first president, on c-span q&a. >> thanks very much for being with us. let me begin by asking you about the budget deficit. two-thirds of

but it is a great starting point. you do have to get into the budget. clearly, social security, medicare, and medicaid have got to be reformed, and i think that republicans realize that. i hope democrats do, as well, and i think it will take bipartisan leadership, but the first thing we have got to do is get the economy going again. -- ifhough people talk you look at the cbo numbers, harmful for the deficit in the long run if we do not start growing the economy, that will make the deficit situation even worse, so you have got to get the economy going again, and you cannot do that by raising taxes on businesses. >> major garrett. >> do you wait for the debt reduction commission?

there are many people, myself included, who feel that they will not do that. you said before, well, we will wait for others to put the specifics on the table, and then we can have a debate. who really starts that? if you guys do not started with the minority party, who is going to start the debate, and once you do start it, on what kind of specifics? >> u.l. all seen a very prescriptive remedy wrote for this that has a lot of specifics in it. i have looked at it. i think there are things that need to be on the table. -- we all have seen a very prescriptive remedy for this. at least he has got something that is very specific in regard to medicare and social security. i think republicans recognize that this is something that we cannot do alone, and we are in the minority right now. we hold out hope that there will be some recommendations that

come from that that perhaps can be acted on in a bipartisan way. my fear is the definition is going to come back, and deficits are viewed two different ways. liberals looked at it and say that they do not have enough revenue in increase taxes. this is kind of the standoff that we have been at. we cannot deal with these deficits without figuring where you're going to find out where these are to achieve long-term savings in the budget. you cannot even talk revenues until you do that. this ends up being a standoff, or there will be things that come up about the weekend pick and choose. in terms of entitlement reform. republicans are ready to be partners in that. if we get the majority but, obviously, we will have to do it. >> you have mentioned that you

have to grow the economy and create jobs. there is the cost, extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. the cbo has also said if you look at the stimulus to the effect of the things that you can do with $700 billion, a tax cut is one of the ones you can do. there of the things you can do. why do you think that is the best way to increase the economic cost? >> there are different views, and there are ideological perspectives and points of view. i believe you cannot in an economic downturn like we are in right now raise taxes on the job creators, which are small businesses, and you have seen some come forward to allow these tax cuts to expire, basically raising taxes on small businesses, i think they're right now the major issue is the economy in getting expanding and

growing again. the second behind that is, of course, cutting spending, and the best way to do that is to keep taxes low. i think the worst thing you can do right now, major, is the to the where small businesses are concerned, and half of all small business income is taxed at one of those marginal rates, is to raise those and make it more difficult for small businesses who are already struggling to invest and create jobs cut so i guess we can argue about $700 billion relative to the $3.50 trillion or $4 trillion that extending tax relief will do, if you do it for everyone, but i think the worst thing you can do in terms of that $700 billion is put that tax on small businesses, who are going to rely on the jobs. an idea that you could spend money and stimulate the economy in other ways, we have done that. we have spent $1 trillion. we do not have a lot to show for

it. arguably, it was not spent in the right way, but we tried the spending side of it. we need to make sure that we are not raising taxes on small businesses. >> from "the new york times" -- >> and a pledge to america that has a set of variables, not as many specifics as some people were hoping inside your own party, but let me ask you more specific principles on spending, and why should they believe that suddenly now republicans will rein in the spending? without the specifics in the pledge to america, what do you need to persuade voters? >> i think that the pledge was focused on three things, job creation and economy and government reform, and there were some of the things in there, as well. those who criticize it as being not specific enough, and there are those who criticize it for being too specific, but there are the terms that we would use

for governance if the people choose to put us back in control of either house or the senate and hopefully both. i think in times of specifics, a resolution to just reduced by 5% the amount of spending in the continuing resolution, and as i mentioned earlier, you have a discretionary spending increased by over 20%. i did get eight democrats to vote for it, but it only was in the senate, which suggests that there was only an appetite for doing something that would be fairly minor, a 5% across-the- board cut. if he puts the seven programs, i think that will be a huge budget buster. i think you can freeze federal hiring. there are specific areas that you could target. there is an across-the-board approach which most people advocate.

it requires agency heads to make those decisions, but we have got to do something on the discretionary side, for sure period we cannot continue to grow at four times, six times the rate of this, and then come as i said, the real money is in entitlements, and the blueprint or the pledge to america and the house does not have the specifics with regard to how they're going to reform entitlements, but that would create a great target for democrats to shoot at, and i think right now, we realize that this election really is about their governments, the economy, and the federal tax dollars, and we realize that if given control back, we will have to put the of the plan to deal with entitlements. i think that part of the pledge was to increase demonstrate to the american people that these are the things it, these are the general principles in some cases with some specifics, and

there are some things on job creation, extending bonus depreciation, those sorts of things, but for the most part, the general principles that if we are put in charge, we will put to work. now, whether or not that attracts people to as remains to be seen. the selection, i think, largely is about the democrats, and the last two years of and about democrats, and i think that is what people are reacting to. we also have to lay out an agenda. this is a first step in that direction. obviously, a lot of specifics have to follow. >> the president talks about running the economy into the ditch and trying to pull it out. >> i do not disagree that republicans into the to where we are today. one reason i think we got fired when we were in control is

because our supporters believed that we have lost our way, so there is plenty of blame to go around, but you cannot divorce yourself from what has happened in the last 18 months, and in the last 18 months, we borrowed $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren which as done nothing to create jobs in the private sector. it has added 1/4 of a million jobs here in washington, d.c., and there is this massive health-care bill, which is imposing lots of new taxes and mandates on small business. there is a lot of uncertainty about what comes next. there was a cap and trade bill that imposes a big tax on businesses in this country. there is not a thing i can point to that has been accomplished in the last 18 months that actually creates jobs. in many cases, it destroys jobs. we are arguing that this is the wrong direction. while the president can blame the previous administration, if he wants to go way back to 2006, a previous congresses, there is

a very clear record now of their governments, and i think they have to be accountable for that to the american people -- a very clear record now of their ance.nmen >> are you comfortable with that kind of confrontation within the way the senate has traditionally and historically operated? >> i think a prerogative that any senator has in the senate, because the rules are that one senator can shut the place down, and they always say that there are two roles in the senate, unanimous consent and exhaustion. you wear somebody down. i guess many of our colleagues have different tactics. the use their prerogatives as senators in different ways. in the and, if the democrats want to get their votes on this piece of legislation, they can have cloture and stop one person

from shutting the senate down. i am not going to pass judgment on any of my colleagues with regard to the tactics they have employed to achieve the objectives that they want to achieve, but in order for the senate to function effectively, you have to add some point have the necessary votes, get the 60 votes to get things done. the one thing i will say, with regard to, i mean, i am not going to defend all of the tactics my side employees, but if you look at the tactics the other side has employed, harry reid, the majority leader in the senate, has filled the amendment to treat more times than the last six majority leaders combined. no, you know this, and i think everybody knows this. >> and open debate on alternative points of view. >> which has traditionally been in the senate, a free-flowing process, and filling the tree 40

times is extraordinary. i think it is a reflection of some of the acrimony that exists in the modern senate, i also think it reflects things that are at issue, as well. >> if republicans would have to win a majority in the senate this year, do you believe there should be an open and, you know, free election for majority leader, if you will, where do you support, as senator mitch mcconnell from kentucky, do you believe that he should have the role to lead the party? >> i support senator mcconnell, and i think he will have broad support both from members who are going to be here, who are currently here, incumbents, and that a lot of new members coming in. i think people recognize he has been a very effective leader for

republicans in the senate, and in a time when you are as deep as we are historically, 742 seats up, with massachusetts now, 41, i think it is masterful in the way that we of been able to fight the good fight on health care and a number of other issues, where, clearly, we are outnumbered, and the democrats come if they want to, they can run the tables. allowing these major issues. >> are there any risks for the party? this confrontation, if you will come between senator demand and senator mcconnell, and what do you believe is the new make-up in terms of governing -- between senator demint and senator mcconnell? >> there were the rand campaigns that were about a very distinct agenda, and i think it coincides with what many of us who were there want to see done.

these are people who got motivated because of the concern about how the vast government has grown, how big the government has gotten. if you think about it, he of releasing the most massive expansion of government in the last 80 months, since the 1960's, and i think that is what is animated a lot of this grass roots movement around the country, -- >> is it good for the long term of the party? >> having the political wherewithal to solve these problems, and mean, right now, republicans are going to have to lead with a lot of courage and boldness in order to take hold of these big issues, and i think what you're seeing is that movement out there is generating the kind of movement that i think will be very useful to the incentive. they're going to be a lot of new faces and probably some very strongly held views, and we will see how that works. it is a diverse country.

it is a great country. many of the candidates that are running on both sides this year are maybe people who do not have long resumes or worked in government. they will come with different backgrounds and experiences. >> i have campaigned for a lot of them around the country, major, and these are people who really are concerned about the direction of the country and really motivated to do something about it, and many of them want to get here, and what to do the right thing. >> three questions, including do

you have the fire in the belly? >> i am a ready to fully debate that issue, but in terms of the presidential landscape and what happens in 2012, and i think it will be shifted to some degree by what happened in 2010. i think there will be an opening there. they are looking for new reaganesque right of center leadership, who can inspire people to change the direction of this country, and i think if somebody were going to get into that field, clearly by sometime early next year, you have to do that. i do not know if i answered all of your questions. for me, i see this and always have as a way of responsibility, and i think doing this in public

life is a great colleague. if you can make a difference, then i think you ought to be in the arena, and if i were to decide to do that, i would do it all out. >> is the ultimate goal of the republican party to concentrate on president obama and made him a one-term president, if you will? what kind of candidate is the best person to do that? is it a former governor, like mitt romney, who has a health- care plan, who they will pick apart? another voted for a controversial aspect of voting out some part of the government. is it sarah palin, who is a bit of a lightning rod? who is the best type of candidate to put forward, and what about that decision? >> nobody knows the answer to really who is the best candidates. i think there are strengths and weaknesses. it is all going to come down to some things we do not control,

but getting a candidate out there i think has a right of center philosophy in an articulate and clear way and he talks about what is wrong with the direction the country is headed in today, and basically a vision for where we ought to be going that presents contrast with where we are headed today, it is a kit that can win. i think president obama is a very good politician, but the agenda he has for the country is just wrong, and i think we have a lot of people who can catch fire out there, and we are all going to have folks out there that we have to defend it, and it strikes me at least that we have a number of very strong candidates, and i am not sure at this point what the field will look like. >> speaking of defending, and defend tarp. do you think that was the right thing at the time?

do you defend that vote, and you believe overtime we will see not just by you by others, something that looks better? >> i hope the money gets paid back and that the taxpayers get a return on it. we have seen some of that money come back in. i think we heard scored -- hopefully, the number will go down over time. somebody gets paid back. i have probably been one of the fiercest critics and probably biggest advocates of and in part, since it was enacted, because on how it was used, and most of us believed it was going to be used to take toxic assets off of the balance sheet. when they started getting into taking equity positions in a lot of these companies, this is not

a good precedent, so it was wrong philosophically. that would be great if we did. >> the obama administration? >> both administrations. the folks in engineer did under president bush made certain pronouncements about how it was going to be moved. it has changed into something that is very different than what it was when many of us supported in the first place. >> do you regret it? >> well, you can always whistle -- ask yourself if you had known that then, would you have done something differently, and as i said, i have had great misgivings about how it was used, credit markets frozen up,

both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, and a very compelling argument at the time, and there was a lot of fear that if we did not take steps, it could have been disastrous for the country, and so in light of imminent financial meltdown, it was the right vote to make. >> let's go back to the presidential bid, because if he were to ask yourself personal questions before you decide to run, what would it be? >> i think first and foremost come anytime you get into a race like that, you have to ask yourself if you really want to do this, because the rigors are very, very hard. this is not going to be an easy time to govern.

so i think you need to ask the fundamental question and make sure that your family is on board. i have seen too many people get into politics, and they end up wrecking their families because they had not bought into that enterprise, and then you have to get into practical considerations. those are very real questions that you have to try to answer. do you see a pathway with the actor breeds you bring to get there? beazer of things, questions i think you have to us. >> after november 3, whatever the numbers are, it republican party with a tea party component or a tea party with a republican component? >> i think it will be a republican party. i do not think that tea party wants to be adopted.

like i said earlier, i'd in the energy that they bring it is very useful, -- i will say this. if we do not follow through, i think there'll be a third party in this country, because what people are saying, republicans did not get this right. they do not like with the democrats are doing, because this is massive government. we're going to give you a chance, -- >> in 2012? >> conceivably. piss assumes republicans get control of the house or senate. >> if they do not >> i think it

is a close call it this point. i took people the nine scandinavian by nature, so i tend to be more pessimistic. life is supposed to be hard, and things should not come easily, and things like that. i do think you can get expectations really high, and i hope that those expectations can be met. democrats are going to be fighting hard. they are going to be back in their districts and fighting hard, trying to get their voters out, so i hope they can. i think this is a longer shot, for sure, in the senate. >> is it possible for them to over read that mandate? for them to assume the present, is more vulnerable to winning the election? -- to assume that president obama is more vulnerable? >> i think if republicans were

to get majorities back, but succumbing in the house, maybe not as likely in the senate, earthy expectations are going to be-republicans when it comes to governing, and i think that what people are going to have to understand is as long as you have a president in the white house and can veto anything you try to get through the white up -- the senate -- you try to get through, and a senate that can stop everything, you're going to have a lot of tension in governance for the next couple of years. how that works, i am not sure. conventional wisdom would suggest, i suppose, or they can leverage against begins in congress and try to enhance his re-election prospects, but i would hope that the president would be willing to come and work with republicans in a constructive way, and that is a model that he could have chosen to employ. but i think that would enhance his re-election prospects.

>> thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> we continue this conversation with major garrett and someone from "the new york times." >> i think we have learned that senator thune has done quite a lot of thinking about 2012. he is on the ballot in south dakota, but there is not a democrat running against him. i think further along in that than i did previously assumed. >> this is the first time that he is a candidate that is running unopposed. that has never happened before. that gives them a tremendous amount of bandwidth, not only intellectually but politically. what is he doing? meeting people who might come to washington as possible. i am thinking about it. i am looking at all of the

various factors, and you know he is very far along. he does not support jim demin' style inontational the senate. john thune says he expects to be reelected. i find both of those things to be very significant. >> what about in terms of governing? >> i think he tried to tiptoe that mine fairly well. there is one question. this is a top-down party-run

process. i think he had a smile on his face when the tea party came out. it may have been better, perhaps, if he had had but a primary race. he has been watching this from the sidelines. he has not been deeply engaged in it. that has to be a worry for them. there is no question that in his mind, he thinks i can do it. >> and clearly understands the power and importance of a grass- roots political energy, which he extols. that energy is great, a great question. do you try to channel that, or do you just try to create some detente with it? you have your agenda, i have my agenda. agenda.