that, although there has been a bubbling sentiment to that effect in terms of afghanistan, the potential beginning of the drawdown of combat troops next year. but the time lines the president has set seem to be being greeted with more suspicion that they have in the past. also the prospects for middle east peace, he was pessimistic. most people are, but i think he has laid out a point that many others have made, that at least they have gotten them back together at this point. >> all administration struggle with this question. the opposite is just not to engage at all. i am wondering about the 20- month lag since the last peace talks, and why the timing now seems appropriate for the administration to get involved. >> i think the timing is now that they just finally got it done.

it took them 20 months. they bobble the issue at the start when they told israel that they must of sediments, and they backed off. -- they must stop settlements, and they backed off. the pessimism was warranted. this administration does seem to have a penchant for doing things on schedule, whether ending the war in iraq are getting a middle east peace treaty. having covered these issues, i am afraid that is not the way the world works. it is unlikely things are going to go the way the administration thinks they are. >> the center seems to think support for the start treaty will change over time. >> presumably he is privy to conversations in the republican

caucus that we are not. it is no secret that some members -- some republicans in the senate are using this as a political hammer to try to go after the democratic administration. senator lugar said it would be unfortunate if that continues, but i think that is just the way things are in this polarized political world that we live in in washington. >> is it a political hammer for the 2012 elections, or for the 2010 elections? >> probably for growth. >> the center talked about what people are talking about at home, it is really the economy. the nation -- how much traction politically do foreign policy issues have going into the midterm elections? >> i thought it was interesting, listening to the senator for half an hour. his mind is very much on

domestic issues, too. every foreign policy issue we mention now takes on a political scene because everything can be politicized until the election is concluded. it does not hurt you to have -- declare that the iraq war combat has ended. >> foreign-policy has no domestic constituency here. the people in indiana or ohio or wherever they are, this is not the top thing on their minds right now. jobs and the economy are. the u.s. government is spending a tremendous amount of their -- our taxpayer money on these foreign policy issues, afghanistan and iraq in particular. i think there is some political hay to be made from foreign policy in the run-up to

november's elections. >> thank you for being with us this week. >> we now have a generation coming of who really did not have the arts in the public schools. these are now the 20-year olds. i am concerned about that group of people, because it is not clear to me that when they get to be 40 or 50, that they will come into the arts. >> tonight michael kaiser will talk about helping struggling arts organizations and the future of the arts in the u.s., on "q&a". >> tuesday night at 8:00 p.m., president barack obama will give an oval office speech, discussing the troop withdrawal from iraq, and shift the focus to the war in afghanistan. live coverage begins tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c- span.

>> now, u.s. senate candidate sharron angle of nevada. she recently spoke at a conference in steamboat springs, colorado. she talks about government debt, repeal of health care legislation, tax policy, education, and border protection. she is running against senate majority leader harry reid in the fall general election. her remarks and a question and answer session are about 45 minutes. >> i stand here before you as one of you. they said, do you want a podium? i don't want any barriers between you and i. we want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. for that, we don't need barriers. we need to be able to talk to one another. that is why i am here telling you today that i am not going to

speak from notes, i am going to speak to you from my heart. i am running for your statseat n the united states senate. i wanted to keep this in mind. just because nobody is going to vote for me and he let me, i am going to be working on laws that affect everyone of you. you should have access to me, because i represent you, not because you have the right zip code or the right area code. you need to be able to talk to your representatives and know that they are going to respond to you. that is what our founding fathers intended. they did not intend for us to have to do with folks like let's

make a deal, tax and spend, politics as usual, harry reid. harry reid has become the poster child of what's gone wrong in america in the last 18 months. nevada, his state, has begun -- has become the example of what is going to happen to the rest of our country if we don't get going in a different direction. right now in nevada, we have 14.3% unemployment, the highest in the nation, and that is the average. in the county where my son lives, they are at 19% unemployment. we have heard that if we average

in those who have quit looking for employment, we are really at 21% unemployment. we also have the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, and our home values, and this is the largest investment for most americans -- our home values are now upside-down by about 17.5%. what has happened is that my home that was once worth about $300,000 is now less than half its value. we are also the highest rate of bankruptcy in the nation, and we have harry reid to thank for that. we have heard him say in some of his commercials, he is trying to

let us know that his power within the united states senate is something we cannot do without because he has done more. he has, he has done more for unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcy, and truly, we want him to stop doing more. we cannot afford it. [applause] we have also put out our latest commercial that talks about the love affair that harry reid, nancy pelosi, and barack obama have brought to our country in the last 18 months with the stimulus, the bailout, and obama care. they say that money cannot buy you love, but we have certainly paid a high price for this love. we know what harry reid is all about in nevada, and i had a

question asked of me. they said what was the difference before the primary, everyone was leading harry reid in the polls. what has happened and now he's pretty much even with you in these polls? what has happened? what has happened is that he had the money to begin that personal attack right after the primary, and that is exactly what he has done. i have been building a war chest to come back at him with those commercials, and so that is what we have done. for the first few weeks, we kind of felt like the poseidon adventure, we were under water, and we are just having to take those personal attacks, but now we have been able to right the ship, so to speak, and we are now still in a statistical tie with harry reid, but most polls have us two or three points up, and we are moving forward.

[cheers and applause] i was grateful for that introduction, letting in no that i am one of you. you can see me here in the back of a pickup. i am and bought a country girl -- i am a nevada country grow. my father and mother moved to nevada when i was 3, and they bought a small business in self reno, a motel where my three brothers and i made beds, clean bathrooms, swept floors, did laundry, all those things that children did to help their parents keep that family business going. i graduated from high school there in reno, i got a job at bob's big boy as a waitress, and i put myself through college. i started out as an art major,

thinking of all the wonderful places i would go with a career as an art painter or even a fashion designer. then i decided to get married to a fellow i am going to introduce gle.to now, to ted ankl [applause] when i decided to marry this diet for years ago, last sunday, the 22nd of august, i knew i was not going to paris or france. i knew i was going to nevada, and i change my major to education. i tell you that because i want you to understand where i am coming from as a wife and mother and grandmother. when my son was in kindergarten, he failed kindergarten. that got me involved in politics.

people laughed at that, but when i put him in for his second year kindergarten, i had a 6-year-old dropout. he felt like a failure. he did not want to do school anymore. as an educator, i thought, i will home school this boy. a judge made a decision and said in his decision, i know that it is the law in nevada that you can home school your children, but the law should say that you cannot home school your children unless you live more than 50 miles away from the nearest school. well, right then, the government got between me and my children, and that is what this tea party movement is about. [applause] we as parents and grandparents have seen the government come between us. we are no longer passing out liberty and freedom. we are passing down debt to our children, and that's what has brought people into the

political arena in the last 18 months. i have found people walk up to me and they say i never even voted before. these are people that are 40 or 50 years old. i never was even registered to vote, and now want to get politically active and know how can help your campaign. i have had people just this morning here in steamboat springs lock up and say, i gave your campaign. i have never been politically involved before, but i am giving money now to your campaign. and i am hearing that all over the nation. people are responding. when i go on shows like sean hannity or many of those that were mentioned. i say harry reid says he needs $25 million. i need a million people with $25 ronangle.com.o

a lady this morning said i only sent you $10, but i am a single mom, and that is what i could afford, but i just want you to know that i am with you. i have a fellow in virginia that sends me $25 a month. he lives on social security. he lives with his son and daughter-in-law, and he started sending me $25 in april 2009. it is what he can afford. but this is true patriotism. this is what our founding fathers were talking about when they said that we would, for liberty, have to give up our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. that is what is happening all over the nation. people are rising up, joining the tea party movement, and they are sending money, not just to me, but to others. they are saying is time that we took back the reins of our country and became once more

that government of the people, by the people, and for the people. it is an amazing thing that has happened. i will finish the little story about my son. i did go to the legislature that year to get our lot changed, and because we are by any legislature, it took two years to get the law changed so that we could home school our children. during that two years, i actually started a private school where i was the teacher and administrator in a one-room school room. we graduated to seniors and i 12.kught k- i will never forget, this committee chair person came down and looked me right in the eye, and he said if i had known that this was going to take -- this hearing was going to take five hours instead of 30 minutes and

there were going to be 5 people here instead of 50, i would have thrown this bill on my desk and it would have never seen the light of day. i turned too a local cowboy and asked if he could do that, and he said yes, we will have are hearing and we will have a vote. i realize that was not the government i had been taught about in civics and government 101. this reward your friends and punish your enemies, the whole idea that someone else is in control of the system, that it just does not work that you introduce a bill and someone votes on it, that was not how it was going. i knew at that moment that i needed to be more than just a voter. i needed to get more involved. i son did graduate salutatorian

of his high school class back in the public system. he got his bachelor's degree in education and he is a history teacher here in nevada. we do know as parents what is best for our children, and that is what our founding fathers really wanted us to do, to concentrate on raising our families, having a small business, and enjoying the liberties. peopleed in liberty rejec-- who come here want to experience freedom just like we have. when i think about this, i know that i set myself on that course that moment that i said the government got between me and my family. i served on the school board for a term. i served in the nevada state

legislature for four terms, eight years. then i have been a citizen unpaid lobbyist, and i also did a citizens' petition initiative for property-tax restraint in our state. so i know government, and i understand what ronald reagan understood. that is that we can be that shining city on the hill for the rest of the world. just as jenny was saying, we are not done yet. we have real hope, not just a change that we would hope for. we have some real hope, and our hope is grounded in some fundamental principles of freedom. we all know what the answers to these difficult times are. i have painted a bleak picture, and now want to paint the picture of a true future for

this country. there are simple answers. payback, cut back, and take back. first we have to pay back on the debt. we all know that you cannot borrow your way out of debt, and you cannot spend your way into prosperity. we need to pay back on that debt. we need to take whatever is left of the stimulus money, not very much these days, i am afraid, but there is some unspent budget appropriations. we need to take that money and put it on the debt. someone asked me, which deadwood to pay off? would you pay off the 14 trillion dollars, or would you work on social security? i said what is the difference? we take $2.50 trillion out of a social security trust fund and use it for your pet projects, and as harry reid said in 1990, if you do that, if you take

social security and use it for anything else, that is stealing. i agree. that was money that was paid in good faith. we have a promise to our senior citizens. we need to put the money back. going forward, we need to make sure that our government will never again take that money from our retirement accounts. we need to give our workers the option, social security are personalized retirement accounts, they need to have options. that is the american way. we need to give them the same options that harry reid has. he has a personalized account. if it is good enough for harry, it should be good enough for the rest of us. [applause] we need to pay back on that deficit and the debt. we need to cut back on the

spending. i propose to you, and i was glad to hear that question about how do you prioritize the spending? that is how i am going to phrase the question on the 10th amendment. the priorities of spending at the federal level should be based on the 10th amendment. there are enumerated powers for our federal government, and that is wary should have our priorities in spending, on those enumerated powers. when asked a conservative where are you going to cut, we are going to cut by% -- 5% per year on those b and c priorities. some of those are things the government should not even be spending on. obama can have all the friends he wants, but i don't need to pay for them. [applause]

when we talk b b priorities, those are the things we are watching right now. i am truly excited when i see arizona taking their 10th amendment rights and saying the federal government has failed to protect our borders and our citizens. we are going to do it. they know the simple answer to the illegal alien problem is secure the border and enforce the law. and then they got themselves a good share of to help. we should be cheering for states like arizona who have taken the 10th amendment seriously. our how about missouri? what they did was, they said under the 10th amendment, we are not going to let obamacare be in

our state. we think it is unconstitutional. there are several attorneys general that are suing, saying we want to know about the constitutionality of this obamacare. how can a government mandate as to purchase anything? what about these mandates? we should be really excited about that. but there are things in the federal government's that would be better taken care of at the state level. being an educator, and understanding -- i sat on the school board and the committee for education on the state legislature, the u.s. to permit education is one of those areas that states would be better off handling. [applause] the the part of education is a

policy department that picks out one-size-fits-all policies that fit no one. we all found that out with no job left behind. not only that, but they send our money back to us filtered, and it comes back in the form of unfunded and underfunded mandates. we need to keep that money right here in our state at the level where it will do the most good, which is in the classroom, where parents and teachers are the stakeholders. that is where we need to be making the policies, not in washington d.c. [applause] when you start thinking about 5% per year for the next five years on those categories, you can think of a bunch of others. department of energy, internal protection agency --

environmental protection agency, planned parenthood, national endowment for the arts, there are literally lots and lots of places. how about the 184 testing programs we could be cutting back on? we did that once with aid to families with dependent children. it was proposed by reagan and finally got implement it in the 1990's. every democrat hail that as welfare reform. it was one program, but it worked. we have several of those programs that we need to be really looking at. there are plenty of places where we can cut back on the spending, and we should be doing that. not only that, but when we pay back on that deficit, cut back on the spending, we will send a

strong signal to our corporations who are holding back. remember, they are looking out to the future. we have $2 trillion it that they want to spend on jobs, but they are holding back, because all they can see out there is the fog. i know that obama was in our state a ball back with harry reid and he said i see a bright new day. i think he does not know how to drive in the fog. he has his brights on, and you know how that kind of blind you when it bounces back. we need to lift the fog for our small businesses and for corporations. the way we do that is by giving them some confidence. even ben bernanke says we are in an unusually uncertain climate. that means that we have plenty of money, we just don't have any confidence. they are holding back.

if we start paying back on the debt, cutting back on the spending, and we do this for five years, they will be able to see through the fog. now they can say i have confidence, because we know what the rules will be. we need to take back the economy. thing we need to do is repeal obamacare [applause] . we also need to make sure that those tax cuts are permanent. [applause] otherwise, they are going to be the obama tax increases. we also need to look for true transparency. the way to start with true transparency is to let us have a true audit of the federal reserve. [applause] when jenny spoke of the culture

of corruption, one not start by liquidating fraudie mac and phoney-mae? we would like to have something that you can spell out on the back of a post card and mail it in on april 14. we would also like to see something like a single subject rule, where you deal with the subject and legislation one subject at a time, so you don't have to have port and earmarks hanging onto a good piece of legislation. [applause] it is not the complete solution, but it would certainly make an

express train to nowhere have to come up in its own bill. i guess maybe you don't know about our express train to victorville from las vegas, but that was a piece of harry reid's pork that you are all paying some simple, common-sense solutions that will bring the confidence that we need and what reagan would have called a shining city upon a hill. he knew that government is not the solution to the problem. we the people are the solution and we need to elect forecastle understand that we have the right contract with america, and

that is our constitution. we have the right message for america -- lower taxes, less government regulation, more individual freedom, and stop the spending. [applause] and we have the right angle to defeat harry reid. [laughter] [applause] now i would like to take some questions. is there a gentleman here in a white shirt? >> thank you. see, i am a gentleman. she just said so. [laughter] my breast friend lives in reno -- my best friend lives in reno, and he wanted me to ask you, are you getting support from the republican national

committee that we all hope that you would be getting? >> yes. i spoke to you all little bit about the primary. the first thing i did after winning the primary was put up a page and everyone has been responding to that. the second thing we did is made a quick trip to washington, d.c. to speak with the chairman of the republican senate committee and they were very gracious to me. they were very supportive and very helpful in nevada. they are not running the campaign but they are certainly helping. i want to say thank you for all those who have come along side, not just those sending $25 to

our web site, but those in washington supporting me with their words and their deeds. >> mrs. angle, it's a pleasure to have you here. i am going to assume something here, i would take it that you are for second amendment rights? >> second amendment rights are very dear to me, yes. >> i have a question to ask you. i am an nra member, maybe former if they do not straighten out. [applause] had you ever contacted their office and tell them that maybe you would be a better senator then harry reid to keep our second amendment rights? would you please contact them? >> we have had some discussions. in fact, i had a discussion just

wednesday with one of their representatives from the nra. it has been a very disconcerting thing, to say the least, in about that to have them even considering an endorsement of harry reid. we feel that his support of elena kagan and sonia sotomayor are under manning -- undermining our second amendment rights. i have my concealed carry permit and i was a member of the nra. i tell them that i would renew by membership when i was certain they would not endorse harry reid. i am also a member of the gun owners of america and have their endorsement. i had a "a"rating from the nra.

with all those credentials, that gun owners in nevada had a clear choice and they will make the right choice. next question? >> i am a mom here and active with our school board. i am against them for what they did. i would like when you get into our federal government up there to go wind and kicked butt = because i am so tired of seeing our kids to have been born here getting second-hand treatment in many areas that the ell o learners get.

most of them were born here in the united states. we spend over $1,000 per student. they get quite sure teachers for the kids. our english students get one teacher per 500 students. we're seeing that cutting in the fine arts and these money -- this money is going to these kids. i'm getting tired to see our kids -- not our kids, the american citizens who were born here legally, they get the second-hand treatment. i was like for you to go in there and take that course. they are not listening to us at the local level. >> you brought out the exact reason why i have been so vocal about local control of

education. all politics, as you know, it is local. it starts. the local level. and when you have to implement policies that are formed for you in washington, d.c., it takes away a lot of the local control. a lot of that has to do with the -- being tied to those federal dollars that should have been yours in the first place, never spent out of the state in the first place. that is why had been so vocal about this fight for many years. and the returning of the educational dollars to our state as well as the policy-making programming and implements that need to return to the state as well. i know what you're talking about when you're talking about those kinds of situations within our own country. i would just make a disclosure here. my daughter-in-law is latina.

she is a first-generation american. she was born in this country to naturalized citizens from mexico. my grandson's are learning spanish at home. from their grandparents. the situation is that she has a niece and nephew, he was born in this country but he is considered a english second language learner. why is that? i do not understand that canada because of the money. they're going out there looking for anybody that might have to qualify for the programs of the faking get the money. that should not be the reason that we get the money for our

schools. the money should be here and that is why policy needs to be made locally so that we can avoid this kind of situation. i think all of us just get really concerned when we hear at the end of the fiscal year, they will have to use or lose the money. it drives is crazy because we want to keep up this gulf sensibility here. we know if they are spending all that money, it is not fiscally responsible. it is the same thing al all levels and i think that is what we're seeing the grassroots movement -- not astroturf, but the grass roots movement -- saying we need to take back the control of our government at the local level, that we the people need to be in charge like our founding fathers meant -- wrote and said that is the way they should be.

>> thank you so much for being here. but when you get to washington, how you deal with people like pelosi and did things like the louisiana purchase, maybe i nevada gambling debts being paid off, because that seems to be the way that things are done in washington. how would you address that? >> i'm going to address that the same way i have done that and my political career -- in my political rare at home. as a state legislator in 2003, we had the largest tax increase in the history of the state proposed asset tax that would come in -- we have the two- thirds rule in our constitution.

the people passed did not once but twice. it will take a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature to pass a tax increase. we had 15 strong assemblymen of which i was the whip. you say to these guys, we need to hold strong against this tax increase. we cannot stand to have a big tax increase like this. it will not help our economy. in fact, it will hurt it. i did my job. i whipped these guys and we stood for one special session -- i mean one regular session and s -- and two special sessions against this gross receipts tax. during this time, the governor sued the legislature to make as

raise the -- raise taxes by a simple majority in the supreme court went along with it. at my own expense, i hired a pilot at the claremont institute to take this case all the way to the u.s. supreme court to fight for our constitution. even though we did not get all the way -- we did get a hearing, but what happened was one of our guys pulled off and they passed a tax increase by getting that two-thirds vote, so they knew no harm, no foul. but we won in that court of public opinion because we elect our supreme court judges in the state of nevada. those who voted for that ruling were all turned out. the new accord that came in reverse that decision, said the

actions of one person saying, you know, this is wrong. i'm going to use my own resources if necessary to to the right thing. it will produce the results that we want. and you do not have to be a majority. you just have to be a strong voice for rights. for that i receive the ronald reagan freedom medallion. i know i have taken a lot of criticism in my own state for my 41 votes. there are 42 people in our assembly and i was often the vote.hne no but that is where i am glad to stand in the united states senate, on the right side of these issues. we have to have voices that will sound the alarm, that will say,

"this is not right legislation." i have read the bill and i am not going to vote for this bill because it is wrong. i believe that we send that message together as a people, first of all, by defeating harry reid. secondly, by putting our plant ford on november 3. we cannot just sit back and say, now we have won this election, we will wait until january. we cannot. there is a lame duck session coming at us and we need to begin on november 3 telling them what we want. and the repeal of obamacare is first on our list. that is what we should begin talking about right then on november the third. third, if everyone in the united states is united behind this race to put the pressure on harry reid and to defeat harry reid, we can put that same kind of pressure on the folks in the

u.s. senate who will be voting on these bills. they need to feel that pressure. i think they have already been feeling the pressure. we've seen that they could not get capping trade past for their amnesty passed. we know that those are things that harry reid said four top priorities. so if we have got them concerned about that now, we need to keep that pressure up in november. and just follow through. it is exactly the same thing. [inaudible] >> of big difference between the candidates ended up being on afghanistan. i don't know what that is something you spend much time thinking about. one of the candidates was

doubled down and do whatever we have to do to win. the other candidate was more along the lines of set smaller goals and work our way out. where are you one then? >> i don't think there is an american who has not considered what has happened in afghanistan and iraq or what happens 1 9/11. i think that these are parts of just being american. we all think about it. what can we do and what should be done? i would have to say that no one called me and ask me what i thought i should do, what i thought should be done. they do not ask me to vote on it. we're there and that seems to be something that was not under my control. i also do not get security briefing so i do not know exactly what everyone in the u.s. senate even knows about our

involvement there or where we're going. i like you get most of my information from places like "the wall street journal" and "usa today." when you look at it from the outside, i can make some fairly definitive statements. the first one is i agree with general petreaus when he says it is hard but not hopeless. i am grateful for what he was able to do in iraq when i saw the last of our combat troops come home. this was a great day for america. and i was glad to see that there is a democracy established in iraq if they can keep it. and we're giving them the tools to keep it. i am encouraged by petreaus'

assessment on the war in afghanistan and what seems to be the development of at least a coalition to began to build a military within afghanistan of indigenous troops so that they can take over their country, take back their country and put some kind of freedom -- democracy in the place. i am encouraged by those things. i will tell you definitively that i support our children. i support our military. and if we have been committed to this mission, then we need to give them all our support. we need to give them the moral encouragement. we cannot be reelecting a person who says that this war is lost and cause their general names

and says he is dishonest. that is just beyond the pale. [applause] we also have to give them everything they need to fight if they are going to be there. we have to give them weapons, we have to give them defenses, armor, we need to give them what they need to fulfill the mission that we've sent them for. if they are going to be there, we have to be 100% behind them. thank you, thank you so much. for allowing me this time to speak with you, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> last week the candidates running in the nevada senate race, republican candidate sharron angle and democratic

candidate majority leader harry reid, released campaign ads. the love triangle at describes the relationship between senator reid, barack obama, and nancy pelosi as the "most tragic love story of our time." the harry reid tank -- the harry reid ad describes sharron angle as too extreme. >> i am sharron angle and i approve this message. >> it may be the most tragic love story of our time. together they promise to change america and boy, did there. taxpayer funded bailout for wall street, 178 separate $787 billion bailout, leading to skyrocketing unemployment. they say you cannot by law. but we certainly paid a heavy price. and when they call a candidate who says the way things are

going that the time may be coming for second amendment remedies. who said that rape victims should be forced have their baby and proposed a scientology massage program for prisoners and says that medicare and sells security violate the 10th amendment? what you call that canada? extreme? sharron and -- just too extreme. >> i'm harry reid and i approve this message. >> house republican leader john painter called on president obama to fire his economic team during remarks tuesday at the city club in cleveland. he also called on the president to leave the expiring tax bush cuts in place and says uncertainty on among business owners about the new health care law is keeping them from hiring new workers. here's a portion. it is just under 10 minutes.

>> the president should announce that he will not carry out his plan to impose job killing tax hikes on families and small businesses. unless congress acts, virtually every american will see their taxes go on january 1. president obama stated he wants to stop some tax hikes and not others. once again putting government in the position of picking winners and losers pitting taxpayer against taxpayer. according to an analysis by the nonpartisan joint congressional -- joint tax committee, the official scorekeeper for all tax policy in our country, have a small business income in america would face higher taxes under the president's plan. of course, as if on cue, the

same washington politicians who spent the last months and borrowing and spending our economy into the ground are now wondering whether we can afford the cost of stopping these tax hikes. only in washington would be acceptable but that taxpayers should pay for the privilege of keeping more of their hard earned money. we will not solve our fiscal challenges until we cut spending and have real economic growth and we will not have real economic growth if we keep raising taxes on small businesses. one of obama's predecessors once said, and i will quote, and economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs. that president was john f. kennedy. let me be clear -- raising taxes on families and small businesses during a recession is a recipe for disaster.

for both our economy and for our deficits. period, and the story. that is why he should work with republicans to stop all of these job killing tax hikes and we should do it quickly. second, president obama should announce that he will veto any job killing bills sent to his desk by a lame duck congress, including cart check, national energy tax, and any other tax increases on families and small businesses. the house passed a energy tax bill which remain sitting in the united states senate. remember this -- this plan to raise energy prices in america will, as president obama said, raise our utility costs -- i think they will -- i think he said that they will skyrocket. the national energy tax will wipe out many of the manufacturers and family firms

here in ohio that are just barely hanging on. also pending is a card checke bill, for the public sector unions that provide money and foot soldiers for democratic campaigns around the country. it eliminates a worker's right to a secret ballot in union elections, if making it easier to organize while putting employers at a firm disadvantage. carjacked -- card check -- when i asked him about it, he accused me of scare tactics. others looked at me is that they did not know what i was talking about. the very next week, the president told a union crowd that he will open " keep on fighting for card check." they refuse to rule out the

possibility of forcing these bills in a lame-duck session after the voters have had their say. their failure to level with the american people only compounds the ongoing economic uncertainty that we see in our country. if president obama should announce that he would veto these job killing bills, and i pledge that republicans will work with him to sustain those vetoes. third, the president should call out -- called on democratic leaders in congress to stop obstructing republican attempts to repeal the new health-care 's job killing 1099 mandate. it triggers the creation of more than 160 boards, bureaucracy, programs, and commissions, and by the end of july, washington had already racked up nearly 3833 pages of regulations to

direct the law's implementation. one of the more controversial mandates year require small businesses to report and the total purchase that would run more than $600. if a landscaper wants to buy a new one more for a restaurant needs a new ice maker, they need to report that purchase to the federal government. if you are a mom-and-pop grocery store, and you buy from different vendors, if you have to file 15 different forms. what is the point of making employers and entrepreneurs spend $17 billion to comply with this law, to send paperwork to washington where it will cost another $10 billion to file it away? you want to talk about overhead -- the last time the republicans attempted to repeal that, democratic leaders blocked their vote and instead attempted to use this as an opportunity to impose another job killing tax

on u.s. job creators. president obama should call on the congress today to repeal this mandate without delay, and without strings attached. fourth, president obama should commit to congress for its immediate consideration an aggressive spending reduction package. when congress returns, which could force washington to cut non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. before the stimulus was put into place. this shows you washington is ready to get serious about bringing down the deficit that threatens our economy. for his part, president obama says that we should wait and talk about a deficit reduction plan next year. i say let's talk about it right now. all the stimulus spending has gotten us nowhere, but it comes from somewhere. we are now borrowing 41 cents of every dollar we spend from our kids and our grandkids. think about that, 41 cents of

every dollar the federal government spends this year, we passed the bill onto markets and our grandkids. this spring when power changed hands in britain, another country wracked by red ink, when treasury minister left a note for his successor. the note said, i am afraid to tell you there is no money left. i am not afraid to take you there is no money left. we are broke. in fact, our debt is on track to exceed the exact -- the entire size of our economy in the next few years. and the government had no plan in place for paying back its debt. if congress did not even write a budget this year. it just canceled it all together. without a budget, washington will try to get away with continuing to spend at current levels. i do not think that we can allow that to happen. economists have warned that this runs the risk of causing at damaging spike in interest rates which would cripple any kind of job creation in our country.

we cannot allow politicians in washington to continue trotting out the same scare tactics because they do not have the courage to say no to any union special interest with their hands out. this is the last gasp of the failing government clinging to the discredited believe that more spending, more taxes, and more borrowing and solve all our problems. republicans are ready to work with president obama to take his first step on the path of fiscal sanity. lastly, employers and small- business owners are brightly frustrated by the fact that no one in the white house, not the president, not a vice president, not his economic team -- no one is listening to them. part of the reason for this is that virtually no one in washington has run a small business or created jobs in the private sector. this lack of a real hands-on

experience shows in the policies coming out of this administration. the american people are asking, where of the jobs? and all the president's economic team has offered its promise of green shoots that never seem to grow. the wagons get circled and they continue to defend the indefensible. we have been told that the president's economic team is exhausted. already his budget director and chief economist have moved on or are about to. clearly they see the writing on the wall. and the president should, too. president obama should ask for and accept the resignations of the remaining members of his economic team, starting with secretary geithner and larry summers, the head of the national economic council. this is no substitute for a referendum on the president's job killing agenda. that question will be put before the american people in the time.

but we do not have the luxury of waiting months for the president to pick scapegoats for his failings. we have tried 19 months of government as a community organizer, and it has not work. our fresh start means to begin now. >> at the national press club friday, congressman chris van hollen said that the democrats would maintain their majority in the house in november elections, and the recent reports of the democrats demise were "exaggerated." the congressman talks about his party's overall agenda an election strategy and also responded to minority leader criticisms.'s this is about 25 minutes. >> it is great debate with all

of you. thanks for taking some time off. thank you, bob, and the national press club for the invitation. we're here to discuss the upcoming elections which are 67 days from today. 67 days from today, millions of americans going to the polls to vote in the 2010 midterm elections, an election which we all agree was shaped the national decisionmaking for years to come. congressional republicans inside the beltway are already talking -- popping champagne bottles, saying that they're going to seize control of the united states congress. it is an agreement for celebration. i can assure you that the summer washington political chatter, the reports of the democrats designs -- demise are greatly

exaggerated. i've been talking to people at home meeting their constituents, they're talking about issues that matter that are important people and make a difference in people's lives. it is very clear that the democrats will retain a majority in the house, come november, for three reasons. first and most importantly, america wants to continue to move lord and not turn back to the same economic policies that got us into an economic mess in the first place. while nobody is satisfied with the slow pace of growth, america is facing a very stark choice. do we continue down the path toward recovery and a more stabilized economy and efforts to support the business community in putting people back to work? or do we return to the economic policies that resulted in catastrophic job losses and

brought our economy to the brink of collapse, an agenda that benefited big money special interest at the expense of american taxpayers, american consumers, an american workers? second, to republican candidates that are emerging from primaries across the country are on the far right of the political spectrum. in many cases, being driven by fatigue party movement, in many cases being the nominee of the tea party movement. and they are not a good fit for what our moderate, centrist districts. they are the swing districts around the country, and your fine in the republican candidates way out of the mainstream. third, campaigns to matter. congressional democrats have been preparing for what we knew would be a tough cycle from the very beginning of last year.

unlike 1994 when a lot of democrats will come up the day after the election caught by surprise, no one will be surprised this time. people have been preparing an that preparation -- and the preparation will be successful at meeting the challenges that we face. so let me delve deeper into each of these three points. i will focus primarily on the choice that the american voters face. they will be going into the voting booths and they will have a choice between two and sometimes more canada's. there are many differences between 2010 and 1994. you hear republicans talking about 1994 which is when they picked up more than 50 seats. there are a lot of differences. one of the biggest differences is this -- in 1994, the american people saw a congressional

republican as a viable alternative. the polls today indicate that is simply not the choice. when asked whether they had more confidence in congressional democrats or congressional republicans to make the right decisions, the july 12 of the washington post/abc" polled gave democrats a six-point advantage. when asked if they approved on republicans and democrats handling their job, the ap poll gave the democrats as 7-point lead. in the nbc poll, by nine points, people had a positive feelings about democrats compared to republicans. do not get me wrong here. i am not suggesting that the american people are bullish on either party. what i am suggesting is that they consistently have greater

confidence in the democrats than republicans. none of this should be a surprise to many of us. what happened during the years of the bush administration is still pretty fresh in people's minds. and the american people know the facts. they live with them. the american people know that the day president bush left office, the economy was in total freefall, and we were losing jobs at the rate of 700,000 common. they know that over the eight- year span of the bush administration, we lost over 630,000 private-sector jobs net, from beginning to end -- lost jobs. they note that the press corps fiscal policies of the previous administration including the fund paid for war in iraq turned the record budget surpluses from the clinton administration into a record $1.3 trillion deficit

the day president obama was sworn into office. they note that the anything goes, let's party approach to washington -- wall street created a huge financial bubble that when it inevitably burst caused havoc on main street and cost millions of american workers their jobs. it was a go-go for wall street bonuses, but resulted in trillions of dollars of lost retirement savings for american consumers. they noted that bush-cheney energy policy allow big oil companies to run the show and shift billions of dollars overseas to feed our oil addiction when we should have been investing here in homegrown clean energy jobs, and they know that during the previous administration the cost of premiums for health insurance

doubled while health insurance profits quadrupled. they know all of those facts. you and those listening may ask, so why are we going over that history? that is all in the past. the answer is this -- if you looks -- you listen to the republican colleagues and their current economic plan, they are telling us very clearly that if given the opportunity, they would enact the same agenda going forward. one of their leader said on "meet the press," they would enact the same agenda going forward. others are saying publicly, no, no, no. we learned our lesson. and they proceed to articulate the same economic agenda, the same failed policies that drove the economy into the ditch. i think that many of you know that there are a lot of

republican operatives and strategist out there who were recommending to republican leaders not to say a thing about what they would do. keep their agenda secret. the operatives just wanted people to continue to grant against the democrats and what the democrats had been doing. i have to give the republican leader john boehner credit for spelling out what he and his republican colleagues would do if given the chance, because elections are about the future, and americans deserve to know the choices they have. what has mr. boehner and the republicans told the american people that would do if given a chance? kia said very clearly that republicans would seek to repeal wall street reform bill. a lot people know that a high price wall street lobbyists were

paid a lot of money to defeat that legislation, which is designed to make sure that never again are american taxpayers left holding the bag in paying the bill for bad decisions on wall street. mr. boehner devoted to rescue wall street quebec, but now was the republicans to repeal the new law that holds those banks accountable. in other words, returned -- go back to the anything goes policy that precipitated the final financial meltdown and the economic crisis. second, the other day in ohio, republican leaders said that he would reverse the remaining elements of the economic recovery plan. no one has suggested that the economic recovery plan is going to be some kind of miracle cure. americans understand you cannot dig yourself out of a very deep hole overnight. but the recovery bill has succeeded in stabilizing an economy that was heading toward depression, and we have not

experienced four quarters of economic growth and seventh consecutive month of positive private sector job growth. -- we have now experience four quarters of economic vii consecutive months of positive private-sector growth. in fact, if you follow some of our republican colleagues around the country, they continue to show up at ribbon cuttings and groundbreakings celebrations to take credit for projects and jobs that would never be there if they had their way, because every republican in the house voted against the recovery bill. are we satisfied with the pace of recovery? of course not. but when mr. boehner proposed the other day to reverse the

budding growth we're seeing and throw a lot of people out of work, it would cancel over 64,000 contracts and words that have already been made valued at $216 billion. to not take my word go to -- do not take my word for it. go to politfact.com. the republican leader has said that he wants more certainty coming out of washington, and certainly cancelling contracts is no way to send a message a certainty to the markets. not only with that plan jeopardize the fragile recovery under way, but it would undermine the foundation for a strong, long-term economic

growth. mr. boehner rightly said that we needed deficit reduction plan. he sadly wrong -- he said that this runs the risk of causing the damaging spike in interest rates that would cripple job creation. so how is it that in that very same speech, he proposes to do what would be a $680 billion blowout in --: the deficit over the next 10 years? that was send a terrible signal the united states is fiscally reckless, and we've not done our economic house in order. in the longer-term that debt will limit our economic growth. but apparently the republican leader and his colleagues are willing to risk our future economic growth in order to permanently extend that portion of the bush tax cut but does to the wealthiest 2% in our country.

the non-partisan tax policy center estimates the 96% of that $680 billion will go to the 923,000 households that make over $500,000 a year. and under that plan, next year households making over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $103,000. the notion that we need to permanently extend these deficits-busting tax cuts for the top 2% in order to grow the economy has been flatly disprove in by the record of the eight years of the bush administration. after all, they enacted the tax cuts for the folks at the top in 2001 and 2003, and at the end of that period, the economy had lost over 630,000 private-sector jobs. and yet here they are once again

proposing to redo in go back to the same old policy. they should not be allowed to hold tax relief for 98% of the american people hostage in order to provide a deficit-growing cut for the top 2%. instead of passing on net $680 billion bill to our children and grandchildren, we need to take steps to get our budget under control. that is why we passed it back toward pay go law. -- the statutory pay go law. that law during the clinton ministration help restrain the deficit. the bush administration and the congressional republicans, as soon as they came in, they repeal that law contributing to a huge spike in deficits and debt. unfortunately, when we voted to reenact that takeover provision , the republicans in the house voted against it. and the president signed it into

law. recently the house passed legislation, people came back in august to make sure that 150,000 teachers would be able to stay in the classrooms and at 150,000 police and firefighters could remain protecting our neighborhoods. because of the pay go law, it did not add one penny to the deficit. it was made by making cuts to programs and closing a perverse lippold actually rewards american corporations that ship jobs overseas. we should be exporting american goods, not american jobs. this is a defining issue this year. we support of patriotic, pro- jobs agenda that puts the interests of american workers first. as part of our "make it in america" agenda, we removed a terrible agenda from the tax law

that incentivize some corporations to move certain operations overseas. in his ohio speech, the republican leader that this issue totally wrong and it is important to set the record straight. very creative lawyers have found a way to have the american taxpayer, you, me, and the people who were watching, subsidize the taxes of certain corporations paid to foreign governments for profits generating by their overseas operations. this is unfair to american workers and to american taxpayers. mr. bonner and his republican colleagues voted against topping this abuse and chose instead to protect the on patriated overseas profits of certain corporations at the expense of american workers. there are other clear policy choices that voters will have in

the midterms. the republican point man is joe barton who famously apologize to bp when he said the $20 billion fund president obama amount -- insisted upon amounted to an unfair government shakedown. house leaders pretended to run on george -- rock ridge run from joe barton like he had measles. less well-known is that the chairman representing the 116 member house republican study group said the same thing. he accused the president of a chicago-style political shakedown for coming up with a fund to compensate the victims of the deepwater horizon spill. the policy is no different -- the bush-cheney policy to allow big oil to dictate our big --

our energy future. and most republicans voted against legislation to prevent a future oil spill. the point person on the budget is paul ryan. he should be credited by putting his policy proposals on the table. his so-called road map for america would partially privatize socialists -- social security and in medicare as we know it. in this election year, many republican members and candidates who had embraced those ideas are attending to run away from them. but just last year there was a vote on the medicare portion of that plan. and the republican leadership and republicans voted for the ryan budget plan to abolish medicare by cutting it by 75%, turning it into a voucher plan, and throwing seniors to the winds of the and control costs

of the private insurance market. that is what it says. with respect to the bush plan to partially privatize social security, mr. bonner was a strong backer of that plan. and it was a key element of the house republican study group when the republicans were lasting control of the congress, a planned that would steer billions and billions of dollars of american social security retirement savings to wall street. so those of the issues -- are the issues, those of the choices. and after the eight years of the bush administration policies, our economy was driven into the ditch. for the last 18 months, our republican colleagues have been carping and criticizing every effort we have made to get us out of the ditch. now in 2010, just as a fragile recovery is under way, they are

asking the american people to give them the keys to the car again. before they do that, the american people read their driving manual, and as we have been discussing, that manual tells us very clearly they want to reenact the same agenda that drove us into the ditch in the first place. it is an agenda that is unsafe at any speed, and americans are not going to go into a hard reverse. i can assure you that over the next nine months, you'll be hearing more and more from the president and our colleagues about the clear contrasts and the clear choice the american voters will face when they go into the booth. now want to quickly address the other components of why the democrats will retain a majority in the house. the republican candidates are out of sync with the mainstream in their districts. in arizona the other day, all

the national media attention was focused on the fact that senator john mccain defeated the tea party favorite candidate, j.d. hayworth, that he defeated him comfortably. though noted was the fact that the washington republicans highly touted candidate in arizona's eighth district, a state senator running, lost to the tea party candidate, a far- right candidate who believes in privatizing social security and takes a very hard-line right view. he were seen that same thing play out in other parts of the country. in other instances, if you're seeing republican candidates who are simply retreads. people who had their hands on the driving will along with the

bush administration, and were co-drivers of that economic policy. it will be very difficult for them to make the claim that they represent a new turning of the page. third, campaigns do matter. these will be close elections. many will be decided at the margins. we have been preparing for what we knew would be a tough midterm from the very beginning. when people were still basking in the glow of the victory of president obama and expanded majorities in the house, we were getting to work preparing for what clearly would be choppy political waters, given the fact that the last two cycles, democrats had picked up 55 seats in the swing districts in the country. we have a program designed to help our members in the toughest districts in terms of the resources for their campaign.

on the official side, they have been more active than any new class in history in passing legislation that directly benefits their communities. which focused not only on the front-line members but also on some of the senior members, the kind of members who in 1994 got caught by surprise, making sure it that they took nothing for granted and they have not. we have a strong financial advantage at the dccc. we have operations that are not last the minute. last minute but had been in place for months, talking to voters in the swing districts of about these issues. we also made a very clear decision early on to stay on offense wherever possible. clearly after picking up 55 seats over the last two

elections, we had to work hard in defending those members, but wherever possible, we have stayed on offense. and there are a good number of what we call red-to-blue candidates and we're confident we will pick up but the number of those. let me just and by saying that just as republicans are currently prematurely popping that can produce champagne bottles about november 2, they did the second thing in three special legend that we've seen over the last two years. new york 20, new york 23, and others. in new york 23, we saw that the local choice of the republican party was run out by a tea party

candidate. you had sarah palin and that the party movement come in and essentially drive the republican candidate at of the race. bill owens run that race, a district that had been held by republicans since the civil war. even after the polls closed, republicans were telling people that their candidate was going to win. what happened was that the democratic candidate focused on the issues, focused on the economy, and on the fact that his opponent had supported and benefited from some of the special tax breaks that would reward corporation that would ship jobs overseas and puppets on bread-and-butter issues, combined with a great field campaign an operation that got out of us. what republicans did not think democrats would come out to vote, they did in big numbers. for the three reasons we have

talked about today -- the fact that this election presents a clear choice about moving forward and returning to the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with, the fact that you have republican candidates who are way out of the mainstream in what are centrist, means freeing districts, and the fact that we have been preparing from day one " we knew would be a very tough campaign season -- i am confident that the democrats will retain control of the house, which will allow us to continue to move this country continue to move this country for rather