we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone feels empowered to hit the "send" button. we're not all the way there. how long have we been talking about interoperable communications that i think it is a national disgrace. i'm here to tell you. on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, knowing what transpired at the twin towers and the ability of these men and women who rushed

in to save the lives of other americans and international visitors and citizens were unable to communicate in a 9/11 commission chaired by two great americans. the highest priorities of the 9/11 commission was let's build an inoperable communications system. we still have not done that. there is this focus. concerned,ally that we need to get on a fast track. we are building a platform so

that these have the in our verbal communications. think about the investments that we have made and can made in the aftermath of 911. it generally helped improve the quality of life. you would build a broadband system in response to 9/11 in response to what transpired. just think if there is an accident somewhere. you talked to folks to try to communicate right after a here king goes to a particular community. -- after a hurricane goes through a particular community. broadband improve the safety of this community.

remember congress said that this will enable legislation. td of the hijackers -- two of the hijackers -- they said they needed an entry/exit system for your. we build it, [unintelligible] we've been doing it for six years. we have a record of everyone in commercial aviation. i cannot tell you today how many of them overstayed this.

they have cooperated. to think anyone is overstayed their reason? the vulnerability is had yet to address the 911 recommendations. but achieving these goals requires the navigation. we still have more work to do. do not get me wrong.

it resulted in an undeniably safer and more secure. the there certain things we still need to pay attention and yet to do. their exhortations relative to our security. we cannot expect that the government througcan create a ft safe environment. this'll never be completely eliminated. they must be managed. finally, at our airports, and we have to move incrementally, there are a couple of airlines and airports who have frequent fliers. let some go through a screening in a different way. you do not want to know how many

times i have done this. we really need to get in the mindset in managing the risks. parties have to be set. -- priorities have to be set. it is all going to be about trade-offs. i remember a big debate for several months. it was the topic of the day to spend billions offending commercial airlines against missiles. or you invest in a clear technology? wish you think is more important? which risk do you feel is more important? to your appropriate the money? do give more money to the state's ts? do you add more layers to security at chemical site?

the address if different security risk at mass transit tax to channel investment into health care or education? our fiscal realities have to deal with it. dore the only ways you can with it is to prioritize it in a world understands the cannot eliminate it. you have to manage its. the needs and wants are with us. resources are not. electederted in government most of my life. -- i have been serving in the elected government for most of my life. as congressman or governor, and nobody ever walked in my office to lobby for less. we had too much money leicester, let's take a 5% cut. with the fiscal realities today, we need to be more focused and surgical about the risks.

this reality requires that the public and private sector work together to manage the risk together. but sharing the responsibility, sharing talent, and sharing resources across both sectors. that responsibility is great. 10-years later, it is not get any easier. i have the continent's that weather is a will there is a way. we know what we have been through and can go through again. we're far better prepared. as the fight continues, so will be. so let each and every individual american whether they are wearing a public service in uniform, working in the private sector, or helping their families across the country.

i am proud to be associated with you. in the past 10 years, americans do not live in fear. that is not our nature. we live in freedom. we continue to work together to make sure that no one takes that freed them away. as thank you for the opportunity to share their thoughts with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> and going to break with protocol. and a couple of other things i want to share with you if you do not mind. -- i have a couple of other things i want to share with you if you do not mind. there have been a lot of changes in this country. we have learned a lot about the threats we face. mother nation felt some pretty tough things as well. we're smarter and more secure. we made a lot of partnerships. we had a lot of people moving in and out of home and security

families, on a different positions everywhere. with all this happening in all the changes, it is from day one. you have been one of those individuals. you leave the team. yet been there from the very beginning. the start with the national governors' association. predict it started with the national governors' association. you worked with my friends. this nice -- that is nice.

this family has been our leader. >> rick perry campaigns in new hampshire criticizing president obama. mr. obama held a town hall meeting in illinois as he wrapped up a trip to the midwest. after that, the deficit reduction committee. then a meeting with senator tom coburn. >> a former homicide investigator takes on the tough question "why do we kill?" that is when the books we're featuring this month including a book launch party for armstrong

williams and his new book " reawakening virtus." the complete schedule at booktv.org. you can watch almost all of our nine dozen programs online. >> rick perry campaigned in new hampshire today, saying president obama is that enough to create jobs. this is a regular stop for presidential candidates. this is 40 minutes. >> to all of you, and very cheery good morning. what a fabulous day. i do not think it is this way in texas. the heat may be a little bit

higher in texas. you are blessed to have this beautiful weather. it is good to be with you. this is an intriguing idea to say the least. thank you for coming today. you really honor us. there is a united states marine who has been serving in afghanistan. one of the reasons we are here today to have the three freedoms that we do our young men like years -- like yours. thank you. [applause]

i am blessed to be traveling with my wife. we gave them a little bit of a day off to catch up and rest a little bit. we have got great respect for in thete' and the first nation primary. i will be here a lot. i'm going to be campaigning with a fervor. you will see me a lot. you will see me in gauging often in new hampshire. particularly just coming in sitting and listening. also trying to answer questions about what we see as some of the big issues to face this country. i love any state that does not have a personal income tax.

i am kind of jealous of you that you did not have a sales tax either. that really makes a huge difference. i will talk a little bit about your economy as a whole. live free or die. you've got to love that. it is remindful of a little plays down in texas called the alamo. people were willing to sacrifice for the freedom that they hold so dear. people say, why are you running frofor president? >> because i want to get america working again. our nation cannot endure another four years of rising debt.

now we're told we're in a recovery. it sure does not feel like a recovery. there are millions of americans to cannot find a job. those are having to work full time. it is not feel like a recovery to them. one in six eligible americans cannot find a full-time job. that is not a recovery. that is an economic disaster. president obama said he had reversed the recession. of the past six months, and you run into a little bad luck. at the same time, some people dismiss job creation. there have been some on the left that said the fact is those 40% of the jobs created in america

since the ninth of june was just luck. badica's crisis is not luck. it is bad policies from washington, d.c. jobs come by keeping taxes low and controlling spending by reforming tort laws and ensuring regulations are fair and predictable. president obama's policies which she claims reverse the recession increased unemployment. they exploded the debt. they led to the first downgrade of credit in our country's history. apparently, his new economic plan is to create an agency for jobs. we need new jobs. we do not need new agencies. we do not need a government solution. we need the private sector to work and getting the government

out of the way. if you want to stimulate the economy, you let small businesses keep more of what they make. that is the way you stimulate the economy. here is another thing that we do in texas and we do -- here's another thing they need to do to really send a message across this country that you can be free to restore capital and have a good chance to get a return. yesterday, i talked about freezing all of the federal regulations for a six month time frame. this is regulatory overkill that is a serious threat to investor confidence and growth. there has been this tension between washington regulators and employers. the situation is rapidly

deteriorating. in 2010, and the obama administration implemented 43 new regulations that cost businesses more than $26 billion in this country. new efficiency standards for residential water heaters. that is getting down in the weeds. the fact of the matter is, those type of regulations, heating equipment, pull features. it will cost businesses. it will cost their customers $1.3 billion. the new standard to raise the price of a typical water heater by $120. that is just one example of almost a book full of examples. it is not just that these new ones keep this.

it is the uncertainty that is up there. they see this coming down the tracks. it is a monstrous cost to them. it must be repealed. the president's rhetoric of change it does not match his record. what they sold us in 2000 a they have not delivered. it is no wonder that businesses are holding money in reserves. as governor of texas, we have led with a few simple principles. principal number one, do not spend all of the money.

number two is have a tax searcher emplace that is as low as you can keep it and still be able to deliver the needed services. having regulatory clients that is fair and predictable. it is so important to have the predictability. there is a legal system that does not allow for furloughs lawsuits. just this last spring, the added to the tour reform. there is a loser pays. over the years, we follow this recipe to produce the strongest economy in the country since june of 2009. of all the jobs in america, it

is created in america. it is time to do the same thing in our federal government. the principals will work as well. it is time to put a limit in simplify our taxes. let him quit spending money we do not have. we need to restore are good credit. in new hampshire, you know what works. it is what is called the new hampshire advantage. it involves this republican legislature cutting spending and some of raising taxes. because of those courageous legislator tors. you have the best economy in new england to make it even better. i would suggest to override the veto of the governors of the

become a right to work state. the of the governor so that you become a right to work state. the president said and needed to watch what i say. i just want to respond back if i may. mr. president, actions speak louder than words. my actions as governor are helping create jobs in this country. the present actions are killing jobs. it is time to get america working again. thank you all for coming. but open it up for a few questions if we can. -- let's open it up for a few questions if we can. >> the governors want to take some questions. i ask that you identify

yourself. >> i will repeat them so everyone can hear back. >> baby out start off with the perce spirit >> -- i will start off with the first. >> in debating it, if you were present, would you have signed and accepted by was present, it never would have come to that. -- would you have signed it? >> if i was president, it never would have come to that. we clearly laid out the case for cutting spending and capping that ceiling and passing a balanced budget amendment. i would not have signed it. the idea at -- listen, we have to quit spending money. this is not rocket science. spending money we do not have

continues to put more in debt upon young women like alex sitting right here. the idea that we will spend more money that we do not have i think is -- it sends the wrong message to every part of the economy. yes, sir? >> my question is about what you started off with, honoring our veterans. i two brothers after serving. i have a dad who is a disabled veterans. a lot of young soldiers are coming home needing our help. there's talk about organizing retirement for military folks. the issue of the va is a controversial one. what is your thought of honoring them? >> the fact that i am a veteran -- we chose the wounded warrior project to be the recipient of

our in our rural proceeds that we had. we work not only in a public way but also in a private way to support those young men and women better coming home, some 11 deployed four and five times. i do not know how meantime your son has been deployed. multiple times for these kids. i cannot tell you how magnificent they are. i traveled to iraq and afghanistan multiple times. they are selfless. if they are sacrificial. for us that to take care of them, i will suggest the way we have to get our economy working again, get america working again and lower the taxes and the regulatory impact, i know

what this is. the give people an opportunity to have a return on their assessment. they will get out there and create jobs in the well. i know it works. that is what we have done in the state of texas. that engine is so powerful. for us not to have the resources coming in, so we can properly fund the programs, you have to be able to do that. you can talk about all the programs you want. if you do not have the money to be able to put into those programs, whether you have an economy that is strong enough so we have the offensive and tactical. they know that america is strong militarily. we have to get this economy back. that is the issue in front of

us. i know there'll be a lot of diversionary talk. they work for a young man he was discharged. here is what hundreds term disabled. is that we made a mistake here. these are the types of focuses that we have had on our veterans. there is not a group of young men and women that deserve our focus.

>> my question refers back to when we mentioned business tactics. can you explain to me why they should be allowed to pay lower tax rates? >> i cannot explain that. just because you have a good with the political world in get chosen to be on the governor's business council, we're not pay your fair share of taxes. when they're serving to keep their doors open, you have corporate entities.

that is a great company. this is what we need to do. we need to go back again and look at our tax code and simplify it. it and lower the impact on people. i was talking to representatives got from carolina 10 days ago, i believe. he has a piece of legislation heading towards a fair tax -- i am not saying it is the right idea, but it is heading in the right direction. we had a conversation and about our tax structure and how we simplify and lower it. here is another issue from my perspective -- corporate profits that are off sure that we tax at

35% -- we know for a fact that money is not coming back. why not talk about how you repatriate those dollars and have those dollars focused on job creation and allow them to come back and had a lower rate than 35% -- say something like if it's clearly going for job creation, like zero to get this economy working again. yes ma'am? >> there are a lot of things we cannot always agree on. one thing the city has come together on is the need for medical malpractice reform. it was something in health care that was not addressed.

i know you have addressed and texas [unintelligible] >> medical malpractice is something that -- texas was something that -- i would use the words that the wall street journal used, eight judicial hellhole, in the early 1990's. in 1995 we had some good steps in the right direction. in 2003 is one we really made the big impact in texas. we put in place some serious protections against frivolous lawsuits. we captain on economic damages or the doctor, hospital, or nursing homes would be protected from these monstrously out of sight settlements.

there were a lot of people who said that this is not going to work, it is going to limit people's access to health care. none of those things came true. none of them. i will tell you what did come true. this last year, 21,000 more positions practicing medicine in texas because they know they can do what they love and not be sued it frivolously. what a powerful message carried 30 counties in texas who did not have a emergency room doctor have won today. counties along the rio grande which were some of the really litigious counties where women were having to travel for miles and miles outside of the county to find and ob/gyn to seek prenatal type care, today they

have that. that is the result of medical malpractice reform -- tort reform that really matters and really makes a difference. people still have their access to the courthouse. people still have the ability to go in front of a jury trial. we protected against the frivolous suits. it is very important. i think that has to be done state-by-state. federal courts and federal law to reform, certainly. i support that. i hope there are members of the legislature that will come forward with those types of programs. state reform does not need to come from washington d.c.. >> thank you for coming. we followed texas as a role

model and its reform of judicial -- [unintelligible] what the most inefficient programs that the government runs is capital punishment. d.c. a point where we decide it is just not worth it? >> i think that is a state-by- state issue. it is really interesting to have the conversations about all of these different issues that people think a constitutional amendment needs to be passed for. if there are enough people in america and enough states that believe capital punishment needs to be prohibited across the country, then that will happen. if not, then state-by-state they will make that decision. in the state of texas, our

citizens have clearly said that they support by overwhelming majority capital punishment. i just lay it out there as an issue for americans and state- by-state. if they want to pass a constitutional amendment, i would suggest to you, i will work a whole lot harder on a balanced budget amendment to the united states pose a constitution and i m on one to ban capital punishment. >> thank you for coming, governor. you wrote in your recent book that global warming is phony that >> some say earth is expressing a cooling trend. my question is, is -- if

observed scientific data is wrong on that issue involving thousands of scientists on an issue like global warming, does this not call into question the entire scientific process? >> you may have a point. i do believe the issue of global warming has been politicized. i think there are a substantial amount of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. i think we are seeing get almost weekly or daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is called -- causing the climate to change. yes, our client is changing. they have been changing ever since the earth was formed.

i do not buy that a group of scientists who have in some cases found it to be manipulating this information, and the cost to the country and the world of implementing these anti carbon programs is in the billions if not trillions of dollars at the end of the day. i do not think from my perspective that i want america to be engaged in spending that much money on a scientific theory that has not been proven. from my perspective, it is more and more being put into question. yes, sir? >> in light of the debt that the country has right now,

notwithstanding the unfunded liabilities or entitlements, most of the debt in this country can be traced -- it was not a problem until there was a federal reserve system. >> i got trouble for not talking about the federal reserve yesterday. i got lectured about that yesterday. >> i am just trying to wonder if he would be an advocate for at least auditing the federal reserve? >> i think there have been a number of candidates that have stood up over the course of the month and it really questioned the transparency of the federal reserve. absolutely. whether you are the governor of a state to, whether you are the president of the united states, whether you are the head of an

agency or an independent branch of government -- not a branch of government but an agency of government like the federal reserve, they should open their books up. they should be transparent so the people of the united states know what they are doing, how they are doing it, and, frankly, if the mistrust that is there today -- if they would simply open up and be transparent with the american people, i think they would go about finding out whether there is some activity. until they do that, i think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the united states.

>> to leverage much for coming to new hampshire. and this year of 2007, the total gdp was 2.12 trillion dollars. the annual deficit today is 1.6 trillion dollars, and the gdp is 14.2 trillion dollars. we have been in a holding pattern since the end of the last republican president. what would you do about fixing the problem? >> obviously, working with the house of representatives and the senate, i am a little biased here. i hope we put up 20 or 30 more seats in the united states house and run the table and have 60 republican senators to work with. that would make a lot easier

from my perspective. working with those two legislative bodies, to put a budget in place that is balanced. start freeing up the private sector to create the wealth and that it will take to pay off that, i think close to $16 trillion national debt. but if the legislature for what ever reason does not agree that that is the way we should go, the president has one other powerful tool. that is his pen to veto spending bills. i love this country enough to wear out the ink in a veto pen if that is what it takes to say we will not spend money we do not have. our children pose the future is more important than that.

>> good morning. i am a mother of a united states marine. in your opening remarks, you mentioned our state's model, live free or die. if you thought you individual liberty, i wonder how you reconcile that all you with your executive order to mandate medical treatments specifically with the vaccine to little girls and texas. if that was a mistake, how you reconcile your recent support of legislation were the state of texas now mandates medical treatment specifically the meningitis vaccine for college students up to age 13 whether they reside on campus or not? >> my wife is a registered

nurse. her father is a physician of 52 plus years. both of my parents are cancer survivors. i hate cancer. we passed a piece of legislation in texas in 2007, the same year that i sign that executive order to invest $2 billion over the next 10 years to find the cures for cancer. the issue for me was one of cancer. i made a mistake. clearly in how we put that forward without working with the legislature. it did create not only a firestorm, but it also created a conversation between parents, mothers and their daughters that i really think was helpful.

that way they could make a decision on whether or not they wanted to have access. the legislature clearly set meet a message that that was not the way they wanted to go. i respected that, and i still respected today. the idea that we have got diseases that are killing our children and that we have proven maxine's like the one for meningitis and we are not making it available, i think it is unconscionable. i think it is our responsibility to take care of the citizens of our state. again, it is a state issue. the texas legislature agreed with that. i signed that piece of legislation. if you do not want to do that and new hampshire, i respect that. in texas, we think it is

important to protect our kids against a number of diseases. we've mandate -- we mandate vaccines for those pretty close to the legislature process. i learned a good lesson of not getting out front of the legislature to far. >> he spoke of private sector as opposed to the government for bringing our economy back in line. i am hoping what -- i am wondering what your plan is to remove and transitioned the heavy government involvement into the private sector? >> it is not going to happen. per question is how you remove the regulatory impact that is very pervasive throughout our economy and move our country back towards a more federalist

type of approach. is that a fair way to -- [unintelligible] >> in reference to the book he brought up -- you can find that at bonds and noble or amazon.com. the proceeds go to -- i talked about that in the book. we really have gotten away from our roots. the government and particularly the centralized government -- look. it is human nature to acquire more power. whether it is in a state or whether is at a county or city

level, people tend to accumulate power. we need to wean our way away from that. for instance, on the regulatory side. if i am so blessed to be president of the united states, there will be men and women going into those agencies that are clearly pro-business advocates. they will bring that philosophy with them. i think it is one of the things that is missing in washington, d.c. we almost have an anti business climate. the idea that the national labor relations board would stop a company like a bowling from going into a right to work state like south carolina is beyond me. if you needed just 80 per sticker snapshot of what is going on with this

administration, there you have one. i am a pro-business governor. i do not make apologies to anyone about that. i will be a pro-business president. i would not apologize to anybody about that. i think that is the future of america that we get this country working again. >> you get the last question, sir. >> [unintelligible] could you tell us a little about

your views of retirement savings and whether they should be protected? >> simply put, i agree about your position. there should be incentives out of government for specific things. whether it is energy and it trying to get this country more energy dependent -- i think you should have a conversation nationally about how we give incentives to those. i think we need to give incentives to our citizens for their savings so that they can become more personally responsible. incentives work. obviously, we will have a great and abroad conversation about which ones are right and which ones are not, but the fact of the matter is, people respond to incentives. they help bring businesses there to compete with other states. i think that is fine and we should be thoughtful. as i said earlier, and i will

route, those offshore profits that are being taxed at 35%, which should give those companies an incentive to bring that company back on shore to the united states to create jobs. thank you for letting me be a part of this today. [applause] >> i want to thank the government for taking time out of his busy schedule to stand by -- to stop by here. we wish him good luck and good health as he goes to the great state of new hampshire. he will spend a great deal of time here, so i am sure he will spend a lot of time drinking coffee. i cannot think of a better gift than a texas sized mug. thank you, a good luck.

[applause]

>> republican presidential candidate rick perry.

>> governor. wasted little time, including president obama's policies in his cross hairs. >> one in six americans cannot find a full-time job. that is not a recovery. that is an economic disaster. >> after a little q and a r topics ranging from health care mandates to global warming, after meeting with employees and business leaders, we sat down with rick. to discuss among other things his christian faith. >> i would simply say, i am a big believer in the 10 commandments. which one of those do you have a problem with? my faith is part of my life. >> on the economy, perry said he would follow the steps he did in texas. he said at ben bernanke printed more money, it is akin to

treason. >> let's get back to what we know works. cut taxes, cut out regulations, get america working again. >> as for the rest of the republican field, he said take a look at his record and decide for it yourself. he plans to spend a lot of time in new hampshire, and he looks forward to mix it up. >> in hampshires -- in new hampshire, and have a lot of good people. >> track the campaign at c-span website. it helps you glance -- it helps you follow the political landscape with facebook updates from the campaigns and the latest polling data. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama concluded

his tour today in illinois, including one in atkinson about 30 miles east of malin. he focused on jobs and the economy for a little over one hour. >> thank you so much. everybody have a seat. it is good to be back home. [applause] id is good to be back. i just came back from the county fair. i want to acknowledge a few people who were with us today, wonderful, wonderful folks. first of all, our secretary of sec -- are secretary of transportation raymond lahood is in the house.

our secretary of agriculture is here. [applause] [unintelligible] what you have a head in store for you. i want to thank the washington family for -- i had not had lunch. i want to thank them for hosting us here today. please give them a big round of

applause [applause] i want to thank lee said. where is leigh said? -- is that lisa? because they had to shut down the road and do all of this, i know some of you have not been able to enjoy all of her food. then try to eat up as much as possible. i understand you have a pie coming? is that correct? what kind of pie? coconut cream and a cinnamon roll. i am very excited it got that. coconut cream is one of my favorite pies. thank you. it also have congressman bobby schillings here. [applause]

now, it is absolutely terrific to be back home. i just want to first of all say to so many of you that when i was still running for the united states senate and a lot of people did not know my name -- this young lady has a picture from -- [applause] and so we have been traveling through the backroads of iowa, illinois, it is such a reminder of why i decided to get involved in public service in the first place. we have been going over -- we have been going through a tough time these past two and a half years.

the worst recession since the great depression. we saw 8 million jobs lost, 4 million before i took office and a lot of small businesses got hit. there were folks who wonder whether it still happens or if they're behind us. when i travelled through downstate illinois and iowa and through the midwest, i am absolutely confident about this. the reason is because of you. the reason is because of the american people. there is not a country on earth that would not readily change places with us.

we still have the best workers in the world. we have the best scientists. the best universities. we have so much going for us. they hire new people. they're going into markets. there's nothing wrong with this. there's something wrong with our politics. there is something wrong with our politics. when you look of this debacle with the debt ceiling. there realize that our politics and engaging in potentially

seeing the fault of the united states of america, that has no place and how we move forward together. this country is offering up a common ground. when we are divided, we end up having a whole lot of self convicted problems. the economy has gotten better than 15 first step office. we have seen over 2 million private sector jobs created. we still have a long way to go. it is urgent for us to make sure that we are joining together. your thinking about the country first.

that is the message that we need to send to washington. there are some things we could be doing right now to put them back to work. of the last several weeks, i've been talking about it is still things we need to do. there is no reason why we should not extend a payroll tax cuts. they have more money to spend. businesses have more customers. the economy grows. we could renew their right now to give businesses the certainty that they will have customers next year as well. the only thing all the men back is our politics. there's a reason why we should

not pass it. there is a reason why we should not put americans back to work rebuilding america. i will drive it in here. at the there is a newcomer station being built. we need roads and bridges and schools all across the country that can be rebuilt. all the folks that live up because of their construction because it burns, they're dying for work. contractors are willing to come in under budget. interest rates are low. we could finance the rebuilding of infrastructure across america that dreadnought only

unemployment and unemployment down across the board. traditionally that has been an american issue. if taken pride in rebuilding america. we should be passing trade deals right now because, look, the koreans, they can sell kias and hyundais here in the united states; i think that's great. i want to be selling fords and chryslers and chevys in korea. and i want products all across the world stamped with three words: "made in america." that's something that we could be doing right now. there's a bill pending in congress right now that's called

the america invents bill. it basically says entrepreneurs who are coming up with good ideas -- let's say if the wyffel brothers came up with a new strain and they wanted to patent it in some way, make it easier for them so that they can market it and make money off it and hire people for it. we could do that right now. the only thing that's holding us back is our politics. look, over the last six months, even though the economy has been growing, even though the economy has been recovering, it has not recovered as fast as it could. and some of those things are not in our control. we couldn't control the tsunami in japan that disrupted supply chains. we could not control what happened in the middle east that drove up gas prices. we don't have complete control over what happens in europe with their problems. and all those things have affected our economy, but there are so many things that we've got control over right now that we could be doing to put people

back to work. and by the way, there's no reason to think that putting people back to work is somehow in conflict with us getting our fiscal house in order. you know, this downgrade that happened, they didn't downgrade us because america couldn't pay its bills. they downgraded it because they felt that our political system couldn't seem to make good decisions in order to deal with our budget the same way families deal with their budgets. and so, the fact of the matter is, is that we came close to a grand bargain, which would have said, we're going to cut spending we don't need in order to pay for the things we do. we're going to eliminate unnecessary programs so we can pay for student loans, so they can go to the university of illinois or university of iowa. we know that we've got to invest in basic research; that's part of what made us the most productive agricultural powerhouse in the world.

so we don't want to cut back agricultural research in order to pay for it; we got to get rid of some things. but what we've also said is we've got to do it in a balanced way. we've got to do it in a balanced way. a couple days ago, warren buffett wrote a op-ed piece in which he said, "it's time to stop coddling billionaires." and he pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including his secretary. that doesn't make any sense. if everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, that we're not going to put the burden on any single person, we can solve our deficit and debt problem next week. and it wouldn't require radical changes, but it does have to be balanced.

i don't want a tax break, as lucky as i've been, if that tax break means that a senior citizen is going to have to pay an extra $6,000 for their medicare. that's not fair. i think it makes sense before we ask that student to pay a little more for their student loan, we should ask those oil and gas companies to get rid of some corporate tax loophole that they don't need because they've been making record profits. a lot of this is common sense. i was saying -- i was at a town hall in a minnesota -- i pointed out, you know, when -- there have been times in my life -- michelle and i, things were a little tight, when we were just starting a family and had all

these new expenses, and we had to make some choices. we didn't say to ourselves, well, we're not going to put any money into the college fund so we can keep on eating fancy dinners anytime we want. we didn't say to ourselves -- i didn't say to michelle, honey, you got to stop buying clothes but i'm going to keep my gold clubs. what we said was, well, let's figure out what are the things that are going to be important to our family to make sure it succeeds not just now but in the long term; let's invest in those things and let's stop investing in the things that don't work. and the same approach has to be taken for the american family.

now, what's been striking as i've been traveling through over the last few days -- you guys, you're all fulfilling your responsibilities. you're working hard, you're looking after your families, you're volunteering at church, you're coaching little league -- you're doing everything right. and all you're asking for, if i'm not mistaken, is that your political representatives take their responsibilities just as seriously. people have been asking me, well, why didn't you call congress back after this whole debt ceiling thing? why'd you let them leave town? i say, well, i don't think it would be good for business confidence and certainty just to see members of congress arguing all over again. i figured it was time for them to spend a little time back in their districts, hear your frustrations, hear your

expectations. as i've been driving on this bus, just seeing all those flags on the way in, seeing folks waving, little kids ready to go back to school, and grandparents in their lawn chairs, and folks out in front of the machine shop and out in front of the fire stations -- you go through small towns all throughout america, and it reminds you how strong we are and how resilient we are and how decent we are. and that should be reflected in our politics, that should be reflected in our government. and that's why i'm enlisting you -- that's why i've got to enlist you in this fight we have for our future. i need you to send a message. i need you to send a message to folks in washington: stop drawing lines in the sand, stop engaging in rhetoric instead of actually getting things done. it's time to put country ahead of party, it's time to worry more about the next generation

than the next election. if we do that, i guarantee you nobody can stop us, atkinson. nobody can stop the united states of america. god bless you. thank you. so what i want to do is -- now, i just want to take some questions. and it's not very formal -- you just raise your hand. we got folks with microphones. i'm going to go boy, girl, boy, girl, so it's fair. and i'm going to try to get in as many questions as i can. so do stand up and introduce yourself, though. i want to know who i'm talking to. all right? i'll start with this gentleman

right here since he's right next to the mic. >> is it on? >> yes, there you go. >> rod catchdig (ph). welcome to atkinson, mr. president. >> thank you, sir. >> i farm north of here. we enjoy growing corn and soybeans, and we feel we do it as safely and efficiently as we possibly can. and mother nature has really challenged us this growing season -- moisture, drought, whatever. please don't challenge us with more rules and regulations from washington, d.c., that hinder us from doing that. we would prefer to start our day in a tractor cab or combine cab rather than filling out forms and permits to do what we'd like to do. >> well, we've got the secretary of agriculture right now, so is there a particular -- is there a particular rule that you're worried about? >> we hear what's coming down about noise pollution, dust pollution, water runoff. sometimes the best approach is just common sense, and we are already using that. >> yes. here's what i'd suggest is, the -- if you hear something is

happening, but it hasn't happened, don't always believe what you hear. ) no -- and i'm serious about that. because a lot of times, what will happen is the folks in washington -- there may be some staff person somewhere that wrote some article or said maybe we should look into something. and i'm being perfectly honest, the lobbyists and the associations in washington, they'll get all ginned up and they'll start sending out notices to everybody saying, look what's coming down the pike. and a lot of times we are going to be applying common sense. and if somebody has an idea -- if we don't think it's a good idea, if we don't think that there's more benefit than cost

to it, we're not going to do it. and so, i want to make sure that everybody gets accurate information. if you ever have a question as to whether we're putting something in place that's going to make it harder for you to farm, contact usda. talk to them directly. find out what it is that you're concerned about. my suspicion is a lot of times they're going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded. but nobody is more interested in seeing our agricultural sector successful than i am, partly because i come from a farm state. and i spent a lot of time thinking about downstate issues as a united states senator. and i'm very proud of the track record that we've developed. if you look at what's been happening in terms of agricultural exports -- what's been happening in terms of agricultural income during the time that i've been president of the united states -- i think we've got a great story to tell. and i want to continue to work with you and other farmers to make sure that we're doing it in the right way that's not

inhibiting you from being successful. >> thank you. we appreciate that. >> appreciate you, sir. young lady right back there with the glasses on. there she is. >> welcome, mr. president, to henry county. my name is luanne levine (ph), and i own a local real estate company here in henry county, over in geneseo. so you know we're i'm headed: housing. every week i sit around the kitchen table of families that are here today and i listen to the stories of a lost job, upside down in their house. and they ask, luanne, how can you help? what programs are out there?

i have to say i saw a turnaround come may and june. my phone was ringing. i was busier than all get-out. i could see that the country -- yes, we are in rehab. people have made adjustments and i saw progress. since the debt ceiling fiasco in washington, the phones have stopped. we have no consumer confidence after what has just happened. interest rates are a record low. i should be out working 14 hours a day, and i am not. what are your future plans in helping middle-class america -- generation x and y and middle- class america will get the country out of where we are, and i want to know what are your contingent plans? >> well, first of all, you're absolutely right that housing has been at the key -- at the

core of a lot of the hardships we've been going through over the last two and a half years. and that's why we've made it such a priority to try to help families stay in their homes the last two and a half years. and that's why we've made it such a priority to try to help families stay in their homes if they can still afford the home. there were some folks who couldn't -- who bought homes they couldn't afford, but there were a lot of folks who just had a run of bad luck because somebody lost a job or lost a shift. and so what we've been trying to do is push the banks, push the servicers to do loan modifications that will allow people to stay in their homes and will try to buck up housing prices generally. >> can i -- can i please say -- >> sure, go ahead. >> -- the loan modification system has been a nightmare. short sales are a nightmare. and the lenders are so tight and you have to be so perfect, and it's not a perfect world. >> well, what we've been trying to do is make sure that -- we've probably had a couple of million loan modifications that have been taking place.

the problem is, is that the housing market is so big. and so a lot of families have just had to work down their debts, and they've been successful -- and as you said, we were starting to see things bottom out and confidence start picking up. now, i can't excuse the self- inflicted wound that was that whole debt debate. it shouldn't have happened the way it did. we shouldn't have gotten that close to the brink. it was inexcusable. but moving forward, i think a lot of this has to do with confidence, as you said. >> a hundred percent. >> companies have never been more profitable. they're seeing record profits, it's just they're hoarding their cash, they're not investing it. a lot of banks have now recovered, but they're not lending the way they used to. now, they need to have slightly tighter lending criteria than they used to have, obviously, because that was part of the reason that we had that housing bubble. but one of the things we've talked about is, can we encourage banks now to take a look at customers who are good credit risks, but are being unfairly punished as a conse>> uence of what happened overall? there are some other ideas that we're looking at on the housing

front. but i'll be honest with you, when you've got many trillions of dollars' worth of housing stock out there, the federal government is not going to be able to do this all by itself. it's going to re>> uire consumers and banks and the private sector working alongside government to make sure that we can actually get the housing moving back again. and it will probably take this year and next year for us to see a slow appreciation again in the housing market. what we can do is make sure we don't do any damage. and that's what happened in this last month. that's why i was so frustrated by it, and i suspect that's why you were so frustrated by it as well. >> very much. >> the last thing i'll say, though, is if we get the overall economy moving, if we pass this payroll tax cut, if we get some of these tax credits for

businesses that we passed back in december extended into next year so that we're giving incentives for folks to invest in plants and e>> uipment now -- if the overall economy is doing well, that means consumers are doing better, it also means that housing will start doing better as well. all right? thank you so much for your great question. >> thank you. >> gentleman in the glasses, right there. yes, sir. >> hi, mr. president. my name is larry floriani (ph) and i work at the rock island arsenal. and thanks a lot for coming to our town. we're really happy to have you here so we can talk to you. >> you bet.

>> okay, my question is, what do you think the simpson-bowles commission contributed to the deficit and debt discussion, and what do you expect will be accomplished by the new super congressional committee? >> well, first of all, let me thank everybody who does work at the arsenal, because you guys are out there and you've been saving lives and making sure our troops are well e>> uipped for generations now. so thank you. the bowles-simpson committee, this is a committee that i set up to look at our current fiscal situation to see what could be done. and it was a bipartisan committee, it was chaired by a well-known republican, alan simpson, former senator, and erskine bowles, who used to be the chief of staff for bill clinton. and it had e>> ual numbers of democrats and republicans, as well as business sector and private sector leaders. and basically what they recommended was what i've been talking about, which is a balanced approach in which we're

making some modifications to what's called discretionary spending -- that's the spending we do every year on everything from farm programs to student loan programs to food stamps to you name it -- that we cut defense spending in a sensible way, that we look at how we can make modifications that strengthen social security and medicare for the next generation, and how we raise additional revenue so that we bring the overall budget into a sustainable place. and the truth of the matter is, is that the commission recommendations are ones that not only i, but the so-called gang of six, these senators in the united states senate, agreed to as well. and that was bipartisan, you had democrats and republicans. it was that kind of balanced package that i proposed to speaker john boehner that we move forward on.

and, frankly, we came pretty close. and i'll tell you, i think speaker boehner was prepared to do it. but he got some resistance in his caucus, because they said, we're not going to vote for anything that has revenue in it. and so instead of doing this big package that got our debt and our deficit sustainable, what we got was this $1 trillion worth of cuts where we needed $4 trillion to close the deficit and the debt, and we got this commission to come up with another $1. 5 trillion. now, i continue to believe that we need a balanced approach. so when this committee comes forward, i'm going to be making a presentation that has more deficit reduction than the $1. 5 trillion that they have been assigned to obtain. because i don't think it's good

enough for us to just do it partway. if we're going to do it, let's go ahead and fix it. and if we're going to fix it, the only way, i believe, to do it in a sensible way is you've got to have everything on the table. you can't take things off the table. and i've been concerned that speaker boehner has already said that the folks he assigned, none of them can vote to increase revenues. that's a concern of mine. i was concerned when i saw the republican presidential candidates -- somebody asked them, well, if you got $10 of spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue, would you be willing to accept it, and all of them said no. now, that's just not common sense. i can't imagine that's how

atkinson runs its operations, right? i mean, if the mayor had to deal with a situation in which we're not going to pay for anything -- we're not going to pay for roads, we're not going to pay for schools, we're not going to pay for garbage pickup -- you name it, we're not going to pay for it -- but we still expect you to provide those services, the mayor would be in a pretty tough spot. there's no reason why we would expect the federal government to operate in the same way. so the bottom line is this: i will be presenting, as i've already presented -- i did back earlier this year -- a plan that says we're going to have spending cuts and we're going to have revenue. we'll have more spending cuts than we have revenue, but we're going to have to take a balanced approach and everything is going to be on the table, including our long-term obligations, because the thing that is driving the deficit, if you look at -- we had a balanced budget back in 2000. here's what happened. number one is we decided that we would cut taxes without paying for it. so we had huge tax cuts in 2001, 2003.

then we had two wars. and for the first time in our history, we didn't pay for our wars. when our grandparents fought in world war ii, the entire country paid for the wars that it fought. they didn't pass it onto the next generation, didn't put it on a credit card. we were the first generation not to pay for the wars that we fought. and then we had a big prescription drug plan that was added to medicare, and that wasn't paid for. then the recession hits, which means less money is coming in but more money is going out in terms of helping the unemployed or helping states and local governments not lay off teachers and firefighters and so on. you combine all those things, we've got a big debt and a big deficit. the good news is this is not -- it doesn't re>> uire radical surgery for us to fix it. an approach that says we're a family and all of us are going to share a little bit in the burden. and those of us who are most

fortunate, we can do a little bit more. and corporations, they can afford to close some loopholes and simplify the tax code to get it done. all right? thank you. all right, this young lady in the pink right here. yes. >> hello. i'm jan lowhouse (ph). i'm from tiskilwa, illinois. >> good to see you, jan. >> thanks. it's about 30 miles east of here. it's a rural community based on farming. my question is about jobs. i think you have done some improvement in jobs, but what can you do without congress today to make a change in jobs and so we can see a growth in job opportunities? >> well, there are some things that we can do without congress, and we're trying to do them. so, for example, i set up a jobs council made up of a lot of employers, both small businesses but also some of the biggest companies in the world, and asked them what can we be

doing to encourage job growth. and they've come up with a series of recommendations, some of which don't involve congress at all, and we're trying to implement them. so a while back i announced we've got a lot of vets coming back from afghanistan and ira>> who have incredible experience -- 25-year-olds who were leading platoons into battle, 26-year-olds who were handling $100 million pieces of e>> uipment. but the problem is, is that we're not doing as good of a job helping them market the skills and experience and leadership that they have to employers and we're not linking them to employers who may be able to use their talents. and so we just announced so we just announced a week ago a whole new initiative where the department of defense would have a reverse boot camp, where you train folks to come in to the

military, you train them going out to figure out how they're going to get jobs and we got commitments from -- and we got commitments from employers all across the country to stay we are going to hire veterans. and in some cases, what we want to do to change certifications, for example. i will give you an example, i had lunch way group of veterans in minnesota a couple days ago. one was an emergency medic who had been in theater and you can imagine what that must be like. and he had come back, he wanted to be a nurse, he was having to take the whole nursing program from scratch. here he had been dealing with, you know, young men and young

women in uniform who had the worst kinds of medical emergency. he's patching them up under the most extraordinary restraint. he's having to go back as if he had never been in the medical field at all. that's a waste of money. that doesn't make sense. so those are examples of things that we can do administratively. the other thing this gentleman here asked me about regulations. one of the things we're doing is we're saying show us particular regulations that may be getting in the way of you hiring. and there are going to be some that are important. we want clean air, we want clean water. but if there's a bunch of bureaucratic red tape and it's not actually improving the situation, let's figure out how to get rid of some existing rules.

and let's review every rule that comes in for its cost and its benefits. that's something we can do administratively. there are some things we can help on. but, frankly, we can do a lot more if we got congress's cooperation. every proposal that i talked about previously, those are proposals that historically have had support from republicans and democrats. these aren't radical ideas. building roads, when did that become a partisan issue, putting folks back it work? you know, i mean, eisenhower built the interstate highway system. [applause] dwight eisenhower built the highway system and right he's a very popular republican. this is what i mean about politics getting in the way sometimes. you can't bring an attitude that says i would rather see my opponent lose than america win. you can't have that attitude. so --

[applause] the gentleman right here with the goatee. right there. >> thank you, mr. president. my name is justin hubs. i see a lot of presidential nominees signing pledges not to raise taxes. i was wondering if you could make a pledge that any deal will have a revenue increase? >> well, here's -- it's just man. if you have a deal that does not have revenue in it and you still want to close the deficit by, say, $4 trillion which is what

the experts say is required in order to stabilize our debt and deficit. and this is over a ten-year period. if you have no revenue, the only way to do that is you have to drastically cut things like medicare. you have to -- there's no two ways about it. have you to drastically cut medicare. have you to drastically cut medicaid. have you got to cut back on education support. in significant ways that affect school kids right here in atkinson and all across the country. so, sins i'm in wiffles hybrids, it's like in your seat corner. you are cutting back on the things that are going to help you grow and help this country succeed over the long term.

it's not a smart thing. it's now how you would run your family business. i think it's important so we can raise revenues we're talking about without having impact on middle class family and struggling and having seen income and wages go up in over a decade now. it can be done. the tax code is full of loopholes. close the loopholes. the -- [applause] when it comes to the corporate tax rate, we can actually lower the overall cooperate tax rate, which would make us more competitive if we closed up a bunch of loopholes that special interests and lobbyists have been able to get into the tax code. it might put lawyers out of business.

but it would be the right thing to do. and when it comes to upper income folks, i talked about warren buffett, but the truth is, i will just give you one example, the reason warren buffett's taxes are so low is because he typically gets his income from capital gains. capital gains are taxed at 15%. now, your income taxes, you're not being taxed at 15%. most of you. and as a consequence, these days the richer you are, the lower your tax rate. that can't be something that is defensible regardless of party. i don't care if you're democrat or republican or independent. that can't be the way it is.

one last point i want to make about these pledges, i take an oath. my pledge is to make sure every day i'm waking up looking out for you, for the american people. [applause] so i don't go around signing pledges because i want to make sure that every single day, whatever it is, is going to be best for the american people. that's what i'm focused on. that's what i'm committed to. that's how i think every representative in congress should be thinking, not about some pledge where they signed for some special interest group or some lobbyist or some association somewhere. they should be thinking what's best for the country. all right. this young lady has been very patient right here. yes, you. >> hi, i'm kelly wyffels, relation to bob and bill.

i'm a student at western illinois university. >> what are you studying? >> i'm a supply chain management major and french major, and i'm wondering what you think is one of the best majors to major in, in order to get a job? our professor seems to think that there's a lot of job opportunities out there but i wonder what other majors you think are good for students to study. >> first of all, i can tell you, you will be good at whatever you do. [applause] so when you finish, you let me know. we'll talk to lahood -- or vilsack. we may hire you. you seem very impressive. the -- you're already ahead of the curve because what you understand is that the economy is changing and the days when just because you're willing to work hard, you can automatically find a job, those days are over.

truth of the matter is that everything requires an education. i don't have to tell the farmers here, you know. you guys are looking at g.p.s. and have all kinds of equipment. studying markets around the world. it is a complicated piece of business. that you're engaged in. it's not just a matter of going out with a plow in a field. and that's happened to every industry. when i go into factories these days, what's amazing is how clean and how quiet they are. what used to take a thousand folks to do now only takes 100 folks to do of the one of the challenges in terms of rebuilding our economy is businesses have gotten so efficient, that -- when was the last time somebody went to a bank teller instead of using a.t.m. or used a travel agent instead of just going online.

a lot of jobs that used to be out there requiring people now have become automated and that means us investing in our kids' education. nothing is more important. nothing is more important. and you also have a good question, which is don't just go to college without having some idea about what interests you. the supply chain management i think is a great field because because the world is shrinking and products from atkinson end up on a dinner table in china somewhere. and that people understand how to move product and services and people in efficient ways. there's going to be high demand for them. i don't think your professor is just trying to keep you in class. i think he's actually onto something here. one of the things i'm worried about and we're trying to put a lot of emphasis on in the department of education is can

we do more tone courage math, science, engineering, technology learning. because i can guarantee you, if you're a skilled engineer, if you're a skilled computer scientist, if you have got strong math skills and technical skills, you are going to be very employable in today's economy. that has to start even before young people get to college so we're trying to institute a whole what's called a stem program, science, technology, engineering and math in the lower schools so kids start getting oriented towards those fields. that's where we traditionally have had a comparative advantage but we're losing ground to china and india and places like that where those kids are just focused on those subjects. and we need more of those. so you keep on studying the

supply chain management. i will tell you, though, just in case there are any french teachers here, foreign language teachers, having a foreign language, that's important too. that makes you so much more employable. [applause] because if you go to a company and they're doing business in france or belgium or switzerland or europe somewhere and they find out you have got that language skill, that's going to be important as well. and we don't do that as much as we should. we don't emphasize that as much as we should here in the united states. so congratulations. proud of you. >> thank you. [applause] couple more? it's a guy's turn, isn't it? i've got to call on this guy right here. what's your name, young man? >> my name is alex mcel voy -- >> alex, how old are you? >> i'm 10 -- >> no, you're not.

>> 11, sorry. >> did you just have a birthday? >> yesterday. >> yesterday was your birthday? >> yeah. >> happy birthday! >> thank you, mr. president. >> big round of applause for alex. he's 11. [applause] >> my grandpa is a farmer and he owns part of the local s & l plant. i was wond -- local edge nall plant. i was wondering what are you going to do to keep the ethanol plant running? >> that is a great question wrfment is your grandpa? is he close by? >> he lives in again ceia. >> he lives up there. you're an excellent representative for your grandfather, i must say. we might have to hire you too. yeah, i think those of you know when i was a state senator, when

i was a united states senator, i was a strong sue sue sport -- supporter of biofuels. i continue to be a strong supporter of biofuels. tom sill vac, agriculture secretary, continues to be a strong supporter of biofuels. i still say the more we see the science, the more we want to find ways to diversify our biofuels so we're not just relying on corn-based ethanol. now, we can do more to make corn-based ethanol more efficient than it is and that's where the research comes in. and there's some wonderful research facilities in our own university of illinois system that have done a lot to advance the science on this. but the key going forward is going to be can we create biofuels out of switch grass and wood chips and other materials that right now are considered

waste materials? and part of the reason that's important is because, as i think most farmers here know, particularly if you're a livestock farmer, right now the costs of feed keep on going up and the cost of food as a consequence are also going up. only about 4% of that is accounted for by corn being diverted into ethanol. but as you see more and more demand placed on our food supplies around the world, as folks in china and folks in india start wanting to eat more meat and commodity prices start going up, it's going to be important for us to figure out how can we make bio fuels out of things that don't involve our food chain. and so hopefully, your grandfather with his ethanol plant is starting to work with our department of agriculture to find new approaches to the

biofuel industry. but this is a huge area of support. this is another example of where we've got to make sure our budget continues to invest in basic research than costs money. and if all we're doing is cutting and we're not thinking about investments, then over time wore going to fall behind doupts like brazil, we they've already got a third, i think, of their auto fleet operates on biofuels. well, there's no reason why we should fall behind a country like brazil when it comes to developing alternative energy. i want to be number one in alternative energy. and that's good for the farm economy. hold on. right here. >> thank you, mr. president, for being the president and i also -- [applause]

and i want to go home and ask my mother to cook me a good meal to tell her i lobbied you. she's a senior citizen. what's the likelihood of her social security getting a cost of living next year? >> well, let me talk to you about social security. it's very likely she will see a cola, cost of living increase, next year because inflation actually rose this year. the reason there were a couple of years where did she did not get a cost-of-living increase because even though she felt like cost of food and gas and groceries were going up, the overall inflation index actually did not go up. the costs were lower where they

had been comparable the previous year. all of that is done automatically. it's not something i make a decision about each year and i promise you, when folks don't get their cola, they all write to me and say, mr. president, why -- you didn't give us a cost of living and and don't you care about senior citizens having to write back. and i say that's not something i did. these things happen automatically based on what estimates of what inflation's going to be. while we're on the topic of social security, i want to make sure everybody understands, social security is not in crisis. we have a problem with medicare and medicaid because health care costs are going up so fast. part of the reason we passed health care reform was to make sure we could start changing how the health care system operates and try to reduce health care inflation. but we have a genuine problem on medicare and medicaid. health care costs are going up at the same time as a lot more folks are entering into the system. if we don't do anything about

medicare or medicaid, it will gobble up our entire budget. social security is in a better position and so when i hear folks say is social security going to be there for me 20 years from now? yes, it will be there for you 20 years from now. it should be there for you 30 or 40 years from now. and the adjustments we have to make on social security are relatively modest. they're the kind of changes that ronald reagan and tip o'neill agreed to back in 1983 that created long-term solvency of the system. we could have social security solvent for another 75 years with just a few modest changes. so when your grandmother, tell her it wasn't me who didn't give her, her cola the last couple years. she tried to pass through congress a $250 supplement because we knew seniors were having a tough time. we couldn't get it passed through congress. but they should get some modest increase next year.

ok? i think i've got time for a couple more questions. one more? this is always a tough one this, last one. i will call on you. you're right there in front of me and the mic is there. hi. what's your name? >> my name is pam dennis. i actually work for the community agency that serves henry county and i also serve on the henry county penal board. i understand that drastic cuts need to be made in order to balance our budget. but with the last couple years being so difficult for for jobs, why are budget cuts to programs that are helping these people keep their heads above water? i'm referring to the heat program, community services and experience works, those type of programs that are helping people

keep their heads above water. why couldn't we cut somewhere else and leave those alone for now, or at least fewer -- less cuts? >> first of all, i think it's important to understand if we take a balanced approach, we don't need drastic cuts. the low-income housing assistance program, just to take one example, what we have done is we have said, we modestly reduced it but partly because we had increased it significantly right when the recession hit and it turned out we didn't need as much budgeted as was actually used. and that varies depending on the winter, any given winter. but what we tried to do was keep the bulk of that program in place and folks will get help in the winter if they capital forward to buy home heating hole. that's not going away.

general principle is right. we shall not cut those thing that's help the folks that are most vulnerable if we can find other places to cut for folks that would be nice to have that we don't need. i agree with that general principle. when congress gets back in september s. my basic argument to them is this -- we should not have to choose between getting our fiscal house in order and jobs and growth. we cannot afford to do one or the other. we've got to do both. by the way, the best thing we can do for our deficit and debt is grow the economy. when the economy is growing, more money in people's pockets, they pay more in taxes and more revenue and fewer people unemployment and that helps to reduce the strains on our budget. so we have to do both. essentially, the best way for us to do this is look at some of our long-term obligations and

costs, figure out long-term savings that are gradually phased in so they don't hit too hard right now. in the short term, there should be some things that we do that are paid for by some of these long-term savings in order to get the economy rolling and get the economy moving. and some of the programs you mentioned, i think, are ones that in a wealthy and decent society like ours, we should be able to help people make sure they're not freezing during the winter. i mean, that's just i think a basic obligation we have to our fellow americans. >> and some of those programs are dependent upon the unemployment rate? >> yes. >> my question is, with the unemployment rate, you're only counting the people who are actually on unemployment? >> right. >> it's not counting the people who worked a temporary job that was not eligible for unemployment or the people who were on unemployment and now

that unemployment has ran out. so those people are not being counted so that affects specifically the fema funding that our henry county gets. henry county is not eligible for the fema money. they get the set aside. this year because of the unemployment rate, we were not even able to get those set aside buttons. so i think that's kind of a skewed number by using the unemployment rate. >> here's the basic principle, with the economy not glowing as fast as we want it to, the need is going to outstrip our resources. there's always going to be more need out there. relative to the amount of money that the federal government can spend. but i guess the main argument i'm making to you is don't think that our choice is we've either

got to stop or obligation to the most vulnerable or to our seniors or to our kids or otherwise the budget is just going to go sky high or the deficit and debt are going to go sky high. we can do both in a sensible way. and i will be presenting before this joint committee a very detailed specific to this program that allows us to grow jobs right now, provide folks that need help, the help they need, and still gets our deficit and debt under control. we do also have to look at some programs because they may not be well designed, as well designed as they could be. i will give you an example. unemployment insurance. the way it's designed, it was designed back in a time when you would have layoffs and people would hire you back when the business cycle went back. the economy is changing so fast

right now, people are having to retrain, companies moved to an entirely different state. we've got to rethink how we do unemployment insurance. there's a smart program in georgia. what they do is they say hey, instead of you just getting unemployment insurance just to check, what we're going to do is we will give a subsidy to any company that hires you with your unemployment insurance so you will essentially earning a salary and getting your foot in the door into that company. if they hire you full time, the uninsurance employment is used to subsidize you in getting trained and getting a job. so there are those kinds of adjustments to programs. we've got to be more creative in terms of not doing things the way we've always done them. let me close by saying this, atkinson. first of all, it is good to be back. i'm grateful to all of you for your extraordinary welcome and

hospitality. don't bet against america. don't bet against our workers. don't bet against our businesses. we have gone through tougher times than this before, and we've always come out on top. as long as we pull together and as long as american know-how and ingenuity is promoted, there's no reason why we're not going to get through this tough time just like we have before. america's going to emerge stronger, more unified, more successful than it was in the past. in order for that to happen, though, i'm going to need your help. i need your voices out there talking to folks from from both parties and telling them, scombect you to show some cooperation, stop thinking about politics for a little bit. try to make sure that we're moving our country forward.

and if we -- if you're delivering that message, it's a lot stronger than me delivering that message. because you're the folks ultimately that put those members of congress into office. all right? thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> in a few moments, the joint deficit reduction committee. and less than an hour and a half, a town hall meeting with tom coburn of oklahoma. after that record perry campaigns in new hampshire. later we will read error the town hall meeting -- re-air the town hall meeting. several events to tell you about. the national business group on health will discuss a survey of health care benefit costs. that is at 10 am eastern. in a forum on how demographics may affect democrats and the national election. the gallup organization holds its look at public opinion over

the u.s. education system at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> july 20 un declaration in the regions to somalia was not made lightly. it reflects a dire condition of the people in somalia. data has been verified by the cdc. we estimate of that in the last 90 days, 29,000 somali children have died. this is 4% of the children. our fear and the fear the international community is that the famine conditions in those regions will spread to eight regions. the next trains are in september and october. it even if they are good, we could see another wave of mortality due to waterborne diseases. >> watch more online at c-span.

>> now a formal prospects for the joint deficit-reduction committee which will look for ways to cut federal spending over the next 10 years. this is a little less than an hour and a half. >> welcome to the brookings. my name is ron haskins. i am a senior fellow current i have been in washington for 25 years, serving at the legislative branch, and now the think tank, and all of this experience led me to think there is nothing knew i could see in washington, and in the last year i have been surprised on several occasions, not least in the past month or so, and that is what we are here to talk

about, the biggest surprise, at least to me, this committee, and the way we dealt with our debt ceiling in this most recent iteration. here is how we will proceed. i will give a brief description of the agreement, but i will leave a lot out because it would take a long time to do the whole thing. it is full of all kinds of stuff. i specialize in simplicity, and that is what you're going to get. then, we will turn to sarah binder, a senior fellow here at brookings, an expert on congress and legislative politics, and she will talk about the history of super- committees, and it is said to think there have been previous committees like this one. whenever congress cannot make a decision, they appoint a committee or a commissioner, and sarah binder will describe that and talk about this

particular committee. then, we will turn to william gale who was the author of several versions of the deficit and 10-year projections with all kinds of interesting base lines. he can produce baseline's festive and congress can pass legislation. he had this thing out about a minute and half after. shockingly, he will talk about baselines, and it turns out they are a very, very big deal, and completely unresolved as far as i can tell. then, we will turn to henry aaron. he will say that we have the all wrong, the president has it wrong, congress has it wrong, and you'll tell us what we should do instead. finally, we will turn to my good friend, bill frenzel. for those under the age of 60

might not be as familiar with bill frenzel that he was in congress for 20 years, a ranking member of the budget committee for several terms, and knows as much about the budget as anyone i have encountered. is a guest scholar at brookings. he is going to talk about the politics of the budget deal. let me say a few things about the agreement. it is helpful to think about it in three distinct parts. it raises the debt ceiling, which was the point of the whole thing. in the history of the country, all of these agreements raise the debt ceiling. this time, which two other things -- if we reduce the deficit, crucial, and by far the most complicated, and an third we agreed to have a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, so that vote will take place in the fall.

the second part of the deal -- the first part of the deal is raising the debt ceiling, and that is done with approximately $900 billion first, and then a subsequent step which will be between 1.2 and $1.5 billion. whenever it points out to be will get us through the 2012 election, which was one of the main goals, so the president got it least that goal. then the most complicated part is reducing the deficit, and that also comes in two stages. the first is there as an immediate agreement to $900 billion over 10 years. there are a lot of numbers floating around. you conducted different baselines and budget authority, or outlays, but the budget authority is $935 billion, but as i say, there are other bass lines and so forth. that is the first one, and it

includes interest. this is a great, important point about the budget. the more we cut, the more we save beyond just the cuts in programs because interest is getting to be such a huge part of our budget deficit. we are headed toward 10 but years from now, paying $1 trillion in interest costs. that is an important part of the savings. this is achieved by putting caps on discretionary spending. the first step is out of discretionary spending caps both defense and non-defense. there is a fire wall between security and on security, but that only lasts for two years, 2012, and 2013, so there could be a lot of interesting things that happen after 2013 and how

these cuts are actually made. then, there is the part everyone is talking about, and the reason we are here, this new device that leaders came up with, and that is this super- committee, so-called carrot is the joint select committee. if it has the word joint, you know it must be really important. that will result, one way or another, if we live up to the agreement, between $1.50 trillion, or 1.2 trillion dollars in 10 years. so there are six leaders appointed by each, and apparently can choose whatever baseline they want, that turns out to be an important issue. they could make any changes in spending or taxes. there was some dispute about that, but the text of the agreement makes it clear that they could raise taxes, cut whenever they want to, including medicare and medicaid,

so they more or less have carte blanche to do whatever they want to do. it is a majority vote to decide in the committee, not like the president's deficit panel. seven out of 12 votes wins. if you get a majority, you can pass whenever you want to. they have to report decisions by november 23, and congress must vote by december 23, without amendment, and it cannot be filibuster in the senate, so these are about the best rules you could possibly have to pass something to the congress of the united states, so in that respect, it looks at it could be a good deal. now, if they didn't reach an agreement or the congress votes it down, there is a fancy word sequestration, which is a holdover from the grammar days of the 1980's, and they're the additional cuts would be $1.20 trillion there are some complex rules about what can not be

cut, like for example in medicare if it cannot be cut, only the payments for providers. we have such a strong record of delivering whenever we decided to cut provider payments that we would do it at the do it again. there are a bunch of low-income programs like food stamps and other programs that are protected from the sequestration completely. there is a brief overview of the deal, and now we will turn to the history of these kinds of special committees, and a few words about the process of this committee, sarah binder. >> thank you. thanks for including me. i thought i would make three points about congressional conditions in general, this particular committee, and then a little bit about the implications of the membership. first, congressional commissions typically fail.

second, the super-committee differs quite a bit from the previous incarnations of these congressional commissions or committees. it's important to understand why it differs, and why differences might be consequential. third, members of the committee has a number of implications for what is likely or not likely to happen this fall. i would like to spend a little bit of time thinking about how the leaders make their selection. first, why do committees typically sell? -- fail. what is different this time around, and what can we learn? why the prone to fail? it is not unusual for congress to kicking the can down the road. there are plenty of examples. the medicare commission, the entitlements commission, the bowles-simpson commission, none succeeded in submitting a plan.

even when we do see episodes of success, sometimes pointing to the greenspan social security commission, when you look under the hood, it turns out that agreement was reached by people outside of the committee, the work of a tip o'neill, the speaker, with president reagan. when conditions are successful, it turns out the mandate is very, very narrow. we will come back to the reasons why that might have succeeded. why do these not work? i think of political and institutional reasons, and in the context in which these commissions are created a first, it is typically that deadlocked that encourages congress to kick the can down the road in the first place, mostly to avoid blame. not surprisingly, committees tend to inherent.

-- inherit the stalemate. when we think about the politics that lead to stalemates, we have in mind the increasing polarization, both increasing policy differences, as well as simple partisan team played that give the parties strategic reasons to disagree. parties see the problems differently, the submissions differently, and even when they can agree, they have an incentive to disagree just because it is the other party. so, political incentives are why these are created in the first place, and then it is hard to overcome the politics that created them in the first place. they are typically created by executive order, not like the joint committee that has a statutory basis. typically, when presidents set up these commissions through

executive orders, they are given a supermajority requirement in order to will officially report. there provisions are rarely, if ever protected procedurally, there is subject to filibusters', party control of the agenda on the house floor, and the most successful commission is the one that proves the rule. so, the defense commission had a statutory basis, was protected procedurally from being amended on the floor, and the decisions when into affect unless congress and the president voted to disapprove or reject recommendations. now, commissions created by executive order can not have these legislative authorities, so often that they are hampered by the way they are created. finally, in terms of contextual reasons, these episodes are created in times of crisis. it is inefficient to compel the parties to sit down.

how was this different than what we have seen historically? it differs in terms of these institutional factors i have mentioned. it has a statutory basis. it only has a majority vote. there are no amendments on the floor, no filibusters from the right or left, and the rules committee cannot pull the bill off the floor. there are triggers written into the belt. -- law. granted, congress has kicked the can down the road, but they read -- rigged it bits of the explosive they fail to reach an agreement. it effects the consequences of failing to agree. some parties welcome a stalemate because they might benefit elect torelli from refusing to agree. -- electorally from refusing to agree. this time, the cost of the

stalemate is much higher. it might compel the committee not to deadlock. having said that, the political factors that lead to defeat and sell your are essentially still in place. so, your failures are still in place. this committee inherits a polarization you see in the house and senate. the closest you get is max baucus to the center, but he is really alone to the extent he is a centrist. that makes their charge. if it is to build a bipartisan coalition. second, the party leaders left little to chance in selecting contingence. all offer third-party leaders. they offer tax committee chairs.

you might wonder where is paul ryan? for the democratic side, a key factions, latino, black, all women, and through john kerry, the defense constituency. they will cooperate with party leaders, and informal leaders from top party leaders. the deal is immensely important to party reputations and their brand name. this is not a rogue committee. this is not bowles-simpson, which we of thrown off to the side. this is not a home-grown gang of six effort. the parties have deep stakes in the outcome of this committee and its suggestions, which means if there is going to be resolution, the key question is do the parties seek compromise in their election interests of

2012. keep in mind what paul ryan said yesterday, and this is apparently after he refused to be on the committee -- "we should not have a committee with all politicians, an agreement that redesigns the whole design of the federal government. this should be brought to the american people. in other words, these are issues for the campaign trail, not the joint committee to call if you add all of that up, where does it leave us? if you add all of that up, where does that leave us? i suggest that will be another last-minute deal. do not put the turkey in the oven to early for things given. -- thanksgiving. if there is a deal, it will be leaders endorsed. finally, the committee does not operate in a vacuum. there are many other deadlines and it is possible congress could rewrite the law and take the sting out of the triggers. so the committee here is not the last buy or the only bite at

the apple. >> i would recommend the audience buy their christmas presents early. william gale. >> talking about baselines' could be tedious, so let me justify it with two point. the committee needs to cut $1.50 trillion or the automatic sequesters kick in. in contrast, the debate about the baseline is a $4.50 trillion question. it is actually much larger than the cuts the committee has to make. essentially they have a $4.50 trillion question, and then a $1.50 trillion question. i want to give a very simple example of what i am willing to

talk about that is the tedious part. a baseline issue is basically if you need to cut $1.50 trillion, the question is compared to what? if you compare it to a baseline where the government has no revenue, and spends 50% of gdp, his easy to come up with $1.50 trillion, but you have to have a baseline to come. two. -- to compare it to. as ron mentioned, the budget deal has all sorts of as trips and semicolons, but it left this question undefined. there is no guidance about what baseline people actually use. so, think about this the following way. suppose you have been eating badly the last 10 years, and you have been gaining a lot of weight, and you want to lose 15 pounds.

the question is compared to what? the way we usually think about it is compared to where i am right now. there is another way to think about it, which is to say i've been eating badly for 10 years, if i continue to eat badly the next 10 years, so i will lose 15 pounds relative to debt increase in 45 pounds over the next decade. nobody that is serious about losing weight builds and a 45 -- in a 45 pound weight increase, and then says i will lose 15 pounds relative to that, but using one of the bass lines would be the equivalent of increasing the deficit by $4.50 trillion, and then say i am going to cut it by $1.50 trillion. that is essentially what is at stake. that ends the nine tedious portion of the top. -- talk. the standard baseline is what

is called current law. it is not literally current law, but it assumes that all tax cuts that are supposed to expire actually do expire, accept a deal. -- except a few. it assumes the alternative minimum tax will grow over time and take over the tax system. it assumes that congress will make the medicare cuts it is opposed by law, but never does. it assumes other things about military spending, as discretionary spending is held constant after adjusting for inflation. the current law baseline is the answer to the question of what would happen if congress literally did nothing the next 10 years? the past and no legislation and just three appropriated the same amount of spending each year? that is not a realistic base line to use if you want to see where we are headed, but it is a good baseline to use if you

want congress to have to recognize the costs to any changes of tax laws or spending items that it enacts. it is the equivalent of saying here's my weight now, i want to lose 15 pounds relative to my weight now. if congress wants to do anything, a needs to start where it is and cuts relative to the current law. that would be the equivalent of same when you find yourself when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you'd do is stop digging. there is an alternative baseline, and i feel responsible for this, having been doing this for over a decade, even back when the government was in surplus in 2001, the current policy baseline, which is the answer to the question what happens if

congress acts in the next 10 years the way it has in the past, sort of a business as usual baseline, has shown large, increasing deficits over time. the current policy baseline assumes of the tax cuts get extended, that we cannot let the alternative minimum tax takeover the system, we do not spend as much in iraq and afghanistan over the next 10 years as we do now, that congress is incapable of making these medicare cuts that for the last 10 years they have shown they are incapable of making. it is a business as usual baseline. is a really good measure if you want to see what path we are on if we do not change our ways. it is the 45 pounds and gaining over the next decade if we continue to eat badly. the point over the last decade is we are headed in this bad

way, and here is the evidence, the current policy baseline. you do not want to use that as a baseline if you are trying to reduce the budget deficit. once you reduce the budget i am not going to build and 45 pounds or increase budget deficits before i start cutting the deficit. the current policy base line has always been a good guide to where we are headed. it is not an excuse. all the committees included the obama administration, at the congress. it builds in all of these nice things. it gets rid of the amt.

it is not a serious deficit. it says we will cut taxes by $4.50 trillion. will start cutting the deficit. just to make it more complicated, it turns up the republicans this time around, even though that means the bush tax cuts have been to pay for its, the democrats want to use the current policy baseline even though that is giving away the financing. we can talk about the politics of that if you want. let me give the three bottom

lines. one is the baseline is where the action is. if you can get the 4.5 trillion dollar change, eating care less about the weather from $5 trillion. -- you can care less about the $1.50 trillion. none of this means they cannot reach an agreement or cannot reach an agreement. if people talk about including tax increases in the deal, if they're talking about doing a from the current policy baseline, that involves less revenue than sticking with the current law baseline.

>> you encounter a person lying on the street. you can see them bleeding out. when he bent over, you tell them to stop smoking and eat better so that they will have a better chance for a longer and healthy life. the reason i'm using this example is i think it is said that -- symptomatic predict symptomatic of a policy derangement. it is over budget policy. how like to start with facts.

the nation is in the middle of the deepest recession we have experienced in the last 70 years. member to comment economic forecasters agree there's no realistic process for significant economic expansion. any time in the near future. this ban news is occurring in the face of an all out effort by the monetary authorities to be supportive. over the past couple of years, fiscal policy nationally, and that includes state and local

has become significantly more contraction mary -- working against economic expansion. this has produced a nice chart. it is available and a handout. it shows that 37 of the 50 states in the united states have seen reductions in spending compared to levels that prevailed in 2084. texas will join this group shortly because they have budget cuts coming and going to make a contraction in fiscal force.

a slightly growing fraction has been out of work for six months or more. this purports some rigid proportion is also a prize. standard and poor's, there is little or no indication in financial markets. investors are concerned can the current yield is on bonds. the yield is negative. people are paying to invest in them. i say all of this along with the fact that we do have a long-term

fiscal problems. we face an immediate problem of great seriousness. that is a dangerous and economy. for us to be focusing now on some with a longer term problem. it is truly weird. how will the budget process play out? we will not forget the weirdness of the parties that are expressed. it would be truly perverse for congress not to agree with what i anticipate will be president obama's recommendation to extend

unemployment. it was an acted earlier this year. the current policy right now would be a combination a short- term stimulus including investments in public worse. only when it has fallen to certain target level. that has cb leap project has to be the policy they're looking for for a long time.

-- that has to be the policy they were the theme for for a long time. this is identical to the positions taken by a reputable economists. for purely fiscal reasons, one should deal with steve concerns. it was agreed to in august. there isn't equally important reason for concern.

the cut at least 1.2 trillion measures. some or all may be cut. ito they spake eight basic economic predict it will face the basic economic ones. -- it will face the basic economic ones. i am going to conclude with one assertion about that policy. i think he would agree to this. the best possible outcome for the debate over whether to extend the bush tax cuts would be a deadlock.

it's so they all expire. we can begin to talk about how to curb tax expenditures. they can lower rates by some amount. we will have outcomes based on what they describe. i think a likely outcome is that the committee will agree to month -- committee will agree to some cuts. there would be automatic cuts between defense and nondefense. they might well be so large and unacceptable that in the end,

the agreement that was just reached in august might be one to which congress returns. as advertised, i am a recovering congressmen. i lay this before the court. this is one arina in which the political party has striate to establish differences between each other. it is not unusual to find the parties.

there have been glorious times. there is the wonderful time under president clinton. there were times of compromise. in recent history, the parties have been pretty vigorous spenders. it will be cut. there is a continuing resolution.

it was put together. then not pass any budgets. the economy is down. this ratio is climbing. the committee is not one to change that. they have painted themselves into this. this seems to be the main driver.

they were kicked down the road. they have another year to pander to their constituents. they are not interested in an immediate solution. they have created the budget control. it has described this as a less a predecessors. i do not think it makes any difference.

nobody on this committee will write a profile and encouraged to set out and vote with the wrong team. there is a domestic discretionary. the tone not stabilize the debt. it depends on which bill to use. it will continue. it will bring is a continuation of the government. they will keep until the next

election. in the meantime, economic condition continues to worsen. they have to negotiate something like this. they need the certainty. the democrats are going to have to sacrifice the entitlements. they really did not fly it. they will have to sacrifice some tax return.

i believe that the super committee will achieve the $1.5 billion goal. it is frightening to both parties. it is least harmful to the rest of the world. we will have spent almost the whole year arguing about the budget. it will be prepared to spend another year doing the same thing thank you. >> i will answer questions and

then give them the opportunity. here is the first obvious question. >> henry will tell us how. >> the mayor king government has been pretty good in the crisis. >> i'm going to channel our colleague here was our extremely optimistic one who said her scenario roughly speaking is

that the new ingredient here is the public revulsion about what have been the last few weeks. public concern about downgrading and that it could be the spark that causes a bigger agreements. the most under active scenario, and not as a the likelihood, is that there is the grand bargain. it involves but only $3.50 trillion but also the stimulus measures that they mention. they have a lot of room to provide stimulus now.

and do not know how likely it is to happen. concepcion, what could see how that would work. >> he said he mentioned the line. from your perspective, this is ?eally unusual ta is there a chance it could reach some reasonable agreement. >> no, no, yes, no. this is not historically abnormal. we have a liberal and moderate

republicans. they start to disappear. the dow focuses the mind. this all fell 1/3 to 11.

>> we keep talking not telling crisis would help them get serious. back to 2007. the housing market totally collapse. they led all the stops. still the economy collapsed. they said europe was going to at the same time. wouldn't that be enough to get congress serious about that?

eyewitness said that is a ridiculous question. have a that would have been enough. they're still bickering about it. it goes to what we're saying. these are really strong issues. it is going to be hard. i think these answers confirm. there's a general agreement. they're crossing the party lines among the panel. they need a long-term deficit reduction. and yes the political process is unable and pretty lousy.

they're still unable to strike that deal. >> the politics on this panel is represented by the order of the phoenix. [laughter] >> but say they get a deal. they have to get a deal. let's say they get 1.2. it is somewhat plausible. it brings it to 2.1. what happens next ta? >> next comes an election. we still have a problem that you lay out.

going to cut a deal. >> if the go back to a year ago, people will say i do not like that deficit plan. what has changed, and the big thing that has changed is that people are now talking about your deficit plan versus my deficit plan. and 2008, they have the bigger tax is fair. maybe they have the right

government. >> the american people who say do not taxi or me to do not tax you or me. -- people who say do not tax you or tax me. >> campaigns are the place where candidates promise pain and sacrifice.

this is something the electrical want to hear about the reduction plan. it takes place. i would not that my bread money on it. >> i hate to be right about that. here's an interesting question. as far as i can tell, this vote on the debt ceiling had some games here and there. what is the effect of this episode on future debt ceiling gross -- votes? we'll probably see well in the next few months. are we going to go through this every single time?

there is widespread production. president obama was convinced that if the debt ceiling were not increase, the situation would be utterly catastrophic. he would do whatever is necessary in order to avoid it. the next person he bases this has the same view that is a treated to president obama, then they are willing to allow it to expire. it has complete power over the agenda. that is one interpretation of

how this whole process played out. it is for that reason that i think it is very important that should it occur again it takes on one or two hard-line position.

>> when the budget vote was also a vote, there was not a separate vote and those are peaceful, wonderful years. people who have a very strong feeling have seen what a powerful vehicle the debt ceiling is. they were subjected to many more of these kinds of things. we're probably going to see more and more of this. maybe when they take this into another cycle of a kinder and gentler times, they will get over.

in the meantime, i subscribe d to the theory that he described graveefault is not a thing for the public. >> and do not want to equate this with a shutdown. we did see what happened. part of it is turning into a bidding this for another month. -- and turning it into for another month. but the alps are limits, in my turn it. they can keep it there. for the faa deal, the last one

expired in the middle of july. there are some partisan issues that got wound up. >> i think there is another lesson here. this is a fight between micah and someone on the finance committee. they cannot reach agreement. i seen various estimates. who cares about this. it turned ducks that a lot of people did care. there's a lot of pressure. even at a fashion, it is something they always did.

they reached an agreement because of this. we do not have the public saying to do certain things. it may temper the desires. >> i would like to reach an agreement or something. we have been nice political burst appear. he may be recovering politician be said he had a lot of political instincts. there is a power that they will vote on the debt ceiling. this is like having a huge bazooka. this will have a permanent feature of our system.

does anyone disagree? >> i agree with that one. that will be true for both sides. this will play out more the notion that there are things they can do to extend the debt limit. it has totally changed. it is not definitive about what will actually happen. >> think about the delicious irony about the republicans and electing a president in having the democrats have a lyndon

johnson type ceiling on the debt. some will give you a microphone. the whole thing should require less than a minute. microphone right behind you. >> don't they have to find a staff director for the super committee decks how much of the ease of that signify how well the committee will get along? there is an aspect that it can be conditioned to public archives.

there is the line item veto. >> that is way too specific. >> no. go for the first. he pointed to the issue here. the chimney is. and not know quite what is going on. they can come up with this. i am not quite sure i follow the balance budget ceiling. >> they have it has balanced budget amendment would seem to be a legislative branch.

>> i suspect they followed this. >> does someone eliminate for me why people feel like this will have any impact upon the budget operation? the medicare cuts have gone in there been no effect whatsoever. >> the most cynical among the should answers this question. >> i do not know of any

effective gaps and triggers. it is true that once congress votes it, it can not buy a a future congress that will wake up some morning and say that is a really stupid idea. >> the promises are getting harder to get around. i believe it will not be possible for it to avoid finding

at least $1.20 trillion from the baselines. i do not think that congress will bring a -- will renig on it. >> let me see what the panel thinks of this. in addition to that, there are people that are extremely serious about it. they do not want to see it change. they are driven by two-party republicans. i believe this is a new element. do you agree? >> i'm not disagreeing.

they avoid making the detailed decisions that need to be faced. it appears you have done something and whether or not there lot to take effect in the future. eking good to the next election. i find myself more cynical. i think it is not good. there will be a smaller cut that will be agreed to. the committee will split som

partisan lines. it would participate redid -- precipitate a cut. that that time, and the sequester plays on. i think it is quite likely that congress cannot find it. they find that come 2015 the prospects was too unattractive.

they do not know how that would play out. it seems to complete failure may not be probable. >> do what to add something to this? >> why do we think this might work? we should think it would work perfectly. some are more uncomfortable and awkward. the medicare cuts that never happened, let me give a campaign contribution story about why they may not happen. the medicare cut every year,

there are sustainable growth rate setters supposedly implemented. there is a direct lobbying effort. make sure it gets over written. with the discretionary spending cap, there is no particular grew that has to suffer. they have reduced their lobbying efforts. we need more of the existing cap. we're not asking you to raise it. you can pick it up at one end of the spectrum. it would be in the middle.

what would be most likely to happen is an aggregate spending cap. this should be the strongest. they could vote for tax increases. it to make it more difficult to change. i will give the more likelihood that it would work then the medicare caps would work. >> there is one lobbying group. >> the better improve their effectiveness. >> this has been in effect for about a decade. the adjustments are very small.

>> said a better example. they were enacted. this is followed for about five years. they laid a lot of the ground war. in previous years, they worked just fine. i think it would be harder. a do not think this committee is going to do well of medicare. >> they have a lot of the this.

>> on the one hand, congress has tied debt reduction to the debt limit. on the other hand, i'm hearing it is a good thing we're starting to hear this for the first time. president obama said some may claim debt limit bill. ready think they would have come down on that deck? >> what difference is it? >> this has to be right. there's the ugliness of the politics involved.

>> i am a student at dartmouth. tt would ever go back to the pressure of 1990's t? >> justle made it the eventual bargains. -- we just made the eventual bargains. the budget gimmickry is have worked for us. the probably try to work it in some way.

>> you cannot raise taxes to pay for it. it was by super rich sureties -- supermajorities in the senate. they saw revenues in 1993. there were budget choices that congress makes. there's the economic context of what goes on around it. >> i think the fact is that it did work somewhat for a while. it is easy to think that congress would use it again.

if congress wants to change something, they're going to do it anyway. let's go over this. >> thank you. there are a couple of all such are bouncing around the court. i had in mind the upcoming decision. we have the billing decision about the tax cuts. he mentioned this in passing about the extension of the unemployment benefits. could you comment on that you think all of those things will play into the debate?

>> someone talk about what you think about the budget process for 2012. >> it is about what you saw for 2011. we passed one appropriation in the house and the senate for this. we will have a continuing resolution. out of thecoming house as a very low level. it be at war with the senate. it is going to be a stripped down one. it is probably handled again by the super committee's bill. we will probably put that on 412.

>> the issue whether they can handle its inside the debt deal. this offends some part on the baseline. >> you killed it. >> one of the shortcomings of the deal is that it only describes what congress had to do. the joint select committee can propose the cuts. congress can vote those things up or down. no one is stopping it from coming the next day. there is no cap on universal

behavior. on tuesday coming yet to cut the deficit by $2.50 trillion. i would guess that if there is a grand bargain that the committee comes up with it. if there is not, the committee will nudge anything with them. >> walmart question. all the way in the back? >> all in the back is the budget. there's the balanced budget amendment. do you think this will pass tax what reiteration might it be?

-- pass? what reiteration do think it will be? if you have an effect about the budget amendment and whether it will pass. >> the other to video are irrelevant. >> i do not think it has any trouble of passing. >> the democrats have decided it. i do not see this. >> it does not look like it will work. >> thank you very much. we are going to have other events. we will do with the budgets and

the issues. we will go to health issues and medicare. we hope to see you again. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments come at a town hall meeting with senator tom coburn. and a little more than an hour, rick perry campaigns in new hampshire. president obama's a town hall meeting in illinois. later, we will be aired the forum on prospects for the joint

deficit reduction committee. >> on "washington journal" we will talk about the infrastructure bank. we'll take your questions about the economy, a job market, and budget deal. the focus on the bureau's role in combating cyber threat and fraud. "washington journal" is like every day and 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> august 16 marked the 34th anniversary of elvis presley's death. this week, jerry schilling talks about in the king and events that led to his visit to the white house and is meeting with president nixon. we will also visit mount vernon where archaeological discoveries have shed new light. susan eisenhower talks about her

grandfather and his acquired love for painting and his portrait of his wife and mamie -- wife, mamie. >> c-span is covering several congressional town hall meetings during the august recess. this week, we were in tulsa, oklahoma. he was one of the game of six. this is a little more than an hour. >> welcome. please, have a seat. they've given me some instructions. >> i'm hearing something in the background. are you hearing something as well?

we have this going. this is better. welcome. the whole purpose for a meeting like this is for me to hear from new to get inputs and gay criticism and counsel. i am not proud of the work the senate has done. i do not think we have addressed the real issues. i think we have treated a lot the sentence that no disease. i'm taking all sorts of cold medicines. my grandson our granddaughter gimme a nice summer cold.

i do not think we have a problem. most of the elected officials are interested in solving the problem. they're interested in addressing solutions to the system that ends up helping them. i know that sounds like an unfair criticism. the look of what we haven't done, if the home maneuver is there, revving cut them, there is a big difference between freedom and a real republic. i am unhappy with what we have been unable to achieve.

i been unhappy with the fact that hardly anything has gone through the senate. i am unhappy with what went through two weeks ago. less than a minute on that. the problem is not the debt limit. we're spending money we do not have. congress is lazy. [applause] it does not do the job of oversight. we have a list, may even have here if you get a chance, i would recommend you go to our website and that this. this is not a partisan attack on anybody. this is $9 trillion worth of savings. backed by the congressional

office studies. office of inspector general, congressional research service. it is all foot noted. we cannot continue to do what we are doing. nobody is willing -- this is the way to solve the problems. you do not have to agree. at least it is a plan that will get us out of trouble. why is that important? we wrote the book. we went through and researched every aspect of what is in that. you go on-line and it is searchable. there are cuts in the defense department but it will solve our problems. the reason that is important is our grandkids are important. i used to worry about this.

i do not any more. i worry about us. the problems are that serious and that significant that we need real action and real leadership to address. it will require the same thing the bill to our country and made it great. sacrifice on the release part. everybody will have to participate to solve the problems. we have lived the last 30 years in this country of our children and grandchildren. guess what? the credit card bill is dead. we cannot get another one to make the minimum payment. it is disappointing to see the lack of leadership coming out of washington to address the real problem. that is spending money you do not have on things you do not need. we will spend this whole time answering questions. we have some microphones around.

if you raise your hand, they will find you. also get a microphone to you. here comes one right here. >> my question is what you talked about leadership. you have a gentleman and i use that term loosely holding office, the highest office of our land that lied to congress. the proposals have put in place will not be spent on people in this country illegally. one of your associates call him a liar and he was centered because of it. we have proven tax dollars are being spent on health care of illegal aliens and the president knew that when he said that in

congress. lying to congress is a criminal offense. punishable by prison time. you guys let him get by with it and you have yet to impeach him for the unconstitutional behavior and laws he has enacted. [applause] >> first all impeachment proceedings have to start in the house. you may be absolutely accurate in your assessment. i am not sure. still getting an echo here. we have a problem with illegal immigration and the only way you solve it is control the border. it cannot do it any other way. want to control the border, you can sell the other situations that have come about because of

the lack of that and that is not a republican or democratic problem. that is a problem and the decision to spend [unintelligible] and you need to be talking to your oklahoma residents. -- rep. they chose to make that decision. you need to make sure you are [unintelligible] i spent three and a half days on the border in march and the story i was told by the border patrol against what was told by the management are 180 degrees apart. someone is not telling the truth about the border and i tend to side with the border patrol, not the administration. >> we need to make sure we get people in the middle. >> i want to thank you for your

time tonight. i really appreciate it. i am a proud democrat. i am also a democrat who realizes that there are some good people in the republican party and you are certainly one. >> thank you. >> you have proven that by your actions, you have proven it by showing you have a heart and if you -- you care for the people even of other parties and i know that you are not in norquist fan. i have not read all 614 pages of your document. i have read the section by section outlined in summary of the savings and the highlights. i want to tell you that in my opinion this is a historic document. i do not think anything like it has been done before that i know of. and you and your staff should be proud of it and you should be commended for it. i have two questions for you.

[applause] you have broken to some degree the norquist hold on the republicans in the senate. he has a stronghold on the republicans in the house. my question is, do you think there is any possibility of that getting broken in the near future or any time? my second question, what does the future hold for back in black? >> thank you. two good questions. americans for tax reform, i agree with 98% of what they said. it is like any other principal position. when you carry it to a far extreme becomes idiotic. what they have done is carry the position. the number one is -- it is foolish and does not solve our country's problems and puts one

person in a position to say they are going to decide what one group is going to do in terms of following their oath of the constitution. the thing is is what we ought to be doing, no matter what party you're in, it is what is best for the country. if what that -- is best as reforming the tax code so apple does not have to hide money in the caribbean in tax shelters and g who gets these wind credits, pay some taxes. the fact is, 20% of people pay 84% of the taxes. one in five pay 84% and 51% of the people pay no taxes, no security, and a medicare by the time they get their tax credit back. we need to change that. i'm going to do that. we need to solve the problems and quit worrying about what party someone is in and quit

worrying about losing control. are we going to survive? let's have a fair tax cut. i would like to have a national sales tax and get rid of all this. to answer your second question, you have a great status in washington and it is recognized by everybody else in the senate. what we put out in back in black is a basis of what will happen to getting our spending under control. people spent lots of hours going the extra mile past would everyone else looked up and looked at the real basis of what we're spending. we have 82 different teacher training programs run by the federal government. 82?

why? we have 47 job training programs across the nine agencies. all those with the exception of three overlap with one another. what would we have 47 job- training programs? we have programs that teach people financial literacy. the last people who ought to be teaching anybody about federal -- financial literacy is the government. there is a $350 billion that we can say every year is from waste and fraud. there is $100 billion of ways. and stability in the federal government. $350 billion, that is twice what congress just dead. the fact is career politicians

do not want to do the hard work and make the hard choices because every one of those programs have a constituency out there and they are afraid to stand up and tell them. we have got to be told know. we cannot continue to borrow 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. the answer is quit spending money. >> and want to congratulate the people here. the first town hall i went to that you gave was in an abandoned school district in broken arrow. there were 35 people there may be. it is great to see this many people interested today. i would like to make two points. i wish somebody would go back and teach the leadership in washington to speak plain english instead of all this

political correctness. in the talks there was not one spending cut. people sitting around the kitchen table, their definition of a cut means i'm going to spend less than i have been spending. that is what we expect out of washington when you tell us there is a spending cut. number two, i would like to see more support for the fair tax. that does a number of things you discussed about a national sales tax and get over all this bickering about what company gets what tax cut. thank you. [applause] >> just one short comment. what the past, what the senate and house passed is $832 billion

more in discretionary spending over 10 years. just so you know. $832 billion. there is no cut. there is a $7 billion cut this year. the authorization for we will spend on discretionary. that is made up for with increased spending. we can easily cut spending. our fellow oklahomans to a great job. go and ask. could you cut and i will? i have had them come to me. this comes from federal employees that call our office and say, did you know this is going on? what i have is this wonderful investigators -- these wonderful investigators. we go digging out. here is what happened.

let's make sure we go to the center. i am looking for the mike. where are you? the thinking behind that is they're ridiculing you for your vote. they are ridiculing me and they are making fun of me. i do not like that. i have some suggestions that

will save some money in our budget. i looked at our budget. the justice department, if you take their budget and divide by the number of employees comes out to $250,000 per person. they did not produce any revenue. that is the cost you are paying. the interior department is $279,000 per person if you take the budget and divide it by the number people. those are huge numbers. no company in the u.s. can operate when it costs that much per person. one thing we could do. i like your idea of changing the tax system. along with that, the thinking and the assumption is it will save everyone a lot of money. the fair tax saves 110,000

employees. if implemented we would have 110,000 fewer employees in the federal government. i have experience with the internal revenue service. i am not an employee. >> most of the people here do as well. >> yes, well, my experience is that there is a number of them that are incompetent. you cannot fire them because we have a collective bargaining agreement that prevents and competent people from being fired. this a goes -- this goes across every agency. the faa, fcc, the corps of engineers, the internal revenue service, the department of state and justice. all the federal agencies have this. you cannot fire incompetent people. we need to change that. that would save a huge amount of money. >> thank you. [applause] >> we will come down into this

section next. >> hello, senator. i am an avid supporter and have been to your visit to -- office to visit you. what can we do, the people, to help you accomplish what you need to accomplish? [applause] >> that is a great question. let me stop for a second. i fail to thank tulsa community college for making this available for us tonight. [applause] let me do that. you have so much more power than you think you have. i gave a speech about 4.5 years ago on the senate floor. the title was, there is a rumble. there is a rumble occurring in america. you can hear it. it can hear the dissatisfaction and you can hear the problems that people are saying.

what has happened is more people have become aware. the best way i know to hold us accountable is to get everyone aware. so people will not tolerate the incumbents and intransigence of washington. and everybody in this room has family that are not necessarily active on political events and i am not talking about campaigning. i am talking being knowledgeable and learning what you hear from the right and left and making the decision yourself rather than taking the pablum that both sides give. communicating that to your family and friends not only in the state but outside. it is a wonderful feeling to see a guy like lon johnson come to the senate. he built a business from the ground up and left -- he does not care if he ever gets reelected. he is running to help save our

country. he left the business and left the family and making the sacrifice to change things because he knew that he was unable to build that business because of the environment this country created. i think what you have to do is -- do not be timid about communicating what you believe to be in the best interest of our future as a country. i think we can achieve history. if you look at history, all republicans -- dole. we are the only republicans that have come together that is this massive mix of everybody. we have the ability to achieve history and the way to survive is get your fiscal house in order and your economy running so you can project the power and

confidence that is necessary for our people to live in freedom. that is what has to happen. you control it. if you decide to sit back and not do something significant, your children and grandchildren will have the impact of that. >> thank you for being here this evening, senator. i want to congrats yocongratula. my comment is, until harry reid would not let you submit a bill for an up and down vote, it seems to me like you are going to be on every sunday morning broadcast for the next week for two and let the people, the american people know what that plan would save as in trillions of dollars. then the pressure will then -- would be on harry reid to give

you a chance to submit your bill incorporating that. is that not possible? >> it is possible but the fact is there is a wide range of bias in the media. they are not necessarily interested in promoting the plan that has us live within our means. they're more interested in presidential campaigns now which is the most ludicrous thing. we should not even be considering. we have big problems and that is 14 months away. it does not matter what happens. what is happening right now is over the next three to five months, it will determine to a great extent the future of -- future of everybody in this room and we ought to be accurate. we ought to be nipping at the hills of everybody in congress to make sure they're doing that kind of work. next, we will have someone on the military right here.

>> i am a disabled vet and i have a problem with this article that talks about cuts or planning for the military. being an active military family, my husband, myself, and our son, part of the problem with the military is they get very little pay as it is. not only the disabled vet but also the ones that are retiring and the ones who are active military. you plan on cutting some of their benefits, and you are taking people who are already on food stamps and welfare, because they cannot make ends meet. you are making it even harder on them. >> let me give you the statistics. i appreciate your concern. nobody appreciates our military more than i do.

the average military retires at 21 years. during that time, they have significant benefits. that is the fact. number two, do not take what we have said in isolation. we have said is everyone has to give. how are we going to lose our freedom? the consequences of that will be a disaster. what is the biggest thing we do? the biggest thing we do is track your prime. someone who retires for 20 years and health care for $250 a year.

it has not been looked at in years. we cannot afford it. the average person is spending $1,000 a month or their employer is for health care. this is $250 a year. do not do just that, do everything. so that everybody participates. let's make sure that we keep the commitments that we are making, not the benefits that were made as a condition of signing up. nowhere can you find the fact we made a condition. number two, let me finish. the secretary of veterans affairs signed an executive order that cost you $42 billion. what he said is no science to back this up. if you served in vietnam or

korea or on a ship and you have heart disease as a veteran we will call that agent orange related and we will give you money. as a physician, i can tell you there is no correlation in any scientific study. we're giving checks out to people who weighed 300 pounds and smoke three packs a day and not care what they eat. there is $350 we can use to take care of someone who was a real veteran and we can solve the problem. what we have done is not have an appropriate look. we are -- have just passed the bill. it is one of the best things that has happened. we can make sure that educational opportunity is greater than anybody else's. we have done all those things.

it cannot look at this as one thing. you have to look it and everybody, including congress, is going to participate. >> thanks for coming to tulsa. i want to thank you for your leadership and i am proud to have u.s. our senator. -- have you as our senator. i have one recommendation. i do not know if you have heard the name gave ramsey but you should go to washington. if you have not heard his name -- >> here is our problem. people who have been successful on not willing to sacrifice and go get criticized and ridiculed as a u.s. senator and that is one of the reasons we have problems. we have people -- there is nothing wrong with career

service but when you have no firm of reference in the real world, when you have not done the things that the average american has done and you are called upon to make critical judgments about our future, -- people like dave ramsey ought to run and so should a lot of people who have refused to sacrifice. >> i have one criticism. you're not on the republican presidential ticket. >> i have to find you. >> i read recently that the u.s. gives financial aid to a least three-quarters of the country in the world. some of those countries are openly hostile to the united states, the heinous. why do we continue to give money to those countries? >> a great question.

let me give you detailed. there are 16 countries that own more than $10 billion worth of our debt. that were given -- we are giving foreign aid to. how do like that? 16 countries that on $10 billion. they are loading as money. we're giving the money back to them. they do not need it very bad. we're going to cut everything. here is the point. this young lady is upset with me because she thinks i am singling out military. if we are solving our problems everybody gets to participate. no exceptions. where there is waste, and has to go away. where there is fraud, we have to

put people in jail. where there is abuse, we have to clean it up. for there is access we have to minimize. and then we will have a country that will be worth the sacrifices that the veterans, the people who serve -- [inaudible] let me go back to one other thing. our foreign affairs is at risk for two reasons. it is out of control on how we spend money. the best way to have great foreign affairs is to be a great economic power. if you are not an economic power, it does not matter how much money is spent. we have to do is we have to recover and embrace what is necessary for us to grow our economy. why is it that we are at 9.2% unemployment? there is no confidence the

future is there so that the capital that is sitting on the sideline will come in and create opportunity and jobs and wealth for people that are looking for jobs. so we can solve those problems. it requires leadership. it is not a republican or democrat thing. it is a lack of leadership in the house. it was there with bush and obama. where are we? wave your hand. gotcha. >> i am from oklahoma. i appreciate you being here. getting back on the military, i have sons were serving in the united states air force. i have one on his way home as we speak from afghanistan. [applause] >> thank you for your service. >> i know there has been so many

who of not made a home. that is not the way we want them to make a home. i appreciate our military. not only because of my son's but my father spent 26 years in the military. my brother just retired last weekend. back in the spring, my sons were told they probably would not be paid. paye was delayed -- it was delayed. these were young men with wives that are serving our country. never did i hear that senators or the president or anyone was willing to take the pay cut or even those -- [applause] or even those that have retired and those getting a monthly

paycheck, not one time did i hear anyone say, we should give and not our military. that really disturbs me. i think it disturbs a lot of people. i realize, i have not read your book. i'm just learning about some of that. maybe this is more of a statement but i think that all of those in the senate and house and our president should step up and say, we are willing to give and take off of however many thousands of thousands they make a year and get down to where normal people having come. >> thank you for your statement. the biggest problem is why would we allow the military to become a pawn in a debate over the

future of this country? [applause] once you do that you know you do not have leadership. [applause] it is an absence of leadership. when it uses the military as a pawn instead of saying it is an exception, if you look at the constitution, the number one thing the congress is supposed to do is to defend the country. all of the rest of it, 70% of what we do looking at the constitution is probably outside of what our standards believed ever supposed to be doing. [applause] i hear your statements. it is a lack of leadership and awareness of what is important. what is most important is when somebody sacrifices and gives of themselves. they have given.

that. the point is we should never allow that type of situation where they become a pawn. we had a bill, you did not hear about it. the press does not want to to know about it. we had a bill that no matter what happens the military gets paid. nobody put on a press release on an. not cover it. where are we? i want to thank you for your our state. grateful we have you. to take take this wrong but i think there is a feeling across the country that career politicians do not listen to wes. i find it very frustrating that a letter, i cannot send an e-mail to someone own representative

or senator. i cannot get a phone call not take it from area code. there must be a secret to that. being to if i want to make a or even a senator mcconnell or someone my representative. i feel like we are not being listened to. i am glad to hear you say we power than we think we have. one thing that would help with the term limits. [applause] i do not want you to take it would love to see the power taken away from career politicians who think they are washington forever with all of the benefits they have and they never want to

leave. what did you think is the chance for a term-limit bill to make it through either house? on term limits. our founders wrote, alexander hamilton believed in rotation in office. that is another word for term limits. believe why anybody would want to be in washington for a long period of time. i agree with them. until you take control, and i'm talking about people, you say, 12 years in the senate is plenty for anybody. is too much. i am feeling the where of it right now. maybe it's the cold but probably not. control and taken

back, and i know you hear both the media. it is one of the best things happened, the tea party. [applause] awareness to know the facts about what is going on your country. then when you find out, you are aghast. the report on which i forced to a year- ago, it will blow your mind on all the a year. from all of the bureaucracies. nobody looks to see if they are accomplishing anything. the likelihood until you enact constitutional amendment and you need 67 senators. only three of us the

near-term lamented. long road to hoe. that limit, you do amendments. and on term limits and we are cooking. we're back in the saddle. >> my name is sarah. advocate for nursing homes and residential care facilities. cuts to medicare and medicaid, i am about protecting our elderly in the medicaid and medicare facility. to know how proposes to balance the budget and still make sure our .

>> that is a great question. the first question for you is you look at the constitution in the government's role to do that? [applause] is personal responsibility, not government responsibility. number three is if we're going to decided is a federal responsibility, we should be much more efficient with medicare which has $100 billion of fraud in it. some of it through nursing extended care facility. designed be inefficient. the average medicare patient in pays in $120,000 out $350,000. how long is that going to last? part a will be bankrupt.

that is the hospital portion. something has to happen. a couple of things need to happen. paul ryan to call this heat said we ought to have system where people can use markets to help get the best deal they can. him is changing medicare. medicare is gonna change because cannot borrow money to keep running. have to change. do we have a commitment that we sure we take care frail and infirm, yes. but we also have a commitment to kids to know -- that we do not take away their opportunities. we can do it much more efficiently and effectively. spent twice as much money on care than anybody else in except one nation. 1 1/3 out of it, one that of every $3 does not help anybody

get well. it does not prevent anybody from getting sick. obamacare is not the answer. [applause] my web site did with joe lieberman. bill that changes it. we make it to participate. senior citizens in this room, for the benefit you are getting from medicare part b. your grandkids are going to pay for it. was passed by republican president so the prescription not be a part of their campaign. it tells you how sick we are. the fact is it is fine to do for seniors. who is going to pay for it? all we are doing is kicking the can down the road.

who pay for it. what medicare part b is. cannot keep doing this. nobody can doubt my commitment done it for 25 years. thing you cannot say is doing the same thing and not go bankrupt. it's not that there is not a way but you have to take fraud out of that and some the waste. took $100 billion that is out you could do lot every year. that is only about 1/4 of it. we can solve those problems. but we cannot have any one group touch me. when we start to say, and if you are nursing homes, we cannot touch me. to touch everything.

it all better but we cannot have is the say, i problem but don't you touch mine. i hear a lot. [applause] i am about 100 e-mails from oklahoma. years old. live off the social security and medicare. some of that. thank you very much. that is the spirit that built america up. that is what we need. we do not have everyone sang because a lot of people are giving. we need that spirit coming back. where are we? >> good evening, senator. you for being here. i appreciate your service. warren buffett made a strong

chiding congress for coddling the rich. he made a strong case that increasing taxes on the very harm investments and would be good for the country. what are your thoughts on these views? can money as he wants to tomorrow. [applause] if you took everybody who made to injured 50,000 and above -- not touch one-fourth of art that. 28% bigger than it was today and. have a government we cannot afford. do before we eliminate stupidity is to raise taxes on people.

[applause] >> my name is william. thank you for coming to tulsa. on that note, there is a goa report that says 55% of the companies in the united states pay zero taxes. if you were in this truman had a job, would you be more taxes than those corporations? how do you propose getting that money back from the corporations that, for example oil. you mentioned on hardball during a debate that you were open to wind and farm subsidies and ethanol. what about the billions that oil

companies get in tax break stacks >> i am so glad you asked the question. i think it is great. how many of you know what the average oil and gas companies is in oklahoma and the nation? 41.5%. it is the highest of the standard and poor's 500. of all the a depreciation of all the taxes that tinges of everything, tax credits and everything else, the oil industry gets less than 8%. the tax credits they do get, they do not get tax credits, they get depreciation. here's where the lack of knowledge is in america. the oil and gas industry actually pays the same taxes without it. they just pay it later.

because they are a capital- intensive business there requires -- so they can expense that. a ultimately they pay the same taxes. that is the only benefit we give. 92% of all the tax credits and deductions for energy go to wind, ethanol, thermal, the vast majority did of it does not go to the oil and gas. you see what happens? let me tell you how we solve the problem. we ought to have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world. [unintelligible] [applause] so we get rid of it. i am one of the few republicans have said if we can solve their problems here is going to have

to be increased revenue. that means a smart tax system that will grow the economy and eliminate special interest favors for industry whether it is hollywood or whatever. [applause] so if you go back in the black you can see, everybody has to participate. you have all of the special things in the tax code that have been lobbied for. get rid of all of them. i do not want misinformation on energy. the biggest tax credits could to win. that is why g.e. did not pay any taxes. why should it ge not pay any taxes? i cannot understand that. i do not it think anybody can. i think you are right. we ought to be fair. but let's be truthful about what

the facts are rather than because we're tired of gasping for dollars a gallon we're going to beat up on an industry that has provided us a value and several million jobs and can provide a ton more jobs if we were allowed to drill and get the resources off our own land. [cheers and applause] we are the only nation in the world's to have the amount of energy we have. it is greater than all of the combined in china, -- and saudi arabia. our government will not let us have our resources because we have an agenda that says we cannot. that is stupid right now.

[applause] we need to come back to the center because i'm not sure we treated people in the center fairly. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. i appreciate your candor. we need more of that. i look at you as a leader regardless if i agree with you all the time. >> you are like my wife. >> i appreciate you. my question is not to get down in the weeds. i am a ceo and i have some specific policy questions i would like to talk about. tonight i want to ask, i ask you over a year ago a question regarding the leadership and what was going on in congress. it only got worse. i was half-hearted the asking last year but i am serious tonight that what i see happen throughout history is that

society's crumble from within. that is what i'm afraid of for my own children. not for me. i have had the honor and privilege of working with david petraeus. i was part of the invasion force. we lost our daring as soldiers for a little while. the commander straighten this out and said you represent something magnificent. you represent the united states of america. you must maintain your bearing regardless of what is going on. we were with people who had good information involved in the murder of soldiers. we had to maintain our bearing. we had to make sure the mission was accomplished. we sucked it up. i do not see that in congress today. i see too much bickering and pettiness.

i see them maintaining their bearing. it is not happening in congress. my message is go back to congress. tell them the people said it straightened up, get your bearings and do the right thing for the american people. we are afraid of what is going to happen if you do not do the right thing today. [applause] >> i appreciate your integrity. as we came in, there was a contract for the american dream passed out as is -- as if it were your endorsement. >> i have no idea -- >> i think everybody got one. maybe i should put it in the trash can on the way out. [applause] [unintelligible]

>> we're coming right down here. >> every american between now and snowfall should read a book that was written in the 1950's by a russian immigrant called "atlus shrugged." it tells everything that is happening in our country. the big worry i have is you do not leave a dog in tehe hen house. [laughter] [applause]

it did not take much precedence to realize that she did not invest in the financial industry before it bursts. it was predicted by everybody that it is coming. it was caused by congress passing the community reinvestment act. it sat upon a malignancy in wall street or they were investing in strange derivatives that nobody had any faith in. it is still going on. we are forcing banks to lend money to people who cannot possibly pay it back. why don't we get rid of that act? it has caused all of the problems we have today.

>> the community reinvestment act was the basis behind on the previous discrimination. which was real. i am not sure there is evidence of that today other than economic discrimination. especially as we find ourselves today. i don't know why we can get rid of it. i think we compound our problems with the dodd frank bill because we did not fix a fannie mae or freddie mac. you're going to about ham -- have about 400 million more that we're going to have to pay. congress would not -- going back to the constitution. what does it say? is there anyplace to said it is congress to make sure you have a

home? no. you have congress pushing fannie mae and freddie mac. every time we get away from this document we put our future at risk. it was not perfect and it needs to be changed to one of the things i have done over the past seven years is spending time reading the federalist papers. madison and monroe when jefferson and hamilton and reading what they said. we are so far from what they thought we should be doing. it is amazing. i do not know how to answer your question other than to say you are correct. but we have to have some way to guarantee we do not read a line of districts in terms of investment. -- red line districts in terms of investment.

we can prevent discrimination without being stupid. the last question and then i'm going to go eat dinner with my family. >> good evening. my name is christian and i am here on the -- on behalf of the alzheimer's association. thank you for your support in the past. i would hope you would agree that alzheimer's disease has become not only a public health crisis but an economic crisis as well to the tune of $183 billion annually. more as a baby boomers entered the medicare system. i wanted to say, thank you for supporting funding for the national institute of health but for holding the institute accountable for returning

important data to us. i implore you to support the alzheimer's breakthrough act which holds people accountable to finding whatever amount it is we need to combat this terrible disease and also the hope for alzheimer's act which improves diagnosis, cure planning, and advanced measures. can we count on you? >> the answer is no, you cannot. here is my philosophy. i think we should have the best national institute of health and the world. and we do. it is to have times the size it was 12 years ago. the last thing we need is special-interest groups telling the scientists where they need to go. francis collins who did the genome project is a good friend

of mine. i had dinner with him a few weeks ago. he said police do not pass any more laws telling us what we have to do. let us follow the science to solve the greatest solutions. it is right. i love the advocates for all of the disease. my mother has alzheimer's. she recently died. the ms patients and the packer attic -- pancreatic cancer patients. we have so hurt the nih because all the congressmen are telling the scientists what they need to be doing. when i think we ought to do is back off and say, you are charged with taking on this new science and helping the most

people to the greatest extent in the fastest way you can. we are going to let you decide what is important based on what you see as progress. [applause] so i am supportive and i am on the latest research, especially the inhibitors and other things going them to decide. some of them are and some of their are not. is, that is great. you have my support. but it is telling them what you you will do it, support that. i want to scientists to go where the path is to find it years. -- the cures. i'm going to finish out.

for being here. is rewarding to see this many people. you may have heard a lot of goofy. you have an obligation to tell me where you think i am wrong. rather than get mad and walkout me an e-mail. read every e-mail the comes in my office. [applause] you will ultimately get an from me but it takes me a mails as well as be a senator. lot of time goes into preparing the answer back for you. heard something you with, let me know. coburn.senate.gov. if you're out of state, i will take my time. represent people from

other states. i represent my oath to the constitution. sometimes you will not like the get a you can guarantee it is my answer. [applause] you have been great. god bless you and could night. -- good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in about 45 minutes, president obama's meeting in illinois. after that, a form of prospects for the deficit-reduction committee. later we will repair the meeting with tom coburn of oklahoma. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c- span. the national business group holds a news conference to discuss a survey of the employer benefit costs.

that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 12:30 p.m., how shifts in demographics may affect democrats, republicans, and the next election. the annual look at public opinion of the u.s. education system at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> in a city that averages 250 murders a year, kevlin swewll takes on the tough question, why do we kill? it is one of the books we are featuring this weekend including a book launch problems -- conference for armstrong williams and how unlikely allies got together to try to change the school system. we talk with diane on

"afterwords." you can watch all of our 9000 programs online. >> texas governor and candidate rick perry campaigned in new hampshire today saying president obama is not doing enough to create jobs. he spoke at a breakfast in bedford. this is 40 minutes. cheery good morning. what a fabulous day. i do not think it is this way in texas. the heat may be a little bit higher in texas. you are blessed to have this beautiful weather. it is good to be with you. this is an intriguing idea to say the least. thank you for coming today.

you really honor us. there is a united states marine who has been serving in afghanistan. one of the reasons we are here today to have the three freedoms that we do our young men like years -- like yours. thank you. [applause] i am blessed to be traveling with my wife. we gave them a little bit of a day off to catch up and rest a little bit.

we have got great respect for in thete' and the first nation primary. i will be here a lot. i'm going to be campaigning with a fervor. you will see me a lot. you will see me in gauging often in new hampshire. particularly just coming in sitting and listening. also trying to answer questions about what we see as some of the big issues to face this country. i love any state that does not have a personal income tax. i am kind of jealous of you that you did not have a sales tax either. that really makes a huge difference. i will talk a little bit about your economy as a whole.

live free or die. you've got to love that. it is remindful of a little plays down in texas called the alamo. people were willing to sacrifice for the freedom that they hold so dear. people say, why are you running frofor president? >> because i want to get america working again. our nation cannot endure another four years of rising debt. now we're told we're in a recovery. it sure does not feel like a recovery. there are millions of americans to cannot find a job. those are having to work full time.

it is not feel like a recovery to them. one in six eligible americans cannot find a full-time job. that is not a recovery. that is an economic disaster. president obama said he had reversed the recession. of the past six months, and you run into a little bad luck. at the same time, some people dismiss job creation. there have been some on the left that said the fact is those 40% of the jobs created in america since the ninth of june was just luck. badica's crisis is not luck. it is bad policies from washington, d.c. jobs come by keeping taxes low

and controlling spending by reforming tort laws and ensuring regulations are fair and predictable. president obama's policies which she claims reverse the recession increased unemployment. they exploded the debt. they led to the first downgrade of credit in our country's history. apparently, his new economic plan is to create an agency for jobs. we need new jobs. we do not need new agencies. we do not need a government solution. we need the private sector to work and getting the government out of the way. if you want to stimulate the economy, you let small businesses keep more of what they make. that is the way you stimulate the economy. here is another thing that we do in texas and we do -- here's

another thing they need to do to really send a message across this country that you can be free to restore capital and have a good chance to get a return. yesterday, i talked about freezing all of the federal regulations for a six month time frame. this is regulatory overkill that is a serious threat to investor confidence and growth. there has been this tension between washington regulators and employers. the situation is rapidly deteriorating. in 2010, and the obama administration implemented 43 new regulations that cost businesses more than $26 billion in this country. new efficiency standards for residential water heaters.

that is getting down in the weeds. the fact of the matter is, those type of regulations, heating equipment, pull features. it will cost businesses. it will cost their customers $1.3 billion. the new standard to raise the price of a typical water heater by $120. that is just one example of almost a book full of examples. it is not just that these new ones keep this. it is the uncertainty that is up there. they see this coming down the tracks. it is a monstrous cost to them.

it must be repealed. the president's rhetoric of change it does not match his record. what they sold us in 2000 a they have not delivered. it is no wonder that businesses are holding money in reserves. as governor of texas, we have led with a few simple principles. principal number one, do not spend all of the money. number two is have a tax searcher emplace that is as low as you can keep it and still be able to deliver the needed services. having regulatory clients that is fair and predictable. it is so important to have the

predictability. there is a legal system that does not allow for furloughs lawsuits. just this last spring, the added to the tour reform. there is a loser pays. over the years, we follow this recipe to produce the strongest economy in the country since june of 2009. of all the jobs in america, it is created in america. it is time to do the same thing in our federal government. the principals will work as well. it is time to put a limit in

simplify our taxes. let him quit spending money we do not have. we need to restore are good credit. in new hampshire, you know what works. it is what is called the new hampshire advantage. it involves this republican legislature cutting spending and some of raising taxes. because of those courageous legislator tors. you have the best economy in new england to make it even better. i would suggest to override the veto of the governors of the become a right to work state. the of the governor so that you become a right to work state. the president said and needed to watch what i say.

i just want to respond back if i may. mr. president, actions speak louder than words. my actions as governor are helping create jobs in this country. the present actions are killing jobs. it is time to get america working again. thank you all for coming. but open it up for a few questions if we can. -- let's open it up for a few questions if we can. >> the governors want to take some questions. i ask that you identify yourself. >> i will repeat them so everyone can hear back. >> baby out start off with the perce spirit >> -- i will start off with the first. >> in debating it, if you were

present, would you have signed and accepted by was present, it never would have come to that. -- would you have signed it? >> if i was president, it never would have come to that. we clearly laid out the case for cutting spending and capping that ceiling and passing a balanced budget amendment. i would not have signed it. the idea at -- listen, we have to quit spending money. this is not rocket science. spending money we do not have continues to put more in debt upon young women like alex sitting right here. the idea that we will spend more money that we do not have i think is -- it sends the wrong message to every part of the economy.

yes, sir? >> my question is about what you started off with, honoring our veterans. i two brothers after serving. i have a dad who is a disabled veterans. a lot of young soldiers are coming home needing our help. there's talk about organizing retirement for military folks. the issue of the va is a controversial one. what is your thought of honoring them? >> the fact that i am a veteran -- we chose the wounded warrior project to be the recipient of our in our rural proceeds that we had. we work not only in a public way but also in a private way to support those young men and women better coming home, some 11 deployed four and five times. i do not know how meantime your son has been deployed.

multiple times for these kids. i cannot tell you how magnificent they are. i traveled to iraq and afghanistan multiple times. they are selfless. if they are sacrificial. for us that to take care of them, i will suggest the way we have to get our economy working again, get america working again and lower the taxes and the regulatory impact, i know what this is. the give people an opportunity to have a return on their assessment. they will get out there and create jobs in the well. i know it works. that is what we have done in the state of texas. that engine is so powerful.

for us not to have the resources coming in, so we can properly fund the programs, you have to be able to do that. you can talk about all the programs you want. if you do not have the money to be able to put into those programs, whether you have an economy that is strong enough so we have the offensive and tactical. they know that america is strong militarily. we have to get this economy back. that is the issue in front of us. i know there'll be a lot of diversionary talk. they work for a young man he was discharged.

here is what hundreds term disabled. is that we made a mistake here. these are the types of focuses that we have had on our veterans. there is not a group of young men and women that deserve our focus. >> my question refers back to when we mentioned business tactics.

can you explain to me why they should be allowed to pay lower tax rates? >> i cannot explain that. just because you have a good with the political world in get chosen to be on the governor's business council, we're not pay your fair share of taxes. when they're serving to keep their doors open, you have corporate entities. that is a great company. this is what we need to do. we need to go back again and look at our tax code and

simplify it. it and lower the impact on people. i was talking to representatives got from carolina 10 days ago, i believe. he has a piece of legislation heading towards a fair tax -- i am not saying it is the right idea, but it is heading in the right direction. we had a conversation and about our tax structure and how we simplify and lower it. here is another issue from my perspective -- corporate profits that are off sure that we tax at 35% -- we know for a fact that money is not coming back. why not talk about how you repatriate those dollars and have those dollars focused on job creation and allow them to

come back and had a lower rate than 35% -- say something like if it's clearly going for job creation, like zero to get this economy working again. yes ma'am? >> there are a lot of things we cannot always agree on. one thing the city has come together on is the need for medical malpractice reform. it was something in health care that was not addressed. i know you have addressed and texas [unintelligible] >> medical malpractice is

something that -- texas was something that -- i would use the words that the wall street journal used, eight judicial hellhole, in the early 1990's. in 1995 we had some good steps in the right direction. in 2003 is one we really made the big impact in texas. we put in place some serious protections against frivolous lawsuits. we captain on economic damages or the doctor, hospital, or nursing homes would be protected from these monstrously out of sight settlements. there were a lot of people who said that this is not going to work, it is going to limit people's access to health care. none of those things came true. none of them. i will tell you what did come

true. this last year, 21,000 more positions practicing medicine in texas because they know they can do what they love and not be sued it frivolously. what a powerful message carried 30 counties in texas who did not have a emergency room doctor have won today. counties along the rio grande which were some of the really litigious counties where women were having to travel for miles and miles outside of the county to find and ob/gyn to seek prenatal type care, today they have that. that is the result of medical malpractice reform -- tort reform that really matters and really makes a difference. people still have their access to the courthouse. people still have the ability to

go in front of a jury trial. we protected against the frivolous suits. it is very important. i think that has to be done state-by-state. federal courts and federal law to reform, certainly. i support that. i hope there are members of the legislature that will come forward with those types of programs. state reform does not need to come from washington d.c.. >> thank you for coming. we followed texas as a role model and its reform of judicial -- [unintelligible] what the most inefficient

programs that the government runs is capital punishment. d.c. a point where we decide it is just not worth it? >> i think that is a state-by- state issue. it is really interesting to have the conversations about all of these different issues that people think a constitutional amendment needs to be passed for. if there are enough people in america and enough states that believe capital punishment needs to be prohibited across the country, then that will happen. if not, then state-by-state they will make that decision. in the state of texas, our citizens have clearly said that they support by overwhelming majority capital punishment. i just lay it out there as an issue for americans and state- by-state. if they want to pass a constitutional amendment, i would suggest to you, i will

work a whole lot harder on a balanced budget amendment to the united states pose a constitution and i m on one to ban capital punishment. >> thank you for coming, governor. you wrote in your recent book that global warming is phony that >> some say earth is expressing a cooling trend. my question is, is -- if observed scientific data is wrong on that issue involving thousands of scientists on an issue like global warming, does this not call into question the entire scientific process?

>> you may have a point. i do believe the issue of global warming has been politicized. i think there are a substantial amount of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. i think we are seeing get almost weekly or daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is called -- causing the climate to change. yes, our client is changing. they have been changing ever since the earth was formed. i do not buy that a group of scientists who have in some cases found it to be manipulating this information, and the cost to the country