[inaudible conversations] .. exploring community using it to reach out

to those neglected. she is a physician specializing in internal medicine and an advocate for health and environmental issues. from the national press club this is 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, dennis. thank you, to head rock and anita for saying so well what it is we are here for and what it is we are dedicated, too, and working for and towards. and this is such a wonderful time to be doing that. and thank you, actually to you all for being here today because this is an amazing historic moment. there is a movement for democracy and justice that is sweeping the planet. and people are rising up and

calling for an america and a world that works for all of us. we are told that we are in a recovery but in fact we are in an emergency and the political parties that got us into this mess are completely uncapable of getting us out so the american people are leading the way forward. and the demand for deep change has grown to a fevered pitch. young people are leading the black lives movement to stop racist violence and calling for an end to extra judicial murders of so many african-american children and parents like trayvon martin erin garner michael brown and more --

eric -- teachers are gathering together. momentum is growing against high stake testing that forces poor kids down the prison pipeline. and the fight is building toward predatory impliesrison sentence. workers are fighting to a right to union. students are demanding an end to college debt that is crippling a decade. immigrants are standing up for a humane path to citizenship not a three-year deferl of deportation. frontline communities are leading to resistance to toxic fossil fuels that threaten to

disrupt civilization as we know it in our lifetime. the list goes on because this movement is alive and well in our communities. it marks the coming of age of a new generation. so it is time for a generational shift in our national vision. we have had enough ruling by the economic elite with their cult of cut-throat competition and their religion of greed. we have had enough of corporate capitalism that is putting profits ahead of people planet and peace. these deranged values have dominated the media and politics for decades and it is now clear for all to see where they lead: extreme inequality economic dispair, racism, endless war,

and climate catastophe. it is time to move forward with a new economy, energy, food system, and a new area of racial justice. the old politics is collapsing and the political vacuum is begging to be filled. that vacuum was seen in the 2014 mid-term elections. and those elections were not a victory for republicans as they have been widely misrepresented. but they were rejection of democrats. 2014 record-low voter turnout reflected profound disillusionment with both parties. so 2016 provides an incredible opportunity to fill that political vacuum and surge forward. the voices of resistance and

transformation deserve to be heard loud and clear and that is why i am announcing the formation of a committee to explore the 2016 presidential election. [applause] >> we will use this campaign to reach out to young people to workers, employed, under-employed and discouraged, to frontline communities, to immigrants to communities of color, women seniors, indigenous nations, the lgbt community, and all who have been neglected, abandoned, and betroyed by the democratic and republican parties. -- betrayed -- [applause] >> and we will offer a campaign in the service of the justice

they deserve. the green party can do this because we are the only national party that is not poisoned by corporate money. [applause] >> the only one. >> in 2012 we emerged as the nation's leading progress was party challenging the status quo. we will build on that and lift up the bold solutions american people are calling for. 20 million living wage jobs in an emergency green deal that will enrich communities not corporations. to rein in climate change and make wars for oil obsolete. [applause] >> we call for health care as a human right. not a sub-saharan -- subsidized

system that profits people. but a medicare for all systems to provide quality care for everyone while saving trillions simply by streamlining the massive private health insurance burrocracy. we call for quality, free public education as a right and an around to school closing high stake testing and end of student loan debt. [applause] >> we call for an emergency transition to a green economy powered by 100% wind, water and sun by 2030. [applause] >> we call for a welcoming path to citizenship for immigrant

residents and an end to the trade deals and political interventions that created the surge of mass migration to start with. [applause] >> we call for an end to the racist war on drugs, the school of prison pipeline militarized police the surveillance and prison states and a radical reduction of america's prison population. [applause] >> and finally, we call for a foreign policy based on human rights, international law, and diplomacy rather than global military and economic domination. [applause] >> as we test the waters, we can plan the campaign of a lifetime to match this moment of historic

possibility. in closing, i invite you to visit jill2016.com. connect with us. volunteer. make a donation. and in spanish: [speaking in spanish] >> this is the time to come together solutions are in our hands, justice is in our hands, and democracy is in our hands. together we can create a world that works for all of us and insure that people planet and peace will prevail. it is in our hands. [applause]

>> a few quick notes before be begin the question and answer period. i want to repeat the website because it just launched this morning. jill2016.com. and advise the media crafting stories or blog or interested people an exclusive story just hit the news that post-ed about an hour ago. feel free to grab it and share it. we will use a hand microphone. we are live on c-span and the folks at home will not hear you

if you don't speak into it. please wait until it is in front of your mouth to speak. i would like to open it up for question and answers for jill or any other panelist here. >> i am a journalist based here in washington, d.c. i would like to ask jill -- dr. stein, what you learned from your campaign in 2012. obviously a very active campaign. but i am wondering things you learned about politics and stuff that goes on here in washington and things that maybe surprised you, but also how it might impact your 2016 campaign and what you might do differently. >> thank you carmen. my run in 2012 came after a series of runs at the local and state level. and i have to say what was surprising was there was nothing surprising about politics and the kind of back-biting game as

it is played in the mainstream world of politics. what was surprising to me was how ready people are in our communities to rise up and really fight for something different. that amazed me. and in 2012 we were only beginning to build a national infrastructure to be able to really run a campaign. communication, social media, website, donor list -- the whole thing. i think that is what it is different this time around. people have not forgotten the incredible need for a different voice. for a different choice. and as we enter this exmirrorploring part of the campaign we are reaching out to see if this is the right time to step up and work together. i am hoping that it is.

[applause] >> to jill jennifer from the green party washington, d.c. of course you are laying out the issues excellent. i have a question that i feel was omitted and that is the united nations. i am the oldest person here and i remember when the u.n.was formed. and we thought we had recourse and a place where something called justice was going to happen all of that thing. and over the past several administrations the u.n.helps less and less. we are against palestine joining the u.n. it isn't a recourse reference. it is something -- we don't need it. and i really want you to put it on your list of issues that why

the un is a way to restore some kind of justice and legal determination rather than go to war. i don't care if it is haiti or whatever it is. >> thank you, jennifer. and thank you for your wonderful foundational work. founder of the green party in the washington, d.c. area. i will just say i completely agree instead of this short of shoot first foreign policy we have you know diplomacy international law and human rights really need to be at the forefront. and the un has become a mixed bag. we have seen that in the climate proceedings in the un where it has become a front for corporate lobbiest and the climate conferences have become climate

summits for the energy lobbyist. we need the get the powerful corporate companies out of the business of suppressing democracy in the u.n. thank you. >> other questions? >> kerry campbell green tv dr. stein, green parties around the world have been successful. in germany they are in the majority of state legislator and looks like the election on sunday puts them in the 9th or 10th state legislature governing in there. australia. across the world. a key success is eco jobs for the economy. solar, thermal, rail, walkability, pedestrian-friendly. and the important economic effects you can speak to.

talk more and tell us the positive health solutions for a green party with the obesity epidemic killing americans and the diabetes across the nation. >> thank you for making that point. what is good for the planet and good for the economy and our health. which is why the green deal is a win-win-win. in fact studies have shown this was a study by stanford by mark jacobson looked at the state of new york as a case study and found that going to hundred percent wind water and sun by 2030 was going to pay for itself simply in health savings alone. we sort of take air pollution for granted and water pollution and things like that. we take it for granted and assume they are god-given commissions and we all live with heart disease and other consequences asthma and so on

like they are natural parts of human society. in fact they are not. they are not god-given conditions that strike us from birth on. they are not just diseases of ages they hit children as much as anyone else. your point is a very good one. there are so many benefits to greening our economy, to halting climate change to making wars for oils obsolete and above all providing the jobs right now that are essential. we are make unemployment a thing of the past. we can put everyone to work. and the good news especially there is that conservation and efficiency saving energy by weatherizing homes and businesses and schools, all of that pays for itself in about three years in terms of just the energy savings. so there are so many savings that kick in that this is a win

on all counts. when people ask how are you going to pay for it essentially it pay for itself and we are paying through the teeth by not moving forward right now in a way that can solve the environment crises in a timely intervention. thank you. >> hi jill nice to see you. i am a 2016 baltimore mayor candidate seeking the nomiimation. my question is regarding the war on drugs. what do you think about decriminalizing all drugs and creating safe spaces and how do you plan to do that? >> let me answer that. it is a wonderful and deeply involved question. we need to maybe from criminalizing the use of substances to treating it as a public health issue.

there is no doubt that needs to be our overarching approach. criminalizing people who have addiction problems only makes them worse. they go out and are confronting joblessness and homelessness based on formbeing former prisoners. our prison system makes the war on drugs worse. we can fix this now. it is an absolute crime that people are in jail for using drugs that are less harmful than nicotine and alcohol. so the whole drug war is completely baseless soundless, immoral, racist and it needs to be transformed into a public health agenda and people who are currently serving time on the count of using recreational

substances who have not been involved in violent crime should have their sentence commuted. [applause] >> hi jill, i am kristen combs i am a public school teacher in pennsylvania. i was pleased to hear you mention education during your talk. can you talk more about what your vision of education would look like? public school teachers are attacked on a regular bases by the current administration and i would like to hear more about your vision. >> great. thank you. and thank you for standing up for public schools. i think we need an education system that teaches the whole student, the whole person for lifetime learning. i think the meaning of education into high stake standardized testing is a betrayal of the mission of education which should be about developing the

whole person lifetime learning and about developing our capacity for democracy. democracy fundamentally depends on education and our ability to make informed choices and inform ourselves ourselves. we need strong public schools and we should not privatize our schools. we need community-based schools but they should not have to be privatized in order to be community-based. parents and teachers and students all need a role. you know but creating charters and cherry picking the students who have more supportive families who can work harded and pass the test they get cherry picked out and public schools get left with the challenged kids. i guess my other visionary sort of thought about the big vision

in education is that kids need to come to school prepared to learn. if they are coming malnourished if they are coming sick, if they are walking through communities that are beset by violence if they are homeless, if they are jobless, that is an education problem. we cannot separate education and think we can fix it without dealing with poverty. >> i think we have time for two or three more questions. one here margaret and then this gentlemen over here. >> good morning, jill. i would like to know what is the prison reform about? you know as far as what are you going to do? >> yeah. great. very important question. thank you. there is a lot that needs to be done for prison reform. first of all, we have to stop, you know we have to stop shoving people in the prisons. entire populations.

1-3 every african man. there is a racist prison state that is shoving, directing, and forcing people who are economically disadvantage in that direction. people who don't have jobs you know, sometimes turn to dealing in drugs in order to survive. that is just a fact. and that should not be the case. where there is hope and people have jobs they are not forced into dangerous and risky professions in order to stay alive. i think we need to do away with the mandatory minimums that are throwing people into jail for very long terms. jail needs to be -- prison time should be about rehabilitation and not vengeance. we need to prepare people to

move back into the society. the term is used restortive justice that says what our vision of prison system should be. it should not be about retbution and it should be about preventing people from being torn from their families. we need to provide people with hopeful, sustainable and just pathways going forward. >> thank you. [applause] >> good morning, dr. margaret flowers. it has been more than a hundred year struggle of people fighting for a national health care system that is based on health and not profit. the affordable care act further

empowered the industrial health care complex. do you have the courage to take on that powerful complex and how do you think the people will respond when you start to thing about a medicare for all type of thing? >> well margaret, you know well what this is about and none of us can do this alone. to my mind, the imperative for this campaign is to bring that struggle, which you and so many other physicians and every day people you know are pushing forward to create a health care system that is accountable to us and about our right to health care not about generating more profits for a pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. furthermore we have a sick care system. it isn't a health care system. it allows all kinds of things to go on that make us sick. whereas, the vast majority of illnesses, chronic illnesses are

preventable and inflicted on us by social and nutritional and pathological conditions and social conditions as well. so we can do the right thing and we have a wonderful crew to be fighting this battle. and kudos to you and tnht and poplar resistance and poor people's economic human rights campaign and many others in the audience who are listening and have been a part of the struggle. polls continue to show this is what most americans want. it is really just for lack of a voice in the process and for the fear campaign that tells us we don't dare stand up for what is actually within arm's reach. what we can achieve and make our lives better and make us heathier and give us a more

secure community. standing up for our health in my view is part of standing up for or economic and social health and the health of our democracy. as we come together in a national political campaign and national presidential campaign is a great way to build the coalitions as you are doing in poplar resistance, this gives that kind of social movement another voice in the political arena and that is where we get traction. if you look at what is happening in greece. things only began to really change for the better with when that social movement also became a political movement and that political movement had a rise from 3% about five years ago, to being the majority party and having the prime minister of greece now in that party. we are seeing the same thing happening in spain in the uk the green party is also experiencing a really fast

upsurge, and in the united states for better or worse, it isn't likely things are going to change. the predators are at the steering wheel and they have no intention of giving it up. they are going to keep driving public support into our direction. so i think we have a very exciting future. i encourage everybody to go to the website. jill2016.com. weigh in. let's make this the campaign of a lifetime in this moment of historic transformation. thank you so much. >> dr. stein we did have two other people on this stack as it were who i promised could ask questions but we will make them quick and wrap up the public forum. dr. stein will be available for individual interviews with individual media that wishes to stay around after the next two questions. and they will be brief.

>> very brief. i will david shorts man. the u.s. senator candidate for the dc state of green party. as you know the green party supports statehood. the only national party that does. what will you do to promote our goal nationally and internationally? >> i missed a couple words. was that statehood? yeah you know washington, d.c. is a very important place as head rock was saying early on. this is the seat of power and where so many battles are fought. so i will be here. and again i am in exploritory campaign now. if things go well my intent is to be here fighting the fight with you. and this is everybody's fight.

it is national disgrace our national capital is a colony of the two-party corporate state. [applause] >> final question. >> jill stein deck with the poor people's economic human right campaign and i would like to know what you will do to bring young people that are disillusioned with the two-party system into the fold and make them more welcome and understanding of democracy. >> thank you, deck. [applause] >> that is the question of the hour. and i think that is something we can only do together. that is part of what we are doing in the exploring phase is calling on people who want to see this happening and a choice and future for young people loo don't have jobs swamped with debt and don't have a climate fuchl future to look forward to.

this is a time to mobilize. we need to have young people at the helm and leading the charge. my hope is during the campaign we will get organized, standup and see who is counted and we will have a campaign like we have never seen. [applause] >> it is in our hands. >> thank you very much everyone. this concludes -- [applause] >> so the the formal question and answer section is now concluded. for the individual media that wish to have private interviews with any of the activist here in support of the committee please approach them directly or approach me and i will help you

get the interviews. for everyone else thank you so much for coming. [inaudible conversations]

>> there was news out of mississippi today. the death of congressman nonely. he was first elected in 2010 to represent mississippi first congressional district. he had been battling cancer since the spring and moved to hospice care after doctors found an unoperable to meumor. he was sworn into a third term at a mississippi hospital when his condition left him unable to attend the opening in congress. he was 56. c-span2 providing coverage of the live record floor.

and booktv on the weekend. the only network devoted to non fiction books and authors. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next, a discussion on libertarian policy in the 118th congress. they looked at the housing market, intelligence surveillance, and trade. this is an hour. i think we will begin. i am the director of congressional affairs for the cato institute. thank you for coming to hear the

third annual libertarian state of the union. the president laid out plans fl final two years in office in the state of the union. it reminded me of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. what does the agenda mean for liberty? how will it affect growth? what can policymakers do to address pressing issues and reducing to reduce the size and scope of the government. to discuss the current state of the union i have four cato policy experts. the director of financial regulations studies at the cato institute is here.

we spent seven years on the committee staff on housing, banking and urban affairs and handled issues with banking and mortgages for ranking member richard shelby from alabama. he built a career of proposals on financial and the mortgage market and how changes affect low income households. chris edwards the director of the policy at katiecato. he was a senior writer on the congressional joint economic committee, a manager with price waterhouse cooper and an economist. he has testified to the congress on financial issues and his writings have appeared in the "washington post" and washington journal and other papers.

he is the author of downsizing the government. he was a member of the fiscal future commission of the national academy of science. julian sanchez studies the civil liberties with a focus on national security and intelligence surveyillancesurveillance. he covered surveillance before this covering policies. he wrote for the democracy in america blog and an editor for reason magazine where he is remaining contributing editor. he is a founding editor of the blog just security. he studied philosophy and political science at new york state university. and the director of herbet center where he coordinated

international trade and policy. and focused on u.s. china trade agreements, globalization, u.s. manufacturing and trade remedies like anti-dumpingregime and wrote a book about the topic even. he has testified before variety congressional communities and he is a frequent guest on numerous tv programs. his articles have been in the wal street junior, los angeles times, usta today, chicago tribune, forbes and national review. these are our scholars. each speaks in term for 7-10 minutes or so. and after which we will open it up for q&a. let's open it up for mark now. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, peter. it is an honor to be with my colleagues today. and i thank the audience for showing up. it must be tempting to be here on what is a lovely 17 degree day. at least it is warm in here. of course the state of the union deals with where we are as a country. and i want to start with where we are as an economy. of course politicians are often made or broken by the state of the economy and of course the economy directly impacts all of us whether it is weak or strong and/or own job prospects and the job prospects of our friends and neighbors. we are entering the six year of recovery. there are bright spot but it is fair to see the economy disappoints in a lot of ways. consumer spending second half of 2014 and consumer confidence

picked up but the labor mark is still concerning. unemployment rates dropped to below 6% unfortunately a considerable percentage of this decline was workers leaving the employment force. labor participation rates have been falling since 2006. while the january numbers marked a small uptick it was only large enough to offset for the

>> that impacts employment and construction related industries.

to summarize, i think we are slowly headed in the right direction. there are lots of weakness that remain. i don't think we are near the time when anybody should be taking a victory lap on the economy. there is an extent to which it is easy to say job weakness could be because of lack of demand. there could be more demand also but one of the more important policies and economic questions is there a disconnect between the labor markets and overall spending. gdp and consumer spending continued to increase for years even while the labor market was flat. this only changed in recent years. and i think this topic is continuing to be debated by my view is expansion of mean tested programs created strong disincentives to work or at least at prevailing wages. i think the recovery of the housing problem and the con

traction of the safety network is one of the major forces behind the market recovery. home ownerships are declining. it isn't far from where it was in 1960 in fact. a lot of areas i work on in mortgage finance and one would think since we are back to the home ownership rates we have not seen in decades we would think to rethink the policies. but i don't think it is in the cards. the president announced a lowering of prepmiums to bring in regular borrowers. and fannie may decided it was okay to take on more and the taxpayer are

taxpayers are on the hook for attempt they are taking. i figure this effort will end in tears as well. the reduction in fhh premiums are intended to help the rate, but i think the buyers are lower credit will suggest we will see a reduction quality. two thirds of hha are sub-prime bar barrowers so it is hard to picture it worse. it will mean we will have further losses by bringing lower quality buyers and also worth remembering fhh has a particular case of this but i will talk about it not being the only program on the budget where the

cost are pushed out in further years and have estimated credit subsidies. to show you concern, the estimates where fhh underestimated the cost of the program by over $70 billion so not collected in the cost of the program and it has to be made up by the taxpayer. we have seen similar cost a little less, with the student loan programs. i would say be leery of government loan programs that offer lots of profits because more often than not it is an illusion. let me talk about the shadow budget. we will talk more about what is on budget later but i want to talk about what is not on the budget but comes on to the budget and that is the sometimes explicit and sometimes inplicit subsidies in the financial

systems. the shadow liability is $3 trillion with the housing being at $2 triianllion. these programs end up costing significantly more than every promised. and while those are on budget they are not accurately reflected. worse of concern me is the implied implied implied guaranteed. you will not find this reflected in the budget. it is also worth saying and there is about $2 trillion in private pension funds, that are at risk and the taxpayer maybe asked to pick up as well. lots of figures and liabilities. i would go as far to say of equal concern is giving the actions of the widespread bail out during the crisis and the

structure of the dodd-frank act leads the taxpayer responsible ultimately. the question is whether the other six trillion in uninsured bank liability and if the taxpayer is on the hook for those. that says nothing when you guarantee risk you make the cost of something lower and people consume more of it and the same is true about the risk in the financial systems. most of the guarantees they encourage excessive risk taking in the marketplace. we need to be concerned about that. to give you a sense of unfunded liabilities, well i will start with one of my former colleagues at cato estimated the unfunded liabilities are about $70 trillion of promises we made but can't keep. the federal reserve bank of

richmond estimated the shadow liabilities in the financial system are as much as $108 trillion. that is seven times the gdp. we don't have the ability to pay that. and we will not. so i would say by difference however, some of the financial liabilities have collateral behind them. to summarize the state of what i call our financial fiscal union it is at best shaky. the health of the banks and housing markets have been driven by a federal reserve liquidity. it has been good for banks about not the over all economy. if and when the feds decide to lower rates, later this year i can there is a significant chance houses prices will

flatten and maybe decline. i remember people chanted on the hill that housing prices never go down. now you have heard housing prices do decline and when they do nsa nasty things happen. incomes are far short what one would need to afford a house. it might be a needed adjustment but it will be painful. to backdoor system helped build bank balance sheets and higher rates may increase lending but to the papered over problems i worry another financial crisis may be well in the works. to sustain the current recovery

i think we need to regulate the financial system particularly in the area of mortgage finance. we are six years past the financial crisis but my opinion is the fundamental drivers of the crisis remain to be addressed. with that happy note i will turn it over to chris edwards who i know will be even more cheerful. [applause] >> all right. thank you very much mark. i am chris edwards. director of tax policy at the cato institute and editor of downsizing.org the website that tells you how to cut the federal budget. president obama released the 2015 budget and i will talk about the tax and spending. the language is triumphant as if

the president has solved the problems. it is a poke in the eye to american businesses and republicans who won a landslide election last fall. this wasn't a compromised budget on taxes and spending policy. under president obama, spending and debt has soared with federal debt soaring. it is the highest it has ever in our history and the president's budget seems untroubled by that and keeps the debt at high levels. his deficits are half a trillion a year for the next decade and the administration seems untroubled by that. but that is $500 trillion of new cost every year that will be passed on to younger americans.

the administration in its budget proposed no plan to ward off fiscal doom from rising cost in social security medicare and medicaid which is growing as the share of the economy. the trust fund for social security disability insurance runs dry next year and the administration papers over that problem. the congressional budget office projects federal spending will grow to 30% of the economy by 2035. future americans will be increasingly less free as the government gobbles a greater share of everything produced in the nation. but that sort of scary forecast by the cbo and omb has similar long-term projections. they are optimistic for several reasons actually. first, president obama for example in his budget shows discreationary spending meaning defense and non-defense dropping

over the next decade. i would be in favor of that but the president has no plan to make it happen. no major cuts and terminations. so his showing under discretionary spending is trying to cover up the deficit problem. the second problem is the united states might see unforeseeable wars in the future. hopefully we will avoid major wars but the problem is if we do get in a major war we will start from a high level of debt. president bush started his war when we had a low level of date. so if we have major wars in the future it could be catastrophic fiscally as we go higher and higher into debt. a third issue is that in these long-term projections that look scary enough they don't include recession. we may well have major

recessions in the future that will blow huge holes in the deficit/budget. it would be prudent pay down the debt but unfortunately president obama's budget does the opposite. in some of the official projections they are artificially rosy and i think they should be scouring the budget and look for programs to cut and terminate. now would be a great time to cut federal spending and i mentioned cato's website downsizinggovernment.org is a great place to go. education, housing and transportations -- federal subsidies for state governments cost over $600 billion a year and they are ripe for cutting. a good opportunity comes in may

when the federal highway trust fund runs out of money. there is a gap between spending and gap tax revenue. congress should cut spending down to the level of gas tax revenue to solve the problem and allow the state governments to fill the gap however they want. president obama's budget goes into the opposite direction, raising taxes to increase highway and transit spending and that is the wrong way to go i think. there is no advantage in increasing federal intervention in the nation's highway system. state governments can raise their own money to spend on their own highways any time they want. they don't have to wait for the federal government. switching over to president obama's tax proposal, there are two problems with them. they would increase tax complexity and very much anti-growth. it is a curious thing obama's budget said repeatedly that his tax proposal would simplify the

tax code. the president said in speeches and in the state of the union he wants to simplify the tax code. but it would make it more complex. he would tax capital gains a new bank tax, a so-called war on buffet tax on high earners and proposes complicated tax credits. there is a $500 credit for two-earner family and a variety of business give away credits like a new manufacturing tax credit. these would complexify the tax code. they are also anti-growth. he would increase the federal capital gains tax rate from 24 to 28 percent. if you add the taxes on top the rate would be 32%. if you look around the world at our trading partners the average

capital gains tax rate is 18%. we would be at 32%. and other countries at 18%. why do other countries have low capital gains tax rates? because they know that they are good for foreign investment and start up and growth in companies. president obama's increase is anti-silicone valley. president obama would impose tax on capital gains but the problem is we have a 40% estate tax that hits at death. if you look around the world, countries either have a state or inheritance tax or they tax capital gains at death. they generally don't want to do both but obama does and that will induce high earners to save and invest less and that will

hurt the economy and all of us. president obama would increase corporate taxes. the united states has the highest rate and with state taxes on top the u.s. corporate tax rate is 40%. the average global tax rate is 24%. the second problem with the tax system is we tax corporations on a worldwide bases. the united states claims the right to tax u.s. companies on their operations throughout the entire planet which when you think about it is a bizarre way to set-up a tax code. every other country has a system where tay don't tax the foreign operations of their multi national companies generally. ...

and is good for the economy. thank you. [applause] thank you all for being here. in the other state the union speech initially heart end today hear president obama saying while others had moved beyond the debate about our intelligence agency surveillance programs he had not enthusiasm wayned a little bit wishing a report about things that they have done internally to have additional safeguards on

those programs and that report that was release this had week. i think underscores how far short they have fallen in reform efforts not just from several inpanels have recommend but from what the president himself has committed to over a year ago. i this i at that what we have seen in another report is by far not enough both from the civil liberties perspective because we have constructed an unpresidented and sprawling architect turf data collection on the premise that effective intelligence now requires extraordinarily broad and some cases entirely indiscriminating collection of data by guilty and the innocent alike and the architecture that because of its breath will in a time of crisis or at the behest of people with poor moiftz i think would be there with the flip of a switch turned

from the legitimate toil legitimate purposes with the way that we have seen in the history repeatedly over decades and intelligence services with inadequate over site and they lacked anything like the capabilities of the modern and fbi this is inadequate for economic reasons. we have seen increasingly distrust in markets of american technology companies and we have seen projection that's the american computing sector alone will stand to left side on the order of $180 billion over the period of three or four years because the declining trust. especially in the enterprise sector. very seen the declines in for example global orders for cisco's routers and following reports of now it was installing malware and not just for particular individuals but corporate level so both to restore the public confidence and those to protect civil liberties and global market confidence in the trust worthy nests

american technology firms. we will need to do quite a bit more. so of course at the end of the last session we saw the main surveillance reform vehicle the usa freedom act stall in the senate. and i guess the most prominent component of that was reforms to 215 of the usa patriot act as well as related authorities to get telecommunications data, and this is famously the basis for the bulk telephany revealed. the president a year ago commit today end that in the current form and the bulk collection by the government to let the date a that will continue. it was recently renewed yet again several independent bodies the privacy and the civil liberties oversight board as well as the president hand picked by the review group has both said that this is the program of extremely limited effectiveness. that could safely be ended

and should be ended. the privacy and civil oversight board weapon into detail to examine claims about the he have cassy of the program. and the success stories and terror plots that from foiled and and went through one an at a time. 11 of 12 of the cases in fact the program contrary to claims in the behalf had provided no unique intelligence use to fbi or nsa. and that the 12th case involving material support meaning monday tearing donations have been you know. in fact the first way that they found useful information. but that it was not necessary targeted methods would have sufficed. so we have had the agreement of the intelligence community that with the reform a poach that was out lined in the legislation they will duplicate the essential functionalist the program. though it is limited

effectiveness. and that we have seen the general council for the director of national intelligence in a conference held in cato and again this week of the brookings institute saying that the intelligence community was comfortable with the reform that is was something that they preserved capabilities and required and wish it had would pass and yet, we here confusing invokation of the attacks on charlie hebdo and the rise of isis. invoked as reasonables that again despite what the intelligence community says we will need to preserve the thethe domestic call records program there. is such a thing as become being more catholic than the pope. if the intelligence community and every expert body says that these are reforms that we can untake to improve privacy and civil liberties protections without ham percentage the intelligence mission, then there should not be there should not be resistance

that we see. similarly, we have not seen any significant reforms to collection under section 7026 the a menment act this. is an authority essentially allowing general warrants that permit nsa analysts to select foreign based targets and communications with americans. we know that there were 90,000 such targets and one quasi warren task and many, many many american communications were swept up in the process. this is particularly concerning given that we know that the fbi is authorized to search the databases for the fires of americans and people would not be legal to collect on directly they are sit sdenlz in the united states without a particular judicial warrant can then be pull out

of the enormous pool of global communication that's they have collected from the enormous number of directors stressed and not necessarily bad guys. because nsa will not just look at bad guys but people that are saying things that are interesting and indeed the fbi can do this and can search the database for the american communications even when they are conducting their assessments and meaning not the full predicated investigation based on a type of evidence or of wrongdoing and just to satisfy the themselves that there is not a wrongdoing being committed. in is also concerning because of the practice that we have learned about called about collection that is to say that a target is selected and account and phone numbers would be selected specifically concerning and e-mail addresses and online accounts will be tasks for the collection but the collection does not just encompass the communications to or from that address.

rather all of the international communications will stand contents of the communication scanned. and communications neither to or from the target and perhaps to or from americans are collected if they can contain a reference to a target fire. the resent report is proposed a number of additional internal approvals for the use of some of knees techniques but as justice scalia said. in court an opinions our founders did not fight and die for stricter perot comes and by the foreign intelligence surveillance court's standard in fact the techniques would appear to be unconstitutional the foreign intelligence has articulated the exemption from the warrant requirement of electronic searches and suggests that when the search is conducted both or

a foreign intelligence purpose or when it targets someone believes that the probable cause level an asian to a foreign power there. is a foreign intelligence special needs exemption from the usual requirement to get a particular judicial warrant and yet of course that is not a requirement of this type of collection it. will require the collection target foreign persons and it does not have that additional requirement so you will have communications of u.s. person that's are protected by the fourth a menment and collected under the condition that's do not satisfy the own criteria for a foreign intelligence exception that should be a problem. i think. and we have also heard calls increasingly as we are hearing dire warnings about the state of american cyber security to restrict incription technology. both in temps of communication services platforms that are used by the people that provide incription and device

incription on things like smart phones. these are extraordinarily problematic i think little evidence was presented that in fact this is proving, and in the obstacle to anything with investigation and information in the enormous university of data that we swim in cannot be obtained in alternative ways. problematic as a term of prince pl and presumption that the government can require you to store your own information in a format design today fascilitate their access though committed of no crime or had to write a diary in english to make it easier if the government wanted to read it. and from a security perspective. security experts are near unanimous. it is difficult to kwaet any kind of communications technology or system that is both secure against unauthorized assault and will work against its own use for provide access to only those entities that you wish to grant access to.

problematic from an economic perspective and trying to sell the devices and technology that's are announced to vf a deliberate architecture for security breach built into them. as adult proposition. and slightly more resultly this is problematic. it will entail maybe nonobvious design constraints. that is to say that when you mandate either a device manufacturer or communications provider retain capability to provide encrypted communications. you will actually bake into the mandate a bunch of other design constraints that again may not be obvious to the nontechnical but for instance if you push people from distributing the pure to pure communications and those hard to intercept so to centralized architectures if there are good technical reasons to not want to implement that architecture. finally i this i that the unifying problem that brings

all of these thing together is the extraordinary life of transe parent see. and the surveillance programs that i talk about the were implemented and subjected to secret rulings by the foreign intelligence surveillance. and secret statutes by government lawyers and often wildly differing from what any ordinary me. public would unassistant law to be authorizing and indeed what many legislators understood themselves to have an authorized and any reform to be credible i think with the public in any of these areas is going to need to be bundled we are form reinquiring some levels of transparency and major decisions from court in the democracy we believe that this is no such thing as secret law that a lopez body of secret common law we may never know as much about the state the union as the fbi and the nsa do. but at the releast should know what the state of the law is.

thank you. [applause] all right everybody thank you for sticking around and important none the less. u.s. trade policy closer to the libertarian model and kauai deal and every other policy. that is not just because the government is not encroach energy trade policy or because it is particularly libertarian but the government will encroach more and other spheres of public lives. so we are still a long way from the libertarian ideal in trade policy. that idea would be free trade. you know. free flow of goods and services across the border with no tariffs and discriminating limitations and free flow of investment and in and out of the

country. and into any industry. and any and all initial stories. the free flow of labor. in and out of the country. so the moral case. i think for the free trade is compelling people are entitle today the fruits of their labor and entitle today dispose of property as they wish and the government interfering in the decisions trying to tilt the balance by domestic producers so products will be cheaper and taxing foreign producers so that products are motion, pensive that is where the unfairness is. so it messes up incentives. it will compel people to make political decisions instead of economic ones and instead of investing in rnd or production facilities to make a better mousetrap companies are more inclined to invest in politics. and on street. even companies that do not want anything to do with washington competitors are

here asking for things and demanding thing so it will create this problem and, markets. producers do not know what to produce. and will satisfy the consumer demand. so i will get off of that high horse and the mission trade center at cato our goal is to educate the public and policymakers about the benefits of free trade and the cost of protection not to free trade. if that was the goal i would have lost my job long ago. so where do we stan with respect to that goal of illuminating people about the benefits of free trade? . >> well, let's ask this question. is the public more aware of the benefits of trade or cost of protections now than five years ago or twenty yearsing a? . >> evidence is mixed if you look at the poll results you see the american public that is grudgingly accenting of idea that the united states

will need to be engaged in the global economy and will you also see reluctance and skepticism about the impact of trade on jobs and in particular. let's look at the political dialogue. well, it is still fairly partisan republicans tend to favor trade liberalization. freer trade. representing you know business interests. this is not necessarily free trade but it is pro trade. pro export democrats will tend to be guided by their labor and environmental and anti-corporate interests and opposed to the trade. but interestingly i would say that more so than any other in the 14 years at cato. prospects for the trade liberalization right now are greater than any other time in the span so that is fairly ironic considering the president that is presiding over this state of affairs. as a president that is really never made a case for the trade liberalization or made an affirmative case in

the state of the union address a few weeksing a he made the defensive case. and you know. we will have to engage in the trade deals because if not they will be left behind china will write the rules. so this is what we will have to do rather than something that is beneficial that we should do and to me that is the wrong way to pitch trades and i will digress for a minute. and give you 150 years of trade policy history in that one minute democrats were not always the party of protectionism and republicans of free trade. it was the other way around from civil war to 1934. democrats were the party of free trade. and the republicans part eve protection. and of the mother of the trust. and big business interests did not want competition. they liked it. and tariffs. between 1934. and approximately the nafta vote early 90s the trade was pushed on the bipartisan basis. through a bipartisan concensus and the trade was a good thing after naft a democrats started to really peel off an opposing trade.

and when gw bush was president, he um it was at the beginning at least. it seemed to be unlikely that the trade an again a would go anywhere. there was a lot of internal combustion going on here in the united states. and after 9/11, there was a new sort of impetus for the globalization to show solidarity. and perhaps a majority. republicans will control congress with the senate and the house and in seeking that they did not want to incorporate the republicans in congress did not want to incorporate the demands of the democrats work which were those trade agreements. so the trade promotion authority passed on the partisan basis and all of the subsequent trade agreements in the earlier 2000s were fairly partisan. and the vote was part sand whether obama became sorry when the democrats took control of congress in 2007,

there were three pending bilateral agreement negotiated in the bush administration with colombia, and panama and south korea taken off track by nancy pelosi. it was not given a fast track treatment that climate prevailed. so when president obama assumed the office. he basically capitulate today the office and did not attempt to push the trade agreements at all. so for several years the agreements would lay and 2010. when the republicans took back the house, starting in 2011 decided okay. i will help to get the agreements through and he d he worked with congress to get the agreements done. ' noujsed that we are ramping up the effort in the transe pacific partnership negotiations and that his negotiation of the deal but still never made a case for why we should be doing this. and then we had the 2012 election. his rhetoric again was defensive on the trade. and so last year finally

trade promotional authority legislation was tro introduced on a bipartisan basis and harry reid said do not bring it to the floor. we would not vote on that. and they didn't. so right now, we are at the stage where we are trying to negotiate or get trade promotion authority for the president and there is language to be run write now. and the senate house ways and mains and by the enltz of the month. something will come out i generally think that under the regularity of authority into foreign treaty and many course trade promotion authority is an expedient and compact you must do x, y, z abc. and bring back that agreement for the agreement will vote yea or nay. no fill busters. and described by the opponents though as sort of

the executive power grad. and it is giving away responsibility. for that is not the case. so i this i that it would be good for trade promotion authority. otherwise will you not get an a greemth they will not put the best offers on the table unless the deal that they negotiate will be able to withstand congressional scrutiny. nerndz picked apart by congress. so there is a lot of opposition to the trade agenda itself. and transpacific partnership negotiation and also the transatlantic negotiation the tichlt i am not sure that i will support that tpp and i think that i am incline today do that it will make us more economically free. and the trade agreements have a lot of protectionism baked into them. they are not free trade they have the initial stories that are carved out from liberalization and tariffs

auto industry wants a 2. 5% on automobiles and they want to phase that out over 25 years and a tenth of the a percent a year. and rigid property provisions and monopoly. do we have what we need under u.s. law? . >> probably not, some agreement are pushing for investor rights for foreign investores to be able to go outside of the u.s. judicial system. if there has been an ex-prop relation or if they were treated unfairly. and if asset values are declined likewise the u.s. companies will have access to the third party tribunal system as well. i do not think that it is necessary. i will evaluate them whether or not they are liberalizing. and i this i that those that want to nip and trade in the bud by denying the fast tractor the trade practice

promotion authority. had it wrong congress can vote no. if they do not like it. and the issue that i want to bring to your attention is the export and import bank. that was suppose to lapse last year in september. reauthorized temporarily through june 30th. and export and import bank. and credit agency that age willedly finances the export sales private sector banks will be unwilling to touch so if that is the case. if that is what it does they are putting taxpayer resources at risk. and defenders of the bank say that they are making money for the treasury. there have is no risk. it is like driving home drunk and rationalizing the next day. i made it home safely. i can do this again tomorrow there are taxpayer dollars that are at risk. and also this is not been a big americans love ports,

good and bad and scoreboard. we are losing the trade. vet deficit. and everybody is cheating. we love exports, right? into that is the wrong way to think of trade. but people think that exports are so good we under write exports we are gch to reauthorize the charter. this are costs. costs to other companies in the same industry. they are put at a disadvantage and the cost to down stream initial stories. the best example is delta. raising the roof about subsidies to boeing. and xm's primary customer is it boeing. when boeing customers india and ethiopia get subsidies from american.

they are is up subsidizing competition with u.s. carriers there. are $ 50 billion subsidies that went out over the last self not yeahers in manufacturing and the been fisheries has a drown stream customer. and the customers are put at a disadvantage the way that delta is. so, i am hoping that the bank is not reauthorized and that it is through june 30th that is something had a we are standing for. we wrote eight about that. in the paper out there. that is to 114th congress i will stop there. thank you. [applause] we have time for q&a. that is only one rule that is to express your question in the form avenue question otherwise we are ready to go. i am a moderate. i have a question to follow

up on the import and export. i talked to progressive. they believe that they want the bank to be reauthorized because of the green technology. and then i have talked to the hawks. me want it to be reauthorized. they think that the republicans will change it so weapons can be included as one of their thing that they will ensure. and if that happens we will be selling a lot more weapons and people. the dod tell me they do not want that there are vets going to afghanistan with one limb because they need people. we do not have enough for the va to take care of the people that we need to take care of. so my question is your statement about the import and export made me happy somebody just says that other companies are hurting by doing this. so the issue that i have is how did it get explained by the general public so it is clear. i don't think that congress really gets it excellent

question. i wrote a paper about the down stream costs a few months ago. distributed up here. and i was told that people had a hard time understanding so we will revitalize that and make it more successful. what i have found to be the most interesting twist in the xm debate is the support that xm's reauthorization is getting from progressive. they have shouted about corporate welfare. and supporting it the and only reason to imagine they are support that can is the proopponents of getting rid of the bank we must be against it so i think that is motivating a lot of support for reauthorization among progressives. thank you. in the back? my name is i have a question about. we already know

reauthorization. do you think that another cries sister possible. can you identify that in an initial indicator that maybe we are not totally out of this is this for mark? . >> sure i am reminded about a give area number gave a date. never give both. that would i say. i am absolutely. 99.9% sure we have another financial crisis some day boy i wish i knew when that would be. i can short it and mix the money. i do not know what it will be and sectors of the economy. i am worried that will roll back. as a general rule of thumb and when have you the long stretches of time with the real post inflation is negative that is you're essentially paying people to take money. i am certain that you pay the vast parts of the public

to take money. somebody will do something dumb with that. so we have had six years where the fed has run a negative real interest rate policy. that to me is distorted property markets and distorted the equity market and the bond market so when we see that on unravel this. is the question of or you know when? i said for instance that the market i thought would be 2004. i was off a year and a half again can't say when i think it will be, but i think within the next five years we are going to start to see property markets equity markets level off and go down in some areas there are still positives. i think that the banks are better capitalized than they were and the amount of rick in the mortgage market is big not as bad as it was. so again there are other areas and i don't think that this sovereign debt crisis of europe is anywhere being solved so this is a big over

hang so i do not think that we have dealt with the fundamentals and that i will say that you rarely get a financial crisis without a sort of expansion of credit. and he would have seen that in this case. whether the company has made better decisions and it remains to be seen yeah i would add to that if recessions happen. economists have not figured them out whether they are called business psycheles and whatever you want to call them. they are complicate and economists simply cannot foresee when they will happen. if you go back to january 2008, that is whether they introduced their budget prodesk projection they did not see the presession coming that can had started in december 2007 in january 2008. they saw arosy future of actually rising growth. and 2 to 3%. economists have no idea oh

you to projt fiekt economic growth we do not totally understand how the economy will work so we will have and a recession. i don't know how it will be caused by. or if it will be caused by central bank or changes of energy markets or whatever but to me the up shot is that we ought to be prudent with the federal budget. and get deficits and debt down right now as we have the chance and the economy is growing right now. now is the good time to start making some of the reforms we need to make again, what if we get into the deep recession or have and a major costly war it. will put the country into a terrible situation, we will be starting off from a very high level of debt so we ought to be prudent. and i do not think to add on either side of the aisle in washington. this is direct today mark clab are. and anybody else if they have anything to add can.

more than welcome to add. but wondering about the talk about the continue contingent liabilities that the u.s. government has and deficit for the year did not seem to care for a lot of that. of the reason that's the federal government saemz to have had markings of the subprime bauer ower and the reason why the they can continue to do this is that people are lending them money. based on the psychology and investor class thinks that government money. and that will be fine so. that they can lend them money. it strikes me as a weak psyche goo. i know that the other competitive kurnls sees are as bad shape at the dollar so. the question is do you envision any situation where the investor class will stop, stop lending money to the u.s. government in low interest rates?

i think that there are fundamentals and the point that you raise about this is valid. it concerns me. i think that we have learn this had repeatedly. the psychology of the situation can change quite quickly. and all of a suddenly. great confidence in what we know is despite that default is at this time. maybe they won't. and again. that is only one example. we certainly are in a situation where some of much of the financial decision here is built on things like fannie, and freddy. treasury debt. and if there is a problem in the sector the financial system itself will create. so i this that i there is a deep concern there. and i don't think that we have addressed it in any way. the attraction of the off budget cheat liabilities are so much easier for politicianes to save money that way. it never shows up on the budget. you will make promises that you do not have to pay for of course many of the rules for instance. accounting rules and many programs that i mentioned as

i talked about the fha and discussion. premiums do not cover administrative costs and salaries for 3,000 employees will not reflect in the premiums charged so i guess that i would end with saying that the problem is that the government engages in a lot of what i would call enron style accounting and it hides liability from the balance sheet, whether they come back to the balance sheet like it did for enron and citibank, this is not pretty we have time for one more quick question. any hope for the freer flow of labor from this? i did not hear about immigration from you guys. what i would hope to see movement on in the next couple of years? do i think that prospects are good? . >> not really. you know i refer to the work

of cato who has written about this. the republicans are not that with willing to embrace the idea so it is something that we will need to you know. continue to push for. maybe i will enon a more optimistic note. directly with work i do think that it will turn and many republicans will start to see that even from a pure political calculus that being an immigrant does not necessarily work. so again. i am not optimistic by the run i this i that the fact that most of us will recognize that our parents or grand parent contribute today this country is a message that resonates with most people so. i will enby saying that the could not mist. i do think that part of the reflects the labor market at any one time. labor mark let get more secure in jobs they will be

more concern about the competition for their jobs. there you have it [applause] on the table on your way out there. is a a priorities for 114th congress. essays from anybody on the panel. and i encouraging you to take one on the way out i encouraging you to take one. appreciate it.

the papers are the flagship collection. we have here he made it his life to help local and beyond mexican-americans to

learn to be more civically active and to get benefits that they had coming to them as veterans that were sometimes very difficult for them to obtain. these three items here represent the case of felix long oria. an incident that occurred earlier in the history of the gi forum private longoria served the united states during world war ii and was killed pi a japanese sniper towards the ends of the war. had his widow arrange today his funeral conducted by the only funeral home of three rivers texas near corpus christi they were willing to conduct the funeral but not willing to allow his body to remain in the funeral home overnight for the faefrt several. he conduct add letter writing campaign to the people of positions of influence and a response

would come from linden john whether or not who had been elected the senator he states his belief that it is wrong fear soldier. a fallen soldier to be discriminated against after death he offered the burial and the arlington national some tree. that is where private longoria was laid to rest. watch all from corpus christi on c-span 2's book tv and saturday afternoon 2:00 american history tv on c-span 3 chlt.

[applause]

members legislature -- members of legislature i present to you the honorable doug ducey governor of state arizona arizona. [applause] thank you. speaker gowan president biggs, house leaders montenegro and meyer. senate leaders yarbrough and hobbs. chief justice bails. members of the judiciary. legislature. fellow arizona residents. thank you all very much and

good afternoon. [applause] it has been quite a day at this capital and the highlight was your swearing. elected office is an honor that rarely comes easy. i congratulate and welcome each one of you. [applause] when we have served before or are new to this place, all of us have arrived here to find serious challenges waiting on us. the test is when we answer them in a serious way. without trying to buy time or to side step obvious problems that will need to be dealt with right away. putting off problems is certainly not what i had in mind in seeking this office and i know that each of you would say the same about the

positions of trust that you hold by right. these next few weeks, we could all use the fresh outlook of newcomers. not trapped in the old ways of thinking about state spending, taxes. public education, and the role of government in general. in government just as in business settled assumptions are not always correct assumptions. conventional wisdom is not always wisdom and the political parties do not have to be hostile parties set against each other never case. this at least, will be the spirit of my administration as i work with you in every way that i know how. [applause]

naturally. i hope that it will be returned in kind. i think that we will find the best achievements are shared achievements a week into this job, i won't press the case that the state of the state is any better off than it was last monday. but i can tell new for sure. if you and i can see our way clearer to those kind of shared achievement the people of arizona will do the rest and the state of the state will be confident. strong and on the rise. [applause] we can't do this without fiscal responsibility. in real life whether

families or businesses take stock of how they are doing, the answer has a lot to do with the state of their finances. it work the same with government. and turning to the state's checkbook we will start with the number one billion. dollars that would be the difference between spending and revenue if we are to do nothing about it. the next two years. now maybe i am of the old school of economics but this strikes me as a problem. i am just not persuaded by appeals to raise taxes so that we can spend more. [applause] i look at it this way, if the problem is spending more than we have the solution

cannot be even more spending. instead of demanding more revenue from the people i suggest that we demand more fiscal responsibility from our government. [applause] so with all of the care and the debate the people expect of us and what this little delay or complaint is possible, let's put this bridge the into a balance and let's keep it there. [applause] this friday just in time for weekend reading. i will deliver my bridge the on flash drives to every member of this legislature. it is my best effort to deal with the tough situation. just as i promised in last year's election my team and i gave a thorough look to

current state expenditures in reviewing some items we asked questions that had not been asked in a while. questions like why did the state of arizona need an office and a paid lobbiest in washington, d.c.? the answer is we don't. [applause] so that office and all expenses will soon be gone. there will be one less lobbiest in washington. [applause] we didn't stop there. to balance the books we are going to institute a state government hiring freeze. with protections for vital areas like public safety and child safety.

however when it comes to bureaucracy, we are cutting back. the government can't take on any nix pendses when we cannot afford the ones that we already have. [applause] our budget does what bridge thes are suppose to do. it prioritizes vital commitments that arizona values the most. public safety. justice. classrooms. and aide to the needy and vulnerable my budget doesn't just give the appearance of spending discipline, it offers the reality of spending discipline with decision that's are timely real and permanent. [applause] and to that end, i propose this. our state needs an unbiased

inspector general mandate today find more areas of savings and where corruption exists shine a light on it. this public advocate would be equipped with the badge and subpoena power to go in and to ask the tough questions and to be a watchdog for the taxpayers. i want to work with you the legislature to make this happen this session. [applause] with the tight budge we very heard the calls the past few weeks to just go ahead and to raise taxes. now that we are all safely in office. this this case as the argument goes it would be relatively easy because all we would have to do is cannings el all or some of the tax reforms that are currently taking effect. they were passed in a previous legislature afterall and circumstances

have changed. so let's just reanything on our commitment. anyway that you look at, it canceling arizona's tax reforms is the wrong way to go. [applause] they were design today put more life in our economy. and that need is stronger than ever business people the ones that we count onto create jobs have been making plans around them. plans to build expand and to make new hires. if we change our plans they will change theirs. it is high bryce to pay foregoing back on your word. that is why i say. not on our watch. [applause] another he sent yes, ma'am

of good government are the tax rates that are predictable and reasonable yet every year arizona taxpayers are face with the the threat of attacks increase because we don't tie our income tax to inflation. the result is an automatic tax increase. let's enthis by permanently indexing income tax to inflyings, this is the area of fairness. we owe better to all arizona. let's get it done this session. in all that we do this year at this capital. let's think big. let's remember this. the business at hand is not to expand arizona's government, it is to expand arizona's economy. [applause]

by some measures the economy has again growing, not nearly at level that's we know that we can reach. and it is not just overall performance either. we want the kind of the growth and opportunity that will reach everyone. last week i signed an order placing a moritorium on new regulations in the executive branch. it was a good beginning but only a beginning. fwl sal the matter of many state regulation that's are in place often for the reason that's nobody even remembers. our small businesses have to deal with all of the little rules all of the time just because they are on the books nobody is bother today change them. i am instructing the directors of every agency to conduct a top to bottom review on regulations and then to send me a list of all of the ones that we can do without. it is the likely to be along

list wherever we find any regulation that is outdated irrational. unfair or destructive to free and honest enterprise in arizona that regulation will be gone. [applause] while they are at it. agency direct oured will be reducing time frames for the permits and licenses. our government will need to operate at the speed of business. we have the regulatory review council that is stack with the lobbyist who is advocating for the small business person? the start up. the entrepreneur that can't afford an attorney to navigate the endless maze of

bureaucracy and i ask that you pass a bill reinquiring a small business owner on that council and i will sign it. [applause] will you have my full attention when you send me any bill that has the purpose of advancing free enterprize and spreading opportunity. that is the aim. there is always more to do. i am frankly not impressed when i read that arizona is still the tenth or the fifteenth or whatever best place in america for finding work or doing business. in the competition among states, our goal is not to be lost in the pack somewhere between california and texas. our goal in arizona is to be the best place in america to work and to do business.

[applause] that same thinking should apply to education. in arizona, public schools we can do better. [applause] and a snapshot of the arizona public education came in a survey a few years ago it measured basic knowledge among students on matters where knowledge should be assumed. it was an elementary civics test along the lines the test required of every new citizen. whether 96% of our kids could not pass you know something is missing.

justice sandra day connor called this a quiet crisis in education president reagan told us if we forget what we did we will not know who we are. and john adams had it right too. to remark that every child in this country should be instructed in the prince pflz freedom. [applause] to an appreciate this wisdom however, it helps to know who justice o'connor president reagan and john adams are. [laughter] [applause] but for too many of our kids those names sadly do not ring a bell this is an issue that can and should unite us. these are our children.

not long from now, it will be for them to vote on who sits in your chairs and who stands at this podium. how can we expect them to protect the principles of which this country was founded if we are not preparing them for that task right now. is time to make this right and there is a bipartisan bill called the american civics bill. send it to my desk. i will sign it immediately. [applause] it is also time to take charge. of our public schools. and to take responsibility for their results. for too long the federal government has forced a one-size-fits-all model on our education system politics and bure yeah thes on the other side of the country with no understanding of our state

or the needs of our teachers and students have sought to impose standards and their will on our youth. in arizona educational excellence is the priority. for the next four years, i intend to lead under a classroom's first initiative. [applause] our goal is simple to improve outcomes in the classrooms for all of our children. that is why i propose to spend not less in the classroom than last year but more. [applause]

[applause] >> many teachers will agree with me on this the quality of a child's education should not be determined by what neighborhood