you can learn more about our jobs plan by visiting jobs. gop.gov. >> president obama will be at the united nations headquarters in new york next week. he needs to discuss the transitional council of libya. he will also meet with the afghan president of the future of that country after the 2014 transition and the withdrawal of nato. on wednesday, he will address the u.n. general assembly where he is expected to talk about the role american foreign policy, libya, syria, and middle east peace. look for coverage of>> watch moe candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest political contributions on the c-span website for campaign

2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with facebook updates from the campaign and the latest polling data and links to c-span media partners in the early primary states. >> the first thing, you hear the booom and you hear them cry out in pain. the second thing i heard is, if i have lost anything special, shoot me. >> sunday, the director of a 30 minute documentary about his friend, rob jones. his film follows rob's journey from coping with the loss of his legs to his rehabilitation. >> next, a discussion on jobs

and the economy. you will hear from gene sperling and doug holtz-eakin, former director of the congressional budget office. also andrew stern and eric cantor. this event is hosted by the american action network. it is one hour, 20 minutes.

>> i am not here to deliver a prepared speech. i am here to talk to you about the american jobs act and to give you a sense of the rationale for why we put forward the american jobs act and why we chose the component that together make up what we feel is an strong and powerful an initiative to jump-start growth and job creation in our country. we face today a serious economic challenge, a difficult economic moments that deserves a serious economic response as parts of an

economic growth strategy. we already knew we were digging out of the worst economic hold our country has been in since the great depression. we now know more about how deep that hole was. if you were to look at the blue chip in november of 2008, the projections or the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008 and be forced -- first quarter of 2009 was that it would average a loss of 1.65%. that is what the obama transition team was looking at. we now know that over those two quarters, growth averaged a loss of 7.8%. it was -8.9% in the fourth

quarter of 2008 and -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009. those are the worst 30 economic order since they started doing economic data in 1948. -- quarter since they started doing data in 1948. other than world war ii, it is the worst two quarters of economic performance of our country has seen since the great depression. the challenge, which we all knew was enormous, with new and updated information, we realize how serious and precarious the situation was at that time in our economy. we also already knew, particularly from those

economists, that coming back from a financial crisis reduced -- crisis-induced recession is a tougher and harder ride back than a typical recession. it means that you have to stay at it and you have to dig and keep digging and keep staying at it and try to do more of what is working and less of what is not working. stay at it until we get this recovery at a pace at a momentum that can start making a more serious dent in unemployment and a more positive impact on job creation. knew that while buil

unforeseen defense out of your control cancer apprise you on the upside, it often upside -- surprise you on the downside. for this recovery, that happened last summer with the problems in greece. we have seen it this year as well. in march of this year, blue chips were projecting 3.3% growth for 2012. very positive growth for the second half of this year. many of the top forecasters believe growth in 2012 is estimated to be over 3.5% or 3.75%. we have faced a combination of headwinds that have changed every economic forecaster's view

of where the economy is. the good news for democracy in the big east -- mideast did not translate into positive news at the pump for the typical american consumer. in december, we were looking at $3 per gallon for gas. i do not have to tell anyone that many americans have seen $4 and hire at times. even now, the average is closer than $3.60 and $3. we had an unparalleled supply interruption. no one had projected that even a major event as horrible as the earthquake and tsunami could have this kind the impact globally. we have seen once again how

interconnected we are. three serious concerns about europe still dominate the downside risk in the economy right now. four, and in some ways the most unfortunate because it was the one thing that was in our control, we have learned painfully how harmful it was that our country went through such a public time of governmental dysfunction with a prolonged threats of our first default in the history of our country. with that, we now see that the blue-chip estimates growth to be 2.2%. there is a significant amount of forecasters who believe if we do not extend many of the measures like the payroll tax, we could be below that at 1.5% or 1.7%.

these are very troubling projections. i think it is safe to say that with these type of economic challenges being faced now by the american people, doing nothing is not an option. with these type of headwinds faced by workers and working families and 9.1% unemployment and 14 million people out of work, simply sitting on our hands is just not an option. the downside risk of inaction with 9.1% unemployment are too great. the upside benefits of action that could give this recovery more momentum are two significant -- too soon to get ample found for anybody to irresponsibly argue that they should just -say no over bolder

and stronger action on job starting jobs and economic growth. we need a three part economic comprehensive growth and job strategy. as a country, we will always need to continue to invest in our future, in winning the future, in our people, training, education, in taking the steps that laid the foundation for the private- sector, the engine of our economy, to grow and become innovative and produced the jobs of the future here in the united states. second, we also need to have a plan for long-term fiscal soundness to provide the long- term confidence that this is the place to do long-term investment and job creation.

the third, and not less important, is a powerful testament -- effort to jump- start jobs and growth right now. a powerful measure to jump-start job creation and give more momentum to our economy. it is paid for, each and every penny. as you will see, it is part of a longer-term strategy to stabilize and bring down our debt as a percentage of our economy. many things in the american jobs act are essential to the types of investments we need to do for greater productivity and innovation for a more competitive work force.

we each made a decision to not put out our own economic projections. our view had been that that was a tough call, what to do or not to do. there are benefits in doing so. often, our projections get more politicized and the issue often becomes a distraction. at this particular moment, we decided to rely on what outsiders, independent analysts, would say. while there is a range, what is absolutely, and in all of them is what a significant difference this would make. mark zandi, an economist at moody's, has an estimation at 2.2% growth, with the blue chip is.

it the american jobs act was passed, growth would be 4.2% in 2012. a 2% growth differential. job growth would be 1.9 million jobs higher. that is 158,000 jobs a month before rental. 158,000. -- that is a 158,000 jobs a month differential. it would not surprise you to know that i favor zandi's analysis. what is 110,000 additional jobs per month or 158,000 jobs per month, whether it would make growth go to 0.3% or 2.2%, there

is simply no haste or not try to pass the american jobs at, for not trying to find a significant effort that we can take to gather -- together to protect against the risk of further unforeseen events and to offer the hope of greater momentum, greater job growth, greater economic confidence and more customers in stores by taking this type of action. yesterday, we put forward our legislation, which said how we would pay for every penny. as you saw, it called for limiting deductions at 28% for hiring some americans, those making over $250,000. it also called for reducing

corporate tax expenditures that are a little harder to defend. i am not totally sure how one defense why, if you buy a private jets, you can depreciate that faster than someone who buys a commercial jets, which is more central to our economy. these companies employ tens of thousands of people. a couple of points. the way the legislation is written is, it says, here is how the measures the president recommends taking to pay for the american jobs acts so that we can get the benefits in the first year, 2011, 2012, partially 2013, in getting

better stop growth and economic growth in our country. -- better job growth and economic growth in our country. the legislation also says that it be joint committee meets its deficit targets that was set by law in the budget control act and chooses to pay for the american jobs at the above meeting its target, then the measures we put forward would trigger. this was our way of making clear that we were willing to step up to the plate and to detail precisely how we would pay for every penny of the american jobs act. we also created a mechanism whereas if there is a bipartisan agreement to pay for it with a different mix of policies, we

would not only allow that, but our legislation would put that alternative in action. in doing this, we met the test of being specific in how we would pay for it. we put " were to be country with our preference would be -- we put forth to the country our preference for how that would be. this is our way of getting the american jobs at dawn. i will say the following note -- this is our way of getting the american jobs at done. i will say the following nodes of how we will pay for it. -- note of how we will pay for it. deficit-reduction is never

easy. it has been the president's firm principle that sacrifice should be shared sacrifice. that means choices. the president put forward choices he would make. we think it is more important to put forward a fiscal lebes possible plan that could mean up to 2 million jobs, up to 2% in growth as zandi projected. that that isiew more important than giving the most well off two or three times more deductions than the typical american family. we made a decision that we would rather support putting people back to work, fixing schools,

putting teachers back to work, then we would protecting corporate deductions in the oil or private jets that are just not affordable in the current national situation we are in. the second point i would make is, when the president put forward this proposal to cap deductions at 28% in 2009, later, bowl since then, the gang of six, every bi-partisan -- later, bowles-simpson, began the sixth, every bi-partisan group said that we should have reform of our -- the gang of six said we should have reform of our deductions. the president reformed

deductions in a way that it's there. in a way that is fair. we will lower expenditures in a way that will lower the deficit. this proposal, as a stand-alone measure to pay for the american jobs act, is completely consistent with the bipartisan called for reforming our tax expenditures. many who may not have supported this in 2009 will take a second look now that the issue of reforming tax expenditures has come into sharper focus.

one final thing i would say before saying a little bit about the components. the plan that we have put forward, the plan to have a powerful american jobs act that can jump-start jobs growth in the immediate term with a longer term plan of investment in the future and fiscal soundness that will bring our deck down -- debt down as a percentage of our gdp is a plan that works better and is not contradictory. combined with a longer-term fiscal soundness plan to create long-term confidence is not contradictory. it is as complementary as good

hitting and pitching is to make good baseball team. it is hard to reach your long- term fiscal goal if you are not willing as a country to take the necessary steps to ensure that this recovery gets the momentum it needs. it is also harder to get the full long-term benefits of economic confidence if that powerful jump-start is not also combined with the commitment to deal with your long-term fiscal situation in a way that does not pull back or offset in the 2011-2012 the jump-start an increase in demand that the american jobs act is designed to encourage.

in putting forward our plan, we obviously put forward a four part agenda. i will not go through each item. the four parts are tax cuts to help small businesses hire and grow, putting workers back on the job rebuilding and modernizing america, pathways' back to work for americans looking for jobs and facing long term -- pathways back to work for americans looking for jobs and facing long-term unemployment and tax breaks for working families. when we passed tax relief, we were looking at gas prices of about $3 a gallon. the 2% payroll tax cut was an important measure. it provided a significant buffer for american consumers and gave

them extra money in their pockets to deal with the higher gas prices and higher food prices that were not foreseen at that moment. it turned out to be an important buffer and an important insurance policy against what could have been an increase in consumer spending based on what was happening at the pump. there is a need to ensure strong demand and more customers in the shops of more small businesses. we felt it was economically necessary to offer a temporary and even larger payroll tax relief. we put forth 3.1% payroll tax relief. it cuts the payroll tax in half

for all american workers. that would mean $1,500 for the typical family that makes $50,000. this is one of the measures that have received the strongest endorsement from forecasters. it is also an elegant measure. you are building on an existing structure in a way that puts more money in the pockets of every worker on a bi-weekly basis. it is elegant in you are able to build off an existing structure and put our money in the pockets of american workers in the bill-- and their families in an efficient way. this can only be a temporary measure. we see the headwinds that our economy faces and this --

we spent a lot of time looking at this and talking about this and analyzing this. we came to a couple of conclusions. one, there was significant differentiation in the economy in the largest multinational companies and the millions of small businesses and entrepreneurs, many of which faced a perfect storm in this economy. on the largest size, many companies are sitting on the enormous amounts of cash. some have estimated $2 trillion in total. many of them face a perfect storm. they are more dependent on big financing -- financing -- bank financing. many of them rely on their home

or their office building as collateral. that has hurt their capacity to get financing and to meet the cash needs they have. we felt that if we were going to do a payroll tax cut on business, the right way to target that would be targeted at the smaller companies. by cutting the payroll tax cut in half for companies -- for the first $5 million of wages, we felt that was any fashioned way -- and he efficient way to target the businesses that have way -- an efficient way to target businesses that have $5 million in wages or less.

for them, $155,000 in extra cash can be meaningful. we believe this will help small businesses keep people on the job. it will make it easier for them to hire. we also want to make clear that this is part of an overall start -- overall smart strategy to increase demands. many small businesses need the extra relief for inventory, for equipment to fix or repair. all of the uses of those funds would be positive for this economy. we said to all businesses, if you are going to have higher wages than you did the previous year, if you are going to hire more people or give wages to your existing workers, on the amount over what you did the

previous year, we will give you a full pay world tax holiday, 6.2%. this has been found by many economists to be one of the most efficient measures for job creation. it is because, or even if, 2-10 small businesses make the choice or this is the factor that pushes them over the line to this isate the h a hire, more bang for the bulk. ck. we are putting people back to work while modernizing our economy. today, the president is out speaking about one of those pieces, which is rebuilding and modernizing our schools. our proposal puts forward a $30 billion proposal. it was designed to modernize

open 35,000 schools and design internet ready classrooms. in designing this, one of the things we did was give those at the school district level greater flexibility in how to use their funds that has normally been the case in school modernization proposals. why? one, schools are like a lot of families. not everybody is ready to do a major reconstruction. everybody at your home would have something you would be ready to fix. likewise at our schools. while there is some need or some schools that would be ready for $2 million or $3 million in significant renovations that would be critical for the integrity of the children going to school there, many others face terrible inadequacies in

their physical infrastructure that could be dealt with with much less. more money would go out quickly and more schools would benefit. we could do more to the best in our long-term education goals. just one or two things that are worth mentioning. the gao found that 48% of schools that had a high degree of children in poverty, when asked whether their school met functional requirements for laboratory science -- the choices were yes, partially, or not at all -- 48% answered not at all. it is a terrible thing. we all go to conferences here and talk about the importance of science and talk about having a

stronger work force and in half of our schools with lower income students, they do not have adequate science lab facilities. that is an outrage. that should be an outrage economically and morally. this would give a school district the capacity to take that on, to take on having integrity class but, to find ways to save money with more energy efficient modernization and modifications. the second point i would make is that there is nothing in it in the deficient or pro spending cuts to allow ongoing deferred maintenance. in your home, if you decide to cut back, as i have not come on my nfl direct television access, i will save money. i will not get to see the

detroit lions play. you would save money. it you simply do not fix a broken window, you are just deferring the increase in spending to a major dates. . you will probably need more increased spending later. we have to learn the $70 billion in deferred maintenance in our schools. -- we have $270 billion in deferred maintenance in all our schools. the idea that it would be about expanding as opposed this smart desmids in our future -- smart investment in our future does not hold up when we look at the details.

there is a $35 million initiative for teachers. if you look at our economy every month, every quarter on gdp you see the same thing. growth in the private sector is being pulled back by a contraction in the local government and state sector. you see this every time. since january 2010, the private- sector has added $2.30 million jobs to the economy. since january 2010, the private sector has added 2.3 million jobs. the state and local government has contracted. this is a clear head wind that we are allowing in our economy now. its greatest harm is in our classrooms. in 2010, we lost 85,000 teachers. in 2011, about 140,000. over the last 12 months, 180,000

teachers. is this the way we want to deal with digging out of this financial crisis? is it the children of main street that you want to have suffered from the irresponsibility that could place on wall street and the lax standards among our government and regulators. this is an effort that is smart economically and smart for our children. i could probably go for another 30 or 40 minutes. you would be riveted. [laughter] i also told doug that i would allow a for someq & a. some q&a.ssom long-term employment is an extremely serious issue.

extending unemployment insurance is critical. throwing 6 million people out every day looking for work off of unemployment would be cool and unwise economically. what we have done is put forward an extension and significant reforms that helped encourage people to get back to work, helped encourage companies to avoid layoffs and do work sharing and avoid layoffs, help those who have been unemployed six months or longer have additional voluntary options to reconnect with the work force. that is an important part of our strategy. the president is opposed and upset at the reports of companies that are explicitly discriminating in their hiring and advertisements against those who are unemployed.

it was not acceptable in our country to put up billboards or advertisements that said african-americans and women need not apply. it is not acceptable in our current economic for people to say, if you have been unemployed for a certain amount of time, you should not even apply for a job. the president put forward legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone simply for the bees and that they are unemployed. he is putting forward a tax incentive to encourage companies to hire those who are long-term unemployed. with that, i will stop. if there is time, i am happy to take questions. if there is not time, i am happy to escape. >> why don't we take one question? do we have a question of your? out here?

we will get set for our next panel. i am to go ahead and .ntroduced =jim pethokoukis he is a writer for reuters. >> i thought you told me we will be talking about the hpv vaccine. [laughter] i am unprepared to talk about

jobs and the economy. i am a washington columnist with reuters breaking news. we are the commentary wing at reuters. i am heading to cnbc. we are ending this thing on time. i look forward to having a great dialogue today with doug and andrew stern about jobs, the timing, and the political landscape. and with chris cillizza from the washington post. first, i would like to take a few quick minutes to give context about where i think we are and drive the compensation a little bit. as director sperling just said,

the president has a $450 billion jobs bill. my theory of the case here is that we do not have the short- term problem. we have a long-term economic problem. i am a bit of a prop comic. i dug this out of my files yesterday. it is a 150 page report dated december 1999 looking forward to the next 10 years to 2010 about what the stock market might hold. it is from lehman brothers. there are many predictions. they did not predict their own demise. that is not the only bad prediction in this fantastic report. they predicted microsoft would become the world's first

trillion dollar company. they predicted gold would be $1,500 per ounce. no mention of apple. one mention of china. they said the u.s. budget surplus would continue to build throughout the decade. my favorite lehman brothers prediction is that the u.s. economy will be even stronger in the 2000s and we would see 4% growth and stable growth and we would be off to the races. clearly, that has not happened. even before the great recession, this was not a great decade for growth. what growth we did have was driven by a housing bubble and a financial banking bubble. the current recovery is not a

strong recovery. has been abnormally weak. there is some sort of financial shock, what we are seeing in europe right now. what of the economic arms that -- firms said the stimulus would boost jobs and growth. i think we have a longer-term economic problem, not just a short-term problem. i am interested to hear what our panelists say about how the current stimulus and current ideas from republicans will play into this economic problem. this is a longer-term economic problem. i guess we will start with andy. >> let me pick up where jim left

off and offered two contexts for this speech. i love this country. i believe america is a gift. its greatest hits is the american dream. for every historical period of time, every generation has done better than their parents up until now. this is not a democratic, republican, labor, or business problem. it is an american problem. this is truly an american revolutionary moment. i am not talking about the tea party or president, being a socialist. it is an economic revolutionary moment. there have only been three economic revelations in the world history.

with the agricultural, we got 3000 years to transition. with the industrial, we got 300 years. as we go from a national to an international economy, evolution is only taking 30 years. many of the things we are talking about will continue to happen because we cannot predict the future. for all of the people in this room and on this stage who believe we should go back to the era of ronald reagan, we are not going backwards anywhere. the only way to go it's always into the future. we will not relives -- the only way to go is into the future. the founder of intel just route -- wrote that our fundamental belief is bad the

freer the markets -- is that the freer the market, the better. free markets be planned economies. there may be room for a modification that is even better. the performance of several asian countries in the past few decades -- these countries seem to understand that job creation must be the number 1 objective but state economic policies. china, brazil, germany, india, have a different idea about the future in terms of countries being teams. what do we need to do in the short run? there are three things that do not cost the government any money. the repatriation of foreign

profits that are seeking overseas. they need to be used. i propose to find a permanent infrastructure bank so that they do not joke our infrastructure and economy. two is what was talked about in the refinancing and the president has adopted. an important way forward. these performance contracts that allow government to use the private-sector and the private financing to rehabilitate public entities and use the savings to pay for the costs is a good way it will work. gene sperling laid out a whole series of moderate ideas about taxes and unemployment and think areat i've see reasonable to do. in the long run, i want to say this. we have a health care system that is irresponsible. we spent 7% more than any

industrial nation in the world. every developed country in the world has a national health-care system. $700 billion a year. that is $7 trillion to $10 trillion to adopt the system as we see overseas. george bush was half right, to create a wealth building account. he thought it the wrong way, out of social security. there are ways countries around the world have found ways to do individual wealth abuilding. professional management and no with drawls. we are the only industrialized nation that does not have a value added tax. not only does it attached lots of things we forget like lawyers

and investment banker services and we all the tax retail sales at the end products. it taxes imports and it does not tax exports. we are the only country in the world that has our imports come in for free and our exports taxed. april american trade policy that could end the first hundred thousand dollars -- a pro american trade policy that could in the first $100,000 in income. the countries we trade with to not manipulate their currency. we talk about china and we need a pro-america trade policy. 90% of the software in the chinese government is pirated. we need to enforce our trade agreements. with this amount of inequality, you cannot count on chocolate economics -- trickle-down

economics to work. americans have not gotten a raise in real terms in 30 years. they will not get them from good luck or market fundamentalism. we need a 21st century short and long term plan. if not, our children and our grandchildren will not live the american dream. >> which of these fantastic ideas are actually possible? >> that me exercise my rights to thank everyone for coming today. thanking gene for introducing the american jobs at. act. i will agree and disagree with mr. stern.

earlier, i put out the four correct and to those to be used to evaluate a jobs act. no more u-turns. no more turn it on or turn it off stimulus. we are well past that. we have a fundamental growth problem. we have been growing too slowly too long. we need to raise permanently be long-term growth rates. second, by the process of elimination, you have to focus on the business sector in the united states. this is cost of like a. you round up the suspects. -- this is casablanca. you round up the suspects. that leaves you with the

business sector. you have to focus on policies that will give them genuine incentives to hire people and give them raises and do it for the long run. that is missing. third, anything you do should attack the debt explosion. we are on a trajectory to have a sovereign debt crisis. erskine bowles called it the most predictable crisis in the history. it is not a pro-growth or pro- jobs strategy to have a sovereign debt crisis. if the company is decided to relocate in the u.s. and see us headed toward this fiasco -- any doubt that has to be serious about the debt crisis. -- any jobs plan has to be serious about the debt crisis. we need to recognize that this is a national moment of truth.

we need to undertake spending reforms. it is all spending, defense, non-defense. and the affordable care act has to be on the table. if you want to talk about revenue coming back to have a better tax base. we have a terrible -- it you want to talk about revenue, you have to have a better tax base. we are driving major successful companies offshore. it makes no sense to do that, particularly at the time when we need jobs. we need to clarify the trajectory of future policy. it does not do any good for the administration to say, we are going to reduce the deductibility of these deductions to be 28% bracket. that is like tax reform. that does not help.

that harms. if something should not be deducted at 35%, why should it be deducted at 20 5%? what is the philosophy. we need to get serious about that. we can talk about the specifics act, butmerican jobs aact, growth is a commitment at every policy hundred to choose growth over other choices. a union agenda in trade agreements, promised to raise taxes on small businesses, and turn around and say we have this plan, this bill. growth is not a bill. it is taking at it the figure later --defibrillator paddles

and try to bring a person back to life with no oxygen. over the long term, a lot of the things that were said are right. we need and fundamental strategy. that is that a stimulus issue. have real progress that phone to build infrastructure. there should be a commitment to educational reform that is not about money. we spend a lot of money on education. we do not get our money's worth. most of the things the administration is trying to do on distribution issues is try to plug the dike long after it is obsolete. we need to get ahead of the curb and give them a retirement income by pre-funding their retirement accounts.

there are things that can be done now. there should be things that aren't generally consistent with the long term, not these half measures. >> about th4e rag tag measures, the white house seems to be making the case that the political environment has improved. and it will be easier to get their ideas through. can you handicapped the political prospects and how that might authorize the super committee. >> sure. that we apologize. for being late. someone once said political

oforters are beithe dumb jocks the political reporting world. [laughter] let me start with sufficiently lowered expectations. i cannot agree with the a bomb administration that the political environment has gotten significantly better -- i do not agree with the obama administration that the political environment has gotten better. sometimes in politics, saying it can make it truth. i deal in a world where perception that is more than reality. that is particularly relevant when you are talking about the economy. how people feel about the economy in political terms often matters more than the act will economy. economists road bear is -- roll their eyes.

for most people who know anything beyond what they learned in microeconomics in high school, the unemployment rate is the most basic measure possible of things, maybe not even a great measure it. for the average person, they watched the news and they read newspapers of some sort or the web. that is the number that they consumed. they see that. that was not a good moment for the obama administration. zero jobs created three it is hard to build momentum of of that. what the obama administration is trying to do politically is that they are trying to put some urgency to it. running against congress is not a bad thing at the bombing. president obama is at 40% approval. he is at 39% in terms of his

handling of the kind. congress is that 15%. they are worse than 50% in some polls. running against congress is not the worst thing. as pressing urgency is smart politically. one of president obama's best lines in a speech last we was -- and he thinks so because he said it again -- there are 14 months until the next election. the american people do not have 14 months to wait. put the ball in be republican's hands politically and wait for them to do something. is there enough political pressure from the outside to get them to do something? if you look back at what has happened in the big legislation dealt with the last year, i think most democrats would say that president obama has compromise too much. some would say the house

republicans have compromise too much. if you gave it the most honest analysis that you could, president obama has moved more than congressional republicans. is that the case now? is he going to sell this in the a different way than he sold to the health care bill? he is going to places to sell it. he i will come into your district or your state and say why this is important and you are blocking jobs being created. i think that is the right approach to take. i think so much depends on whether republicans feel at all -- that feel as though doing this is the right thing, both from a policy and political perspective, and how much they are willing to compromise. i think canter and boehner

coming out with statements that were relatively conciliatory, again, it is just about positioning in politics at the moment. it the president says this is a good plan, you don't want to come out and make a bipartisan -- hyper partisan statement. much thatow how actually tells us until the 19th, when we expect president obama to propose how he is going to pay for this. remember -- remember the big point was everything is going to be paid for. that will be a significant amount of raising taxes on the wealthy. i don't know how conciliatory that tone will state once we see how that will offset expenditures in the bill. i guess i am pessimistic by nature. if you have watch politics for the last few years, you would be pessimistic, too. it does not mean these things

cannot happen, but i tend to see this like i see almost anything this close to an election. we are relatively close to a presidential election. i see politics and everything, and i think there will be a significant amount of political positioning on both sides as they try to win the issue. i know that is a cynical take, and it does not mean something big cannot happen, but for this policy to be divorced from politics is a fantasy. >> how much flexibility do you think the administration will show on adjusting this plan? one idea mentioned here was like the tax holiday. with a except adding that to the bill? >> let me say from a purely political perspective, the obama administration, what president obama did was stake out his ground in a speech last week that was very pleasing to many

democrats. obama is a fighter. i think his nature as a pragmatist, they value compromise politically because they believe it is what independents want. 43% of the people are going to vote for him if the employment -- unemployment rate goes up to 14%. it is the people in the middle that are fighting over. those people the obama administration believes what compromise. they want to feel like he is what he promised he would be, which is a change agent to solve intractable problems. that mentality makes me think they are open to certain compromises, because they want to get a deal done. he may well choose this to be his moment in which they don't want to get a deal done, but i believe there will be some

flexibility there. >> i think particularly with the pay fors, they will pay for -- they will throw them over board tomorrow morning. they cannot propose discretionary spending cuts because they believe that is what causes grow, so they cannot do that. so they go back to the political philosophy that has been there since 2007, which is less attached rich people. then it gene sperling arrives and says if they want to do it some other way, that is fine. they want the politics, but they don't care about the policy. >> i believe they want to deal because they think a deal is what the american public, who are still perce wadable an

undecided about the election, what. the think i am wrong? >> he has failed in terms of convincing independents with what he is doing. it is not like he is holding firm with one group of the as losing everything. >> do you think that stillpersuadable? >> someone wants to do predictions of political pundits 40 months before an election. >> one thing the obama administration and his team have taken -- 14 months before the 2008 primary, what was the story

line? hillary clinton was going to be the nominee. i think they view this conversation, as well as many conversations in washington as something that is fundamentally disconnected from regular people. they believe conventional wisdom -- barack obama would never have run and the conventional wisdom has been wrong throughout and it is wrong again, and they will be proven right. obviously we'll have to wait 14 months to find that out, but i think it is a mind-set. they think he is in the white house because he did not listen to people like us. that is not surprise me that they are going their own way. even independencts are more pessimistic than the overall electorate. >> now we have the super committee and another round of stimulus.

would it have been smarter to have embraced his own debt panel back in december? >> everybody has 20/20 hindsight. republicans who had been heroes historically for debt reduction voted against it, and the president did not embrace it. not everybody looks back for the sake of the country and realizes that might have been a safer way out for everyone to move forward. i think it was a very big strategic mistake that when it came around to the debt ceiling, it was like, were you when we are having the discussion when it might have really matter? >> i absolutely agree with that. it is the nation of presidents to never admit you are wrong, but i think they would acknowledge that. privately, surly not publicly,

because so much of the way in which the debt ceiling fight played out and the way it alienated people from politics in general, the process became the story. the process of the nastiness of it, the dealings back and forth, and the process tainted everyone. embracing simpson bowles might have saved you from that protracted process that made washington look terrible. >> i think this is a key moment because the president did not embrace it. there is nothing in this budget that reflected any concern about this problem. it then exploded into a big process story. they had a crucial moments. it got really politically and it was a huge mistake. now, the question is will they change the way they operate?

and this point is the correct one. will it change what they do? if you look at the super committee, the 12 apostles reject the 12 apostles, whatever you want to call it, it is really just congress legislating. this is congress passing legislation to address national problems. when you have a national problems, congress never works without the white house. will he lead on this process or not? if he continues the tradition of the obama administration, we will not get anything out of the joint committee and we will not have progress in the long term that we really need in a moment. >> the president keeps saying the new packages full of things the republicans have supported before. is it full of republican ideas? >> no, this is full of warm over proposals. all the proposals we have seen

before, and there are some that republicans have voted for. there is no question about that, but extending unemployment insurance is not the heart of the republican view. >> it is amazing we spend $120 billion to rebuild iraq and afghanistan, but we will not rebuild our own country year. before tax cuts -- there is only one job that republicans are worried about, and that is getting the president. they will do everything in their power to look like they are really care, as long as the one honest man in town, mitch dream comes true. >> what i have noticed in all these debates --

>> everyone watched it, come on. >> it seems to me that for the average voter, other than jobs, the number one economic issue that affects their lives is what they do about housing. it is an issue that has not come up hardly at all in any of the republican debate. what can be done to do something about housing that could actually pass? >> i have a very strong view on this from my experience in the mccain campaign. there is no economically rational, large-scale housing policy that would make a difference and is politically feasible. that is it. we will get policies that don't do anything that are good political cover, but the only thing we are going to do it in housing is model through -- m uddle through credit is not the

people who are under water, it is the people with income shock who were walking away from their mortgage. there is $750 billion of negative equity of there. that means the government has to take from someone and give it to someone else. >> i think the refinancing idea is a republican idea. it is allegedly rewarding the people who did the right thing. the problem underlying the bank is once week marked down the value of the real estate, we will have a huge fiscal problems in this country, because we all thought we close our eyes and it would go away. now the market is still falling and it is a dangerous one for the economy. >> i think it is interesting

that mitt romney gave his jobs speech in north las vegas, nev., an area hit as bad as any by the housing in foreclosure crisis. mitt romney literally never stops talking about the economy, jobs -- last night in the debate, i thought it was amazing, this could not have worked out better if mitt romney had scripted it. mitt romney is standing next to rick perry. he was quite an externally, but he must have been slapping himself five internally. he could talk about the economy, jobs, housing, all these proposals were you or refining over an issue that matters to some republican voters but is

not a broad concern to the general electric, particularly where were with the economy and jobs. i think it validates the strategy that mitt romney is employing thus far, which is just talk about the economy and president obama relentlessly. do not get off topic under any circumstance. >> we are out of time. [applause] >> good morning. it is real pleasure to be here. i want to salute american action pour rahm and -- american action forum for holding this conference and trying to deliver on exactly that. that is how to focus policy makers on both sides of the aisle, individuals in the administration as well as congress to begin all rowing

toward the same direction. that is finally to see about turning this economy around. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. we are now in the ninth month, if you will, of a new majority. our majority hit the ground running in january with a clear sense effecting real change. i say that because we just by make up are now one-third new members. 40% of that one-third or individuals who really don't know from serving in public office. they are individuals like many of us who came from the private sector, who really know the pain and the challenges people are facing out there. they came to washington for the right reasons. they were elected in a year in which there was a political

wave, and have come as almost a moral compass for our conference. they come with the notion, they don't want to see tricks. they don't want any more gimmicks. they look at the numbers and say the mouth does not lie. it is time for us to solve the problem and produce results -- the math does not lie. the change they have in mind and we all have does not come easy. all of us have seen what has gone on in the last half of the year. there has been a struggle, because the stakes are big. we are facing to crises in this country. the first is the debt crisis. that is something that has been even of and been exacerbated over several decades of fiscal mismanagement. a policies that have contributed to the whole we are now in --the hole we are not in from a physical standpoint.

both sides have plenty they can be blamed for, but we are trying to approach it in a way we can all come together and solve it. the resolution at the beginning of august and the debt ceiling agreement provides a way, at least puts in place a process for us, to begin to resolve the problem to begin to manage down the debt and deficit. the other the crisis is something that directly affects the people that sent us here. it affects us all. it is this issue of jobs and economic growth. the challenge for all of us is to try and resolve both of these crises without trying to address one and heard the other. the president came to capitol hill last week to address a joint session of congress, and he specifically came to try and speak to the second crisis, which was the jobs crisis.

i will say that there certainly were areas that the president laid out that i believe we can work on together. there are potential areas of agreement. the president talked about the potential for progress on regulatory relief. the house republicans have announced a fall agenda that is highly focused on rolling back regulations that have impeded job growth for the middle class. just this week we are putting on the floor a bipartisan measure that says no to the nlrb, that we should not have a federal agency that begins to tell private entities where they can expand, where they can put investment in this country. i am hopeful that the president can put some meaning behind the words that he delivered. there is a potential for us to agree. the president also spoke about tax relief for small businesses

and for employers. we agree with that. we agree now is not the time to raise taxes on anybody, if we are trying to grow this economy. the president talked about infrastructure spending. we republicans believe there is a great need in approaching the decaying infrastructure of this country, and we need to come up with a way to address it. we may have some differences in the methods by which we are going to do that. the president suggested infrastructure banking. i think that is something to -- akin to creating fannie and freddie for roads and bridges, something we don't need to do. if we are going to be serious about prioritizing infrastructure spending, let's get the system straight. as create a spinning process that has transparency, and not put it in an outside entity that escapes the oversight of congress and taxpayers.

right now we know that states are required to have at least 10% of the money they are allotted set aside for projects that are not necessarily priority transportation projects. we have some permitting issues that we can get straight, that could see the flow of money to projects rather than have it sit while the regulatory process stands in the way. the president also spoke about unemployment benefits. now, he obviously mention that because there are a lot of people out of work. entirely too many people are out of work. 14 million americans are out of work. that is equivalent to the population of pennsylvania. there are four million people, equivalent to the population of kentucky, that have been out of work for a year or more. that is unacceptable. i see what the president feels for those people.

what we need to do in fashioning a way forward in unemployment benefits is look to see around the country what works. what works is work. unemployment benefits should not turn into a permanent solution. we should somehow connect unemployment benefits with work and job opportunities. these are the kind of reforms that we republicans would like to work with the president on. now, some of the things i think are troubling about the president's remarks are this. first of all, it is his message of, it is all or nothing, take- it-or-leave-it, passed my plan. that is just not the way anything works, and certainly not the way that washington works. we have been there, done that, for the last eight months. just this morning, we saw david axelrod on television saying it again. a lad it is not an

carte menu. that is not the spirit the people of this country would like to see us go forward with. the president of the plan also has in it a significant amount of what i would call stimulus spending. we have also seen stimulus spending before, and given the promises that were made, i would say that the stimulus program was a failure. why would we want to go do something like that again? especially when we have this federal debt crisis of borrowing money to fund government spending that has not produced the jobs result that we would like. the president has also mentioned that he will send up a pay for bill, or as he calls a, a deficit reduction bill. in it, he calls for significant

tax hikes. republicans do not support raising taxes if you want to grow the economy. it is that simple. the president also likes to talk about taxing the super wealthy, the millionaires and billionaires. his proposals just are not that simple. looking at the impact of his policy in increasing taxes on people making $200,000 and up, what you see is, it is attacks on the very people you expect and want to create jobs but she is a tax on the very people you expect and want to create jobs. his tax proposals are actually going to impose taxes on charitable contributions. in fact, it will impact at least 40% of tax-deductible charitable contributions. i don't think there are many americans right now who think that is a good idea. the question is, what would we

want to put an impediment in the wake of charities accessing funding, when the charities are the ones out there helping the people in need right now. it does not make sense. also, i would say that in looking at the proposal thus far, it looks as if the tax increase will also affect the ability for states and municipalities to borrow money, because as we know, there is a tax deduction of 40 for the interest on those borrowers. on one hand, the president calls for giving money to states for stimulus spending, and on the other, he is calling on making it more expensive for states to do that. this is nonsensical. these are areas of disagreement. i will say again, i don't believe we should allow areas of disagreement to get in the way of trying to come together on

the areas we can agree on and produce results for the people who sent us here. the people expect no less. in closing, i would say this. in listing to the president the other night in the chamber, something struck me in what the president termed a fair shake. i have talked a lot about america and the sense among so many people that somehow they feel they no longer have a fair shot. i think there is some sense that we may be talking about the same thing. somehow we have got to reignite the confidence and optimism in this country among the american people. i believe there are very, very strong differences about the vision of how we get there, and how we get to that fair shot four people again.

the president himself has said that there are going to be big differences, and i think certainly, the american people understand that. the american -- republicans and democrats are not going to agree on everything. some things are left for the election, and maybe the issue of taxation, maybe some of these other issues will have to be left for the election. i do think that what we are headed for over the next 14 months is a season in which there will be a robust debate culminating in november 2012 about the very question of who we want to be as a country. i believe that who we are as a country is a place where people, most people came because they did want that shot, that opportunity at earning their own success.

the difference i believe on the other side, and for the president's policies, the policies being promoted get in the way of that. they get in the wake of entrepreneur is, of the immigrants who came here decades or centuries ago to make its. the policies in place right now make it more difficult for individuals to go at it on their own. there is a sense in this town that somehow washington post a job is to guarantee the success of everybody -- washington's job is to guarantee the success of everybody. i don't think that is what america and our country is about. it is about freedom. it is about opportunity for everyone. if there is an impediment in the way of someone having that opportunity to earn success, that is where the government is properly situated to remove that impediment and ensure that

success can be had through burning it, through working hard and playing by the rules and seeing it come. so again, there are big differences, but i do think now is the time for us to try and set them aside, try and see if we can deliver results. that will be the job for us and congress as we go forward over the next several months. thank you very much. [applause] >> tomorrow on "washington journal, " a look at stake in the 2012 election, with david brody of christian broadcasting network news. later, historian carl anthony on the book "jacqueline kennedy."

that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. sunday on "road to the white house," speeches by rick perry and michele bachmann. >> i was not one of those people who knew at the age of 12 that he wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer, or for that matter, a governor or president. i spent many a night pondering my purpose, talking to god, wondering what to do with this one life, among the billions that were on the planet. what i learned as i talk to god was that i did not have to have all the answers, that they would be revealed for me in due time. >> as nominee of the republican