councils to do what my local council has done and find savings in bureaucracy to ensure that they are putting money into citizens of a device bureaus. as regards your point about fines for people who miss claim benefits, i am afraid that i think that it is right. far too much in our system is lost from fraud and air and i do not think that taxpayers' go to work, and work hard, in order to fund benefits to which people are not entitled. >> may i urge my right hon. friend to display extreme caution in the supply of arms to the so-called rebels in libya? the legal position is no means clear, as his previous answer to the leader of the opposition made eloquently obvious. in addition, the political consequences of doing so, particularly among the nearly 40 countries that were represented at the successful conference in london yesterday, are very difficult to predict.

>> what right honorable and learned friend is right to be cautious and skeptical and i think we should consider this decision with huge care. although the legal position is clear, there are some strong arguments like this to which we would have listened. yesterday, however, i met mr. jabril of the interim transitional national council and i was reassured to see that those people who are forming an alternative government in benghazi wanted to be entering an transitional. they are democrats, they're not travel, and they want to see a future for the whole of libya where the people have a choice in how they are governed. i was encouraged by what i heard. >> last week, i have the privilege of meeting a group of 25 women studying english for speakers of other languages courses in lewisham.

they and i share the prime minister's desire that every migrant in the u.k. should speak the language of their new home. given the prime minister's belief that the practical things can make a big difference to community cohesion, will he commit today to putting a stop to this government's short- sighted cuts two english- language courses? >> we will have to take some difficult decisions over students -- student numbers, and the priority should be to ensure that our universities can go on attracting the best and brightest from around the world. i will come on to the hon. lady's point. status why we have said that there should be a custody work groups. however, it does mean that we should be tough, particularly on those colleges that are not highly regarded. the fact is that over the last year, about 90,000 students were coming to colleges that did not have proper regard at all. >> the multinational is applying the build an incinerator -- is

applying to build an incinerator the size of a football pitch some 500 meters from the small market town of middle which in my constituency. there is no need for this provision. it will involve importing waste and it has been unanimously rejected by the local planning committee. does the prime minister agree that the concerns of local people over the negative impact that it will have on their town should be afforded paramount importance when the proposal is considered on appeal? >> i agree with my hon. friend that local considerations should be taken into account. that is one reason why we have made the changes to the infrastructure planning commission. it is important that local communities have their way, and she was -- she has put the case extremists -- extremely strongly. >> the prime minister's questions returns wednesday, april 27. live on c-span 2 at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and at c-span.org, you can find

past archives of the protestors questions and links to the house of commons and prime ministers websites. >> next, former massachusetts gov. mitt romney in las vegas and kentucky senator rand paul in iowa. >> a discussion of u.s. policy in the middle east will be part of the anti-defamation league conference tomorrow. dennis roth and martin indyk. live coverage begins at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> follows the span on twitter. it is the fastest way to get programming and schedule updates. you can also join in the conversation and tweet questions to our "washington journal" guests.

get started at twittered.com/c- span. >> former massachusetts governor and the 2008 republican presidential candidate mitt romney. in the area for a policy, he criticizes the obama administration handling of iran, russia, and the palestinian, israeli peace negotiation. from las vegas, this is about 50 minutes. >> i want to say thank you to you for hosting this event. thank you to the chairman for

his leadership and matt parks for his extraordinary leadership as well. thank you for opening up their home. what an extraordinary contribution this couple has made. thank you so much. and thank you to the rtc for the work you're doing. you guys made it happen. and we republicans are flying high because nancy pelosi is flying coach. this is very good news. there are a number of people in this room who have been extraordinarily helpful to me during my eighth campaign for president last time around.

sam is one of those. i see a whole series. there were many people who were a part of that team. i'm sorry i did not get the job done. i wanted to become the nominee. of course, if i had become the nominee, i would have become the one who lost to barack obama. when the economy got in real trouble, it was hard for republicans. but, boy, we have come back in a massive way thank you to your leadership and your effort. now i also saw a number of you at the tribute a week ago in washington, d.c. at the county center for dirt herbert walker bush and his contribution to volunteerism to the points of light foundation. if you watched it, you saw there were a number of country performers. i like country music. i am not -- i am not an extraordinary fan, but i do have some favorite. i hummed a song during that

event that i think was kenny rogers, "you pick a fine time to leave me, lucille." [laughter] the refrain is you pay a fine time to leave me lucille was 400 children and a crop in the field. and i say that because, given all that has been happening in the world, the tumult in the world, given the fact that our economy is collapsing, we take a fine time to choose a president who has no experience in the private-sector, no experience in negotiation, and of spirit in leadership, and the consequence of seeing some real dirt on the job in the presidency has not been a pretty sight. [applause] that has been true in foreign policy and domestic policy. since president truman, we have had a very consistent foreign policy.

he said, look, we have to rethink american foreign policy. dean acheson, in his book, described what was a newfound vision for america's foreign policy. three of the elements were the following. number one, we would be involved in the world. we would not be isolationist. we were founded by being isolationist to a certain degree that we have been drawn into the conflicts of the world at great loss. secondly, we would promote our values. we would promote freedom and opportunity, free enterprise and free trade and human rights. we would promote those things we believe in because we found -- [laughter] we have found that those nations that adopted those principles tended to be more peaceful. finally, we would be strong. we would knowledge that there are good guys and bad guys, that we would understand that there was evil in the world, that some people had their intention to

press others. so we recognize that. we would be strong and we would link our arms with our friends around the world as allies because, together, we could be stronger than any one nation can be alone. that has been the foundation of america's foreign policy for a long time. when the president came into office, the question was would he get you to that for a policy that had been in place since the 1940's? and the first test, interestingly, the comes to my mind was in honduras where the supreme court there said that the pro-marxist, pro-chavez anti-american president had been in violation of the constitution. and president obama insisted that he be put back in office. think what that message was around the world. with colombia in south america be one of our closest allies, he gives a strainer into the trade

relations that columbia is seeking. then you have what happened with the dissident voices taken to the streets in iran. instead of cheering these voices that are seeking freedom and changes there, he had nothing to say. so the world recognize that, instead of promoting these values in an aggressive and dynamic way, he was good to be silent at least in some circumstances. then it went on to a question of the extent of our solidarity with our allies. would we linked arms with our allies and beat them up in private if disagreed? that was evidenced in his inaugural address of the united maidstone's where he chastised our best nation -- address at the united nations where he chastised our best ally in the middle east, israel. of course, then he won the nobel peace prize as far this whole process.

[laughter] i think that was impart of an assessment that he would engage to iran and north korea. how has that worked out? a north korean ship launched long-range missiles ending nuclear tests. of course, iran continues to arm hezbollah and presumably the taliban as well and the many insurgents. it has not worked out terribly well. it seems to me that he is following an unusual belief that we all have common interests. there's probably a sense where that makes a certain degree of logic. but not all leaders in the world have common interests. not all the people in the world have common interests. in fact, some people want to address of the people and exploit other people and kill

the people. we're not like them and we don't have common interests with them. we have common interests with people who seek and love freedom. [applause] one of the more distressing parts of foreign policy is wanting to reset relations with russia. russia has been for some time larger political adversary. they're not an enemy, but, when there is a matter of geopolitical significance, they set up on the other side and tried to pull people with them. they have had an objective for long time, the removal of our missile defense system in eastern europe. this president decided to give them that. he can explain why he wanted to do, but if he had been an experienced negotiator, even if you want to give the person across the table exactly what

they want, you do not tell them that up front. [laughter] instead, you think about what you want and you get something in return. exactly thhe give them what they wanted, their number one goal. and what did he get in return? what could he have gotten? he could have gone a commitment on their part to say that we will not veto crippling sanctions against iran for their nuclear program. that is what he should have done. [applause] and of course, now we have the tumult in the middle east. it is hard to read were that will go. that could either be one of the most positive developments in the history or in the last 50 years with nations embracing modernity are coming to grips with modernity and seeking more representative forms of government or it could be one of the worst things that has happened in the last 50 years

with nations turning to radical violence and islamic jihad is ism. i was distressed by hearing a secretary of state characterize mr. a sidassad as a reformer. america must turn our resources to help move these nations toward modernity and provide for greater stability and ultimate peace in that part of the world and in the entire world. i would tell you that i think that the president's inexperience in negotiations contributed to less than positive developments on the israeli-palestinian negotiation process. the president came up and was critical of israel in part because he wanted to show the arab world that he was impartial, that he was a neutral party.

that is not restart. you want the people around the table to know who you are going to stand by. they are your friend, your ally. instead, he said, "i am going to be critical of israel. i am going to be tougher on settlements than the palestinians are." he had the predictable but unintended consequence of convincing the palestinians that they would get a better deal than it by negotiating with israelis, americans standing by on the sideline of the un. perhaps the palestinians were less anxious to negotiate, particularly with prime minister netanyahu. at the same time, you think what was the impact on the mind of the israelis as they were negotiating. we have had some bad experience.

when we pulled out of southern lebanon, iran quickly moved in and now rockets have been fired. rockets are being fired from gaza. if we pull out of the west bank, which just happens to nearly surround on three sides jerusalem and is within a stone's throw and the rockets launched from televisa, the recognize this could be very dangerous, existential in fact, to hand over the west bank. the only way we would consider something of that information is if we knew america was with us. if iran became active in a military way, america would always stand with israel. because of the lack of confidence in our commitment, even the israelis would have pulled back from the negotiating table. the consequence of not understanding negotiations has

been difficult. this president in part has said, "i am so anxious to retreat from the policies of the prior administration that he did not realize he was also retreating from the policies of truman, kennedy, eisenhower, nixon, and reagan. this nation needs those policies and our commitment to freedom and our allies. i think most americans recognize that the president of missteps on domestic policy have been just as consequential. i recognize as you do that when he came into office he did not create the financial crisis. it was already under way and things were getting worse. how many of you have been in business? more than all the people in the

room have been in business, right? he came into a setting where u.s. business people recognize that if you have an enterprise in trouble, if you have a business that is falling apart, there are three rules for turnaround -- focus, focus, and focus. find out what is critical and focus on it. what was critical as he came into office was the economy. what he did was delegate it to nancy pelosi and harry reid. they put together a $787 billion borrowing and spending program. instead of creating his -- create incentives for the private sector, they sent money to protect state workers. now the states are having to pay the piper as they kick it out. instead of promoting the private sector, he protected the governmental sector. as a result, that stimulus was a

lot of money borrowed and a lot of money spent with little return. he focused on what he really cared about, his own liberal agenda. we are going to have cap and trade. we are going to disparage it gas, coal, nuclear. we're going to pursue a policy of making energy costs much higher. we are going to push the idea that we will unionize every business in america, whether or not employees want it. then there was a federal government takeover of the responsibility for care of the poor. the list goes on of his agenda. there was dodd-frank, which regulated the financial industry. there was the concept of massive deficits as far as the eye can see. in the business world, we can deal with bad news. those of you who have been in business know that if the government does something bad you can do with it. the one thing you cannot deal

with is uncertainty. if you do not know what is quick to happen, you cannot take action. cap and trade, to energy- intensive industries, they did not know what their costs were going to be, so they pulled back. people did not know what the cost of labor was going to become less of a pullback. if you are in the one-fifth of the economy that is health care, you did not know what the future was good to be. you pulled back at the very time we wanted entrepreneurs to be stepping forward and growing. they became uncertain and pulled back. as a result, this president has caused the deepening and the lengthening of this recession, this downturn. yesterday, i was here in las vegas and went by the home of david and kathy tyler. they live in north las vegas. their home is in a neighborhood with a high level of foreclosures. we walked around to look at the foreclosures.

it breaks your heart. unemployment is not a statistic. unemployment is real pain and sorrow in the lives of a lot of people. and not just people that are unemployed. i was at tyler's home, and you see empty homes in their community. the yard is a mess. the garage door is out of camp. it is clear people are sleeping in the abandoned house. unemployment hurts the entire community, even those that are employed. i was astonished by the fact that at a time when nevada was in trouble and nevada's unemployment rate was going up -- nevada has had the highest unemployment for 10 straight months at over 13 months. this president disparaged las vegas and about the time and time again. businesses were afraid to come here for company meetings because they were afraid they might get singled out. contrast that with guiliani when you're got in trouble.

he said we need your help. the president is going to be here in a couple of weeks. let us hope he does a rudy guiliani at -- and invites america to spend here. i saw this was a room full of business people. i do not think the president likes to a lot. [laughter] i say that a bit tongue in cheek. when he put his cabinet together, he did not select a lot of business people, if any. i think he sees business as a necessary evil, and maybe not necessary. i like what you do. i recognize that every good job we are going to create with high incomes and permanence is going to come from the private sector. i love entrepreneurs and innovators. it makes our economy the most robust in the world. i wonder how the president can be so misguided. i think it comes from a perception that europe got it

right and we got it wrong. the europeans, when things got in trouble, decided to borrow more money and spend more money. like europeans, he is disparaging fossil fuels and is anxious to put in place a cap and trade system. he wants to see unions, even where the employees do not want them. he is going to pull deficits as far as the eye can see. i believe in america. i believe we got it right. i believe the american experiment worked. i believe what is happening in europe is not working there and would not work here. [applause] i believe in free enterprise. i believe in capitalism. my goodness, i believe in freedom and opportunity. when the founders came together, they not only made a choice to allow us as citizens to choose our elected

representatives, but they also allowed us to choose the life we would live. this became the land of opportunity on the entire planet. every pioneer, every innovator, every person seeking freedom wanted to come here. that is what made america what america is. i love the opportunity and the freedom that is america. washington is trying to smuggle them with regulation, taxes, and greater reaches of the federal government. they are wrong. i believe in america. we stand by our allies. i believe in a strong military and strong commitment to the principles. [applause] i just want to close with a couple of thoughts and then turn to your questions. i think we are at a very unique point of time in american history. i think there is a recognition

on the part of the american people that something is really, really wrong with our government. i say that because for years, even when my dad ran for office back in 1962, we used to talk about deficits and too much spending. that was the message that struck home with our base, but it was not something independence or democrats warmed to. i have seen polls over the decades of the biggest issues americans are concerned about. our national debt rarely makes it to the top five. that is different today. massive spending and excessive debt in this country is either number one or number two. that means the american people are focusing on something that has to be dealt with. when the washington post a few weeks ago criticizes president obama for not proposing any reforms to social security, you know something is happening in america. this is a paper whose editorial board is pretty darn liberal.

they're saying something has to change. my experience in this country is that when our people hear the truth and are called upon to take bold action, americans will rise to the occasion. we are a very patriotic people. i have had that brought home to me so many times. it is extraordinary. when i was helping when the olympic games in salt lake city a number of years ago, i noticed our athletes, when they were on the podium and the national anthem was played, our athletes put their hand over their heart. i did not see any other nation do that. i asked whether this was true. i do not know the exact duration of that. i was told this practice began during the years of franklin delano roosevelt, in recognition of the blood shed by the heroes who were fighting for our liberty. we would place our hands over our hearts. we are a patriotic people.

as i place my hand over my heart as the national anthem is played, i think about the blood sacrifice by our sons and daughters, by noble families in the past and today. the american people rise to the occasion. as long as they are told the truth and are given a pathway -- and we in this room have every opportunity to share the truth of people, to explain to them that we believe in america, that we got it right, that free enterprise, freedom, opportunity, strength, standing with our friends -- that american values are right and true and the only way to preserve peace on the earth and keep the american dream alive is for us to come together and communicate that to our friends. i know there are some who would apologize for america. i find that a strange thing. because our free enterprise system, now being picked up by

places like china, india, and parts of africa, has helped lift the billions of people out of poverty. nothing else like it in the history of the earth, like what we have championed and pioneered, lifting people out of poverty. and the blood of our sons and daughters have shared for liberty around the world. this is a great nation with a great purpose. let us work together so we can remain as we have always been, the hope of the earth. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you. thanks, scott. thank you. [applause] i see a hand up already.

>> would you mind introducing -- >> let me tell you a bit about this young lady. i recognized almost everybody in the audience who was important, except for my dear wife and. -- wife anne. [applause] she is quite a champion. she was diagnosed in 1998 with multiple sclerosis and has gone to work to overcome that and be able to be fully physically able to do whatever is required in her life. a couple of years ago, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. she is a fighter. she is a hero. mother of our five sons. [applause]

>> my heart really warms to recognize some many people in this audience that love and have been good friends of ours, and also to recognize what a wonderful thing is to belong and to feel as though your identity, you're jewish identity, is something you work for and love and cherish. we can appreciate that, having come from another religious heritage, because that gives you such a grounding and such a sense of peace, and such a sense of family and dedication that we pass on from generation to generation. i honor that as well, and appreciate that. if i was sitting in the audience -- i have heard mitt speak a few times, as you might imagine. how can i still be moved by things he says? that is quite amazing. but i really was moved by his

thoughts about freedom and about this country. i have a prediction that if he does decide to go for it, he will be an absolutely extraordinary president of this country. [applause] >> i should let matt brooks to the calling of questions here. here comes the microphone, whether you like it or not. >> i appreciated all your comments. i think we all can agree on just about everything you said. i just wanted to ask you one question, and i apologize for this, but i am a urologist. i am a physician. it is relating to health care. we studied the affordable health care bill, and it has many, many problems.

most people would agree that it would be best to eliminate it and un-fund it. i just wanted you to contrast that, please, to massachusetts, and the health care system that developed in massachusetts when you were governor. how would you make sure that whatever happens to reform health care would be different than massachusetts? >> good question. that is the first time i have been asked the question, so i appreciate the chance to address it. [laughter] first of all, you all have universal health care, socialized medicine, in your state. i say that a bit facetiously. if somebody in your state who does not have insurance has a terrible automobile accident or a heart attack, as you know, we do not let them die on the street.

they go to the hospital and are treated. guess who pays for them? you, government. you all are paying for it. we found that was happening in our state. we found a number of people who even know their employers offer them health insurance, said they were going to turn it down. we would ask them why are you turning down coverage when you are only paying 25% of premiums. they said because they could get health care free by showing up at the emergency room. we said the free rider problem was a real concern and we would insist on personal responsibility. we say that people who have the ability to pay should pay for themselves. that concept led to us coming up with an experiment, if you will. that experiment has not worked perfectly. some things worked well, some things did not. but it is consistent with a constitutional approach. we allow states to preserve powers not specifically granted to the federal government. we took on a state problem,

republicans and democrats working together. we came up with something and tried it. i would never impose something we did for our state on all the other states. i would never usurped the power of states and replace it with an overreaching federal government hand. that is the wrong way. if i were lucky enough to be president, i would grant a waiver to all 50 states from obamacare, and then would work to get it repealed. [applause] i could go on, but i am told to stop when they applaud. >> thank you very much for coming. >> thank you. >> recently, and donald trump has begun a very brassie attack against president obama. when you were governor of massachusetts, i was one of your citizens. >> thank you. >> when you ran against shannon

o'brien, you ran what i would call a gentlemanly campaign, as we saw in our recent governor race, which was also gentlemanly, and that republican lost. if you have the opportunity to be the candidate, are you willing to take on more of what i am going to call a pit-bull attack approach to running backs >> there is no question in my view that when you run, when you disagree with someone on their policies as much as i cannot disagree with barack obama on his domestic policies, which have cost us jobs, it is causing the breakup of families, it causes people to lose faith, causes kids not to be able to go to college, i will take him on head on and aggressively if i am the nominee. and by the way, if we get the chance to talk about health care, which would be fun, because he does the the great favor of saying i was the

inspiration for his plan -- if that is the case, why didn't you call me? why didn't you ask what was wrong? why didn't you ask if this was an experiment, what worked and what didn't? i would have told him that what he was doing was coined to bankrupt us. we cannot spend more money. even if it were perfect, we cannot spend more money at the federal government level. i cannot wait to have those conversations. on the other hand, i am not good to go after people on innuendo and personal attacks. i go after people i disagree with on policy. i want to make sure the difference between us is as clear as day and night on every issue where there is difference and that people do not get confused by things that may or may not be relevant. we have got to talk about opportunity and freedom. we have to be able to draw in huge numbers of people who come here as immigrants or descendants of immigrants into our party.

ours is the party of opportunity and theirs is the party of handouts. handouts are not why they came here. they came here for opportunity for them and their kids. thank you. the young lady right here, almost in front of me. >> thank you, mr. romney, and thank you for capturing the spirit of what i think we all believe and all know. hopefully we will see you in the white house soon. in a couple of months, the quantitated easing we have been living under is going to go away. the strength of the dollar looks like it is falling. it is at risk for losing its reserve currency status. in that case, oil may long skirt -- may no longer be priced in dollars, which could be another problem for us.

when you start your campaign, and as you enter the white house, how do you deal with that? what would be your response to that and your approach to it? what can we start doing today to start to prepare for this? >> you heard yesterday, i believe, a presentation from ambassador sam fox, where he described the national balance sheet. i find it interesting, coming from the private sector, that we have a government that publishes an income statement every year but does not publish a balance sheet. in the business world, if somebody said to you, here is the income statement, how much are you going to pay for it, you would say you could not tell the answer without the balance sheet. it is a frightening thing. people thinking about investing in america -- one way they invest in america is by buying dollars, investing in businesses, employing americans here and around the world.

if they think our balance sheet is so sick that the investment is going to be overrun by massive inflation or economic collapse, they want it best. if they -- they will not invest. what we have to do urgently in this country is deal with the fact that our balance sheet keeps getting worse every year by greater and greater deficits spending. if you look at what is happening, our spending is going like that. our revenues are not growing in the same rate. right now, washington is embroiled in a lot of discussion about the discretionary spending, non- military discretionary spending that makes up a little less than 20% of the budget. we are doing things we would like to do but cannot afford any more. then there is another 20% of the budget which is the military. there is a lot of waste in the military. there is no question about that.

we have to cut out the waste. but i am not want to cut out the waste to pay benefits. i am going to cut at the waist to make sure we have a navy that can fulfill its mission in the world and in the soldiers on the ground to care for our interests. i recognize that we are a peaceful nation, but there is no greater ally of peace and a strong america. we had 600 ships following the second world war. we are now down to over 290 ships and are down on the way to 220. that is not acceptable. the military, i would keep at about 4% of gdp. then there are the 60% left. that is entitlements and interest. that is where the money is. if we are going to finally get

the trajectory of our spending down, such that people in the world can recognize we solved our problem, and will continue to invest in dollars and jobs -- to do that, we have to take on the reform of our entitlement programs, not changing an iota for current retirees. but going to people in their 20s, 30s, and 40's, and saying we have to have changes in these programs to make sure they are sustainable and we can honor these promises without killing the country. that is something i think we will talk about in 2012. i am glad the washington post raised criticism of the president for not taking on social security. we have to tell the american people the truth. i know that when i wrote my book two years ago and put a chapter in there called the worst generation, and laid out the fact that my generation, baby

boomers, keep on voting better benefits for our cells, hoping the next generation will pay for it -- that cannot go on. i am convinced the american people understand that. but i know there are people who are convinced that even raising the topic of entitlement reforms and making them sustainable is touching the third rail of american politics. i am told you cannot write or talk about those things and never think about winning an election. if that is the case, so be it. we have to tell the american people the truth. the american people are patriotic to do something about it. [applause] you guys can make the choice. we have hands all over the room. pick someone and give them a microphone. >> great job today. i agree with almost everything you said. as you know, there is a movement

afoot in the palestinian authority to declare a unilateral state, in violation of the oslo accords, supported by most other countries. what will america do? if president obama boats with the u.n. in favor of the unilateral palestinian state, and if he should decide to run for president, would you reverse that decision of american recognition of a unilateral palestinian state? >> there are a lot of couples in their. but let us say this. it would be reprehensible and wrong for the united states of america to proceed to a request by the palestinian authority to declare an independent state. >> we ought to make this the last question so you guys can get some food.

>> what are your views about reform of the tax code? >> historically, the government has spent about 18.8% of gdp and our taxes have been roughly that level. whatever no. we agree upon, taking number and say the federal government is not going to spend more than that level. i am not looking for ways to have the highest income people pay a smaller share of taxes. i know there are some people who would like to do that. but i would like to find ways to simplify the tax code and make it more fair. there are some who advocate the

fair tax, a national sales tax to replace income tax. that is some powerful, positive growth features. you like it, right? as it is currently envisioned, it has a by product that might not be obvious, which is it lowers taxes for the highest income and raises taxes for the lowest income. i think it is going to be a long time before washington would embrace a consumption-based tax. the thing the right first step would be something akin to what the deficit reduction commission described, which is a dramatic reduction in the rights of corporate and individual taxes. i think that makes sense. i think that has merit. we can't attract the investments

of moms, dads, families, pension funds, and wealthy people -- we cannot attract those investments to build enterprises if we have the highest tax rate in the world. among developed nations, america has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. that will not create jobs. i am not looking for ways to get rich people richer. sorry, guys. [laughter] someone to do my best to help the people of america find good jobs and keep government from getting too big. if we put a ceiling and say you cannot spend more than 18.8% of gdp, that is one way to do that. we can keep looking at ways to keep our tax rates down. there are taxes that make no sense in our tax code. i do not know how familiar you are with something called the repatriation tax. it is an unusual tax. let us say microsoft makes $5

billion selling software to the chinese. they have this big profit over there in china. if they leave it there, they don't pay u.s. taxes. they just pay chinese taxes. but if they bring it home, we will charge and the difference in tax rates. this that make any sense? if you leave your money outside the country, we want tax you, but if you bring it home we will tax too heavily. by some reports, there is as much as a trillion dollars in corporate profits sitting outside the united states, much of which would like to come back here. i am criticized for even raising that, people saying they might not spend all but in investment. they might give it to the shareholders. and the shareholders will buy things. it is amazing. my life has been in the private sector. i spent 25 years in the private

sector. i spent four years serving my state as governor. i've not men in politics so long. i am still a business guy. i would occasionally exchange thoughts with others in the legislature, most of whom had never worked in the private sector, or many of them haven't. i remember one conversation about our prison system in massachusetts. i looked to see whether we could bring in a for-profit prison company to manage our jails at lower cost. the people i was speaking with said they would be more expensive. i thought, why would you think that? well, because they have to earn profits and we don't. i said i do not think you understand how the free enterprise system works. the whole idea is that profit creates incentives for people to do things in better ways at lower costs. that is the idea. that is why we outperformed

every other place in the world. that is what china is copying us, and india. that incentive works. so many people in government do not understand how america works. one think we have to make sure we do is not burden the entrepreneurial spurted -- the entrepreneurial spirit of america who with so much bureaucracy and taxation that we kill what has made america america. [applause] this is a great and patriotic room. i am not just talking about your walls. i am talking about the people in this wonderful group. you have had a huge impact. you continue to have a huge impact. i appreciate the chance to address you today. we have great leaders in this world. i am convinced that with your leadership will get america on the right track once again.

thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> that concludes our morning program, ending on a very high note. just a reminder, the luncheon right out those doors. if you are not registered and want to join us, we can accommodate you. then we have our evening reception this evening at 6:30 in venetian ballroom c or d, and the gala dinner which is going to be pretty extraordinary, following the reception. enjoy the rest of your day. >> we have the power of a cartel. >> where is that going to be? >> in the venetian room.

>> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non- fiction books, and american history. it is all available on television, on-line, and any time through our video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, freeing our resources to your community. we are now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> kentucky senator rand paul made his first is to iowa this weekend. he was the featured speaker saturday at the "night of the rising stars" event in the morning. this is 30 minutes. [applause]

>> i am smiling because i am thinking of election night. my sons were on stage, playing a cdc for me. those were very kind words and about half of what you said about me might have been true. one thing you will know within five minutes of meeting senator grassley is that he cares about iowa and he cares about the people of iowa, and there is nothing false or disingenuous about him. you're very lucky. i met your other senator. am i allowed to say anything about him? i have met him a couple of times. i am a nice person. we have had correlations.

we had a few words in a debate. i tried to explain that we could build a lot more schools and a lot more airports if we did not have to pay chicago unions' wages in kentucky. he reported that you cannot have a quality product made unless they are made by union workers. i scratched my head and said nothing? 95% of the things you buy every day are not made by a union. do you need to send them all back? i do not think i got anywhere. i said i met with the governor. he invited me over to the capital. i am in a double wide trailer in a courtyard in washington. so a first i thought why don't we get your governor to run against your other senator? then i went to his office. i understand it is hard to

bottom out of there. he does not want to go to washington. but it is also good that you have good leaders in your state who do not want to try to washington, want to stay here and take care of iowa. that is great. i congratulate you on your new governor. [applause] about 1903, there was a chaplain in the senate. the asked whether he prayed for the senators. he said that he looked at the senators and prayed for the people. [laughter] we still need that, so keep the prayer's. we do need that. when i was elected, john mccain called me and congratulated me. i was excited to be called by a

famous war hero. he said the first six months you up there you will pinch yourself and say, "and did i get here? all of these famous people." six months later, you will scratcher head and say, "how did the rest of these guys get up here?" excluding your senator. but i had some strange things happen to me along the campaign trail. one thing that stuck with me is i went to lichfield, ky. when we are rural. i grew up in a small town. i went to lichfield toward the end and a woman came up to me and grabbed me by the hair and said, "i just wanted to know if it was a toupee or not. the things you have to put up with to get elected. i said, "i am just having a bad hair day.

when i was elected, i got a special desk. it goes to the senior senator from kentucky, but the senior senator is mitch mcconnell and he is the leader and sits at another desk. desk.sit at henry clay's i was excited and told another republican senator. he said, "are you going to be the great compromiser?" i said, "i don't know. let me think about that." there is a new biography about henry clay, and i learned that he became speaker of the house i think in his first term. he was president of the senate. he ran four times for president and almost one. he lost by 38,000, beauts for james polk. i thought some about it.

my history textbooks when i was growing up would say henry clay kept the union together by his compromises, by rising above sectional strife to keep the union together. that could be true, but most history has another analysis as well. from my point of view, he kept the union together, but by compromising over something that maybe we shouldn't have compromised over. was it ever morally acceptable even in 1776 for one man to own another man? he compromised at every turn. in the house, he was the deciding vote to allow extension of slavery into arkansas. he voted for the fugitive slave law. he allowed slave trade to happen in the sea. but he gets a lot of trip -- a lot of credit for being this compromiser. but sometimes compromising is a misplaced ideal. we say a compromise is noble but do not think about what we are

compromising over. he owned 48 slaves. he didn't even free most of them at his death. he freed them 20 years after his death. was the compromise something that was worth it? people say give him a break. he lived in 1850. he died in 1850. he was a man of his times and most people accepted slavery. but there were people who did not mix of slavery at the time. he had a cousin by the name of cassius clay, and he was also from kentucky. you may have heard of the name. we later had eight boxer named after the great abolitionist cassius clay. he was a great abolitionist. he would put his bible down at the lectern, and his bowie knife. you did not mess with cassius clay. cassius clay and henry clay parted ways because cassius clay had a take no prisoners style. he released a letter to henry

clay had written him privately in which henry clay indicated more of a dislike for slavery then he talked about publicly, and that he was probably privately more for emancipation then he let on. but he did not want the letter released publicly and cassius clay released it. the parted ways and never spoke again. henry clay did not have any place for the abolitionists and the emancipationist, or for his cousin cassius. caches could make people mad. he had a printing press and would print all kinds of letters and call up the slave traders. one night in a small town near lexington, he was ambushed from the back. they came at him, square turner and the boys, with knives and cudgels, stabbing him in the back repeatedly. he falls to the ground. tom turner takes a pistol and holds it to his head and fires, and it misfires.

he told the to his head again and it misfires. the third time it misfires, cassius clay has time to reach for his knife and he gets the turner boy and kills him. cassius clay did not take prisoners. he fought for what he thought was right. there are times we should fight for what is right and not take the easy way out. [applause] i think we have to ask who are our heroes. are we enthralled by the great emancipate turk, or excited in our imagination thinking about his cousin, cassius clay? for centuries, for most of recorded history, we were plagued by smallpox. in about 1721 in boston, a smallpox plague was coming. it was an awful disease and an awful death. sometimes the% of the people who got smallpox would die. it came to boston in 1721 and

there was a doctor who had heard from cotton mather's, a famous minister of the time that one of his slaves had a technique they used in africa in the middle east. they would take pus from someone who was surviving smallpox, a milder version. they would take us from that and stick the pus in the arm of someone who got inoculated. it sounds grows, but we are not having dinner tonight, so i can tell you this. everybody told him it was the wrong thing to do. the establishment doctor said it would be malpractice to do it. they said it was enormously dangerous and the person getting it could die, and there was some truth to that, but the disease was awful and the vast majority of the town would get it and die. so he inoculated his son. talk about bravery. his son survived. he ended up inoculating 221

people and saving them from smallpox. within a generation, john adams, george washington, ben franklin -- they all did inoculation. it became accepted. but it took someone brave enough to step forward against popular opinion and do what he felt was right. i think we need more people like that. we need more people in washington who will lead it instead of following. [applause] i think we have a president who is not leading the country. i think we have a president who has abdicated in his role as leader of our country and is not doing what needs to be done. [applause] some would say that the issues we deal with today have no moral equivalency to slavery or do not

have the infectious urgency of smallpox. but i would say that when we think about things there are questions we should ask. can a civilization long endure that does not respect life? will we be judged at some point in time, whether we stood up and said that the law and the land should respect the unborn? will we be judged for that? [applause] we face a day of reckoning. not only more reckoning. we face a day of fiscal reckoning. we have significant problems. i think it is rapidly

approaching a day of reckoning. will we be able to continue paying our bills? will we destroy our currency paying our bills and, can we continue to spend money we do not have? we are running an annual deficit of nearly $2 trillion. you say in the paper it was only 1.6. that is kind of true. then you have to add the 400 billion they do not count because it is off budget. but it is a lot. how do you even imagine what a trillion dollars is tax revenues to use the example. you put a thousand dollar bills in your hand and stack them 4 inches high and that is about a billion dollars. to get to a trillion dollars, it would be 67 miles high. we are no longer talking about billions. we are talking about trillions. it is a problem. here is the rub of the debate. we are talking trillions in deficit. we are talking billions in cuts.

the democrats have offered up $6 billion in cuts for the rest of the year. what does that mean? absolutely nothing. we borrow $4 billion a day. we spend $10 billion a day. so probably what we are going to get in a compromise is going to be $33 billion. that is three days' worth of spending. it is about 2% of one year's problem. there is a disconnect. when i come home or i go to a tea party and say i propose cutting $500 billion, you know what they say to me? they say it is a good start. that is one-third of one year's problem. [applause] but in washington, when i talk about $500 billion in cuts, they looked at me as if i might have horns growing behind my ears.

there is a disconnect. we all want to balance the budget, but to do it we will have to cut spending. everybody has a good spending program. people come with a terrible childhood diseases. they all want money. one congressman who was recently elected from michigan has a sign in his office. if you have come looking for money, you are in the wrong office. it is hard, because so many of the programs have justification. can we help this person or how this disease, or help these people who are struggling? the question we have to ask for each of those people who come is -- is it justified to borrow from a future generation, or is it justified to borrow from china or japan, or will they continue to loan the money to us? i fear the day of reckoning has been moved up because of the

natural disaster in japan. who buys our debt? china has bought over a trillion dollars of our debt. japan owns about $886 billion worth of our debt. but we rely on their continual buying of our debt. can japan continue to buy our debt when they have problems at home? will they sell our debt? will we have to buy our debt? the way we buy our debt is by making new money from the federal reserve. but that destroys your savings and your value. ultimately it takes from you even the cost of your land because everything goes rapidly up through inflation. we are facing a day of reckoning. it will take leadership. i do not think we're getting that leadership from the white house. you will get to help decide to give leadership is on our side and you need to take it seriously. i know you do. but as i told people, it is not enough just to be republican. it is not enough for the

republican party to exist. political parties are empty vessels unless we imbue them with values. we have to stand for something. we have to mean it. [applause] there is a young man who was 11 years old. he comes home from a ymca basketball game in 1922 in dixon, illinois. it is a cold evening. it has been snowing. he finds his dad passed out on the front steps, drunk, dead to the world. he was embarrassed. he did not know what to do. but he did not give up. he did not leave him there. he grabbed a fistful of his overcoat, drugged him inside to get him out of the neighbor's view and get him out of the cold. but this man did not give up and say woe is me, i need somebody

to help me. how can i make it with all my problems? this young man lived in 30 different cities as he was growing up. this young man grew up to be ronald reagan. he grew up to be the man with the sunny optimism and the charisma that shine so brightly it got us through the malaise of the late '70s. he had an optimism that been so broadly that it pulled us out of a serious recession. he had an optimism that tug so mightily at the heart that he changed a generation of democrats in to republicans. that is the kind of bold leadership we need. that is what you need to help us discover. we need bold leadership, people who will and can articulate the american dream, people who can understand that the american dream means that we believe in the individual, that we believe

in you. when reagan said that government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem, we need to articulate that but articulate that we are the solution and that the solution has unlimited potential if we can get government out of the way. [applause] america is a great country, i think the greatest country ever conceived. we got our founding documents right. we enshrined individual freedom and liberty into our documents. we should have respect for those documents. one of the things i am fighting this week and will continue to fight next week is that i think the most important vote we ever take when we are up there is whether or not to go to war, whether we send our brave young men and women to war.

it should be something that your representative's vote on. president bush got a lot of grief from a lot of different angles for the afghanistan war and the iraq war. but in both instances he came to congress and congress at least voted on this before we went. these are the checks and balances our founding fathers intended as to have. this president sets a terrible precedent to go to war without coming to congress. he had time to go to the un. he had time to go to nato. i think he thinks the u.n. is more important than congress. it is awful. [applause] he had time to go to the un. he had time to go to the arab league. he had time to consult private citizens. but he did not have time to go down to the other end of pennsylvania avenue and consult you through your representatives.

that is going to have to change. [applause] senator grassley mentioned about america being exceptional. i agree. but i do not think we are inherently exceptional. there is nothing about the color of our skin or our dna or anything like that. but we are exceptional because of our constitutional. because we embraced individual liberty and capitalism. we have to remember to obey these things. we have to remember to obey the constitution. james madison said the constitution's opposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to war. therefore the constitution has with studied care given that power to the congress. it was a division of power. it was checks and balances, very important to our founding

fathers. we need to have a debate over that. i hope to force just such a debate when we go back. as we move forward into the next cycle, i think there is every chance that we can have great success. we had great success in 2010. i think we can do it in 2012. what i ask by what is help us find the right person. thank you very much. [applause] >> now, a republican and democratic strategist look at the week ahead in congress. this is about 35 minutes. host: we have our roundtable

with kevin madden, former aide to mitt romney, democratic strategist steve mcmahon. we have been talking about the president announcing his reelection campaign this week as a way to raise money. how expensive will this race be? guest: his aides are predicting that they can hit that number or better -- $750 million. around town, there is talk about the first $1 billion presidential campaign. once the republicans have a nominee, they will come out with a fair amount of resources as well. it is the $1.5 billion, even $2 billion -- you uld see $1.5 billion, even $2 billion, which is increble. host: you have outside interest groups raising money separate from campaign laws. they have to meet certain standards. it looks like he will dohis in

the reelection bid. guest: you cannot run any campaign in the environment that you want. you have to run one in the environment that you have. the citizens united decision has been settled for the time being. i think that the president's reelection campaign, the democrat's campaign committees are starting to recognize the new reality. i think that people make charges of hypocrisy, given that the president used such aggressive language against republicans, as the law dictated -- you will see them tame back that language and realize that they are in the same combative it -- competitive environmt for fund-raising that we are. host: we have seen changes in

2004, 2008. it looks like those days are gone. guest: those days are so gone. you might see some republicans to accept federal matching funds. you can make the case, in a primary, where you are tryin to get momentum, where you are trying to get contributors, that makes sense. it does not make sense in a general election to limit yourself to $75 milln or $80 million. i do not think he will see those days again for a very long time, -- you will see those days again for very long time. host: another story from "the new york times." the rnc has a $21 million and national debt. -- $21 million national debt. what do you think of this plan on debates? guest: i think there are two

reasons for the idea being proposed. like the article pois out, there is a need for the rnc to find new revenue streams. there is frustration by many of the prospective campaigns and many republican oratives from the last election about the way the debates were conducted. the cadence, rhythms, decisions, and guidelines were very much upset by the networks -- much set by the networks. they are seeking more contr. host: mitt romney sightings have been hard to come by. what is the strategy? guest: i think he is trying to get things in place.

this is going to be a marathon, not a sprint. with the emergence of tea party candidates, with michele bachmann raising more money than any other republican presidential candidate today, with people like newt gingrich, mike huckabee, sarah palin, th may take a long time to shake out. president obama provided a road map in many respects in 2008. he understood early on that the nominating process was going to be a marathon and that it was going to take a long time. that requires a lot of organization. i think what it romney is doing is smart. he is organizing early -and avoiding becoming a tget, which would happen if he announced a too early. -- announced too early. he supported and signed a bill very much like president obama's health care reform.

he has taken positions over time in massachusetts. these are positions that progressives and conservatives will not like. he does not want to become a lightning rod. it is a very smart strateg host: only one public event in the month of march 4 mitt romney -- for mitt romney. why? guest: a lot of the analysis that is being applied right now -- there was a, lot of truth to it all. i think we are looking at the last campaign as a template for this campaign. during the 2008 campaign, i moved to boston and was moving on the campaign in december of 2006. we were entering the building stages of the campaign with a

candidate at about 3% nationally. the al was to build awareness and stimulate demand. we had to do that very early, going up against john mccain and rudy guiliani, who had 100% name recognition at that time. the governor has universal name awareness among many republican voters. there are a number of candidates at also have that -- ne gingrich, sarah palin's, mike huckabee, even michele bachmann for a member of congress has big support nationally. there is awareness of treating that demand. -- creating that demand. we are about four or five months delayed. you can draw and rive the --

drive the contrast. we were driving the merits of governor romney's candidacy. when you pick a big issues to contrast yourself with the incumbent president, it allows for more time in the race. host: just wo wor -- just two words. "romney care." guest: i think they're making that one word now. every candidate in the republican field is going to have to explain their record. governor romney has a signature health care policy in massachusetts that he is goi to have to explain in an environment where people's negative feelings towards obama care at our big issue --

obamacare are a big issue. steve alluded to that earlier -- ke presidentie obama's plan, but this is ry different. massachusetts' plan was designed for the population of the state, for a unique health care population. what the president did wro is that he tried to take some of the lessons massachusetts have learned and apply them to a population of 300 million. he spent $1.36 trillion over 10 years, a massive amount that we did not have. all the things that went wrong with obamacare -- it is easy to contrast them with romneycare. ho: i want to talk about what

it romney said yesterday when asked about the massachusetts -- what mitt romney said yesterday when asked about the massachusetts health care plan. >> you all have socialized medicine. i say that a bit facetiously. if somebody has a terrible accident, heart attack, cancer, we do not let them die on the street. they go to the hospital and are treated. guess who pays for them? you, government. you are paying for it. we found a number of people who, even though their employer paid their health insurance, they would turn it down. we would ask tm why. they said, because i can get health care free just by showing up at the emergency room. this is a real concern.

we wanted to insist onersonal responsibility. people that have the ability to pay should pay for themselves. that led to us coming up with an experiment. the experiment has not worked perfectly. it is consistent with the constitutional approach in this country. we allow states to preserve powers not specifically granted to the federal government. as a state, we took on a state problem, republicans d democrats working together, came up with something and tried it. i would never impose what we did on our state on all of the other states. president obama usurped the power of states and replaced it with an overreaching federal government hand. that is the wrong way. if i were lucky enough to be president, i would grant a waiver to all 50 states on obama care and then go to work to get it repealed. host: another line he used --

the presidentaing about massachusetts as a model. romney saying, if he likes me so much, why did he never call me to talk about the problems he faced. guest: i do not -- i do think the president was guided by what happened in massachusetts. you just saw the challenge for mitt romney. he tried to differentiate the massachusetts plan from the obama plan. even after the conversation, it still isn't clear to me what the differences are. there are many differences. -- similaties. all of the things that republicans are objecting to a are things that ms. romney did -- to are tngs that mitt romney did. it will be more diffilt to differentiate than he anticipates.

if you look at the numbers on health reform, he is better off in a general election by being in the middle, but understanding the challenges peop face when they cannot get insurance -- by understanding the challenges people face when they cannot get insurance. he was a good governor in massachusetts, but he seems to have walked away from his record in the interest of getting the republican nomination and the far-right republican electorate. he would be stronger if he were the mitt romney who was governor of massachusetts. guest: it is important to remember that the governor has a record of accomplishment on health care. the reason obama care was done -- was rejected by the electorate was that it was a very partisan bill. it spent way too much money. governor romney took an