[applause] . .

>> morning, everybody, or afternoon, whatever the case may be. welcome to the fourth presidential question and answer session. i am javier palomarez and as president and ceo of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce i have the honor of representing 4.1 hispanic-owned businesses that together contribute over $661 billion to the american economy. we advocate on behalf of 250 major corporations through our network of 200 local chambers and business associations worldwide. we represent the interest of business men and women who happen to be of hispanic descent, we never forget we are businesses. every product we create and service we provide goes to benefit this american economy. as an association that

represents 4.1 hispanic business owners we have an accountability to make sure our voices are heard by each candidate. not only as business leaders, but taxpayers, campaign donors and ultimately as voters. that is why this is so important. this question and answer session is the fourth in a serious. previously we hosted ted cruz, matin o'malley, and senator bernies sanders for questions about campaigns and our country. he hosted jeb bush two weeks ago on the same topics. today we are joined by ohio governor john kasich. this is our first engagement with the governor, we have been watching his campaign and are familiar with his body of work

in ohio and congress. the goal is simple. this form is met to set the record straight on a wide array of issues for hispanic americans including jobs, the economy, the border and issues that affect all of us. we will spend 45 minutes in question between myself and the governor and then take a few questions from the audience. with that i would like to welcome governor john kasich. [applause] >> let me start by commending you for keeping your word and coming to talk to the hispanic community unlike others in your party you obviously have a busy schedule especially with the

third gop debate coming up so i want to thank you for taking the time to talk to us. >> my pleasure. why wouldn't i come? this is great. >> good man. to kick it off, i want to get your take on the primary landscape. you said before no republican has every won the white house without winning ohio, so my question is would a bit of a hometown and home field advantage, what is your plan to become the nominee? >> the situation is a brilliant way in america to pick a president. you start over in iowa with the caucus that is different. and it is unpredictable what happens over here. after ohio we have new hampshire which is 1.2 million people. that is like running for congress. there you show up and very much

like iowa you do a lot of these to town halls. i have done 18 of them. they poke you, and smell you, and look at you in the eye and try to figure out who you are. and see most importantly if you understand their challenges and problems. we see a lot of national polls but we don't have a national primary. iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, you move right along and there is no surprise that we consider new hampshire to be important but not the exclusion of all other places so we are building out our infrastructure. and in the business of the primary and national poll and all of that what is most important, and i run a lot of

political campaigns, if you build a stage with no scaffolding the stage can collapse. we have seen that. as you build the stage, you have to build the scaffolding so you have a solid foundation. that is how i have done it. i am having a great time. i show up and you are like thank you for coming. why wouldn't have? someone is like you will do this and that and i said i don't care what you do. let's just have fun. >> in the republican primary there seems to be establishment candidates like yourself and out sider candidates like fiorina and carson. these outsiders have proven to

be worthy opponents. how would you as an establishment figure and some say career politician, how do you find support when many americans appear to be looking for someone that will disrupt the political norm in washington, d.c.? >> it is sort of funny. where was sitting with bob walker, trent lock, and we were sitting in the trailer out in california. and lock looks at walker and says when did he become rhinos and why question is when did where become establishment? they belly laughed at me being establishment. from the time i got into politics all the way through where i am today there is no one i can think of who has consistently shaken up the status quo more than i have. do you know what it like to be it a republican on the defense

committee and start trig to limit the production of a weapon system or perfect procurement? do you know what it is like to be a member of the house and offer budgets against your own president? do you know what it is like to fight against your own appropriation committee? do you know what it is like to go to ohio and face the problems we had and say we are not raising taxes and in the first year be the most unpopular governor in america because you are a change agent. but i know how to get it done. i not only want -- people stand on the street corner shouting from a change but if you don't get it done what is the point. i was with a congressman in virginia yesterday who was blaming the sentate from a not passing the balanced budget and i said is it the failure of the senate or the failure of the

house to not convince the senate to do it? i spent my life battling and achieving so establishment from the standpoint of i know how to move the system but you would have a lot of people laughing if you called me a member of the establishment. if you can operate in both worlds it makes you effective. >> i have seen your willingness to step up. >> one time i had a build a change corporate welfare. i said if we are going to reform welfare for poor people we ought to do it for rich people. so a business round table invited me and i got up to speak because they didn't like what i was doing and i said you know what is great is if i didn't have this provision i would be

serving the dinner not eating it. >> you have spent 17 years in congress and been credited as one of the architects of balancing the budget in 1997. i believe you are proud of it and should be. so you probably have a unique insight on this issue. but right now for every one dollar the united states spends on children we spend about three dollars on seniors. and according to the committee for a responsible budget, because of the aging population, we know a bit about that, if we continue on this path in about ten years we will be spending something closer to $4.50 on seniors for every $1.00 we spend on a child. clearly the path is going to

require difficult decisions moving forward. my question is if you become president how will you work to make sure the government is making smart, long-term investments like prioritizing kids while not bankrupting the rest of us? >> that is why you have to have knowledge. the situation is you don't want to pull the rug out from under seniors who become very dependented on benefits. on the other hand, you have to think about what you are going to do stabilize the system. back in 1999, i offered a proposal on social security that would protect our seniors and started the baby boomers at a slight lower rate in a way which you calculate the benefits. it would trickle down and give

our young people a private account of 2% that it would take and pay from from the $5 trillion surplus we had when i left congress. that thing sat there for 16 years. when you go to the doctor and the doctor says you have a problem i would assume you would say let's deal with it now. in this town, you have a problem, you just bury your heard in the sand and blame somebody else because there is no leadership to get it fixed. when we look at social security now the problem is more severe. the consequences of delaying are going to be bigger. what i said is simple and would have fixed the program for many decades. we are looking at, and we will have things to say, there are many social security plans, we

have to figure out which brings the greatest equity to the seniors and young people. that will come a little later. soon i will talk about medicaid and medicare. medicare is a critical program that is running out of money. we will have things to say about this in the next couple weeks. but no body balanced more budgets or proposed more. i have written 18 of them so i am just starting to get good. in terms of young people like in your state we have a medicare issue. i expanded medicare because i want to help the mentally ill and the drug addicted get on their feet. but at the same time, we believe in early childhood education. it is a question of balance. we invested a ton of money in

k-12 education. you cannot ignore your seed corn. you cannot ignore your young. we believe in mentoring programs in the schools. we believe early childhood education is so critical because it allows the brain to develop when kids are young. it is all about balance. isn't life all about balance? how do you help this and not oliterate that. economic growth is the most important thing for everybody in the country. if you don't have economic growth, it is amazing how much more you can do to help people. >> let me chat about medicaid and health care. as governor of ohio you chose to expand medicaid contrary to what republican leaders in your state wished for. >> that is not really true. let me explain the process. >> are you calling me a liar?

>> no, i am not that guy. let me tell you the story. our head of mental health and drug rehab was in my office, and i looked at her because we had to make a decision about expanding medicaid. she is a lady. she is on the help line. she knows the problems people have. and shine my office and she said tracy, what do you think i am going to do with medicaid, do you think i will expand it? she said every night i pray you will do it because there are many in need. and i said guess what? your prayers are answered because i am expanding medicare. she broke down askand cried tea of joy. our medicare went from 10% growth to 2.5% growth in the

second budget without cutting one benefit or taking anybody off the rolls. this is the program states have the hardest time controlling. i have great people working in the medicare area. secondly, the mentally ill, do they belong in prison if they are bipolar or schizophrenic? i don't think so. if i can get them on their medication, we can have the community to work with them to not have them in jail and save $22,500 and let them get a job and become tax paying citizens and realizing their purpose. or someone addicted to drugs, if we don't rehab them we see them in and out and maybe into homes. the recidivism rate is less than

20% and nationally it is almost 50%. when we do that and they become productive, or if you are the working poor and spend all of your time in the emergency room, we pay anyway because you go when you are sicker and more costly. so we believe it is a smart issue of arithmetic but there is another issue. how about morality and being a country that can embrace people to get on their feet. that may not make a headline or maybe people happy but i am not in the business to have a headline. i am mt business to make sure everybody has a chance to be lifted. it has worked in our state. people don't want to expand medicaid and that is okay with me. but my question is what are you going to do about the mentally ill? the drug addicted? the first time this bill went

through legislature they didn't want to vote on it to avoid primaries but the leadership of the legislature made sure it happened. this time the house and senate approved expansion and we have a very conservative legislature so maybe we are starting to win the order of the day. it is a long answer but important to hear. >> it is important and i appreciate the compassionate approach. >> the other side is we have drug courts. we don't fool around with that. this is not a matter of give, give, give. you have to accept personal responsibility where you have. my mother said it was a sin to not help people who need help but it is a sin to help people that need to learn to help th themselv themselves. we have a large element of personal responsibility in there. >> great answer. thank you. let me ask a little bit about your private sector experience. on wall street specifically,

while some candidates boast about their private sector experience, and other candidates boast about the public sector experience, you are someone who has both. in 2011 i believe after 18 years in congress you joined leeman brothers as managing director and worked there until the collapse in 2008 which many would say started and was the catalyst of the financial crisis. your opponent in the 2010 race, strickland didn't hold back on attacking you because of the experience on wall street. i think one of the attacks said you, i quote, got rich while ohio seniors lost millions. what would you say to voters who might be wondering if you were to become to president would you have their best interest at

heart? >> the guy attacking me lost the election for the for the first time in 36 year. i operated a two-man office in columbus, ohio and my job was to travel around and help countries get stronger to make jobs better. and i said if i could bankrupt leeman brothers from my position i should be pope. it was a great experience because i got to understand how job creators, business leaders, and board of directors make decisions. i spent time in the silicone valley at google. you thinked i learned about innovation and how america is going to move forward. i worked in financial service and understand the problems small, medium and large banks

have. and i learned about the steel companies and the challenge as they have in terms of bringing heavy industry back to america. this was fantastic. that is not all i did. i was on some boards and i taught, but one of the things you need to know is i also worked at fox news where i was a giant television star, javier. if you don't remember, i have tapes in the car. my father carried mail on his back. his father was a coal minor. my mother's mother could barely speak english which says spng about my views on immigration. if we didn't have immigration, i will probably be running for president of croatia. i understand when the wind blows

the wrong way people find themselves out of work. i lived with. i was back in my home town with nbc. my daughters call it dad's disappearing childhood. all of the buildings i went to were knocked down. it is a blue coller place. when you grow up like that it is in your dna. it is good to see all levels of society to get a real understanding of how lots of things work. >> let's talk about immigration. our association for starters use immigration reform as an economic imperative that we believe could unleash innovation, create businesses, attract the world's best talent to our shores. i sense you and i probably see eye to eye on that. however, where i don't think you and i see eye to eye and correct me if i am wrong, is in this building of a wall.

and using that as a solution for fixing a broken immigration system. we know the border is about 200 miles long and "the national journal" estimated building a wall that long would cost $6.4 billion and what we have seen is people will find a way to get around it, under it, above it, and through it. and half of the nations colt undocumented immigrants are here by way of overstaying visas and not through legal entry. so the question is with all of that said, how do you propose we fix the broken immigration system and harness what is good about the immigrant community and particularly immigrant trips. >> where do you live? >> dallas, texas and here in

washington as well. >> do you lock your doors at night? >> i do. >> really? >> don-- really? don't you think a country needs to lock their doors. i voted for the '86 reagan proposal. we never locked the doors. a country that can not control its borders is a country with a lot of chaos. the six billion figure? they leave that much on the floor on capitol hill every night. we say secure the border, build a wall, whatever. the are technologies that can be just as effective as a physical wall with the ability to have censors and drones. i think it is imperative we control our border. with that being said, i believe we ought to have an affective

guest worker program. people will come in, try to sneak in, and sneak back and forth. and organized labor isn't like an unexpanded program. i have friends in organized labor and on this issue i think we should expand it so people are comfortable. secondly, once we have things in place we don't want people coming over. if they come over and they have an excuse but they have to go back. for those here, that have been law-abiding, god bless them, they are a critical part of society from doctors, engineers, to lawyers -- i don't know if we need more of them -- but we have teachers or whatever. and i think they should have a path to legalization. i think that can pass. when you talk about the visa issue and all of that that is something that has to be dealt with.

we don't want people overstaying their visas. it looks like the whole immigration has to be done in a way in which address the elements. the fundamentals are protect the border, guest worker people here who are law-abiding get stay. i think the american people -- the american people politicians say long they are speaking for the american people, my sense of being involved in the government is the people would accept this. the idea of picking up these people and shipping them away is unthought of. what are we going to do ride around neighbors and say come out, we are going to the border. it would send panic to families. there are families here that live in fear of being divided.

could you imagine being a six or seven year old kid and being told they are going to ship your dad out? that is not acceptable in america. in terms of the immigration issue, we need to broaden it. we need to clean up the visa but at the end of the day people are here, let them stay, so that is in sharp contrast to your party's frontrunner. >> i was telling you about building the stage with the scaffolding. if you don't have the scaffolding the stage collapses. i am not worried about any of that. when all is said and done, people are going to pick somebody they think is a reformer, can get the job done, can land the airplane. and someone that understand their problems. i don't think about frontrunner

now. i don't think that means much right now unless we were having the national primary tomorrow which we are not. >> okay. guest worker program, build a wall, don't worry about the noise. >> no, if you are a leader you cannot be -- people scream loud, okay, i hear you. let me think about what you are saying. if what you are saying makes sense, okay. i will consider that. but if it doesn't just because you scream loud how are we supposed to run a country like that? you run this chamber. does anybody squawk inside the chamber or your members. what do you do? cave into them all of the time? >> no. >> you don't? >> i am asking the question. i ask the questions. this is your second question. stop that. >> i am very experienced in asking in questions especially with my daughters who have a 15 and a half. here is the thing. we are a country of immigrants.

many of us. what does the hispanic community do for us? fantastic, hard working part of our group and who we are as americans. i don't care who is going to yell. when i go to town halls and they can yell at me all they want i don't have a problem here. part of the difficulty we have in this town is we don't have leaders who are willing to lead instead of reacting to who yells the loudest or worst yet fearing on fear. look at medicare expansion. i go into the events where people yell at me. you know what i tell them? and god bless them, but i say there is a book with a new and old part, they put it together. it is a remarkable book if you don't have one i will buy you one. it talks about how to treat the

poor. sometimes you to lead. it is like fighting isis. we don't stop isis then this becomes a some point a direct threat to the united states. it doesn't mean you don't listen. but you cannot let the yelling and the screaming determine your decision making. >> point well made. >> i want to ask yet another follow-up because i have not had enough of you yet. when you were -- during the last rga conference you expressed the willingness to create a path to citizenship -- >> i said it is not off the table. when you negotiate you have to be careful about putting in absolutes. but i don't favor that. and the reason why is i don't believe in jumping the line.

i don't believe you ought to be rewarded for jumping in front of somebody else who is waiting. my wife and i had a friend who had to go back to nicuraga and she is not happy that people jumped the line before her. i don't think you want to reward people that do the jump. the path to legalization to me is appropriate. i just want you to know you have to be careful. we have a people here, candidates or people, slamming their first on the table, this is the way it is going to be -- fist -- newt gingrich told me one time when i was arging with somebody, he said john, maybe you should use your skills to unlock them. knocking all of the pieces off

the chess game doesn't help you win. you have to be careful with what you do and say. >> point well made. let's talk a little bit on birth right citizenship. >> if you are born here you are a citizen, period, end of story. i am not going to change the 14th amendment. i cannot get a balanced budget through but i will when i become president. >> i want to talk more generally about the hispanic electorate. president obama got a huge percentage of the hispanic vote. >> why is that? >> i think it is because he paid

attention. there you go asking another question. let me finish the question. the point i made was never before did the spanish electorate played such a big role. today in america, every 30 seconds a hispanic turns 18 and becomes an eligible voter. that is a potential 58,000 voters every month and that is the case for the next 28 years in a row. i know hispanics comprise 3% of ohio's population so i understand not having a track record with the hispanic community. but with that said, as a presidential campaign what will you do to attract and eletrify

the voters vote? >> we have a hispanic that i asked to serve on a subsiacquaint university board. we have one of the state department of edgeication -- education that is beginning it serve there. you have to be inclusive. i not only feel this way about hispanics but about african-american also. you know, i spent a lot of efforts in ohio to make sure everybody feels like they have an opportunity to rise. and it is a natural for me. i also don't kind of think about this from the standpoint of segments like there is that and this segment. i think in term of americans, all of whom all have the same hopes and dreams. every mother has big hopes dreams for the baby.

i think part of the problem is there are a lot of people that don't feel like they are included. as the president, of course i want to be able to be in this position where everybody has an opportunity to hold major post and major positions. and to me it is not even about -- we had to get the vote, what is that? that is boring to me. well i am going to appoint you because i can get a vote. let's appoint people we are excited to appoint so they can rise. that doesn't mean you don't look for certain opportunities to make sure you have a society where everybody feels included. you make efforts along those lines. but it is not because i want to have a vote. it is because it is the right thing to do. you know what, i don't know if you notice this or not, but none of us are getting out of this place alive. remember what the pope said when he was here? that incredible, wonderful visit

from the holy father, there will be an accounting for what we did while we had an opportunity on this earth. i firmly believe that. if we are offering opportunity for everyone that is grail. that is why we do it. not because we will get something out of it but because it is the right thing to do. >> point well made, sir. as a bit of a follow-up, i think we all know words matter and you made a comment about tipping the hotel maid when talking about the hispanic community that some say feeds into stereotypes. in fact hillary clinton was quick to sweet, and i quote >> because she is terrified she will run against me in november. i have to get through the primary to do it. >> and i quote, another product of the party of trump.

john kasich talking about latinos doesn't just mean talking about tips. two questions -- and >> i used to like her. >> i went on the record when asked and i said while i believe it was a lit bit awkward i thought you were a decent man your comment was well intentioned. what is your take on this and can you clarify the role you think hispanics play in the american economy of the fiche snr >> this is why you cannot take this business of running for president too seriously. let me tell you what happensment i am in my hotel room, and this lady writes me a beautiful note. -- happens. -- and the note says i really care about your stay in this hotel. what a nice thing for someone to write. and then drew a picture with little flowers on the tree.

when you 41 president, or when you are governor or when you are, you know, quote in one of these big positions, your life can move at hundred miles per hour and mine sometimes does. i am grateful for the fact that for whatever reason, i am not telling you i have it figured out, but it is laid on me that everyone is important and everyone matters. so that is really what i was commenting on. i was in new hampshire not long ago where i saw a woman who was russian, by the way, doing unbelievable housekeeping chores and i said you are wonderful. what do i think about the role of hispanics? i think they can do everything and anything in this society. so people want to take things and they want to drive divisions.

but if that is really -- i don't understand that. don't you have better things to do? things i have said about the community have been very, very inclusive, very respectful, so i think hispanics from top to bottom play enormous rolls in society. you know what? -- roles -- i am glad i slowed down to notice that. brother lawrence, he was a theologian and when he washed dishes he prayed. when i get to heaven, i suspect i will see brother lawrence and we will have one of the biggest crowns on his head because the lord doesn't look at us for what our positions are but looks at us for what is in our hearts and rewards us that way. >> so all work is good. >> all work is noble.

all work is dignity. >> many would assume ohio's largest industry is manufacturing, but according to the ohio farm bureau and contrary to belief it appears agriculture is ohio's top industry. as i understand it, agriculture contributes something like $105-$108 billion to the state's economy and there are literally 75,000 farms in your state. i am an american. i was born in this country. but growing up i was a migrant farm worker. i know what it is like to work in the sun all day long, no coffee break, no child labor laws, you are working from sun up to sun down, no holiday day, if you wanted shade, you would put on a hat. there were no bathrooms, no

running water, and if i wanted to drink of water i had to pay a nickel for a ladle of water. >> what do you think i think about that? >> i am going to get to that. so, i know firsthand the abuses that are suffered by our country's agriculture workers. with that said, i bring this up because in april of this year, the columbus dispatch cited a report ranking ohio dead last for having policies that support the health and well-being of agriculture workers, many who are immigrants, who i believe can be found right now contributing to ohio's largest industry. now governor, you have been pegged as a compassionate conservative and i believe you are. i respect you don't shy away from admitting your views are

evolving over time. as president, what do you say to what is going on in ohio? and how would you insure that all of america's working poor are treated fairly and decently as the president of the united states? >> what you told me is news to me. i have to find out what it means. a lot of times things come out and when you get under the hood you find out they are not true. but i can promise you i will have an understanding of what the situation here is in ohio. look, my father would carry mail on his back and go house to house. he would be there in all of the weather conditions. he never made a lot of money. his father was a coal minor who died of black lung and lost a lot of vision in his eye. my uncles when the time game, my uncle george told me, when the

time came for them to get their pensions, the plant shutdown. these injustice are not appropriate. and i will find out exactly what the situation is. but in no way, shape or form do i think people ought to be abused or there shouldn't be child labor laws or people shouldn't be treated with respect. i am someone not at war with organized labor. i had my problems with them but i made it clear look as long as we work together we will be fine. i will find out what is going on in that front and we will dwell it. we don't let things like that stand. sometimes things are a little bit more complicated than they appear on the surface. but we will dig into it. >> let's take about marriage equality. >> and let me tell you ohio is no longer just agriculture and manufacturing. we are it, medical devices,

financial services, logistics. ohio is a different state because we have diversified the state. >> i completely agree. on to marriage equality. during the first year of the debate, where was watching and i think you did an amazing job, you were applauded on how you would explain your opposition to same-sex marriage while talking about god's unconditional love and that should be applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, you stated when it comes to gay marriage and i quote the court has ruled and we will accept it. i want more clarity on will accept it. a recent pew report shows 56% of americans today support same-sex marriage. is it your view that the gop should be more aware of the views of mainstream america, perhaps more accepting of that, and not fight the supreme court

ruling? >> well, i am not fighting it. we actually had an amendment in ohio but you know it is decided. so s we moved on from that. i don't support gay marriage. all of my friends, a number are gay, understand that but you know it is okay. we move on. one of the guys that used to work for me who is friend of mine i went to his wedding. i said to my wife what do you think and she said i am there whether you go or not. and it was good. let me just just say something, there was an incredible article in the review section of the paper about the growing drift of the west toward a secular society. and how people are also trying to purdue happiness and wealth

and comfort and what we are finding is that this aggressive search for a secular society isn't working. because you know what? embedded in all of us is a sense of meaning. now i mentioned god and faith and all of that several times. i think the pope did it best when he said we should focus on the dos and thought the don't and that is why people got excited about the potential of religion. but when the west is a fully secularized society how are we supposed to operate in a free society when everyone wants to pursue things their own way? with two guys walking across a bridge who is knocked off? what is the appropriate way to guide ourselves with an absence

of laws? if we become a secular society without a sense that there is a set of expectations, morals that are set on high, that should guide us, then who is right and who is wrong becomes completely subjective. i don't happen to think that is how we would have the best society. i don't think hispanics would believe that because i think they believe and i think that most americans, there is a change going on in america. all i am suggesting to you is this. if we become secularist, when we face a radical islam, that is the furtherest thing from secularist. when we cannot unite with friends in the jewish and muslim community to espouse a set of values that is the true way for human beings to conduct and live their lives we will get a very severe crisis point.

so i don't want anybody to try to read -- well they will. but i am just saying to you that this is something the west should continue to pay attention to and not drive toward a secular society. it is dangerous for the culture and our children. >> point very well made. let's talk about the economy a bit. i think this is an issue that all americans, thes is not a hispanic issue specifically, but an issue that all americans care about; jobs in this country and care about the continued wellbeing of our economy. we are proud to stand for a strong, freemarket economy where entrepreneurs can pursue their version of the american deems

with limited government intervention. hispanic businesses are now at about 4.1 billion and contributing $661 billion to the economy i think are at the forefront of american growth starting businesses at a rate of 3-1 with the general market. with all of this said, as president, how would yspur the growth of all businesses but specifically hispanic businesses. >> i want all hispanic businesses to move to ohio. and the reason is in your sa sate -- our state we have no business income tax basically. if you don't have economic growth, then it stunts your ability to reach out to people

who do live in the shadows and do creative things. it is just a fact. if mom is dad are in a financial bind kids will not do as well. when mom and dad do well, kids do better. same with a country. what do we need to do? ea we have a nightmare of regulations. we need a people's court where people who are normal folks can go and say why is government so dumb? why are you killing my ability to create jobs? on the regulatory side it a huge deal. if you are a hispanic trying to get a loan where is it easier to get one from? citi bank or the local bank that knows you?

these rules are choking us. you have to have a tax code that encourages this bringing back and they will invest in europe so workers have higher productivity. and we would like to bring the rates down and make it simpler and we are working on things we will be talking about soon. in addition to that, we need to goat on the road to the balanced budget. when we balance the budget and cut the capital gains tax and add a family tax cred on the deal i was the architect the economy because going gang busters. now guess what is happening?

we are up 347,000 private sector jobs. ohio is reborn. we have to get back to the basics. it is not that difficult. we will have to dwell entitlement and the balanced budget. we have to have the tax reform and change the regulatory environment. all of this can happen. you have about 120 days. i think individual tax reform will be difficult but corporate tax reform can happen. you cannot delay. you cannot walk around trying to look at the pictures in the white house and wonder how the plans are coming. you have to go in there knowing what you will do because this town will fight you every single inch of the way.

it doesn't give people hope and jobs and all of the things we need. >> i have to say in transparency and fairness we work with all of the large banks and small banks. >> it would be better if we didn't strangle the little banks, right? . it the delaware county bank where they say we know you. that is like trying to run education from washington as opposed to the local school board. the more local it, the more

customized and the better it is. that is why i am republican because i am for bottom up not top down. >> and they do an amazing job. >> women's wages stand behind men with women earning about 77 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the same thing. and hispanic women it is 60 cents on the dollar. so according to the university of women and the census bureau, median income in ohio is was 47,

300 compared to women's earnings of 36, 500. so doing a little better but women in ohio are getting paid roughly 24% less than men for doing the same job. first has a father, how would you explain that to your daughters? and second as the president what would you do to address this despadi despa despadi disparity. >> we don't want a woman made less than a man for the same job. how would i explain that to my daughters? i would say we have to work on this. i have two daughters who are going to be on the workforce. i want them to be treated and have the same opportunities as a

man. there are 50 studies according to this. we want to make sure in the places and the workforce the people are treated and not discrimina discriminated against and are in a position where they can do better. in terms of the wage gap, some people think we can fix the income inequality by taking from the top and redistribute wealth. i don't think that works. i said dad, what do you think about the rich and he said we don't hate the rich. we want to be the rich. i firmly believe it is all tied up in skills. do you get the good education? or do you not have the skills to be able to compete? i have to suggest to all of us here that i don't think our k-12 system is working as well as it should be. in my state now, we have passed the law saying if a school is

failing three years in a row we can have a board to pick a ceo that will pay it and keep in place teacher salary and benefits but everything else can be changed. we started that in cleveland. now, if we have failed -- the city of youngstown, one percent of the graduates are college ready. we have to make sure the schools are performing. in massachusetts where they enacted high standards and took grief, they are performing better. we cannot live where we think the kids are doing great and 40% of the graduates are taking remedial courses. no one cares if you are an it

expert. no one cares who you are. they just want your talent and they will pay for it. it is a big education issue and life long education and training. you cannot sit there think the world is standing still. >> the programs ought to be shifted to the state, not run out of washington. john kasich did not say woman are less skilled than men? >> no, i didn't say that. my chief of staff, look, it was the first time a governor brought a woman in to be the new chief of staff and she is running my campaign. the lady i mentioned earlier, running mental health and drug addiction, she is doing a fantastic job. the head of the welfare reform. i believe having women in the room, having a big voice makes you better. if you have an exclusion of them, you are not as effective. but i am saying for all people,

all people, skills matter. >> let's talk about trade a bit. a big issue the uahec has worked on of late has been a trade and specifically the transpacific partnership. ttp. considering 98% of u.s. businesses that do export are small business that accounted for nearly 2/3rds of new jobs we think more access to jobs is beneficial. so my question is with a state that has been hurt by poor trade deals i would like to hear your thoughts on ttp and future deals under president kasich. ...

they go into do we are going to study at ben which means a couple of years later they finally make the decision and if you are right that's great and the people who were affected are out of work. we need an expedited process to blow the whistle and stopped for example the ability of countries to dump their products in our country or to steal our intellectual property. part of the reason i think we don't act aggressively might he

for geopolitical considerations but look, you are a steelworker in the rain ohio or something you aren't that caring that much about geopolitical considerations. your geopolitical considerations or the mouse you have the deed at home so while i think the trade is good we have to have a way to blow the whistle when we are getting ripped off and i think for a while america is a little bit arrogant. i don't think we should take it and i also think that we have got to be careful in these negotiations. i don't know what this thing is going to look like. the senate will look at it. they should and i'm going to work like the dickens to make sure that we have an expedited process that can respond to countries when they are ripping us off. >> fair enough. national security.

as president, you would be the nation's commander-in-chief and as a global power the u.s. is constantly facing threats, both here and abroad. we are currently seeing this regime that's being aided by russian forces with the refugee crisis that nations throughout the world are trying to grapple with and the continued spread of isis through the middle east just to name a few things off the top of our heads. my question is. >> i was going to say ukraine come he left them out great. >> it is in your view what are the biggest national security threats that our nation faces today and how would you prioritize the financial resources? >> first of all you can chew gum and walk at the same time we in you are in america. our problem has been the voice we have created around the world and our inability to assert ourselves and i think the

president spokesman said at the dust and the finding their strategy which is javier you lead from behind. you have never led from behind nor have i. when the lead from behind it just doesn't work so i don't know where you want to start. syria? i propose we create no-fly zones and sanctuaries for people to be able to be saved great if somebody violates the no-fly zone they are going to face the consequences of violating the no-fly zone. secondly we have to have a coalition of people both in the middle east and our european allies to destroy isis as soon as possible and then come home. nation-building is not something that i'm keen on. the i ran deal i think should never have been negotiations should never have been conducted there's a minimum i ran would have recognized israel's right to exist. some candidates say i would rip it up. you were going to rip it up first of all 18 months before you are elected them and what do we do?

my feeling is it's better to be able to work with your partners to show any violations that occur so if we slap sanctions back on what can be effective. that's what brought iran to the table to begin with, need to be applied. if we know they are developing a nuclear weapon we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. there's appropriate action you would take. you know where it is and you have the capability to deal with it. by the way i served on the armed services committee for 18 years for some of the finest defense mines with les aspin and sam nunn and barry goldwater and john tower. i've lived with those people for a lot of years from the standpoint of working through things. israel that prime minister wants to come here, i will have a cup to -- a cup of coffee with him their night. ukraine, give them defensive weapons they need. how can america look the other way when ukraine is under this kind of pressure.

putin is a bully. do you know how you deal with bullies? do you ever have a fully javier? how do you with some? you pop them one and the fact is that putin is a bully and he's going to push as far as he can until we say enough. repositioning equipment equipment in use which we are beginning to do, making it clear that an attack on the balkans as an attack on us. south china sea we should he sending a carrier through the air. the problem we have is the chinese think they own the south china sea and they do not. this is all about america asserting itself more in the world and i think if we do it as a group as a coalition then we don't have to be policeman of the world. we should intervene directly when our direct national interests are at risk but there's a possibility of us being able to help people who share our goals and visions and we can help them so we have to rebuild the military. i saw they have to withdraw the carrier from over tibet and it's

a real problem because we don't have one to put on station so we have to rebuild a military but the problem there is the pentagon has become so bureaucratic with almost 900,000 people involved in all of this bureaucracy we start throwing good money after bad, it has to be reformed at the same time we are rebuilding the military. why did i want to run for this job? but these are very tricky things. the president of the united states has to look over at the pentagon, get it right. the present of the united states can't have a secretary of defense go from procurement reform trim the bureaucracy and fix a thing and by the way you are on your own. it takes presidential leadership to get this done. we are going to have to spend a fortune rebuilding the military but javier we don't want to spend a fortune on things we don't need or have read top -- red tape in being the order today and you can't go for an pound people because they will not move and you can't go over there and up as there will be no

change. it's like porridge, has to be made of the right president -- temperature of the present mustang gates. >> sewing shortly from the front. >> kim but what you have is a clear vision and other allies matter. when they shot and murdered all those people over in paris they had big million people wouldn't send anybody. i don't even understand that. how do you just ignore that? our relations have deteriorated greater friends don't know if they can trust us and our enemies arm bolton. dallas had a reason to panic? no, we are america. we don't panic. >> you remind me of an old adage in terms of leading from the front rated something my grandfather used to use and than he used to say unless you are the lead dog the lead never changes. you strike me as the lead dog.

any final thoughts? >> well this was unbelievable. this was great. i enjoyed it. we covered a lot of issues. [applause] it was great and let's do it again. >> all right ladies and gentlemen governor john kasich. [applause] [inaudible conversations] b we will take a couple of questions. a question from laurie kellum from the "associated press." glory how are you? >> you? >> i am well, thank you. thank you for coming today. i wanted to ask you about guns.

we quoted you yesterday in your speech from richmond referring to yourself as a troublemaker so here's your chance on this issue. republican presidential candidates mostly are calling for more attention to mental health issues with regard to gun violence. we have not heard any specifics. i'm wondering what is your specific plan or do you believe that government has no role in preventing or cutting down on gun violence? >> well you know i was talking about the issue of mental illness in regards to guns now for months. this is not something that i just discovered today. if you read "the new york times" today the story about this young man and the problems the mother was having, we have got to think of a way and i think there was a question asked in the last debate that we have to think about and that is when somebody clearly is unstable how are you

able to be in a position to where they cannot get a gun because nobody i know would want them to have access to it. but i don't think that gun control would solve this problem. here's what i think part of the problem is. the deeper issue. the deeper issue is alienation. the deeper issue is loneliness. the deeper issue is no attention to an individual who is really struggling. i was in iowa at this place called the house of hope the other day and it's a nondenominational note government meant money house for women who are really on the edge of a break down. so i said why is this house here and you know what they told me? families are not connected. we don't know who our neighbors are so this lady was actually

waging a lonely battle by herself. so we can talk about the guns but there is a much deeper issue which is who are these people? why are they so alienated? why are they so alone and when we begin to deal with that i think then we began to get at the root of the problem. so the idea that if we just start first of all we are not going to take everybody's guns away comments not practical in if you did people who want to commit violence are still going to do it. so i think we need to look deeper and they'll talk about mental illness. i'm open to anything on mental illness. there are supposed to be away that you should have automatic access to a gun dealer to understand if somebody has an issue with mental illness. we should do that. if it's not strong enough we need to do it. there should be no loophole on that but the bigger issue is something we all have to think about and what is our responsibility?

what is society's responsibility to end this drift into isolation >> does government have a role in preventing gun violence? >> is part of the reason i expanded medicaid so people could get help so that the mentally ill can get some help at the community level. i think it's very important for all of us to think about the things we can do to try to attach ourselves more to building the community from the bottom up but there is another element of this. and i want to tell you when i talk about secularism i think to some degree, not completely because you can be a humanist and want to change the world. god bless you but when we don't understand that we have a

responsibility to our neighbor, it all breaks down. so we try to run programs in ohio on mentoring in the schools, on fighting drug addiction. i expanded medicaid so we could have -- get mental health treatment at the community level. we have expanded the number of beds that are available for people in a crisis situation specifically are the problem where creigh deeds was stabbed by his son. there are things we can do and to have that database very effective but i think we need to recognize the deeper issue here and it takes a lot more complicated and comprehensive answer than just a simple law. >> ladies and gentlemen i have to give the governor rolling. >> on guns do you think more lives would be saved if there were more people aren't in colleges and schools and armed

students and armed guards and armed students? >> even in ohio they are absolutely school districts that have submitted state he plans, security plans that are inadequate so what i think people need to understand is it can happen anywhere. i have talked to the turns of bull at my daughter's school about the nature of how they have hardened the school. everybody can do it in their own way and whatever they feel the most comfortable with but you can't just sit there and assume that is never going to come into your neighborhood. thank you all. [applause]

in new york city republican presidential candidate marco rubio talked about what he called the end of -- on demand economy in tech companies like oprah and air bnb. he discuss regulations in the tax code to internet economy. this is just under an hour. >> without further ado i would like to present the junior senator from florida and presidential candidate senator mark rubio -- marco rubio.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you andrew. i want to thank you all for participating -- is it a little loud? i'm here today not to tell you my views but to listen to yours. the big part of what a campaign should be about is the listening part. no one understands the on demand economy as well as those of you who are building it. coming into the discussion is something i can stay to you with absolute confidence. if there's one thing that matters in in the 21st century its innovation. in order to be the leading economy on earth america must be the most innovative economy on earth. it's that simple. whenever we talk about innovation what we are talking about is problem solving. we are talking about finding ways to do things more efficiently, more affordably and more conveniently than ever before. i want to begin by telling you

about a problem that i had earlier this year that american innovators including many of you in this room are attempting to solve and then i want to tell you something you already know which is that the government is often getting in the way of solving it. my problem is this. a few months ago my refrigerator in my home broke traded just stopped working. it died on us and with for growing kids home for summer break in florida you can imagine i've wanted to get it fixed. i googled repair companies in miami and i made some calls. first calls. first of all is frustratingly difficult to get anyone to take me off hold or to call me back. when i finally got in touch with a real person they said no problem we can have someone out to your house in three or four days to look at it. and that can't be how our economy economy works in the year 2015. other things that took 33 days in the old economy now takes three minutes or three seconds.

what struck me in that moment was the following realization. inevitably some are not far away there was someone who was capable of repairing appliances, someone who is just as eager to make extra money that day as i was eager to have a functional refrigerator. the only problem was this person and i had no way of finding each other are connecting. this is it problem that will not exist within a year or two at least if not american innovators have their way. the reason is because of the on demand economy. this is a revolution that's happening right before our eyes. also known as the sharing economy. the on demand economy as allowing millions of professionals across multiple entities to connect directly with the system to the most obvious of them are companies like uber and air bnb but just last week it was announced amazon and google would be entering the on-demand market.

right behind the giants are thousands of small innovative startups and if you haven't heard about them yet just wait. the on-demand platform is one example of this selection which is that the american economy is a global one is fundamentally being transformed. hueber didn't exist when our current president was born into office and today it's making over $1 billion. it's not just affected the economy is changing. as the act that the economy is changing faster than it has ever changed it for example it took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 william users and it took candy crush one year and while our economy is changing and changing fast our government and its policies are not and quite frankly both parties are to blame. never before released in my lifetime has the political establishment in this country than more out of touch with the american people than it does

today. the result is a worsening fiction between our 20 century government and a in a rapidly changing 21st century economy and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in the on-demand economy. here you have innovative companies who are running up against an antiquated tax code burdensome regulations and numerous outdated politicians. and that's not all. the companies are also victims of a coordinated effect from established businesses which influence the political process have new regulations the law competition. we have seen us play out for taxi companies lobbying and hear new york the government is spending millions to try and stop air bnb from threatening hotel chains. i want to give you another example. i want to tell you about a growing company based right here in new york that like all businesses in the on-demand economy is facing unnecessary challenges.

as a result of the outdated government. it's a company called -- and its ceo is here today. handy is an on line platform that allows consumers to connect directly with home cleaners handyman plumbers and other home service professionals. its quickly growing. it's operating in 37 cities with over 11,000 professionals registered to use the platform. handy is groundbreaking for consumers for obvious reasons. it provides simple booking at the tap of a finger or rating and review process that helps people find the best contractor for their needs and an easy on line payment system that eliminates haggling over prices. but it isn't just great for consumers. one of the things i love the most about the on-demand economy is the way promotes upward mobility for the professional to use it. through handy workers without the resources to start their own cleaning businesses pay for their own advertising and manage

their own books and now have all the independents of self-appointed and the customer base of the largest establishment of professionals who use handy can earn an average of $18 are which is more than the typical worker in the field. best of all they set their own hours checking into the app whenever they have time to take on a job and sending out when they have other obligations. many workers use this flexibility to pursue higher education which is central to upward mobility in this country. others use it to spend more time with their children or work other jobs. innovations like handier part of the reason why i'm so optimistic that only about saving the american century but also about expanding it to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. in the last century my mother worked as a maid. she had no control over schedule no influence over how much he earned and few opportunities to

set herself apart and yet she achieved the american dream. just think what she could have achieved cleaning homes for a company like handy. she would have had total control over her own financial plight. the on-demand economy is a miracle that only american free enterprise can -- think about this. i met the ceo of an on-demand start up a few weeks ago and he asked me not to mention his business today out of fear, out of fear that he would attract attention from legislators lawyers or competitors. what does this say? do we want america to be a place for honest innovate as businesses have a high business success? we need to be the most business-friendly economy on earth but right now with our the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and regulatory structure that stops

of invasion. here are some of the obstacles that handy and companies face every day. first and outdated tax code. companies like handy have two options for how they supply utilizing their services. they can be classified as 1099 independent contractors with either one of these make perfect sense. if handy seau class of either workers you would have to regulate workers hours and comply with with a litany of senseless regulations that would stump the growth of this town. so instead making sure the relationship complies with a 1099 independent contractor requirement but this causes other complications.

the company can provide training to contractor. they can even make recommendations based on customer feedback. they can even ask him to wear a shirt or uniform with a handy logo on it. it's prevented from providing the person benefits that would allow them to attract more high-quality professional platforms. think about how ironic that is. while outdated politicians bash the economy for not taking better care of workers yet are outdated government is the exact force preventing them from doing it. that's why propose it comforts of tax reform plan that is progrowth and pro-family and today i would like to discuss with all of you additional ways to make the tax code more welcoming to on-demand companies. some ideas i've i better to maintain the physical presence standard for taxation for on line purchases, to stop discriminatory taxation of digital goods and services like app download and to ensure the

internet remains tax-free. on-demand companies aren't the only ones hurt by our tax code. they also face the uncertainty of a volatile regulatory environment. just last week last friday asked the chairwoman of the federal trade commission said the on-demand economy would require quote targeted regulatory measures unquote. we have to realize that all the best innovation in our economy is happening in the unregulated space yet washington has imposed 60,000 pages of new federal regulations just this year topping our private economy of almost $70 billion in total costs. as president i will put an end to this thread i will place a cap on the amount of regulations , on the amount regulations can cost or come each year. i will require federal agencies to include an analysis of exactly how much propose regulations would impact

innovation. i believe the more america regulates, the more we create an opening for other countries to deregulate and draw jobs away from our stores. other nations are the scramble to cater to the on-demand economy. germany for example has created a middle ground between full-time employees and independent contractors. this classification is called dependent contractors. allows professionals to work for a simple company receive benefits and protections and yet retain control over their own work. whether this model is the best option for america or not is something we should figure out but here's what i know for sure. we have to change the way the political establishment in this country thinks about the new economy. right now they recognize the digital economy doesn't fit our current way of doing things so they asked themselves how can we force the new economy to adapt to our old policies rather than

ask how can we change our old policies to adapt to the new economy? this has always been the american way. we are a unique nation in all the world's history a nation founded on the idea that government doesn't get to choose what our economy looks like, the american people in the private sector get to choose and guess what? the american people have chosen. they have chosen convenience fast tech driven economy one with direct lanes of access to products and services they want and need. the american people have chosen an economy in which the most valuable retailer in america amazon doesn't own a single store. they have chosen the largest transportation company uber who doesn't own a single vehicle and when the largest accommodation provider air bnb does not own a single hotel. for enterprises brought us these developments in free enterprise will ring us even more developments in the years ahead.

in fact i believe for enterprise will work better in this century than it did in the last century because the new economies are all about innovation, creativity and productivity and we americans are the most innovative creative and productive people on earth. i believe the 21st century not only can be the american century , and believe the well-being of the american century. it will be as long as everyone in this room keeps doing what they are doing as long as we can get washington to stop doing what it's doing and start looking for a better way. with that i would like to hear your ideas and answer your questions and i thank you for the opportunity to talk about it thank you. [applause]

so we are going to do a question and answer session and i will start and open it up so if you have a question you would like to ask in the next 15 minutes there are two microphones in the aisles. we will do it based on alternatives. senator thank you very much for coming and for talking about this issue. there have been lots of cases where incumbent market forces who have political influence have reacted to the competition that companies are giving them and they are using their political connections to try and stop these innovative companies. this is all eventually tied to money and politics so i hear you when you say it's targeted and

if you follow the money goes back to the market so how do you break that cycle? >> that's exactly right and part of it is to explain to people one of the fundamental arguments i used my campaign as we are not experiencing it a downturn. liberal or like the industrial revolution happening every five years or policy needs to reflect that and that's why it's important for us not to ascribe to the new economy as to the old economy. that's why believe limited government is the best approach in the 21st century because the larger the government the more powerful the government and the more influence the government has over the economy the more the people of the companies that can influence the government win at the expense of everybody else are you have, so that's why the regulatory budget is so important. a favorite way of establishing industries to block an innovative competitors to creator impediment to that competitor to enter this space. i used the example it may not be perfect imagine a blockbuster video, looking around the room

some of you probably don't know what that is but it was buster video commenced the government to pass a regulation saying in order to rent movies you must commit to a physical store and show your i.d. because we want to prevent underage kids from printing r-rated movies that they would still be in business and they would never have downloads. they find some sort of public safety argument or some other argument that they use it to create a roadblock that the integrator can't meet. >> the reason they can do that as they have access giving money to elected officials. >> part of his electing people that understand that's an impediment to economic growth and limiting the ability of government to impose the rest source of regulations so that's why the regulatory budget is one of the proposals i have. >> yesterday a new report came out that states that 54 million americans almost one third of the workforce is doing -- and not just in urban areas but throughout the country.

the same study says 86% of the nation are likely to vote in 2016 and 62% are more likely to vote for candidate that supports their interests. some of these are not necessarily working for handier uber but they care about things retirement savings health care legal support for nonpayment because someone is not paying them and other issues. whatever work wants as flexible work with stable work to. >> erased a couple of interesting points. our 20th century health care is built on employer model. those people offer you an insurance plan and that's how you get your health insurance. in the 21st century that cannot be the cornerstone. we have to have affordable systems which is why believe every american should be allowed to control their own pre-tax health care money whether it's the employer that gives it to you or your own money or a tax

credit depending on how much money you make and you can use it to buy her own health insurance from any company in any state of america that will sell it to you. i have argued we should open up congressional retirement plans. the congress as a member of congress are allowed to contribute to the federal federal thrift savings plan. it's a plan that performs well. i've argued we should open up that plan to anyone who doesn't have a retirement plan offered to them by an employer so they too can have access to the congressional retirement plan as a contributor to that program. think we need to figure out ways to provide the stability that once came from a traditional employer. the 21st century have to account for the fact that a growing number of americans won't be traditionally employed by working for one company or one firm all the time. >> in a sharing economy what's to keep us from having a race to the bottom.

>> i'm not in favor getting rid of the minimum wage completely. what i have argued against his increasing it for two reasons. i wanted make people more expensive than machines. we are trending towards machines and we are -- i don't want people harmed by that. i don't think it's the best way to raise wages. a better way to raise wages to the combination of creating an economy that creates jobs that pay more but also making it easier and cheaper for people to acquire these education they need to qualify for the best paying jobs of the 21st century. i've argued about opening space for competency-based learning. in it bipartisan bill have offered an accrediting model that will allow people to acquire the equivalent of college education through an innovative means and allow you

to learn including credit for life and work experience. we should open a pell grant and financial aid to high schools who will thulin roll so they graduate certified not just with a high school diploma but certified to work as a plumber or as a machinist or a welder. i also think a traditional four-year education but i've argued that students need to know how much they're going to make when they graduate with that degree before they borrow money to pay for it. i've have bipartisan bill called right to know before you go it requires before you take out a loan you are told how much people make when they graduate from that school. that's a better way to raise wages. it creates the policies that allow america to be the easiest and best place in the world to create better paying jobs and make it easier faster and cheaper for people to acquire the skills they need to obtain a job. >> you mentioned you want to limit regulations in some cases these innovative companies have

services that they are collateral effects. for example air bnb which many people love users on both sides of the transaction love but in some cases low-income people are using it to enhance their income. there is the collateral effect and you probably follow a lot of these paths and said start seeing a collateral effect which may not be so great. you have no regulation how do you prevent collateral effects from coming back and biting you? >> i want the water we drink to not be poisoned. and i fly on airplanes i'm glad they are regulated. i'm not arguing we shouldn't have any regulations. there comes a point where regulations go to farm become an impediment to innovation. in the case of a private property owner if i own my own property at emplacers diction somehow tenets use property and

people do that all the time. that's different from government policy. structural change in the economy has always been disrupted. industrial revolution was deeply disrupted and we had to work through issues of child labor and safety issues and factors that we never have before us a society. we will have disruptions that we have to work through. that is many walk away. we are not going back to the 20th century. the only choice before us is if we embrace the future or allow it to leave us behind? this argument we are going to be able to go back to the good old days the way things once war is not going to happen and if we do we will be left behind. >> companies like air bnb and uber are examples and even handy

are middlemen between someone who is willing to provide a service and someone is willing to pay for it. wouldn't we be better off helping cooperatives where people can find each other without having to pay the middleman to do the transaction? >> who is going to build a platform? >> citizens could do it and make it more open so the shareholders shareholders. >> i don't think you are going to get innovation that way. the way you come up with a great idea someone says i have a good idea and i think i can make money. virtually every major innovation in the world has been driven that way particularly when it comes to providing services to individuals so you may very much believe in her idea but the fact is the reason it was created was somebody has made a decision, i think i can do this for a living so they found these ideas. if you're counting on the collectives it's not a very effective go way and for enterprise has proven that. the great company of the year

2025 does not exist yet. someone is 14 euros -- 14 years old playing mine craft. they shouldn't be playing right now but they're going to figure out how to put this thing together in eight or nine years but they are only going to do it because they think they can make money at doing it. there's nothing wrong with the profit motive. >> some people argue that their new monopolies by some of the existing tech companies now that will prevent innovation. >> you can very much be a creature of the new economy and wants to become established in an incumbent industry every established industry was once an innovator. i'm not arguing that the new economy creatures are going to somehow not behave in the same fashion and that's why we have a system that does not allow that to happen. what we should have as a free enterprise system that says no matter how great your idea you can be out of business in two years as someone comes up with a better idea and can deliver it at a better price.

>> would have a company like uber decides to cut its prices and prevents another company that may want to create car sharing to entering the market. uber had a huge advantage and now they are basically burning money. >> the truth about the economy as the competitor to uber may not offer an exact model. it will be a new system or a new way of using sharing that is different from the model uber is using. we have examples of this all the time. five years ago, three years ago whatever may be the cutting-edge company or firm has been replaced by a new one that did what they were doing but in a better and more creative way. i don't think government interference in the round will lead to innovation and what it's going to end up doing is setting up concrete and drying innovation that starting place. >> you mentioned we have a 20th century government but

one of the challenges is that technology can evolve and change and it seems like some of the regulators are reacting. so if you are president what would you do to make sure the government where it does need to regulate for example airlines, making sure they are safe stays ahead of the technology? planes are connected 24/7 to connect with black boxes when they crash. there's a role to stay ahead of technology so besides cutting the regulators a budget and limiting the amount of regulation how do we keep the government on the 21st century past? >> if you are in uber, go on to pick on anyone but those uber cars are regulated. before the cars on the road is inspected and gone through all the testing testing that the fel government requires for motor vehicles. has regulations locally about how fast it can drive what the

safety features need to be and all of those things are still in place. we are not saying the that uber drivers on have to observe traffic signals. the issue is industry in particular. it's the business model not being regulated. there's no way the federal government can keep up with innovation on a regulatory funding. he cannot move fast enough. >> senator i'm a big proponent for technology making the world a better place but i'm a little concerned when you say we will limit the amount of regulation when volkswagen is able to play with their software and basically lie to the world about the efficiency of their cars. somebody has to have the budget to be able to investigate. if you cut regulations this is going to allow for innovative companies that may create damage to our economy. >> a regulatory budget is not just about cutting regulations. predatory budget is designed to force privatization pure cost-benefit analysis.

the cumulative impact of federal regulations on our economy cannot exceed a certain amount of money in these agencies must now decide which regulations are worthy. which are the ones we need and which are the ones that are justified in a cost benefit analysis that's what it's designed to do. >> on a cost-benefit analysis some people would say get rid of gas emissions. it's cheaper to make cars that don't cause air pollution and the huge cost to the environment. >> those people make that decision will be accountable for why they chose that direction as opposed to a regulation that they should have taken away. we keep adding new regulations without removing existing ones and it's a system of her pituitary -- someone hire the right person to influence the government to move in that direction.

>> we won't will start taking some questions but i have just one more. the white house wants dave program called duest digital service to bring the nation's top engineers to work inside government to fix problems for example like the va and save money and in fact save hundreds of millions of dollars on old antiquated systems that the government currently spends. if you are president would you continue that program? >> we want to see how it works first. it's offered as a pilot initially. a small amount by $20 million but i think if it proves to be something effective we can attract some of the brightest minds in the country to dedicate themselves for x number of years to create solutions. that's something we should definitely do. >> i want to ask everybody to please have your questions remain on the topic of today's talk if you could please. >> hi good morning. thank you so much for being here

today. i very much enjoyed your discussion today especially mentioned the american dream. i have a question on the topic of technology since i'm in the tech industry. you said our immigration system is broken because it's based on what you have a relative here rather than married. as president bob oyou due to fix the system to attract and keep the best and brightest in america? >> i believe in reform of the h-1b and sometimes the visa is three days of countries like canada are deliberately targeting to steal away some of the best talent writer living from our universities by breaking you can get the workforce to live in canada but you can't get them to live in the u.s..

it creates rules and regulations so they can't be used against the american worker but they bigger issue is we admit 1 million people a year to the united states permanently. there is no country in the world but that's generous. a million people a year permit lam agree agree to them i say to my argument is if you are the best of what you do on the planet i don't want you here temporarily i want you here permanently. i want you to live in this country become a -- so what i've argued is the permanent legal immigration system needs to become more merit based. not simply a mother not you have a relative living here. that serves as the magnet that brings you and that's why i've argued for america because it reflects the 21st century more accurately. >> hi i'm danielle thompson. i have a question for you regarding open government and government as a platform.

open government believes that citizen should have access to all the data loss and other information regarding government and government as a platform that believes government should make it easier for senators to plug and play into their government in order to govern themselves better. as president i would you promote initiatives such as open government which coming from a conservative up ringing who believes that pete will should govern themselves locally how we support initiatives of open government? >> one of the proposals is about the on line budgeting issues. by providing that platform where the american people can access the government and understand how the money is being spent and what the salaries of federal employees are in spending priorities are. i would be open to leveraging --

individual americans would feel to have access to the way government spends money. i think technology has easy solutions for that if we are willing to implement it. >> senator thanks for being here. i appreciate you being this dialogue and we talk about companies, first of all users in individuals and there is no mess and credible upswing in activism around issues of personal control. they don't want the government to -- i'm curious what you would do to prevent privacy people's information and making them in control part of it is we have a system that you have to opt out the way your information is used what that leads us is the debate between the private sector that says if we can't sell consumer

information that we can't offer these services. the flipside is many users are not aware that information unless they opt out is being used and sold as a marketable good. at the end of the day if we are forced to choose between both i would err on the side of the rights of the individual americans too often to the way they are information is used. banks to find their spending habits for their clients valuable in the commercial market but if given a choice between the two we are always on the side of the ability of individuals to have their private information protected from being used in ways they are not aware of. >> on that topic in particular i don't know if you knew the senator but bankruptcy creditors have no obligation to maintain the terms of service that was signed even if people opted out. >> meaning if you have a loan or bank account and you opted out

of the information they don't have any requirement. >> went to on the platform the company collects the data and if the company goes bankrupt they have no obligation. >> this is an issue we have to continue to to confront and it would lend it to federal regulation. >> air bnb in san francisco or uber in florida or miami-dade, how does the federal government get in there while observing these locals. >> it doesn't on the local issues. a lot of these are being fought at multiple levels so obviously there's nothing safe federal government can do. when we have a role to place in

the tax treatment of the employment issues that i've pointed out about how you treat independent contractors. we have to ensure that our policies have in the face of the federal level so in addition to creating categories that allow us to account for employment i think one of things i've argued and most americans especially smaller ones organized subchapter s today you pay your tax rate on a personal rate not on the corporate rate so that is where you find the largest established industry. i have argued that all businesses and income no matter how your structured should be taxed at one flat rate of 25% for everyone so that includes the money you are making in a subchapter s would only be back to 25% not ready 9.5 or whatever your personal rate might be. that's a huge advantage for smaller business. i would allow businesses to spend and invest.

a large corporation can afford to take that deduction on the scheduled appreciation. a small business that may not be around in four years they can't expense capital investment up front right away. i would allow them to expand and that tax year. >> greg walden. >> it's a pretty broad portfolio. >> going back to mr. roget i was just wondering how was nicole lapan warren buffett multi-million dollar wire fraud going where there was a big loss in london? >> let's stay on topic. >> journalists it on the wire

>> not only fruitless but counterproductive. >> this brings up the question of education. the getting teachers trained to teach science and math so that people can build these businesses themselves. it is a key component but that does not seem to be enough federal money for teacher training. >> part of it, if you are a nontraditional student, you

cannot just drop anything and sit in the classroom for two years. that is where competency-based learning is critical because by leveraging the power and the access of technology, it would allow you to do a number of things. they would accredit innovative programs that allow you to get credit for what you have already learned. iflearned. if you have 20 years of work experience, that is worth something and should be giving college equivalent credit. whatever you are missing you should be allowed to package from a variety of sources. additional work experience so that people can package together the equivalent of a collegea college degree or the equivalent of an award and use that. >> i think that is true in

the entire economy. you can use that to retrain people to become paralegals, receptionists, create that create that is an opportunity to allow people to get back to military service and become a weldera welder for someone that works in the factory. >> what about public schools teachers to train science and math. >> k through 12 educational system, the primary obligation of the local and state government. with the federal government gets involved is by helping key parts of our education. my argument is not the customs program but that money should follow the child. i would allow parents and students and young people to use that money to access programs. at the front end, i believe that pre-k - 12 education should remain in the control of local jurisdictions. >> what would you do has

pres. to make sure there is more funding for teachers who teach science and math? >> again, i honestly believe that k-12 education belongs at the state and local level it has never been a federal obligation,a federal obligation, and you don't want the federal government dictating the local communities. he will not get information from the federal level. and that is where k --dash 12 education primarily false. >> trying to get as many people as possible please. >> a question. we have a lot of people losing jobs. there is a limit to reeducating these people. do you think that the government has the responsibility? >> i believe in a safety net

the consequences cannot be your destitute. i just you and i think it should be aa lifestyle a way of life. our safety net is failing. the purpose of our anti- poverty for should be secure poverty. a better approach is the 1 i have argued, we should take our money and allow it to be spent at the state and local level so they can design innovative programs that work in those communities that specifically target the causes or leading causes of poverty in that community. the only requirement i would have is that anyone receiving public assistance should be working or going to school. any solution to poverty has to involve not just paying there terms in the short-term butshort term but the acquisition of skills you need. and so that is why i have argued