introduced by his former chief of staff rahm emanuel, who is now the mayor of chicago. herbie hancock and okay go were prersent. proceeds went to the obama victory 2012. this runs about 30 minutes ♪ >> hey, chicago! [applause] >> this looks like the uptown music district. well, the city at work. we like our president. we have of president with termination, the grit to see through the change this country needs. [applause] as you know, two years ago, the

auto industry was on its back. its back was broken. some people said, let it go. let chrysler go. let general motors go. let those workers be treated like scrap metal. and i saw a president reject all the ideas of conventional wisdom coming out of washington and new york city, and he said when it comes to the american workers, we will double down on the american worker. in two years, gm and chrysler has paid back the taxpayers what they borrowed. more than paying back, we are 1.2 million jobs better off today because of the president and his grit to say not to

conventional wisdom. when it comes to doing what is right for this country, this president never takes a short course. he never takes the easy road. if he thinks is right, he will pay any political price to do that. i first and was telling them, take the easy road. do the political thing. make easy on us. get this over with. not if it came to what was right for the country. he was willing to put all the political capital to put this country first. when it comes to saying no to friends and when it comes to same people that are trying to tear this country down, he was willing to do what was right for our kids and our future. [applause] and what you want out of a president is the honesty, the determination, the judgment to see what is right in doing is right for this country

regardless of politics. he has shown that time and again for the economy, for the auto industry, for our foreign policy, our reputation around the world. it is great to have somebody who decided that when he was to have a birthday party, to be with friends and family. i know you're hot. i can see that fan going. let's make it a little warmer in here. i want to bring back the deejay. okay go. jennifer hudson, herbie hancock. they're all here. i want to join them and th-- in singing. please join the professionals in a great happy birthday song to the great president, our own,

our chicago, our president -- president obama. >> you ready to sing happy birthday? ♪ happy birthday to you. happy birthday to you happy birthday, dear mr. president. happy birthday to you ♪ [cheers and applause]

♪ ["sweet home chicago" playing] >> hello, chicago! oh! it is good to be with some good friends. this is a warm welcome right here. let me first of all say theank you to the extraordinary talent

on stage. one of the greatest jazz musicians of our time herbie hancock. [applause] okay go. give it up! deejay garner. give it up. the lovely and talented jennifer hudson from chicago. [applause] the not as lovely or talented but very determined, very brilliant, very loyal, very tough mayor of the city of chicago rahm emanuel. [applause]

i don't know. i am watching from washington, but it looks to me like he has done a pretty good job. and as far as i can tell, he hasn't cursed in public yet. close, he says. but what he has done is provided extraordinary energy and extraordinary vision to a job longhe has watned tnted for a time. i do not know too many people that love the city of chicago more than your mayor. [applause] now, we got a few more

dignitaries. we have the governor of the great state of illinois in the house. we've got one of the finest senators in the united states of america dick durbin in the house. [cheers] we've got one of the greatest members of the congress and the country in the house. we've got the ageless jesse white, the secretary of state, in the house. a great friend of mine, somebody

to i would not have been elected to the united states without him, the former senator of the illinois state senate jones is here. got a lot of've other important people like you in the house. ow, that's warm and it's hot, and you just listen to some good music. i have a long political speech. but i just want to first of all say i could not have a better early birthday present than spending tonight with all of you. i love you back! [cheers and applause] that i turned 50

tomorrow. which means that by the time i wake up i will have an email from aarp asking me to call president obama and tell them to protect medicare. [cheers] when i look out at the this crowd, i think back to that incredible night in november. i am still trying to figure out how the weather was over 60 degrees in november in grant park in 2008. and it was the culmination of this incredible journey that we took together.

campaign that drew on the hard work and support of all of you and people all across the country, but men and women that believed that change was possible in the face of long odds, in the face of frustrations and setbacks, who said we do not have to accept politics as usual. we can once again have a country that is living up to our highest aspirations. that was a lovely night, but you remember what i told you that night. i said, yes we can, but i said this would not be easy. i said that wasn't the end of the journey. that was just the beginning. the economy was already hammering families. decisions that had been deferred for too long and washington were finally catching up with us.

all of these problems were gathering all at once. and we knew the road ahead was going to be difficult and the climb was going to be steep. i have to admit i did not know how steep the climb was going to be, because we did not realize. we just found out a week ago that the economy that last few months in 2008 was worse than we realized. i mean, the economy contracted by 8%. it was the worst economy we have ever seen. the next quarter before any of our policies have a chance to go into place, we lost 8 million jobs like that. anything like it in most of our lifetimes. but here's what i knew. you did not elect me president to duck the tough issues. if you elected me president to

do the tough things, even if it took time. [cheers] you elected me to make sure the economy was working not just for those at the very top, but that we had a broad based, shared prosperity from the machinists on the line to the ceo in the board room. and i ran because i believed that our success was to find not by stock prices and corporate prices but by whether ordinary people can find a good job to support their family, whether they can send their kids to college, whether they can retire with dignity and respect. maybe have a little left over for a ball game or a vacation. not be bankrupt when they get sick. so what we did was we took a

series of emergency measures that first year to save the economy from collapse. and i promise you not all of them were popular. but we did what we needed to do to start getting the economy growing again, and it has been growing. not as fast as we want, but we got the economy growing instead of contracting, because we want to help families get back on their feet. [applause] we went in and we said, i didn't sign up to be a ceo of an auto company, but i said that i was not going to let 1 million jobs especially in the midwest go away. we are going to intervene and ask in return that the companies restructure themselves. we have now seen for the first time in a very long time all of the victory -- the big three auto makers making a profit.

and making a profit selling small and compact cars, and doing stuff that a lot of americans thought could not be done any more. and we said, even as we are saving the economy, there is still some issues out there that have not been dealt with in a long time. so we are going to make sure that we have equal pay for equal work, because i do not want mahlia and sasha getting paid less than anybody for doing a good job. [applause] and we're going to make sure that in this country that we love that nobody is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. we're going to make sure they can serve and our military and protect the country they loved.

and we are going to invest in clean energy, because we are tired of being dependent on foreign oil. so we want wind turbines and electric cars made right here in the united states of america. [applause] increase ouring to investment in basic research and find cures for cancer and alzheimer's and we will revamp our education system to start working for every child and not just some children. and yes, we are going to go ahead and make sure that every family in america can find affordable health care and they are not losing their homes or going bankrupt because they get sick. and it was hard, but because of view, we kept on driving and we got it done -- because of you.

so it's been a long, tough year. but we have made some incredible strides together. yes, we have. >> my man. >> but the thing we all have to remember is that as much good as we have done, for christ -- precisely because the challenges were so tough, because we were inheriting some of challenges that we're not even halfway there yet. when i said change we can believe in, i did not say change we can believe in tomorrow. not change it and believe in next week. we knew this was going to take time, because we had this big, messy, tough democracy.

and that is a great thing about america is is that there are contentious ideas out there, and we have to make our case. and we knew these challenges are not made overnight and there were not going to be solved overnight. and so, as we look forward, and a lot of we've got work to do on the economy. i hope we can avoid another self-inflicted wound like we saw over the last couple of weeks. [applause] time towe don't have play these partisan games. we've got too much work to do. [applause] over the next several months, i know congress is focused on what

the american people are focused on -- making sure that the economy is growing, making sure that businesses are getting financing, making sure that young people are getting trained for the jobs of the future, making sure that we are getting all the construction workers that got laid off after the housing boom went bust and putting them to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges, rebuilding chicago. rebuilding detroit, rebuilding rural communities, putting people back to work. [applause] i want to make sure that america is not just an importer. i want us to export. i want to build electric cars in america and i want to ship them all around the world because we have the best technology. how we to uus to focus on

can revamp old buildings and old facilities until they are energy-efficient. and we can start cutting down on our electricity bills and start cutting down on our carbon emissions, and we can stop being so dependent on foreign oil so you do not have to pay as much and the pump. -- at the pump. that is what we have to focus on. tove got more work to do make sure that we have an immigration system in this country that makes some sense. we are a nation of laws and emigrants, and we want to welcome extraordinary talent to our shores and have a legal immigration system that works for everybody. we have to make that happen. we've got, and you know, a lot

of the stuff that we have already done we have to make sure it gets implemented effectively. we finally put some common sense rules so banks are not taking the kinds of risks that almost led to economic meltdown, and that consumers are protected when you get credit cards or mortgages. and frankly, there are some folks in congress better try to block us from making the progress. that is why your voice has to be heard, where we stand up and say, we want a financial system that is fair for everybody. there is nothing wrong with that. [applause] and on the foreign-policy front, you elected me in part based on a promise that we would end the war in iraq, and we have ended combat operations there. by the end of this year, we will have our troops out of iraq. as i promised and as i

committed. [applause] and in afghanistan, we have al qaeda on the run. we are going to begin transitioning to give afghans bore responsibility, but also to start bringing our chips on because we have a lot of work to do at home to rebuild america. [applause] foreign-policy cannot just policy cannotwar. just be about war. it has to be about peace. as to be about helping countries feed the hungry and helping countries transition to democracy and respecting human rights all around the world and making sure america continues to be a beacon of hope. that is part of what you elected me. that is part of the unfinished business of this administration.

and as we think about this world, we understand that and it will be more competitive. if we're going to lead the kind of america behind to our children and grandchildren, we have to get our fiscal house in order. all of the progressives out there, i want to understand we cannot just ignore this debt, that we have to do something about it, but economic growth is not just about cutting programs. it is also about making investments in our people. it is also but making sure we have the best education system in the world. that we have the best scientists and engineers and mathematicians in the world. making sure that we thrive

on diversity. making sure we have a social safety net for the aged and the infirm and our children. that is part of what makes us a great nation. [applause] in chicago, we have more work to do. do.e got more work to let me just say this. it is going to continue to be challenging every single step of the way. but we can do it. [cheers and applause] always amused when the pundits in washington say, boy, obama has not gotten this passed yet, and some of his supporters are disappointed about this. the campaign was so smooth. i'm thinking what campaign where

they watching? [laughter] i mean, there were at least once a month folks would say, you cannot win. at least once a month people would say, that was a terrible debate. you lost support in this group. or that state will go red on us. what they did not understand was that for all of the mistakes i will make, for all the bone- headed moves i made, might make, for all the frustrations and the challenges and resistance we had to bring about change, when i have got you guys behind me, when i have the american people, when i listened to them, and i'm reminded of your decency, and those core values that say, i am

my brothers and sisters keeper. and what makes this a great nation is not just the height of by skyscrapers or the size of our gdp or the power of our military, but the fact that we look after one another and we take responsibility for ourselves but also for our neighbors. when we are working together and we are joined in, hands, black and white, and hispanic and native american and gay and straight, when the american people joined together, we cannot be stopped. we say to ourselves, yes, we can. it does not matter how tough it is in washington, because i know you have got my back. when i come to chicago and travel across the country, i know we can't be stopped. the greatestca's nation on earth. and i know we will bring about

the change that all of us believe in. god bless you all. thank you. and god bless the united states of america. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪

♪ >> onlty in america >> dream in read, white and blue. ♪ we all get a chance. everybody gets to dance only in america ♪

♪

♪ only in america where we dream in red, white, and blew up only in america, where we dream as big as we what do we all get a chance, everybody gets to dance only in america yeah, only in america

only in america where we dream in red, white, and blue yeah, we dream as big as we want to only in america ♪ ♪ >> republican presidential candidates rick santorum talks about his opposition to same-sex marriage and support for a federal marriage amendment.

this to place at the editorial board meeting in des moines, iowa, of "the des moines register." this runs about 50 minutes. >> we are going to go ahead and get started. we are visiting with rick santorum, running for republican nomination for president. in we will keep it very informal. you are meeting with a combination of writers, editors, editorial writers for "the des moines register," a couple of columnists, and after we kick things off, it will be kind of a free-for-all, informal conversation, and how much time that you got, to kind of respect -- >> i think we have an hour.

>> let me get started. why would you want to run for president? >> jimmy, there was a place that was very symbolic, 5 miles from shanksville, pa., to be a symbol of where the fight against external threats of those who want to rob us of our freedom from an external force, that battle was first in gaged most recently, and secondly, it was about 20 miles from where my grandfather came to this country and brought my dad, but that was a personal fight for my family. my grandfather came from italy of mussolini, rejected fascism for his life in his children's life and the future, so he came to somerset to dig coal in a coal town.

actually, he started in a little town which was truly a company town. he lived in a house owned by the company right next to the mine, and he got paid with company stems. they used to call them coupons, so he figured out that was a dead end. he ended up working in a mine it, -- a mine, and he provided a better life. here was sort of a personal symbol of how america creates the opportunity, creating opportunity for me and now for my children, so i felt like one of the responsibilities that you have is if you're in a position to serve the country at a time when you think your country is in need of that service, and you step up, and i know maybe from

the outside looking at this, what is a guy from my situation both politically and personally doing doing this, with seven children, certainly a lot going on in your life, ages 7 to 23, and you lost your last political race, so why do you think you can make a difference. i felt i could. as i traveled around the country, i got a lot of encouragement from folks and just got a sense that the message i was going to be communicating was going to be able the different from everybody else, and i could serve the role of being part of the process that could bring us a new leader in this country, something that i think is absolutely necessary for the future of the country and our freedom. >> how is your message different from the others? >> how is the message different, i think it is a couple of things, and i kind of look at

the is more holistic lead and other folks in the race. i do not see issues as being silos, but i see them as being integrated, and i talk about them that way. i see how our country is founded on moral principle, on the foundation of the society, which is the family, and we cannot have a strong economy, and if you listen to my speeches, i talk about health care and things to do, but i also talk about the fact that the first economy is the family. the greek or economy comes from the word home. the first economy, the first church. if we do not have a solid family, we have a successful economy. when families are broken, they do not do as well economically. children do not do as well economically. from the marriage bond and the family, the stronger the country

is going to be. those of you who have seen my speeches know that i talk about how we have to be a country a strong moral character, and if we are not, if we are a country that defines about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if we are a country that divides happened is as the pursuit of pleasure, we will not be a country much longer. what you are called to do. what you are supposed to do. i think it was edmund burke saying we will be constrained by change from within or change from without, and you can of the government if you do not have people behaving in a way that is consistent for everyone in the long term, and the less moral and the was kind of character we have and doing what we ought to do, the more government year going to have. it is as simple as that. if you have any doubt of that, look at the communities where

people do not believe as they ought to. you will see a poor economy, and you will see of the things that i do not think people want to see in the future of our country. that is sort of on the policy side. the of the thing is i look at the folks in the race and the folks potentially getting into the race, and i think i bring something to the table both in a sense of electrons success in areas of the country and in places where if we're going to win this election, we're going to have to be successful. i got elected in pennsylvania and four times in districts that were heavily democratic, and pennsylvania is a very tough state to win, and i was able to do so. i do not know who is going to get in the race, but at this point, the folks who will be in the debate on thursday night, no one else has ever defeated a democratic incumbent, and in my second one, i was matched up --

before the filing, but i got rid of him since he retired instead of running against me, because i think he knew he could not beat me, and the third, i'd be a democratic incumbent against -- in the race for the senate, and i have been in the toughest environment that you can. you see the recent polls. i am pretty much in a dead heat with barack obama, and it is not like i get a whole lot of national attention. i in the only person in this race by measuring the gallup poll from march to july, anyone else is either a perspective in the race has had their name increase except for me, so you wonder why is the national media not talking about me, and they are talking about people like john huntsman, way below me. he gets lots of attention. nobody wants to pay attention to

me. that does not bother me. i just keep going up and working. in a lot of respects, that benefits me, because i do not think they would say good things about me, but we are going out and working hard. i think we have a track record which the conservatives, who obviously make of the vast majority of folks in the republican primaries, not just here in iowa, but across the country, they see someone who over the course of my political career has been a fighter for conservative issues, on national security, economic, fiscal, and i think that is something different. as hank brown, the former senator from colorado said, rick santorum was a conservative before it was called upon to be a conservative. this is something that is able different from other people in the race. >> i am just wondering, even if

somebody shares your basic view of the strength of the family unit, that it is important and should be preserved, what role does the president of the united states have to play in that? >> he is the leader of the country. >> and can be more specific between the family unit and the president? >> the president is concerned about the health of the country, and the health of the family is important to the health of the country. >> how would you view this at present? >> i would support the federal marriage amendment, which i supported when i was in the senate. also, i would help make that states do not create a situation that was not tenable in the long term, which is having 50 different marriage laws in this country. marriage is the foundation element of the society. you cannot have 50 different laws. that is not sustainable. so i am someone who will go out

to speak and talk about it. one of the things we have found in the states that have voted on marriage, from maine to california, 31 times marriage has been sustained, and in most of the states, that was not the case when the debate began, because people naturally, and this is a good quality of americans, they naturally wanted to be very tolerant. if people want to do that, let them do it, and then they realize it does affect you. it affects the family. it affects your children and who teaches them. it has a profound impact on you. everybody. it has an effect on everybody's marriage, not just the people who want to get married, and if you look of the impact on the family itself and look at what will happen to the institution of marriage, marriage is what marriage is. marriage existed before there was a government.

this is like handing a big glass of water and saying it is a glass of beer. you can call it a glass of beer, but it is not. it is water. marriage is what marriage is. you can say you are going to change it, but it does not change what it is. it is a recognition of the bond between a man and woman for the purpose of helping them fulfill their complementary role in nature as well as create an opportunity for the best situation for children to be raised and the state and family. it is an intrinsic good to society. my relationship is a good thing. but we do not celebrate it and say we're going to give special recognition to the government because i love michael -- i love michael remind -- might -- my

aunt. not that two people love each other is not important and fine, but it does not have the value of society and should not be lifted up and recognized as such. you can recognize one that has less value, intrinsic less value, then something else and college the same and not devalue the other. that is exactly what happens. when you see that happen, what happens with marriage, and you see this in europe and in places over a period of time, they have children out of wedlock before they get married, and marriages become a more casual relationship. why? because these other relationships, because they are not built on the procreative an element of what marriage is about and the stability of having children, they are not as stable over time. in fact, they do not even claim to be as stable over time, so what we're doing is changing the

nature and character of marriage, which is a destructive thing. what it does for religion. homosexual marriage or other types of marriage, if it is equivalent to traditional marriage, we would say to folks, marriage counselors, that if you do not counsel for same-sex marriage, you are a big hit. we see this all of the time with abortion and other types of things better out there legally, even the people find them immoral. you will you -- lose your license as a pharmacist, lose your ability to practice medicine.

this is bigoted. we have now created a super right. we have a right in the constitution, but now, they have created a super rite which is above the rate that is in the constitution, and that is of sexual liberty, and i think that is wrong. that is a destructive element of this debate, and it is not talked about. and guess what? these things are talked about. people do want to be very tolerant, as i do. people should live the life they want to, with. i have no problem with that. that is not the topic. this is about changing the law that impacts everybody else, and that is public policy. it is not against anyone. it is the impact on family, faith, and education. we have sexual behavior. it is natural, good, something

society of firms, and so it must be taught that way, and we're seeing that now being taught to very, very young children, which i do not believe parents by the necessarily a good, nor do i find it to be very helpful for children at a time when sexual confusion can be accelerated by the state, so we are talking about profound consequences here. how does my marriage affect you? it affects a profoundly, and when we have that debate, then the american people say, you know what? you allow us to live the life you want to live, but do not try to work society in a way that can undermine the basic structures of faith and of education in a family. >> you have said, and it was in today's "register," usurping the role of family. could you expand on what you

mean by that? >> yes, who is responsible for educating your children? you are. parents are. it is the parents' responsibility to educate their children. the government is there to help you do what is your responsibility. some have been convinced that it is government's role to educate your children, and there are many governments who believed it is the government wrote to educate your children, and i believe that is just a foundationally flawed approach. parents should have the right to structural the education requirement -- structure the educational requirements. they know that children can be educated better than the state does. it operates on a system where you had your kids of, and we tell you what is best for your kids, and this is what they are going to get.

no, this is not in every school districts. the best school districts do not do that, but, of course, a lot of school districts do that. when you look at how they're going to order and structure their classrooms, you have less and less control and catering to the needs of the child, and as a result, we get a poor education system. if you go into mcdonald's, and there is one thing, a big mac or nothing else, some people will be happy, but that will not work for everybody. it is what about everybody needs. once we change it to make it focus around the consumer -- >> what is the federer role in education? >> it will be incredibly limited. i do not come in with the mistake that george bush did and say i am the governor of the united states. to reorder the education system.

i think it is our job to make clear what the education system should look like, which i have just done, and then -- >> so then is there a role for no child left behind, raced to the top? -- race to the top of >> there have been many programs that have migrated to the federal level. return them to the states, and the education system, no child left behind, which i voted for, and i believe we need to have some sort of national testing to see how we are doing, because it was clear to me that we were not doing very well, that there was a lot of disagreement among the education world as to how well we were actually performing. i thought that having some sort of standardized testing to figure out how we were doing was a good idea. i was not for all of the other things, to move states and local

school districts to do what we wanted them to do. in retrospect, the testing part was fine. the other part, to me, was a negative, but i said that at the time. i did not like it at the time. >> when you get rid of it? >> yes. it is not working. the education system continues to decline. i believe that we need to have an educational system that is much more dynamic in engaging parents and students -- >> but it is up to the states to do that? that is not on your agenda? >> it is on my agenda to say exactly what i am saying and give that power back to the states and firehouse parents encourage parents. i think one of the roles of the president is to talk about things that is not necessarily the role of the federal government to do in a way to see correct registration but

still being involved in shaping the discourse in the country without mandating it. >> is health-care one of those issues, and how would you approach that? >> well, the federal role, i would continue the federal role with medicare. i believe that medicaid should be sent back to the states. we should do with medicaid what we did with welfare. in fact, in 1996, actually during the welfare reform debate, another and i introduced a bill to do exactly to medicate what was being done to welfare, which is a block grant, a per capita block grant, two states, and give them the flexibility to design their health-care system and pushing it down to have the kind of, again, submissions closest to the people who are affected by the decision, so whether in this health care, education, housing, food stamps,

these programs do not need to be at the federal level. these are not the 1950's where states are all over the map. >> to allow them to become a block grant? >> they would not all be the same type of structure, but, yes, they would be limited cap federal participation, and we would orient the programs back to the state level and give them the flexibility to design the programs as needed. >> medicare and the federal and government in health care. >> one of the things i have said for a long period of time is that we need to encourage bob -- encourage a market in health care. we have a situation where i believe costs are going to be controlled pretty much one of two ways. they will either be top-down or bottom up. can we create a system, and i think we can come to create a better opportunity for people to manage their own health care? one of the things when i was and

the congress back in 9992, i think it was, john kasich and i introduced the first medical savings account bill, and i have been advocating help savings accounts for a long time. we have a false economy. >> what kind of insurance do you have? >> we have an insurance policy -- i got my insurance policy for the public policy center, and they basically had one policy, so i did not have all whole lot of choices from where i got it. at some point, we're going to have to make a decision. >> how much are you paying for your cobra? >> a lot. a couple thousand bucks a month. >> what does that tell you about

the average person in i have who does not have a job? >> yes, again, go back to the to provide equality between this and haven't korea provided insurance and as you do not, i think there is unfairness in the tax could -- -- between those who have employer providing insurance and those who do not. it has never made sense. i think that in the 1990's, it was $3,000. that was a whole different time,

and we had it at a different number because we were concerned about budgetary constraints. the wonderful thing with the bombing care is a barrel be some choice, some sort of availability of coverage for people, and i think having a refundable tax credit idea to help individuals and families purges health insurance is a better choice to do that. >> would there be a test for the fundamental credit? >> i have not put forth a plan

yet. generally speaking, higher- income people are generally insured, and so i think originally it was in respect of income, but, again, as you go of the income scale, the number of people who participate in this will be pretty small. >> nondiscrimination. keeping children on your health- care policy. >> >> two reasons. under the law, anybody who has insurance is covered by the pre- existing clause. that was not made clear. it was like everybody was being thrown off.

that is not the case. and if you had individual purchased insurance, they get nailed. that was wrong. but the biggest issue with pre- existing condition clauses have to do with people who do not have insurance and then what to get insurance, and, of course, the reason for the pre-existing condition clause is you do not want to create a situation where people do not obtain an insurance until they are sick or have an accident, and the reason barack obama has not in force the existing provision causes is until the mandate is put in. why? because of u.n. forces before, you encourage everyone to drop, because if you do not have to have insurance until you are sick, then, of course, why pay the premiums, and if you are young and do not have to worry about children -- without an individual mandate, this would lead to a much higher rate at a much higher premium

for everyone insured, so it sounds great, but unfortunately, there are unintended consequences, and the unintended consequences with regard to the pre-existing condition creates a moral hazard which is detrimental to everyone. it is not really a good. it can be a bad. there are situations where, of course, people are in difficult situations because of pre- existing edition crosses -- pre- existing condition clauses. they only ask for a year, and then after the year, they do cover it, in most cases. a lot of states have open enrollment. a lot of states have open enrollment. so are there situations and instances where this is a

problem? yes. but they are fairly limited, and what i would suggest is that using that as an excuse for a takeover of the health-care system, that is sort of like the tail wagging the dog. you have got to go through and look up who makes up the uninsured. half are uninsured for six months or less. i do not know what the case is. i have not looked at the statistics recently, and they may be different because of the recession. historically, the uninsured population generally turns over very quickly. secondly, you have got a sizable part of the uninsured who are illegal immigrants, and depending on what immigration group you believe and, anywhere between 8 million to 10 million at a time, and i do not know what the number is, 46 million, 47 million is a number that has

been thrown around a long time who are uninsured. roughly one-quarter of one-third of those who are not going to be covered under any system, unless we're going to guarantee insurance benefits to those who are in the country illegally. you look at another pot, and you are talking about a very small percentage of the population where there is a chronic uninsured problem. what ec year in the state of iowa is that you have people trying to get people signed up for medicaid. there are a sizable number of people who do not participate in it because they do not do what is necessary to do so, so you live with the chronically uninsured that are not illegal, are not eligible for medicare, and are not illegal, it is very small.

do we need to transform the entire system to take care of a very small niche of the problem. >> you said it was a very small number. >> it is a very small number of people who are chronically uninsured. you provide a refundable tax credit. you do something to provide an opportunity for them to get a basic policy, and the basic policy that i would encourage is to read a catastrophic insurance policy, which is a medical savings account by catastrophic insurance which is, as you look at it, is relatively inexpensive, and, again, is that the best possible health care plan for everybody? no. but not everybody has the best house. not everybody has the best car. this is what we have to begin to look at. all of the other necessities of life, we allow for people to have varying degrees of creature

comforts. why? because we are a people who ration our resources based on what is important to us, and health care has to be one of those things, and it is in the mix of those things that we make decisions about as to what kind of money we want to allocate to that. i have a woman the other day from some time -- somewhere in iowa who had to pay a lot of money for her prescription. this $200 a month keeps her alive, and she said, "yes, " and i said, "you are complaining about to murder dollars a month, and it keeps you alive? what is your cell phone bill pierre " you have to wonder dollars a month to keep you alive, and that is a problem, but it is the idea that we have that permeates in this country that health care is something you do not pay for.

there is a greater necessity and health care, and that is food. sure every american have food insurance? >> the farm programs are in effect from the insurance. >> they certainly were for a long time, but they were for a very limited number of commodities, a very limited, and i came from pennsylvania, and we did not have it for most of the foods, not the peaches, not the apples, not the strawberries, so we had some for the mainstays as well as things like cotton, which is very little to do and everything to do with the politics of agriculture.

so i will accept that, but it is only a limited area of agriculture. it is not a broad area of agriculture. i would say that we did not have a policy to encourage people to buy food insurance, " but if we did, imagine how much food? imagine if you went to the grocery store, and you had $500 per month, and you could get all of this and you wanted and have a little copay. you would not look at the prices at anything, does put things in your cart and check them out, and they say baathist $512, of which you pay $42. this is the problem. and we see this all of the time. if you have a pain in your back, and it is bothering me for a while, you go to the doctor. now, if you did not have to pay for the cat scan to take a look get it, you say, i want to see

if there is anything wrong. maybe if it is for a hundred dollars for the cat scan, you do not do that. but you do now begins you have a copayment of $40. everybody here pays for about $360. is that a good allocation of resources? is there one chance that something very severe has happened? yes. you hurt your back. you felt. those of the kinds of things that happen every single day in the health-care system, where people are not connecting treatment to dollars. in fact, they object to connecting a treatment to dollars. the only way that government has figured out how to do that is controlled from the top, limit the access to care, which is exactly what is going on with obama care. >> -- swept through a bruising battle over the federal debt

ceiling, and it looks like we are not out of that discussion. >> no, we are not. we kicked the can. >> so talk about your philosophy of government debt, spending, and deficits. >> i have a pretty long track record. i was one of the principal proponents of the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i strongly believe that is the long-term answer to maintain fiscal responsibility and i would argue to maintain freedom. you hear me talk a lot about how freedom, with obama care being, i think, the nail in the coffin to take people's freedom away and have them become completely dependent on the government for things that are essential to their lives, and limited government is forever going to be gone. we see that in every socialized medicine country where this becomes a bigger part of people's lives.

the government has control, or you have control. and so, one of the reasons i support the balanced budget amendment is there are over 40 senators that have signed onto it. it limits this to the historic average since world war two, and so, by limiting government to the percentage of gdp, you begin to have the government not taking over, under barack obama and his government, 40% of the economy. the government gets that big, it controls too much. i think having a cap on the size of government and having a requirement, an exit ramp, if there is an emergency, if three fifths of the house and senate decide to see that budget

limits, they can do so, which, of course, is no constraint in the senate. you need 3/5 of everything to do anything anyway. >> which means they do not do anything. >> you have to get 3/5 of the house. first of all, three fifths of the senate is not an easy thing to do. predictably what could be seen as by passing a constitutional requirement. you would find it hard to do unless there is an urgent need to duet -- to do it, which is the way it should be. >> it is difficult to get a simple majority in congress let alone two thirds. >> we find it very, very hard when you have no leadership, and the president has provided absolutely no leadership in this fight. >> what about you? >> you have to look at my record. they will say, you are a hard, tough conservative. yes, but we ended federal

entitlements. i got almost half of the democrats in the senate to vote for it. pretty much what i was suggesting to do with medicare. some people would say even more of something a lot log on to, incomes support. we were going to and an entitlement. >> what are the specific places you would cut in the federal budget could >> there are a whole host of programs that i would send back to the states. >> block grants. >> what we did was we put a cap on them. >> cuts. >> in washington, most would

agree that if you take a program that is growing at 8%, which is what medicaid is growing at, and you say it is not want to grow at that, and that is reducing the federal government's operations going forward. >> let's say the balanced budget amendment is in place today. that is not going to work. >> first of, i do not advocate -- some people think you can balance the budget tomorrow. i think that be irresponsible to cut 42% of the budget. we cannot do that. if you look at the amendment, five years from ratification, and ratification could take two about four years or maybe a little bit longer -- i think that is a responsible glide path to get year. one of the first things to do is you get the economy growing. we have a present to has done

everything he can to stifle growth and innovation in this country by oppressive government regulation. i saw some and a couple of days ago on the floor talking about an analysis that he did. excuse me asap. where i think he said that the government regulations were costing businesses tens of millions of dollars a month in this country. it is suffocating. what does the administration is doing with all of the regulatory agencies, so one of the things to do is look and see how we can get growth going with changes in the regulatory environment, but, again, we know best, we will tell you how to run your business, from health insurance to more, the government says, and this is it. sorry about that. in its contracting business, it

is paralyzing. you have a president that routinely, just like franklin roosevelt did during the depression, beat the crap out of businesses, telling them how bad they were, however point to tax them and regulate them. you have somebody who is quantity aggressively anti- business as the president is. the throw on top of that the fact that we are implementing this huge new bureaucracy and the cost of that, the taxes that are born to be in place, the mandates that are going to be in place, and looking at another, energy. the president has done more to drive up the cost of energy than anyone. if you deny permits up in alaska, we have a pipeline that may be shut down because there is not enough oil going through it, that the oil may stop, so

not only are we going to be in a situation where we are not drilling more, we are going to lose the production we have. we have an opportunity to drill in anwr. offshore, no. deep water, no. and everybody wonders why gasoline prices are high. a few years ago, we knew it was there, but now we can tap it, the second-largest gas range, called the marcellus shale. we have got people living everywhere. we have the second largest rural population. they do not like the hydrofrac king that is going on. what happened to natural gas prices?

it is going to be there for as long as the eye can see, and guess what is going to happened? people a point to start producing things where they are an important component. we have 263 years, 263 years of oil in the ground, and we can double it and still have over 100 years left. there is a new oil find, shale. the technology to get to these reserves that previously we were not able to get to. come to pennsylvania. we are drilling oil and gas wells in people's backyards.

there is an intense amount of activity. you have got to pump from the ground. this is not an inherently dangerous activity. have you seen a a picture an ofwr? it is flat. it is frozen 10 months out of the year. we are dealing -- drilling around children, and that is ok. you have a president, and we have an energy crisis, and a

terrible walks by, and he says we cannot do something for our country. i do not understand that people can sit there and say this is a rational policy, that we can sacrifice the economy of this country. you are worried about the uninsured, i will get you insurance. we produce more oil, there will be a lot more people being injured, but there are people that will say we cannot do this because of the caribou. let's be concerned about the uninsured. you cannot have it both ways. we have to look at what is responsible. the president is an ideologue who is driven by a belief that we need to have less, and government needs to be rationing these resources. >> to stimulate jobs?

>> absolutely. energy policies, first and foremost. to get manufacturing that going again. i grew up in pennsylvania, a steel town. most of my friends had good, middle-income salaries, and it was what created a stable, healthy, great place for kids to grow up. i think this is the reason we have lost the great middle. this is why we have folks who have lost insurance, because we do not make things. we still make a lot of things, but this has dramatically reduced, which means we have got to make more, and we hear about outsourcing and products being developed here and then being manufactured somewhere else. well, what i have said, we want

to make sure that those jobs come here, and natural gas, which is heavily used by industry being stable and the long-term stability of the, and we can do the same thing. this is an incentive for manufacturing to come back here, because energy -- if we can provide them stability over time, throw on top of that greater competitive environment for them to be successful, well, i have done that. i proposed a 0% corporate tax on manufacturing in this country, and we will see to manufacturers who want to manufacture here, not just to our market, but you want to manufacture for export markets, that we have no created a tax system. our tax system does not blend well with other countries around the world that have vat taxes.

zeroing out the corporate tax ends that big disadvantage encourages people to come here, not just to make products for this country but to be an exporter. this is a huge export state, and that is a huge component to increase in the economy. >> before we go, i want to ask about ethanol. aside from the tax issue, is there a role for ethanol? is ethanol a net good or a net bad? >> i tried to sing lieder. i get people to come in and talk to me.

i am not with the opposition on energy production. i am for it. >> you would oppose the tax incentives? >> i talk to the industry, and they were concerned about production. i understand there is an inherent problem because of the folks to basically own the distribution chains. i think this is a legitimate place for government to step in to provide access, and what i have learned, and i have learned

a lot, and steve has been a big help on this, because he is a conservative, and he is for ethanol. i had a little primer course from him, talking about making it a product that can actually compete in the market. i in the sky said in just about as bad as i have seen in promoting their products "snl, it is a boondoggle. it is an energy consumer. it is this and that." that may have been true when i was running against a loss of these back in the 1990's, but it is not true anymore, and so, i have stood up and said, i feel

like i'm at an aa meeting. "i am rick santorum." i did because they did not make economic sense, but to the credit of the industry, they have done a lot to improve the efficiency and technology with ethanol. i knew i was on the right track what i said it was viable and al gore came out and said it was not. we are probably heading down the right path, and, in fact, i think it does have a role in the energy mix, but what i have said to them, which is what i have said to the oil and gas, be going to treat them all equally. it should be given to the energy industry, but it should not be given extra credit for things that are beyond what a normal business would be in operation.

they can write off advertising and depreciate their assets. normal tax treatment, but no extra tax treatments for the industry. >> going back to the question of preschool, what do you say to parents who both work out of the home? should the white stay home -- should the white stay home? ? -- the wife say home and take care of the children? >> one of the parent staying at home. obviously, there were a lot of reasons for that. we have seen the dynamic changing due to the increase in taxation generally on the family. if you go back into 1952, the

average tax for the average american family was 2% that they pay to the federal government, and that was the social security tax. it is now over 15%. on top of that, other taxes, some income taxes. . your average family does not pay a lot, but it is still another 10% on top of that. this is what an average american family pays for the federal government in taxes. for what's look then the second earner brings an end.

do the mathematics. what is that person doing? you have someone working outside the home to pay the federal government what it is basically taking away from american families. i want to tell you that a lot of people do not want to do that but feel that they are forced to do that, simply to make ends meet.

i think he's been president made a mistake by telling the enemy we would be leaving before we had success. not somalia. i am talking about afghanistan. the mujahideen are standing there, and the united states basically abandons afghanistan to a very difficult state. the afghans have experienced americans not staying there and being there to trust them come in here we are in a situation where we are sort of back at it.

when the president says we are meeting, and i do not think anyone can question, for purely political reasons. we're going to get out right before my your election. that is reprehensible, that a president of the united states would put his political fortunes ahead of what is right for the men and women that he has not asked to go out there and sacrifice and died to protect our freedom and that he is putting the artificial deadline with his political forces. the endgame is success. the endgame is success. i think you make the commitment to succeed, and you have a strategy. success does not mean wiping out the taliban and having a jeffersonian democracy in afghanistan. it means having control of the

state, the taliban being a manageable threat by the government that is in place, and if the government that is in place is not necessarily the government that is there now, i think we have invested way too much on hamid karzai and not enough on the traditional way that afghanistan has been able to successfully govern itself in the past, so i think we have to look at the kind of government structure that we need. we need to tell the people of afghanistan that we are not going to walk out on them. >> so that can take several more years? >> there is a threat to the country for the reconstituted taliban. we saw that in iraq. we have an obligation. we have an obligation.