country that wants to be a democracy. it wants to be an economic success story. it wants to join nato. it wants to be able to look west as well as east and it wants to have good relations wh its neighbor. i'm glad she's meeting with members of theorn georgian parliament and i'll certainly make my views clear on the issue of georgia if i visit and when i visit georgia this year. >> does my right honorable friend agree that the key challenge facing the national health service is how to convert this government's welcomed commitment to year on year growth of real resrces into improving productivity and improving quality of care for patients? and is not key to delivering that -- did he not lie in my right honorable friend's speech yesterday in his advocacy of more integrated and less fragmented care? and will he continue to build -- >> i think we've got the thrust of it. the prime minister.

>> my honorable friend -- my honorable friend's support for the reforms is hugely welcomed and i know he follows these issues very closely. and it wasn't just he that welcomed the speech that i set out yesterday, also, i had expressed support from the royal college of nurses and royal colleg of nurses, the miller cancer sponsor and breakthrough supporters. and professional bodies in the health service whokz that this government is listening, is getting its changes right and will add the money that's required that only we are committed to with the reforms that are necessary to make sure that the nhs can go on and thrive in the future. >> ian timing, the efforts

and the monday so as we can get to the truth and find out how those two police officers were dastardly murdered? >> well, i will certainly look very carefully at the issue that the honorable gentleman raises. there are still on all sides in northern ireland and indeed in the republic huge concern about things that happened in the past where people want -- often they ask for an inquiry or a process but i think in most cases what most people really want is the truth and i found with the issue of the salvo inquiry was not the 120 million and the five years. what most people want the unvarnished truth so they can come to terms with what happened in the >> each week the house of

commons is in session, we air prime minister's questions2 on questions live and then again on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. watch any time at c-span.org -- and by pat -- where you can find past video of prime minister's questions and other british programming. tonight, our road to the white house coverage starts with a gop president tucana did gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico. after that, a speech on the economy from tim pawlenty. then rick santorum announces his candidacy. our road to the white house coverage starts with an interview with gary johnson, former new mexico governor. he formally kicked off his campaign in april spurred some of the topics are reducing debt, and a marriage, and the issues

and events and shaped his political career. this is about 30 minutes. >> gary johnson, a 2012 presidential candidate, the state of the country today is what? >> i think that everyone is apprehensive about what has happened recently, and i am talking about the economy and what is going forward. and i am sharing in that. right now i am concerned that we are on the verge of a line to collapse, a bond market collapse, because there is no repaving $14 trillion in debt, given the fact that our ongoing davison is $1.65 trillion this year. it is not. happen, so the bond market will collapse and that could happen virtually any day. the only way we alleviate that is to balance the federal budget right away. that is what i advocate, a

balanced federal budget tomorrow. and i am optimistic. i am an optimistic guy. i have always been optimistic. i am optimistic that we can actually do this. this will be very difficult but it will never be easier to accomplish dan right away. the longer we put this off, again, this financial collapse is written in the numbers. this is going to happen. there will be a complete breakdown of our currency, and given the fact that we're printing the amount of money that we are printing, and we do not have an of borrowers out there, lenders that want to lend us money. >> if you look at this as a politician, a former governor, and a citizen, how did we get to this point? who is responsible? >> we are all responsible because we elected one congressman, one senator, and one president at a time. it has been a cumulative effect. i've spent my entire life

watching the government spend more money than it takes and, starting at age 9. i wondered how this was sustainable. for me in politics, the issue has always been government spending more money than it takes in. hal is that sustainable? quite simply, don't we have to spend the amount -- how can we spend beyond what we collect? to do that year after year, and now it has never been to this extent, and that is what makes it so imminent, if you will. m and that meaning financial collapse. >> based on that, why do you want to be president are smart >> i would not be running for president if i did not think they could do this job and i did not make that could do a good job at it. and it would be based on my resume, the fact that i'm on to read your my entire life the

best i have been an entrepreneur my entire life. i had 1000 employees and ran for governor of new mexico. i won and i am going to make the claim that i made a big difference in the state of new mexico by standing up and saying, really, do we need to be spending this amount of money? will the government really make a difference in any of our lives? here is the amount of money we have to spend to make this difference? i was willing to say, we do not have to. with notoriety, i'd be dead seven added 50 bills while i was governor of new mexico. i had thousands of line item vetoes as governor of new mexico. putting that into perspective, it might be an embellishment but i might have been -- i might add the of more bills than the other 49 governors in the country combined.

only two of them were overridden. in made a difference. and they got played out. it was in the newspaper, in friend, on the radio, every single day. in a state that is two-one democrat, it is significant that having rendered that many be does, having stood up and talked about government and government's role in the notion that the best government is good government their rule least, i reelected by a bigger margin the second time than the first time. >> described it gary johnson brand of politics. are you a republican, a libertarian, a conservative course to mark what labels which you attach to yourself? >> i hate labels but let's use them. a majority of people in this country described himself as fiscally conservative -- 60% described themselves as fiscally conservative and socially

liberal. i would change the socially liberal to classic liberal. in that sense, i may be a classic liberal, period. someone who believes that the government there rules best is the government their roles least. someone who believes that government, the best thing that government can do for me as an individual is allow me to be the individual that i choose to be. give me an equal shot at the american dream. give me a shot at the fact that you can go from having nothing in this country to having everything in this country if you are willing to work hard and innovate to do that. people are so upset about the notion that this country is unfair. i saw that as governor of new mexico. legislation that favored individuals, groups, business, as opposed to legislation that would have affected us back to a level playing field.

just give everyone an equal shot as opposed to unfair. i saw all the time and i think that is what people are so upset about in this country. >> what is the role of the federal government? are there things this government is doing today that it should get out? >> it is not today so much as a culmination of what it has become. the me just give education as an example. what should the federal government do beyond any other single thing to improve education in this country? i would offer that we abolish the federal department of education. let me say that the federal government gives the states are about 11 cents out of every dollar that every state spends. but that is money that the state sends to the federal government in the first place. now comes back as a little less, about 11 cents. he comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached.

it is really a negative to take federal money when it comes to education. just give education back to the states. 50 laboratories of innovations, 50 laboratories of best practices. and there would be best practices. best practices would be emulated. there would be the year. failure would be avoided. but if we have 50 laboratories working on best educational systems, we will improve. we are all competitive. if we will emulate the success and avoid the failure. but that idea that washington knows best, intuitive leave me know that that does not work. we see a play out as the federal government's every single day, whether that is health care, education, you can name an end states would do better addressing these issues as municipalities do better than states. >> congressman paul ryan has put

on a table of republican plan that would create about-like system and reduce the federal involvement in health care. >> i completely concur. we need to cut government expenditures by 43%. that is the amount of money that we are borrowing and printing to cover the obligations that we have, the $1.65 trillion figure. that is the amount of money that we are borrowing and printing to cover the money that we do not have that we are spending. our deficit is $1.65 trillion. we should cut government expenditures by 43%. when you talk about medicare, medicare is going to involve the entire battle -- federal budget if it is not brought under control. this is where politically, you

get into the ground where everyone is fearful. this is where fear comes to play. how about the notion that the federal government gives the delivery of health care to those over 65 to the states? do that with less money, take away the strings and the mandates, and give states a free rein on how they want to deliver health care to those over 65. i would argue -- back to 50 laboratories of innovation, of best practice, that we would absolutely have best practices that would be emulated. there would be failures. it would get avoided. but the notion of top-down does not work. we have not fee-for-service medicare model that is going to -- and arguably has led the charge -- in our rise to the bankruptcy door. >> let me turn the floor and policy. you have a doctrine or set of guidelines that would basically

guide u.s. you look at what is happening in the middle east, in europe, in china, and elsewhere? >> if should we provide ourselves with a strong national defense? yes, we should. i think that it has gone way beyond that notion. we should be looking at military threats to the united states. that is what we should remain ambivalent toward. i was opposed to us going into iraq from the very beginning. i did not see a military threat from iraq. i know a lot was being said about weapons of mass destruction. what i thought and what i said was, we have the military surveillance capability to see if iraq rollout any weapons of mass destruction. if we did that, we can go in and address that situation. i thought if we went into iraq, we would find ourselves in a

civil war to which there would be no end. afghanistan initially, i thought that was totally warranted. we were attacked. we attacked back. we are at war with terrorism. we are at war with al qaeda. but having been in afghanistan for six months, we effectively had wiped out al qaeda. that was 10 years ago. we are building roads, schools, bridges, highways, and hospitals in iraq and afghanistan. we are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that. do we not have the same needs here in this country? and worst of all, servicemen and service women are losing their lives. libya -- when we went into libya, i issued a paper. i am opposed to what we are doing here, a through c. where was the military threat? where was the military threat? it did not exist.

we're in the constitution doesn't say that because we do not like a foreign dictator, we should go in and topple him? where is the congressional authorization to go into libya? that is something that as president of united states, that is a terrific check. congress. i would be checking in with congress if there were any military intervention that i wanted to partake in. back to libya. aren't there five other countries qualify for the same military intervention that we have implemented with libya? they're just as not seem to be an and to our foreign military involvement. and i do not know if we have made ourselves any safer. >> two of those three complex began under republican presidents with support from republicans in congress. what does that tell you about the bush administration?

>> first of all, i think that both parties share in where we have gotten to today. regressing a little bit to president obama's health care plan, i would want to repeal the health care plan simply because we cannot afford it. but i think republicans would gain a lot of credibility in that argument if they would offer a for repeal of the prescription health-care benefits that they passed when they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, and read up -- ran up record deficits under bush. both parties share in where we have gotten too. politicians are responsible for this. ultimately you and i are responsible for this, because we have elected this foreign- policy. one congressperson, one senator, and one president at a time. >> let's talk about social issues. gay-rights and gay marriages, what is your view? >> i think the government should get out of the marriage

business, get into the civil union business, and lead marriage to the churches. i had and support of gay rights. and that would be the ability of case to be civilly united. >> abortion. >> i support a woman's right to choose up until viability of the fetus. as governor of new mexico, i signed a bill banning late term abortions. i've always favored parental notification and counseling. i have always favored the notion of no public funds being used for abortion. >> prayer in public schools. >> prayer in public schools. as governor of new mexico, that was a question i got asked also. the notion of a quiet period, if you will, a reflective period, i do not know if that is a negative. but there needs to be a separation of church and state and the notion of prayer that may exclude those, that is

something that constitutionally we should be on guard against. >> so on these issues, i you may find differences with other presidential candidates, and certainly a certain sector of the republican party. how does that play out in a primary for gary johnson? >> and now we get to running for governor of new mexico. those republicans were the issues were the biggest issues, i didn't get their votes in the primary. new mexico was a state that was two-one democrat, but it appeared that if i were to win the primary -- if i won the primary in new mexico, i would go on and do very well and potentially win the general election. i think that same situation -- and by the way, i did not get any of their votes in the primary. i think i got all their votes in the general election. now you have two like candidates when it comes to those issues,

and the focus moves out to other issues. in this case, and fiscal issues, and i think those are the big issues. i think it is analogous to my doing this today running for president of the united states. >> at what age and why did you move to mexico? >> when i was 13 years old, we moved to new mexico. my mother was transferred there in the bureau of indian affairs. she was an accountant. we lived in aberdeen, s.d. and a consolidated all but accounting throughout the entire country in albuquerque. my father is a youth in north dakota had gone to boy scout camp and belmont and had fallen in love with in mexico. he was always angling away to move to new mexico. so i am glad that all that turned out. >> you started gj enterprise.

>> when i sold it, i had 100 employees. i started in 1974 as a one-man handyman, me, and in 1994 i had 1000 employees, plumbing, electrical. one of the reasons that i sold the business and the number one reason was we were not getting the work that we should have gotten, and naively i did not think it would be affected by by being governor of new mexico. we did not have any public jobs of any kind. that was not an issue. but we were not getting the jobs that we should have gotten. looking back on and, i can understand that. 600 people? that was a lot of people that needed work and it was a responsibility i felt even as governor to those that had given me the opportunity to go and the governor. i sold that business in 1999, no one lost their job, and they are

doing better than ever today. >> you are a political novice and decided to run for governor. why governor of new mexico? >> i always believe that politics was a high calling in always believed that to be able to do that, that would really be something special. from a live standpoint, the notion of being able to do good by others. and the whole notion of good, i realize that is an arguable concept, and many would argue that i did not do any good at all for new mexico. i would argue i made a big positive difference for the state, and it was always about issues first and politics last, to the point that politics for the most part never entered into any of the decision making as governor of new mexico. >> as governor and if you were

president, how does gary johnson make a decision? what is the process? especially where you do not have a clear-cut resolution? >> first of all, i relish the process. i thought that the job itself was blood boiling. i would not be running for this office if i did not think it was blood boiling. but the first consideration as governor was how this affects new mexico citizens. will this positively impact new mexico citizens? as president of united states, the first consideration would be how is this going to positively impact the citizens of the united states? might it actually cost them money and not make a difference in any of their lives? that was an assessment i made all the time as governor of new mexico. spending in mexico went way down. billions of dollars worth of spending would have taken place

but for my saying no to that spending. >> was there an issue or an agenda that you wanted to deal with that you were unable to in your eight years? >> no, the agenda that i had was the promise i made you mexicans. i was going to tackle the issues a through z. no sacred cow. there would be no political fallout from what i was doing because i had never been involved in politics before. the best politics would be to address all of the issues. people ask me, what are you most proud of having been governor of new mexico. i address the issues a through z. it did not matter what the issues were, we took them on. >> mt. mckinley, mt. everest, mt. kilimanjaro -- you have climbed the mall. >> i have the gall to climb the highest mountain on each

continents. the highest mountains are in the high mollet's -- himalayas, and i will not come remotely close -- but i do have a goal to climb the highest mountain on each continent. i had gone to the top of quite true of those. before my life is out, i am in very good physical shape. i have no doubt that i would be able to get to the top of the of the three. she and how do you do that? >> like this and a new venture. -- like is an adventure. what a wonderful way to see the planet by setting a goal to go and climb the highest mountains on each continent. >> but physically, what you have to do to get ready for that? >> nothing. i have been a lifelong physically fit. that is something that i set for myself as a criteria to live from day to day, that i would be

as fit as i possibly could be. as a 58-year-old sitting before you now, if you would be hard pressed -- there are certainly those that are as big, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone more fit. and there are those that are, but i have dedicated my life to this. fitness, good health, and of course that equates to all other aspects of life. >> when you are doing a triathlon, whether running or biking or swimming, how much of it is physical and how much is mental? >> as a 58-year-old, it is amazing how much strength you old and have- year- muscle memory and do some pretty darned endurance-related activities and not be all that affected. >> what the enjoy most in terms

of physical activity? >> my main passion is skiing. i live just north because the skiing is as good there is anywhere in the planet. that is my passion. outside of skiing in the winter, cycling, rather road biking or mountain biking. i still do mountain biking competitions. something that i really enjoyed. going out on an eight-hour mountain bike ride is not uncommon. >> you have two children. what do they think about his presidential bid? in my son who is 28, he quit his well paying job in denver a year-and-a-half ago to come and do this full time and paid. -- unpaid. this was a the experience that he said he could not miss.

very loving. my daughter is terrific. she was a valedictory and at the university of colorado-boulder out of 9000 students. my daughter when she was in college was driving outside of dallas, new mexico. her car broke down. she had heard tools with her. she knew it was the alternator. she hitchhiked into town, bought the new alternator, went back to the car, and installed it herself. >> the me ask you about your first wife passed away in 2005. all was that experience like for you as a husband and a father? >> one of the worst things about being governor of new mexico was that dee and i grew apart. being in public office, it had a lot if not everything to do with that. we grew apart.

we divorced after i left office, and soon after a hot we divorced, she died. she died from heart failure. that is the worst thing that has happened to me in my life. >> what impact has she had on your life? >> she was extremely loving. she cared about me. she cared about her children. we are living that legacy. what she has left with me is that, well, she has left me with everything. she blessed me with everything. >> let's talk politics. you are on single digits. there is a big debate this sunday that you are not part of. why? >> i am surprised that i am not in the debates. i am shocked. i did not think that i would be excluded from any debates. i did not crawl out from under a

rock to run for president of united states, as we have discussed. to-term governor of new mexico. i will argue very successfully in that role, and i think i have resumed, talking about being an entrepreneur, my family, my life, i think i would be -- i think i am qualified to do this job. i would do a good joke. being excluded from the debate -- i have always believed in the system. toomey, the system is at a minimum cracking the door. if there is a crack in the door, by my hard work and innovation i can make the most of it. but this is a shut the door, a locked door. i am not going to be in these debates on monday. it is upsetting. it is not fair.

>> what is your strategy, moving beyond the single debate in new hampshire? how do you get the nomination? who is your biggest competitor? >> the strategy is to do well in new hampshire and these primary states, particularly new hampshire, where it is a retail politics state. people in new hampshire -- it is a terrific political environment in new hampshire. it is terrific. the joke is, "what do you think about mitt romney?" "i have met him a couple of times and am having him over for dinner thursday night, but i am undecided until i meet the candidates." that is a great environment. it is about getting out and talking with as many groups of individuals as you possibly can. i have visited new hampshire 10 times and will be living in new hampshire.

that will be my second home, will be new hampshire, believing you can go from obscurity to prominence overnight with a good showing there. >> campaigning for any job is essentially a job interview for the american people or four constituents of a state or congressional district. what is your pitch? >> that i am an entrepreneur and that i have been very successful as governor of new mexico. look at my resume. hear what it is i have to say. now we are talking about the issues of the day. make a determination if i am going to actually fulfill what it is i am saying i am going to do. based on my resume, you can take that to the bank that i would actually do what i say i am going to do. >> you go through this process, early in the campaign process. have you learned anything about yourself, and the american people, or this country?

>> that we are an optimistic country. i think we can tackle these issues. what have i learned about myself? it is a continuation of this notion. i really believe that life is a journey, that it is not a destination, that if you make life a destination you are bound to be disappointed. in this journey of running for president of the united states, which it is, i enjoy every moment of every day. if it were about winning the office, that is something i really cannot control. what i can control is how much work i put in to giving out the message that i am delivering, and let people make that decision. that is now the journey. it is not the destination. when i went to mount everest, it was not getting to the top,

because there are so many factors that come to play. if it was about getting to the top, i was bound to be disappointed. it was about the journey and the fact that i had put myself in a position to be there with my physical conditioning, with what i had done in my life to give me the resources to be there to do that, and the time. this is a continuation of life's journey. what is life? shouldn't we all try to make the most out of the lives we have been given? >> on that journey, you almost died six or seven years ago. >> i had a very serious peril gliding accident five years ago. i was told my life would not be the same after that accident. i really, really hurt myself. i believe that i have fully recovered, but it took about

three years to recover from that. >> as you look back at american history, are their role models or presidents that you want to emulate in terms of american politics or public policy? >> recently speaking, i think you could call him a political figure -- milton friedman. milton friedman just had some terrific ideas. i think that politically may be more people, more politicians that would emulate his thoughts -- i speak now about school choice, and drug reform, drug policy, taxes, spending. i just have found him to be the role model. >> governor jerry -- gary johnson, we thank you for your time. >> is it done? while. thank you for your time. thank you very much. >> our pleasure.

>> now another republican presidential -- presidential candidate, tim pawlenty. he accuses president obama of practicing class warfare. the former minnesota governor also laid out his economic plan. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] thank you for the introduction. thank you for the hospitality of the institution to this gathering. i am grateful to have the opportunity to be here at the university of chicago. this is the home of the best free-market thinking in the country. we need significant and dramatic economic growth.

the principles that have been debated in this institution over many generations form the core of the direction we need to move forward for this country. i want to start my remarks by asking you -- how are you enjoying your recovery? that is what the president said we were hovering. but that was last year, the recovery summer. now gas is $4 a gallon. home prices are in the gutter. our health care system is more expensive and less efficient. unemployment is back over 9%. our national debt has skyrocketed. our budget deficit has grown worse. the jobs and manufacturing reports are grim.

the addiction to spending must be brought to a halt. with pro-growth policies, i will. the president wrongly thought the stimulus was the solution. he says they worked. they did not. the president is satisfied with a second-rate american economy produced by a third rate policies. i am not. i promised to level with the american people, to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. i went to iowa and said we need to phase out ethanol subsidies. i said we need to raise the retirement age for the next generation and means test social security for people who are coming into the workforce. i told wall street the area of carpets and ballots had to end. i am willing to tell americans the hard truth, and i believe

they are ready to hear it. the trick is not hard at all. the truth is this. markets work. central planning does not. america's economy is not even growing at 2% today. that is what projections say we can expect for the next decade. that is anemic. it is unacceptable. it is not the american way. the recession may have changed our economy. it did not change our character. the united states is still home to the most dynamic and entrepreneurial people in the world. they are all around us, ready to innovate, invest, compete, and create new businesses and jobs. that will mean opportunities for everyone. they have been discouraged and weighed down by heavy-handed regulations and the government. they deserve a better deal. i will give them one. here it is.

let us start as a nation with a big, positive goal. let us grow the economy by 5% instead of the anemic 2% currently envisioned. such a national economic growth target will set our sights on a positive future. it will inspire the actions needed to reach it. by the way, the 5% growth target is not some pie in the sky number. we have done it before. with the right policies, we can do it again. between 1983 and 1987, the reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. between 1996 and 1999, under president bill clinton and a republican congress, the economy grew at more than 4.7%. in each of those cases, millions of new jobs were created. incomes rose and unemployment fell to historic lows.

the same can happen again. growing at 5% a year rather than the current level of 1.8% would net us millions of new jobs, trillions of dollars in new wealth, and would put us on a path to saving our entitlement programs. it would also balance the budget. how do we do all this? in short, we need to create economic growth by creating more economic freedoms. we should start by overhauling the tax code. it is currently an anti-growth 9000-page monstrosity. it is full of special deals for special interests. its main goal seems to be too generous campaign contributions, not jobs. american businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. that is a recipe for failure, not adding jobs and economic growth. we should cut the business tax rate by more than half.

i propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. but our policies cannot simply be about cutting rates. they must also be about promoting freedom and free markets. the tax code is littered with special interest handouts, carpets, subsidies, and loopholes. they should be eliminated. such reform would not only help offset short-term revenue loss from the rate cuts, but would also reduce cronyism, favoritism, and government manipulating markets for political purposes. business success should depend on winning over customers, not winning over members of congress. these changes will make american companies immediately more competitive. investment from around the world will pour into our suddenly inviting market, creating desperately needed jobs and opportunities. but just changing business tax

rates is not enough. that is because we know most job growth will come from small and medium-sized businesses. they are typically structured as s-corps known as pass-through entities. they are taxed under individual rights. so tax reform must include individual tax reform as well. small business owners need a better deal to. small businesses should also have the option of paying at the corporate rate. on the individual rights, we need a simpler, fairer, and flatter tax system overall. i propose two rates -- 10% and 25%. that is it. those who currently pay no income tax would pay 0%. after that, the first $50,000 of income for an individual or

$100,000 of income for married couples would be taxed at 10%. everything above that would be taxed at 25%. that is the whole structure. it would represent a 1/3 cut in the bottom right and would allow lower income families to save and build wealth. it would represent a 28% cut in the top rate. it would spur investment and job creation. we should eliminate altogether the capital gains tax, the interest income tax, the dividend's tax, and the death tax. government has no moral or economic basis to claim a second share of the same income. when new deposits a dollar in your bank account, every penny forever more should be yours and your children's, not the federal government's. once we unleash the energies of america's families and individuals, as we did in the 80's and 90's, a booming job

market will reduce demand for government assistance and rising incomes will increase federal revenues. in the 1980's, revenues to the federal government increased by 99%. in the 1990's, revenues climbed high enough to balance the budget. 5% economic growth over the next 10 years would generate $3.80 trillion in new tax revenues. with that, we could reduce projected deficits by 40%, all before we made a single budget cut. the next part of my plan deals with the rest of that equation, which is the 60% of the deficit that is not solved under what i just described. a balanced federal budget should not be a political sound bite. it should be the law of the land.

i balanced budgets as governor of minnesota. by constitution, we had to. congress is addicted to spending. that is true regardless of which party has been in control. the best way and possibly the only way to ensure fiscal discipline is to put congress in a spending straitjacket. that is why i support a constitutional amendment that not only "requires a balanced budgets but also caps federal spending as a percentage of our economy, around the historical average of 18% of gdp. only a constitutional amendment has the power to bind future congresses to keep their promises. it will force decision makers to finally make decisions. it will give statutory reforms a chance to succeed. but passing a constitutional amendment is going to take a

while, and the crisis we face is here now. it requires immediate action. i have and will continue to outline specific proposals to reduce spending, reforming government, and balance the budget. i have already begun that process with proposals regarding ethanol, entitlements, government employees, reforming wall street, and much more. for example, i have proposed capping and block granting medicaid to the states entirely. i propose raising the social security retirement age for the next generation. i have proposed slowing the rate of growth of defense spending. but we cannot trust congress to do it. there is no historical record that would give us confidence they will. we cannot allow the situation to risk being unresolved. it will take down america's potential growth and future prosperity. i propose that congress grant the president temporary and

emergency authority to freeze spending at current levels and in pound up to 5% of federal spending until such time as the budget is balanced. if they will not do it, i will. as an example of the effects of this, in terms of the budget impact, if we are able to cut, or the president is able to impound, 1% of all federal spending for six consecutive years, we would balance the budget by the year 2017. think about that. just 1% each year. that would balance the budget by 2017. i know government can cut spending, because i did it in minnesota. i cut state spending in real terms for the first time in our state history. we did it with priority-based budgeting. we did it by setting a record four of the toes. it took a government shut down and a long union strike and many

other difficult decisions, but we got it done. we did not close our schools. we did not empty our prisons. we cut spending where it needed to be cut. we can do the same thing in washington. compounding the money should be a last resort only. it would force policy makers to finally do their jobs, to cut what we do not need, to allow us to keep the things we need the most. there are some obvious targets. we can start by what i call the google test. if you can find a service or a good available on google or the internet, the federal government probably does not need to be providing that good or service -- the post office, the government printing office, amtrak, fannie mae, freddie mac, and others. all were built for a different time in our country and a different chapter in our economy, when the private sector did not adequately provide those

services. but that is no longer the case. what is more, the same competitive efficiency that revelation -- revolutionized america's private-sector should be applied to every corner of the federal bureaucracy as well. it is no longer enough for government to go on a diet. government needs to hit the gym, and hit it hard. one deficiency program already has a proven track record across this country in the private sector. using performance-based management practices to streamline programs at the cia and the pentagon, and as i can personally attest, we use this in minnesota at several of our agencies. it worked. if we apply this approach to all federal agencies, we could save up to 20% in many programs. the real slog of the next administration will be an unrelenting trench battle against the overregulation by

our federal government. it is suffocating america's entrepreneurial spirit. conservatives have long made the federal bureaucracy the butt of jokes. considering some of the bureaucrats in washington and what they are in charge of doing, like the strength of our showerheads or the glow of our reading lamp, it is hard not to laugh or cry about such things. but the fact is federal regulations will cost our economy nearly $2 trillion this year alone. it is a hidden tax on every american consumer, built in the price of every good and service in the economy. make no mistake. the current administration is hunting for bigger game than incandescent light bulbs. individualacare's mandates, the private health- care market is in intensive care and the prognosis is bad. dodd-frank called for 200 new

rules by more than 10 federal agencies, none resolving the catastrophic scandal of fannie mae and freddie mac. they came out and touched in the so-called financial reform bill. months after the law went on the books, no one knows yet exactly what the law is or what those regulations are going to require. the environmental protection agency is now regulating carbon emissions, a policy rejected by congress that puts millions of jobs at risk. the country does not support it. yet the epa continues to try to advance that agenda against the wishes of elected officials in congress and the people across the country. if these policies sound as though they were written by people who spend more time outside of government, that is about right. president obama appointees have been notorious for their lack of private-sector experience.

this is unacceptable. it is fundamentally immoral to force working americans to hold down two or three real jobs to afford the winds of so-called experts who have never had one. we do not need one size fits all government-run health care. we need washington to allow a personalized private health care market to flourish and meet the diverse needs of individual patients and their families. we do not need to further intertwine wall street and pennsylvania avenue. we need to privatize fannie and freddie and remove the threat so their political slush funds can never again shrink our economy. we do not need elected officials at the epa to do what officials in congress have predicted. we need less epa monitoring of the economy and more of the epa's effects on our freedom and job growth in this country. i will require sun setting of

all federal regulations unless specifically sustained by a vote of congress. under my administration, it will come up for a vote every three to five years. under my administration, national labor relations board's will never again tell an american company where it can and cannot do business. just as the federal government must break down barriers with our domestic markets, we must break down barriers with our international markets. congress should ratify the free trade agreements with south korea and colombia in complete the agreement with panama. we should start new bilateral talks with our trading partners and promote aggressively our exports all over the world. president obama set a goal of doubling exports, yet his policies have prevented this. mine will achieve it. finally, even if we are successful in changing the way washington taxes, spence, and

regulates, many gains could be lost by the continued debasement of the dollar as a result of the loose money policies of the fed. a strong dollar undergirds all we do for economic growth. inflation and a devalued dollar cruelly undermines life savings and net asset values and the life prospects of every american. if we want to give taxpayers, retirees, investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs a better deal, we have to maintain a strong dollar. no more quantitative easing. no more monetizing debt. no more printing money. the president and congress have an incentive to maximize employment on their own. a limited government, streamlined tax system, and competitive market place will give the economy what it needs. we need a monetary policy that is focused like a laser on curbing inflation and promoting

a strong dollar and maintaining price stability. that should be the role of the fed, and nothing more. america as you know is facing great challenges. when times get tough, some politicians try to turn the american people against one another. regrettably, president obama is a champion practitioner of class warfare. elected with a call for unity and hope, he spent three years dividing our nation. he has been fanning the flames of class envy and resentment across this country to deflect attention from his own failures and the economic hardship they have visited on america. but class warfare is not who we are. i come from a working-class background. i did not grow up with wealth. but i have never resented those who have it. the top 10% of income earners already pay more than 70% of the income taxes in the country.

we could check that up to 80% or 90%, but that is not the point. while it might make the class warfare crusaders feel better, it would not create a single job in america, and it would destroy many. president obama has had three years to turn things around. all we have to show for it is $3.70 trillion more in debt, and climbing, nearly 2 million fewer jobs, a congress that has not passed a budget in more than two years, a health-care takeover that he pretends we can afford, and a fiscal crisis he pretends we can ignore. we have tried it president obama's way and it has only made the economy worse. other countries around the world have tried it president obama's way and have met with ruinous results. now we have a choice. just because we followed grease into democracy does not mean we should follow grease into

bankruptcy. the united states has always chosen its own path culturally, politically, and economically. for 235 years, we have taken the road less traveled, the road of liberty, the role of self- government and free enterprise. and it has made all the difference. america is in trouble. there is no question about that. but the frustration and apprehension of the moment does not define us. where we are is not who we are. we are the united states of america. we settled the west and we went to the moon. we liberated billions of good people from communism, fascism, and jihadism. we have lit the lamp of freedom. the strength of our country is our people, not our government. americans believe our country is

exceptional. they deserve a president who does too. we can fix our economy. our people are ready to get back to work. we just need to give them the tools to get there and get the government out of the way. thanks for coming today. i appreciate your time and attention. thank you again for the hospitality of the university of chicago. may god continue to bless the united states of america. i will be happy to take your questions. thank you. the dean told me that many of you have final exams coming up and we have to be somewhat brief. do you want to moderate? do you want me to call on people? you are moderating. great. >> thank you very much, governor, for coming today to the university of chicago. we all appreciate a break from studying.

today is an interesting day. it is interesting you are here to talk about the economy. i believe just last night, when you talked about the failed economic policies of the obama administration, that austin goolsbee, a professor here, has just resigned or is planning to resign. he has been in the white house for two years. perhaps two years from now you will be going into the white house. i was curious how you think the cbo should be reformed. we keep hearing and talking about how we are going to fix the deficit we can only get projections to a certain point in time. the only incorporate the next 10 years of spending into the analysis. i think that ultimately skews things sometimes, perhaps in favor of certain politicians. what do you think about that? >> that is a great question and thanks for coming. the question related to the

congressional budget office, the so-called official scorekeeper in washington, d.c.. of course, there are many outside groups to do it as well. having been a governor, it is important to have a neutral scorekeeper so everybody is basing their proposals on a neutral and reliable, consistent set of numbers. you do have to get people scored on a consistent set of numbers. that being said, there are a couple things that could improve on. they do only static scoring. they do not assume any growth defects from proposals to the negative or the positive. i know you have to be careful with dynamic scoring. you can get carried away and make exaggerated assumptions. but i think some very conservative or modest dynamic scoring would help more realistically modeled the effects of these programs. and of course they do only look

at 10 years. and i think they make a bunch of assumptions internally and there are some assumptions that i think they should be held to a consistent standard overtime. for example, sometimes they assume things are in law or will be in law. other times they base it only on what is in law. in minnesota, the model used was to base it on current law unless or until it changes. i think make sure the standards are consistent. allow for at least some modest, conservative dynamic scoring. but i do think keeping the cbo is important and we do not want to dismantle it for that reason. thanks. >> governor, you just proposed what would be the third round of tax cuts within the last 12 years weighted toward the

wealthy. the first two, according to an estimate i read this morning, estimated that the bush tax cuts added $2.60 trillion to the national debt. my question is this. if there is a class war going on, as you suggest, who is winning that war? >> the thing i would like to focus on is to try to transcend the class warfare rhetoric and get back to this reality. for 95% of americans, their quality of life economically is going to depend on one thing -- whether they have a job or not. to give you background about me, i grew up in a meat packing town. my dad for much of his life was a truck driver. my mom was a homemaker. she died when i was relatively young, at 16. my dad later got promoted to dispatcher and terminal manager. for a while he lost his job. my mom had passed on.

my brothers and sisters were not able to go to college. they did not have the opportunity. i come from a background, so you know, that is not of wealth. and it gives you a little different life perspective. but i know for my family and families like it across the country, when you ask them what matters to you, what gets you excited or passionate or gives you opportunity our hope, most often people will describe their faith. then they will describe their family. then they will describe a series of things that are meaningful to them. i really am worried about gas prices and the ability to fill my car with gas. or i am worried about being able to afford my health care. i am worried about whether i can get my kids to college. they might say, "i would like to get my basement finished. we would like more space in the house. if you go down that list, there is a common feature, and it is they need money.

people have to have jobs. set aside as the whether the wealthy benefit or not. the real measure of these proposals is is it going to generate, in a transformative, significant way, more jobs for people across this country? 5% of this country is the entrepreneurial class, the people who start businesses, build buildings, invent things, conduct research, and the like. if that 5% becomes a% or 9%, we will have a bright future. if it becomes 3% or 1%, we are in deep crap. this is not about whether some people are going to get wealthier or not. it is about what are those things that we need to do to make it more likely, not less likely, that businesses are going to start, grow, add

employees, by capital equipment, build buildings, conduct research, and do all the things it takes to keep the private economy going. those people across the country, i ask them every day what is the big concern, what is the barrier to starting something new, adding employees. they say the same thing every day, everywhere, across the country, small businesses and big businesses. get the government off my back. some of them talk about taxes. some of them talk about regulations. some talk about the slow impact of permiting. some talk about energy costs. i am not focused, nor should it -- nor should the country be focused, on whether this group makes more or less money. will they grow the economy? will it add jobs? frankly, we are not pro- business. we are pro-jobs.

you cannot be pro-job and anti- business. that is like being pro-egg and anti-chicken. it does not work. i understand the spirit of your question but reject the premise that this is fundamentally about nominal measures of who gets wealthy. it is about important macro measures of whether the private economy is growing at in immigrates, average rates, or turbocharged rates. we do not need to make programs more government-centric and have the government take a central role in the economy. that is not working. >> good morning. thank you for coming. i am a student here. i am from venezuela. i have read in the news that there is a group of proposals in the congress that are trying to include venezuela as a harbor

for terrorists. i would like to know your opinion? >> i have followed the rhetoric of president java's and it is troubling, disturbing, threatening, and concerning. as to whether he should be listed as a terrorist country, that is something i would want to study. that is a term of art. certain threshold are required before that level gets report -- gets applied and is deserved. i would give that additional thought there. but hugo chavez is extraordinarily misguided. i think he is dangerous. i think he is imposing burdens on the freedoms, democracy, human rights, and constitutional principles in venezuela. as to the label of a terrorist country, i would want to give additional study before i gave you a final answer on that.

governor pawlenty, the first tuesday of every month on the south side of chicago is the time when the defense emergency warning siren was tested. that was the same time this morning your event was scheduled. standard and poor's issued its own morning about the fiscal condition of the federal government. it is good you have spoken about this issue. it is an emergency that requires our attention. you have proposed a major tax cut which is going to decrease revenues in the short term. right now, if you look at the federal government and pull aside medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense, the remainder is not close, even if you cut all of it, to balancing the budget. are you willing to commit to a major cut in spending on one of those four programs, or would you characterize your fiscal

plan as waiting for economic growth to balance the budget for you? >> it is an excellent question. let me tackle the spending side and then the growth side. the federal outlays, as you probably know -- the federal government takes in $2.20 trillion in revenue from all sources. it now is spending $3.70 trillion a year. they overspent last year and this year by about $1.50 trillion per year. there are a trillion dollar deficits program as far as the eye can see. if you look at a pie chart of federal outlays and color the red part, what this gentleman described as non-discretionary outlays -- social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the national debt, and a few other entitlement programs -- that read part would be over the halfway line on the pie chart. at the rate at which it is growing, it will be over the

three quarter line within 15 years or less. almost all of the rest is defense. there is a little sliver in there for parks and prisons and a few other things. if you fast forward 15 years and look at this pie chart, it is almost all entitlements and defense. anyone who is serious about solving this problem on the spending side has to be willing to put on the table sacred cows, including being able to talk about in detail reforming entitlement programs. i take up that challenge. if you are going to be president, you have to tell the american people the truth. it is going to be the technical some election. there is a famous line where he is on the witness stand in "a few good men" he says it -- you can't handle the truth. i think the american people can handle the truth. it may scare them, but it is the

responsibility of the leader to educate and mobilize. here is what we should do. on social security, as you know, the numbers are upside-down. it is a big part of the pie chart. i propose specifically we are going to tell people on the program or near retirement you will not be affected. we will keep the commitments to you as they are. but if you are coming in new to the work force, gradually, over time, we are going to raise the retirement age. not by a ton, but by some. that changes a big part of the numbers. it solves a big part of the problem. i do not like means-testing philosophically, to get back to the spirit of your question. but we are choosing between really bad options. so i think one part of social security reform should be to say if you are wealthy you are not going to get the cost of living adjustment.

if you are middle income or poor, you will. the wealthy folks will have that cost of living adjustment shut off in my plan. those things combined, depending on where you draw the cut line, made a very different picture, going forward. medicaid, as you probably know, is the federal-state program for health care for the poor. the federal government really micromanage is it at a level that is frustrating to reformers. when i was governor, i would go to washington and say, "can we try something new? can we do this or that? most of the time, they said no. every request, they said no. we have to end the dual management. block grant the whole thing to the states. shut off on a public spending increases. make congress appropriates the money each year. i think you will see amazing and positive results on innovation

and reform. the states can compete, innovate, share best practices, and the like. on medicare, the program for health care for seniors, we will have a medicare plan out in the next couple of months or less. i will make sure we check that out on the internet. the component parts of it -- if you are near retirement and want to stay on medicare, that is great. in the future, we may allow that as an option to. but we will have other options and give people financial incentives to use the system wisely. for people who are on the program now, nothing will change. but we have to switch the way we pay for health care and metacarpal -- and medicare. right now, medicare pays hospitals based on volumes of procedures performed. guess what? there are regional disparities between those charges based on historical cost.

if you do a knee replacement in minnesota, the reimbursement is different than if you do a dream -- a knee replacement elsewhere in the country. it is not based on quality or performance. it is based on historical witness in the way medicaid gets reimbursed. if i charge you for volume, what are you going to get? lots of volume. we do not want to pay providers just for how many procedures to perform. we need to pay them fairly for their hard work, but we need to switch the payments system from one that pays for volume to one that pays for better results and better efficiency. we have done these kinds of initiatives in minnesota and the work. if you did a survey of what kind of care had outcomes -- care of outcomes of diabetes patients, about 8% of the type one

population was getting what you would consider a world-class care. if you under treat or do not treat type 1 diabetes correctly, it leads to all kinds of more expensive and market conditions. it can lead to amputations and organ transplants that are not only bad for the people and more expensive, but they are also, i should say, more expensive. we said to providers in minnesota we will pay bonuses if you can get increasing numbers of your patients not to this poor level of care but to increasing levels of care and outcomes. they responded well. costs are going to go down over time. the outcomes are improving. that is medicare. those are the big three. as to defense, i do not believe we should cut the defense budget. i think we can slow down its growth compared to the cbo baseline. i also think the savings can be realized and plowed back into

defense. it is important that we maintain the first responsibility of this country, which is make sure our country and our people are secure. it is the most important duty of our federal government. thank you again for coming. good luck on your finals. if you want more information, stay in touch. over the course of the summer and fall, you will see a series of additional policy initiatives from our effort. we would love to keep this dialogue going. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> our road to the white house coverage continues with former senator rick santorum. he announced his candidacy last week and sites president obama's health care plan as one

of the factors in his decision to run. he blames the president's policies for the state of the economy. in pennsylvania, this is about 40 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you, everyone. that was so encouraging. good morning, pennsylvania. good morning, somerset county. thank you. it is wonderful to have you here

with us today in this special place for our family. today, we are surrounded by our seven wonderful children. [applause] elizabeth, john, sarah maria, patrick, and isabella. thank you. rick and i just celebrated our 21st wedding anniversary. [applause] thank you. thanks in part to the love, support, and example of my very dear and precious mom and dad, who are here with us today, who

we just love like crazy. mom and dad have been married for 64 years. 65 years. 65 years. they have been such a great example to us. i come before you today to introduce the man i love and admire. he is a man of enormous strength with a tremendous commitment in the values that have made america great and the experience to lead it forward. he has led the way in the fight on so many critically important issues, from entitlement reform to tax policy to national security to foreign policy to the protection of the most innocent and vulnerable among us, never walking away or hiding from the tough battles and hard issues. peggy noonan summed up his character so well a few years ago in the wall street journal. she said rick is the man who faces what his colleagues tried to finesse.

[applause] thank you. he is a man of deep and abiding conditions -- convictions, with the wisdom to provide them to the issues, the courage to fight for them, and the tenacity and skills to win the day. he is a man who loves america and americans. that is what motivates him and motivates all the santorums. [applause] i present to you my husband, rick santorum. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much.

thank you very much. let me just first say to my wife, karen, and to these children behind me -- am i one blessed man? thank you, karen. thank you, kids for a life of being involved in public life. as we all know, that is not an easy life. they stood behind me every step of the way. not only have they stood behind me, but they have led me and encouraged me and fought with me side by side. thank you so much for your love and support. god bless you. thank you. [applause] i want to thank all of you for coming out here today. it is a beautiful day. it is always beautiful in somerset county, isn't it? you must think i am not from somerset county if i said that, right? but it is a beautiful day here

at your timbre of commerce. let me think everybody here in the local community for the cooperation and support of being here and showing up, and for being where it all started, and that is why we are here. our journey, our american journey, started here in somerset county. so it is great to be here. thank you for coming out here for us. [applause] the most common question i have had over the past 20 months was, "are you running?" the answer i always gave -- it took me a while -- i am not running. i am walking. the reason i was walking was because i wanted to get out and talk to americans all across america, dozens and dozens of states over the past couple of years, with a heavy sampling on

iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina. i was talking to people, listening to people, trying to get a sense as to whether what i was feeling inside, the anxiety and the concern i have for the future of our country, was something that was shared. the answer to that was what happened a little over two years ago now, when the birth of the tea party -- people standing up after a meeting and holding up their constitution, talking about -- those are balloons, not shots. not that i have not had my shots. people have understood. they understand that something is wrong, that there is something at stake here in america that is important. it is important for us and it is important for the future of our country.

what is it? is it the economy? sure, it is the economy. who can say it is not the economy when you are looking at this pathetic rate of growth and the incredibly discouragingly high rate of unemployment. not 9.1%, but 15% of people who really want to get work and cannot find work. you can look at this administration and what they do in response. they send money to state capitols to keep government workers on the payroll. they forgot about the rest of america trying to survive and trying to grow. [applause] is a gas prices? sure it is gas prices. we are from mineral-rich somerset county, and we have coal and gas and all sorts of resources here, and we have a president who does not want us

to access those resources and then complains that prices of energy are high. [applause] and if you look at the record of spending under this president, he came in with a problem. and then in that hole he was in, he kept digging and digging and digging. now for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. 40 cents is going to be put on every man, woman, and child to pay the interest on for the rest of their lives. who are we? who are you, mr. president? who are you, mr. president, to say that you and your administration should take 40 cents out of every dollar and borrow it from future generations to prop you up? [applause] [applause]