could persuade her front bench to make it labour policy, too. >> tom break? >> thank you. one year on -- one year on after the coalition was formed would the prime minister like to update the house on the progress that's been made in tackling the economic and financial waste land that was left to us by the previous government? >> the point i would make to the honorable gentleman is not only is exports growing and manufacturing growing. we've got 400,000 more people in work than there were a year ago. >> i apologize the prime minister. there's far too much noise in the chamber. i heard the question. i want to hear the prime minister's answer. the prime minister. >> the fact is, mr. speaker, they don't want to hear what this government has achieved over last year because it's his government that has cut the deficit, that's capped immigration, that linked the past and reformed welfare and created more academy schools in

12 months than they managed in 12 years. that is a record with much more to do but i think the coalition can be proud of. >> dr. william mccray. .. is going to have a seat in the northern irish assembly. has gotten so much to britain's armed forces. i want to see a strong armed forces covenant debated in this house and clearly referenced in law. i want to see us make bigger steps on the things we do to

help our armed forces families. we have made some sense over the last year doubling the operational allowance and giving more money to schools where children go helping in ways including scholarships for those whose parents have fallen in battle. i believe there is more we ca >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air prime minister's questions. what any time at c-span.org regan find video of past prime minister's question and other programs. next, "road to the white house with speeches by newt gingrich and mitt romney. we will also hear from donald trump and governor mitch daniels and cheri daniels.

after that, a political roundtable on the presidential 2012 campaign. >> new gingrich talked about the obama administration, foreign policy, tax policy, and jobs. he appeared to discuss his reasons for running and his vision for the country. he announced his presidential bid on wednesday with an internet video. this is just under 40 minutes. ♪ >> first of all, thank you all very, very much. i am delighted to be home, delighted to be with very many old friends to go back a long way.

i was reminded recently of how long i have been doing this when i went into the american solutions office and there was a nice young intern there. i said he looked very familiar, have we met? he said no, but my father was a page for you. [laughter] so, i look out at a lot of friends here to go back a very long time. i walked in and while ago and i was reminded that she and i first started campaigning in 1973 together. the only thing i would disagree with -- excuse me, i have allergies. the only thing i would disagree with the introduction of about is i suspect most of you, at least the ones i was talking to and getting pictures with don't think of me as mr. speaker, i think most of you think of me as newt, and i suspect we ought to keep it that way.

i don't know if we can elect speaker gingrich, but i know that we can elect newt. i did decide that after long consultation with my family and spending a year thinking about it that i would run for president. [applause] we made that decision, i think, for the most profound reason. the united states of america is in trouble and it needs every possible citizen to come to its aid if we are to remain the great center of freedom, the great developer of prosperity, and the provider of safety to our citizens and friends around the world.

i think the challenges we face are so large that it requires leadership of an unusual kind. i don't believe that any one person in the oval office to make a decisive difference. i believe there are 300 million americans who have to be recruited, educated, convinced, led to work together so that all the fuss, putting our shoulders on the wheel, can make a decisive difference. i believe the gap between where the people in this room and the vast majority of the people of georgia would take america and where president obama would take america it is so enormous that this would be the most consequential election since 1860. i believe that we are at a crossroads. [applause] down one road is a european,

centralized, bureaucratic, socialist welfare system in which politicians and bureaucrats define the future. down the other road is a proud, sovereign reaffirmation of american sectionalism -- american exceptional wasn't an a commitment that we are all equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. [applause] this is the boldest, most radical statement about political power in human history. our founding fathers asserted in the declaration of independence, literally, that power comes from god to each one of you personally.

you are personally sovereign, and you loan power to the government, the government does not loan power to you. [applause] so the choice will be between an obama administration which believes that politicians define the future, with bureaucrats and implementing the future, and that we are merely subjects who were supposed to do with the government instructs us to do, and a gingrich administration which asserts probably that we are americans, that we are a free people, that the power starts at home, is vested in the citizens, and we're going to enforce the 10th amendment, that we are going to shrink government and washington dramatically, and we're going to return to a

country that believes in the work ethic, opportunity, freedom, and in every american having a chance to pursue happiness without being dictated to by bureaucratic, politicians, and judges. [applause] we believe in this so deeply that we have launched three parallel projects. we've just completed a movie, "a city upon a hill," which outlines in detail what american exceptional as a means. on june 14, i have a book coming out called a nation like no other, which outlines for historians, for people who want a deep in-depth understanding of what american exception alyssum is not only where it came from but why it is important and how -- what american exceptionalism is not only where it came from but why it is important. and september, there is a book called "sweet land of liberty,"

which is ellis the elephant introducing american children to history starting with key events starting with pilgrims and other offense. the reason we're doing these is we want to make very clear to the american news media which would like to avoid this debate that we are prepared to take on the pseudo intellectuals of the left on the core definition of the nature of america, and not based on conservative ideology, not based on philosophy, but based on the accurate historical representation of the founding fathers and the concept that we hold these truths to be self evident. that will be a key center point of our campaign. we will go to every neighborhood, every background, every ethnic group, if you believe in america as a unique place, then we want you on our side and we want to work with you to make sure that we

continue to be a special place. at the same time we're going to say, if you think a european model where you aren't subjected to the bureaucracy and dependent on the politicians, minute by political structure, you have a party -- where you are subjected to the bureaucracy in japan and other politicians, you have a party, and you should be for obama. when you go home tonight, if you want to help me, go in email, facebook, twitter, and tell all of your friends around the country to go to newt.org and sign up. one of the sections that we robot and the next couple weeks will be a section for first- generation americans. i find people are around the country some of the people who best understand american exception alyssum are people who come here for the very first

time -- american exception alyssum are people who come here for the very first time because they have seen the contrast. we have to illustrate that and we are thrilled. maybe he will be one of the folks that will help us watch first generation americans talking about american exceptionalism. sometimes i say to become an american citizen, americans -- immigrants all to learn american history. [applause] but maybe we should also have a voting standard that says to vote as a native-born american, he should have to learn american history -- you should have to learn american history. the you realize how many of our students could not pass the citizenship test? now, america it is a cultural memory.

it is only one generation deep. we stand across roads. if we lose this fight and we have four more years of radical, left-wing values in washington, this country will be dramatically weakened, the fabric of our society will be weakened, and we will be in deep trouble. but if we win this fight, particularly on a principled policy basis, not personalities of policy, the american people faced with these choices decisively choose a feature of american exceptionalism, shoes a feature with the work ethic, then i think we will do it very well. the second -- let's bring it home to georgia. what a job program in georgia look like? but what a program for jobs in america look like? let me tell you, the reason i

think we have to focus on this is very straightforward. because we are a free society, america's only works when americans are working. people have to have a job -- [applause] the most important social welfare program in america is a job, and nothing replaces it as the center of how you get to a healthy country. [applause] i started the day talking to a conference in washington. some of you remember the laugher curve, which says there is a point in taxation will start losing revenue because you raise taxes too much. our laugher, jude, jack kemp, a number of people including me in the 1970's developed supply side economics, which was returned to general economics.

a part of what it said was if you want economic growth, you incentivize it. if you want more jobs, you incentivize. if you want encourage people to take risk, yet incentivize it. it was pretty straightforward. in 1980, ronald reagan campaigned on that. in 1980, we had 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, we were rationing gasoline every other days, and we were sliding into the worst recession from the great depression and the obama recession. at that point, ronald reagan can along, all the left-wing intellectuals wanted to do more of what was making us sick. at that point, ronald reagan came along and he had a program that was very simple -- dramatic reduction in taxes to incentivize people economically, dramatic reduction

in regulations to make it easier to create jobs, and, being proud, happy, and positive about business owners, whether they are small, brave new start- ups, big companies. if you take the risk and create a job, i am proud of the. this is the opposite of the obama model. it was illustrated when it went to brazil recently. having stopped all american drilling for oil and gas offshore, he had the nerve to go to the brazilians and said, i am proud that you are developing oil and gas offshore. i am proud we have on you several billions dollars to purchase equipment from a company owned by george soros, and then he said, we want to be your best customer. first of all, he has a model that says we're going to borrow from the chinese to pay the brazilians.

now, that will not work economically. second, we need a president who goes out to the world and says, i want you to be our best customer. we need it the president who says i want to sell you american products. [applause] i outlined this morning and it will be posted at newt.org an entire economic program. i will not go into all of it in detail, but i do want to share with you the tax component. first, we freeze all the current taxes so nobody is faced with the danger of taxes going up in 2013. because if we do not freeze the taxes, we will get to an investment freeze in about june of next year as ever but it waits to see what the tax code will be and we will increase the likelihood of going into second, deeper recession. if we go into recession with 9% unemployment, we have real

problems. at second, there are for tax cuts. i will be open about this. i am looking forward in october to debating president obama about it. i am happy to have a long business debate with the white house. i stand for tax cuts designed to increase the number of jobs in the united states by incentivizing the people who create jobs. [applause] president obama believes america will make the bridge pour by leveling down, not -- before we make the rich poor by leveling down. that is a fundamental difference. my goal is to get back to where we were when i left the speakership. because we cut taxes and we had the largest capital gains tax cut -- the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, we got from 5.6% to under 4%

unemployment your left office. if we move from 15% which is the correct number from unemployed, the under-employed, and quit looking for work, if we got down to 4% unemployment, the number of people that you would take off food stamps, off unemployment, off medicaid and you put them back to work making a living, ping to run away, paying taxes, that is the biggest single step towards a balanced budget that you can take because you or lowering costs and raising revenue simultaneously -- because you are lowering cost and increasing revenue simultaneously. so it is the first that of moving back to a dramatic economic growth. i would have at your major tax cuts. one, correct the capital gains tax rate at zero. [applause]

just think about that, everybody tells you, all of the world, there are people with capital. they want to build something, that would like to create a new company, build a new factor. if you woke up one morning and u.s. capital gains tax rate was zero, could you imagine how much capital would flow into the united states to create new jobs? second, the correct corporate tax rates is the ira's tax rate of 12%. -- is the irs tax rate of 12%. we currently have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which means, guess what, corporations don't pay it. the red clay, this is terrific, obama is out there, -- theoretically, this is terrific, obama is out there,

theoretically socking it to the big companies. he is so effective, they paid zero. why? because 35%, it is worth their while to hire 375 tax lawyers, the largest tax department in the world that it's up every morning at general electric and says, what are the loopholes that let us avoid paying taxes? i don't blame general electric, i blame a tax code that is rewarding behavior of not paying the taxes. i want to find the corporate tax rate at which they will lay off the lawyers and pay the government. because it is cheaper to just pay the tax then to avoid it. third, we must go to 100% expensing for all new equipment. this is a big deal for farmers and business. you should be able to write off old equipment every year in 12 months, and that will -- [applause]

the goal is very straightforward -- we want the american worker to be the best equipped, the most modern, the most productive worker in the world. we want the american machine tool industry in the world to be the most modern and effective in the world. germany pays 50% more manufacturing labor than we do, and they today have their lowest unemployment rate in 19 years. we have a government that actually works on exports. and the government actually favors jobs, that wants people to go to work. one of my pledges is that we will appoint as the u.s. trade representative a trial lawyer, and we want somebody with the right kind of personality that they can fly into beijing every monday morning looking for a fight. [laughter] and we simply want to teach the chinese, glad you came into the big leagues, now we will show

you what the big leagues are really like and we will fight for every sale around the world to maximize american industrial production and american job production. [applause] finally, the fourth tax change is to eliminate permanently the death tax. [applause] one of the things which always surprised me about republican leadership in washington is they have never been able to understand that for my entire adult lifetime, eliminating the death tax is 80% issue. people who are never going to pay it a hate it, for the deepest of cultural reasons. first of all, most americans believe is just wrong to require somebody to visit the irs and the undertaker in the same week. it is just grotesque. [laughter]

second, americans deeply believe that if you work all your life, you save all your life, you did everything right, and your twin brother or twin sister did everything wrong, there's something fundamentally wrong with the government reaching and your wallet the day you die and taking away half your money to give it your brother and sister in some form of government program. it is your money, you earned it, you paid for with your lifetime of work, you keep it. [applause] there is also a practical jobs- creating part of this. you get some great business figure, and they create hundreds of jobs. now, when i was teaching at college, one of the great joys of my life was getting to meet or richards. he is one of the great business people of georgia, in getting to know bill flowers.

around the state,. business people. i don't want them spending the last 20 years of their lives on tax avoidance. i want them growing a bigger company to hire more people to be even more productive, and that is fundamentally what we have to get back to. [applause] now, we will get back to a dramatic economic growth. by the way, i will summarize this is the easiest possible format to tell your friends and neighbors and everyone of you can take this to every neighborhood of every ethnic background in your county. it is very simple. walk out the door, say, go to the grocery store come talk to the people and say, would you rather have food stamps for a paycheck? if they tell you they would rather have food stamps, don't worry about it, we need it liberal democrats.

but i bet you in almost every neighborhood in america, 80% of the people will say, you know, i won a paycheck, oh my kids to have a paycheck. i want the freedom and opportunity to have a paycheck. why is this important? president obama is the most successful food stamp president in american history. [applause] more people are on food stamps today than any point in american history, and he is proud of it. i would like to be the most successful paycheck president in american history. [applause] and i would like to voter, the last thing before they vote, a couple questions you want to ask before you vote, and one of them will be, the want a future of paychecks or a future of food stamps? i believe that we win that argument dramatically.

it also say if you want economic growth, a unit also have to have an american energy policy producing energy in the united states. [applause] the fact is when we developed drill here, drill now, pay less, we were right, they were wrong. if they had drilled now in 2000, we would be paying less in 2011. that is not an accident. [applause] which gets me to one of the central themes of this campaign. my theme will be, together, we can win the future. the right policies lead to the right results. i will argue that, in fact, president obama represents was in the future because of the wrong policies leading to the lot -- the wrong results. the easiest to examples are detrick and texas. if you want to study job

prosperity in a better future, start with detroit, which through three generations of bad politicians and bad policies went from 1 million, 800,000 people at highest per-capita income in the united states and dropped to less than 700,000 people last year. over half of the houses in detroit are not occupied. that is a catastrophe comparable to war. it was not a tsunami, there was not a flood, it was not an earthquake, it was politicians. this is a city destroyed by bad policies. when the other hand, rick berry -- our campaign has rob johnson as our campaign manager, it was his campaign manager last year. he started 27 points behind senator kay bailey hutchison and ended the year 21 points ahead. i am not promising new a 48 point swing against obama, but it is a nice model to think about. [laughter]

in texas, with a bureaucracy that encourages businesses to move in, what have they done? in two of the last four years, over half of the private sector jobs in america have been in one state, texas. you think anybody in washington is studying texas? it has all the wrong lessons, small government, a legislature that meets only every other gear. imagine a government where congress was only allowed to meet every other year. [applause] part of my summer about economics is simple, you want a party that is going to try to learn from texas how to create jobs in america, the gingrich campaign like to have your help. if you want a campaign that will do for america what they did to detroit, obama is your man.

we will talk about american exceptionalism, balanced budget, spending, and the third thing we'll talk about his national security and homeland security. let me say about foreign policy, we should have won. -- we should have one. [laughter] but i will go a step further. we should have an american foreign policy based on american interests, doing what is right for america. [cheers and applause] when the president of the united states and goes to national defense university and makes a major speech explaining libya by citing the united

nations and the arab league eight times and the u.s. congress wants, you -- once, you know that he does not have a clue about how to lead an american foreign policy. [applause] let me be very clear. think about this. he cites the arab league. have any of you look at what makes up the arab league? it is mostly dictators and monarchs. they are important to recognize in the sense of the realities of the world. but they are not exactly authority figures. if you say the king of this and they sultan of that and the duke of that and the prince of this have come together and we should do? -- we should do x, i have less interest than if you tell me what 5 random people at the local grocers source said. -- grocery stores said.

you say, "the u.n. said." have you looked at the united nations? the truth is that george mitchell and i chaired a united nations reform task force. it is a totally corrupted institution. the bureaucracy is totally corrupted. the idea that an american president would take seriously the directors of the united nations is a sign that he does not understand the real world. i think we have to fundamentally reset our homeland security and our national security policies, building around american interest to protect american lives, working with those who are truly our allies. finally, i think all of us need to realize that one of the side effects of killing osama bin laden has to be a real exploration of our relationship with pakistan.

[applause] i do not know about the rest of you, but when i learned that, after paying $20 billion since 9/11, they have been housing him in pakistan for the last 9.5 years. alice try to figure out the word "ally" meant. [laughter] i knew what the word "sucker" meant. [laughter] there is a point we have to say to people around the world how -- how stupid do you think we are? is there any person in this world who believes that with some of the layton was living in that place for that long and nobody in the pakistani dormant -- government new it? it is an absurdity. i think we need to have a very thorough reappraisal of what our policies are and what we're trying to accomplish.

let me close -- you know that long before she became a important statewide figure, she was the chairman teachers advisory group in the sixth district of georgia. we go back a fair distance. [cheers and applause] let me just say candidly, when i first ran in 1974, it was the middle of watergate. people said i could not win and it turned out they were right. [laughter] but i got 48.5%. i came back and ran in 1976 and jimmy carter was running for president as a democrat and had a huge turnout. and people said i could not win. there were right. -- they were right. i got 43.9%. i came back and finally won in 1978. it relates directly to how i hope our presidential campaign will work. if we had not had the south

fulton republican women opening the office, we would not have been able to campaign. if we had not had the spalding county republican women opening the office, we could not have campaigned. if we had not had young republicans show up from all of -- over the state on the weekends and help us out, we could not have campaigned. i realize, in turn to get from here to the nomination, that i am faced with some very fine people and that at least three of them could persevere write -- personally right checks of $63 million or more and not notice it. we have had a few good years out of office. they have not been that good. [laughter] furthermore, the kind of campaign and want to run is not about someone writing a giant check. the kind of campaign i want to run is getting every neighbor, every friend i can to treat, -- to tweet, the mill, telephone, -- e mail, telephone, chat with

friends that they meet with on saturday morning for coffee. i would just like to directly say to each one of you, people i work with and the creation of the georgia republican party and the lieutenant governor -- i am so grateful that this has happened. commissioner, we go back a long way. my presence in the congress, those with whom i have served with for so many years. we did a lot of good work together in the mid-1990's. it is a great honor to be here. austin's god is doing a great -- austin scott is doing a great job. he was elected president of the freshman class. [cheers and applause] the nice thing about being gerrymandered so often is that i have some friends that serve in some districts that i used to -- so many districts that i used to represent. if they didn't get rid of me, there would be too many republicans. he was right. i just want to say that, when

we began the campaign, we were very honored. senator miller said he would help lead the campaign as one of our cultures. -- cochairs. gov. perdue said he would help us. gov. lee said he would help us lead. i want each of you to consider becoming a leader, not only here, but across the country, helping us reach out. i want to make this the most fun, interesting, idea-oriented campaign in history. there's something i learned from reagan years ago. he used to get attacked all the time by "the new york times" and the cbs news. he never seemed to notice it. i asked him one afternoon when i was going on? -- what was going on. i was a very junior member and occasionally i could hear the president. i was fascinated with them. he said, look, i represent the vast majority of the american people. i represent the key principles that made is a great country. -- made us a great country. i represent the ideas that actually work.

why would i not be happy? they represent a better minority -- bitter minority whose ideas are really destructive and they have no future. why would they be happy? so when they are mean and miserable and mean spirited, that tells you who they are, not who we are. our job is to reach out happily. walk around your neighborhood and say everybody who would like to be classic americans seeking opportunity, pursuing happiness, having a great future, everybody would like to have a paycheck, everybody would like to have an american foreign policy and an american energy policy, you have a chance to have a great and happy 18 months. after we win, we will be even happier. thank you, all, very, very much. [applause] ♪ [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, newt. thank you very much. it is a turning point for our country. we have got to take it. before we adjourn, i have to come up with a few housekeeping rules. we always have to do them. the first one is pleased to not -- please do not take the centerpieces. we need them for breakfast. [laughter] the first meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. exhibit hall b. then you'll go over to the marriott for the victory celebration, featuring the live band that is very well known in this part of the world. you can dance all night, if that is what you want to do, and anything else you would like to do over there. we would be happy to see you there. food is free. drinks are on you.

i look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning at the breakfast honoring gov. and mrs. nathan deal. it starts at 7:30 a.m. if you set your alarm for 5:30 a.m., you can get there on time. so have a good night. have a good evening. and thank you. [applause] ♪ >> newt gingrich was a guest on "meet the press" today. david gregory asked the former speaker whether incidents in his personal life will impact his candidacy. here is his response. >> fly can say is that every -- all i can say to every american is that

i have missed -- i have made mistakes in my life. i have had to go to god for forgiveness and seek reconciliation. look at the strong marriage that kristen and i have. look at the close relationship i have with my two daughters and their husbands. look at the loving relationship we have with their grandchildren and decide whether or not today i am a person they believe could lead the country and could save us in a time of enormous problems. i think the problems we face require a leader with the courage to take the heat and to try to bring together millions of people so that, collectively, we can get the country on the right path. >> it -- there is an electability issue. you said you have matured. you were 55 years old when these things were going on. hardly a young man. just this year, you talked about what was going on in your life at the time. this is what you told the christian broadcasting network. >> there is no question that the times in my life, partially driven by how passionately i felt about this country, that i worked for too hard and things

happened in my life that were not appropriate. >> should people be expected to take that as a serious act of attrition? -- contrition? that your so passionate and patriotic that he cheated on your wife? >> no. that is 15 seconds out of a 20- minute interview. i clearly have done things that were wrong. i have clearly had to seek god's forgiveness. i believe people have to decide whether or not what i have said and would have done is real. -- and what i have done is real. and people watch me and talk with me and get to know me, my hope is that the majority of americans will decide that i can help this country get back on track in a way that no one else can. when they decide that that is true, i think we will have a very successful campaign. but people have every right to ask the tough questions and to measure someone personally. >> you do not see -- you think republican -- conservative republicans said this is a guy can support? -- say, this is not a guy i can support.

>> as they get to know me and listen to what i am doing and watch how i operate, i really do think i can help put america and i can help you. i have a large number of social constituents that can help me. -- conservatives who support me. they have reached reached a different conclusion about what american needs and -- of about what america needs and how can fulfill that role of leader. >> on thursday, mitt romney called for repealing and replacing the new health care law and described his own proposal. he spoke at the university of michigan in ann arbor. he also attempted to draw a distinction between the new health care law and the plan he passed in 2006 as the massachusetts governor, the first state law in the nation to require most individuals to purchase health care insurance unless they already receive it as a benefit through their employers. mr. romney ran for the republican national nomination in 2008 and he is considering

another run for the presidency in 2012. this event was posted by the -- was hosted by the university of michigan college republicans. [applause] >> thank you. morning. thank you. i appreciate the warm welcome. thank you to the college republicans for hosting me today and welcoming me here. thank you to the university of michigan. medical school in school of public health, particularly those that are here as part of the cardiovascular center. dr. eagle, i appreciate your willingness to invite me here today, to let me address members of the student body as well as individuals that are

part of the faculty and administration at the school of public health at the carter vesco center and the -- cardiovascular center and the medical school. it is good to be back at michigan. university of michigan. i grew up as a wolverine fan. my brother went to michigan state. [laughter] he was elected to the board of trustees of michigan state. i have some divided loyalties, but i have been a michigan and will bring fan for a long, long -- and a wolverine fan for a long, long time. it is good to be here to see how the campus has grown, how the six turner facility has become -- extraordinary facility has become larger and has attracted more and more talent. i also see a number difference -- of faces in the audience. mr. lynn is here and i appreciate your being here. i see my classmate from high- school. stew white is here. it is like being home. i really appreciate the chance to be here in michigan. i want to talk today about repealing and replacing president obama's health care system.

i know that some people, when i talk about doing that, say, wait a second, i heard that your plan in massachusetts is an awful lot like president obama's plan. why are you so anxious to repeal this plan and replace it with someone else -- was something else that is so similar to what you did? before i talk about my own plan, i will spend a moment talking about what we did in massachusetts, how president obama's in my view does not work right. it should be repealed. get that groundwork laid. i will start off by being at 100,000 feet and talking a bit about the country and what makes america work. when the founders got together and decided what kind of nation we would be, the first decision they faced was whether we would be a nation governed by a strong central government for a king-like structure that would telesat to live our lives, what -- tell us how to live our

lives, what to do with their lives, what we would make, and where to ship it. or whether we would be a nation guided by the aspirations of individuals. and they chose the latter. the people in america are sovereign, freedom to choose, not only with elected representatives, but the freedom of our live scores. course.' we would be a free enterprise nation. it meant that all the people around the world seeking freedom, seeking to pursue their dreams of their youth wanted to come to this country. we are in nation of innovators and pioneers and creators that propelled us to be the most powerful economy in the world. but this was not the only decision that the founders face. -- faced. they also have a question of whether america would be guided governmentally, primarily at the federal level or at the state level, whether the interactions that citizens had in education and health care would be driven by the federal government or by the state government.

in that case, they also made an unusual choice compared to our european heritage. they said we would be a federalist system, a state- power system. so the 10th amendment was specifically written to limit the powers of the federal government. and states retain most of the rights and responsibilities that affected citizens from day to day. they would be the laboratories of democracy. they would try things. we would learn from one another. we will also compete with one another. the same dynamic that would propel our economy, competition and freedom, would propel learning between the states. the states would be responsive to the people that were closest to them. of course, the solutions could be tailored to meet the needs of the the people of different states. people could tailor their programs based upon the needs of the citizens. finally, that model will lead america to have states that were more efficient, more

effective, and more productive than having a one-size-fits-all government. i am convinced that the obama administration fundamentally does not believe in that american experiment. they fundamentally distrust free enterprise and distrust the idea that states are where the power of government resigned. -- reside. the most recent decision was the one made by the nlrb to decide that boeing could not locate a factory in south carolina. it was a power grab from states with the federal government saying we know better than state. that is the most recent example and the most egregious example was the obamacare decision itself.

the first distinction, between what we did in my state and the obama plan is this. our plan was a state solution to a state problem. his is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one size fits all plan across the nation. i know that some of my more liberal friends cannot find that a very compelling difference. but those of us who believe that the decision to make america a federalist system was not just a throwaway decision, but an important and fundamental element of what makes america such a successful mission. -- nation. that was something that is lost in obamacare. but when i ask people what they dislike most about the president's plan, but typically years that they say that obamacare represents a government takeover of health care and i do not like it. i think they are right. what we did in our state was quite different. it was a more modest proposal, if you will. we were not having government

takeover and run health care. instead, we're trying to find a way interstate who did not have insurance in short. and it was also to make sure -- insured. and it was also to make sure that people who had insurance would not have to worry that, if they changed jobs, but they would lose their insurance if, for instance, they had developed a condition or sickness during the time that they had been previously insured. there are some other differences. under obamacare, taxes are raised by about $500 billion over 10 years. we did not raise taxes. and there were $500 billion in medicare cuts -- not to bring down the cost of medicare and make the federal budget more balanced, but to fund obamacare. now there were some similarities. one similarity that i know bothers people in what is the -- bothers people allot is the fact that there is a mandate in the massachusetts plan that i put in

place. but we tell you why there is a mandate in our plan. what we found in my state was that we had a number of citizens who recognized that they could get coverage, health care, even though they did not have insurance. that is true in most states. if you don't have insurance and you develop a serious illness, cancer or something, you can get emergency care. you may not get the preventative care or the follow- up care -- depending upon the state or the circumstances, you can get care without insurance. and many people who could afford insurance and learned they could get care for free would say, i am not going to buy insurance. if i'm healthy and strong, why would i get insurance? if something really bad happens to me, cancer or something like that, i can go to the hospital and be treated for free. this is what we called the free rider program. it was not a large number, but a growing number. spendingtate, we're hundreds of millions of dollars

per year giving out care to people, many of whom could afford to buy their own insurance. this free rider problem was a real issue. we said, we have three choices. most states have three choices. the ones we saw were these. first, we could say to those people who could have afforded insurance that did not get it and who, let's say, had a heart attack, we are sorry. we will not treat you. that goes against the hypocritical oath and it is against federal law. you are required to treat those people. so that is not an option. the next option is the one that was exercised in my state. we had the taxpayers pay for them. we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars. we were amending to the taxpayers that you have to take care of these people. we're adding it to your insurance premiums or to your tax bill. but you will pay for these folks. somehow, we said that is a big government approach.

the government and taxpayers will get the people something that they should be able to get themselves. so we chose the last alternative, which was to insist on personal responsibility. we say to folks that could afford to buy insurance, either by insurance yourself or pay your own way. ultimately, the bill that we passed was the bill the said -- that said either have insurance or we will charge you for the cost of the fact that the state will have to cover you if you get seriously ill. the charge maximum is about $120 per month. that is well less than the cost of insurance, but a pretty big incentive to encourage people to get insured. this, again, under the 10th amendment was a state decision. other states may take a different choice. but the state decision we took was to insist upon personal responsibility. let me tell you for just a moment about why it is that we

decided to go ahead and put in place our plan. first of all, about 94% of the population in my state was insured before we put this plan in place. out of that 94%, there was no change in their insurance policy. the program remained the same. we are dealing with that last 6% that were not insured. of that percentage, which sounds small, that is half a million people. i do not know how many people in this room have lived without health insurance. but i have natalie family -- i have not only family members and dear friends that have lived at one time or another without health insurance. it is a frightening experience. you wonder what happens if i get ill. more seriously, what happens if my child is still? -- gets ill? i have half a million people who was elected to serve who were frightened because they did not have insurance. as a result of the plan we put

in place, about 400,000 of them are now insured. and i am pleased with the fact that we were able to accomplish that. the other people will have insurance, the 94%, as another feature for them, they do not have to worry about losing insurance. if they develop a serious condition and then change jobs, everybody in the state can get affordable insurance. there's also no government insurance year. -- here. we did not create a government insurance program or a government policy that people got. we give people a premium support program where they could buy their own private insurance of their choice. for the poor, we help them with support. the analysis of what the cost of the program would be was carried out by a group called the massachusetts tax fair foundation. they are an independent think- tank funded largely by business interests. they look at the massachusetts health care system after reform

and they concluded this, that the cost of the system was relatively modest and that it costs less than 1% per year of the state budget. that is not free, by any means. but it is not what some people might of thought. some people thought it costar -- -- cost half your state budget, a quarter of your state budget, 10% of your state budget. no. it costs less than 1% of your state budget. but still think that is too -- i still think that is too we were already paying for people who were getting free care. i wanted to limit how much we would pay in the future to that amount that we had already been paying. all these things we did without a tax increase. i know that with the summary of what we did and the differences to the obama plan, that will not satisfy everybody. i respect the views of those who believe we took the wrong

course and who think that we should have taken a different course. i also recognize that a lot of pundits around the nation are saying that i should stand up and say that this whole thing was a mistake, that it was a bonehead idea and i should just the admitted. -- just admit it. that it was a mistake and i should walk away. if i did that, that would be good for me politically. but there's only one problem with that. it would not be honest. in fact, i did what i believe is right for the people of my state and i will describe for you now what i think would be right for the people of the united states, which is quite a different plan. i will turn to repeal and replace and go back to the question again. why repealed? -- repeal? i told you about some of the things i did not like about the president's plan. i will start with an overview of our health care system. i know we have doctors and professionals in the medical community here. you can probably elaborate on

this. a couple of thoughts. there are some major advantages in our health care system relative to those in other nations in the world. i believe we have the highest quality health care in the world. we provide to our consumers an extraordinary level of choice and freedom. we attract to the profession the best and the brightest from among our population. and we are the most innovative place in the world for medical technology and drugs and instruments and devices and so forth. we do, however, have some disadvantages in our system. it is a high-cost system. it does not have, by and large, affordable insurance. -- portable insurance. people are worried that they will lose their insurance if they change jobs. we have about 50 million people who do not have coverage. when i say tax discrimination, i am referring to individuals who want to buy insurance on their own are treated differently under our tax code that people -- than people working for a big company where the company buys insurance for them. that is tax discrimination. the --tunate among

unfortunately, the president's plan, at least in my view, detracts from some of the best things of the american health care system. it hurts the quality of health care by having health care more dominated by government. it also reduces consumer choice by having government play a bigger role in deciding what insurance to get and what will be covered in -- covered under your insurance. it recalls the best of the -- it repels the best and brightest. i know there are some doctors in the room. i will not ask for witnesses here, but my son went to medical school and he talked with a number -- there are no romney doctors in my immediate family so he talked with people who were doctors about what they thought about going into medicine. without exception, they said do not do it unless you really, really love it. my goodness. this is a tough profession to go into because of what is happening by virtue of government cost heavy hand in -- government's heavy hand in medicine. there's no question in my view that the present plan will tend

to repel people from coming into the medical profession. finally, i am afraid that the obama reforms discourage innovation. when you tax people who are developing devices and instruments that are used in medicine, they will have less funds to invest and create new innovations. but there is more wrong with the president's plan. i believe it is an economic nightmare. it does not lower health care costs overall in our system. it raises taxes. it diverts medicare fund and it kills jobs. as i go around the country and talk to business people -- and i was 1 for 25 years -- when you explain and then stand the -- and they understand the implications of the obama care program on them, they are less likely to hire people. they're concerned about the costs of obama care on their ability to hire and train workers. it kills jobs. it is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that this recession

has taken so long to get out of and what we have 20 million americans unemployed, underemployed, or have ceased looking for work. there are more things i do not like ribeye did not like the -- like. i do not like the power grab from the state. i do not like the massive federal bureaucracy. the republican joint congressional committee tried to chart how it works. prepare yourself. this is the slide. [laughter] this is not a pretty picture. and suggest to me why people are concerned about getting into the health care profession. for all those reasons, if i were lucky enough to be in the white house, in the position of leadership, on the first day, i would issue an executive order paving the way for obama care waivers to be given to all 50 states. then i would go to work with congress to make sure we could repeal obama care. now let's look at what i do instead.

you will not be surprised. when i will describe to you is -- what i will describe to you is basically the same structure that i described four years ago when i was running for president. i should note, by the way, that was a time when my massachusetts health care plan was considered, at least by me, to be an asset politically. i hear some laughter in the room. that is not the case now. despite the fact that it has gone from being seen as an asset to being seen as a liability, the plan will describe for you is the thing. -- the same. i am not suggesting the plan to reflect the sentiment -- the political sentiment. the plan starts with the same element. let me begin with what i consider to be the objectives of my plan. one is do no harm. cheerio, strengthen the health care system by lowering costs and improving quality, but providing portability, the ability to know you'll keep your and duke -- your pitch --

you change jobs, improve consumer choice and expand health care by dealing with those individuals who have pre- existing conditions and provide access to care for those who are low-income or are uninsured. five principals, resource base to leadership, in power -- restore states to leadership, empower individuals who purchase their own insurance, focused our regulation as opposed to making it over brot or over -- over- bureaucratic, perform a medical liability system. and introduce market forces to health care to the extent possible one by one. retort -- restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their own poor, their own uninsured, and their own terminally ill. the state is the best place to determine what is the best way to help the poor. i would therefore block grant to the states medicaid funds and so cold dish pavements --

disproportionate payments -- to the state. states, now you use this money as you feel appropriate to care for your own poor. i would limit the federal standards to those that were absolutely necessary. the experiment and learn from one another. and offer flexibility. some would decide the fate understand the role of charity in their state and can it be expanded? some would say let's do exchanges like did in -- like we did in massachusetts. some will decide to give subsidies for private coverage. there will be different alternatives. there will be flexibility to deal with the chronically ill population, with high risk pools, and risk adjustment. these ideas would be tried out and are now being tried out by various states. that was put on ice when obamacare was passed. the federal government was taking over. the second point, empower individual ownership. i think this is critical. i would make sure that we give

the same tax treatment to individuals who buy insurance that we give to individuals who get insurance from their big employer. what would that do? in a lot of cases, an individual was say, you know what? general motors or ford or chrysler -- i have to be fair here -- instead of your plan, i want to get my plan. so the amount that you are paying for bluecross or whatever, give me the money and i will pay for my own plan. then people can get a plan that fits their own needs rather than what has been determined by the human resources department of a big corporation. this gives greater consumer choice. people get a what -- people get what they want and not just what their employer wants to

give them. if i own my own health care insurance, i do not lose it if i change jobs. i am continuously insured as ago -- as i go from job to job. by virtue of that fact and the fact that i am choosing when i want myself, not just what was given to me, the cost of health insurance and the choices that people make, in my view, is likely to come down. focused federal regulation -- we have to make the markets work better. the couple, and feel years ago after is ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions who are covered for some specified amount of time may not be denied coverage. so you will lets it to someone, -- you will not say to somebody, if you have never had insurance and your age 55 and you have a heart attack and you suddenly want insurance and they say you connected, that does not work -- you want insurance, that does not work very well. if you are richer for 10 years and you have a heart attack, of course, you will continue to be covered. empower small businesses to create pools. eliminate some of the counter productive government constraints. but people buy products from other states if they are superior products in the consumer's view.

provide insurance plans that meet the needs of consumers across state lines. reforming liability. i do not have to tell you about the burden of our medical liability system on our health care system. we should cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. and we should provide innovation grants for state reforms like health course, alternative dispute resolution, and so forth. market forces -- i want health care to work more like a market and less like a government agency. i would like to make health savings accounts that empower the consumer. that is far more efficient and effective. permit health savings accounts funds to pay for health insurance premiums, which is not allowed today. i also like some of the new innovations in insurance, like co-insurance. we spoke earlier with the members of the tea about value- -- members of the team here about the value-based insurance products.

co-insurance, we have all heard of copays, where you pay $10 for a doctor visit. co-insurance is paying 10% of my total bill. when that happens, my consumer cares about how much the bill will be. i care about the quality of the provider and what the total bill will be. that kind of product would lower the premiums and give people a much greater stake in the cost and quality of the care they receive. -- they are seeking. i like the "consumer reports" type of approach where we would rank different insurance programs around the country. i would like to facilitate information technology, interpol -- interrupt ability -- and interoperability. established cost and quality transparency. a number of you are already doing this. promoting alternatives for fees for service with capitated rates or bundled payments have a lot of promise. so where are we with regards to

my objectives. -- objectives? i think we have done what i suggested at the beginning. we have not done harm. we have strengthened health care. we have expanded health care to those who do not have it. how do we get health care costs down? number one, for the first time, we can allow individuals to purchase insurance as an individual without being penalized in a tax base. number two, we will introduce market dynamics were consumers -- where consumers care about what care costs. we will reform the medical malpractice system. keep the costs down. providers will have an incentive in the non-fee-for- service system. it will stop being an open checkbook for state. -- states. "i will expand more and more people on medicaid because the government will pick up half the bill." finally, there will be greater competition across state lines as people are able to buy insurance from other places and joined other purchasing alliances. let me note that there is more to come.

there are additional specifics you expect from me and they will be coming. i also know there will be a lot you expect from me. -- from me on medicare reform. that is a big part of health care. but me just make a couple points. i applaud the fact that rep ryan put forward a plan to keep medicare solvent. that has to be our primary detective. and to keep our country -- primary objective, and to keep our country fiscally responsible as well. he has added choice to his plan and inserted market dynamics. this will not be identical to the ryan plan, but the shares -- its shares many of those objectives. let me conclude by summarizing differences between the output of president obama's plan and my plan. as you might imagine, the comparison will be favorable in

my direction. [laughter] first, obama care spot -- obamacare raises taxes. i do not. it diverts medicare for health care plan. we do not divert medicare for a health care plan. his crease -- his creates new bureaucracy. his reduces consumer choice. i dramatically increase consumer choice. his, i believe, will raise health care costs. mine lowers health care costs. his involve massive new government spending. they admit to $1 trillion over a decade. it will be more than that down the road. mine reduces government spending. his includes mandates on individuals and states. one includes no mandates. -- mine includes no mandates. we let the states create their own plan. his is dependent upon the federal government deciding who is poor and how to ensure that appeared line gives the state --

how to insure them. mine gives the state the responsibility to care those who are poor and uninsured. his discriminate on a tax basis against individuals and small businesses where individuals often do not get coverage from their employer. mine provides tax fairness. his includes overly broad pre- existing condition rules. mine has fair and reasonable pre-existing elements. i like what we have worked on and put together. if i am a nominee on the republican side of the aisle and i did a chance to debate -- i get the chance to debate president obama, this is what we will be talking about. who has a better plan for america? which list is the most favorable list for the american people? i am confident that, when considering those two plans, the american people will say the mitt romney u.s. reforms is a lot better than obamacare. thank you so much. it is good to be with you today. [applause]

thank you. let me turn to you and get questions and advice. my guess is this is an audience that could ask questions i cannot answer. if you have some questions or suggestions or advice, i would be happy to hear it. please. >> what is to keep states from having increased to the bottom? -- the race to the bottom? >> the answer is the people of that state will vote out of office the people who do not do a good job. states are competing. the great thing about the federalist system where states have powers and responsibilities and rights is that states compete for businesses, for high-educated individuals, for work force.

we're competing with one another. i favorite story about state competition -- i apologize for taking a detour. when i was elected governor, my friend arnold schwarzenegger came to my state and put up a billboard that said "come to california." he was coaching jobs for my had to compete with arnold schwarzenegger? so i put the words in his state [laughter] it had been a teacher saying "smaller muscles but lower taxes." [laughter] so we're competing. i also think there is a recognition in this country that we are a grand and generous people. the idea that we would ever say to people "tough luck. you are poor. you will not have health care. that is not american. we will care for one another." we have half a million real

people without insurance and a lot more concerned about what would happen if they would lose their job. we did not say, that is a problem, but no one can solve it. we have a job to do. we need to help people. we need to do our best. by the way, what we did was not perfect. it included a number of things i wish i could do differently. there are things that were done at the time that i did not like. i vetoed it and got overridden. but i am proud of the fact that we did the best for our people and got people insured. absolutely. thank you. yes, sir. >> [unintelligible]

>> the hospital could put a lien on your property. >> there are differences among states about how to deal with people who do not have insurance. my guess is that you will find in some states more aggressive efforts on the part of hospitals to collect from individuals who get free care. there was an article yesterday in a good use it today," i think it was -- issued a in "usa today." it was $40 billion of free care given out in hospitals. a tiny percent was collected. if someone has a two hundred thousand dollars hospital bill, it will never get collected. there are people who, from time to time, develop conditions who require those huge costs. it is, in my view, the first responsibility of the provider to go after those people who are

taking advantage of the system. so there is some merit in what to say. how states can approach that, i think we can learn from one another. yes, sir. when you talk about the quality of health care, >> [unintelligible] but our country is not always seen as being healthy. we have not had that conversation. >> you're absolutely right. i've lost over this idea of coinsurance and owning your own insurance and value-based insurance benefits. those concepts _ a conviction i have that one -- those concepts underscore the conviction that i have.

healthy, trying to get you are helping as the same person who was thrown in the council -- towel. there is not an incentive. others in the nation like de and safeway have found ways to provide incentives to get regular checkups and good to exercise class. that makes a lot of sense. think about the application and the system -- evocation of the system where the majority of us get -- think about the implication of the system where people get insurance at their job. there is nothing wrong with that. people change jobs every three years or four years, the insurance company knows that they will only cover you for three years or four years. then you will go somewhere else. they have no huge incentive to work with you to keep you healthy because you will be someone else's problem three years or four years from now.

but if you purchase your own policy and you get the tax treatment that your company is to get, now the insurance company says i will probably have that patient for the rest of their lives. i, as an insurance co., want to encourage them to get regular checkups and get their blood pressure medication and a caseworker to work with them to make sure they follow protocols that will keep them healthy. the incentives -- instead of the insurance company wondering how to dump the sick people, instead, this is my patient, my customer. competing for customers around the nation and i will work to keep them healthy. by opening the door way, as i have to individuals buying their own insurance and knocked being discussed -- and not being discriminated against for doing so, you will see a change in the way we think about will listened care. i sure hope so.

yes, ma'am. >> [unintelligible] >> one of the features the find interesting is that you can learn from other countries, even those whose health system to do not like i would look at france and switzerland. there is not a lot letter want to bar from france and switzerland. but as a percentage of their economy, they're spending six whole points lower than ours on health care. we are at almost 18% of gdp.

one of the reasons for that is that they require people to participate with co insurance, as i describe it. if you go to a hospital in france for elective surgery, you are responsible for 20% of the bill. if that is the case, you probably will check around at different hospitals. in our country, if you go to get a knee replacement, there is no reason to check around to different hospitals. you have a thousand dollars deductible. that is what will pay. everything else is free. if the hospital changes -- if it hospital charges $20,000 or $40,000, it makes no difference to you. but people would health savings accounts, that would provide incentives, like coinsurance. i think those kinds of ideas we can borrow from other countries. if there are other approaches that would encourage us to be

more quality-oriented, i am all years. thank you. i will take one more. yes, sir. >> [unintelligible] what is a primary way to lower costs? >> if i go back to lowering costs -- not having states with an open check book on medicaid, that is one way to get it down. no. 2, having people purchase the insurance they want, instead of getting something much more expensive than they want or need. that helps bring down the cost. having individuals have personal interest in what the cost is of a procedure they will get -- think about health care system like a car. what would happen if, for an automobile, you paid a 500

deductible to buy a car. you paid $500 and the rest was free. anything you got above that was no cost. you pay the deductible. and the salesperson was compensated based on the more expensive they gave you and the more they made. so you pay $500 a matter what you get, and the sales person gets paid based on what they sold. if that were the case, we would all be driving bentley's, corvettes, cadillac's, lincoln's. i have to be fair here. [laughter] that is what we have in health care. under the way we have designed our insurance benefits and the way the insurance system has evolved through an employer- based system, people pay a deductible. they fear the first $1,000 or the first $500, and the rest is free. people do not have an interest

in seeing how much something costs. markets do not work if the consumer has no interest in the price. so you want the consumer to care about the cost and care about quality. that is the most powerful dynamic in my view for bringing down the cost of health care. it is to get health care to work like a market, where the consumer cares what the cost is and the provider -- i do not want to suggest that doctors are like salesmen and women -- but for the provider has an incentive to keep you healthy as opposed to doing more things to you. when you have a medical liability problem in this country, where doctors have to do all kinds of stuff it is not medically necessary, but protect me from a possible lawsuit, you're just a building on costs. over the decades, we created a system which is out of control. we spend almost 18% of our

economy on health care, the next highest in the world is 12%. that is a 6% get in gdp. --how much as 6%? are told defense budget is less than 6%. it is 4%. we can maintain the superb call -- quality you have and the choice that we have and attract the best and the brightest and the field, all of those elements, by changing the way health care workers and make it more like a market appeared i know ways that can make that happen. the key thing is this -- i learned from experience. one person and one government, the federal government, should not impose their will on everybody else. what i like about what i have described here is allowing 50 states to create their own approaches to the needs of their people. as states compete, voters in those states will vote out the people who did not come up with good ideas and vote in people to have the good ideas. and we will have a system that is more affective and get better care and hard and compassion we always expect from the nation that is the salt of

the earth. thank you so much. it is good to be with you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you for being here. hello. >> great job. >> thank you. good to see you. dr. >> i ran against john boehner. >> did you really?