but, today, we often send ohio or north carolina out to compete against singapore or brazil or a european country. you don't have the same tools. that is one of the reasons we talked about the very high corporate tax rate. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. you can't as a state provide any incentive to come here versus canada where the corporate rate is now 15%. we think the nation needs to be thinking in a much more >> which candidate in your opinion, this is from the wall street journal that lays out the options from the candidates. which one has the best plan? >> they are all better than what we have. the president, i think, broke some new ground and tonight when we talking, we'll ask about that. they talked about coming down to 28%. governor romney is at 25%. others have been lower than that on the corporate tax rate. the problem with the obama plan,

there are a lot of pieces to it. we don't think it is still competitive enough on an international basis. i think that the collective republican plans at this point are more helpful in terms of competitive. even the president's moved in the right direction. let me give you a step back from just corporate tax and look at the tax structure in general. we will have at the end of this year, 101 different from visions of the tax code expired. that is unprecedented. this is all expiring. how does anybody, whether you are a family or small business or a big global corporation know what the rules are and how to compete going forward if it is all temporary? one of our real strong recommendations is look, stop fooling around. when you fix this code, it has

to be permanent. >> on the tax code, the real dean ice posts the effective corporate tax rate in this country? they gave some examples recently in the wall street journal. utilities, 14%. transportation, 19%. real estate, 23%. manufacturing, 26%. all below the nominal tax rate of 35% right now. >> yesterday, the financial times, and i was just looking for that which had a headline on the issue. they said the effective corporate tax rate was about 31.5%. i get a lot of different calculations that people make, but it is all comparative. let's stick with the comparison. if you take the comparison on effective tax rate, u.s. versus

other nations, we are still at the highest. on the actual nominal rate, we are the highest. japan drops below us. we think that is a factor. i don't ever say that is the only. it is change that and life gets great. it is a part of it and it is a big part. we do not have today a tax code that has been modernized since 1986. if you think about it, that is before we had common internet usage or before we had the 24/7 business news coverage cycles. a lot has changed in that time. >> let's go back to the phones. we have bill from corpus christi, texas. >> caller: good morning. i don't know where to start with this gentleman. he is a capitalist. >> you got me there. >> caller: you talk about america's goals, but let's face it. free trade that you pushed for

is exactly what gave away 44,000 factories and the jobs. that is exactly happened to us. >> bill, let's get a response. >> if we had done that, we need to change to go there. the premise of the question is a little bit flawed. some of the things that i'm advocating, i think, would have lessened the job loss. i think also what bill has to keep in mind he is down in texas. texas as a state has done well in competition with other states. there are certain jobs in this country regardless. now there is a big debate and the competition within america is where the jobs will be and texas has been competitive vis-a-vis, with california. we don't have enough jobs in the country and we are not competing enough for the global economy. we are supporting the

president's goal of doubling the exports. there are things to do. i think bill's point is the changes i want if they had been in place and caused the job loss, they wouldn't be necessary. they would be the wrong ones. we are changing to something we don't have, bill. that is why it will be better. >> let me go back to your home state of michigan. detroit. fred is joining us. go ahead, fred. >> caller: thank you and good morning. i think one of the things that we are missing in this country is that the republicans and democrats are starting to look a lot alike. they flip flop back and forth. the only presidential candidate i see hope for is dr. ron paul. i notice he is consistent with his methodology for the past 30 years. he has had the same program. he has not flip flopped back and

forth like romney and obama. obama is a constitutional lawyer. for him to go in and start a war with iraq or iran or libya or syria. >> fred, i'll stick to the economy and your comments about dr. ron paul. ron paul was on the ballot in virginia today. you voted. you voted for mitt romney. what do you disagree with from ron paul's economic message? >> i'm not quite clear what ron paul's message is. you know, i looked at his career in the congress. it is not a career like a paul ryan who has been a leader, clearly, on here is how we deal with the deficit. ron paul has had plenty of opportunity to advance solutions as a member of congress. i don't think he has done that. i mean, it is great to be kind of a novelty in the presidential

race, but i don't think there is a serious record of achievement in the congress. >> donna wants to go back to corporate tax rate. she said would it be better to lower all corporate taxes and raise all ceo personal tax rate? >> i think most ceos pay the highest rate there is. i know ceos here are as good as warren buffett is where he puts much into his foundation. there is a debate. we have seen interestingly enough, with the high individual tax rates, they have been higher. you have at the end of this year, tax rates that are -- the lower rates are expiring. there will be a pop up in the highest tax rates in the country. one of the things that is important that gets missed in this conversation about rates is that there are a lot of

businesses in the country that are run by entrepreneurs and small businesses and sizable or medium companies that are not incorporated. they are pass-through entities and they pay that rate. as individual rates go up for you and me, they also go up for those unincorporated businesses. >> let me talk about this piece. kellogg's john bryant's rate went up. bloomberg business wrote that question whether ceos are worth their salaries and benefits. they have been consistently overpaid. what is your reaction to that? i want to show the viewers from the bloomberg piece and cnn

money. compensation rose from $5 million to $8 million. shareholders ls 14% in that time. in 2010, ceos pay rose 36.5%. are they overpaid? >> i don't think so. there is no question that when you look at the trends and ceo compensation -- because of the concern of articles like this and concern of the enterprise value and stock value, there is more linkage today. you will see the compensation on the boards link more and more ceo compensation to overall performance with awards of stock being linked again to the company's performance having to be held while the ceo is there. the kellogg example may be unfair because this is a new ceo. if you came in, i don't know what the situation was on the

transition from the departing ceo to the new ceo. it may not be an apples-to-apples comparison. you are seeing the shift and i think that is a healthy trend. i think it is something that will continue. it is one of the things -- there has been a lot done to have more transparency and public accountability even to the say on pay proposals that are on the ballot where we are going out to shareholders. to me, that is a nice issue, but it almost is a part from whether the congress is passing a budget. we have the right tax policy. it is not determining the ceo compensation issue is a bit of a red herring. it fits in the populous kind of 1% or 99% campaign narrative. is it fundamentally, if it is a

change in ceo pay tomorrow, would that change our ability to compete against a foreign headquartered company? probably not. >> let's go back to the tweet here. the bush tax cuts did not improve the economy. trickle down did not work. where are the new ideas? let's hear from michelle in woodbury, new jersey. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i have a new idea that is old. it started with our country. we should be economically independent, not inter dependent. we should be making everything in the country we are capable of making. from space stations to hair pins. we bailed out gm and they assembling cars in mexico. there are criminal enterprises and the g-8 being moved to camp

david proves how much people protest globalism. it has to work and it has to stop. >> thank you, michelle. >> can you restate that for me? >> you had difficulty hearing that. let me take her point of what she had to say about jobs in the country. she talked about the g-8. people are really protesting. she said we should make everything we should possibly make in this country. is that realistic? >> not anymore, i don't think. i think people like our caller are the reason. i bet she doesn't as a shopper look to buy only things that are made here. she might say it is hard to find them. the success of the large enterprise wal-mart or the bigger food stores. there is a diversity of population today asking for a

diversity of products. we have food that comes from all over the world today. it is not just on american farms. it is the same with the case of the manufactured items. >> what does it mean then when we see this headline in the business section of the new york times. signs of slowing growth in china. >> the exports are there for u.s.-made goods may be softening. that would have an impact. >> would this headline concern your ceos? >> sure. it is not just a -- there are two parts to the china market. it is not only a market for trade where we are exporting things to china and importing. there has been an imbalance on that. we would like to see exports rise to china. it is also a large domestic market. take proctor and gamble. a lot of their products, you

can't ship a diaper from the united states to china in a cost effective fashion. too much air will be shipped with that diaper. you have to build that plant in china for the domestic market. amway in canada. in their cases, they are able to blend the product and ship it to china. in both cases, there are significant jobs created in the united states because there is a market there. in one case supporting a plant that is in china selling to the domestic market. in another case, making a formula here and selling to another market. i think proctor and gamble, primary in ohio, is a good investment point. i think 40% of their jobs in ohio are dependent on international trade. that is a big number.

we are in this global globally-integrated economy today. the previous caller says let's make it all here. if everybody else made everything that they used there, we've only got less than 5% of the world's population today. 95% of the customers would then be out there. what we're trying to argue is let's get more competitive so we can do more here with our 5% of the population and sell it, ship it, transport it to the other 95%. there is a value to made in the usa product. >> we have five minutes left with john engler. president obama speaking to the nation's ceos put together by the business roundtable. that will be closed to the press tonight. jim heinz has this to add to the conversation. is it a better idea to raise economic growth to buffett's taxes or lower his secretary's

taxes? >> i would lower his secretary's taxes. first of all, we ought to tell mr. buffett and his secretary what their rates will be for a long time. we should get the tax code settled down and make it permanent. we ought to figure out what's it take to really be competitive? that is the thing. we are in spring training for baseball. everybody gets it. you want better players. people that can hit or pitch. you want them on your team. but we know what the rules of baseball are. now you need people who can play the game better than the other guy. i think tell us the rules of the game. we have people who can play better than the other guys. let's get this thing stabilized. one way to explain what is going on with taxes across the world is the following, this is really a simple example. companies today, i mentioned 95% of the people live out there. if i go and double exports, we

want to sell more. if i earn money offshore and pr and compare to a german company. we both pay taxes in malaysia. we pay 20% tax. then the german company can take their money they made and malaysia and bring it anywhere in the world. bring it back to germany or go anywhere else and spend that money. the u.s. company in the same situation would pay the malaysia taxes and take it anywhere in the world except if they bring it back to the united states, they pay another 16% tax on it. that seems to me to be silly because we ought to want that money to come home and be invested here. >> we have wayne on the air with us from alabama. >> caller: governor, you were talking about the united states having the highest corporate tax rate. i saw an interview with martin

sanders of vermont. he said that exxon mobile made $16 billion profit. paid no income tax. got a $6 million tax refund. we also know that caterpillar paid no taxes. ge paid no taxes. you want to lower the tax rate? >> wayne, let me add to the conversation. tax rates hit ten-year low. >> that was the article i was referencing earlier. it points that the effective tax rate is 31.5%. the examples cited. we have a lot of companies like net operating losses and carry forward. exxon pays billions of dollars in royalties and other taxes. that isn't the whole story with them. but companies that have losses,

general motors has losses as far as the eye can see from the past. those are still being applied to lower current tax bills now that they are showing record earnings. it is somewhat the case in airlines or was the case in the steel industry. but what we're saying is for that marginal rate and the next investment dollar decision is up, where do you put it? we are saying we should have an environment in this country. take canada. they have a corporate down to 15%. they have a more valuable research and development credit that is allowed for a company up there. throw in one other thing. talent. they don't have an immigration problem. we need to compete wherever it is in the world we think we can do a better job. >> a tweet from laura moon. why are companies in the midwest coming back to the united states? what is attractive to the midwest?

>> what has happened is the aftermath of the financial crisis and the great recession resulted in an increase in competitiveness. in some wage rates came down. in other cases the productivity is a consolidated facilities as such. and at the same time, rates are rising in places like china. so it is in fact the case with automotive suppliers which i know that are highly competitive today here. and so they have tightened up the supply chains and are competing. we have become more competitive. but remember, agriculture is far more competitive than anybody else in the world today. almost nobody works at it. that's one of the challenges is how do you keep jobs at the same time you're increasing productivity. >> and lastly, just one quick headline for you. this cloud technology. here's the headline, cloud expected to create a million jobs in the united states. by eliminating the use of resources. i mean, people are able to put

their data applications, resources, online instead of their own systems and that that could create millions of jobs is this the next big technology to help our economy move forward? >> technology has been a rapid deployer of technology, how they have competed. service sector the same way. what we need is to see the same kind of applications in the public sector. think of how much efficiency, one of the areas where we have strong agreement with the president, let's get the 19th century government reorganized and you're right. this is all part of the future. but at the same time, we ought to be thinking how then at the same time you're creating other value. how do you i think that around the world? it's one of the things we think protecting intellectual property is important. if we figure this stuff out, we ought to be able to sell it. >> john engler, hopefully you'll

come back and talk to our viewers again. >> be happy to do it. >> thank you for your time. >> coming up here on c-span 3, lawsuits against the military by women who allege sexual assaults. then securities and exchange commission mary schapiro on the budget request. that's followed by angela merkel in a town hall. and then later nuclear proliferation and rogue states. >> there's a real anxiety within a substantial part of black america when confronting black americans who are successful in the wider society because there's this anxiety that to be successful, especially if you're in a predominantly white setting, to get the backing of white people, to get the trust of white people, what did you have to do to get that backing?

what did you have to do to get that trust? what did you have to do to get that recognition? there's this fear that one of the things that you had to do was to betray in some form your community. >> the first sunday of every month, book tv's in depth focuses on the works of just one author. this month, harvard law professor randall kennedy spoke of race, politics and the obama administration. watch it online at the c-span video library. with over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer. eight current and form earn members of the u.s. military who allege they were raped, assaulted or harassed during their service have filed a lawsuit accusing the military of tolerating sexual predators and discouraging victims from coming forward. from the national press club, this is a little less than an hour. >> good morning, everyone. my name is susan burke. i very much appreciate your

interest and i appreciate you being here. today, we have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the district of washington, d.c. it's civil action number 12-0350. the lawsuit is on behalf of eight survivors of rape, sexual assault and severe sexual harassment. retaliation is common place in the military. despite giving lip service to having zero tolerance for sexual predators, the facts show that the military has zero tolerance for those brave enough to report being victimized by sexual predators. this lawsuit as well as a lawsuit we filed a year ago in the eastern district of virginia are aimed at reform. there is no circumstances under which women who are brave enough to stand up and defend this nation should have to be

subjected to being called slut, whore, walking mattress. this kind of conduct is not acceptable. as many of you have been following the cases know, there was a dismissal of the case on the grounds that rape is an occupational hazard. well, the plaintiffs in this case disagree and we are going to continue to fight this issue relentlessly and without stop until we eradicate that notion. we'll have a short program for you and i want to thank some people at the very outset. there's some talented filmmakers that have done a remarkable film called "the invisible war." it broke the story of the marine barracks and gives just a wonderful explanation of all the wrongdoing. so we call on secretary panetta and his colleagues to watch that

film. it's going to be again to be able in theaters. i encourage you to see that. very moving and powerful and lets you understand that they're joined by a lot of survivors. this is far too common place. i wanted to thank two lawyers, kathlyn hail and who have been helping me through all this. and in addition, i wanted to alert you thatconley from congrs office. she has stepped up to lead the reforms in congress. and josh is able to answer questions on the legislation afterwards. and i'm going to introduce everyone quite briefly. i'm going to start by thanking two organizations that have given us grants which without we

would not have given you all coffee and soda in the back there, as well as have the press conference. nancy parrish from protect our defenders and linda hallman from the university of association women. i'm going to call on nancy and then turn it over to the plaintiffs. >> good morning. protect our defenders was founded to support and give voice to service members who have been harassed, raped or sexually assaulted while serving our country. we aim to fix the broken military justice system. a system which often blames the victim and fails to punish the perpetrator. created by survivors and advocates, we provide the network and forum. we document and share survivor's stories. through these voices, we are building a grass roots movement to change the system. currently, we are over 25,000

voices strong. and building to 100,000 this year. to all the plaintiffs, we hear you and we commend your bravery. the step you are taking today is important and courageous. and it will helpakal violence w. but we demand a military justice system that works. a functioning system with proper enforcement will greatly reduce the occurrence. it's difficult to come forward in public to talk about rape. blaming the victim and retaliation are all too common. recently, a with fox news said women who join the military should expect to be raped and the military's own sexual assault program is so antiquated it implies if you go out alone and you're raped it's

your fault. this adversely affects the unit cohesion and it must not be tolerated. it's time for the country to hear the unvarnished truth. young women who sign up to serve in the armed forces are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than killed by enemy fire. 40% of homeless female veterans were raped or sexually assaulted. predators in the military are unafraid because they know an unwritten code shields them. our military fails to protect its most important resource -- our sons and daughters who serve. i urge all americans to hear these plaintiffs' voices. and go to our site, protect our defenders, and listen to others like sailor terry explain that