such as the upper house which has brought people and dollars to the town's main street. what is your stand on earmarks? if elected, would you continue securing earmarks for your constituents? we start with congressman moran. >> i oppose earmarked in their current state and support the moratorium that finally came about and the house of representatives. we tried for two years to get republicans to agree not to request earmarked and we were successful. i was one of 30 members of the house to sign a petition asking republican leaders to have a conference meeting of republican house members to bring to a vote the idea of an earmark reform moratorium. so the moratorium is now in place. only two members of the house are violating debt moratorium. it should have been put in place years before. congressman tiahrt led the effort to keep the earmarked process in place. he has argued about earmarked in

public versus in private. i think the change over time is our country is bankrupt. it is financially broke and earmarks lend themselves towards members of congress voting for $1.60 trillion bills because there is in earmarked in the bill. and with a financially broke country, it means we have to do something different than business as usual. there may be at various times are reason for earmarked but they have become ways of life in congress. members of congress are often given a pot of money if they will spend it. and that is a terrible mistake. it originates with the operations committee. -- in which todd has been a longtime member. we have clear differences in regard to this question of your marks. >> congressman tiahrt? >> when you listen to congressman moran you would think i would be the only one in washington or from kansas that does earmarked. everybody from kansas requested earmarked.

just last year, congressman moran supported and request a more than $250 million in earmarked. that is according to his website. i have stood with senator roberts and senator brown back to make sure we supported our communities. when the levies were failing in arc city and winfield, and they cried out for somebody for 20 years to build them, it was a earmark that started that process, just like congressman moran started earmarked for levies in salina. senator roberts and i made sure that our national security was not our source. our pentagon has tried to outsource jobs. the only thing we been able to do is use earmarked to keep those national security jobs from being out source. unfortunately, congressman moran voted against those kansas jobs and supported outsourcing our national security.

earmarks i think have been misunderstood. i have been earmarked reform bill, one of the strongest in the house, that would put transparency in. it would not only include the house and the senate but also the white house. unlike today when you vote up or down on a earmarked, if it is defeated, it would lower the debt. i think that is where this country should go. i think the tea partiers express has endorsed me as well as the sarah palin. >> congressman tiahrt talks about earmarked the benefit kansans. we now have a process, generally led by congressman flake from arizona, who endorsed my candidacy. it is to take up the most egregious earmarked in the bill. congressman tiahrt have voted differently. todd voted for the san here areo- peloisi related to the bridge and for $400,000 for an indoor tennis

court in wichita. >> the airport that congressman moran is talking about has an army guard unit for apache helicopters there. he has a weak record on that national-security. that is why he supports constitutional rights for terrorists. it is part of this week record on national-security. earmarks is something that we should -- i think should go through the reform process. it has transparency. it includes your marks from the senate, house and white house. we voted to eliminate in earmarked and it would reduce the debt. i think it is important. >> only would say that congressman tiahrt is a sponsor of a bill for earmarked reform but the congressional dale reports his efforts it -- he led the effort to prevent a moratorium by republicans the year before were successful in bringing it about. he is coming to this conclusion

but it happens to be an election year. >> as i recall, you were in that republican conference in new supported my motion. you supported the very motion you are chastising me for on this. i supported the reform and i think my legislation is the best vehicle to do that. congressman moran supported the efforts he is now criticizing before. i find that humorous. what we have to do is make sure that we have transparency and a earmarked process -- that we make sure it includes every facet of government today. when we do have a chance to eliminate them, it does reduce the national debt. >> question number three -- this is a popular topic. it has to do with the economy and the stimulus and bailout packages. the question is, what would each of you have done instead of these programs with the economy and unemployment rate -- would that be better or worse of your ideas were implemented?

>> i think the bailouts and the stimulus have then a bad economic policy. you cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity. the government does not create wealth. when you borrow money and start new programs as the administration has been doing, you simply put us further in debt and postpone the inevitable. the problems we are going through today are those. since the democrats have taken over, we have lost millions of jobs, 7.9 million jobs. if you want to get the economy going you lord taxes, reform regulations, the return health care to the private-sector, to become energy independent, and you have litigation reform. i started in economic independence caucus. my time at the boeing company where i had to account

for every penny gave me a good economics background so i understand what we need to do to get the economy going so that our kids and ourselves start a good business or get a good job. this administration has been going in the exact opposite direction by continuing to borrow money. i think it is important that we do not have somebody that will compromise on taxes. congressman moran has voted 12 times to increase property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes. now is not the time for people who have compromise on tax relief. no is the time to do those five simple things to get the economy rolling again. >> again, have voted more than 200 times for lower taxes and believe that is tax reform that is necessary for us to grow our economy. having voted against all of the stimulus and bailout packages, including tarp, you will get nothing but an argument from me that those proposals -- proposals are disasters.

we are very shortsighted and, in fact, immoral. we are spending money today in hopes that it will stimulate the economy and that we cannot afford and expecting the next generation to pick up the tab. so every time i have voted no -- that is different than todd. you cannot spend or borrower your way to prosperity. so the direction we are going is a terrible mistake for today and for tomorrow. and i would say that it does take tax reform, tax reductions. there are certain taxes that can help us grow the economy. state taxes, capital gains taxes are onerous and difficult for the economy. i would also say that -- some taxes like fair tax -- i believe it can create jobs. we have to have an energy policy. the health care policy developed by obama and nancy pelosi are

disastrous to the overall economy because of the tax increase and the additional rules and regulations that are placed upon americans. a terrible scenario of events have occurred over the last few months. >> 8 32nd rebuttal. >> -- a 30 second rebuttal. >> why did he have to vote against the bush tax cuts? why did he have to vote against eliminating permanently the death tax? the bush tax cuts were significant. december 31 this year, because congressman moran bailed out, we ended up with a temporary tax cuts that expire on december 31 this year. we cannot send somebody will compromise on the things we need to do to get this economy growing again. >> those are disingenuous statement. i voted every time the bush tax cuts were before congress, in 2003 and 2005.

the only thread that congressmen is that in tiahrt voted against the resolution that created the budget and that included the tax cuts but also an increase of spending of 4%. i wrote an opinion piece to say that while we are cutting taxes, a good thing, republicans have to do a better job of slowing the growth of spending. 4% is too much. >> i am glad he agrees that he voted against the bush tax cuts. i think it is important that every farmer and small-business owner know that he opposed a permanent reduction and elimination of death tax. my family lost their farm because of that death tax. i will never miss an opportunity to vote against the death tax. i was disappointed when congressman moran voted against a permanent repeal of the death tech. >> i never voted against the bush tax cut, never.

in regard to a state taxes, the farm bureau, 110,000 members endorsed me. the first speech i ever gave on the house floor was about the importance of eliminating the a state tax -- the estate tax. this is a fabrication. >> for the next question, we are continuing on the hot-button issue of the economy, focusing on the massive federal deficit which totals trillions of dollars. on news of your from topeka ask the question, most economic experts contend that the only solution to america's debt problem is to deal with structural debt caused by social security and medicare and medicaid through changes in policies involving possible reduction in benefits along with increases in revenues. do you agree with this and if you disagree, what is your solution to the u.s. debt problem? first response comes from

congressman moran. >> thank you for your question. is one of the most serious issues our country faces. any effort in changing our debt into the future rebels around structural reform. in addition, at this point in our economy, we cannot raise taxes. so any increase in fica or withholding taxes would be a terrible mistake. so raising taxes is not an option. congress should look at long- term, incremental changes in the social security system that will provide benefits, debt reduction benefits over a long period of time. the truth is that if we are going to address our deficit issue is about changing our tax code, eliminating regulations, and allowing the american people to go to work. how you get out of the recession is small businessmen and entrepreneurs believing they have an idea to bring to market. we have to get government out of the way. much of that has to do with the

uncertainty of what washington is doing today. what is this person is going to grow their business when they are uncertain about what is going to happen with health care, kept and trade, and now what will happen with financial regulation? we have to free up the credit markets of businesses can expand and put people back to work. congress just passed legislation that makes that less likely for kansas banks and financial institutions and means that small businesses will have less of a likelihood of being able to access capital. >> congressman tiahrt? >> this question is important because when you talk about medicare and medicaid, these are entitlements, money we will spend. it is important that we find ways to reduce costs assist it with them. i co-sponsored a bill called h.r. 3400. it would have lower health care costs by 10% for medicare and medicaid. that is exactly what we need to

do. it was a simple plan. it addressed the cost centers within healthcare to help reduce them. defensive medicine is a cost that is about 30% of health care today. making sure that we can protect doctors and nurses from lawsuits can lower the defensive medicine costs. these are policies that they do to protect themselves from lawsuits and are not required by the injury or less. other things we need to do is have medical malpractice reform. we need to make sure we have regulatory reform for health care, because in kansas hospitals, it takes 1.1 hours to do paperwork for every hour of health care. litigation reform is also tied into all of these. it is very difficult to get litigation reform in congress today. right now over 1/2 of congress is lawyers. because of that, it is difficult to get litigation reform. we to lower medical malpractice

costs, and a couple that with regulatory form, we could have a 10% reduction to reduce the debt we have in this country. >> president obama and speaker nancy pelosi talked about spending health care curve so we could reduce the cost of medicare and medicaid for states and the federal government. fortunately, it bans the healthcare curve up. it has been re-scored by cbo, and we are increasing the cost of health care, not decreasing it. we could have passed the tization act.y decision a >> you sent a letter to the republican leadership asking for money to be in part d. to act like you are conservative know and you opposed it when you ask for more money, even to of leadership he would vote for it, it seems a little bit

disingenuous. i think my plan is to lower health care costs and it is a better way to approach this. i wish he would join us by coup sponsoring this legislation to help bring down the cost by 10%. if you joined on board, it is possible we could get a hearing, even under a democrat house. >> again, the largest increase in entitlements spending occurred with congressman tiahrt's vote, an increase to the deficit of our country. it is something i voted against after telling the leadership and asking me the question, if we just need your vote and your the one that can pass this bill, will you vote with us? in the answer was, i am sorry, this bill is so bad that would be all the more reason to vote no. i misled no one about my position on this bill. it is an example of how republicans mismanaged our federal government when they had the majority. >> congressman moran, you ask

for more money to be put into the bill. i was on the whip team at the time. it told the leadership he would vote for the bill and then you voted against it and left the floor. when you got back in kansas, he said it did not do enough for seniors. to act like you are a fiscal conservative and out and chastise me for doing something you said you were going to do, i do not think it is going to cut it with kansas voters. the idea of lowering health care costs is important. we can get there, but we cannot by failing to hold true to our word when it comes time to vote. >> is now time for our first break -- it is now time for our first break. we are taking questions from you, the viewer. both canada spiritous attuned. >> welcome back. >> if you have a question,

please e-mail to the -- to a ksnt.com. many of the e-mail's express great frustration that elected officials have not been able to get together and do something about immigration. with the ability of the senate to filibuster, it does not seem possible that this issue is going to be resolved without some sort of compromise between democrats and republicans. explain your position on this issue and explain how there would be a chance to in this impasse between the parties to the first we will go to congressman tiahrt. >> certainly, immigration is a big challenge today. i read in the news that if we stop illegal immigration and have everybody without legal status bill hall, calif. it could have balanced their state budget. it is clearly a problem. my solution is three words.

bill defense. -- build the offensfence. . . without the fence, we cannot solve the problem. it is important that we make sure that we also make sure that the northern border is also included in this as well. i was disappointed to see that congressman moran voted against a sanctuary cities, cities that protect illegal immigrants. i think it is important that we not protect illegal immigrants while they are here. congressman moran voted to have bilingual ballots. i think that encourages people to come in. he also voted with nancy pelosi on the state child health insurance program which eliminated citizenship requirements for health care, so

today, american taxpayers are paying for the health insurance of illegals. kansas had to pass a law to prevent that from happening in kansas. it is a very serious issue. the first thing we have to do is build the fence. fence. >> the first up is to enforce our law and the most important law is at the border. we cannot have the board as we have in this country -- the prime responsibility of the federal government is to defend our country and that includes border security. i am a strong supporter of what the governor and legislature and arizona are doing i find it o that congressman thrt lectures me you were on two occasions he talkedbout amnesty for children for those who are here illegally. and he argued for driver's licenses for those who are here illegally in the united states. these are terrible mistakes,

particularly when you look at their social security. 18 of the 19 terrists had u.s. identities, and providing drivers licenses would be a national security risk. if congress is working its way through so-called immigration reform, nothing worked until we enforcour borders. if you do something about immigration today, all means is that more people will come to the united states because the border is so porous. those who should be returned to their home country, will all leave this to me back because there is the effort of border control. -- will only come back because there is theffort of border control. it was much more difficult to cross in canada. we have a terrible immigration system that demands law enforcement. >> any response starts >> sometime ago, a long time ago, i thought it was compassionate and not punish the children for the parents sins. i've studied this issue and i have looked to the costs

associated with the issue and looked at the crime that comes from illegal immigration and i've come to the conclusion that we must build a fence, say no to amnesty, do the things necessary to make sure people are only here on legal status. that is why it was so disappointing when it jerry supported sanctuary cities which protected illegals. no amnesty, build the fence. >> i voted numerous times in support of eliminating sanctuary cities. it is a terrible idea. it is wrong. i have opposed it numerous times. in ft, the leader of immigration issues, border security -- was a supporter of mine. i do not think he would support me under the allegations of congressman tiahrt. this is not just about immigration by about national security and law enforcement.

the greatest crime problem we face in kansas is about drugs. the problem is coming across the border. >> well, drugs have come across the border. i agree with the arizona law. it is important reinford the laws of the land. what i saw in the lawsuit today was absolutely wrong. i joined with lamar smith and a letter sent to the president and attorney general to ask them to drop the charges. i sent a letter to our attorney general to have him join in to make sure tha we do not do the same thing here in kansas. we do not build a fence, we will not solve the problem. >> 37. >> i only would say that it is important -- let me say it is a silly waste of money for the federal government to sue arizona. they need to use that money to improve border security.

they need to use that money to enforce the law. what a silly use of taxpayer dollars to challenge arizona and their constitutionality of enforcing the law. all arizona is doing is to protect life and property of the citizens of the state. they should be applauded, not sued. >> next question. foreign policy. the chairman of the republican party michael steel recently said that president obama does not understand that the one thing you do not do is engage in a land war in afghanistan because everyone who has tried over 1000 years of history has failed. george will wrote that the american undertaking in afghanistan is a fool's errand and likened it to vietnam. these are strong voices saying that afghanistan could be a quagmire. do you agree, and if you do not, please tell the voters what specifically our mission is in afghanistan and how and when it is attainable? >> i think our mission in

afghanistan is similar to our mission in iraq and that is to stabilize the country, allow the development of a government that functions, help reduce the corruption that the roads that government, and the decision about whether or not we belong in afghanistan was made on the day that president bush decid to sen troops to afghanistan. and once we make that commitment, its my view that we work hard to succeed. and i think it is especially important in afghanistan. this is the site of where the terrorists trained before they came to the united states and killed thousands of americans. we need to recognize that can return. that is another goal of our military effort in afghanistan is to make sure it does not become a base for terrorist in the future. finally, afghanistan is so important because of its neighboring pakistan. here the game changer is the fact that pakistan has nuclear weapons. our ability to make certain that those weapons do not fall in the

hands of those who want to kill americans is in many ways determined by the stability of that area, including what happens in afghanistan. from my perspective, the decision was made. our militar leaders believe that success cantill occur. and i have faith in those military leaders, given the free rein and reduce the restrictions that the civilians placef our military leaders and the decisions they make about how to utilize forces, i think we can still achieve success. >> congressman tiahrt? >> we of a constitutional requirement to protect the people of this land. when we were attacked on september 11, 2001, we realize that we do not take the fight to the terraced they will bring home to us. our brave men and women who put on the uniform have taken the fight to the terrorists. we have not had any attacks on our homeland since september 11, 2001. there are many naysayers' about the iraqi surge.

joe biden spoke against it, the president spoke against it when it was a senator. given the right resources and the right emphasis, our troops can accolish almost anything. they accomplished a significant amount in iraq by making it a safe country, by bringing in the terrorist and to control. in iraq, there is still a lot of work to be done. now we have ysayers are critics saying that afghanistan is going to be a quagmire. it could become a quagmire of our president fails to get our troops the resources they need. if he fails to give the genal is the number of troops they need. i have been to afghanistan several times. i bet on the pakistan border. i was in kabul when the mortars were launched into the compound. i visid pakistan as well. i know there is a possibility for us to do a similar effort that we did in iraq and get a functioning government where it will keep the taliban from

opating in afghanistan and keep bases for training people and sending attackers against america. that is why we are there. god bless our troops. they are doing a great job and i fully support them. >> let me use this opportunity -- i do not thinkhere is rebuttal here -- but let me use the opportunity to praise our ldiers and their families. i represent the area that surrounds four riley and recognize the sacrifice being made on behalf of ourountry and its future and praise them and support them in every effort. we need to make sure we make a commitment to the veterans and military retirees, keep the commitment that was made to those deserve our country. >> every person that goes to war has some impact from the experience. it is important we give them an opportunity to test and make sure they get their new life back in america. when they ararrive in our country it is important that we

check with them and make sure ey are adapting well. after they have been here for six months, the best program for troops with ptsd resides in fort riley, kansas. we are proud of the italian and the work they are doing. let's take care of our troops. we're very proud of -- we are very proud of the battalion and the work they are doing. >> we have received the following questions regarding health care reform. both ofour campaign to overturn the health care reform act. what would you keep from the health care reform actr would you abolish it all together? >> the health care reform or obamacare will be a disaster. it will lead to expensive health care and rationing. we are sing some doctors questioning whether they will stay in the business or retire

early. it will be cheaper for employers to pay the 8% payroll fee and push their employees into medicaid. when they do that, it will drive up the cost for states like kansas which contribute a portion of that. it will drive of the cost for the federal government. the best thing that needs to happen is to move it back to the private sector. in addition, we have to employ h.r. 3400, a bill that addresses litigation costs, medical malpractice, regulatory reform, and more free market forces into health care. by doing that, we can lower costs. what i was on the floor, spent 11 hours on the floor fighting to try to sto the health care law. what i was hoping to do was hold a held accountable for its rules. if i'd been successful in postponed the vote for two weeks, every member of congress would have returned home and had to face their constituents before they made that vote. if that had occurred, i believe we would have had a different outcome and woul be considering

the ways because lower health care costs instead of having the government taking over. i think it is very important that we let the free market forces bring down the price of health care. you have to start that would repe in health care. >> congressman moran? >> i strongly oppose the health care reform bill and confine next to no mit included in it. there are many things we can do to improve access to affordable health care. i chaired a group of members of the house will try to make sure that rural america does not have forgotten. we keep our hospital doors open and keep physicians and our communities. this bill -- the obama-'s health care bill -- it is damaging to that cause. it increases taxes, a dramatic increase in regulation and regulatory costs and increasing, ultimately, the cost of health care as i indicated earlier as scored by the congressional budget office. it is bad for the general

economy. in fact, i talked to a business person in kansas and she told me they have outsourced their jobs at their company to another country so they could get below the 50 employee threshold. its counterproductive to creating employment in this country. we have health care that is moving jobs outside the united states. this bill is also bad for my kansas-a long perspective. the home town doctor and hospital -- it is the on stated aspect of these health care bills -- hospital doors closing, less access to medicare for senior citizens and the ability to train and educate physicians. again, people will decide this is no longer a profession i want. i will not work for the federal government. there will be a reduction in affordable health care because of this legislation. >> 30 second resonse. ponse. >> i said repeal healthcare. i meant repeal obamacare.

when i was on the floor, congressman moran was outshooting a campaign video. you need to take the fight to the liberals, to the democrats there. i will use the amendment process in theppropriations committee to repeal and replace healthcare starting with the 16,000 irs agents that we do not nd designed to audit every business in america. it is time to repeal obama care and put free markets back in control. >> crazy allegation. i spoke numerous times in opposition to health care. one of the things i spoke about on the house for is my concern that this is a bill that once again send a message to the american people that somebody else is responsible for their well-being. thmore people who come to the conclusion that government will take care of them, the less likely we will ever be able to work our way out of that. it is why repeal -- replace it with something betr -- and

those common-sense reforms we know can work makes a lot of sense. this bill has to go away before too many people are dependent upon it for their health care and employment. >> in this bill is going to le to rationing. it will lead to fewer opportunities in health care. there will be less of physicians. every nation in the world that tried this has it worse health care system them before they started. i favor repealing and replacing it with a free market system. i'mooking forward to congressman moran joining my efforts. >> 30 more seconds. >> i was the first member of the house to introduce legislation to brepeal. on monday morning, our bill was introduced. it was not tthousand pages -- it was two sentences. i am a strong supporter of repealing. again, thinking there are many things we can do to improve

health care and make it me affordable, but unfortunately, none of them are in this legislation. >> and we are back after this with viewers questions. welcome back. this is our last round of questions. we will have one minute answers and one round of 32nd rebuttals each -- 30 second rebutta each. >> this question comes from mark and topeka. you differ greatly on losing the trade and travel embargo with cuba. please explain. >> i do believe that kansas farmers should not be penalized. ranchers should not be penalized by policies be put in place more than 40 years ago in this country. sanctions do not generally work, but they certainly do not work where unilateral. i have worked hard to open up markets, not just in cuba, but

and southto of beef korea. we should support the trade agreements with colombia and panama. trade matters. 4% of what we produce in kansas is exported. -- 40% of what we produce in kansas is exported. we are just taking money from cuba. we are not even trading. this is sales for cash up fro. and unfortunately there were regulations put in place that made it more difficult that we are now trying to correct. this is an effortn behalf of trying to increase profitability and a success for kansas farmers. >> i am for free markets and free trade as well. when it comes to south korea, openp their markets for beef. same with japan. it would be much more productive for the kansas farm bureau and americans to pursue a trade agreement with columbi congressman moran wants to change the policy and tde with

cuba. when clinton was president, we were shipping goods and hoping for payment from the cubans later on. you can only do business with one company when you import into cuba. that company is owned by fidel castro and his brother. then we found outhey were not paying their bills. so president bush change the policy so we did not ship anything into were received payment first. that worked. we are the largest importer of agricultural goods into cuba today. now congressman moran wants to not only change that policy but open up trade and travel policy with cuba. it will only benefit the castro brothers. i do not think that we should give a credit card to fidel castro, because he does not pay his bills and that is why w changed the policy. >> rebuttal? >> none of these sales were on credit. there were for cash up front. it worked well we sold $1.2 billion of agricultural products. i am a support of -- i am a supporter of freedom and

liberty. i alsoelieve that engagement -- ronald reagan spoke about this -- engagement with other countries increases the chances they will enjoy freedom and liberty. i have no supporter of fidel castro and communism, but we can effectuate change by changing our policy. >> congressman moran ought to read his bill. it is shipped first, pay later. that is a bad policy. you pay for those goods before you ship them because you have a poor credit rating. fidel castro's americans in the ns of billions of dollars. he still owes russia tens of billions of dollars. for us to change the policy so that we have a ship first and pay later policy is a mistake. i cannot support that. but i do support free trade. i wanted to create kansas jobs. i want to export airplanes. that is the best way to pursue it. let's open up trade with columbia, not cuba appeared >> and not a day goes by we do not hear anything about the oil spill in the gulf.

the you feel you have the sam thoughts that accidents happen? -- do you feel that you of the me thoughts that accidents happen? >> thank you for the question. i thi accidents do happen. that is a true statement. i think we need to hold bp accountable for this bill. it is the worst environmental disaster we have seen in the history of this country. we also must learn from their mistakes and make sure this never happens again. but did you ever ask the question of why did we drill and 5,000 feet of water? that is almost a mile deep. if we had been drilling in 50- 100 feet we would not have had this problem because hcould have kept the well. the reason we pushed out there is because we have environmentalist that insist that we drove way out into the ocean. we have government policies that force these rigs way out. we need to become energy independent. we have been drilling for oil in kansas city for over 100 years.

i think we should learn from those mistakes. allow production of oil closer to our shores where it is more save and continue to move this country towards energy security. >> i do not think you write off bp and a circumstance we face under a gulf coast as accidents happen. i am disappointed that the company had no plans to respond to this kind of disaste and i am terribly disappointed in the obama admistration's failure to get the bureaucracy out of the way so that we could keep the oil from coming ashore in begin the process of cleaning up this disaster. ando, the government has been a handicap not help. ndp should of been better prepared than they were. in my opinion, they have to pay for the cost environmentally and economically. but it is a reminder that we need an energy policy. when we talk about putting jobs in the u.s., one of the best things we could do is create jobs in the energy sector. it is why i supported a comprehensive energy plan. it is why i opposed cap and trite, one of the most damaging

pieces of legislation when it comes to job creation and energy production. we should be using kansas wind, solar, nuclear power, clean coal, and we should bexploring closer to our shores in the united states. >> he is right about that. the thing that upsets me about the obama administration is that we could have had more help in the gulf but they would not waive the regulations that prohibit it from coming in. over 30 countries wanted to come in. my policy would be that until those oil skimmers are bumping into each other, we do not have enough. our administration has failed. the field to lead on this policy. as congress, we should hold them accountable -- they have failed to lead on this policy. but alaska, the oil spill there, it was a terrible disaster. but this country needs to be energy secure. we have to hold not only bp accountable but this administration accountable.

let's allow companies to pduce energy closer to our shores so we do not face this type of environmental disaster in future. >> 32nd. >> what i would say is that captain trade has passed the house, damaging to farmers and agriculture. damaging to the consumers of our state. we cannot afford to let president obama use the disaster in the gulf of mexico to be his reason to champion cap and trade. we need to make certain the senate does not pass it. if we can get through this senate, it means it has to start over. i hope the american people will use the november elections to send a message that this is another failed policy of the obama administrion. >> it is te for closing statements. each candidate will get a minute and a half. we flipped a coin to determine the order. first is congressman moran. >> let me thank channel 27 news and thank our viewing

audien to give us an hour t opportunity to explain what we are about. our country faces tremendous challenges. all my life i've heard about how this is the most important election of a lifetime. the reality is i never believed it. expression.the eds freshhat i think those were just words. what happens in 2010 and 2012 determines the future of our country. we need to be thinking long term. this congress and administration -- long-term to them is the next election, it is november. i think about my mother and dad in their 90's. their whole life has been how do we care for the next generation. nothey are thinking about how do we care for the next generation, their grandkids? washington it, d.c. plays politics the day and day out.

and the goal should not be anything but a better american. i think about the service than we paid tribute to earlier. i walk by the lincoln memorial, the vietnam wall, the korean war morial, not a person there was more lust for their sacrifice but for anything other than -- was memorialized for their servers bu for anything other than their service. we need to take common-sense proposals and fight for them in our nation's capital. >> i want to thank the sponsors for creating this opportunity to have a debate with congressman moran. i agree with what he said about the great challenges that this country faces. kansas has a decision to make. what type of a senator do you want? we will send republican to washington, but will be sent a leader? will we send somebody who fights against taxes? will be sent somebody will take the needs of this country and this state and create a better

opportunity for our kids and grandkids? there are differences between the congressman and myself. i do not vote for tax increases. he has vot for 12 tax increases. i oppose death taxes. he voted against a permanent elimination of the death tax. i think budgets matter. there are clear differences, not only in taxes but in policies related to whether or not you give citizens' rigs to terrorists or not. there are policies on how we view democrat leadership in the house of representatives, whether it is a good or bad thing. but the real thing that needs to happen for our future is we have to do what is necessary to get this economy back on track. using my business experience, making sure we do the things necessary to get the opportunity for our kids and grandkids is what we need to do now. i think i can provide that leadership and that is why i am asking for your support on august 3. i need your vote so we can take this fight to washington and create a better tomorrow, a

better future for our kids. >> that is all the time we have for the 2010 republican senate primary debate for kansas. >> we would like to think the candidates for coming here this evening and for agreeing to debate and also for are co- sponsors for their support. thank you for watching.g.g.g.g.. >> our political coverage continues with president obama at a fund-raiser for missouri democratic senate candidate robin carnahan. congressman roy blount talks to local businessmen in lebanon, misery. >> this sunday, on "washington journal," jill lawrence will talk about the summer meetings of the national governors' association in boston this weekend. also discussion on the current

situation in iran inali alawi, a former minister of trade and finance. then a look at arizona's immigration laws. our guest is leslie sanchez, a republican. washington journal, live, 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> for a snapshot of washington and the 111th congress, the congressional directory -- a reference guide to members of the house and senate, the president's cabinet, and state governors. available online. >> president obama speaks at a fund-raiser for misery -- for missouri senate candidate robin carnahan. >> thank you very much.

thank you. it is a gorgeous room. i like it so much that it is in kansas city. i want to thank all of you. so many of you are my dear friends. you have been for many years. and you have been here for me through thick and thin. for may through the thick and thin, ups and downs, the campaign's, the wins and losses, all of it. i am so pleased you are here enthusiastically supporting the next united states senator from missouri, robin carnahan. [applause] and greeting the president of the united states at the same time. you cannot get any better than at. we are all here today because we understand the choices that

missourians have in november. it is an important choice and it is quite a contrast. candidate has had a leading role in the movie that is called what is wrong with washgton." and he has had that leading role for many, many years. one candidate was one of a handful of leaders in washington in that real small room of real power that made the decision to blow the surplus the lt democratic president left the united states of america. to do what ever the oil companies wanted, to do what everhe pharmaceutical companies wanted, to do what

ever at the lobbyists wanted -- that was their mission, as they led the united states over the last decade. one canada knows the streets of georgetown much better than a beautiful backros of missouri. one candidate is going to continue to the darling of the lobbyists, bleeding and money raised from the legions of lobbyists -- leading in money raised from the legions of lobbyists he calls friends. then there is robin. strong, smart, independent, she does not need to put on a flannel shirtr by a pickup truck to convince missourians she knows what their lives are all about. [applause] she has been taking on the bad guys, the financial industry, right here in missouri, while the republican party watched as

th regulators slept in washington and slept soundly. she will not be doing the bidding of lobbsts in washington. she will be doing the bidding of you. informed by her heart of america common sense and her bedrock principles of fairnesand hard work, she is going to be on your side. but she needs your help. this is going to be a ringtail tutor, even from missouri standards. this will be a tough race. one of the things i am most worried about, one of the things i am most worried about is passion and enthusiasm. it was a remarkable thing, the elections of 2008. we had a wildly successful year in missouri. while the psident nearly lost to this day, i watched in

amazement in st. louis as 100,000 people gathered on the riverfront. my jaw dropped when i saw the crowds around the columns in columbia, the university i love so much. i could not believe the size of the crowds at liberty memorial on that wonderful evening that the president came to campaign here in kans city and the closing hours of the campaign. and i never would have bet that we would have of tens upon thousands of people filled a high school football stadium in springfield the weekend before the election. [applause] it was an amazing time because people were inspired. itas amazing because people

were caught up in the possibility of what america is supposed to be. we have got to realize that we cannot win in states like missouri if we do not have that same kind of passion and enthusiasm. whilwe are very grateful to you for what you have done today, what you have to do from here on out is you have got to start shaking people by their shoulders and saying, wait up. because we have a real choice to make -- wake up. we can decide to move forward with governor nixon, a senator mccaskill, andenator carnahan -- [applause] or we can go back. the choice is really up to the people of this state and of the good people who know that the

policies that robin carnahan embraces are what is best for working missourians, for people who want a shot, for the opportunity we know america truly is. so, please, find that passion enthusiasm. a the next speaker shares that enthusiasm. the three of us know each other well and we will work for well together. it will be a very strong trio to leadhis state. he has done a wonderful job of steering this state during very rocky times. he and i talked constantly, and i am so reassured that the strength of his leadership and his pragmatism and his complete and thorough knowledge of what missri is and what it can be are going to continue to show missourians that we elect the

kind of canada it's in our party that are strong leaders and that lookout for the future of our state and do not want to stay wedded to many of the problems we have had in the past. he and i are both going to be working hard to elect democrats because we do want to move forward. i know you are proud of the job he has done and it is great to have a democrat and the governor's mansion. please welcome my friend and a great governor of the state of missouri, jay nixon. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, claire. i want to take just a second to talk about what a great job claire is doing. [applause]

is not it nice to have somebody from missouri bring common sense to washington? let me give you an example of why i am so proud. many of you already know this but under the arcane rules of the united states senate any single senator can place an anonymous hold on any sine one of the president's nominees for almost any or no reason. the secret holds have impaired the executive branch under republican administrations and especially making it difficult for our president now. why is this allowed? well, because that is how they have always done it in washington. aren't we sick and tired of that answer? it took a common sense missouri democrat to stand up and say, this is wrong, and we must

change it. so far more than 2/3 of the senate has agreed with claire to end the secret hold. that is the progress and accountability are taxpayers exct. claire, behalf of america and missouri, we are proud to have a harry truman democrat in the harry truman seat. i am also proud of the way we been able to make common sense reforms. since i took office, we have frozen tuition at every single public two-ar and four-year institute in our state because we know that a skilled and educated work force is the lifeblood of our long-term economic success. we have eliminated the franchise tax for all small businesses and

created a program to provide $25,000 of low-interest loans, creating jobs in cities across our state. we balanced the budget without raising taxes. we maintained the aaa bond wr rating. we've expanded job-training programs and local community colleges and made investments to train health care professionals to meet a growing demand for nurses, nurses aides, and a therapist. last month, i signed landmark legislation to expand access to autism treatment and their fees for missouri families and ease the burden. nice to lead. bringing common-sense solutions to long standing washington problems is exactly why we need robin carnahan to join claire mccaskill in the united states senate. [applause]

-- has been the solution to the problems facing missouri families. her opponent? it is no secret at all. and part of the problem. -- time and time again. now, governor, i want to thank each and everyone of you for helping robb and fight this fight. as many of u know, she will not back down when the going is tough. personally, professionally, she has taken on every battle, whether it is unscrupulous financial problems -- she took them on. red tape in office, she cut it. washington problems, watch out. you are next on her list. we need to have -- a tandem of missouri and america's greatest women leaders' representing

united states senate. we need and must have robin carnahan representing the state. that is possible with the help you are providing today and the help he will continue to provide until we get this raised on the way we know we can, the way we know we must, and most importantly, the way we know we will. thank you very much for your help for robyn. -- for robin. [applause] >> thank you. all right. let's dig going here. -- let's get going here.

well, thank you, mr. president for being in kansas city today. we are thrilled to have you back in missouri. please, you all sit down. thanks to all of you for being here today and for your generous support to me and my family over the year. my mother and my husband are here someplace. they deserve special thanks for their patience and support and love. i want to give a shout out to my campaign team. ey've been traffic in pulling this event together. we know that this year's senate race was offer a clear choice between somebody who has had a record of standing up for missouri families or someone who has a long record of standing up for corpate special interests, whether they are big banks on wall street or big oil companies in the gulf. mr. president, you are from a neighboring state so you will not be surprised to hear that missourians are completely fed up with these washington

politicians who have been there so long and gotten so caught up in the culture of that place that they have forgotten who they were sent to work for. now, many of you know that i still run the family cattle farm and it is always interesting. there are so many lessons to learn on the farm that apply and the rest of your life. one of them is that i noble when when i see it.l another one is that when something breaks, when you are on the farm, you fix it. he did not bicker and complain or blame someone else. you do not say it is too complicated. you fix it. those are some simple lessons that need to be learned in washington. i know the president shares are frustration with the stranglehold that these powerful special interests have on the place, but i also know he shares our commitment to doing

everything he can to fix it. he is here today because he understands that the best way to begin fixing washington is to elect people who are not caught up in the culture of washington. we all know that my likely opponent in this race, congressman blunt, has been in washington along time. he has gone so cozy with the powerful interest out there that he has forgotten about the folks here in missouri. to me, that shows the very worst of what is wrong in washington. if we're ever going to get our economy moving again in creating those good jobs we need in missouri, that has got to change. you know there are plenty of things that i am not shy about when it comes to congress and blunt and callable on things he says and does, like as wasteful -- calling bull on things he does -- but most importantly his willingness to stick the middle class with the bill.

but there is one thing that takes the cake, and that is that he comes out here to missouri, puts on his pledge shirt, drives ound in a rented pick-up truck and says he will be looking out for us in washington. the trouble is he is the number one of top recipient of lobbyists campaign contributions in all of congress. no one in congress has taken more money from lobbyists then congressman roy blunt. i cannot call that a coincidence. i do not call that looking out for us. i call that bull. and i am tired of it, and you should be, too. so, this election is going to come down to choice. there'll be a clear choice between congressman blunt and me in his side we are on. in the senate, i will continue to do what i have always done in stand on the side of missouri

families. you can count on that. now, i have often been inspired by the words of president kennedy, but especially at a time when he reminded americans that a particularly dark arhour that the problems we face are man made. therefore, they can be solved by man. i think that is a useful remind for all of us today. our president has taken the helm at a very challenging time for our country. i look forward to helping to meet those challenges with the common-sense lessons i learned right here. i know he shares my determination to fix what is broken in washington. i just hope, mr. president, that you will not be too surprised if you hear me call bull whenever and wherever i see it. so, thank you, again for being with us. welcomehe president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. everybody have a seat. everybody have a seat. everybody enjoy themselves. how's lunch? all right, od. hello, kansas city. it is good to be back in the midwest, even better to be back in the midwest with robin carnahan. you all have had a long tradition of sending tough, independent, no-nonsense leaders to washington -- from harry truman, to my great friend claire mccaskill, to some wonderful missourians who go by the name of carnahan.

nobody fits this moletter than robin. she's not going washington to represent the oil industry or the insurance industry or the banks on wall street. she's not even going there to represent every aspect of either party's agenda or my agenda. she's going to washington to represent one constituency, and that's you, the people of missouri. she's going to call them like she sees them, and she sees them the same way that most of you do, the same way that most of the people of missouri do. robin is a small business owner, still runs her family farm. that's why as your secretary of state, she cut red tape for small businesses and saved small business owners millions of dollars, so they can focus on growing their companies and creating jobs right here in ts state. that's why she spent her time in

office standing up for consumers -- got $10 billion back for msourians who were being taken advantage of by big institutions. that's worth applauding -- $10 billion is real money. [applause] that's why she worked with democrats and republicans to pass one of the strictest laws in the nation protecting seniors from fraud. needs why missouri somebody like robin carnahan in washington, d.c. she is a fightershe is a survivor, and she will never forget where she comes from or who she represents. and that's why i'm glad to see that all of you are here today, because you know that about robin. we need tough leaders like robin in washington because these are tough times for america -- i do not need to tell you that. eighteen months ago i took office after almost a decade of

economic policies that gave us sluggish growth and falling or flat incomes and record deficits. they were the policies that culminated in an economic crisis that was the worst since the great depression. three million americans lost their jobs in the last six months of 2008. the month i was sworn in, in january of 2009, more than 750,000 jobs were lost in that month alone. these aren't just numbers. most oyou in this room were either touched by this or know somebody who was. the policies that led to this economic disaster were pretty straightforward -- you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires who do not need the tax cuts, didn't even ask for them. you cut rules and regulations for the most powerful institutions -- whether it's big banks on wall street or big oil companies in the gulf, and

you cut working people loose to fend for themselves. you tell them, you're on your own. you put a fancy name on it. you call it the ownership society or whatever the new slogan is. but it's the same policy over and over again. i think everybody here would agree those policies were bad for the people of missouri. they were bad for workers. th were bad for responsible business owners. they were bad for america. different path when i got elected - so we could stop the freefall and rebuild our economy for the long run. straightforward. we cut taxes -- didn't raise them, we cut them -- for 95% of working families and small business owners, theeoe who need it the most and were most impacted by the recession.

[applause] we're making sure that everybody -- the wall street banks, other big corporations -- e playing by the same rules as small business owners and everybody else in america. we cannot have two sets of rules. and we're investing in our people, investing in them and their future - in the skills and educationf our workforc in the research and clean energy technologies that will create thousands of new jobs and new industries and make our country competitive in the 21st century. that's our vision for america. now, we knew from the very beginning that some of the steps that we had to ke would be difficult and unpopular. i love sometimes -- the pundits will say, boy, obama is doing this stuff, it's not very popular.

i've got pollsters, too. [laughter] [applause] i know -- before we make decisions, we know initially how they're going to play. but our decision was not to worry about the next electn. we decided to worry about the next generation. [applause] we knew it took years to dig the hole that we were in and it would take some time to dig out -- longer than anybody would like. but here's what i also know -- anconomy that was shrinking, if we did what we needed to do, would be growing. and it has now been growing for the better part of a year. an economy that was once losing jobs -- [applause] -- an economy that was once losing jobs has now been adding private sector jobs for six

consecutive months. during that time we have created nearly 600,000 jobs in the private sector -- not public sector jobs, private sector jobs -- 600,000. now, that's not enough. not when there's still five folks out of work for every available job. not when there are still storefronts on main streets all across the country that are sitting there empty. it's frustrating and it's heartbreaking. and we've got plenty more work to do. but here's what you need to know -- we are headed in the right direction. and the last tng we should do is go back to the very ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. that's the choice that you're going to be facing in november. it's a choice between the policies that led us into this mess and the policies that are leading us out of this mess. it's a choice between falling backwards or moving forward.

robin wants to move us forward. i want to move us forward. and i believe that you and the rest of america are ready to move forward, and that's why you're going to send robin carnahan to washington d.c. some of the same folks in the other party whose policies gave us the economic crisis are now looking for another chance to lead. they spent nearly a decade driving the economy into the ditch, and now they're asking for the car keys back. [laughter] they cannot have them back. they do not know how to drive. do not know how to drive, drive in the wrong direction, get us stuck. and by the way, robin's opponent hasn't just been along for the ride -- as one of the republican leaders in the house

of representatives, he had his hands on the wheel. he was there giving those tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and oil companies without paying for them, adding to our deficit, adding to our debt. he fought for fewer rules and less oversight for wall street, still fighting for them. that's how he makes his money. so we already know how this story ends. we do not have to guess how the other party will govern because we're still living withhe results from the last time they governed. and in the 18 months since i've been president, they have been singing from the same hymnal. right after i took office, we passed an econom plan that cut taxes for over 2 million missouri families, a plan that provided more than 1,500 loans

to missouri small businesses, a plan that has extended unemployment benefits to 170,000 missourians who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. fifty-five thousand men and women in this state are working today because of this plan. i just met 50 of them at the smith electric vehicles plant in kansas city that i visited right before i came here. so our plan was to provide grantso companies like smith electric vehicles all across america - businesses that are investing in clean energy manufacturing and technology. smith electric is making the world's largest battery- electric-powered trucks. but there are also companies like siemens wind power in iowa that are making these wind turbines, delivering energy -- clean energy -- all across america. or celgard in north carolina, whicis a battery technology compy.

or a biofuel refinery plant called poet right here in missouri. that's how we create jobs and economic growth. that's how we ensure that america leads in the industries of the future. i'll give you an example. just a few years ago, america had the capacity to build only 2% of the world's advanced batteries for electric and hybrid cars and trucks. today, thanks to our policies, thanks to a new focus on clean energy and the work taking place at plants like smith electric, in five years we could have as much as 40% of the world's capacitto build these batteries -- 40%. that means jobs right here in missouri. it also means we're develong the expertise in a sector that is going to keep building and growing and innovating far into the future. that's what our economic plan is doing. robin carnahan supports that plan. her opponent doesn't.

like almost every member of the other party in congress, he said no. if he had his way, there would be a lot of missouri families and small businesses paying higher taxes today. there would be a lot of small business owners who wouldn't have received the loans they need to keep their doors open and makeayroll. those jobs at smh electric, those clean energy jobs and businesses that our policies are supporting across america, a lot of them wouldn't be here today. these folks in the other party in washington want to take us backwards. but robin and i and claire mccaskill, jay nixon - we want to take america forward. and that'the choice in this election. you'd think that after this devastating financial crisis, we'd all agree that we believe in the free market system, we want a dynamic financial sector. but it makes sense to have a little better oversight on wall street to prevent something like

this from happening again. . . >> the stock market plunged. the entire economy went into a tailspin. maybe we just want to make sure that would be the sensible approach. other reform. banner, said it was like employing nuclear weapons to kill ants. was like using nuclear weapons to kill an ant. you can imagine a movie, the analysts that a our economy. -- the ants that ate our

economy. they continue to defend the status quo that got us into this mess, as it is that -- the system that lets the-- that does not make sense to you and does not make sense to me. it is not good for our country. it is not good for all the hardworking, honesteople in the financial industry w are put at a competitive disadvantage because of the recklessness of view. let me tell you, when the senate returns, we are going to pass a reform that in this era of irresponsibility, reform that protect consumers against unfair practices, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, reform that makes sure taxpayers are never again on the hook for wall street's mistakes. it would be a lot easier to get a ss. it would have already been done

if i have robin in there. i need another road. it would be helpful. despite the growing burden on middle-class families, struggling to send their kids to college, robins opponent and almost all our friends in the other party voted against the law that provides billions of dollars that were going to financial institutions and now we are going to young people for scholarships. billions of dollars for student loans, paid for because we are eliminating subsidies that should not have been there in the first place. nearly a million more students from working families will have access to financial aid, access to college because of what we do. the oth side said no.

they said no to laws that we passed to stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. they said no to requiring women to get equal pay for equal work. they said no to extended unemployment insurance for folks who desperately needed help. they said nong oil companies accountable when they bring on catastrophes. you may have read the top republican on the house energy committee, mr. barnes, publicly apogizing to bp we compel them to set aside $20 billion to pay the folks who suffered as consequence of the oil spill. does anybody here think bp should get an apology? mr. barton did. he called this a tragedy, this fund we had set up to compensate fishermen and small business owners on the gulf. that is not a trady.

the tragedy is if they did not get compensated. this is the leadership we have got from martin and boehner and bloount. sometimes i wonder if that no button is to stop in congress, so they cannot do what is right for the american people. this is not just about policies. a lot of it has to do with politics. i think they figure if they jt keep saying no to everything and nothing gets done, they will get more votes in november. the theory is, if i lose, then they win. but that is the whole brand of politics. that is texas backwards. robin wants to move us forward. we want america to win -- that takes us backwards.

we want america went, not just democrats to win. that is the choice in this election. all we are all going to pull in a single direction together? the last point i am going to make. our friends in the other party like to talk of the game about fiscal responsibility and out of control spending. i will be honest with you. it is one of the things that keeps me up at night, thinking about all the debt and deficits that we inherited that have accumulated. often i hear clare mccaskill's voice in head reminding me of that. [laughter] may be is just my voice mail. robin feels the same way. she is a small-business owner. she knows about making sure that she stays on budget. she is not spending more than she takes in. and families around the country have been tightening their belts for aew years now, so rightly,

government did the same thing. that is why we proposed a three- year freeze on all government spending outside the national did something that was never enacted in the previous administration. that is what we have gone for identified 120 programs for imination. fiscal commission that is bringing the parties together to up with a long-term solution for our deficit. working with leaders like clare and robin, we will keep taking the steps we need to in the months and years ahead, steps that don't just make government leaner, but also smarter and more efficient and more accountable. that is what harry truman did when he bought to hold war profiteers the council. that is what clara are fighting for today. i have to say, when i hear the

other party talking about fiscal responsibility, criticizing us for fiscal responsibility, when i had a $1.30 trillion deficit wrapped in a big bowl waiting for me when i got to the white house, i have to scratch my head a ittle bit. you would think that as an attorney, turning a surplus in to a record that, i would be a little shy about this. on their watch, th neglected to pay for two wars, neglected to pay for two tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, did not control spending, set up a worthy but expensive prescription drug program, and did not pay for any of it. so it is a little on, getting lectures on sobriety from folks who spend like drunken sailors for the better part of the last decade. they want to take us backwards. robin ann claire and i want to take america forward.

choice in this election. here is the bottom line. these are incredibly challenging times, there is no doubt about it. as i said, every day during the campaign, change is hard. change takes time. the problems we face have been building upor decades they are not going to go away overnight, not in one year, not in four years. no president, no politician has the power to snap their fingers and fix everything. a lot of folks will tell you that, the closer you get to election day, but you cannot believe it. here is what we can do. we can make choices about which direction we want to take this country. we can stop putting off the things that have been holding us back and going ahead and tackling them and fixing them. we can do what we have always done, whether it was on a farm

or dealing with the crisis overseas. we shape our own destiny as a nation. we decide what we are going to bequeath to our children and grandchildren. in the interest of the status quo, they will always have the most vocal defenders. there'll always be a lobbyist for powerful industries that do not want more regulation or would rather see tax breaks instead of more investments in education and infrastructure. let's face it, the prospect of change is scary, even when we know that the status quo is not working. but there are no powerful interests on lobbying for the clinic the company that may start hiring folks -- for the clean energy company that may start hiring folks in a few years, or the research that may lead to a life-saving medical breakthrough, or the student who may not be able to afford a

college education, but if they got that education, their dreams would not just carry them but carry other people with them. it is our job as a nati to advocate on behalf of the america that we hope for, even when is not popular. even if we cannot always see benefits in the short term, because we know it will pay off in the long term. it is our job to fight not just for the next election, but for the next generation, for our children and our children's children. that is what i am trying to do every day as president. that is what robin carnahan will do when she is the next great senator from the state of missouri. i need all of you to join us on this journey. if you are willing to make that investment, a guarantee of better days are not behind us, they are in front of us. thank you everybody. god bless you. [applause]

♪ >>ow our political coverage continues with republican senate candidate, congressman roy blunt. he talked with local businessmen inebanon, missouri at the durnham company, an electrical parts manufacturer. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> thanks for letting me be here today. i have done a number of these around the state. this may be as many people as we have tried to put in a room at any given time. i want to be more on receive mode than on transmit mo. i learn more when i am listing and when i am talking. the number one issue in the country today is clearly, where are the private sector jobs, and what do we need to be doing to create those jobs? the no. 2 issue is, why is the government spending so much money? that huge increase in government

spending, even if you want to concede that it was too high as four, is much higher now. it is another big obstacle. we keep hearingabout the lack of certainty about what your health care costs may be for the people you hire, what the utility bill might be in a state like this for capt. trade was almost double the utility bill in 10 years if it would happen, and of course the president drug that issue back to the front the oer day, and the car check where union could be formed without an election and without the employer even necessarily knowing that was about to happen in having chance to present the other side. everybody knows their taxes are going up next year, and frankly, finding the job creation message there is pretty hard to do, because there is not one. we are going to talk about jobs in this campaign, and hopefully be totally focused on jobs after the campaign is over as well.

our former state treasurer is heading small businessmen and women for blunt. she is helping put together a platform, our jobs plan that we ill put out there in a few weeks now. a lot of that will be the result of listening. sarah, do you have anything you want to say as we start? >> if you all have suggestions, we want to hear about them. a lot of the suggestions are to get government out our live, reduce regulations, and that is what roy has been focused on. that is the way you create jobs, to let youll keep your own money and be able to invest and spend it the way you want to without the uncertainty of government possibly taking away from you, which is what we have heard all over the state. >> i have been to all 114 counties with more than 500

events and dozens of discussions like this. we have had maybe six dozen of these roundtable discussions all across the state. the word we have heard the most often is uncertainty. we don't know enough about what the future has in store for u to know if we can make money by creating a job or not. clearly, that is the biggest problem right now, people continue to see things that they think probably don't work, but they don't know how bad that might be. this health care bill, belief is that people will like it less the more they find out about it. the more the various government agencies began to look at it, the more they see that the cost to government and the cost to employers is higher than they thought, not lower than they thought. it is not going to work out quite the way they thought it was going to be. if you are in the government,

that is one thing. if you are in the private sector and you push a bunch of money to the middlef the table, you need to have a pretty good sense of what is going to happen. if i am going to be listening instead of talking, i have got to start doing that. i wold like to start wherever you want to start. we can answer questions, or we can just have a discussion between us as we talk. there are too many people here to quite put around the room, so we are all not looking right at each other but we are all talking to each other. he wants to start? go right ahead. >> what is the biggest concern you are hearing from missouri ceo's? >> i think it would be uncertainty on a number of fronts, but a real concern that the government is spending way too much money. in the 60 years after world war ii, the government spent within a percentage point of right at 20% of what we coulproduce as

a country every year for six decades. last year it was closer to 30%. i was with one of our major employers in st. louis the other day, and he frankly said to me and 15 other people around the table, if i could move this company out of the united states, i would do it, because i could make more money anywhere else in the world doing what we are doing, and we are shipping all over the world. we all understood from that discussion he was not likely to do that, but his view was, if he could, he would. every signal here is regulation -- federal be now appears to be it would be impossible to have too much regulation. the right kind of regulation is exactly what we all want, but too much regulation is not what we want. spending all your effort complying with regulations instead of producing a competive product.

why is the government spending so much money? why is it in the last 16 months we have lost a round 3 million private sector jobs and we have added almost 300,000 permit, -- permanent, apparently government jobs. use the laws of reaction to the other things the government is doing. i was in rockport the other day, which is about as close to iowa and nebraska as you can be and still be in missouri. a guide to tell me he had 47 employees and he really needs for more people. he said i have looked at the health care bill and my counts have looked at the health care bill. we are not going to get one) -- not one person closer to 50 that we have right now. he said i am going to pay overtime to the people we have got, but mostly i amoing to figure out what we are doing that makes the least amount of

money and try to quit doing that. i will get out of that part of what we are doing, and we are not hiring new people. i was in make an the other day, -- i was in macon the other day and one guy said he has 60 employees. he said he may try to downsize a little bit to get back to where he is below that number of 50. so there are lots of obstacles right now to job creation. the story's just go on and on, just like those two, of why people are notoing anything. when you talto our bankers, the regulators at the bank level seem to get the message from the washington folks who say they are trying to do everything they can to increase credit and aailability of redit, but that does not appear to be the message that bankers

are having to comply with at the front lines of credit. what else? >> what do you think about epa trying to put a cap and trade in on their own? >> i was disappointed when the senate did not move to not let the epa do that. this is something that the congress ought to deal with. cap and trade is actually one of the most interesting issues of the last 14 months or so. you all may remember it was like last april, robin carnahan supporters began to attack me because i was opposed to cap and ade. they spend a million dollars on thatarticular ad. peopleould call our office and say, we saw this ad, and why is roy opposed to all these new green jobs, and why is he opposed to cap and trade? people on the phone would say we know the missouri utility companies have stated this, and

the estimate is that the average bill would go up 80% in the first 10 years. then they would say, keep fighting that thing. then in june of last year when congress finally marked up a bill to send the floor, and we almost defeated that bill on a bipartisan vote in the energy committee i am on, and it went to the for the next week. i think it was june 26. in that week, i really saw the social media work for the first time. people went from not knowing what cap and trade was to a high level of anxiety in about six days' time, understanding this is essentially a tax on coal base utilities. we e in the top six states in the country most dependent on coal for our electricity, and there was total change. every call in the office, more than we could answer, were suddenly, what ever you do, do not let tt thing happened.

congress uld not tell the epa that we do not agree with the court and we are not going to give you the money to do that job. sadly, it did not get the votes needed. we can revisit that issue next year, and my guess is there will be more votes. many of these issues are not partisan. the untold story about washington theast 16 months is the bipartisan voteas been the no vote. 34 democrats voted with all the republicans against the more government control of health care bill. over 40 democrats voted with all but eight of the republicans against cap and trade. if you take a map of the country from the middle of pennsylvania to the western edge of wyoming, 50% of all the electricity comes from coal. this is a big land mass of the country. i think lots of people are going to go back to washington from

both parties saying we cannot let that thing move frward, because we are going to lose jobs and we will not lose them to somewhere elsen e united states. we will lose them to some other country that cares a lot less about what comes out of the smokestacks than we do. we cannot solve this problem by ourselves. but we actually can make it worse by ourselves, by driving our jobs to places that care less about what comes out of the smokestack and we do. we cannot solve it alone, but we can make it worse alone. that is exactly what nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama would do, given their choice. what else? >> i think everybody in this room agrees there isn't a reaction to the economic problems of 18 months ago, and now the pendulum has swung too

far in the wrong direction of regulation. business people are having challenging times getting money to be able to expand, even if they wanted to do that. e question is, how are going to be able to bring that pendulum back to center again so that businesses will have the confidence and the ability that banks will have the regulators off their backs so they can let go of the money that they have been gin, and we can get the coming -- we can get the economy stimulated again. >> that is a good point, and some of you may want to weigh in on that because it is a critical point. we should be concerned, but over and over again, it seems to me that the current people in power in washington want to do exactly the wrong things. we ought to be sending the signal right now that we are going to continue the good tax

policies that small business folks have had for 10 years, instead of changing the mall. 44% of all small business income will be taxed at a higher level next year than this year. that is exactly the wrong signal to send. the other things about your health care costs, energy costs, the president looked at the environmental disaster in the gulf, which is exactly that, a disaster. it may be a big enough disaster that bp does not survive it. it looks like they ran three lots of yellow lights, because thousands of these wells have been saly drill, and they ran for lots of yellow lights. they may very well is the company over this. there is quite a bit of speculation in great britain that this company may not survive this. we ought to be focused on cleaning up this disaster, but we also should not e it as an opportunity to eliminate more

american drops by saying we are not going to drill in the gulf for six months, which will easily turn into a lot more time than that. you cannot leave those rigs sitting there and use for six months. once they move away, they are not coming back. somewhere between 20% and 30% of all our domestic oil comes from the gulf. and then we bring cap and trade up again. if the president spent more of his speecfocused on capping the well rather than talking about this is what we need to put a big tax on the energy resources we have, that would have helped. and then on credit, i would love for bankers to weigh in a little bit. you can. access to long-term credit is really important. when you are making an investment, you often and with great certainty that that investment over 10 or 15 years is going to do exactly what you think is going to do. you do not know where it is going to be in 18 months or 36 months. as long as the kind of lending

you have has that short a leash on it, you might take up loan, which it will not be quite as aggressive with that long as you would be with a 10 year loan or a 15 year long, fixed or not. just so you know you have access to that credit for long enough for whatever you are doing to really work. we are not seen the kind of job creation we need and we do not have the kind of credit we need. i don't know of a single small banker, credit union, any other kind of lender on main street who thinks that the recent financial regulation bill makes it more likely to have more credit. they do not think it makes it likely. >> we are members of the erican bankers association. there is no doubt at all that there was room for and need for some additional regulation in some areas, particularly wall street's, not traditional, mainsheet community banks.

we did not make subprime loans. none of the other banks here in town did that kind of thing. in the last couple of years we have had 50 regulations passed or additions to existing regulations that somebody in my 19-person shop has to understand every little part of and be examined every couple of years to make sure we are not tripping over something. every hour we spent trying to make sure we comply with the nitpicking regulatis here or there that we cannot devote to looking for new business or approving new loans is counterproductive. this new law that they may be passing on of these days soon, projections out there are that that will add 5000 pages of additial regulations. if it gets passed and goes to the regulatory bodies to set up the loss, we may be looking at 5000 pages more of regulations just that will affect a sml

community bank like mine here in town. that is not talking about all the regulation that needs to be there for some of the mega banks or wall street banks that are not involved in what we are doing every day. that is just killing us. we appreciate the support you have given in trying to make sure somof those things don't happen, but there is a lot out there because of the climate and trying to find somebody to blame, and the need to maybe have some regulation that is just way overreaching with the impact is going to end up having on banks that are trying to make loans to businesses like these there are represented here. >> sometimes you might have hit the wrong target, too. by the time they got to the end of that long debate on -- the bankers were fine. all those extra costs i assume have to go into the cost of banking, which either they go into the cost of the loan, or they go into the cost of people's checking -- how are you

going to pass along some of these regulating costs? how do you deal with that? >> exactly what bill just said. the cost of regulation, we have approximately 90 employees, and over half of those employees are not customer oriented emoyees. they are dealing with regulations, internal auditors, compliance people. . . with some of this regulation like the debit card interchange that is being cut, that is a way that we provide a service out there to our merchants, and it can look bad in the media, saying the banks are charging

merchants, but we are guaranteeing those funds of fraud to that margin, and it is source of income for banks in exchange for that guarantee of the funds being good to the merchants. when that goes away or is cut, sure, we are gong to make up for that. >> some bankers have told me we are just not going to do no cost checking anymore. you have probably dealt with more bankers more often than anybody else in the room. what are you hearing on this whole credit thing? this credit? >> i hear the same thing. it is the community bankers of but then penalized and you are carrying the burden for the big banks who made all the bad loans. how much of your premiums gone up on fdic insurance? >> about 323%. >> i mean, that is ridiculous. i do not think this present administration understands basic economics. i really do not, because they

definitely do not understand what the long-term debt does to interest rates and the long run, which is another reason why small businesses are concerned about borrowing money. but they also did not understand that the way you create wealth in a country is through the banking system. and you loan out monday, and it turns over in the economy and you guys make money and create jobs, and then it keeps going. it does not come from carmen stimulus. government stimulus. i am very sympathetic. i know right, you have worked with the independent bankers to try to stop these ridiculous, additional regulations. >> in terms of basic economics, my sense of the philosophy of the administration is they do not get the risk-reward elements of capitalism. and people cannot take extraordinary risk unless they feel there is a reason for that -- for taking that risk.

this administration does not seem to get that. it is like this theory you can talk every day about regulation, about higher health care costs and utility bills, about higher taxes, and people will still push their money to the middle of the table to see if they can lose it or not. i saw a pretty interesting -- about two months ago, and it was in "the wall street journal", and it was a charge that when i glanced at it i thought it was the government's spending chart i talked about, where since world war ii, the government spent 20% of gdp. i looked at it and said that is something else. since world war ii, the government has never been able to collect more than 20% of gdp in taxes, no matter how high the rate rise. was. part of those years it was in the 60's and even 90's and people did not put their money at risk for 20%. they go into a more passive economy. the matter how high the tax rate was, the government has never been able to bring in more than

20% of gross domestic product, because the fire that rate gets, the less likely people are to put their money -- because of higher that rate gets, the less likely people are to put their money at risk. >> i was just going to comment that the role we are dealing with on the higher price mortgages, where community banks are having to either escrow texas insurance -- taxes and insurance -- and we do a l in a one-year balloon loans. residential lending has been a large part of our banks work. what we had to decide is were we going to go to the expensend effort to set up as growth, which is pretty complex, or we are restricted on the amount of interest we can charge on our home loans. what happens is we have a

customer that comes in that we may have made a loan to in the past because maybe it was of high-loan to value or the credit was not there, but we know this individual and we would have done it before but we felt like we had to get a certain amount of return for that. but now we are limited on what interest rate we can charge, and we are making the decision that we cannot get the types of returns we want to get on that for the risk we are taking. and so we are going to have to make that and get a lower return our our risk or not make it because we do not feel like we're being justified for the risk we are taking. and so that dictation of what we can charge on our loans is a big problem for our community bank. and that is what is penalizing the customer in not enabling them to getredit they may have gotten before. and so that is one thing. the other thing i want to comment on is many of the

business is ideawith on a daily basis have seen their revenues drop. ey had slowdowns because of the economy. they made it very difficult decisions to put their shops in ly, r -- unfortunate they had to cut expenses and lay people off, but they managed through this. they made tough decisions to keep their cash flow going. i do not think it is too much to expect our government to do the same thing. >> right. >> these business people all across the country and many idea with are doing what is necessary to keep their businesses going, and it is disheartening to see our government spending more than they are taking in. and so, that is one comment i want to make. the last thing i wanted to say is really the housing issues in our community is really what is hurting us the most. our unemployment is high, but

the lack of housing activity, sales, the amount of foreclosures, that is depressing our real a state market. and the people that are trying to sell their houses may be one to buy another house but because the markets have been so depressed -- until those real- estate markets and real-estate values stabilize and maybe start to come but not fall any more, and that is going to stall economic activity. >> on houses, and lots of people that would have bought a house two years ago and sold their house two or three months later, they do not want to do that now. everything is contingent on somebody else doing something else. and on spending, the good thing about what is happening right now is there is a level of engagement on spending that i have not seen before. it is one of the best parts about the tea party movemt. they are really focused on spending and fiscal responsibility. there are lots of mothers there. if you look at -- if you go to

the rallies or see the video, there are a lot of mothers. and mothers care more about a lot of things that other people, but they mostly care about the future of their kids more than anybody else does. there is the fortunate beginning of a sense of embarrassment here, that we are spending money we do not have for things we do not need. and we are expecting somebody else to pay the bill. and you have to stay engaged in that. i led the only fight in 10 years to cut the so-called mandatory spending. in late 2004, took 100 days from january ofcorrela to late 2006, and we got thousands of telephone calls, from the first thing in the morning until the telephone was still ringing a matter how late you left at night. we cut spending by $40 billion. which before barack obama became president was still a lot of money. that is basically twice the missouri state budget at the

time. we cut the federal programs by that much. we did that much of a cutand every single call for 100 days, from the first thing in the morning till the last call you answer that night, and the telephones rang all the time, every call was, do not cut my program. and what hardworking, taxpaying americans have to figure out is that this fight is not and election day. even if 90% of the people that are on that side are willing to do it, no matter who calls, the other 10% need a few calls saying, thanks for trying to do the right thing here. >> jusa question on the health care reform law. missouri is going through some incredible pressures right now. the high risk pools are supposed to kick in july 1. the exchange's kick in in 2014. where is the state getting the money it to fund these programs? >>ou know, i have legislation to expand the high-risk pool

concept. but it is not dependent on the rest of the insurance market -- they do not have to react to it in the same way it does under this plan. in fact, you can go to roy blunt.com. there are a dozen bills that i have sponsored and this congress, many of them i have worked for for years, that would make a difference in health care costs without the federal government doing anything except just trying to make the system work better and be more competitive. things like medical liability reform, associated health plans, buying across state lines, better use of the expandehigh risk pulls so people that cannot get insurance because of pre- existing conditions have somewhere to go. in this first four years -- one of the grand deceptions is to collect money over 10 years but you do not spend any of it

until you're five. and not much of it until you're seven. the only reason for that is to hide the costs. it is so he can convince the american people that even $1 trillion is not of acctable number, but that seemed to be acceptableo the other side. if we could keep it under $1 trillion, even though by the last three years you are billion every0 year. and that is that the current estimate. every time they look at this bill, the cost estimate goes up. in the first four years, they set aside a relatively small amount of money by terms of this bill to fund the new high risk pools in states. i talked to the person running the high-risk pool in missouri last week. we had a vy effective hig risk pool. more people wanted to get in and can get in. has been will run. you pay about 135% of what the

average guy pays. suddenly of a pre-existing condition. maybe you did not have insurance because he thought he would take a chance or because he could not afford it or maybe you got left out. we need to get insurance work follows the person instead of as part of the job. that is one of the reforms we need to make. she told me the average cost, 100% for the individual, and you cannot get family coverage would be over $400 per month. and people are shocked because they have been led to believe that somehow this is going to be free to them if they can get in this pool. so the money may go a long way if nobody can afford to be part of even the subsidized pool. where the federal money comes in is writing down the real cost of that policy for somebody who has already got a health care problem to the average cost for

everybody else. by the way, one of the other inequities here is if you are in the current high risk pool, you're paying 135% of premium and do not qualify for the new house risk pool. and you cannot get out of this pool and get into that one. they do not have access to the less expensive new high risks pool. the greatest consequence of this health care bill would be the law of unintended consequences, all the things that will happen. i was at a hospital in missouri the other day. everybody can get insurance the day they wanted. we will just put the insurance formand the ambulance. and, frankly, that pointed out the problem here about as well as i can. using a high risk pools more effectively to create access to people who could not get insurance would have been a

better solution than telling everybody, you can get any insurance you want the day you want at whenever everybody ese is paying. because that just will not work. it did not work in massachusetts. >> i would like t ask if there is a single most important difference between you and your liberal opponent? >> the single most important difference is i am not for what nancy pelosi, harry reid, and the obama administration want to do and she is. this year alone would have been at a minimum of $3 trillion difference. i was suppose to the $800 stimulus package that clearly did not do with the president said it was going to do, did not provide longerm employment or do anything to stimulate the economy. it grew a bunch of government programs, but not the right direction to go. she said she was for that. she said she would have been for the senate bill on health care. i did everything i could to

produce alternatives. by the way, when you're talking to your friends about that, why didn't they do these alternatives before? it is hard to get things done in our system. we sent medical liability reform from the house to the senate seven times in 10 years. it never got to the floor once. it is the thing that ves the most moneyhe quickest. ere are lots of good alternatives. we just need to build a fire to see that the united states senate wants to sit -- bring those alternatives to the floor if they ever get a chance to do that again. there is $3 trillion. this health care bill will cost $2 trillion the first 10 years. i was against it. she was for it. and there are billions and hundreds of billions of illions of more differences. but i belve that private sector jobs are what matter. and they pay the bill. government jobs, if you need them, are ok, but they do not pay the bill.

they are the bill. private-sector jobs pay the bill. we have to get government spending under control. to do that i think virtually everything has to be on the table. in fact, government is the last place left in america where you asure how much you care about something based on how much you spend on it rather than the results. every business person in this room today has had to spend a lot of time and the last 20 years trying to figure out how they could produce a better product, a better good, a better service next month, next year, five years from now than they are today and spend less money to do that. only the government is still focused on how much you are spending instead of the results you are getting. we can still provide a lot of services in a more effective way in the area the government should be working. we can get out of the areas government should not be involved in. we can get the burden of government down to the point where people can make the country work again.

and this is really two different philosophies here. the current philosophy is that the government should be bigger than the people. my philosophy is, and the missouri philosophy is that people should be bigger than government. and that is what this election is all about. we now know what the plan is. we know what the change is. and this election will be pushing that change back or reaching out and grabbing that change and saying, we want to be like everybody else. i have somebody in iron county who is a tree trimmer. he told me this story -- his boys all work with them in a tree trimming business. he said, when i leave somebody's yard i like it to look like nobody has been there but the trees look better. so we pick up every twig, ever leave, everything. and the boys are always saying, nobody else does it that way. he says, if you do not like everybody else does it, you are just everybody else. a lot of other countries in the world have decided they wanted to be a country where the

government is bigger than the people. and we can decide that, too. we can decide we want to be just like everybody else. i think americansant to be like the united states of america. i think they will send that message pretty strong this year, and hopefully, missourians will do. thank you for coming again. thank you for spending time today. good to see you again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] i am going to salem, and several other places today. thanks

>> coming up on sunday, on the "washington journal," jill lawrence, of politicsdaily.com, speaking about a situation in boston and the situation in iraq. our guest is former iraqi minister of trade, and finance. and after that a look at 2010 landscape and arizona immigration laws. that's the "washington journal" live 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span. also on sunday, the closing section of the national governor's association annual meetings. on sunday they will focus on the federal budget deficit. live here on c-span.

>> c-span, our public affairs content is available on radio, online, and you can get us on facebook or twitter, and get e-mails at c-span.org. >> now a discussion of the economic recovery process on the "washington journal.">> neil irwin covers economics on the washington post, and wrote an article, world economic recovery driven by global imbalances. what do you mean? guest: things were out of whack, with china and other nations saving too much and we had

similar imbalances in europe. and a lot of people thought once this recession arrived and those imbalances would get right and end up in a more sustainable place. but is what happening is different, old patterns are coming back and various are going back. and in the u.s. that means steep rise in consumption and a lot of trends back to using debt and fuel and that delays reconciling and dealing with these problems another day. host: and to paraphrase an old song, everything that is old is new again. if things don't change, where will this lead? guest: it can't go on forever. if you are a customer in a store, you can spend more than you make and you can consume

more than your income would allow. but eventually the store would say, i am not sure that you can pay off that debt, and there is a line from an economist, what can't go on forever, won't. and that will look at what is in the years ahead. host: in your article you write that president obama renewed his economy this week, and that is made more difficult given that the value of the dollar has risen against other currencies making exports more expensive. explain how that works? guest: the united states is importing more than we export and ship around the world. what needs to happen is for us

to export more and that's the strategy. but the problem is what is working against that, as people arounds the world are worried about this renew sense of crisis, the problems in europe, they are pouring money into dollars. and that drives up the dollar. if you are an exporter, your goods are more expensive than at the beginning of the year. that is a hard spot to be in competitivelily and hurts us as an exporter. host: how much of this is driven by the fact that in the united states we are not make what the world wants to buy? guest: that's a part of it, housing has been a part of consumer goods, those are things that are hard to ship elsewhere. part of what we need to do as a

nation, to find things that we're good at exporting, for example, boeing airplanes and g.e. turbine engines, and silicon valley and the movie industry. to find ways to do more things where we have a competitive advantage and the world wants more of us stuff. host: we are talking with neil irwin from "the washington post." you are invited to get involved in the conversation. you can also send us messages via e-mail or twitter. our first call com from santa clarita, calif., on our online for republicans. 01, are you with us? -- owen, are

host: our first call from santa nita, california, we have owen. go ahead. caller: yes, this is owen. host: go ahead. caller: yet, i have a question, what did we put up for collateral when we got the loans for the trillions of dollars? was it mount rushmore, or the grand canyon, those are things that i was interested in hearing. guest: it's not collateral in that sense, but what other nations did was buy u.s. treasury bonds, that's not collateralized by mount rushmore but backed by the government. and our tax dollars. and they have invested in homes

around the country and that is corporate debt and consumer debt. so not collateralized by those but part of it. host: good morning, caller. caller: good morning, i would like to know how the recovery will take place when so much money being transported across the border by illegal immigrant. they come in and take a job and lower the economy. and then they take and send most of their money back across the border to mexico. that's millions of dollars and tax dollars that workers in the united states could be putting back into the economy. thank you.

guest: i think most economists would not view remnines by immigrants, it's not used by the united states or used to buy goods in the u.s. but the numbers are not math that hold back the recovery. host: this tweet message is sent, how in the world does the u.s. compete with the factories filled with slave labor, like where the ipad is made. guest: there are different conditions, where conscience are unsafe and involve children. and then the issue of low wages and maybe not conditions most of

the us would be happy here. but not unsafe and not involving a moral issue. at first we try to avoid situations where there is immoral stuff. where there is a wage differential, that's the essence of trade. and there are countries where the wage is lower. but that's how trade works. we focus on the things that we are good at. that involves making high-tech products and as i mentioned earlier anything from boeing airplanes to blockbuster movies to a number of high-dollar products. what i understand in china is final assembly, the chips and high-tech stuff is produced, and not in the united states but other countries where there are higher wages. there is a wage gap but that is

how trade works. host: kansas on the line with the republicans, you are on the line with neil irwin. caller: hi, guys. one thing that occurred to me, a lot of stuff, everyone has a lot of stuff. and a lot of things there is not much of a market for. the stores are packed with stuff. and i think there is a lot of stuff that is just becoming obsolete. no longer a market for. and i am curious about how a lot of these third world countries will continue to supply us with, because the world is becoming packed with stuff. everyone has too much. host: sounds like george carlin. go ahead. guest: is there overcapacity and supply, i wouldn't add stuff that is stacking up in stores.

but in houses for example, we have excess supply of houses in certain cities, and not sure when the demand will be for the demand for those empty houses. and the same is true for automobiles and consumer goods. there is an overcapacity of things, and a lot of that is driven by the economy, and driven by high unemployment. if we had a world of not 9% like now but 5 or 6% unemployment, that would create a bigger demand, people sitting on the sidelines not working for a

number of reasons. if we got back to a strong economy there would be more people to buy that stuff. host: on thursday there was headline to slow down recovery, you wrote that officials are faltering and considering new steps to boltster growth. one, what steps do the federal reserve see that the economy is dropping. and two, what are they considering to bolster growth? guest: this recovery began a year another. and in the last months we worried that the pace is slowing. one of them is just the job numbers have been not been improving. we had a couple of good months in march and april, and may and june we went back to weak job growth. and in europe we had this problem with the stock market being volatile. there is reasons to worry that the pace going forward is not strong as government stimulus is withdrawn and what manufacturers

stimulus. and what do you do going forward? on capitol hill there is a debate. and at the federal reserve the target are zero, and there are things they can do if they think that things are getting worse. more modest is a cut on the excess reserves and it's a quarter of a point and could edge more to zero. and then the bigger options, if this recovery goes off the rail, and in a double dip recession, they would consider buying hundreds of millions of mortgages and securities, and that's only happening if we see a worsening in the economy.

host: los angeles, california, you are on the "washington journal" with neil irwin. caller: yeah, i had a question. i was reading about how companies like ge and big corporations have tax shelters like the caman islands and places abroad. and billions of dollars that we could get in taxes, and we don't get in america because they are in tax shelters. and i wondered if it would be better for the economy if we didn't let them do that? or to have the economy not have them pay taxes. guest: sure, the corporate tax code is very complicated and involves lots of opportunities for companies to shift income around the world. they negate the structures to

have the highest income and try to minimize the amount in high tax countries. which is a desort incentive, that's money you are not creating on valley of your stockholders. and those from a perspective, getting a world where there are no loopholes and ways to manipulate the system. and that said when you look at have economic benefits if

it would happen. host: and next call regarding risks in the global economic recovery comes from our line of independence of georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to cover some basic economic principles that were taught to me by a fifth grade educating father that raised nine children. he told me you cannot borrow yourself out of debt and you cannot spend yourself rich. this seems to be with the united state thinks that they can do. it is simply impossible, first of all. second, we do not make. we are a consuming nation. the president encourages us to go out and consume, but we did not have the money to consume any longer. our wages have stagnated at $11

an hour andas has gotten tremendously high, who has gone a tremendously high. you name it and it has gotten high. we do not have any expendable income to consume even the things thatwe would need much less what we want. as soon as they sign of the trade agreements and they will send our jobs overseas. the company i work for five years ago moved all the jobs to china. i work in the distributn center. they ship the product back to george room and then we exported straight back to china who are the only ones with the money to buy it. interesting thought, is it not? host: who do you work for? caller: i would rather not say. guest: we will not sell them. it is tough.

trade can cause a lot of difficult times for people in the industries that are effected. when production moves whether it is automotives in detroit or any other industry, when the production moves overseas it causes a lot of displacement and distress for the people involved. i think what most advocates of trade would say that the overall gains are better. we, as the united states, the focus on the industries that we are more successful in. the problem is the people benefit from those industries are not the sames the people who suffer when the higher imports and activities with oversee is -- move overseas. there are challenging ways to try and figure out how to smooth the downside and find ways to minimize the impact of people in industries where we are not as competitive so the people who benefit in those areas can share the gains.

it is tough to make it happen and it is a shame it happens that way sometimes. host: waxahachie, texas, underlined for democrats. good morning. -- on our line for democrats. caller: i am curious how we've had companies that will finance our debt when our people, as we have seen over the course of the last 10 years or longer, have continued to run up their own personal debt. when personal that goes up, you get tohe point where no one will lend you more and you get into a situation where our economy gets into a pickle. we do not have as many people working. our output goes down. what makes us continue to

receive the financial dollars that we would get when things were going great? how do we continue to receive money from china, europe? in d.c. where i am going with this? -- do you see where i am going with this? guest: china is a big exporting nation. your -- you're thinking is that you build this growth model around exports. shipping your stuff to the other developing nations who then buy it. hey have a great incentive to maintain that pttern. that is what i mean when i say we go back to these global imbalances that helped contribute to this. in the run the world and think, i need the u.s. to buy my stuff. to do that and -- the value of my currency affordable -- to do that i need to keep the value of my currency affordable. this drives up the dollar. the dollar is more valuable than

it would be if it were not for this activity. that makes it more affordable for us to buy their stuff. it is a circular transaction. that is what i mean when i use the analogy at the store. you can extend store credit and they can buy more than their income. as you point out, that cannot go on forever. ultimately, you can make more than you consume -- consume more than you make, but you cannot do it forever. eventually the debts coming due and you need to pay. how does that happen? does it happen in a nice, orderly way or do we when they have another force that causes a rethinking of all this and everything collapses? host: to use your analogy, how does the store make a profit when as they are also extending you the loan to buy this that they're selling? guest: there is a lot of consumer behavior involved here

as well. china is not the only place where they buy treasury bonds. they have a very high personal savings rate in china. their workers, to gdynia the analogy, -- to continue this analogy, the employees of the store instead of consuming themselves as they are funneling that back into the stohr coffers into savings. there is a high savings rate because of you need to support yourself because there is not a lot of safety nets in there. that is part of the story of money falling back to us in the form of debt. host: neil irwin rights for "the washington post" the economy and the federal reserve. he has also covered technology, real estate, and the washington,

d.c., regional economy. we have him for another 20 minutes. denver, colorado, on our line for republicans. caller: the morning. i will try to get this out quickly. the one thing i have not heard are the reasons truly why we are in debt. the two reasons we are in that is the high interest they put on these loans for when we go to war. the second thing is that we are now, i think, in our fourth generation of welfare. we live in a society where we invite cultures in. we are the only society to do this and we are the second beta test for this. the last thing i heard you say, too, is you cannot really buy bonds. that actually goes into the government. now, that is a good idea in 1929 with the great american robbery. buying bonds is not the correct way to do it. contrary to popular belief, ere is no more money.

that is what people have to understand. we cannot go out and make a buck any more. the wage rate is done, like you said, at foxconn, that is what we do. we read them for $1 a year, to do the job, and shut up. that is disgusting. we need to change our values. we have los strength in the court. the supreme court sws no law at all. you cannot tax employees. the supreme court does not show there is a lot for this. that shows you right there that the federal reserve owns the banks. host: we will leave it there. neil irwin? guest: i think his view of the economy is rather different than my own and that of most people who analyze economic trends.

host: he started off talking about the cost of war. we are in iraq and afghanistan. how much does that play into how our economy is or is not working and the global economy? guest: i cannot remember the exact numbers, but there is substantial and they are part of the deficit problem and these imbalances. part of that is related to these large budget deficits. i think most people would argue that you have to judge your foreign policy based on your foreign policy goals. the question is, are there areas to cut if we use these words as necessities that are inthe best interest of the united states? the rest of the 2000's we did not. we went to war in afghanistan and iraq. we did not see tax increases or comparable cuts in the government to pay for it. that is part of the deficit story.

host: here is a tweed that says is a team -- says if the yuan flows as it once and they continue to buy u.s. bonds, will we be more competitive? guest: those are more competitive than you might think. but the way of the chinese had kept the value of the r.m.b. down is by buying u.s. assets. if they were going to let their currencies float entirely it may appreciate by 20% 25%. they would try to manipulate that currency and keep the value down. yes, if the currency were alled to float these imbalances would ease over time. the reason the chinese would not do that is because it would hurt their exports a lot and damage their domestic growth, at least in the near term, and caused economic problems.

host: on the front page of "the financial times," the inflows into money-market funds. the of the tens of thousands of dollars into money-market fund is considered to be bought some of the safest assets amidst fears that a double-dip recession -- a double-dip recession coul send financial markets tumbling. guest: any time things get a little hairy, people put money into cash and something close to cash. bond rates have been down over the last few months and money- market mutual funds were people park their cash they do not use. they do not want to use it in other risky assets. given the publications in europe and the european debt crisis given the volatility we have seen, it is unsurprising people are parking their money in money funds. host: in the last year or so, you see commercials talking about investing your money in gold. how does that play into the global economy? i did not expect that you are an

investment analyst, but in the long term, is that a safe place to put cash? guest gold is a funny thing. it is a commodity in the same way the oil is that people use it for the jewelry and industrials. it has even mo weight as a safe haven when economic times are rough. if you are in a war-torn country, gold might hold its value better than currency. that is part of what is driving the rising gold prices. there is a sense of fear that the entire world economy is at risk and things might not go well in the future. that has driven the price of gold up. it is a riskier investment. things calmed down and we get back to a global growth path, you can easily see the price falling. people should be aware of the risk. but they should be aware and be able to handle that risk. it does not create a yield.

i like putting the money a bank or investing in the stock market, there is no ongoing cash gold -- cash flow. it costs you money to store it and keep it safe. it is not something that produces a yield, but it can be a safe haven in times of distress and apparel. host: our next call for neil irwin comes from new york, new york. caller: good morning. neil, this is a comment about two of the callers and how it relates to our current economy. one, the woman who called earlier complaining about companies have in offshore tax shelters and so on, people complain about companies. my response to that is always the same. buy stock in companies, american companies that produce dividends higher than the banks produce. why are people complaining about the activities of companies that

actually have the production like ge? a buy stock in the companies. the second thing is, the man that called earli complaining about losing jobs to foreign companies. those companies have become powerful because americans want to buy inexpensive products from stores. these are products that americans cannot afford to mke. my response to that is very simple. spend more money on american goods. i'm not even a proponent of buy american. by more expensive products and stop trying to get deals at wal- mart and sears because that is where all the foreign products live. stopd buying cheap products and we will have a resurgence of new jobs created here to create standard commodity goods. just stop buying cheap goods. everyone wants to complain about these companies, but they do n want to stop buying cheap goods beause it makes them feel rich.

guest: keep in mind, people buying when they think what offers the best value is how the capitalist economy works. when people think that one company's product has a better value than another, it forces other companies to become more competitive and create better and cheaper products for us all. i am not sure if help -- telling people to buy more expensive stuff just for the sake of doing so is much of a long-term answer to our economic woes. people forget that because so many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, there are things to find ways to emphasize to get out of this matter -- to get out of th mess. host: centerville, arkansas. you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a quick, then the

question. first of all, i live out in the middle of nowhere. luckily i have broadband. i do not have television. i do a completely over the internet so i am able see news coverage from aroundhe world. mr. irwin, with the new prime minister of great britain, mr. cameron, he is slicing a lot of that out of the economy. there are a lot of things going on in the world that people in the centville, ark., are completely ignorant of i use that were respectfully, but they just do not know what is going on in the world can give us some perspective on h our economy and our problems with the economy are n only reflected throughout the world but as their economies are reflected within hours? i will hang up and listen to your answer.

guest: this is global economic downturn. it is a gbal recovery. the nkages between the world has been more significant i this downturn than any in the significant past. what is happening in the great britain is the new conservative prime minister, david cameron, and they are embarking on a very aggressive campaign to trim the budget and get themselves on a sustainable but the track. in some ways, they have been in a rough spot than the u.s.. the question is whether great britain and other european countries, especially germany and also france, as they cut their spending the day after the exacerbates the global problem? the country's, so some americans -- some european countries are being forced by markets to cut their budgets aggressively and do not have much choice.

when it germany, france, and great britain cut spending, does that slow economic activity in a way that creates risks for the global economy, a deflationary situation? that is what the u.s. administration, timothy geithner, and the president, have all been arguing at the g- 20 summit in toronto,he countries that are in position to continue spending, which includes germany, we should be spending now and try to prop up economic activity given that other countries are pulling back. that does not seem to be the direction things are going in europe. there has been a push to cut spending aggressively. we will see how that does. host: king county, new york, on our line for republicans. caller: i have a company -- more

than 35% people in china are out of work. most of the companies in china are run by [unintelligible] we need to spend money to make jobs in america. people do not mind to pay more to buy american. the companies are owned by the americans and europeans. guest: it is true that a lot of the company's are on the bi yaris -- by u.s. and economic. more chinese have gone from barely scraping by and feeding themselves to lower middle income and middle income jobs where they are manufacturing or doing other jobs in chinese cities to produce goods.

just the fact that some of these companies are owned by firms in the u.s. or in europe it does not mean they have not paid. we have not had any realet job growth over the last decade. we have been in a very rough time for u.s. employment. what are the industries that can drive us for work? host: there is an article in today's "the wall street journal." it will street journal analysis of trends in 11 countries say that manageable debt burdens and help the banking systems, areas in which the u.s. does not xl, are proving to be crucial factors in creating jobs.

your response to that? guest: it is important not to confuse causation with correlation. countries without banking crises and manageable levels of public debt have stronger job guest: companies without banking policies have stronger job growth. but it may be that the things that cause a deep global downturn are the things that lead to the recession to begin with. it's not the case -- let me put it this way. it's clear that countries with worse financial crises have worse conditions. it's not a shocker where things are worse have weaker job growth. host: back to the phones, terri, you are on the "washington

journal." caller: howdy, first a comment about the caller who talks about buying cheap. and i would love to buy a more expensive car. and if we are borrowing from those in china and you said that they are larger savers and their government using that to take our debt. what happens when this collapses? is it not different from a huge ponzi scheme? guest: that's the risk. and in 2007, the years before that, the economists and it was this they were scared of.

that's not the crisis that happened. we had it rooted into real estate and all the ugliness in the last three years that we know. the question is whether we are setting the stage for that original crisis, the dollar crisis yet again. and it won't happen as long as we have an orderly path towards a more sustainable balance. over the decades if we bring trade and balance deficits down, then it will be fine and the world economy will prosper, if we continue to go back to the old path, there will be a day of reckoning. and the question is if that is a disorderly crisis. and that would be scary for all americans, and it's to have a more steady to adjust to more

gradually. ideological blinders just for a minute, you realize that capitalism really does not work. how many great depressions do you really have to go through before you realize it does not work? second, the richness of capalism does not work. that is why they run to socialism. oil companieslone get $70 billion per year from taxpayer free. this is not a tax break. this -- this is money they get from the federal government. for the corporations that gets subsidies from the taxpayer, cut them. talk about welfare. just for a change, you know, move away from the idea that capitalism is great. it is not. host: you made your point.

guest: capitalism has a lot of flaws. there are recessions, but it is also a system that has created prosperity that even 100 years ago people would be shocked by. the products we take for granted whether it is electronic devices or the ability to fly anywhere in the world. these are things that are produced out of a capitalist system. i would argue that not too many other systems have produce that kind of prosperity. there are not a lot of counterexamples we can point to and say that is the society i want. they have been communists for the last 50 years. there are flaws in capitalism that we can manage and i think the system is not going anywhere. host: last call for neil irwin

comes from maryland. caller: good morning. america replaced england at the end of world war ii. we have been the reserve currency. from 1945 to 1987 we were the worl credit agency. america became the world's debt nation. china has $789 billion of american dead. a few months ago, they refused to hold it. japan took a dislike. now channel now china on the $750 billion. the biggest mistake is moving from the dollar to thgold standard -- from the gold standard. in 1933-1934, that is one of the

main reasons we nt to war against iraq. petroleum is done through the dollar. they were going to change it to the euro. frnkfurt, germany, holds the second load of gold. host: we will leave it there. guest: the u.s. is a reserve currency, is that as we took over from britain. this is a blessing and a curse. people use dollars when they want to exchange. when things looked shaky, people pour money into dollars. that is what has happened. once a month in india by india -- buys oil from saudi arabia, the exchange in dollars and not in domestic currencies. he benefit of that is that we are able to borrow money cheaply. the government makes money on spending money. our borrowing rates are lit --

are lower. the downside is it pushes the value of the dollar up over what it would be otherwise which makes our exporters less competitive. us being the reserve come -- the reserve currency to to reach to these imbalances in important ways by making exporters more competitive. it seems over the last decade that the euro would arise as a competitor for the world reserve currency. that has shifted over the last year in the last few months. the future of the euro has been in doubt with greece and these other southern european nations. the euro is looking shaky some people are pouring money back into the dollars. will that be the case in 50 years that everyone uses dollars as the world currency? i strongly doubt it. i think other currencies will rise, perhaps as a china less there's flow more, as the euro becomes m

>> sunday on the "washington journal," jill lawrence speaking with the current situation in iraq. our guest is the iraqi minister of trade, and finance. and after that a look at the arizona immigration laws. that's the "washington journal," live 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and also on sunday, the closing session of the national governors' annual meeting. focusing on the federal budget deficit.

live here on c-span. >> tomorrow on "newsmakers," deril issa talks about the arizona immigration law. that's on the here at c-span. >> c-span is a direct link allowing a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> the national governors' association is holding their summer meeting. next redesigning state government by streamlining public services. moderating the discussion is evan murray. this is about an hour and 20 minutes.

>> governors, i would invite you to take your seats. and ask our guests to do the same. to get our afternoon session underway. this is an important topic for our states to have a facilitated discussion of the state's situations and the economic challenges we are facing. and the creative ideas that the gove governors are putting in place to move our states forward. could everyone find a seat to get underway?

>> i want to welcome everyone, the goal of this session is to redesign state government and how we are making purchases more efficient and prisons. and may get into how states are redesigning the higher education system. elementary and secondary. we have a lot to learn from in these challenges times. and we need to think about what we are doing immediately for the fiscal challenges and how we are positioning our states in the future. it's going to be important, i think, to think about the long-term and restructure design

state government so our suseccors learn from this. we are proud to have a member from the journal, have been been to the journal since 1993. he was bureau chief in washington for a while, and won three pulitzer prizes including other accolades. he is an author of three best-selling books. his career has taken him all over the world, and we are delighted to have him in boston today. let's welcome, alan murray.

[applause] >> thank you, for having me here today in boston. thank you governor patrick, and thank you governor brewer having inviting me to your meeting in boston. i want to start by offering my condolences to all you. because all of you have picked a very unfortunate time to be gove governo governors, it's a worse decline, and it looks to be down in revenues and will be taken out by the government. job growth is very slow, doesn't

look like it will pick up for a long time. and on top of that, you have a health care funding crisis la r layered on top it. it's easy to see why a governor would want to become a senator. it's a good deal; right? there is no real responsibility. you know, you get to talk a lot. there are a lot of really nice perks. and you don't have a budget constraint that you have to worry about. so i am surprised there are not more of you who are not thinking about it. i appreciate the fact that you all have very, very tough jobs. i feel like governor douglas has given me an easy job here. because my job is to get this group of shy, introverted people

to talk. that's what we are going to do. talk a little about the decisions you have made in dealing with the crisis. and then we want to look forward and see how the decisions you have made or the decisions you have should made and your suseszors have made and getting a look at what that world will look like. let's start with education. because we know that education is the future. and that education is critical to sustaining jobs, to long-term growth. simple question, how many of you sitting here now have made it through this crisis without having to cut education