing the beautiful menorah by my window makes me truly appreciate it. one of my favorite things to do on chanukah is to spin the dreidel nsa do so i think about children my age thousands of years ago who were also spinning the dreidel. just imagine that they would risk their lives for judaism. hanukkah is a holiday that is really fun and holds a special meaning for me and all jewish.

[applause] >> our second winner, that was stacy fogleman from the new england academy and we are now going to hear from our first winner. >> what chanukah means to me. hanukkah means different things to different people. two little kids chanukah means presence and to adult chanukah means spending time with them. to me it means going without. every night you add more light by adding another candle. this will lead to more. one good deed leads to another. we can strive to do more good deeds every day. it's important to me to add more light in honor of my grandmother passed away on the second day of

hanukkah many years ago. my favorite way to add to the old and sick people and sing hanukkah songs with him. when i do this i'm not only elevating myself but my grandmother sold too. [applause] >> when we hear children speak in this way we know that we have a future as our people. [applause] >> now as you know, now as you know the menorah is lit towards nighttime and the reason for that is that the essence of hanukkah is tradition.

it's to spread the message of the miracle. we cannot do that if nobody knows about it so even though all year we spread the message of the miracle in our hearts, in our homes, in our synagogues, in our communities, our community centers and schools this is the time of year when we bring our message to the public. there has never been a time in history where the diaspora has been afforded the freedom that we have in america today. let's hear it for the great old united states. [applause] and for all those who are watching in your homes or by live broadcast know that you can light a candle too even if you are not celebrating hanukkah. warm up somebody's life. do another good deed. make the world brighter than it

would be without you and in that way you were celebrating hanukkah too. obviously the jewish community we light menorahs but spreading warmth in the world is a university -- universal opportunity. we are going to be leading lighting the menorah at this point in the program. we are close enough to the dark so i'm getting ready and we want to start spreading sentiment across america as quickly as you possibly can. what we are going to do at this point is we are going to do the menorah lighting in a moment. we are then going to hear from the vice president. i'm going to ask that everyone please remain seated until the end of the program even though we will be racing for the lighting of the menorah itself. i will ask that everyone please return to your seats and remain seated until the end of the program. at this time would like to ask the conductor of the band of the

united states army to present the torch with which we were going to light the menorah to the vice president. and i'm going to like this on behalf of the vice president. they are outdoors and elements where we have lightning and things of that nature so i can't light it with all of these electronics that i will buy that as soon as i possibly can. we will like the national menorah with his porch and we will have these two lights the middle light and the one all the way on the right for all of the world to see. the reason we like the first one tonight and only one is because we are at the beginning of the process. tonight we light one and tomorrow we light two until we finish until the end of hanukkah. the middle one is you will see is among the other eight because it represents a public servant the utility the one who goes

above and beyond their own needs so others will benefit from what they are going to do. i'm honored to take the torch from the vice president and light the menorah and we will join art director who founded this effort of public menorah's in philadelphia in 1974 and to have our little children here who won the essay contest in two of my own children join with my father. now that i think about it you are passing me this torch. vice president biden was involved in public menorahs before the community and the public were involved in such a large-scale. we have been doing this now for 45 years. 35 years at the white house with president carter starting in 1979 together with a great friend of ours here tonight. let's give a round of applause to stewart stuart who started all of this.

[applause] he was a domestic policy adviser at the time and every year has received a greater and greater attention that this event deserves and receives. vice president biden was then a senator and there was a rabbi who needed help and provisions to put up a large public menorah. since he was right across the border from philadelphia and delaware he afforded the help necessary to make it happen. in a sense this is your celebration to mr. vice president. passing the torch to me is very symbolic in more ways than one. [applause] as the cancers are welcome back to the stage you can stand for the lighting and after the torch of the vice president following his remarks i ask that you still all remain here. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] >> mr. vice president, mission accomplished. i just want to go back a few years and introduce a person who i first met on an amtrak train. i was here helping my father was work and i remember them holding

up a finger to the conductor saying one more minute. the senator whistles to the station, sits down in his seat and my father says watch this man. learn from him how to act. five or 10 minutes into the ride this important senator's jacket is off. he's talking to all the people who are working on the train. they are like his family. and i remember that as a child and now i am here introducing that senator is the vice president of the united states. and yes we did learn from him. he went home to his family as often as he could and he cared about every individual. i saw it then and i remember it now. so i guess it's my humble privilege to introduce the vice president of the united states, the honorable joseph biden varied.

[applause] >> thank you very much rabbi. thank you very very much. rabbi you and i have been friends for a long long time and i only have one regret as you mentioned going home on amtrak. it's a great honor for me to be able to do this but i'm going to miss the lighting of the menorah on my daughter's dining room table tonight with her husband howard fine and i'm going to be down here in washington. i wish i were with her. i want to give special thanks for hosting this event and i want to also, the rabbi taught us that every living thing must grow. just as hanukkah lights will

grow from the birthday to the eighth those who have achieved good and holy things must never be satisfied with what they have achieved yesterday. may you all go from strength to strength. the israeli ambassador and told his here, ron dermer, great friend. i'm not sure i see him but i'm told he was going to be here and rabbi and cantors and jewish around the country it's my genuine honor to be here with you. tonight is about miracles. the miracle of courageous warriors, overcoming great odds, the culture they identity and the freedom of a people. america rededicated the flame burning for eight nights when there was only enough oil for one. it's a miracle that sustained

the faith in a community in times of tragedy. a thousand years later judaism as alive as well in its many vibrant communities and denominations. the people of israel live on. the miracle of lights flickering in the eyes of grandchildren and grandparents, mothers and fathers sisters and brothers gathered together in peace to remember and to sing and ongoing miracle coming together in a nation that respects the freedoms to live and worship in peace, the freedom fought for so very long ago. tonight we stand on the front lawn of a nation founded on the principles of the book of mica

ende versus george washington quoted to the hebrew congregation in newport 223 years ago. he wrote me the children of the stock of abraham who came to this land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants for everyone live in safety under his own vine and victory and there should be none to make him afraid. the central jewish notion of religious freedom of safety in your own land, of being treated with dignity and respect from your own community not only led to the creation of the modern state of israel is the home of the jewish people but also form the bedrock of the united states of america since our very founding. these values were captured in

the words of a young jewish follower named to -- when he wrote give me your tired, your poor, your humble masses yearning to breathe free. these words capture forever and the statue of liberty are among the things that are ingrained in your dna and have become ingrained in the dna of america. not only did millions of escape from eastern europe received awards and millions of all faiths and cultures all over the world and continue. the truth is, the truth is that jewish heritage, jewish culture, jewish values are an essential

part of who we are. it's fair to say that the jewish heritage is the american heritage. that is who we are as a people. to me, that's part of the miracle, the miracle we all celebrate together as you celebrate with their families tonight. so on behalf of my children and my wife jill, the president of the united states let me just say happy hanukkah to everyone. thank you for having me. [applause]

..