mechanisms in place as businesses and governments to make sure you are not saddled with debt. that is what that its proposal at details. guest: their the critics that say that the white house's proposal to not go far enough. that it was creating of voluntary set of standards, particularly for infrastructure. if this isinfrastructure that il to our security, why isn't the government telling them what they need to do in order to protect national security? what do you say to the people who raise those concerns? this is not enforceable. >> if it was voluntary and nobody cared about it, i would probably have the same concern. they have business needs to do better security. they know they are doing business with the government for their companies and it hinges on how well they can do that. it is imperative for them to do it. >> it is an imperative that has existed for many years and everyone of knowledge as it has

not got in the country to where it needs to be. >> i agree. i don't think the awareness has been there. the business need has been there. let's roll it out and secure it later. there's a full recognition now by a particularly large businesses that they cannot do business that way. it is too competitive. the have to design the infrastructure. when you look at the regime we propose, the have to prove they're doing the right thing not only to us, but to the public of large. what better way to drive a distant -- business and say, your customers know if you're doing the right thing. >> finally, now that the proposals are on the table, legislation has been introduced in congress right now. what about your future? are you planning on sticking around at the white house to see this through, or home to seattle? >> i served at the pleasure of the president.

there's no shortage of work for us to do in the future. i look forward to continuing to serve the present -- president. >> howard smith, white house cyber security court major, thank you for being on "the coordinators'." -- "the communicators." thank you. this has been weak one in our series on the cyber security. next week, two members of congress on the proposal. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in his weekly address, president obama outlined his ideas to generate economic growth and create jobs. he talks about tax cuts for the middle-class, and the regulations for small businesses, and passing trade deals to help displaced workers looking for work. then, the republican address. mike grimm of new york discusses

his party's plan for job creation and calls for the process of a balanced budget amendment. >> this week, congress reached an agreement that's going to allow us to make some progress in reducing our nation's budget deficit. and through this compromise, both parties are going to have to work together on a larger plan to get our nation's finances in order. that's important. we've got to make sure that washington lives within its means, just like families do. in the long term, the health of our economy depends on it. but in the short term, our urgent mission has to be getting this economy growing faster and creating jobs. that's what's on people's minds; that's what matters to families in this country. and the fact is, this has been a tumultuous year for the economy. we've weathered the arab spring's effect on oil and gas prices. the japanese earthquake and tsunami's effect on supply chains. the economic situation in europe. and in washington, there was a contentious debate over our nation's budget that nearly dragged our country into financial crisis. so our job right now has to be

doing whatever we can to help folks find work; to help create the climate where a business can put up that job listing; where incomes are rising again for people. we've got to rebuild this economy and the sense of security that middle class has felt slipping away for years. and while deficit reduction has to be part of our economic strategy, it's not the only thing we have to do. we need democrats and republicans to work together to help grow this economy. we've got to put politics aside to get some things done. that's what the american people expect of us. and there are a number of steps that congress can take right away, when they return in september. we need to extend tax cuts for working and middle class families so you have more money in your paychecks next year. that would help millions of people to make ends meet. and that extra money for expenses means businesses will have more customers, and will be in a better position to hire. yesterday, i proposed a new tax credit for companies that hire veterans who are looking for

work after serving their country. we've got a lot of honorable and skilled people returning from iraq and afghanistan, and companies that could benefit from their abilities. let's put them together. we need to make sure that millions of workers who are still pounding the pavement looking for jobs are not denied unemployment benefits to carry them through hard times. we've got to cut the red tape that stops too many inventors and entrepreneurs from quickly turning new ideas into thriving businesses which holds back our whole economy. it's time congress finally passed a set of trade deals that would help displaced workers looking for new jobs, and that would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in asia and south america products stamped with three words: made in america. and we ought to give more opportunities to all those construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. we could put them to work right now, by giving loans to companies that want to repair our roads and bridges and airports, helping to rebuild america. those are a few commonsense steps that would help the

economy. and these are ideas that have been supported by both democrats and republicans in the past. so i'm going to keep calling on both parties in congress to put aside their differences and send these bills to my desk so i can sign them right away. after all, both parties share power. both parties share responsibility for our progress. moving our economy and our country forward is not a democratic or a republican responsibility; it is our responsibility as americans. that's the spirit we need in washington right now. that's how we'll get this economy growing faster and reach a brighter day. thanks for listening, and have a great weekend. >> hello. i am congressman michael grimm from new york. after serving my country in combat, i decided to go on my own and start a small business. i have seen firsthand how

politicians and bureaucrats can make it harder to meet a payroll and create jobs. the latest jobs report shows that president obama's stimulus- driven policies are simply not working. the over-spending come over- taxing, and over-regulating coming out of washington is creating uncertainty and holding your job crater's back. i hear the frustration in the voices of my neighbors and constituents who ask, where are the jobs? this reminds me, this is not the country we grew up in. the good news is that we can, and we will, get it back if we change course. that is what speaker boehner told president obad not grant his reque to increase the national debt limit unless we cut spending by a larger amount. we would not accept any tax increases, which would destroy jobs. the budget control act signed into law takes a step in the right direction. i voted for this legislation, but i have to be honest in telling you that it is far from

perfect. the reforms do not go nearly far enough. it is a reasonable and responsible approach, which includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit height -- height, common sense caps on government spending, and no tax increases. it puts us on a trek to fix our fiscal problem, which would create more confidence in investors in america, the people expect to invest again in our economy and create jobs. this is no time for celebration. we can celebrate when our budget is balanced, our debt is under control, and our economy is back to creating jobs again. there is a lot of work to be done. this fall, as a result of the budget control act, people from both parties will be working on legislation to produce trillions of dollars in further deficit- reduction is for necessary spending cuts. while that work is being done, the house and senate will be voting on a balanced budget amendment, something republicans

insisted on as part of the budget control act. there's no better way to provide certainty to the private sector and control spending over the long haul than through a balanced budget amendment. to help with our crushing burden, both parties should come together this fall and send a balanced budget amendment to the state. we were right to will the president accountable on the time limit because he has already backed proposing more stimulus spending, higher taxes, and even more regulation. doubling down on the same failed policies is not the answer. republicans are focused on implementing a stronger map for job creation that reduces burdensome regulations, calls for a simpler and better tax code, and expands american energy production. these are the kinds of common sense solutions that would get government out of the way and give our job creators what they need to invest, plan, and create jobs. many of these proposals have

already passed the house and are waiting on action from the democratic-led senate. you can review all the details of our plan at jobs.gop.gov. listen. we know we have all the resources we need to grow our economy and rebuild this great nation. the relentless work ethic of the american workforce, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit encourage us to succeed. my question for washington is this, how many more jobs report will it take before we change course? what will it take for all of us to just say "enough"? for the sake of our economy, i am urging the president to wake up to reality, abandon his failed policies, and join republicans in the hard work needed to turn our country around and create jobs. calling on both parties to come together and send a balanced budget amendment to the state would be a good start. we need less politics and more

common sense if we're going to save our country from financial ruin and restore a thriving economy for our children and grandchildren. thank you. god bless america. >> standard and poor's cut the u.s. long-term credit rating from aaa to aa + over concerns about the budget deficits and debt problem. next, our reporter from "the washington post" on how the rating could affect the u.s. economy. a reporter is jonas, neil perlin. -- neil irwin. the announcement came out officially that they had downgraded the u.s. credit rating from aaa to aa-plus, how did we get to that point? guest: they are not really making a judgment about the u.s. financial capability to pay our debt but our political

capability to pay our debts. there not as confident as they were few weeks ago that the u.s. government and its political system has the will and ability to reach the decisions to guarantee that u.s. treasury bonds are the safest investment on earth. a remarkable transition period during the debt ceiling debate they sensed that they were going and distortion, but it is stunning. host: you say that it could increase washington's cost to borrow money as well as ripple effects around the globe. what has been the reaction to this downgrading of the credit rating? guest: hard to know until marks opened up on monday morning. and outside rating agency is saying that u.s. securities are

no longer as safe, the safest investments on earth. it is hard to say how that will ripple through the financial system. one thing that we learned during the fall of 2008, lehman brothers, it is hard to know in advance how one fancial crisis can spread elsewhere in the world. i think everyone will be crossing their fingers starting sunday evening our time when the asian markets open, and then when the european markets opened, to see whether this is a ripple effects that are nasty. it may also increase borrowing costs. we would have more of that deficit proem. host: you mentioned earlier in this interview that this downgrading of the credit rating was not necessarily a comme on the u.s. ability to pay its debt but on theolitics behind

the paying of the debt. who controls a standard and poor's? whether politics? gut: they're not political. they do research and analys on business trends. if you are a large company and you want to go to the debt market and buy bonds or issue bonds, they will come in, look at your books, analyze them, and put out a report saying that you are aa or single way or aaa, whatever your credit rating might be, and with sovereign debt, government debt, they do the same kind of analysis. they look at the u.s. government or the canadian or british governments, whatever it may be, and analyze the finanal position and the ability and

willingness to pay. is not terribly political but what they are is in the case of government debt, it is not that they have a lot of affirmation that everyone else does not have a, because they are just one group of researchers. it is not like they have great insight into what going on with u.s. government that no one else in the world has. host: two major credit rating agencies, moody's and fitch. with those two agencies, but that u.s. still has a aaa rating. what a difference -- what are the differences? guest: that come to different conclusions. this is a very interesting activity because no one knows what the level of risk is. it is all about guess work and conclusions based on wt we see

now. what is driving svp's decision is that we have the republican party, the freshmen in the house, that has been making threats about not raising the debt ceiling and maybe default would not be a big deal. that kind of talk is driving those decisions, and moody's is not affected by that tall. they say the u.s. government has paid for its own debt and it will continue to do so in the future. host: what is being talked about both ends of pennsylvania avenue? not much talk on capitol hill because they are out of the august recess, and the president is in camp david for the weekend, but as we get closer to monday and further into the month of august, " will the congress and president do to turn this around and help the u.s. get a aaa rating back? guest: this is not something

that can be reached overnight. they reached this based on fundamental factors going on in this country. it is not some larger debt ceiling deal will necessarily change it. and moreover we had a deal reached one week ago, and the idea that they're going to reopen in reconsider that is unlikely to me. the question now is, can we prove them wrong? can we prove the s&p analyst wronged by reaching a series of awful well designed if not, maybe the have a point. >> according to the associated press, the u.s. postal service is studying the viability of more than 3600 post offices nationally where business is

slowing. more on the issue with the vice chair of the u.s. postal regulatory commission. this is about 40 minutes. gton journal" continues. host: mark acton is vice chairman of the u.s. postal regulatory commission and is here to talk to us about the future of the u.s. postal service. before we get deep into the conversation, tell us what is the postal regulatory commission. guest: we are charged with oversight responsibilities for the united states postal service. we provide disclosure to operations and finances. we are not the united states postal service. they have their own operation. host: so you are not actually running the postal service. sec.: ist is akin to the

host: the postal service recently sent the regulatory commission and advisory asking for recommendations on closures and other recommendations. what kind of advice or recommendations were they looking for? guest: we have not issued any thing get. i should preface this discussion by letting you know there are some concerns and the scheduling and what not, but there is a provision that calls for the postal service to be able to come to the regulator and ask about our views on proposals such as these closures. host: they write the postal service has issued a plan for optimization to examine whether to continue providing retail and other services and products at its approximately 3650 of the more than 32,000 post offices in

its retail network. host: so it sounds like they are planning on closing down postal services and outlets, and they are trying to get guidance from you? guest: yes. even though there are 3700 facilities, not all of them will be closed. this is an assessment process that the postal service is proposing. they are looking for insights from the commission about whether or not the criteria is suitable and whether or not the

plan is a good or bad idea. they are looking at questions like revenue thresholds' and access points. they want to be sure that in those areas with a close a post office, there is a good, suitable alternative access for people to be able to go to to get the products that they want. host: we want to let our viewers know that the budget for the third quarter of the u.s. postal service -- these are the numbers from october 1, 2010, until june 30, 200011. the total revenue was $49.9 billion bank total expens. we get these numbers from the u.s. postal regulatory commission. what kind of input would the commission have on operations of

the postal service that would get these numbers more in line? guest: the commission has three important roles. one is compliant. we ensure the postal service is operating in a fashion that conforms to the code. we offer some disclosure opportunities so that the postal service can share information in a timely fashion. and transparency is important. we also offer advisory views on important matters that the postal service is proposing to make changes in with respect to access or pricing and frequency of delivery and those types of questions. we help facilitate the postal service and their efforts to help improve the bottom line. host: we are talking to mark acton, vice chairman of the u.s. postal regulatory commission. they announced last month that

the u.s. postal service is considering closing more than 3000 retail offices. mr. acton is here to talk to us about that and how the postal service decides which offices to close and when the closures are expected. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are -- you can also send us an e-mail. or if you are on twitter, you can follow us. how many people are there on the commission and how often do you all change the lineup? guest: there are five presidentially appointed commissioners. we have six-year terms and they

are on a staggered arrangement. we presently have four. there are two republicans and two democrats at this point. no more than three of us are from the same party. host: the letter was submitted on july 27 from the u.s. postal service asking for an advisory opinion on changes. along with the regulatory commission look at those changes -- how long will the regulatory commission look at those changes and issue back something? guest: in terms of the review process, in about three months. we are hopeful to have a report to congress and the president and the postal service some time near thanksgiving. host: right before christmas. guest: there is a real need for speed because this is an important question for america.

the postal service does not have the same place in society as the way it used to. it is still a very important part of america's fabric particularly in rural america. " the first call comes from pennsylvania. jerome is on a line for democrats. caller: i have a comment for mr. mark acton. i wrote to my congressman. my suggestion to my congressman was that they set up an account number for the national debt to andreated a s a charity they would accept only a postal money order as payment in that account #.

i wonder what you would think of that suggestion. although i don't know you can do anything about it, it would definitely help the postal service and the national debt with that sort of a program. guest: it is that novel thought that the commission is trying to encourage. to anything that will help improve the bottom line of the postal service is something that the commission wholeheartedly supports. host: next up is ohio, rick is on a line for republicans. caller: yes, sir, i am a usps employee. i enjoy my job. it is a wonderful place to work. don't ment is i understand why some of these

smaller post offices are not forced to close to save revenue for the post office. i have been told these are political issues. bought for the survival of the postal system, -- but for the survival of the postal system, somebody has to bite the bullet. do you believe that we will go to a five-day delivery schedule? thank you very much. guest: there are a couple of answers to your question. the commissioner recently issued and advisory to eliminate saturday delivery. we had 200 pages of thought to say about it. they save nearly 3 billion annually. there were some service impact incentives about slowing down the delivery of your mail. of the more troubling aspect of

this proposal to reduce the frequency of delivery is that in areas where they must depend on the mail, they will be hurt by having mail service eliminated on saturday or any other day of the week. there are considerations in terms of saturday a dropping and not having the need of a six-day basis. i do not think we are at that point where this proposal is a free of problems that we can address before we are able to reduce the delivery of the mail. host: pennsylvania, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i am a recently retired postal worker, 23.5 years, retired from disability. my question to mr. mark acton is that part of the problem with the postal service is that they

have managers and supervisors who cost the postal service millions and millions of dollars in payouts and unnecessary money because managers and supervisors do not want to follow the rules, laws, and regulations. regular union's help, postal workers receive large payouts. host: give me an example of this activity that you are talking about. caller: i will give you an example. my daughter is a postal worker. she is under a supervisor that -- she got injured on the job. she comes into work asking for a limited duty position.

this supervisor says you either come to work and work the job that you are assigned or go home. they have temporary workers working in positions that my daughter could have worked, but they refuse to put a casual temporary worker into another position so she can work. so now my daughter is out of work and now she has a claim against the postal service. and she will win. guest: first of all, i would like to thank the caller for her years of service. the postal service has a lot of challenges. the question that she raises is not strictly a regulatory concern. might depth of knowledge to that is not as good as it can be.

there have been recent negotiations that have been brokered in terms of work force are arrangements that allow managers to send more of the staff where the work is. there are rules that prevent this strict segmentation of work force that you were talking about. host: kirk is on our line for republicans. caller: i am wondering how the ebay boom that started many years ago has affected sales or the post office. i myself can say i spend a thousand times on postage than i did before the day was in use. i am just one person. i would have thought that the post office is doing good. that kind of surprised me because i am sure that i am not

alone of these people who use it a lot more because of this big internet shipping back and forth. i want to mention of the postal workers in my area, the place that i used in pennsylvania, are absolutely remarkable. of the people are very helpful, extremely knowledgeable, and particularly mike and jenn y up there are great to deal with. guest: i echo your views about the postal service personnel. it is interesting that you mentioned ebay. delivery services and packaged products are one of the few bright spots in terms of the postal service. so it is not the package services that her causing problems in terms of revenue

shortfall. it is more of the general declined due to the electronic diversions. also, the national economy is not good which means mail volumes have declined. ebay is a great interactive use of the postal service. host: how much competition is being presented by folks like fedex and ups? what kind of effect does that have on the decision that the commission makes on recommendations? guest: it has a true effect because basically the postal service is separated into its monopoly products and competitive products. they are not allowed to subsidize.

having said that, the postal service is very competitive with the private sector providers primarily in terms of price. we are the only one of those three their reach out to every household of america six days out of 7. host: walker the monopolized aspects of the postal service versus the competitive aspect? guest: if you send a greeting card, that is a monopoly pursued. then there is standard delivery which your catalogs and what not. host: mark acton is vice chairman of the u.s. postal regulatory commission, nominated by president george w. bush on nov. 2005 and was confirmed by the senate in 2006. indianapolis, indiana, john is on airline for independent -- our line for independents.

caller: they need to relax their work rules. they are terrible. they need to close some of these outlying post office is. they sit in their six hours a day doing nothing. they need to look at their transportation system. they've run trucks empty day in and day out. i have been involved with the postal service for 20 years. he would not believe the money that they spend on those -- you would not believe the money that they spend on those three items that and mentioned. guest: the caller obviously has a familiarity with the challenges that the postal service is facing. they are important issues for the commission to deal with. host: back to the phones, maryland on a line for republicans. ray, you are on the "washington

journal." caller: one of the reasons that the postal service is experiencing financial problems is because they keep raising prices of stamps and postal services. now, another thing -- the man that was on a few minutes ago, he mentioned "shovel-ready." as long as people keep dying and they are using shovels to bury the people, the president will do well. guest: i can speak to the question about stamps bank the postal service operates under a price program. it limits the ability to raise the price of stamps beyond inflation. they cannot pierce that cap. while there are a lot of

concerns about the price of stamps, it is true that the affordability of the united states postal service is better than many overseas. host: does the u.s. postal service have to go through the regulatory commission in order to raise the price of stamps? guest: under the reform act of 2006, the congress wanted to empower the postal service with greater flexibility to allow them to set rates. so they have that new capability. date set the prices and the rates, and then they send it for a review where we ensure that there are not these cross subsidies that we were talking about earlier. but our review, a look back review is a more of a hands-off approach. host: next up is a kansas city,

missouri. caller: hi. if the postal service wants to save money, i would suggest that they start cutting management. they have one manager for every five to seven employees. they also need to stop hiring psychotics as managers. thank you. guest: i think there have been some important movement in terms of the postal service executive leadership team deciding that some of the pursuits that they are going to have to in force include looking at their management level staff and understanding whether or not there needs to be cutting going on. i think there have been significant changes. the they may be making further adjustments. i know that the board of

governors at the postal service are very active. host: you addressed a caller that talked about cutting back services from six days a week to five days a week. last week, -- actually, last month, there was an article that talked about the postmaster general saying that within 15 years, we might be down to delivery three times a week. his forecast is based on a projected $8.3 billion loss this year. on september 30, he told "usa today" editorial board of that, "i will not be able to pay my bills." guest: one question has to do

with the projection that is many years away. i read the reports that the postmaster general had to say about the change in delivery down to three days a week. he is speaking to the trend that we are all familiar with. the postal service will always occupy an important part of what needs to be done so that every part of america has access to affordable postal service. that is important. the other question is more in terms of the immediate fiscal constraints. host: covering retiree benefit. guest: there are proposals in congress that are supported by the findings that will provide some answers, some short-term adjustments, that will allow the congress and the president to make the longer-term adjustments in terms of the business model that is called for. host: back to the phones.

ray is calling from norfolk, va.. ray? let's move onto indian. -- indiana. caller: i have a question regarding political payback. host: barbara, turn down your television. caller: i have a question concerning political payback. this is an example. my home town in michigan had a postmaster who died. the woman next in line who had been there some 30 years was passed over for my brother in law who had never work.

this was soon after the war. he had never work in a post office ever. he received the job. i always thought it did not seem fair. apparently, they thought it was because he belonged to the democrat party rather than the republicans. host: we will leave it there. guest: i am not familiar with all of the specifics of the situation there, barbara, but i know the postal service has in place a very robust performance evaluation system that they used to assess their employees to provide insight on who should occupy posts. i would expect that that would be an important consideration in what you are talking about.

host: how much influence does the u.s. postal regulatory commission have on hiring and manpower, meaning certain manpower numbers for the postal service? guest:we have a number of import provisions. managing the postal service in particular is up to the management team and it is up to the board. host: massachusetts on our line for democrats. donald, you are on "washington journal." caller: i am retired letter carrier. i had 33 years as a letter carrier. in my observation, even after 21 years, the same stuff is going

on. only psychotics work in management. that is a requirement. host: when you say "psychotic," what do you mean? is your boss overtaxing you? caller: i retired. the postal service has never changed. i started in 1957, and what goes on today went on in 1957. host: give me an example of what you consider to be psychotic behavior. caller: usually guys going to management are people who do not want to work or get their hands dirty, or sweat. they are perfectly content to just drop off of the top of the system. host: we will leave it there. guest: the description donald

talked about is not uncommon in terms of the stresses that occur between the general work force and the management workforce. you have to keep in mind that this is a massive group of individuals, nearly 600,000, the work for the postal service, the second-largest employer, second only to walmart. there are a lot of moving parts in a management operation. the source of stress can seem inevitable. host: if an employee in the postal service has a problem and does not feel like it will be redressed within the system, can he take his concerns to the regulatory commission? guest: there is not an avenue for that type of involvement for a regulator to be active in terms of management concerns. host: houston, texas, on our line for independents. caller: could morning.

my question is had you ever gone to a post office and just good in line for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, every time you go? it is the most frustrating, irritating thing possible. i just hate to go. your service is just terrible. guest: this is a question of concern to the commission and it is an interest that we might term at the postal regulatory commission. you were talking about the way time in line. the postal service has a program called mystery shopper which is a management tool they employed try to keep track of how long individuals are having to wait to get retail service. some outlets are better than others, and in some cases it is proper management and sometimes it is available work force. the commission tries to gather this information and make it available were needed to the service can do a better job of

targeting. host: more numbers provided to us by the u.s. postal regulatory commission, budget numbers for fiscal years 2011. total revenue was $67.70 billion. total expenses were $74.10 billion for a net loss of $6.40 billion. the total expense includes $5.50 billion for payment into the retiree health benefits fund. huntington, west virginia, on our line for democrats. you are on "washington journal." caller: hello. how do you do? sir, 33 and working on a 34 years carrying mail in rural west virginia. the people depend on me every day and they are watching them awaiting them and looking to see that i am on time looking for

their mail, including on the sixth day. what i want to ask you about is that is it not true that the postal service was required to fund the head of time to the civil service retirement system billions of dollars to cover the retirement of people in the future that are no longer even alive and we have tried to retrieve that money to ease our budgetary concerns and congress has refused to do so. they want to hold on to that money and use it just like they have done social security, for their own benefit. host: before mark acton answers your question, as a person has been carrying mail for 33 years, what do you see as something that can be done on the front lines in huntington, west virginia, and other places that

would save u.s. postal service money and extend the service going for six days rather than having it cut back? caller: i am not really a manager, but two or three things. one thing talking about the window service, we put people in the larger offices where there is always business to accommodate people at the times that would be early in the morning, evening after work, and at lunchtime when they are off of work. also, i think that the rural post offices, rather than closing them, they could be serviced by rural carriers even doing such things such as filling stamp orders that could be done through post office

boxes and keep these open for the benefit of the people so they will not have to travel 20 or 30 miles until the next town that is large enough. why think that would be helpful. if you did not want to do that, you could use postmasters to go did two or three separate offices for a certain time during the day and and stagger them. most of these offices being closed are in these rural areas where they are sometimes close to each other. host: pat from huntington, west virginia. guest: you provided a host of good answers. i want to reiterate what you said which is that post offices in rural communities are a very important part of those communities. it is not the same in rural and remote parts of america as it is in this city where there are better options more readily available.

the commission is on record with that viewpoint in a previous of miserly opinion and we will be looking at that in the latest opinion request. in terms of the unfunded workforce expenses, with respect to the retiree benefit fund and sellers -- civil service retirement fund, it is a popular view and one view supported by expert findings of the commission. we hired an actuarial accountant certified to give us advice on new methodologies on how those expenses could be met in a responsible fashion but still provides the top of copper -- the type of coverage congress insists on, but it improves the bottom line. the postal service suffers under a unique payment schedule that is unheard of in the public or private sector. the reason why it is on heard of is because it is a recipe for fiscal insolvency. they're trying to looked at different plans to relieve us on

that front. host: sandy, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you so much. i am here to speak up for the u.s. ps. i lived in new mexico, and you should live with the postal service like they have to realize that we have the best postal service anywhere on the planet. the money that my mother tried to send me was regularly rifled out of the envelopes. ithopst says that is the way is and you do not try to send money there because they will rifle the money out of the enveloping of the open your mail and read it just to see and take it back together. it was just horrible. and it is people who complain of standing salon in line at the post office, i have made it a point of checking my watch to

see what time i get in line to post a package, by stance, or something. there was a lady behind me one day his said, "have you seen anything like this?" i said it, "you came in right behind me and we have been here three minutes. have you really checked to see how long it is?" it may not be fun standing in a line, but these people are working steady trying to serve us. i tell you, i'd wish people would realize what a great thing we have here and stop tearing everything down. host: mark acton, go ahead. guest: i would echo your viewpoints. the postal system is the premier system in the world, delivering 160 billion pieces of mail last year, up 40% of the mail delivered worldwide.

there is no other postal service that compares to the scale and scope of the united states postal service. people have individual stories about unpleasant experiences they have had a at a given retail product, but we work hard to improve that. they monitor where they do things well and where they are not doing things as well and work hard to make improvements. host: of of twitter -- guest: privatization is a constant issue in terms of this debate about what to do to repair the postal service. there are overseas posts that have the experimented with privatization and it has worked well, and in other cases it has

not been a good outcome, like in japan. you have to be careful talking about privatization particularly in the american context. the u.s. is a very unique nation with a very, very geographic landscape. an important part of what the service has to do is provide uniform access at affordable prices which is not easy for a privatized provider to offer. they may, for instance, may be eager to deliver my mail in washington, but may not be so inclined to deliver mail out in the far reaches of montana and at an affordable price which is a real problem when it comes to providing universal service. host: in texas, rose, on our line for independents. caller: i am a retiree from the postal service. everyone that is so concerned

about their small post offices being closed should realize that they should have liberal carrier that will deliver their mail -- a rural carrier. they can buy stamps from the carrier. they can mail a package from this carrier. they should not be losing any service. guest: the caller raises a good point. when i talk about my concerns and the commission is concerned about alternative access and the need for the presence of the postal service, i am not pre- judging what the commission makes important, but i'm trying to indicate where our focus may be in developing this report. it is true that its proposal is not done -- developing in an earnest effort to develop alternative access points for those people whose post offices may be close which includes the

rural carriers or a village post office which will incorporate the offerings in a way that may be more customer friendly. people can buy groceries and also do their postal business. the caller is very astute in saying this because the post office's closing does not mean you will not have access to postal products. it is the commission's job to see how that can be accommodated. host: for more information on the u.s. postal regulatory commission, prc.gov is there website. an e-mail from arlington, virginia. guest: i do not know the number

at hand, but it is a considerable sum. but it is a fact of the matter that the postal service benefit schedule is different than the rest of the workforce. there are provisions in pending legislation to make changes to that. it is the one of the tools available to congress if they -- it is one of the tools available. host: our last call for mark acton of the u.s. postal regulatory commission is from arlington, texas. caller: good morning. how are you doing? standing in line, my post office is the biggest problem is they are doing passports at the same time that they're trying to get us stamps and mail are packages. if there are just one or two clerks, one of them is tied up doing passports and the other is trying to take care of the line and it makes it tough. they need to figure out another way to do pass border have a

dedicated person for about and not have it interfere with the stands and other products. host: mark acton? guest: the postal service works in cooperation with other federal agencies to try and offer assorted services to help make people for the consumer and people who need things like passports to get them. there is no question that a passport can be more complex transaction than buying a book of stamps and it takes more time. perhaps the postal service could commit more resources to ensuring that passport production is something that c >> tuesday, the focus is on

technical education in the work force. wednesday, a lookit private- public partnerships and job creation. on thursday, an assessment of key federal jobs programs. friday, opportunities for women in the work force. washington journal is like every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. next, speeches from this week of three young american foundation national conservative student conference. we will hear from utah senator, might lead. florida senator, marker rubio, and representative jim jordan from ohio the young american foundation national conservative student conference was held this weekend in washington, d.c. will show you some of the speakers beginning with utah senator mike lee. he talked about expansion of government and the balanced budget amendment. this runs about 45 minutes.

>> i in utah, and we consume more jello than any other state in the union. it is the official state desert- snack. i do not understand why. i think it has to do with the fact it is inexpensive. in utah, we have a lot of large families. it is an easy dessert to make. i wanted my office to feel like an embassy. when you step into a u.s. embassy, you're stepping into the united states. we want our office to feel like a little bit of utah. stop by my office any time, especially on jell-o wednesday's, and you can enter

the udall zone if only for a moment. it is a happy place. it is a pleasure and an honor to be addressing a group from the young americans foundation. i am in a big fan of this foundation. i am a huge fan of ronald reagan and have been almost my entire life. my life changed when i was about 10-years old. my dad was hired by ronald reagan to be his solicitor general. that is a government official within the u.s. department of justice that represents the u.s. government before the supreme court of the united states. i became a huge ronald reagan fan before he even hired my dad. i think that was when i truly discovered might republicanness. when i was able to develop a strong love for our country and a keen interest in government. net interest has continued

throughout my entire life. i suspect similar interest have drawn many of you to this foundation, which i respect and appreciate for all that it does -- patriotism, love for our country, and hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. it is also for the same reason that i ended up seeking the office that i now hold. i decided to run to become a united states senator because i came to the conclusion that the federal government had become too big and too expensive. that was of great concern to me as i look at my children. i thought about the fact that this government, the government that sits now, is making decisions for them that will affect them for their entire lives. it has accumulated an enormous amount of debt -- nearly $15 trillion worth of debt. it is hard to put that number into perspective sometimes. i like to try to break it down i

get a few different ways to help people understand how large it is. $15 trillion in debt is roughly equivalent to $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in america. that includes everyone. that includes infants, it includes people who are retired, it includes people who are in college, high school, junior high, or grade school. it includes people in the middle of their careers. it includes everyone. when you break it down by taxpayer, it is more like $150,000 ahead. -- a head. that is a lot of money. i had a friend whose wife gave birth to a child. someone jokingly asked that friend, had you told your new baby about their share of the national debt? they assured me that they had not yet.

the child cannot process it. i had another friend who, on halloween, set out a tweet saying they were staring church leaders by telling them their share of the national debt. [laughter] it is a frightening prospect. almost as frightening as anything you can do, if you think about it. if you stop and think about it, people your age have to find some difficulty with the fact that this debt has been incurred largely before you came of age, before you were old enough to understand what was happening. certainly before you were old enough to vote. this debt is still being acquired. yesterday congress passed a law that will raise the debt limit by about another $2.50 trillion. that is a long-term indebtedness we have taken on through one

piece of legislation. it is record-breaking. we have never taken on that much debt in our entire history. one piece of legislation. people will be affected by a that who are not yet old enough to vote for it. that will be on our books, most likely come out for a decade. some of the people will be -- who will be affected by it -- by that have yet to be born. this results in a pernicious form of taxation without representation. it is, therefore, something we should avoid at all costs. we fought a war over things like taxation without representation a couple hundred years ago. we won that war. we ought not saddle future generations with the same burden that our forebears fought so nobly to get rid of. that is why it is so important

that we focus on restricting the power of government to borrow. because it is this power that sets off a cycle of government expansion. let me explain. whenever government acts it does so at the expense of our individual liberty. when government expands, we become less free to that same corresponding degree. that is not to say that all government action is bad, it is to say only that we always have to balance government action against the countervailing interest we have in our individual liberties. sometimes it is worth it. we need to -- we need the government to protect us from those who would harm us, steal from us, or impair our life, liberty, or property. but we always have to balance government action against what it does to our liberty.

as government expands, it requires money in order to expand. it requires money in order to do the things it needs to do to protect our life, liberty, and property. so it taxes us. when it taxes us, it acquires more power. that power erodes our individual liberty. it often says, "we need more money to perform these basic services." then it gets more money and exerts more power. the cycle tends to perpetuate itself economically -- chance to perpetuate itself incrementally. there are a couple of things that can, should, and of the due to interrupt the cycle so the government does not grow out of control, so we do not get to the point where government is telling us it has to do everything so that government does not leave anything to us.

one of those things is that we have elections. because we have elections, those people who are being regulated by the government, having deliberately restrained by the government, and being taxed in order to fund the operation of government have some opportunity to weigh in and say this is not right. especially when it comes time to raise taxes in order to pay for new government programs. that is a significant opportunity for the voters to step in and say you're taking it a little too far, we are already having to work sometimes three, four, or five months out of the year to pay our federal taxes. at the end of that time, the federal government has the audacity to tell us this is not enough. it has not been enough for a long time because you are almost $15 trillion in debt. our liberty is restraint that way. but we can stop that expansion

of government whenever we see our tax burden is becoming larger. we can vote in a different set of representatives to run the government so that they will tax us less. another way we can restrain government is by placing parameters around what it can regulate. we do this at the federal level through our founding era document also called lawless, 81 to 24 year old document we call the u.s. constitution. it has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. this document identifies a few basic roles and responsibilities for the federal government to make sure it does not overstep its bounds. it's at the federal government will be in charge of the unit -- a few things like national defense, by some measures, declaring war. it was never intended to be all things to all people. both of those things can, should, and happily in the past prevented the federal government

from expanding beyond what is appropriate, beyond what we can tolerate, beyond what we should tolerate in terms of protecting ourselves and our liberty. over the last 75 years, the supreme court has eroded the concept that the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. it has allowed the erosion to take place as it has taken fairly consistently differential approaches to laws congress has passed. there is another problem that has also, perhaps even to a greater degree, interrupted forces that would otherwise keep in check the growth of government. whenever we propose a new government program, we no longer expect or require congress to pay -- to raise taxes immediately and to a corresponding degree. let's take for example a few years ago when a republican controlled congress passed into

law and submitted to the president and receive the president's signature on a lot that created medicare part b. it is a prescription drug benefit for the medicare program. it is estimated by some that it carries with it unfunded liabilities in the amount of about $19 trillion. it creates benefits for people who are alive today that will cost about $19 trillion according to those who make that estimate. like the dollar traded more than our tax system as it exists now -- $19 trillion more than our tax system as it exists now. it was signed into law by a republican prevent and enacted by a republican congress. it did not have an immediate effect. in fact, it did not result in a tax increase at all. it was passed when congress was actually cutting taxes, which i regard as a good thing. the problem is that because we

as americans did not feel a tax hit from it, the was not much of the reaction to it. we delayed it to a practice that we referred to as deficit spending spending money that we do not yet have. spending money that our children and our grandchildren might one day earn. spending money that we and those who come after us will have to repay. we do it that way, we interrupt the accountability of government -- of the same government that enacted the law. the same legislators that past that into law or not the same legislators who are in office today. some of them are still there, but not all of them. they are certainly not the same as this will be there a few years from now most of them five or 10 years from now will have gone on to other things. some will retire, others will be defeated in elections. some others might have even died. but the tide the full economic

impact of many of these programs is actually felt, those responsible for the creation of those programs are no longer present. this address the most important part of any representative government -- accountability. this is exactly why i believe we have to do something to restrict congress' deficit spending power -- its power to borrow in the name of the united states. it has that power from the constitution. there was good reason for the founding fathers to give congress the power. we needed it to make sure we had enough money to fund the fighting of morris, to make sure we had enough money to provide for our country's basic needs, that congress can do the things it was assigned to do. it has been severely abused over a prolonged period of time. the time has come for us to restrict the power.

some of this has been doom and gloom. my message is not a doom and gloom message. it is, instead, a charge. there is hope for us to do this because the people like you. there is hope because of your generation. there is hope because an entire group of american voters tens of millions strong or simultaneously awakened to the fact that the federal government has grown too big and too expensive. we feel this expansion through this practice of perpetual deficit spending. people are voting differently as a result of that realization. look at what happened in the 2010 general election. you had a new group of people swept into office and in the house of representatives. to an extent, in the senate. remember, senators serve six year terms.

only a third of them are up for reelection every two years. by contrast, in the house, all 435 are up for reelection every two years. that is like you had a large -- much larger shift in the house than he did in the senate. i predict that that trend is going to continue. what will happen, as i predicted in the 2012 election cycle, will make what happened in the 2010 election cycle look by comparison like a sunday picnic. in other words, what happened in 2010 is a mere prelude for what is going to happen next time around because you and people like you are all doing something about it. they are understanding what three out of every four americans believe that we need to do. sending 5% of all americans according to a recent cnn poll police we need to do -- pass the

balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. i believed so strongly in this i read a book about it. it is called "the freedom agenda." i wanted to give a brief, precise explanation of how we get into this mess. how we get to this point where we could have a government that could acquire $15 trillion in debt and regulate nearly aspect of our lives. most importantly, explain how we get out of it. what the connection between deficit spending and the entrenchment of our individual liberties gives us the key to the way out of its. just as deficit spending promotes this expansion of the government at the expense of our liberty, so to the restriction of the deficit spending powers for a balanced budget amendment hold promise to restore our liberties, to restore what i refer to as "constitutionally limited government."

to get the government to think again that its goal is limited. james monroe describe the powers of the federal government as "few and defined." the describe the powers of the state as "numerous and indefinite." that exist today largely in theory. tomorrow, it will exist in practice because we, the american voters, will make it so. we, the american voters, had the power to dictate that -- the proper course of our own government so we can preserve our own liberty and our own property and, at the end of the day, enhance our own lives. it is my hope and prayer that each of us can do this. each of us can help spread this message of hope. each of us can tell people there is a way home that does not involve economic destruction. when we look at the fact that most of the failed economies

around the globe over the last 100 years or so have had one thing in common, we should be alarmed and motivated to push for a balanced budget amendment. there are two economists who have recently written a book called "this time it is different." they studied other economies to help the world and said, "those economies overwhelmingly had a sovereign debt to gross domestic product ratio at or above 90%." the amount of money passing through their economy every year was roughly equivalent to the total amount of debt that the national government of that country had acquired. our sovereign debt to gdp ratio stands at about 95%. we are well within the danger zone. according to these economists, as long as we remain in the danger zone, our economic growth will suffer significantly by as

much as of -- as much as a third to half. we have to get out of it. our ability to provide jobs, our ability to continue to be the world's most robust economy depends upon getting our house in order, but it is not just our financial well-being, it is also our individual liberty that will benefit as we take this step, as we pass a balanced budget amendment, and as we restore that which is properly hours. if we do this, we can succeed again and we will prosper we can and we must. together we will. may god bless america. [applause]

let's open up the floor to questions. you can ask me anything you want. you can ask me about jell-o, about things you can make with jell-o, politics, the constitution, the u.s. senate. i am also good at relationship advice. [laughter] fashion tips are also within my repertoire. [laughter] >> i 10 george mason university. the only way to get our country back in track -- on track -- pretty believe is our strongest candidate to lead our charge? >> presidential candidate? >> yes. >> yes. [laughter] that question has become the bane of my existence lately. there are several candidates

that i know and like on different levels for different reasons. i used to work for government jon huntsman, who is now a presidential candidate. i know him well from a personal standpoint. i have yet to get to know him at all as a presidential candidate. i knew him as governor when i was general counsel. i had known mitt romney for a long time. i know and like ron paul a lot. his son, rand, is one of my best friends in the senate. i am a big friend -- fan of michelle bachmann. i have gotten to know her somewhat while serving in the senate. i run into are from time to time i get always been impressed with her stance. rick perry, the governor of texas, may be getting in the race soon. he wrote a fantastic book called "fed up." if he is a candidate for president and he is anything

like his book, he will be phenomenal. at this point, i know that is a non answer and it is intended to be, make no mistake -- [laughter] -- i have yet to make up my mind and my support because there are a number of good candidates. i am looking for the candidate who offers the best hope of helping usher again a new era of limited government at the federal level. someone who understands the difference between state power and federal power and is willing to fight to enforce that boundary. >> thank you. >> if president obama does not lose the election in 2012 and the democratic party still holds the white house -- >> or you try to make me sad? [laughter] >> out likely be a ticket is the republican party can gain a majority in both houses or even

override a veto from him? >> the question is if we lose the presidential election in 2012, could republicans obtained a majority in both houses -- retain a majority in the house and gain a majority in the senate? it is possible. it is possible. just because of the way that the states in which we have senate seats open -- conventional wisdom would suggest normally you would not have that happen at the same time. if president obama gets reelected, we would be less likely to get a majority in the senate and hold the majority in the house. i think it is possible, not necessarily likely. generally what happens is when a presidential candidate does well, you have a lot of people riding on his coattails. it ends up affecting the

composition of congress. that happened in 20008. the democrats secured the houses in 2006, but solidified the majority in 2008 because barack obama was such a popular presidential candidate. i am not sure that will be the case this time around, partly because of the substantial gains republicans made in the house and partly because of how the open seats in the senate are laid out for 2012. but it becomes a lot less certain. right now it is looking pretty good, pretty likely that republicans could be in control of both houses. it becomes incrementally less likely if we do not elect a republican president. >> good morning, senator. i just had a quick question for you. it is ironic to me the fact that the tea party was built on a movement that a lot of guys were walking around waving their

constitutions while completely ignoring the constitution. i keep hearing people like yourself advocating for a balanced budget amendment. even if we pass a balanced budget amendment, do you think that will be enough to balance the budget, that magically we pass this amendment and we balance the budget? >> there are too big a part to the question. the second part i will answer first is will it actually work? if the answer is, yes. it is not that it will work magically, it is that once we put something in the constitution and once we make very clear that there are certain things the government cannot do or that the government can do only in certain circumstances, or if we tell them you can get suspend only in a time of war -- which we have not had since the 1940's -- where congress approves the overspending by a supermajority,

then those things are not going to occur very often. it is enforceable, but more to the point, once it is put in the constitution, congress will be expected to comply with tit. it will be difficult, to say the least, politically for any congress that avoids it as long as we get the right language in place. it is another part of the reason i read this book, to explain the critical elements of the balanced budget amendment. if you get the wrong language in place, it could be rendered ineffective, but if you write it correctly, you'll be in good shape. as to the first part of your question, if you love the constitution so much as a tea party person, why and then it? we have amended the constitution 27 times. sometimes it is necessary to amend the constitution in order to protect it, in order to

protect, enhance, and preserve the system is set in place. that was certainly true with the bill of rights. it was certainly true with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which were necessary to eliminate slavery, eliminate the badness of slavery, and guarantee equal protection under the law, to make sure that everyone understands that the government cannot treat us differently based on our skin color. it was necessary when we gave and protected the right of women to vote. it has been necessary on a number of occasions to improve and enhance the system we have and protected from those who do it harm. it is necessary again today. i advocate on behalf amending the constitution but because of my love for it, but because of it. >> i want to start off by

thanking you for your almost immediate endorsement of a candidate from texas. >> if you are from texas, please get behind ted cruise. >> there are portable seats in virginia, florida, ohio, a new mexico. the u.k. it is wise to purge our own ranks -- do you think it is wise to purge our own ranks? >> targeting republicans, meeting supporting challengers to income but republicans? yes. look -- as one who challenged an incumbent republican in my home state, i would be a hypocrite if i said it is never a. to support someone who wants to get to the united states senate -- it is never appropriate to

support someone who wants to get to the united states senate. there is never at a propitious circumstance to support a challenger to an incumbent republican. just as sometimes it is because of our loyalty to the constitution that we amend it, sometimes it is because of our loyalty to the republican party and the principles for which it was established that people vote for or otherwise support a challenger to an incumbent. that said, i agree with your overall sentiment that we need a majority. i do not have any plans this go around just as i am not ruling anything out. i have not ruled anything in it, either. we have a small handful of income republicans up for reelection in the senate in 2012. i have no plans to do anything but be supportive of them.

>> senator, thank you for coming. i am a junior at harvard college. someone indicated yesterday morning that according to mitch mcconnell, the republicans who voted against the debt deal yet to date will not be eligible to speak on the debt commission. do you still plan to seek a seat on the commission and the you know anything about this policy? >> i do not know anything about this policy. that does not mean the suggestion was not made, it is just the first i have heard of it. when you serve in the u.s. senate, sometimes people around you become aware of news before you do that has sometimes been the case with me. do i still plan to seek a seat on this 12-member, a joint committee within congress? that implies that i was planning

to seek such a seat. i am not, and i was not. i do not intend to seek a position on that committee in part because i disagree with the commission. i do not what the committee to exist. it is one of the reasons i voted against this legislation. i would have, i think, and inhibiting conflict of interest. even assuming, because it sounds like i would not be chosen for the committee anyway, but even if i were of the opinion there was a chance i could get on there, i would not seek it because i have a conflict of interest inherent in the fact i do not think it should exist. i want that committee not to be there. that is part of the reason i voted against the legislation. that may explain briefly why. one of the frustrations i had as a new u.s. senator is when

certain legislation makes it to the floor of the senate, there is sometimes not an opportunity to have open debate, discussion, and, most importantly, an open amendment policy for that process. if you like parts of it and do not like other parts of it. when the senate majority leader says "the tree is full," that means it is not subject to amendment. yet to give it an up or down vote. if you want to change anything in it, to bet. you have a finite choice of yes or no. the proposal that will be put forward by this joint bipartisan committee will propose spending cuts that will be given just an up or down, yes or no vote. it will not be subject to any amendment process. i do not think that is right. we already have a joint,

bipartisan committee. two, in fact one has for its 35 members and is called the house of representatives. we ought to be debating proposed cuts there. not behind closed doors. [applause] >> good morning, senator. i am from the university of alabama. roll tide. >> roll tide. >> thank you. senator rubio mentioned that we need to reform medicare. my question for you is whether you think -- what do you think are the steps to reforming medicare? >> the senator from pennsylvania, who is a good friend of mine, has talked a fair amount about this.

in different ways, different republicans have come up with corresponding proposals to deal with it. at the end of the day, they share one thing in common -- converting medicare into a premium support system where we help people obtain health insurance. it is a partially funded health insurance plan. it is more manageable and sustainable. one point that market rubio makes very persuasively is that he can see that all the current course, the trustees for the medicare program have acknowledged it is on a crash course with insolvency. some say the date of insolvency may be 10 or 15 years away. others say it will occur much sooner -- six or seven years from now. his point is because it is on a

unsustainable course, we are doing the american people a disservice by pretending it is not and we need to convert it to a premium support system rather than the defined benefit system it has become >> thank you, senator. >> you bet. >> i am from the university of oregon. it seems that if you put a man's a livelihood on the line, he will do what he has to do to keep it. congressmen have to be voted in. how do you do with entitlement programs when congressmen do not want to lose constituents? >> this is an h-old question, but not one we need to worry about. we need to worry about making sure they continue to worry about their jobs, meaning if constituents remain informed of

the facts, they are going to make the right decision. it is unusual, i believe, it is very rare, in fact, with the majority of the people, and in this country in particular, are going to make the wrong decision -- when people vote in the wrong person, it is sometimes because they do not have a complete set of information. what we ought to be concerned about is not members of congress being afraid they might lose their jobs, we ought to be more concerned about the situation in which members of congress could be out there passing laws without any fear that they might lose their jobs. that is why it is so important to maintain a national dialogue. that is why social media is such an important tool because it has never been so easy or inexpensive for so many people with so little money to communicate to so large an audience. that is what social media has done for us. it has made the information package available to the average

american voter much much larger. when the american voter has access to all the necessary information, the american voter will make the right decision. >> good morning. do you feel that given recent events that your colleagues are prepared to make the tough decisions and tough choices of making cuts in order to prepare ourselves for the future and balance the budget, where do you feel what we should look for two other leaders, republican or democrat, in order to have more conservative values? >> the question is does the congress as currently constituted prepared to make the difficult decisions and the necessary cuts? no. no. for two reasons. one, some of them are fundamentally constitutionally incapable of doing that.

it is not in their dna. they need to be replaced. [laughter] two, as long as congress continues to have the discretion to deficit spend, it will. i devote an entire chapter in my book, "the freedom agenda," to explain the immense pressure congress fails to stand. members of congress are rewarded when they spend. they are punished when they cut. as long as they have the opportunity to engage in deficit spending, they will do it. the benjamin franklin said, "he will cheat without scruples." you do not continue to abuse it. you abuse it to the point where we are no longer able to continue to borrow money. we are raising the limits of our legal borrowing authority, but

the natural, mathematical, economic limits of our borrowing limit will reach its limits. those who will continue to lend us money will demand a much higher yield such that, if we could within a few years, go from paying to under $50 billion a year in interest -- money down the tubes -- to more like $1 trillion a year in interest right down the tubes. the difference could be just a few years of the interest rates returning to normal, historical average rates. that by itself could put us on that course in just a few years. the white house acknowledges that we are maybe 10 years away from that. i think it will occur much sooner than that. i think the white house a sense -- has made assumptions based on interest rates that are optimistic. >> good morning, senator.

i am from all-star college in houston tx. where would you like to see government spending cuts begin? what do you know to see protected from cuts in our spending? >> great question. first of all, cuts are going to have to be considered and made to some extent across the board in every category. i have been working on the proposed budget package that makes that clear. i have been holding it back for the time being while i have been focused on the debt limit debate and the balanced budget debate. sometime in the next few months i will be releasing that. although we have to look at cuts to every program in everything we do, nothing can be exempt from review, we do have to pay attention to those things that only the federal government can do. there are certain things that cannot be relegated to state and

local governments, to civil society, to individuals, and so forth. national defence is among them. that is not to say we cannot look for areas where we can economize in the area of national defense, but we have to make sure it does not come at the expense of national security. there is no other way to provide for that. we cannot recreate the minutemen suddenly. this is something that has to be provided at the national level. but there cannot be any sacred cows. with that too many in the past where we have said this is off limits. that cannot continue to be the case. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. >> thank you for coming. >> are you afraid of the microphone? >> a little bit. a little intimidated. [laughter] in recent memory, i think it is

safe to say that members of both political parties have been known to manipulate and, sometimes come out right ignore the constitution. i was hoping you could explain a little bit more what safeguards you would propose in a balanced budget amendment that would ensure future congress' cannot get around it and ignore what it says. what's great question. there are a few components of a balanced budget amendment that i think will help it be successful and make sure it defines a boundary in which congress needs to operate and spend. first, and most fundamentally, is what most people associate with the balanced budget amendment -- congress not spend more than it takes in. most american individuals, households, businesses, state and local governments operate this way. it is of the federal government should operate, at least most of the time.

there are occasions where almost any family, business, or government needs to borrow in order to cover some unusual expenses that need to be spread and overtime, but it ought not be the norm as it has become. to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar to cover day-to-day operating expenses is what we are doing now. that is the first element. the second should be a restriction of the total amount of money that congress can spend as a percentage of our economy. in other words, a percentage of gdp limitation. an interesting fact -- between the 1790s and early 1930s, congress that 1.5% to 4% of gdp each year. the exceptions were during the civil war and the second time in the wake of world war ii whi.

since the early 1930's, we have been steadily climbing. over the last 25 years or so we have generally hovered between the very low 20s and the mid to high teens. right now we're spending about 25% of gdp. unless we do something to change the course, that number will continue to grow significantly. that means 25% out of every dollar is sucked into washington d.c. -- washington, d.c. where it goes to die. that is not to say that money is always did, but money does not stimulate economic growth when it is taken into the government the same way it does when it moves to the private sector where it can be used to create new jobs, which, in turn, will create new wealth.

we need to limit as a percentage of gdp the amount of money congress may span. next, there needs to be provisions in place so that congress may borrow in times of extraordinary need. i think it is fair to say that congress ought to be able to borrow in the estimates of a declared war against a nation- state to the extent necessary to fight that war. that money ought not be subject to the percentage of gdp limitation or to the revenue outlays requirement. other than in cases of the declared war, there ought to be some type of supermajority requirement to deviate from either of those roles. ideally, a two-thirds supermajority. you want to make it difficult and unusual, but not impossible for congress to engage in that kind of spending. if you have each of these basic elements in there, especially if

he were to add to it some restriction on tax increases to make sure congress does not try to balance its budget by raising taxes, which, in the long term, will impair economic growth, you have a pretty safe, ironclad document that will help restore individual liberties. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. it has been a pleasure to meet with you. i appreciate you being part of this organization and encourage you to stay involved in it. thank you very much. [applause] >> another speaker at the national conservative student conference this week was governor senator, marco rubio. he says there needs to be a limit in spending in order to grow the economy. he calls for a simple tax code

and regulatory reform. this is 35 minutes. >> please continue to enjoy your dinner, but our guest speaker is here tonight and i do not want to keep them waiting for a moment. i want you to hear everything he has to say because he is a dynamic, up-and-coming young conservative. as a matter of fact, in the circles in trouble, there is more buzz about him than lady gaga. [laughter] but i travel in different circles. our speakers parents emigrated from cuba -- immigrated from cuba in the late 1960's. both parents worked very hard to contribute to the household. our speaker tonight worked his way farouk and graduated from the university of florida and vent the university of miami law school. he spent eight years in the

florida state legislator, rising to the position of speaker -- legislature, rising to the position of speaker of the house. he wrote a book, "100 ways to improve the lives of floridians." some of those suggestions were enacted into law. he also worked very closely with former governor, jeb bush, in pushing education reform, which has marked the sunshine state in florida as one of the innovative educational reform states in the entire country. he was elected to the united states senate in the seminal year of 2010. he is the personification of the american dream. as ronald reagan once said, "you can go to japan, but you cannot become japanese."

you can get to france, but you cannot become a frenchman. but anyone anywhere in the world can come to america and become an american." [applause] we are very honored to have him tonight with us. will you join me in welcoming the newly elected senator from florida, marco rubio. [applause] >> thank you. what did he say? thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. i do not usually get introduced

as compared to lady gaga. tomorrow morning, i am ran a suit made out of meat. much like this country was in the 1980's, americans are in a moment of decision. ronald reagan gave a speech called "a time for choosing." he outlined a decision americans had to make about what kind of country we wanted to be in the role of government in our lives.

it is a choice virtually every american generation has had to make. for much of our history, that choice is pretty clear. if america wanted to be different and america wanted to be special. was separated us from the rest of the world was our political system. our political system is something we should always embrace and be proud of. our public is unique. we should always understand that we decide issues in this country that other nations fight wars over among themselves. but that is not what really separates us from the world. what separates us from the world that in america, it does not matter where you came from or what your parents did for a living, if you have a good idea and are willing to work hard, anyone can accomplish anything. for those of this more and raised in this nation, sometimes it becomes easy to forget that and take it for granted. but the fact is, this is an exception rather than the rule. what we know as life in america

is almost an impossibility almost anywhere else in all of human history. there has never been a place like this. we should never be embarrassed to say that because it is true. we should never be embarrassed to see america for what it is -- unique and exceptional. we also have to understand that was a choice but that was not an accident. it did not happen on its own. it did not develop from one night to the next because god knows america more than he does other nations. it is the product of choices that were made by the people who work in this city and across the country before us. they chose to have been exceptional america. that often that difficult decisions and sacrifices, but a clear-conscious choice that america wanted to continue to be different. that was a choice that america had to make a in the early 1980's. at a time of uncertainty about our future. some will argue that america was

on the decline. they believe the soviets stop communism was inevitable and that america had to embrace and accept a world order or would somehow have to be second place to emerging powers, primarily the soviet union. but there was a voice at that time in the american political scene named ronald reagan who said not only was that not true, but everything that the soviet union represented was destined to fail and failed miserably. people literally laughed. they did not chuckle, they did not disagree, they laughed at him. the believe what he said was absurd. he also talked about the notion that america could once again be great. it could be the leading military power in the world and the leading economic power in the world. somehow, our future could be better than our history. the critics did not chuckle or disagree, they laughed. they believe that after vietnam and watergate era and the malaise of the late '70s that

america would never be the same, that we would be an important and significant country, but not the exceptional land that reagan grew up again. ronald reagan knew better. he knew that our greatness never came from our government, it always came from our people. in the early 1980's, there was nothing wrong with the american people. he knew that if we embrace the principles that made us great in the past, they would make us even greater in the future. the the end of that decade, history has already recorded what happened. the soviet union and its brand of communism literally collapsed. by the way, an interesting aside, i've had the opportunity to have been with old to work with ronald reagan at the time. do you realize he gave that speech where he said "tear down the wall," that there were people in the administration they kept taking that out of the speech? they thought it was too abrasive

and antagonistic. it was not presidential and did not belong there. it was a realistic that we could accomplish that. reagan knew a fundamental truth. this notion of wanting to accomplish your god-given ambition and their god-given dream was not an american principle or an american dream, it was a universal one. the thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the world is we created a place here where it was possible. america is a place where people from all over the world come because they could not be to god meant them to be in the nation of their birth. that is literally what we are as a people -- a collection of go getters from all over the planet who could not accomplish the dreams or hopes in the nation of their birth, but here, the ticket stand in their way. that was right in's america and the eighties and seventies. i tell people all the time when they ask me where i got my

center-right conservative policies. i grew up in the era of reagan. i watched and believed and new that america's future could be greater than its past. the reagan era it defined the next 20 years. we are at another one of those judgments in american history where, once again, we get to choose whether we want to continue to be exceptional or if we are prepared to become like everyone else. it is a choice to every generation before us has had to make nl it is our turn. i am sure you have all watched, as has the country, the debt limit debate. the debt limit debate was not about the deficit. the debt limit debate, at its core, was about what country we want moving forward. the united states spends $300 billion a month.

$180 billion comes from taxes and fees. the rest, every month, comes from money that we borrow. that ratio is unsustainable as it is, but it is only destined to get worse. the spending part, the $300 billion, will go up dramatically because we will make promises. this government and its leaders that were your report made promises that will increase that dramatically. medicare plans. social security balloons. in addition, the revenue part will not keep pace. our economy is flat line. it there we did not broach the last quarter. it basically did not grow. unemployment hovers at 9%. but the real unemployment figure, when you add in people that are underemployed or stop looking for jobs, is more than 20%. one out of five americans

unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up. that revenue number is only going to get worse. the spending is going to bloom. the revenue part is going to stay stagnant. in addition, the money we borrow is completely unsustainable if we keep doing what we are doing, if nothing changes, we will have a debt crisis that will make the last one esol look like child's play. this last debt crisis was basically because we needed to pass a law to pass the debt limit. the next debt crisis may be one where they do not lend us money because they do not think we can pay them back. the warnings are out there. there will come a day where if we do not stop what we are doing now, the world will continue -- the world refused to continue to lend us money or will do so at with higher interest rates. the math is simple. quite frankly, everyone agrees

this is true. but there is a sharp disagreement about how to address it. on one hand, you have those who believe the only to address this is to increase taxes. a group of people out there make too much money and they are not paying their fair share and our job is to take money from them. it is a position that enjoys some popular appeal in america. after all, most after all, most people in america do not consider themselves to be rich. when you think of rich, you think of billionaires' and multimillionaires. there is some appeal out there in the public perspective. the resulting believe is the way you grow economy is to the government. if the government just sent a little bit more money would have more programs to do things and somehow the economy would grow as a result. that is one school of thought of how to approach it.

the group of americans the believe that in washington are no less patriotic than any of us. but their theory stands in sharp contrast with what i believe is the reality of what has made us great up to this point. and that is the second thought process, the one that most of us in this room find ourselves in. is the idea that yes, we need more ideas for revenue, but that should not come from new tax -- new taxes, but for new tax payers. if more people are working, more people are paying taxes. if more people are paying taxes, then it is generating more money for the government to pay down its debt. but if you use that additional revenue to simply grow your government, you are not solving anything. the second part of the equation is that we have to limit the growth in spending. that means looking at discretionary spending, the amount of money that is spent on a yearly basis on programs that are not required by law.

the truth is that the big program spending for programs like medicare. but by the way, if we do not reform them, will cease to exist. if we do not reform them, we will not have them. history teaches us that it does not matter who is in charge, a conservative, democrat, liberal, a republican, if you let a politician spend money, they will do it. if the choice is between spending money they do not have or cutting spending, they will spend money they do not have. that is why we need spending caps on a balanced budget amendment. all 01 states in this country have that. -- all but one of the states in this country have that. there are two things that our government can do right now to reinvigorate the american economy. one is tax reform, not simply tax increases.

is simplifying our tax code, making it simple and flat and fair. the government does not use the tax system to pick winners and the cruisers. it uses a to generate money for government, but in a way that does not destroy job creation. the second thing they want is ready the toward reform. i cannot exaggerate you how onerous this administration's decisions on regulation have been. consistently every day from washington d.c., regulations and rules are being written that are literally destroying jobs in america on a weekly basis. they are trying to accomplish through rulemaking and unelected agencies what they cannot accomplish through the process, be it environmental policy or union labor policy. they are creating an environment in america through a complicated tax code and onerous regulations that are making it a less desirable place to do business.

in fact, people are telling you that is easier to do business in communist china than in the united states of america, and when that happens, you know you are headed in the wrong direction. for us, the equation is simple, grow your economy and limit your spending. if we can do that, these issues are a lot easier to manage. that is the debate. these are two different opinions of the role of government in america. two very different views of where we should be as a nation, and between them there is very little ground -- very little common ground. when people talk about compromise, i am not against it. but it has to be a solution. if the compromise is not about the solution to buy your wasting people's time. we are not deciding whether we're going to have six judges vs 12 judges, or whether we are going to name a post office after this guy or that guy. this is a fundamental difference of opinion about what kind of

government we want to have, and the answer to that question will determine what kind of country we have for your generation and beyond. much of the world has chosen to have a government that is very involved in our economic lives. i understand this is a simplistic view of it, but an accurate one nonetheless. most of the world has chosen to have a very active government in their lives back guarantees you all sorts of things. but in stock -- in exchange for those guarantees, there are things you have to give up, primarily your economic freedom. literally, your ability to open a spare business in a spare room of your home, the ability to max out a credit card and open up a business because you believe so much in the this idea. most of the world has chosen this economic model, and they seemed relatively happy up until recently when even europe figured out that even their high taxes and high regulations could not sustain what it had created.

but what you give up is the vibrancy of the american economy. i think what reagan had argued and what we should argue today is that is fine for the rest of the world to choose that. and if that is the kind of country you want to live in, a place where the government guarantees you certain economic results, there are certain -- so many places in the world you can move to. but there should be one country on earth where you can open up its business in the spare bedroom of your home. there should be one country on earth where you should be able to open up a business after drawing a business plan out on the back of a cocktail napkin there should be one country on earth where a worker can become an owner, where an employee can become an employer. if there should be one nation on earth for these things are possible. for the last some odd years that country has been the u.s. and we should not change that now. [applause]

behind the noise of the dead debate that is what we are really arguing about. and it has divided washington and a america. this generation of americans want it both ways. we have to choose -- do we want to continue to be the country are parents a new, the singular and exceptional place, or are we prepared to become another country like everybody else, still rich, still powerful, still important, but no longer exceptional? that is the choice. and that is the debate. and i know that sometimes it is scary to think, why not become like everybody else? why do we have to continue to be the leading this or that? thatswer is, i'm not sure we want to live in a world where

america is not the america you knew. i am not sure i am prepared to raise my children in the world where, america's light has been extinguished in a new life has taken its place. i am not sure we are better off where we are diminished and other nations are on the increase. who would speak out on behalf of the values of liberty and freedom? after all, the liberties and freedom we have known are largely the exception not a rule of human history. the idea that people could govern themselves was almost unheard of until 200 some odd years ago. and even in much of the world now many people scoff at it. who would speak out on behalf of these principles? the idea that somehow you do not have to be born into the right family in order to succeed, that somehow off the same individuals and same individuals -- and families come to rule generation after generation.

an economic forecast system. who would serve as -- and economic caste system. who would serve as the living breathing example that it doesn't have to be that way? we are somehow able to do here but we were not able to do there. that is what sets us apart. you see these other countries emerging around the world and pulling their people out of poverty. they are not doing it by embracing socialism. they're doing it by increasing the market. and the more they embrace the principles we stood for, the more prosperity they find. but if america stops being america, what nation of people on earth are prepared to take our place? there is no one. there is no other country. there is nowhere else to go. the debate we are having is about whether we will continue

to be that kind of country. or we prepared to be the first americans to allow our nation to diminished? and the work you do and the stuff you are involved in politically is really about that. this is no longer an intellectual argument about the government versus small government, conservatives versus liberals. -- big government versus small government, conservatives versus liberals. we will have to make a choice faster than any other generation has ever had to make it because the world moves faster than it ever has. that is the great challenge of our time, and i find it to be exciting. here is why. i believe if we embrace the things that made us great in our past, our future will be greater than our history. there are more people on earth than ever before that will be able to afford to buy the things that you invent and you build. there are more people around the

world that are able to be our partners economically and diplomatically and culturally. there are more opportunities for americans today than ever to sell our goods and services if only we stop having in the wrong direction and embrace the things that brought us to this point. this is the challenge of this generation of leadership which you will fully inherit. and i encourage you to remain fully politically involved because the decisions we are making will determine what america will look like forever. that is how to map -- dramatic the choice is we are about to make. i hope that through the next months that lie ahead and through the elections of 2012, the american people will speak with a clear and simple voice that we have seen the two choices. we understand the hard work and sacrifices that lie ahead. but we still choose to be great. we still choose to be special. we still choose to stand apart. we still choose to inspire the

world. i hope you will be a part of that as well. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause] >> we are going to -- i have a few minutes to take questions. let's do it. >> i want to thank you for wearing your life band. >> i hope i have it on. yes, there it is. >> recently, i have been doing a lot of journalism and rights and a lot of things for my school that have caused people to call

me all sorts of names. how do you in the midst of all kinds of accusations against you keep your center and know what you are doing is right? >> largely, people will say stuff about you from a political perspective and a matter what you do, they will not like you. the sooner you realize that, the more peace you live. people talk about the modern rhetoric of modern politics today. it has always been heeded. we just now have more places for people to scream at you from. there will always be people that do not like where you stand for. you have to ask yourself, why am i doing this? and it is a tough decision. it sounds like you are a person of faith, has your name. no pun intended. -- hence your name. no pun intended. you have to ask yourself, am i doing this just to be loved by

people or to make a difference? i think it is important in a republic that you accurately represent and listen to the people that you serve. but ultimately, you also have an obligation to do what is right even if it is not popular in the eyes of some. you have to allow history to judge your work. no one likes to be disliked, but if you come to your decisions after having thought about it carefully, you are principled about it, and you know where you stand on your issues and you are carrying through on it, that is enough. i admire people who are willing to fight for their principles and articulate them even if i do not agree with them. [applause] >> i am from south carolina. i know you work very closely with jim demand. >> yes. >> i do not believe in fighting

within the party, but at the same time, if the tea-party backed candidates were not in congress now, congress would a lot -- would look a lot different and the debt ceiling debate would look a lot more left. what are you guys doing for 2012? >> i have not thought a lot about 2012. i know senator demint is always on the lookout for candidates around the country that espoused the good ideals of government. i do not think that you are all republicans here. there are probably independents and democrats to. maybe not. [laughter] i would say the republican party is very diverse. i would say there are people that agree with me on economic policy, but disagree with me on libya, for example.

i think the republican party has a lot more ideological diversity than the democratic party does for on many of these issues. it is normal to have these debates. the second thing i would say is that the 2010 election was a very clear referendum. barack obama and others were elected in 2008 on a promise of hope and change and transforming the culture of from it -- of politics. but then they came into office and the first two things he did was to try to pass the stimulus package and the health care bill and there was a rejection of that. people did not believe the stimulus package would work. they spent a lot of money and do not have any jobs to show for it. then they went on with cap and trade and it was a nightmare for job creation. it was almost like a restraining order on these things continuing to happen. and into -- in 2010, we

campaigned on very clear principles. i ran on a very clear platform, and that is, i do not like what is happening in washington i intend to fight against it and offer a clear alternative. i thing me and many others are up here doing that. i think is silly to to criticize people for doing what they got elected for. if more people would do that, we would be better off. >> for the last few days people have been signing to support you for your president or vice president, or just to support you in general. if >> [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> i'm not going to put you in an awkward situation, obviously. [laughter] but we do have 100 signing members for students for rubio,

and you are out campaigning for that, but what would we do -- what do we do with this energy that we have? >> at first, i intend to win the nobel prize. [applause] i say this with real sincerity. i am flattered and honored that you would sign that and put something like that forward. i would say to you, one, this is not about me. i am just a person who shares your principles and threw a handful of blessings and opportunities i have the chance to serve and in this political process. but there is no reason why one of you could not be one day standing behind a podium or on the floor of the u.s. senate. it is not about the people. it is about the principles. the principles are what are timeless. i would ask you to turn your

energy not behind individuals, although i am flattered by it, but behind the principles that we share. and we probably do not agree 100% on the issues here. but i think we agree on a certain set of issues that are true and have worked in the past and will work in the future. not on the campaign on these things, but once elected, do something about it. in this audience today there are people who will serve in public office from school boards to the u.s. senate. you can be involved and i encourage you to take that enthusiasm and not just put it behind people, but behind principles. one of the reasons we got behind ronald reagan is because -- is not just because he gave good speeches, but because he stood behind a timeless principles. one more question.

>> most of us would like to see a balanced amendment for the constitution. how close are we? >> i do not know how close we are. you need 67 votes in the senate. we have 47 republicans who say they are for it. and we have 20 democrats who have campaigned on a balanced budget amendment at one time or another. i do not know exactly how close we are, but i know we will have a chance in the next problem months to create some groundswell behind it. anything that has come from the debt limit debate has elevated this discussion behind the balanced budget amendment. one of two things has to happen in order for the debt limit to be increased. it is either this super committee house to report at least a trillion dollars in deficit cuts and planning, which could increase our deficit cuts,

which i would support. i do not know why it cannot be both and i think we should get behind a balanced budget amendment and make it a priority issue not just in the next couple of months, but in the 2012 elections. thank you. i am honored. [applause] >> ohio congressman jim jordan spoke thursday at the national conservative student conference held in washington d.c. congressman jordan heads the republican service committee. his remarks are about an hour.

>> our speaker received his bachelor's degree in economics from the university of wisconsin. he was twice n.c.a.a. wrestling champion. he received his master's in education from ohio state and a law degree from catholic university. the jim jordan is one of the most conservative members of

congress believe the taxpayers rather than government allowed to make the best decisions with their own money. he was elected to an organization of conservative members in the u.s. house of representatives. as the chairman, he has taken a conservative role in causing the budget. he has also opposed debt increase. under his chairmanship, the republican study committee has offered its own budget proposal, has offered a real plan to cut gasoline costs to more use of energy. it is my pleasure to welcome jim jordan.

>> you heard that i went to the university of wisconsin. i went there and survive. i am just going to talk about some general principles. i tell every group that i speak to, look, you all pay my salary. and you are allowed to ask any question that you want. there'll be plenty of time for you to exercise your constitutional rights. this is a message that is as old of the hills. the five things i would challenge any person in a life

as they go about doing these things. step one, set goals. you cannot get anywhere if you do not know where you are going. i am 47 years old and i have four kids, so you learn a few things with four kids. but a lot of folks that meander through life without ever knowing what they want to accomplish, what their objectives and goals are. if you want to accomplish anything of significance, you have to know what it is. the second challenge is more important. there are a lot of folks that set goals, but very few people are willing to do the work that which used something significant. the second challenge is, be a disciplined person. i learned a long time ago that hard work does not guarantee that you will be successful, but it does improve your chances. when you are thinking about what

it takes to accomplish something of real magnitude and significance is the willingness to be disciplined. i had a coach in high school. my background was wrestling. actually, when i was in grade school i had life figured out. i knew what i was going to do in second grade. i just knew i was going to play middle linebacker for the pittsburgh steelers. i grew up in the '70s. i could name every player on the team. my favorite guy was jack lambert, the guy who was middle linebacker. that is what i wanted to do. i am 57 and half on a good day. -- i am 5 foot 7 inches on a good day. we had a wrestling teacher that i also taught chemistry and physics. he was the toughest wrestling

coach in the entire state of ohio. he passed away a couple of years ago. in fact, the wrestling room in our high school is now named after him. a super guy. he talked about this and plan every day. no exaggeration, every day he talked about this. he would say, this is not any old class. you have to prepare with questions. you have to participate. and in wrestling it was even worse. some discipline, every day he talked about it. i got sick of hearing about it and i said to my get this enough for my dad. but he had a great definition. he said, discipline is doing what you do not want to do when you do not want to do with it. and that meant doing things the coach's way when you would rather do them your way. and doing things the right way

when you would rather do them a convenient way. discipline is doing things the tough way, not the easy way. it was a message that we did not always want to hear, but it is so true. doing things in this country the tough way, the hard way, that is the american way. setting goals and being disciplined enough and doing what you have to do to get to the goal is very important. the third challenge is, be positive. negative people drive me crazy. you live in america. the positive. is the greatest country in the world. positive people are fun to hang out with. mike has a good statement, he says, when you think about conservatives, we have to be positive. we have the truth on our side.

the positive. that is the approach you want. be positive. it makes such a difference in everything that we do. positive people motivate others to accomplish things of significance as well. i love the story from scripture. you know this one, right? when the israelites were camped against the philistines and every day the philistines giant would issue the challenge, "who will fight the life?" and the israelites response was he is so big we cannot defeat him. but david's response is, he is so big i cannot miss. the thing about me, i was assistant wrestling coach at ohio state university. never been involved in politics. a state representative rays opens up in 1994. i have never been involved in politics. not even very involved with our local party. i decided i would run for state

rep. in western ohio, is pretty much, if you win the primary, you are going to win the generals. i talked to some of the republican party leaders in the three-county district, about 115,000 in the districts. i talked to some of the party leaders and i said to my thinking about running for state rep. and they basically said, well, you are a nice young guy, but come back in about 15 years. this two-term county commissioner is going to clean your clock. and i thought, really? thanks for the advice, but we will see what happens. there is always one team that is favored, but sometimes the underdog winds. we set about working hard, and we had a bunch of pro-life people, home school people, folks that do not like telling -- other people telling them what to do with their money.

i do not know how much money we raised, $17,000 or so, but it seemed like a million dollars. if you do not know you are supposed to lose, good things can happen. and we won that race. when i ran for states and its, i have the -- for state senate, i had the distinction in a pile of having the most expensive state primary in history of ohio. my opponent was a 20-year veteran of the house. in this republican primary he was endorsed by the governor, the speaker of the house, the attorney general, a congressman that happen to have the last name of boehner, and a state senator that was leaving the seat that we're running for. no one gave us a chance. tooke up one day and i said

my wife, honey, you are going to stick with me, right? you are not going to endorse my opponent? and she said, yes, honey. but we just did the same thing, not on a bunch of doors, worked our tails off, and we were able to win. when people tell you you cannot do something, just do not believe them. if you are willing to work hard, all kinds of positive things can happen to you. the fourth thing i will say is this, and this is important. embrace the values that make this country special in the first place. there are certain principles that make us the greatest nation ever. it never be afraid to stand up and defend those principles. i remember -- i never forget the story of scott o'grady, shot down over bosnia. an amazing ordeal. if you do not know the story, go

back and read about it. it was probably 10, 12 years ago. he was shot down and had to survive several days in the wild, using all of his skills. he was ultimately rescued and brought to safety. when he was brought to safety, the microphones were thrust in his face because the media wanted an interview. they wanted to hear about his or minnick -- his amazing ordeal. i had to catch this interview. he basically said three things, three statements that captured in my judgment what life is all about, what america is all about. 29 years old in the u.s. military, and he said, first of all, i want to thank god. it is a miracle that i am standing here today. he said, second, i want to thank my family. and i am paraphrasing, but it was something to the effect of, i want to thank my family

because it was while i was out there and i thought about them, i knew they were thinking and praying for me. that helps motivate me to do what i needed to do to make it. and he said, i want to thank the guys that saved me. they are the real heroes. and i thought about what he said and i said, if this guy has figured it out. he has a personal relationship with the god of the universe and that has lasting obligations. but last the, how faith has been central to the american experience. this past spring, our oldest boy was competing in a tournament, and wrestling tournament in philadelphia. you go in there and you think

about what these guys did when they start of this grand experiment that we call america. you go in and you look at where jefferson sat and adams sat and you can almost hear the debate in there. the document that they drafted and voted on in that room, all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights -- they understood all the importance of faith and this experiment that we call america. when scott o'grady reference to his family, he was getting at this basic concept that the family was this institution that in my judgment will ultimately determine the strength of our entire culture and the strength of our entire society. i think about the impact that my parents had on my life.

one of the things you will learn -- we have four children and one of the things that we learned when the good lord began to bless us with kids, when you have kids, you suddenly appreciate your parents more. you do not realize when you are young the sacrifices and the things they are doing. i loved the line that mark twain -- mark twain had a lot of good lines to capture some pretty important truths. he was talking about his relationship with his dad, how it evolves over time. he said, when i was 10 years old my dad knew everything, when i was 20, off my dad did not know much of anything, and now that i am 30, i am surprised at how much he has learned in 10 years. with that institution that was put together, before the church, before the state, it was the family. one thing to keep in mind as a policymaker, every decision that

i tried to filter through, does it benefit families? that is what will strengthen our culture and our country. that is something that scott o'grady instinctively knew and that he said after this amazing experience that he had been true. and finally, when he referenced the military, i think he was getting at the work that we most closely associate with our country, and that is the word freedom. our military has always stood for freedom. and most military throughout history have stood for tierney and oppression, but not america. and we have stood not just for americans, but for countless people around the planet. those are the values that as conservatives as we move forward we want to make sure that our country remains a strong and we

need to embrace and defend them. if you are a conservative today, the press will make fun of you. i get it all the time. it is just the nature of this business. particulate, the national press. they do not quite see things normal folks do. do you ever read cal thomas? he is a syndicated writer. he is a great writer. he talks about the difference between the way of folks might see things in different places. he says, i get up every morning and i read my bible and the "new york times" so i can see what both sides are up to. [laughter] and here is my last point and then i will take my -- take your questions. be willing to take the risk. the willing to put it on the line. if you have a goal, be willing

to commit to the goal. stay positive when it gets tough. and it will always require risk. to accomplish anything of meaning or significance, it requires making a full commitment and when you do, if there is the risk that he might fail. but you have to take it anyway. it is the nature of the way the good lord made this place. you have got to be willing to take the risk. i understand that is how we did. how many of you have seen the movie "jerry retsof fire"? -- "chariots of fire"? a great story. you follow british athletes in the 1920's as they are preparing to compete in paris in the sport of track and field. it really focuses on two in particular. both talented in -- individuals.

both the kinds of guys that you want young people to emulate. one goes on to be a missionary to china. both wind up being gold medalists. the best seen in my judgment took place prior to the olympic games. where both college-age athletes, both sprinters, both undefeated. these are the two fastest guys in europe. deep down, they just had to know, being competitors, they had to know who was going to win in a race. who is the fastest? it is the nature of the competitor. they put together the super bowl of this competition. if they fired the gun and it was merkel first.

the next scene is the other man sitting in the stands and looking down at the track. there was a woman in the stance that he would later marry. he is replying this race over and over in his mind. every time it is the same results and is the other man first and himself second. it is driving him that's because he has never lost. the lady turns to a man says, why the long faced? you want all the others. what is the big deal? there is a pause and he said, i do not run to lose. i've run to win. if i cannot win, i will not do it. i will quit. it hurts too bad to lose. there was another pause and she turned back to him and she said the best line of the entire movie. she said, harold, if you do not

run, you cannot win. and that is so important. if you are never willing to get off the sidelines and get into the game, if you are never willing to get out of the shadows and get into the arena, he will never accomplish anything that matters not only for yourself, but for the people and for your nation as well. always be willing to take the risk. it is tough. it is not easy. but in the end, when you accomplish those things beverley matter and to help other people along the way during the journey -- those things that really matter and you help other people along the way during the journey, that is what matters most. that is how we will be the greatest nation in history. thank you all very much. [applause] your chance to yell at a congressman. the step up and fire away.

you should know, we have people like this in congress. every time there is a microphone, certain people go to the microphone every single time. it drives you crazy. go ahead. [laughter] >> my question for you is, straying away from a little attitude, a bit of a-question, how do you decide the difference between risk and being naive? >> i guess i see where you are headed. look, you want to educate yourself and know what the policy issue is, instead of just rushing in there and saying goofy things. you want to take the time to be prepared. that is why i tried to in my

comments talk about being disciplined, doing the hard work, all of those things. you have to do all of those things, particularly in politics before you shoot your mouth off. you have to do your homework and be prepared. that is a prerequisite for just about anything you will try to accomplish. >> thank you. i loved your speech. >> thank you. >> good morning. i go to truman university. do you think that playing sports has a correlation between having a career in policy or leadership in terms of the federal government? we see that. a lot of us are activists and are involved in conservative organizations, and while we play sports, it is not something that people with that connect in talking about politics. >> obviously, it is not a requirement. there are a lot of folks that are involved in doing a great

job in public policy that do not have an athletic background. but for me, it made a huge difference. in my sport, i am still involved. we have two boys that are very active and i have one son that will compete at the collegiate level as well. the sport i am in, wrestling, if your opponent steps on the map, you can pick him up and from him down and do it again until you win. it does not get more basic than that. i have always love to compete. americans love to compete. there is a great book. read arthrex book called -- read arthur brooks book called "the battle." he references the people that started this great place. the left and they started with nothing because they wanted to

go out to pursue this golden dream. >> thank you. >> i'm wondering what we can do to get fellow college students interested in politics and economics. >> the first paycheck, that is when they get very interested. i always tell young people that when you talk about -- in talking about high school, some have summer jobs. you get your paycheck and this is what you turned up here, and down here is what government lets you keep. and the journey across the check is where government troops you off. it is my job as a conservative member of congress to keep the rip-off to a minimum.

there are things that government needs to spend money on. at the federal level, there are certain things we are supposed to use tax dollars for. but the founders understood this basic premise that the smaller government is, the greater freedom is. limited government means expanded the body. -- expanded at liberty. typically, when people get their first paycheck, and they see how much government takes, and everything-every single tax they have to pay, local, water, street tax, other taxes, and on and on. my major in college was wrestling, but you are supposed to get a degree. i ended up getting one in economics. if i had this professor, and i cannot remember his name, but it in my sophomore year you are supposed to declare a major.

i am taking this macro economics class. this is university of wisconsin at madison. a walk in and there are 500 students in this lecture all with macroeconomics. and the professor says he is a christian guy and a conservative guy. and i'm like, this is the bravest guy on campus. he must have tenure. but i paid attention and i liked economics and i wound up majoring in that just because of this one professor my sophomore year. >> thank you. >> i am from lone star college system in houston, texas. i do not think anyone can give a definite form, but in your opinion, how long do you believe it will take for us to finally get government spending under control? >> hopefully, not too much longer because we do not have too much longer. i know you have had several

speakers, but let me give you a couple of numbers without warning to death. $14 trillion debt, approximately $1.60 trillion this fiscal year. someone tell me what interest rates are like right now. are they low or high? lowe, record low, historic low, i cannot get any lower. they are going to go up some. the spending path that we are on, and if you assume a cent -- a modest increase in interest rates, which is a fair assumption -- i hope they do not get back up to where they were in the 1980's. but if you think of the $200 billion or more that we are paying interest on the debt, within 10 years will be paying more on interest than we currently spend on national defense. someone tell me, if you are

spending more as a country to service your dad and you are as a nation, how can you sustain that? you cannot. the window of time to fix this is closing rapidly. i think we cannot emphasize this enough. we have got to bring spending down. the one fight we got to -- through in washington was over the debt ceiling. i was one of the folks that ended up voting no. simply because -- [applause] let me say this, there were some good things to the speakers credit. no tax increases, which was great, and we actually did cut spending a little bit. the tip of these things is if you raise that debt ceiling and the band plays on and you just keep spending. but if you think about the fact that all we did was to reduce spending $21 billion this first year, which is the only year that congress really has authority over because

subsequent congress's can change the law, we just have to do more. we are in a difficult situation. $14 trillion national debt and we increased the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion and we are reducing it by $21 billion this next fiscal year. put it in terms that we can all understand. you have some young person that taxes are his credit card at $14,000, hit the limit. he goes to the bank and says i need more. and the bank says, will give you $2,400 more on the limit, but you have to promise us that in the next year you have to spend $21 less in spending. that is exactly what we did. it is a step in the right direction and the direction we want to move, but the magnitude of the problem is so big that we have to change spending. that means all of government has to change. >> thank you.

>> i am setting of the university of texas at san antonio. i want to thank you for all of your pro-life work and the impact is making. what you think the major steps that we need to make are to truly promote a cultural way of life? >> i think technology has been our friend. the fact that you can now see that we are talking about human beings -- and the founders understood this. the guys who started this grand experiment that we call america, this greatest experiment in freedom ever, they got it right. when they talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and you have heard this before, but it is worth repeating -- they chose the rights that they chose to mention. haldex to scripture, i would say this the best words put on paper. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. you cannot go after things that

have significance if you do not first have freedom. and the government has to protect your most fundamental right, your right to live. [applause] that is why this is such a basic, fundamental thing and one of the reasons i got into politics. i was going to the wrestling coach forever. i was going to help student athletes get to their goals on the wrestling mat. but you get married and yet government taking your money and telling you what to do and assaulting your values and i said, i am dumb enough to run for state rep. we will see what happens. and i ended up winning. it was those kinds of things early on motivated me to run for office. >> i am in college in buffalo, new york. you mentioned you started in state politics.

would you recommend starting in local politics for us? >> who knows? the first iran for was state representative and nobody -- the first thing i ran for one state representative and nobody gave me a chance. if you want to run for school board and make a difference, that is between you and the good lord and your family. and going back to an earlier question, not being naive, but knowing the lay of the land and the score before you go in there. it just depends. people told me i could not win. sometimes that just get too fired up. -- gets you fired up. if you have done the research and you think you can do it, do not let people tell you cannot. -- tell you that you cannot. to me, setting about the goal

and doing the work and getting there, that is the key. >> i was wondering, since the debt to -- the due date for the debt has passed, will congress continue to work on that? what is the next thing congress will work on? >> it is basically all congress has done this year. you remember the fight earlier this year completing the work from last year that did not get done come september, we will go about finalizing it for next year. and it is appropriate because the financial situation it -- the fiscal situation, excuse me, is so bad that we have to spend our time there. we got a lot of policies from right now. -- wrong right now. let me take a step back and say

this. the world is a dangerous and chaotic place. all you have to do is watch the evening news to see the crazy things i go on. but the world is less dangerous and less chaotic, in my judgment, when the u.s. lead spirit of the world is a better place when we lead. -- when the u.s. leads. the world is a better place when we need. it is tough to be a leader if you are not an economic leader. to remain the economic leader, and you have to have the right fiscal policy, the right regulatory policy, the right energy policy, and the right tax policy. and i would argue that we are wrong on all of them right now. we are not using the good lord's resources the way we should. we do not have a good fiscal policy. our tax policy, we have the

highest corporate tax rate in the world. i have a colleague, a freshman colleague from green bay, wisconsin, and i've been to his office a few times. sitting on his desk is a copy of the tax code. is there to remind him of why he came to washington, to simplify the tax growtcode to promote gr. and we have the wrong regulatory policy. i have two friends of mine, very successful in manufacturing back home, two brothers. i will remember this forever, one of them said to me, jim, i love being in business. i hate being an employer. the reason i hate being an employer is all the stuff you guys make us do, government. all the things they have to do when they take the risk in hiring someone and provide a job.

those are the things we have to focus on to remain the economic power so we can also be the economic leader of the world and we can also ensure there is more freedom in place when we do that. the >> i am from the university of tennessee, knoxville. i want to thank you for coming here. and you touched on been positive, but i wonder how you keep state -- staying positive when the left is constantly attacking you. furthermore, what advice would you give for women who want to get into politics? >> focus on the fact that in spite of the challenges we have in this country, it is still the greatest nation ever. the focus on the fact that the positive people are the ones who actually accomplish things in life. focus on those basics. and just stay strong. prepare.

you see some folks in politics that when they engage with folks on the left, if they are prepared, we can win. you have to do the work necessary so that you are prepared when it counts. but what happens is, if you set the goals and you do the work you need to do, when it comes time to actually get the job done, you have the confidence to perform under pressure. do the work, developed confidence, confidence allows you to compete under pressure. there are examples of that in the sports world. just basic things that you instinctively know. just make sure you are doing those things. >> thank you. >> i am from george washington university. the left often points out how hypocritical the right is, calling for spending cuts when we are spending so much money on

military and defense spending. how do you think the rights can streamline that budget and cut down the waste there? >> i would disagree slightly with the premise. after world war ii, we were spending 38% of gdp on national defense. the idea the we are spending too much on national defense is not -- you're supposed to spend tax dollars on national defense. there are a lot of things constitutionally that say there are things we spend on the we should not be, but national defence is where we're supposed to spend taxpayer money, particularly federal look government. -- the federal government. are there areas in the pentagon budget and the defense budget where we probably have some excess and could turn things

back? certainly. and we should be willing to do that. but the left always wants to target defense first and of the and else later. it should be exactly the opposite. look at the rest of government first, and by the way, we should do that, but that should not be the first place we are looking, still involved in afghanistan, still involved in iraq, and some degree involved in libya. we have to be really careful. >> congressman jordan, my name is will simpson. i am from the university of arkansas. >> you have a voice for radio. [applause] >> i am an internet the foundation this summer. as a supporter of cup, -- cut, cap, and balance, i was

surprised to see criticisms come from the right on the proposal, from places like the wall street editorial board saying it would lead to tax increases or judicial activation -- activism, or what wartime exceptions would constitute. what is your response to that? >> they were wrong and we were right. those are valid concerns. but you have to draft it right. we would certainly look at drafting it correctly in a way that safeguarded some of those concerns you raised. let us cut to the basic premise. everybody has a balanced budget requirement -- every family, every small business, every township, every city, every state. the only entity that does not have a balanced budget requirement is the one with a 14

trillion dollar debt. this i do we do not need it, which is one of the statements the president made -- how can you say that? the last 40 years has proven we definitely need it. to me, it is the one, to use an overused term, real game changer when you think forward, that will make a difference for your generation and younger americans. it will require the politicians to do what they never really want to do -- only spend what they taken. everyone likes to spend money. how many of you like to spend money? in politics, you get to spend other people's money. there are no limits put on them. they are going to keep spending. it is the nature of it. i remember when i was in the state senate in ohio. we were in control. during state budget time, they all lineup of such your office to say this program is

wonderful. finally, one of our staffers said went to the taxpayers come by. it is always people who have their hand out. giving money given to their program or whatever -- you have to say timeout. and the game. we're not going to solve it. obviously we have seen it, particularly in the last three years. even the party i belong to spends too much money. this new administration is taking it to a new level. i think some arguments from conservatives were we cannot get it done. if you always follow the conventional wisdom, you will never accomplish anything that matters. if the founders would listen to conventional wisdom, there would

be a united states of america. sometimes we have to fight. if the cannot challenge the president now -- he is a 42% approval rating. let us have a national debate and see which one wins. in the long shot, sometimes long shots win. if you look at how serious the situation is, when not engaged the american people in a national debate over our plan and his plan, particularly when he has a 42% approval rating. >> i am an intern with the foundation and will be starting law school at the university of michigan in the fall. >> congratulations. you touched a little bit earlier about how you were not in support of the boehner plan. it was something i was not a big fan of either. do you think something like that is typical of what our congress or senate is going to come up with in the near future again? how much would you think a real

conservative solution? >> let me say this. it is divided government. i understand i just got done talking about the plan we were pushing. the speaker supported it when it first went to the house of representatives. it was a long shot to get it done. i felt there was still a chance it could happen. the speaker's proposal that he put forward was a good in that it actually cut spending. it never happens much around this place. it reduced spending and kept tax increases out of any type of agreement. i appreciate the speaker's job there. john boehner has a tough job. he has to negotiate with harry reid. it is tough. i appreciate that. i just felt the magnitude of the problem was such we needed to try to do something bigger. that is why we supported the plan we did. we thought it made sense.

if you looked at it, our plan have bipartisan support when it came out of the house. it was the only plan until the final deal was put together that did. the other thing i would say is this. one thing i am convinced of is americans do not want deals. they want a solution. they are tired of washington deals. they would like an american solution. we felt our plan was the one with bipartisan support. it was the one that would prevent a downgrade. it was the one plan that fix the problem. it was the one plan the american people supported. 60% of the american people said it made sense. i have a balanced budget amendment that sets the stage for ratification. from a political standpoint, if we have a balanced budget amendment out there in the legislature, working on this, trying to ratify this, that is a

good thing to be talking about. that is good for conservatives to talk about why conservatives makes sense. it is all good. that is what we push so hard for it. >> thank you. >> you talked about having a strong relationship with god. how did you come to recognize what his plan was for you. -- was for you? >> i think the good lord actually causes you to be interested in things. you have certain skills or talents and you are naturally focused on them. for me, it was the sport a rustling. i thought i was going to wrestle and coach forever. i got to the point where a couple of things happened for me. i had been assistant coach for eight years. it was time to be a head coach in the big 10 or do something else. i was interested in politics. something about the campaign --

that is as close to a wrestling match as it can get in a debate. i got interested. the state representative position, when it opened up -- i decided to do it. we are all trying to figure out what to do and the goals and a career. you just sort of figured it out based on skills you have any interest you have. that is how it worked for me. i have known my wife since i was in grade school. she never talked -- she will tell me that she never thought i would be in politics. >> i am from europe, from poland, from the university of warsaw. you mentioned that the politicians should work hard. my question is what is more important -- for a politician to

have proportionate skills like a corporate education or engagement in current affairs going on in politics? >> i want to make sure i understand. what is more important, educational background or being up to speed on current events? >> this was my question. >> politics is the one career you do not have to have any education for. you do not have to have a degree in this area or that area. you do not even have to have a college degree. i used to tell folks back home if you can get 50 people in ohio to sign, fit the ballot signatures, and pay $85 -- i forget what the filing fee is -- and you get 50% plus one to vote

for you, you are now the state senator. that is the duty of america. the people can decide. they may not care if you have a degree in finance or a degree in political science or no degree at all. what they do care about is are you going to fight for the things they believe in, the things they know make a difference for their country and community. that is what they care about. they want to, most of the time, as a representative democracy -- they send their member of congress to look out for their interest and make judgments on the issues based on the data, the hearings and information they get. they do not forfeit their ability to influence their member of congress, particularly in house representatives, because we are supposed to be the body closest to the people. the balance we have -- they may want to send someone who has no advanced education.

i think more about what you believe in and how you relate under going to fight for the things that families and taxpayers in their districts are going to need. >> thank you very much. are these the last four? where is -- are you going to kick me out later? i didn't know how long was supposed to stay. how many speakers have you had to listen to? a bunch? they have been pretty boring. i'm a politician, right? this is what i wanted. >> i am a recent graduate from college in illinois. i was only if there was really a plan that would cut our debt fast enough. the cbo estimates will have $10 trillion rack up under the current projection. is cut cap and balance fast enough to fix the problems?

what people smarter than me will say is that you have to get the thing moving in the right direction. we are on this crazy path now. you have to bend the curse of that over time you can get the balance. i would argue that is what the budget we passed in the house of representatives does. we offered a more conservative budget that got the balance in nine years. they left says that is crazy. 26 years to balance the budget? that is crazy. most americans would say -- i talk to americans back home in the fourth district. we actually did -- what the president proposed and the democrats proposed just spends for ever. obviously cannot do that. you have to turn it.

you have to begin to deal with the real cost drivers in the budget. you have to save medicare and you have to change it. people simply cannot sit -- cannot change medicare because -- the people who want to keep it as it is are the ones who are going to end it. it cannot last under the current use. here is what is working to our advantage. i give you some of the numbers earlier. the good news is we are still the biggest kid on the block, with the largest economy in the world, and $15 trillion economy. you hear about china and india and all the growth there. we are still bigger. that helps us. while the numbers are not good. we are still the united states of america, the biggest player in the game. that gives us some time. but the amount of time we have to fix it is closing.

we have to get out there fixing it. while this debt ceiling thing was not something i supported, it was still a step in the right direction. we just have to keep turning it. if we do that, the real test will be what standard and poor's says in a few more months. they have talked about our outlook, but the real test will be the market. what we need more than anything else is economic growth. growth solves a lot of problems. you have a growing economy? if you are creating jobs? you have real economic growth? that is when good things start to happen. you get economic growth. we have to get back to that. last three, and i will go quicker. >> hillsdale college. i was just wondering what you really thought is the purpose of

the federal government, and particularly you mentioned the legislation to help the family that you would want to vote for, which is wonderful when you are in office, but how do we handle that sort of values legislation when somebody doesn't hold our values? >> obviously the number one priority is national defense. that is what the federal government should focus on. we do a lot of things outside of that. how many of you think there might be a little ways in the federal budget? a little bit of redundancy in the federal budget? some people would even say in the military tell me something the federal government does really well. there are obvious the programs that have been in place a long time. we made a promise with the citizens when it comes to social security. but you have to scale it back.

now, based on the picture we have, everyone understands you have to scale it back. we have to focus on national defense. the left always talks about wanting to cut their first. we have to be careful. >> last one and i will get out of your hair. >> i just want to get your thoughts on the emergence of the tea party and its power to drive change at all levels of government. >> you'd change in politics. they have brought a lot of energy to the political landscape, and that is great. frankly, there are great patriots who understand the basics. quit taxing us to death. quit spending like crazy and bankrupting. they understand the basic things that are good common sense. i have been very close to the tea party movement in our state and around the country. i think they are a great force

in politics. that force is going to keep republicans acting like republicans. i love this. dick armey had a great line. he said when we act like us, we win. when we act like them, we lose. the tea party makes republicans act for republicans and stand for traditional values. that is what ronald reagan thought the republican party was about. that is what the tea party helps emphasize. it in some way helps us reacquaint ourselves as republicans with the principles reagan understood our party should be about. they are a great thing for american politics. >> i know that congress is spending a lot of time on the debt ceiling and the budget, but do you feel there are any issues conservatives should be looking at for 2012 other than the budget?

>> you need regulatory reform and tax reform. you need the right fiscal policy and energy policy. we need to talk about those. i frankly also think it is important -- it is important for people running for president of united states to be positive, to portray this optimistic view of this great country. president obama, i think, did this in 2008. he was viewed as this guy that was change and optimism. that is what reagan did. the guy who can inspire and talk to americans in a direct way about how we can be this great country -- i think that is important. i hope that our nominees on the republican side can capture some of that.

not just we have to cut spending, but you want to talk about a bright future for the country. i think there is. we have great conservatives here, young people who want to do the right thing for the country. let our nominee do that as well. i think it is just fundamental to who we are as a country. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, labor secretary hilda solis discusses changes to the u.s. work force. then weekly addresses by president obama and congressman michael grimm. tomorrow on washington journal, a bloomberg news reporter looks of the impact of the standard and poor's downgrade of the u.s. credit rating to aa plus.

and the book haunting legacy, vietnam and the american presidency from ford to obama. did you get eight weeks of vacation last year? i sure did not. >> our house tries to take a more irreverent view on washington and the u.s.. >> we are willing to step outside the box and try to think different and make tv news exciting and entertaining and informative again. it is garbage that it has dwindled down to be. >> she will talk about her show sunday night.

>> next, the labor secretary talks about the challenges facing the labor movement. she spoke to a group called jobs for justice today in washington, d.c.. this is 30 minutes. >> thank you very much and good afternoon. good morning? bueno sts --- buenos dias to all of you. thank you for that kind introduction and for showing that nice clip involving the induction of the sanitation workers into the hall of fame at the department of labour. i want to thank you for everything you do. i did not see another colleague

that is there. thank you for having the foresight to begin this great organization almost a quarter- century ago. thank you for everything you do. and also to each and every one of you for coming here today and for spending hours saturday. it means so much that you care. i just have to say to you from the bottom of my heart, thank you for being here and for supporting jobs for justice. we have folks from around the country today. you are labor leaders, community leaders, and i know students and state leaders who are fighting every day, representing working people.

very hard things. i know they will change the lives of working families and our community. every day that you are working, you are helping energize people in our community. you are giving them a voice. you are enhancing their skills, that ability to organize. every day you are mobilizing folks, you are in our neighborhoods, our coffeeshops, our churches. you are knocking on doors in our neighborhood. this is how this movement will grow. this is how we will rebuild our economy together. this is how we will fight off those other obstacles and challenges we are facing today and run this country. brothers and sisters, this is how we will win, by working together. i know it is early in the morning.

just by dating the program and what you have committed to and started yesterday today, tomorrow, and the next day, i ask you -- are you fired up? are you really fired up? are you ready to go? are you ready to move? i say yes we can. yes we can. and yes we will. thank you. if anyone here today doubts what is going on, they do not understand what is happening in our society as your labor secretary, i am telling you that everything you are doing here today does matter. the day after president obama made me labor secretary, i said, and others said along with me, that there is a new sheriff in town, a new renewed faith in

government. understand what is meant here. for the most part, most american businesses played by the rules. they pay their taxes. but there are a few bad actors that don't. they need to understand that we won't let them take advantage of the laws that govern our country and the workplace. after being sworn in, you need to know, because of the help we had in this administration, i was able to hire up, for the first time in more than a few decades, over 300 new investigators to work in wage and hour. that will help insure that workers are paid properly in the workplace for work they have already completed. you need to know we have collected hundreds of millions of dollars in back wages from

employers who have cheated their workers out of money they are legally owed. but even with this extra manpower, even with our enforcement successes, we all know the department of labour cannot be at every single worksite in this country. that is why i am proud to institute an open-door policy to make sure that we are listening to workers. but we allow for organizations like jobs for justice to join with us. i share that deep commitment to help protect all workers, and especially the most honorable workers, such as those who come to this country in many different forms. there is one i want to point out to you, the workers that come here under the h2b visa program.

they help sound the alarm when guest workers are exploited, underpaid, and cheated, and exploited and sometimes threatened with deportation. you all know about this case. it is the vanderbilt landscaping case in nashville. you have helped to lead the fight to correct the injustices that workers have faced. because of your tireless efforts, this is up to pay off. here were a group of 42 latino guest workers who came to this country seeking a better life and a decent wage. but vanderbilt landscaping pay these workers less than minimum wage. they violated out right the fair labor standards act. they violated the rules governing the program, and they misrepresented workers themselves and their plan for these workers. they thought they could get away with flouting the law. but guess what?

they did not. why not? because jobs with justice helped discover the violations and get the word out. [applause] just this last month, we resolved our own case against vanderbilt landscaping. we collected back wages for these workers. we assessed fines and penalties against that company. but we did not stop there. because of its violations, bender bill landscaping -- vanderbilt landscaping will not be able to hire a guest worker for the next three years. together with the excluded workers congress, you have fought for these guest workers and they just as they deserve. wage fraud, and as you know, is

illegal, and in my opinion is immoral. it a.m. brothers and sisters, we cannot simply stand by. i am grateful for your energy and enthusiasm. it is contagious. [applause] you need to know your work here is more important than ever. every day i wake up, i think about ways to help find americans and our workers good- paying jobs. the obama administration wants to build on that. they want to help provide more jobs for construction workers to help build and repair our roads, bridges, and waterways. president obama wants to extend our payroll tax for middle-class families so they can have more disposable income and keep our

small-business is going and keep people employed. the president is also fighting for an extension of the unemployment benefits that will soon leave us if we do not move on that. these are things the president is calling us to action on. not just people here today, but our congress and our seventh. let them know these are all issues that have been spoken and talked about and debated in prior years and prior months. in many cases, they are supported by both parties. we need to make sure we continue that. let us continue to grow jobs in this new service sector i call the green energy economy, where we can create new high-tech industries that will produce high-skilled high-paying jobs for everyone. that is why i authored the green jobs act almost four years ago.

it was because i knew the power that could be unleashed to help good people in the better paying jobs. why not allow for all the workers in our country to be able to reap those benefits? that is my standard. that is what i would like to see happen as we continue to push out our green jobs and innovation. we want to invest in education but also expanding those that need financial support -- beat paul grant program. a very important program that helps to lift families up, be able to send first-generation students like myself, who was able to go to college because of the cobra program. the program works. the program works. [applause] we want to make sure our trade policies actually do not export more jobs, that they actually

enable us to provide products here that we can send overseas that other people will buy. we need to promote things that are made here in america. and you need to be reminded of something the president did. he took some bold action by making an investment and working with and working with the big automobile corporations. some of you may say i do not totally agree with all of that. but let me tell you, those autoworker's that are back on the job are mighty proud. the assembly lines are running. we are producing energy efficient vehicles. people in those towns that were pretty much wiped out in the last few years are now back online. i think the president for doing that, because now we have more autoworkers on different ships, three or four shifts in a day. they are earning better

salaries. that is the story we have to tell. we're not going to let these jobs go overseas. we are going to invest here in the usa. manufacturing jobs are very important to our economy, and the president knows this and so do i.. that is why it is important for us to do everything we can to make sure that families have the ability to get into good-paying jobs that are producing good products and services here in the united states. jobs for justice -- we cannot do it on our own. we need your help. we need to also help you to have your voices heard. right now, if you go to states across this country, governors are using this financial crisis as an excuse to take this country on a downward spiral. they are attacking collective bargaining rights. you and i know that is not the

way to go. in places like wisconsin and ohio, you are helping us fight back, defending labor unions that build america's middle class. you've helped collect 1.3 million said that -- signatures in ohio citizens can vote out there to have their voices heard. [applause] and in wisconsin six officials who stood against public sector workers are now facing a recall election. [applause] those politicians need to understand that american workers still want and need a seat and a voice at that table. we no collective bargaining gives them that seek and that voice to demand safe working conditions, to make livable wages, to provide for their families, to give them dignity

and respect and a chance to earn a better life for themselves and their children. president obama understands that labor unions are not the cause of america's crisis and problems. they have always been part of the solution, in our opinion. and the unions have always helped to clear a pathway for people to get into the middle class. as soon as the president took office, he signed several executive orders to outlaw government money being spent on union-busting activities. he supported a strong national mediation board committed to ensuring that union elections are democratic. and under the old law, just to give you an example, anyone who did not vote in the election was counted as a vote against the union. that does not make sense. now, just counting the people

who actually vote, like any other election. at our department of labor, we are doing our part. we recently proposed new rules requiring employers to reports been on those attorneys and consultants they hire to persuade workers not to form a union. a very important rule you need to know about. we believe workers have a right to know who is trying to influence them and how much the company's earnings are being spent on anti-union activity. there was some good news recently for people who believe in collective bargaining. i am asking you to recall the 40,000 tsa workers who recently were able to vote to form a union for the first time. [applause] these are important milestones

for men and women who keep our airport safe. but just recently, yesterday in fact, what about those 4000 faa workers who are going to go back to work, and the 70,000 construction workers that will be back on the beat, building and repairing our force? that took leadership. i think the administration for that. i do know what it means to be part of the union and what they represent. i know that because in an -- at an early age in my own household, it became very clear to me. my father represented the teamsters. he was a shop steward. he represented immigrant workers in the battery recycling plant. my mother worked for many years at a toy factory that i will not name, which later fled the state and never came back.

but she worked there very proudly with the united workers. i will never forget that, growing up in a small town in california. it was hard for our family. we were a family of immigrants, first-generation. the air was not always fit to breathe. the environment was not always clean. in my community, we lived near several superfund sites, gravel pits, polluted landfills, and one that was very close to a schoolyard, an elementary school. now it is one of the largest land fills in the country. several miles away, the area code is 9021 no -- 9 0210 -- 09 210, beverly hills. there are no landfills, no clinical plants. a group understanding there were

haves and have-nots in this world. but my father taught me about the difference the union can make in the lives of workers and their families. growing up, i remember very distinctly sitting down with my father. he would say to me in spanish, come and sit here at the kitchen table. i thought what did i do? in my in trouble? he would reach into his pocket and pull out a crumpled papers, four or five. there were scribblings on their in spanish. he would begin to recite what was written. he had me translate them in english. basically what they were were the grievances of the workers he represented at the battery recycling plant. they were given meager pay. the work was dirty and very harmful. the conditions were unsafe. my dad taught me that workers

need to have a voice and someone to represent them in the workplace. my mother also taught me to honor and respect all caregivers, to keep our families strong. one of her first jobs when she immigrated here to this country was to serve as a domestic worker. this was before i was even going. from what she told me, the problems she faced back then are the same problems that millions of women face today. domestic workers do some of the hardest work out there, and it does matter. [applause] it matters to the elderly man who needs help opening up his bottle of medicine or taking a bath or changing his clothes, for countless loved ones or

domestic workers. sometimes the first phase they see in the morning and the last one they will seek at night. domestic workers give so much of themselves, physically and emotionally. they are indeed professionals that we rely on. >> millions of home care workers struggled to get by, living near poverty levels, and earning a median income of less than $17 thousand a year. to your tearing across generations campaign, you have helped to give them a voice so they can demand better wages, dignity, and respect, no matter who they are. [applause] i have said this before and will say it again. all workers have protections

under the laws of this great country, the united states of america. we need to nurture the contributions of our immigrant workers so we can win the global race to out build, out educate, and out innovate our global competitors. that is what president obama will not let up on our flight for a more sane and humane 21st century immigration system. what that means is taking people from the shadows, giving them a place in our society so they can pay their taxes, can live a life, can have a chance at the american dream. that also reminds us that in that packet of immigration reform we cannot forget our children. it is very important that you

all understand this president is fighting hard, alongside many people in the cabinet, to help pass the dream act. [applause] we have an opportunity to harness the talent and patriotism of the students who love this country, to offer a path of citizenship to those who serve in our military or excel in the classroom. they are our future. we do not have a person to lose, or any talent to share, -- spare, especially in hard economic times. i know people are struggling. i travel around the country and i hear many stories. i just heard stories in my own department of labour yesterday, which the housekeepers who are here. please stand and be recognized,

housekeepers who came to see me yesterday. [applause] it breaks my heart, not only as labor secretary but as the daughter of a probe and working immigrant. it is the 100th anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist fire, where 136 people, mostly immigrant women and girls, tragically lost their lives. triangle has many lessons we can all learn from. i paid particular attention to three of them. we must defend and protect our

most of vulnerable workers. we have to be vigilant on worker safety for all of our workers. workers must have a right to organize and to bargain collectively. that is a democratic principle. [applause] to honor the legacy of the triangle fire, we invited a group of women organizers for the first time ever in our history to the white house. they told us why they had chosen to organize their workplaces. we heard from a child-care worker in ohio. we heard from a domestic worker in new york. we heard from ernestine, who works at a wal-mart. [applause] and liliana, who works at a call center. these women have their voices

heard, and they made it very clear that after a century, after the trial fire, workers still need and want a voice at the table and at their jobs, and about better wages and benefits. but we still have more to do. collective bargaining still needs a seat at the table to demand things like decent working conditions that are healthier and safer workplaces. it means respect, and above all dignity, and a chance for all of us, our children and our generations of children, to earn a better life in this country. thanks to your efforts, jobs with justice,, and for your continuing effort to stand up for working people, you are making progress in so many ways. the fight now is a fight for our

lifetime, something we cannot forget. so for the men and women out of work, for our children and our grandchildren, let us not despair. let us take inspiration from our history of our own parents, from our families that have struggled, and hope for progress and change. and let us make that commitment today, together, to get this country back on track, to do this for all america, so we can stand proudly against and shine that light of hope to many on this planet who would love to call america their home. please know that you have an advocate of supporters in the cabinet, and that the president strongly believes in everything you do. you need to know that.

he is with you as president, this administration, and you cannot forget that. we need you now more than ever, especially in this crisis we are having, the crisis that would like to rob many of our young people of their future and livelihood in this country. the fight is a big fight. it can win -- it is one we can win because we of seen it happen not long ago. i hope you will all remain steadfast and prepared for what is ahead. hope. it is coming. it is here for many of us. and know it is for me and people i have been able to see across this country. now they have a voice. people are listening. keep your voice is loud and clear.

as you go back to your place of employment and to the schools, let people know. last week, i had the privilege of spending time in fresno, where the farm worker movements began, with cesar chavez and richard java's. i am reminded of the homily that was presented at the time. he said above all what we need to remember is to respect all workers, regardless of where they come from, what needs they have or do not have. that is what cesar chavez did. that is what huera -- huerta huerta continues to do.

thank you so much. si se puede. yes we can. thank you. [applause] >> fed you again, secretary, for your tremendous advocacy arab leadership on behalf of working americans. -- out -- tremendous advocacy and leadership on behalf of working americans. thank you for making room in

your schedule to be with us this morning. thank you again. >> in his weekly address, president obama aligns his ideas to generate economic growth and create jobs. he talks about tax cuts for the middle class, in the regulations for small businesses, and passing trade deals to help those looking for work. the new republican address, delivered by mike brim of new york. he discusses party proposals for job creation and the passage of a balanced budget amendment. >> this week, congress reached an agreement that's going to allow us to make some progress in reducing our nation's budget deficit. and through this compromise, both parties are going to have to work together on a larger plan to get our nation's finances in order. that's important. we've got to make sure that washington lives within its means, just like families do. in the long term, the health of our economy depends on it. but in the short term, our urgent mission has to be getting this economy growing faster and creating jobs.

that's what's on people's minds; that's what matters to families in this country. and the fact is, this has been a tumultuous year for the economy. we've weathered the arab spring's effect on oil and gas prices. the japanese earthquake and tsunami's effect on supply chains. the economic situation in europe. and in washington, there was a contentious debate over our nation's budget that nearly dragged our country into financial crisis. so our job right now has to be doing whatever we can to help folks find work; to help create the climate where a business can put up that job listing; where incomes are rising again for people. we've got to rebuild this economy and the sense of security that middle class has felt slipping away for years. and while deficit reduction has to be part of our economic strategy, it's not the only thing we have to do. we need democrats and republicans to work together to help grow this economy. we've got to put politics aside to get some things done. that's what the american people expect of us.

and there are a number of steps that congress can take right away, when they return in september. we need to extend tax cuts for working and middle class families so you have more money in your paychecks next year. that would help millions of people to make ends meet. and that extra money for expenses means businesses will have more customers, and will be in a better position to hire. yesterday, i proposed a new tax credit for companies that hire veterans who are looking for work after serving their country. we've got a lot of honorable and skilled people returning from iraq and afghanistan, and companies that could benefit from their abilities. let's put them together. we need to make sure that millions of workers who are still pounding the pavement looking for jobs are not denied unemployment benefits to carry them through hard times. we've got to cut the red tape that stops too many inventors and entrepreneurs from quickly turning new ideas into thriving businesses which holds back our whole economy. it's time congress finally passed a set of trade deals that would help displaced workers looking for new jobs,

and that would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in asia and south america products stamped with three words: made in america. and we ought to give more opportunities to all those construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. we could put them to work right now, by giving loans to companies that want to repair our roads and bridges and airports, helping to rebuild america. those are a few commonsense steps that would help the economy. and these are ideas that have been supported by both democrats and republicans in the past. so i'm going to keep calling on both parties in congress to put aside their differences and send these bills to my desk so i can sign them right away. after all, both parties share power. both parties share responsibility for our progress. moving our economy and our country forward is not a democratic or a republican responsibility; it is our responsibility as americans.

that's the spirit we need in washington right now. that's how we'll get this economy growing faster and reach a brighter day. thanks for listening, and have a great weekend. >> hello i'm congressman michael grimm from the great state of new york, proudly representing staten island and parts of brooklyn. after serving my country in combat with the united states marine corps and deep undercover with the fbi, i decided to go out on my own and start a small business. i've seen firsthand how politicians and bureaucrats can make it harder to meet a payroll and create jobs. the latest jobs report shows that president obama's stimulus-driven policies are simply not working. the overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating coming out of washington is creating uncertainty and holding our job creators back. every day, i hear the frustration in the voices of my neighbors and constituents who ask where are the jobs? and this reminds me, this is not the country we grew up in. the good news is that we can, and will, get it back, we change course.

that's why speaker boehner told president obama we would not grant his request to increase the national debt limit unless we cut spending by a larger amount. and we wouldn't accept any tax increases, which would destroy jobs. the budget control act signed into law this week takes a step in the right direction. i voted for this legislation, but i have to be quite honest in telling you that it's far from perfect. the cuts and reforms do not go nearly far enough. but it's a reasonable and responsible approach which includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit hike; common sense caps on future government pending, and no tax increases. it puts us on a track to fix our fiscal problems, which will provide more confidence for employers in america, the very people we expect to reinvest in our economy and create jobs. still, this is no time for celebration. we can celebrate when our budget is balanced, our debt is under control, and our economy is back to creating jobs again.

there is a lot of work to be done. this fall, as a result of the budget control act, lawmakers of both parties will be working on legislation to produce trillions of dollars in further deficit reduction through necessary spending cuts. while that work is being done, the house and senate will also be voting on a balanced budget amendment, something republicans insisted on as part of the budget control act. there's no better way to provide certainty to the private sector and control spending over the long haul than through a balanced budget amendment. to help lift our crushing burden once and for all, both parties should come together this fall and send a balanced budget amendment to the states. we were right to the hold the president accountable on the debt limit, because he's already back to proposing more stimulus spending, higher taxes, and even more regulations. doubling down on the same failed policies is not the answer. republicans are focused on

implementing a strong roadmap for job creation that reduces burdensome regulations, calls for a simpler and fairer tax code, and expands american energy production. these are the kinds of common- sense solutions that would get government out of the way and give our job creators the certainty they need to invest, plan, and create jobs. many of these proposals have already passed the house and are waiting on action from the democratic-led senate. you can review all the details of our plan at jobs.gop.gov. listen, we know we have all the tools and resources we need to grow our economy and rebuild this great nation -- the relentless work ethic of the american workforce, innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit and courage to succeed. so my questions for washington are this: how many more jobs reports will it take before we change course?

what will it take for all of us to just say enough? for the sake of our economy, i'm urging the president to wake up to reality, abandon his failed policies, and join republicans in the hard work needed to turn our country around and create jobs. calling on both parties to come together and send a balanced budget amendment to the states would be a good start. we need less politics and more common sense if we're going save our country from financial ruin and restore a thriving economy for our children and grandchildren. thank you, god bless america. . .

>> i'm a big fan of this organization. i'm a huge fan of ronald reagan and have been almost my entire life. my dad was hired by ronald reagan to be his solicitor general. representing the u.s. government before the supreme court of the united states. i became a huge ronald reagan fan before he even fired my dad. that's when i truly discovered my republicanness and when i was able to develop a strong love for our country and a keen interest in our government. that interest has continued through my entire life. i suspect a similar interest that has been for many of you to

instill principals and love for our country and love for a brighter, better tomorrow. it's the same reason i ended up seeking the office that i now hold. i decided to run to become a united states senator because i came to the conclusion that the federal government become too big and too expensive. that was a great concern for me. it's accumulated. nearly $15 trillion. i like to try to break it down a few different ways.

$15 trillion in debt is like 5 $15,000 for every man, woman and infant, retired in america. that includes people retired, in college, high school, grade schools and people in the middle of their careers. when you break it down by taxpayer, it's more like $150,000 a head. that's like someone joking i will asking that friend, have you told your new baby about the share of the national debt that he now holds. and that if the child couldn't process it. i had another friend on halloween sent out a tweet

saying i'm scaring trick or treaters tonight telling them what share of the national debt is. it's really a frightening prospect. if you really think about it. when you stop and think about it, for people your age, you have to find some difficulty with the fact that this had been incurred largely because before you came of age, you couldn't understand what was happening. before you were old enough to vote and this debt is still being acquired. yesterday, congress passed a law that would raise the deficit by another $2.5 trillion through one piece of legislation. it's record breaking. we've never taken on that much

debt in one time through one piece of legislation. people will be effected by that who are not old enough to vote for it. some of the people will be effected by that are not only not yet old enough to vote but some have not yet been born. this ends up in resulting in a form of taxation without representation. it is something we have to avoid at all costs. we fought a war over things like taxation without representation a couple hundred years ago. we must not sad will the representations. that's why it is so important right now that we focus on restricting the power of government, restricting the

power of government to borrow. this power sets off a chain, a cycle of government expansion. whenever government acts, it does so at the expense of our liberty. when government expands, we become less free to that same corresponding degree. that's not to say all corresponding action is bad. we always have to balance government action against the failing interest. sometimes it is very much worth it. we need the government to act from those who would harm us, steel from us, impair or threaten life or liberty or property. we have to balance the government action against what it does to our liberty. as government expands, it requires money in order to do the things we need to do to

protect our life and property. so it taxes us. it acquires more power. that power erodes our liberty and it requires saying we need more money to perform these services. then it gets more money and brings more power, the cycle per pet u waited itself. eroding our individual liberty unless there's something that break that's cycle. there are a couple of things that can and should and often do interrupt our cycle so government doesn't grow out of control. government is telling us how to do everything and they will leave anything to us that doesn't belong to the government, isn't the choice of the government. one of those things is that we have elections, those people who

are being regulated by the government, having their liberty restrained. being taxed in order to fund the operations of the government. have the opportunity to weigh in and say this is not right. that's significant opportunity for voters to step in and say we are taking it a little too far, we are always having to work. sometimes three and four and five months out of every year to pay our federal taxes. at the end of the period, the federal government says this isn't enough. you are almost $15 trillion in debt. our liberty is restrained that way. we see our tax burden is becoming larger. we can vote in a different

secretary of leaders to tax us less. another way we can restrain government is by placing parameters. we do this at the federal level through the founding document. the law of laws. the document we call the u.s. constitution. that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. this identifies some basic roles to make sure it doesn'tover step the rounds. the national defense, weights and measures. it was never intended to be all things to all people. both of those things have and should and have in the past prevented beyond what we should

tolerate beyond protecting ourselves and liberty. over the last 75 years, the supreme court has eroded the concept that the federal government is limited in powers. it has taken fairly consistently differential approaches that laws it has passed. there is an approach to a greater degree. whenever with you propose a new government program, we no longer expect to require congress to raise taxes immediately to cover the new program. a republican controlled congress passed into law to receive the president's signature on a law that created a program called

medicare part d. a prescription benefit. way some, it carries with it unfunded liabilities in the amount of $19 trillion meaning it creates benefits to people alive today that will cost about $19 trillion to those that will make that estimate. $19 trillion more than our tax system as it exists now is capable of producing. it was signed into law by a republican president and enacted by a republican congress. it doesn't result into a tax increase at all. it was passed at the same time congress was 2u8ly cutting tax, which i generally regard as a good thing. because we as americans didn't feel a tax hit, there wasn't as much of a reaction to it because we delayed it to a practice we

refer to as deficit spending. spending money we don't yet have. spending money our children and grandchildren might one day earn, spending money we and those who come after us will have to one day pay. we interrupt the accountablity of the law. they are not the same legislatures in office today. some are still there but not all of them. they are not the same as those who will be there a few years from now. many will have gone on to other things. some will have been defeated in elections. still others might even have died. by the time the full economic impact of many of these government programs are those that are felt.

this interrupts the most important part of the government. this is exactly why i believe we have to do something to restrict the deficit spending power. the power to borrow in the name of the united states. it has that power under clause two of article 168 of the constitution. it was good reason to give congress that power. we needed it to make sure we have the ability to fund the fighting of wars to make sure we had enough money to provide for our country's to do the things it is assigned to do. it has been so severely abused over a long period of time. i know the time has come for us to restrict that power. some of this has been doom and gloom. my message is not a doom and gloom message. it's instead a charge.

there is hope to do this. there is 40e7 because of your generation at this point is tens of millions strong and awakening to the fact that the federal government has grown too big and expensive. people are voting differently look at what happened in the 2010 general election. you had a new group of people to an exten what will happen will

make what happened in the 2010 election cycle look like a sunday picnic what will happen because you and the people like you are all doing something about it and understanding what three out of every four americans believes we need to do. 75% of all americans believe we must pass a balanced budget amendment. i believe so strongly in this, i

wrote a book about it. it's called the freedom agenda. how we got into this where we can even have a government and regulate nearly every aspect of our lives and explain how we can get out of it. why this connection between deficit spending and our individual liberties. if at the key to a way out of it. just as spending promotes the expansion of government at the expense of our liberty. so too does the restriction through the balanced budget amount hold promise to restore what i refer to as constitutionally limited to get the government thinking yet again that its role has been limited.

defined while describing the powers of the state as numerous and definite. this exists today largely in theory. tomorrow, it will exist in practice. we will make it so. we the american voters have the power to dictate the proper course of our own government as as to preserve our own liberty and our own property. at the end of the day, enhance our own lives. it's my hope and prayer that each of us can do this and spread the message of hope. we can tell people that there is a way home that doesn't behalf the way of economic destruction. when we look at the fact that most of the failed economies around the globe over the last 100 years or so have one thing in common.

we should be alarmed and motivated to push for a balanced budget. there are two economists that have studied economies. they have said those economies we looked at overwhelmingly had a sovereign debt to gross domestic product ratio at or above 90%. the amount of money passing through was roughly equivalent to the total amount of debt that the national government of that country had acquired. we stand from 95%. according to these economies, as long as we remain in that danger zone, our economic growth will suffer by as much as half. a third to a half every year. that could mean the loss of as many as a million jobs every

single year as long as we remain in the danger zone. we have to get out of it because our ability to provide jobs and continue to be the world's most row bust economy begins on getting our house in order. it's not just our financial well being but our liberty that will benefit as we take this step and restore that which is properly ours. if we do this, we can succeed again and we will prosper. together we will. may god bless america. [applause] >> let's open up the floor to questions. ask me anything you want.

you can ask me about jell-o. i'm good at relationship advice and fashion tips are also within our rep twoir as well. >> my name is emily. i attend george smith university. the only way to get our country back on track is to elect a new set of government. who do you believe is the strongest candidate to lead our charge. are you talking about the presidential candidates? >> yes. that question has become the ban of my existence right now. there are candidates i know and

like for different reasons. i used to know and work for john huntsman. i knew him as a governor. i've known mitt romney for a long time. i know and like ron paul. his son rand is one of my best friends 234 the senate. i'm a big fan of michelle bachmann. i've gotten to know from serving in the senate. rick perry from texas wrote a fantastic book called "fed up." i know little about rick perry other than his book. if his can't dasy is anything like his book, it will be

phenomenal. i know this is a none answer. it's intended to be. i have yet to make up my mind. there are a number of good candidates but i'm offering for the candidate who will offer in hope. >> how likely can the republican

party gain from both houses and override if the republicans lose the election in 2012, could republicans obtain a majority in both houses and obtain the majority in the senate? it's possible. just because of the way that the states in which we have senate seats open. wisdom would say normally you would not have to have that happening at the same time that president obama gets reelected that we'd be less likely to hold the majority in the senate and house. it's not necessarily likely. when a presidential candidate does well, we have a lot of people riding in on that candidate's coat tails, it hands in congress. the democrats have secured the majority in both houses in 2006.

they some what considerably in 2008 because barack obama was such a popular presidential candida candidate. the gains republicans made in the house and because of how the open seats in the senate are laid out for 2012. it becomes a lot less certain. right now it looks pretty good, likely they could be in control of both houses and that becomes less likely if a republican becomes president. >> i had a quick question for you from colorado christian university. it's a sents of irony that the tea party is based on a move mement telling us we are ignoring the constitution. i hear people like yourself add

vote indicating for the balanced budget level. do you think that would be enough to balance the budget. >> there are two parts to your question. the second part i'll answer first is will it actually work? the answer is yes. it's not that it will work magically, it's that once we put something in the constitution and once we make very clear that there are certain things the government can't do or that the government can do only in circumstances. if we tell 24e78 you may deficit spend only in times against the nation state, which we haven't had since the 1940's. if they approve the overspending by a super majority, those things are not going to incur often. more to the point, it's

something once put in the constitution. in terms modern and clear, it's difficult to say the least for congress to skirt that and avoid it to get the right language in place. that's a part of the reason why i wrote this book. if you get the wrong balanced budget amendment in place. if you write it correctly, you'll be in good shape. to answer the first part of the question. if you love the constitution so much as a tea party person or whatever reason, why amend it? we have amended the constitution 27 times. it is necessary in order to protect, enhance and preserve the system put in place. that was true with the bill of rights.

that was true with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment that was necessary to eliminate slavery and equal protection of the law. it was necessary when we gave and protected the right of women to vote. it's been necessary on a number of occasions to improve and protect it. it is necessary again today. on behalf of amending the constitution not in spite of my love for the constitution but because of it. >> from the university of st. thomas in houston, texas. thank you for your meet yacht

immediate support. >> please get behind ted cruise. what is your concern of the vulnerable seats in virginia , ohio, new mexico? did you think it is wise to perking our own rafrns when all these seats are open and could give us a good majority in the senate. look, as one who challenged the republican in my own state, i would be a hip cat if i said it wasn't appropriate to support someone to get to the united states senate like i did. i'm not going to say there was never an appropriate

circumstance to support a challenger. just as sometimes it is because of our loyalty to the constitution that we amend it. the principals that was established. that people vote for or otherwise support the challenger to the incrumb bant. we need a majority. we haven't ruled anything out or in either. we have a small handful of republicans in the senate for 2012. i have no plans at this point other than be supportive of him. >> thank you for coming. my name is michael callot.

stephen heys, according to leader mcconnell. the republicans that voted against the debt bill will not be eligible on the debt commission. do you know anything about this policy or not? >> i don't know anything about that policy. that doesn't mean to suggest that statement wasn't made. that's the first i've made of it. it's interesting, when you serve in the u.s. senate. sometimes a lot of other people around you become aware of the news before you do. that's been the case before me. you asked the question, do i still plan to seek a seat. that i am plies i was at one point planning to seek a seat. i was and i still am not. i disagree with it.

i disagree with its mission. i don't want that committee to exist. that's one of the reasons i voted against this legislation. i would have, i think an inhibiting conflict of interest. as it sounds like it would be chosen for that committee anyway. i wouldn't seek that because i have a conflict of interest because i don't think it should exist. i want that committee not to be there. that's part of the reason we voted against the legislation. let me explain briefly why. certain legislation makes it to the floor of the senate if a

bill comes to the floor and you like aspects not subject to amendment. the proposal that would be put forward by this joint committee will propose spending cuts that will be given just an up or down vote, not subject to any amendment process. i don't think that would be right. i'm going to a committee. one has the members and going to

the senate we ought to be debating that there, not behind closed doors. [applause] >> good morning. i'm from the university of alabama. thank you. my question for you. last night, there's been a speech that will see too. my question for you is what do you think are the steps to reforming medicare.

we have come up with corresponding proposals. converting medicare into a premium support system where we help people obtain health insurance. it's a partially funded health insurance plan. more manageable and sustainable. one of the points made, he can see that on a current course as the trustees themselves have acknowledged on a crash course. some say the date is maybe 10 or 15 years away or going to occur much sooner, six or seven years now. because it is on an unsustainable course, we are doing the american people a disservice by pretending it

isn't. we are to refer it to a premium support system rather than the defined benefit system that it has become. my name is chase salizar from the university of oregon. how long do we deal with empowerment programs. your question is individual but it is not one we need to worry about. we need to make sure we worry about the meaning. if constituents remain informed of the attack. it's unusual, i believe. it's rare when the majority of the people in this country in

particular are going to make the wrong decision. when people vote in the wrong person, it's sometimes because they don't have a complete set of information. what we ought to be concerned about is not members of congress being afraid they might lose their jobs. we ought to be more concerned about the members of congress out there without any fear that they might lose their job. that's why it is so important to maintain national dialogue and why social media is such an important tool because it has never been so easy or expensive with so many people with so little money to compete. that's what social media has made the information package available to the average american voter much, much larger. when the american voter has access to all the necessary

information, the american voter will make the right decision. >> good morning. i'm from buffalo, new york. do you feel given resent events, your colleagues are prepared to make the tough decisions in order to prepare ourselves for the future and balance our budget. do you feel we should look towards other leaders in order to push more physically conservative values? >> if the question is does the congress as currently constituted, if the congress is currently constituted, be prepared to make the decisions. no, no. for two reasons. some of them are fundamentally, constitutionally incape able of that. it is not in their dna and they need to be replaced. >> two, as long as congress

continues to have the diskregs to deficit spend, they will. i devote a whole chapter in my book to the area they feel to spend. in general, members of congress are rewarded when they spend and they are punished when they cut. as long as they have the opportunity to engage in deficit spending, they'll do it. think about benjamin franklin. what he said. we won't continue to abuse it to the point where we have to stop borrowing money. the natural limits of our capacity -- we'll reach a point in a few years where lenders

will stop lending us money. we could go from paying $250 million a year in interest. to more like $1 trillion a year in interest right down the tubes. the difference could be just a few years of interest rates returning to normal average rates. that by it self could put it on the course in a few years. the white house acknowledges that we are maybe 10 years away from that. the white house has assumed and made assumptions on interest rates that are unduly optimistic. >> good morning. i'm from the lone star college system of houston, texas. where would you like to see

government spending and what would you hope to be protected from cuts in our spending? >> great question. first of all, cuts are going to have to be considered and made to some extent across the board in every category. i've been holding it back for some time. i'll be releasing that. in general, i'll say this. we have to look at cuts to every program in everything we do something is free from rethere are certain thing that's can't be relevant gated to state and local governments and civil

societi societies. that is not to say we can't comprimise in areas of national defense. there's really no other way to provide for that. we can't recreate the minute men. this is something that does have to be provided at the national level. there can't be any sake red cows. that can't continue to be the case. we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we take. >> thank you for coming. >> are you afraid of the microphone? >>ia, a little bit. a little intimidating. my question is in resent memory of everyone in this room, it's safe to say members of both political parties have been known to manipulate and ignore

the constitution. what safe guards would you propose and ensure that future congresses can't find ways to get around it and ignore what it says. >> great question. there are a few components. defining the boundary within congress needs to speed. first, most fundamentally is what most people associate. this is the way most american individuals, household families. businesses, state and local governments operate and how the federal government opts to operate there are occasion when's almost any family or business needs to borrow in order to cover some unusual

expense that's need to be spread out overtime. this ought not to be the norm as it has come. that's the first element. the second needs to be a restriction on a total amount of money congress can spend. a percentage of gdp registration. an interesting fact between the 1790's and early 1930's, congress generally spent no more than about 1.2 to 4% of the gdp a year. two times. once during civil war. other than that, we stayed in the 1.5 gdp range. since the early 1930's, we've

be been sted ily declining. through the low to mid 20's to the high teens. we are spending at a mid to high rate of gtb. that number number continue to grow. that means a quarter out of every dollar in the american economy is sucked in to washington, d.c. where it goes to die. not to say all that money is wasted. it is stimulated when it can be invested and placed to risk more new jobs which will in turn create new wealth. we can encourage the gdp. next, there need to be

provisions in place so that congress may borrow at times of extraordinary need. it is fair to say congress ought to be able to borrow against a declared war of state. the money required. the percentage of the revenue outlays requirement. this will be some kind of super majority requirement to deviate. i feel we have 2/3 super majority. we'll make it difficult and unusual but not impossible for congress to engage. if you have each of those elements in there. you add the restriction on the tax increase to make sure it

doesn't balance the budget. you'll have a pretty safe, ire clad document that will help restore the american thank you. [applause] >> thank you. it's been a pleasure to meet with you. i appreciate you starting and encourage you to continue to stay involved in it. thank you very much. [applause] >> another speaker at the national conservative student conference this week was florida senator marco roubio. he calls for a simpler tax code and regulatory reform. this is 35 minutes.

>> our speaker's parents immigrated from cuba. both parents worked very, very hard to contribute to the household. our speaker tonight worked his way through and graduated from the university of florida and then the university of miami law school. he spent eight years in the florida state legislature rising to the position of speaker of

the house and wrote a book entitled 100 ways to improve the life of floridians. that's including issues relating to efficiency, gang violence and healthcare. he worked close in pushing education reform which has marked the sun shine state in florida. really one of the inovative places in the country. he was elected to the united states senate in 2010. he per son fies the american dream. as ronald reagan once said, can you go to japan. you can't become japanese.

anywhere, anyone in the world can come to american and become an american. we are very honored to have him with us tonight. would you join me in welcoming the newly elected senator, marco roubio from florida. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. i don't usually get introduced and compared to lady gaga.

tomorrow, i'm wearing a suit made out of meat. some of you got it. thank you, guys. i appreciate it. i'm honored to be with you today. i doubt i'll be able to give you the best speech you've ever heard tonight. my teleprompter got left at the office so i'll have to wing it. i'm really excited to speak to you today. i'm excited about what you are a part of. much like what this country was in the early 1980s, america is a place place of decision. ronald reagan gave a speak called "a time for choosing." he outlined the decision americans had to make. it's not a new choice. for much of our history, that

choiz was clear why america wanted to be different or special whachlt separated us is something we should always embrace and be proud of. we should embrace that and always be proud of. among themselves. but that's not really separates us from the world. what always separated us from the world is that it doesn't matter where you came from, if you had a good idea and you were willing to work hard, anyone from anywhere could accomplish anything. for anyone born and raised in this nation, sometimes it becomes easy not to forget that. what we know as life in america is almost an impossibility anywhere else.

there's never been a place like this. we should never be embarrassed about that. it is true. we should never be embarrassed. we have to understand that that was a choice. that wasn't an accident. that didn't develop from one night to the next because we are smarter than everybody or god loves america more than other nations. the people that worked in this city and country before us. they chose to have a central america that chose to have decisions and sacrifices. a clear choice that american wanted to continue to be different. that was a choice america had to make in the early 1980s in a lot of concern. some argued and believed that america was on the decline.

communeism was inevitable. america had to embrace an american order where we would somehow have to be second place to emerging powers, primarily the soviet union. ronald reagan said not only was that not true but everything the soviet union represented was destined to fail and fail miserable. they laughed at him. they believed what he said was absurd. he talked about the motion that america could once again be great and be the 4r50eding economic power in the world. our future could be better than our history. critics laughed. they believe at vietnam and water gate. america the one he had grown up

in. ronald reagan knew better. he knew our greatness came from our people. in the early 1980s, there was nothing wrong with the american people. by the end of that decade of course, history recorded what happened. the soviet union actually collapsed. by the way, an interesting aside. do you realize when he gave that speech where he said tear that wall. there were actually people in his organization that kept taking that out. they believed that language was unrealistic to expect we could

accomplish that. reagan knew a fundamental truth. that was that this notion of wanting to accomplish your god-given dreams, ambition was not an american dream but a universal one. the thing that distinguished us from the rest of the world was that we created things that were possible. people would come because they couldn't be what god meant them to be in the nation of their birth thachltz what we are. a collection of go getters from every part of the planet. here, nothing could stand in their way. that was reagan's america in the early 1980s and late 1970s. the era i grew uch with. people ask me where did you get your center right conservative politics?

i grew up in the era of reagan. i watch and knew that america's future could be greater than the past. america defined the next 20 years. we are at another juncture where we have to choose whether we want to continue to be exeptional. i'm sure you've all watched as have the country at this whole debt debate. the debt limit debate was not about the debt limit. t it was at tsz core about what country we want moving forward. the united states spends $300 billion a month. it 45s a government that spends $300 billion a month.

$120 billion or so every month comes from money we borrow. that ratio is unsustainable as it is but only destined to get worse. the spending part is going to go up dramatically. we have made promises. the leadership made promises that is going to increase that dramatically. medicare balloons, social security balloons. the revenue part of it will not keep pace. the economy did not grow. unemployment howevers at 9 something%. the real number when you add in people that are under employed or just stopped looking for jobs close to 20%. one in five americans. that means that that revenue number as a percentage of what we spend is only going to get

worse the growing and spending will balloon. in addition, $120 billion we borrow is completely unsustainable. if we continue to do what we do now and nothing changes, we'll have a debt crisis make the last one you saw look like child's play. . .

>> i will confess to you that it is a position that enjoys some popular appeal in america. after all most people making $250,000 a year don't consider themselves to be rich. when you think of rich, you think of billionaires and multi-millionaires. and there is appeal, why not, why shouldn't people making a lot of money pay more. there is a belief, although i think less significant. the way you grow the economy is through the government, if we had more programs to do certain things. somehow the economy would grow as result of it. that's one school of thought of how to approach it. the people in america that believe that in washington are

no less patriotic than us. but their theory in sharp contrast is the reality that made us great to this point. and that's the second thought process, that most of us in this room find ourselves in. yes, we need new revenue and should come from growth. it's a simple equation, if more people are working, more people are paying taxes, and then generating more money for your government. but if you use that revenue to grow your government. you are not solving anything. and the second part of the equation is that we limit the growth of spending. yes, we look at discretionary spending, that we spend on a yearly basis on programs not required by law. but that's a small sliver of our budget. the truth that medicare if we

don't reform them, it will seize to exist. if we want to save them, we have to reform them. there is another thing i would tell you, that history teaches us. i don't care who is in charge, whether democrat or republican, if you let people spend money they don't have. if they have choices of spending or lower cutting, they will spend more. all but one state in this country have that. two different schools of thought. i would remiss and i will step back and argue of how you create more taxpayers than raising taxes. there are two things that our government can do right now. one is tax reform. it's not tax increase, it's simplifying our tax code. making it simple, and flat and

fair. the government doesn't use the tax system to pick winners and losers. it uses it to generate revenue for the government. job creators are beg are for simplicity. i can't extrapolate to you how regulations and rules are written that are literally destroying jobs in america on a weekly basis. they are accomplishing through rule making that they cannot accomplish through the process. they are creating an environment in america through a complicated tax code and onerous regulations making it a less desirable place to do business. in fact when people are telling you it's easier to do business in china than in the united

states of america, you know you are heading in the wrong direction. for us the equation is simple. grow your economy and limit your spending. and if we can do that, these issues are easier to manage. and that's the debate. these are different views of the role of government in america. two very different views of where we should be in this nation. and between those two views there is very little middle ground. when people talk about compromise, you are not against it. but the compromise has to be a solution, otherwise you are wasting people's time. we are not deciding if we have six judges or 12, this is a fundamental difference of opinion of what kind of government we will have. and the answer to that question

will determine what kind of country we will have. much government has chosen to have one very involved in our lives. much of the world has chosen to have a government very active in their economic lives. that means a government that guarantees you all sort was things. and for exchange of those guarantees you have to give up things. the freedom to have a business in your bedroom and because of idea you believe in. much of the world has chosen that economic model. and they seemed happy until even europe realized that their high taxes and regulations could not sustain what they created. but what you give up is the vibrancy of the american

economy. what reagan had argued and what we should argue today. and that's find for the rest of the world to choose that. and if that's the kind of country you want to live in, a place where the government can guarantee you economic results. there are so many places in the world to move to. but there should be at least one country on the earth where you can open up a business in your bedroom. there should be one country on earth where a worker can be an owner or employee an owner. there should be one country on the earth where this is possible. and for the last 250 years that country is the united states. and we shouldn't change that now. [applause]

>> and so behind the noise of the debt debate. that's what we are arguing about. and divided is washington, so is america. this generation wants it both ways. we have to choose do we want to continue to be the country that our parents knew. or are we prepared to be another country still rich and still powerful and important but no longer exceptional. that is the choice. that is the debate. and i know that sometimes it's scary to think, wow, why not become like everyone else. why do we have to continue to be the leading this and that. my answer to you is that, i am not sure we want to live in a world where america is not the america you knew. i am not prepared to live in a world where america's light is

extingished and new light takes its place. who would live and speak out on behalfful valleys of liberty and freedom? after all the libertys and freedoms we know are the exception to the rule than living history. the idea that people could govern themselves was unheard of and even some scoff at it. who would speak on these principles? the idea that you don't have to be born in the right family to succeed. and how much the same individuals should come and dominate generation after generation. the objection of a political caste system, and who would be the example that it doesn't have

to be that way. even people that don't like america, admire americans. because there is someone just like them, who was able to do here, what they were not able to do there. and that's what sets us apart. that is what america has meant for 200 some odd years. you see the countries emerging around the world and pulling their people out of poverty. they are not doing it by embraces socialism but the market. and the more principles we stood for, the more prosperity they find. but if america stops being america, what nation is earth is prepared to take our place? there is no one. there is no other country. there is no place to go. so the debate we are having is if we will continue to be that country. or are we prepared to be the first americans to allow our

nation to diminish. and the work you do and the stuff you are involved in politically is about that. this is no longer an argument about big government versus small government or conservatives versus liberals. this is our identity as a people and nation s . that's what we are deciding. we will have to make this choice faster than any other generation has made it. i find this to be exciting. and this is why, i believe that if we embrace what made us great in the past, our future will be our history. there will more people around the world that can be our partners economically and

culturally. there are more opportunities for americans today to sell our goods and services. if only we stop heading in the wrong direction and embrace the things that brought us to this point. this is the great challenge of this nation's leadership that you will inherit. and i encourage you to remain politically involved because the decisions will determine what america will look like forever. that's the choices we are to make. and i hope in 2012 election the american people will speak with a clear voice. that we see the two choices. and we understand the hard work and sacrifices that lie ahead. but we still choose to be great, we choose to be special. we choose to stand apart. we choose to inspire the world. and i hope you will be a part of that as well. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. we are -- thank you, we are going to, i have a few minutes to take questions. someone is lined up. >> hi, i am space. and i want to thank you for wearing your life band and you wear it. >> i hope i have it on today. yeah, i do. >> my question is, recently i have been doing a lot of journalism and writing a lot of things for my school. that really have caused people to call me some terrible things. how do you in the midst of being all kinds of names and having

all accusations against you and know that you are right and true. >> largely the people that say stuff about you from a political perspective, no matter what you do, they won't like you. as soon as you realize that, the more peace you have. by and large people talk about rhetoric and politics, it's always been heated and more places for people to scream to you. the important thing to ask yourself, why i am doing this. and it's a tough decision to make. and it sounds like you are a person of faith, hence your name. no pun intended. and i say you look to your faith on a lot of things. and in politics and life, you have to ask yourself if i doing this to be loved by people or doing this to make a difference. it's important in a republic

that you actively represent and look at the people you serve. and you have to do what is right but not popular. i don't think that anyone likes to be disliked. i don't think. but if you come to your decisions after you thought about it and your principles and you are upfront with people, that will give you peace. so i encourage you to speak on your principles. and i say this to people's principles i don't share. i admire people's principles that i don't share, as long as they principles. thank you. >> good evening, i am roger from south carolina. i know that you are close to (inaudible). and my second point is i don't believe in infighting in the party. but at the same time if the tea party back-candidates like

yourself were not in congress and it would look different and the debt ceiling debate would be further left. so what you are and jim doing for 2012? >> i haven't thought about 2012, i know that mr. demint is looking for those in the country. first of all i don't take for granted you are all republicans. maybe there are independents and democrats too, maybe, maybe not. i don't know. but i would say that the republican party is extremely diverse. it's a big tent. and there are a lot of political viewpoints and there are people that agree with me on economic policy but disagree with me on libya. for example. so it's a big tent and a lot of diverse opinion. and i think that the republican party has a lot of ideological

diversity. and the second thing, the 2010 election was a different referendum. obama was elected on the promise of hope and change. and then they came into office and the first two things he did was try to pass the stimulus package and health care bill and then follow with cap and trade. and there was rejection to that and health care bill was a if i ask -- fiasco. and those of us elected in 2010 who campaigned on a clear principle have an opigation to live up to it. i ran on a clear platform, i

don't like what is happening in washington and i plan to fight against it and offer an alternative. and i think that it's silly for people to carry out what they said they would do if they got elected and if more people would do that, the republic would be better off. >> i am danny, over the last two days we have passed around a binder, people signed up who would support you for president or vice president or who would support you in general. [applause] and -- i am not going to put you in an awkward situation, obviously. [laughter] but we do have 100 founding members for students for rubio in this binder. and you are not campaigning or focusing on that. but what do you do with your energy and excitement. >> first of all, i intend to win

my nobel peace prize. [applause] you know what? i say this with real sincerity. i am flattered and honored that you guys would sign that and put something like that forward. it really is flattering. what i would say is two-fold. number one it's not about me. i am literally a person that shares your principles and through a handful of blessings and opportunities have had the chance to serve in the political process. and no reason why any of you can't in a few years be standing behind this podium. it's about the principles, they are timeless. some of us get a chance for a limited time in life to advocate for them. and i ask you to look at the

principles we share. and probably not 100% agree but we share principles that will work in the past and future. and i ask you to get excited and encouraged and look for candidates that stand for those. and not only campaign on these things but once elected will do something about t you will make a difference. believe me, in this audience there are people that will serve and i encourage you to not just put this behind things principles and reagan stood for principles. >> i am from the university of wisconsin. i think most of us would like to see a balanced amendment to the constitution. how would close are we and how

would you like to see one implemented? >> i don't know how close, we have 47 republicans who are for it, and we have 20 democrat that is campaigned on a balanced amendment. i think we will have a chance over the next months to create a ground swell on it. if anything good has come from the debt debate has elevated this balanced amendment. and it's one thing in the bill, and it's complicated to explain. one of two things has to happen for the debt ceiling to be increased for the 120 trillion increased. and at least the super committee has to report 120 trillion, that would include tax increases, that i would not support. and the other is a balanced budget amendment.

and we should get behind a balanced budget amendment and make it a priority for 2012 election. thank you guys, i am honored. thank you. [applause] >> ohio congressman jim jordan spoke thursday at the national conservative conference held this week in washington, d.c. congress jordan heads a committee in the u.s. house. his remarks are about an hour. >> good morning, everyone. and we would like to welcome c-span here this morning. [applause] and this is going to be carried

live on c-span, and for all of our television viewers, young american foundation is sponsoring this conference. a student conference that we hold each year, and they provide for conservative both on high school and college campuses. congress jim jordan was raised in champagne county, and he was a high school champion and received twice ncaa wrestling champion. he received his master's in education from ohio state. and a law degree from capitol university. jim jordan is a conservative member of congress that believes in taxpayers rather than government.

he was elected chairman of the house subcommittee. chairman jordan has taken a leading role to see cut, tax and balance in the recent amendments. under his chairmanship, the republican chair committee has offered its own proposal and a plan to cut gasoline price and other bills. it's my pleasure to welcome congressman jim jordan. >> i tell every group, don't clap, you haven't heard me talk yet.

>> you heard that i went to the university of wisconsin, anyone go to madison, it's like communist up there. i am going to talk about general principles and what i call basic challenges. this is a message you can give to anyone. but then i will save time for questions. i tell every group they speak to, look, you all pay my salary. you are allowed to ask any question you want. you are allowed to yell at me, we have a wonderful thing called the first amendment. but let me walk through five challenges. and this is a message old as the hills. but it's a message we alland at this point -- we understand in history. five things i would ask people

to challenge. challenge 1 make sure you step goals. you learned a long time ago you can't get where you are going if you don't know. i am 47 and have four kids. and one thing i know, there are a lot of folks that meander through life that don't know what they want to accomplish or goals or objectives. if you want to accomplish anything of significance, first know what it is. first set goals. and second challenge is more important. there are a lot of people that set goals but few that do the work to achieve something of significance. the second challenge is, be a disciplined person. and i learned that hard work doesn't guarantee that you will be successful, but it increases your chances. the key of real significance is

the willingness to have disciplined lifestyle. i had a coach in high school. and back in grade school i knew what i was going to do. i knew i was going to play middle linebacker for the pittsburgh steelers. i can name them all, and my favorite guy was jack landbert, who plays middle linebacker and that's what i wanted to do. i learned that football wasn't going to be my game. so it was the sport of wrestling. and we had a teacher as our wrestling coach in high school. toughest teacher in the world and toughest wrestling coach. and coach mccann passed away but

a super guy. he talked about discipline every single day. no exageration. every stinking day. jordan, you want my class, this is chemistry and you have to prepare and come with questions and be prepared to participate in class. every day. and in the wrestling room it was worse. you want to do well in wrestling, jordan, discipline. he told it everyday. and i heard enough from my dad. but he's got a great definition of discipline, it's doing what you don't want to do, when you don't want to do it. and what that meant is doing things coach's way than when you wanted to do it your way. and doing things the right way when you rather do them the convenient way. discipline is doing thing the

tough way, not the easy way. it's a message that is so true. and you think about the history of this country, people doing things the hard way, the tough way, that's it is american way. and it made us the best country in history. being what you need to get to the goal is important. the third challenge i tell folks is being positive. you hang around negative people. they drive you crazy. they are always about no. and always telling you, you can't do something. be positive, you live in america, for goodness sake. it's the most positive place in the world. mike pence has a great line, when you think about conservatives, we should be positive because we have the truth on our side. and pence said, i am a conservative and i not mad about it. have a positive attitude it

makes such a difference in everything we do. and positive people motivate people others. and i love the story from scripture, you know this one. when the israelites were camped against the philistines and everyday was the challenge, who will fight goliath. and israelites response was he's so big, we can't defeat him. and david's attitude, he's so big i can't miss. i was an assistance coach in ohio university, never involved in politics. not even involved with our party. our local county party. and i decided i would run for state representative. and from where i am from in western ohio, you win the primary, you win the general.

so i remember i talked to some republican party members, about 150,000 in the ohio state district. and i went to talk to some party leaders. and i said, i am thinking about running for state representative. and they said well, you are a nice young guy, but take a hike, and come back in years, but this two-county commissioner will clean your clock. and i said really, and thanks for the advice but we will see what happens. that's why they play the gama friday night, one team is favored but sometimes the underdog wins. and we had pro-life people and home school people and people who don't like the government taking their money. we had all sorts of people, and i don't know how much was raised. but we thought it was a million bucks. and we beat the pants off of

this guy. because we did what i am talking about. we didn't know better, and sometimes ignorance is good. we won the race. and when i ran for senate and had the distinction in 2000 in ohio of having the most expensive seat in ohio. my opponent was a 20-year veteran. and in this republican primary he was endorsed by the speaker of the house, and congress boehner and the state senator that was leaving the seat, he endorsed him as well. no one gave us a chance. and remember waking up, and ask my wife, you are going to stick with me. and she said yeah. and i woke up one day and hoped

they all endorsed my opponent. and we did the same thing, kn k knocked on doors and worked our tails off. and won. if people don't believe in you, work hard. and all kinds of things can happen for you, and especially when you live in this great country. and fourth thing, this is important. embrace and defend the values that make the country special in the first place. there are certain principles that make us the greatest nation ever. and never be afraid to defend them. how much -- how many of you remember the story of scott o'grady. if you don't remember, i don't know how long but 10 or 12

years. he was shot down and had to survive several days in the wild and using his skills and was rescued and brought to safety. and when brought to safety and the mics were there, because the media wanted to interview and hear about this amazing ordeal he had been through. and he was at the microphone, and i had to catch this interview. and he said three things, three statements that captured in my judgment what life is all about. what america is all about. and again a 29-year-old member of the united states military just capturing it such a succinct way. first of all, i want thank god, it's a miracle i am standing here today. and second, i want to thank my family, i am paraphrasing. he said i want to thank my family, while i was out there i knew they were praying and think

of me, and that motivated me. i really want to thank my family. and third i want to thank the guys who saved me. they are the true heros. and i thought about it, this guy has figured it out. what life is all about. when he referenced god, he was getting at the idea of faith. and how central faith is on a personal life. the relationship with the god of universe and his son has lasting implications. and the lower level, how central faith is in the experience. this past spring our older boy wrestles for the rebels, and we went to independence hall. and when you think of what the

guys thought when founding america, and you can hear them, they put it on the line that liberty mattered. and the document they signed in that room, and that we hold, they understood the experience of fai of -- importance of faith. when scott referenced his family, he was getting at the basic concept that the family is the institution in my judgment determines the strength of our culture and society. i think about just, you know, the impact that my parents had on my life. and one things, you guys are young, not married with kids. you will learn, my wife and i married in college. we have four children. and we quickly learned when the

good lord blessed us with kids. when you have kids, you suddenly appreciate your parents more. it's funny how that work, you don't realize the sacrifices they are doing. mark twain had a lot of good lines and he was talking about his relationship with his dad and how it evolved over time. and he said when i was 10 years ago old, my dad knew everything, when i was 20, he didn't know how much of anything, and now at 30, i am surprised how much he learned in 10 years. and that's how it works, and the institution that the good lord put together, before the state was the family. as a policy maker i keep in mind, every decision i make and every vote i cast, i try to ask what i call the filter question.

does it benefit family? then if yes, you are for it. and that will strengthen our country. and something that scott o'grady knew and said after this amazing experience. and finally when he referenced the military. i think he was getting at the word that we most associate with our great country, and that's the word freedom. this is unique for our country and unique in history. our military has always stood for freedom. and most militaries throughout most of history has stood for oppression. but not in the united states of america. military has stood for freedom and liberty and not just for americans but for countless people around the planet. so scott talked about faith, family and freedom. and as we move forward and want to be sure that our country stays strong, we need to embrace and defend. and it's not easy to defend them. look, if you are a conservative today, the press will make fun

of you. i get it all the time. it's the nature of this business. particularly the natural press they don't get things. and have you heard of thomas, he was a great writer, between those of the "new york times" and folks of the indian, and he said, i get up and read my bible and the "new york times," and see which is on their side. and that's true for they will make fun of us when we fight for the things that matter. understand that. and this leads me to the last point and i will take your questions. be willing to take the risk. be willing to put it on the line. if you got a goal, be willing to fully commit to the goal and do the work. stay positive when it gets tough and defend the matters that

matter. it will always require risk, i learned this that it requires a full commitment. and when you make the full commitment, there is the risk that you might fail. but you got to take it anyway. it's the nature of the way that the good lord made it place. you have to be willing to take the risk. and understand that's how it is. how many of you have seen the movie "chart -- chariots of fire" it's a true story of following british athletes in the 1920s as they prepare to compete in the olympic games. and you focus on two in particular, abraham and little, both talented individuals and guys you want to emulate. little is a missionary to china

and both are gold medallists. but the best scene in my judgment took place prior to the olympic games. they are both college-aged athletes, both sprinters and both undefeated. the two fastest guys in europe. and deep down they had to know, if there is a race between little and abraham, who will win. who is the fastest. you got to know. so they put together a track meet in europe. this day it was the sporting event to be at. came time for the 100-meter dash. the stadium is full, and it's abraham first and little second. and next scene abraham is

looking at this empty track, and he's replaying this race in his mind, over and over. and every time it's the same result. little first and abraham second. and it's driving him nuts because he never lost. and he's going through this mental exercise, and the lady turns to him. harold, why the long face, so you lost. you finished second, what is the big deal. there is a pause and he turned to her, and said, i don't run to lose, i run to win, and if i can't win, i am not going to run. he is going on quit. it hurts too bad to lose. and there was another pause and she turned to him and said the best line in the whole movie. she said, harold, if you don't run, you can't win. and that is so important. if you are never willing to get

off the sidelines and get in the game. and if you are never willing to get out of the shadows and get in the arena. you will never accomplish anything that matters for yourself and for a lot of other people and the nation as well. so always be willing to take the risk. it's tough, it's not easy. but in the end when you accomplish those things that really matter and you help a lot of people along the way, during the journey, it's worth it. and that's something that this country has always done. and we need young people to understand that and keep doing it so we can remain the greatest nation in the history. thank you very much. [applause] all right, your chance to yell at a congressman. fire away. there we go, the first guy. you are guys laughing he asks

the first question every time. we have people like this in congress, every time there is a mic, there are people that go there every single time. go ahead. >> my question for you is, i kind of straying away from a little positive attitude. a little bit of a negative question. how do you decipher the difference of risk and being naive? >> yeah, i see where you are headed. look, you want to educate yourself and if it's a policy issue instead of rushing in and being goofy. you want to be prepared. that's why in the comments i talk about being disciplined and doing the hard work.

you have to do that before you shoot your mouth off. along those lines. so that's important to do your homework and be prepared. i think that's a prerequisite of anything you try to accomplish. >> thank you, i love your speech. >> thank you. >> good morning. from truman state university. do you think that playing sports have some correlation between having a career and relationship with the federal government, we are activists and while we play sports we don't connect. >> it's not a requirement, there are all kinds of folks involved and doing a great job in public policy area and who don't have an athletic background.

for me it made a big difference. the sport i am very active and two boys wrestle in college and one at high school and will compete. for me the sport in wrestling, your opponent steps on the mat, and you beat him, you win. and it doesn't get more basic than that. i have loveded -- loved to compete. there is a great book, read arthur brooks book, called "the battle" and he references how we americans are rugged type. and you can go back to the people that started this great place. they left europe on this boat and sailed across into nothing to go after their goals and dreams. it's this rugged individualism

is who we are, and for me i loved sports. >> thank you. >> hi, i am amanda from the university of missourmissouri. i wondered how to get our fellow college students interested in politi politics? >> first it's the first paycheck, i tell young people, i talk to high school classes and some have had a summer job, and i called it the paycheck tab, you get this and what you earn and this area across the check is where government rips you off. and as my job in congress and in the state house and senoney on, we are to have a national

defense and some things that we use tax dollars for. and the premise of limited government is expanded liberty. we need to keep that in mind. and typically for most people when they get that first paycheck and see how much government takes. and every stinking tax pay, and water and on and on and that's when you see. i went, as i said i went to college, i mean my major was wrestling but you are supposed to get a degree. and i wound up getting one in economics. and i can't remember the professor's name, and my sophomore year i am to declare a major.

and i walk in and this professor in a big lecture hall, macro economics 301, and he tells us he's a christian guy and conservative guy. and i thought, this guy is the bravest guy on campus. and i paid attention. and i liked economics and wound up majoring in that because of this one professor i had my sophomore year. >> thank you. >> good morning, from lone star college system in houston, texas. i don't think anyone can give a form of definite, but in your opinion how long do you think that it will take for us to get government spending under control? >> hopefully not too much longer, because we don't have too much longer. let me give you a couple of numbers, 14 trillion debt, and

the last few years the largest and 1.6 this fiscal year. the one that get me, we are spending $200 billion plus on interest alone. someone tell me what interest rates are, are they low or high? low, they are record low, can't go lower. they will go up some. and the spending math :-path we are on, and if you consider modest, and hope not like the 70s and 80s, and within 10 years we will be paying more on interest than we currently spend on national defense. someone tell me if you are as a country spending more on service debt than as nation, how can you maintain that model?

you can't. so the window of time to fix this is closing rapidly. we can't emphasize this enough, we have to bring spending down. the one big fight in washington was over this debt ceiling. and i was one of the folks that wound up voting no. [applause] let me say this, there were some good things to the speaker's credit. no tax increases, and that was great. and we did actually cut spending. and typically if you raise the debt ceiling, the band keeps on and you keep spending. but if you think that the fact that all we did was reduce spending $21 billion this first year, and the only year we have authority on because subsequent congresses can change the law. we have to do more.

think of this, $14 trillion national debt, and increased the ceiling and reducing $21 billion in the next fiscal year. put it in terms, and you have a young person that maxes out the credit card and needs more, and we will give you 2400 more on the limit. and you have to promise us over the course of the next year, you spend $24 less. and that's what we did. white -- while it's a step in the right direction, the magnitude is big we have to change spending and that's all of government. >> hi, i am from the university of texas at san antonio. first i want to thank you for

your pro-life work. and what are the steps we need to take to improve the culture of life? >> i think that technology has been our friend. the fact now that you can see that we are talking about human beings. and the founders understood this. it's amazing, the guys who started this grand experiment that we call america. the greatest experience of freedom ever, they got it right. and when they talked about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, you have heard this before. and it's interesting the order they placed the rights. in the document that next to scripture is the next best words to put on paper. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. you can't pursue your goals and dreams if you first don't have freedom. and you never have freedom if

government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, the right-to-life. and that's why this is such a basic fundamental thing. and it's one of the reasons i got interested in politics to begin with. i tell folks i never intended to be in politics, i was going to be a wrestling coach. but you get married and have kids and see government taking your money and insulting your values. and i said i am dumb enough to run for state representative and i wound up winning. it was those things that motivated me to run for office. >> thank you. >> good morning, i am from caniece college in buffalo, new york. you recommended state politics and do you recommend for a

larger stage? >> who knows, i ran for state and if you want to run for congress and it works out. you have to be 25. or run for school board it make a difference. that's between you and the good lord and your family. and not being naive and knowing the lay of the land and knowing the score before you go there. it just depends. like i said, people told me i couldn't win. and sometimes that's good, you get fired up and we will show them. i don't know your circumstances or situations. what i will tell you, if you have done the research and think you can do it. don't let people tell you can't. i am sure you have had the experience when people told you you can't do something, and you showed them. and you got there. to me that's the key. but setting goals, working hard, good things happen. >> thank you.

>> hi, maggie from new jersey. i was wondering since the debt doomsday has passed if congress will focus on that now or what is the next big thing? >> it's all that congress is doing this year. you remember that we had the budget fight a few months ago over this year's, actually completing the work from last year's budget. and then into the debt ceiling fight and in september we will go into finalizing the budget for next year it's all about the money, and that's appropriate. because the fiscal situation is so bad we have to spend our time there. we will continue that and see that take place. i will argue this, we have a lot of policies wrong right now. in fact let me step back a second and say this. the world is a dangerous and chaotic place. all you got to do is watch the

evening news and all the crazy things that go on. but the world is less dangerous and chaotic in my judgment when the united states of america leads. and it's tough to remain the military and diplomatic leader if you not also the economic leader. it's just the way that the world works. the economic superpower tends to be the military. because they go hand in hand. to remain the economic leader you have to have the right fiscal policy, the regulatory policy and the right tax policy. and i would argue now we are wrong on all of them. we don't have an energy policy that the good lord has blessed us the way see should. and the fiscal is a mess, and the numbers and where they are. the tax policy, we have the highest tax rate in the world. i have a colleague, a freshman

colleague from green bay, wisconsin, and sitting on his desk is a copy of the tax code. it's there to remind him why he came to washington. to simplify this tax code to foster great economic growth. and then the wrong regulatory policy. we reg ulate the heck out of a small business. we have two brothers back from home, and one said, i will remember this forever, he said, jim, i love being in business. i hate being an employer, and the reason i hate being an employer is all the stuff you guys make us do, government. all the things to take the risk of hiring someone and having a job. and we have to have a regulatory policy so it's not difficult.

so we have to focus on those so we can be better and safer and more freedom. >> hi, i am dawn, from university of tennessee, knoxville. i want to thank you for coming here and how you stay positive. and furthermore how about for women, and the left attacks women more and how do you stay positive? >> again you focus on the fact that inspite of challenges of the country, it's still the greatest nation ever. and those focus on life, don't be negative. focus on those basics. and stay strong. prepare. you see some folks in politics who when they