at the very margins of our society, the very poor. we have a president who says that he supports the occupiers who divide america between 99 and 1. we have another candidate in this race who suggested that he didn't care about the very poor. he cared about the 95%. how about a candidate who cares about 100%? who cares about everybody and gives them the opportunity to be able to rise in society. not just to do that with manufacturing and energy jobs but also to understand that unless we have strong families and strong communities, we're not going to be an economically successful country. we certainly won't be able to have limited government, lower taxes. if the family continues to disintegrate. america today, a single parent family versus a two-parent family. as far as poverty rates, two-parent families in america have an 8% poverty rate in america. single-parent families, as

heroic as single moms are to provide, to care, to nurture, to do all the things that two parents were designed to do, the poverty rate is approaching 40%. we're not going to have a strong economy, folks, unless -- or limited government if the family continues to decline. 30 years ago 71% of people over the age of 18 were married in america. today it's 51% and it's dropped 5% in the last three years. it's a precipitous and rapid decline. and as that occurs, government will get bigger. and the ability for us to lower taxes and create a vibrant economy will get harder. i spoke with chuck colson who started a group called prison fellowship after he left prison in the 1950s. he told me at the time he left prison there were 250,000 people in prison in america. today there are 2.5 million people in prison in america. and 70% to 80% of them grew up

without a father in the home. now, let's just do the math. and what america is going to look like. and you tell me how we can be economically successful. folks, we as remembers, we as conservatives, we can't go out there and just say cut spending, cut taxes, everybody's going to be fine. first off, economically, everybody isn't going to be fine. we need to create an environment where all people can rise. and we also have to create a culture that is consistent with the values of our country. our country was a great country because we believed in building a great and just society from the bottom up. believing in freedom, faith, family.

the school, the little hospital, the civic and charitable organizations. what have we done? what's happened? this government has gotten bigger and more forceful. they're sweeping them out of the way. my tax plan, i have five deductio deductions. one is for families. we triple the child tax credit. or child deduction. why? because families are taxed higher now than they've ever been. why? because the child deduction continues to go down over time. families back in the 1950s in the heydays of detroit, they didn't pay taxes. why? because we understood the stress of raising children. and the economic stress and how -- how finances and economics can be a stress on marriages and families. and so we had a government that says, we're going to support you. the other deductions that we have in place for health care and for housing and for

pensions. all things to help support and stabilize families. of course, charities, churches, key to those mediating institutions. what do i mean by mediating? those institutions that stand between you and the government. if there isn't anything between you and the government, if there is a naked public square, if you are there alone with nobody around you and you're out there paddling alone, then government becomes your lifeboat. and when government becomes your lifeboat, freedom is ultimately lost because you've now sold out. no fault of your own, in many cases. but that's what's left. we need to create a rich society with lots of places for you to go before you go to the government for help and assistance and the problems that you're dealing with. charities. churches. it's no wonder the president in one of his tax proposals sought to limit charitable contributions. they get in the way of

government, you know. in providing for you. families can get in the way of go government and your reliance on them. we will have a program that will say you need to go out and have a rich society again. why is democracy and a -- because they didn't have what we have. which is a great civil society. families, churches, community organizations, schools and business -- small businesses. businesses generally. who are there to help. mediate between you and the government. this is the vision. an economic vision for america that doesn't go back, but goes forward. and create an opportunity and culture that is nurturing and safe and secure. because we've got the strong community. we've got the opportunity to rise in society.

we'll put americans back to work and we'll put them to work in neighborhoods where they feel safe and can raise good and decent children and live lives that can make this country that shining city on the hill. thank you. god bless. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, senator. i've got a distinct privilege of trying to represent the unified voice of this audience through these blue cards. i'll tell you, having the power of the pen is sure a heady opportunity here. we've got enough questions that i could almost write a dissertation on political science, but i'm going to get

right to them. million of older americans have lost their jobs. how would you help americans, especially those ages 50-plus, to get back to work? >> well, you know, i would just say this. you know, if we can create an economy that is spawning jobs and creating opportunities, one of the things that i hear all the time and particularly, you know, in the manufacturing sector, is the lack of people with experience and skill to do the jobs that are necessary out there. and there clearly will be a demand as -- as the private sector economy improves, there'll be a demand for experienced workers who will have -- you know, have the skill sets necessary to do not just the blue collar jobs, but also the white collar jobs. we all know. in manufacturing there's not just, you know, line workers, but there's a whole host of other folks that create --

create opportunities for folks with experience in the past. so i can't say that there's anything specifically that i would do. one of the concerns i have with this revitalized economy is to making sure that we have the education and training available to train people for these new jobs, including older workers. and what we've seen in this president is an assault on those very schools that do most of the training out there. and that's the private schools. this president has had a war on private education. i know that comes as a shock to some people that the president would have a war on private sector something. but this is consistent. he believes that private sector schools are somehow evil. and they're abusive. and his education department has done everything they could to make it harder for them to compete for loans and other things. and to stay in business. yet, they are going to be the principal tool along with

community colleges to respond to this, what i believe will be, exploding demand for -- for -- for skilled and -- semiskilled and skilled workers to do the jobs of the future. i will tell you i have a very, very different attitude toward -- toward private -- private schools and -- and training schools and technical schools. and we will work -- make sure that they are available and around and funded like any other -- any other school to be able to pick up and help the business community meet their training needs. >> thank you. how would have you voted for t.a.r.p. money? in particular, for the auto loans to gm and chrysler? romney has stated he would not have supported the decision to bail out the auto industry in 2009. >> i've heard that. i take a little different position than governor romney. governor romney supported the

bailout of wall street and decided not to support the bailout of detroit. my feeling was that we should not support -- the government should not be involved in bailouts, period. i think that's a much more consistent position. it's one that -- that if you -- if you look at what happened with -- by the way, it's not the obama administration. i know governor romney focuses on the obama administration. and that's the reason he does, is because he supported what the bush administration did. well, i didn't. i opposed what the bush administration did. and have been a consistent critic of it. i was not in public life at the time and certainly wasn't back in 2008 considering any kind of run for office ever again. but i did make my opinions known within the administration of what i thought they were doing was wrong. they plowed ahead anyway. and did some things that were, i think, injurious to capitalism. first by bailing out bear

stearns in the first place. biggest mistake. what they should have done is let the market work. once they started picking winners and losers, does this sound familiar? once they started picking winners and losers, then the market decided, well, we can just wait since the government's going to be involved. we'll just wait for them to do it. that led to a path of wall street bailouts and auto bailouts. where if we had just stayed out of it completely and let the market work, i believe the market would have worked. would the auto industry look different than it does today? yes, it would be. would it still be alive and well? i think it would be alive and -- and equally as well if not better. why? because markets would have -- the markets would have had to e react and do what was necessary to structure it to be competitive. look, the facilities that are creating huge profits right now are there and would be there. problem wasn't the facilities or the workers. it was the obligations that these legacy companies had that they couldn't -- they couldn't pay. i went through this in the steel industry. i know what this is like.

no one bailed out the steel industry. is the steel industry smaller than it was before? yes. is it profitable, well, depends on -- depends on the year. but it's been profitable for most years. why? because they right sized, they used the facilities that were efficient, and they were able to go out and compete. i just believe that -- you know, that making -- having government involved sets a precedent that now is set in america that will make it easier for the next president to step in and make the argument for why government should take over and, well, like i say, the health care industry or some other business. say that this is the role of government we've now set under republican and democratic presidents. i actually blame president bush more than i do president obama. president obama was just following suit. president bush set the presentation dent. it was the wrong precedent. and i think that while there may be companies today that are doing well, and obviously you have a couple companies here that are, the long-term consequences to this country, having set the precedent, the

role of government in the economy, is not going to be a good one. >> i own a small business. how will your administration help small businesses? >> well, i take, for example, what we do with the corporate taxes. we cut corporate tax rates in half. we make it basically a flat tax. that's a great advantage to small business. why? because small businesses don't have the compliance departments and the auditors and the accounts to be able to figure out how to maximize their -- look, i do my own taxes. heck, romney paid half the tax rate i did. so obviously he doesn't do his own taxes. maybe i should hire an accountant in the future. no, look. you have -- you have the opportunity if you're a large corporation to have a lot more folks looking at these things and drilling down and creating, you know, creating -- structuring your company to respond to how the tax code operates. that does not -- it's simply not the case with the small business person. i would just say that having a

flat tax on a corporate tax is going to be a great -- a great equalizer in many respects. i look at the things that the government does with respect to the regulatory burden. i didn't get a chance to talk about that. i was going a little long, so i cut that part out. but one of the -- one of the key aspects of our economic plan is to deal with the explosion of regulations. under the clinton and bush administrations, they averaged 62 regulations a year that cost businesses over $100 million. those are the high-cost regulations that are monitored by, i think, the general accounting office. well, under the -- under this administration last year, the president proposed 150 of those regulations in one year alone. and is scheduled to break that record this year. this is a president who's gone hog wild. and guess who gets hurt the most by burdensome regulations? it's the little guy. i was talking to a mortgage

broker in spartanburg, south carolina, who told me that prior to dodd/frank and the regulations implemented under dodd/frank, he spent 30 minutes a week on regulations. he now spends three to four hours a day, and he's getting out of business. and so the big guys will take over. why? they have big compliance departments. they can handle this. i've always said, and i really believe this, that unfortunately big business doesn't necessarily mind big government. gives them a competitive advantage. but big government and regulation kills the little guy. kills innovation. kills the -- the -- the -- the -- creates barriers to entry. look at obamacare. obamacare if you get to 50 employees, all of a sudden you're going to get hit with huge tax burdens. there's companies right now, i know, i've talked to them, trying to figure out how they can get under 50 employees so they're not going to have to comply with obamacare. why would we do this? but that's what we're doing to the small business. we're saying, don't grow. you're going to get nailed.

even if you don't, if you're going to sit there and we're going to tell you how to manage your business, that creates a huge disadvantage for the entrepreneur to be able to be successful. we will repeal all of that and change washington from a place that focuses on compliance and working with businesses, believing them not to be evil, not to be out to do nefarious things by trying to make profits, but they actually believe that in their own community, in their own state, they, too, believe in clean air and clean water and that we can trust states and localities and not have the federal government micromanage what dust farmers put in the air. that, in fact, we can trust ordinary americans and people at the state and local level to provide for themselves in a good and healthy community more than washington can. >> thank you. what role do you see for labor unions in america, and how would you suggest to ensure workers' rights. >> it's interesting. i've been attacked as the big

union republican in this case. i went back and looked at my afl/cio scorecard. i was a 13% rating. if that's big union in the republican party, i guess we've narrowed the field quite a bit, haven't we? no. i -- you know, i -- i believe in creating opportunities for working folks. i don't have -- my grandfather was a coal miner. he was the treasurer of his union. i'm sure the fact that his son -- his grandson is running as a conservative republican is quite -- caused quite a few flips in the grave there for him. but he -- you know, i -- i have no problem with private sector unions. i think they -- they -- they play a role in society. i'm someone who -- who does believe that people should have the right to work. i've signed on and said that we the law that basically requires states to -- to have -- you know, unions -- union dues being paid. as a -- as a condition of employment. that -- that law should be repealed and the states should have the opportunity to be able

to make that decision for themselves. as opposed to the federal level. but i have no -- again, from my perspective, unions are, frankly, one of those mediating institutions. and have served in america a legitimate purpose over time in the private sector. i don't feel quite as -- quite as warm and fuzzy about public sector unions. i think public sector are in a intrinsically unfair bargaining position. because the people sitting across the table from them, unlike the business person who has shareholders or themselves who have money on the line or both, the public employee unions are sitting across from someone who isn't -- not their money. and it's not their -- you know, it's not their tax dollarsth t r these things. and secondly, where these folks are receiving benefits, getting dues paid from federal tax -- r

that they then turn around and help elect the people who sit on the other side of the bargaining table with them. that creates a -- well, i just think an ugly situation in america. an unfair situation in america. and i think as the federal government does, which does not allow unions, public sector unions to negotiate wages and benefits, i think that's the local governments to be in the same position. >> thank you. this is the last question. interestingly enough, the most penetrating questions come from stu students. this is from a 13-year-old student who put a postscript on there. my teacher says she will bump my grade up to an "a" if you answer my question. so i'm helping you out. keeping light with a penetrating question, as president, how would you help homeless people? >> well, as i said before, we have -- we have to be concerned about everybody.

from the very rich to the very poor. if you look at my track record, you know, we -- it was actually david brooks, no great friend of conservatives, who wrote several years ago, there hasn't been a single piece of legislation dealing with the poor in the senate over the last 12 years that my name wasn't either attached to or leading on. i really do believe we have an obligation to create opportunity and create the ladder of success for everyone. including those who are homeless. and i would just -- i would just say that if you -- if you look at our -- our record and what we've done in creating the opportunity for states to take responsibility for a lot of these programs, i think what you saw with welfare reform was the flexibility and the dollars to be able to go out and meet the unique needs of the community as opposed to what the federal government said was, the greater needs of the greater community across this country. so i think the flexibility that we're going to give states to manage these programs is a -- is a very important thing. one of the unique problems of

homelessness, unfortunately, and sadly, are a very substantial number of homeless people are veterans. we've seen this -- i've seen this in my own state and studies that show that because of veterans returning home, particularly now, with high rates of ptsd and other types of stresses and re -- reacclimating to society, we see a lot of this problem. this is an area that when i was in the senate, i worked a lot with the veterans and dad worked. my dad was a psychologist that wo rked wso i have a particular co about that. and that would be ani reuld -- d focus on to make sure that, number one, that we don't create the situation that creates a lot of this these repetitive tours of duty. five, si of duty is just -- is way too much to ask. and we have a president who's

gone out and said we're going to cut back our troop levels. what's that going to mean? mean 9, 10, 11 is what we're going to be doing as far as these troop rotations are concerned? we need to look at how we're managing our troops and also look at how we're going to care make sure that they can be integrated back into society. obviously, we're dropping the ball. that's one area that i would -- i would stress as president to make sure that we first and foremost take care of those who have sacrificed and risked so much for their country. let me thank you all very much for the opportunity. it was great being here in detroit, and god bless. [ applause ] >> on behalf of the detroit

economic club and all of us here in this room, thank you so much, rick santorum, for joining us today. i just -- it's such a privilege to be your host. dr. myer, you did a fabulous job as expected as a presiding officer. and also would like to thank all of you for investing your time here with us today. with that, this meeting is adjourned and please have a terrific day. thank you so much. [ applause ]

today mitt romney is campaigning in boise, idaho. shortly he'll be attending a rally at headquarters of a modular home builder. rick santorum began the day in

michigan, and he'll be in ohio this evening for back to back lincoln day dinners in two different cowan tis. newt gingrich is fundraising in georgia. tonight he hosts a campaign rally in peachfree city. ron paul is hosting a rally in richland, washington. he'll then go to idaho for an evening rally at the university of idaho. arizona and michigan hold their primaries in less than two weeks, february 28th, followed by washington state's caucuses in early march, super tuesday where ten states hold primaries or caucuses is march 6th, and 11 states and u.s. territories hold primaries or caucuses through the rest of march. you can follow coverage of political events as well as results on the c-span networks and online at c-span.org. we have a country where millions of innocent people have had to go to prison. they have put bars on their own windows and bars on their own doors because we have abandoned

their neighborhoods to crime. now, i can't live with that. our neighborhoods should be safe. the children should be able to play in the streets. and you and i can fix that together. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> and i believe that the destiny of america is always safer in the hands of the people than in the conference rooms of any elite. so let us give our -- let us give our country the chance to elect a government that will see and speak the truth, for this is a time for the truth in the life of this country. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. next a panel on job creation through innovation. this is hosted by the brookings institution and runs about 50

minutes. >> this panel has the remit to focus on advanced manufacturing and exports. and both to understand why we need to make a case for that, and we've already begun that conversation in the first two panels, but also to understand what the national government can do. suspend disbelief. to set a platform for productive, innovative growth. and then in the absence of national action, what states,