the reason is very simple. they were socialize political during the 10 years. they cannot go to the pubs to dream. were they saw the prime minister withdraw from gaza, a moscow continues to attack civilians. these millions of people moved dramatically to the right. >> we have time for one quick question and a quicker answer. right back here.

>> given that balance was recently secured in israel. with the spirit of the arab spring, be think the elder of the attempt of palestine to become a state could result in more violence? do you think leaders are considering that and if it played a role in the international discussions? >> it is not about the issue of that year. you have the security council seeking a full membership. there are many other alternatives. they might additionally -- a might eventually get it. they can't be like the vatican

-- a member state. -- they can be a bad can a member state. it depends on the israelis and the palestinians and how much they try to cooperate in trying to defuse any kind of tension that will ensue. security cooperation has gone well. that is why there have been no major incidents in the past few years coming from the west bank. that is very important. basically, that is the point. thank you. >> ok. on behalf, i want to thank our distinguished panel. >> today in new hampshire,david axelr od says the president

faces -- and look at redistricting in the 2012 race. one hour, we take you to the presidential library where new jersey republican chris christy lays out his leadership -- his vision of leadership for the country. he says there -- he says he is not running for president, but there is still speculation. >> he founded several labor unions and founded the socialist party of america. the last time he ran was from prison. eugene debs is one of the 14 men featured in the new series -- the contenders. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. get a preview and watch some of our other videos about him on our special website for the series -- c-

span.org/thecontenders. >> the president faces a titanic struggle to win reelection next year according to his top strategist david axelrod. mr. axelrod spoke at an event in new hampshire. this political form which started in 1996 is a regular stop for a presidential candidates. it is 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you so much. i grimace when people start reading that. every year it gets longer and longer. i feel older and older. first of all, i want to thank neil and the entire institute

for inviting me today. i cannot think of a higher calling than to expose young people to politics, to public life, the issues in public life and service. hopefully, we will upon a new generation of leaders. we so desperately need that. places like this are a wellspring. i know some of the young people i shook hands with this morning are going to be -- we are going to be working for them some day. i am sure of that. i congratulate you on your work. i want to thank you for your long association with this event and putting this event together. though he could not be here this morning, i want to spend my best -- i want to send my guest -- i

want to send my best to your governor. i am happy to be here. i understand you had quite a few republicans lately. i am happy to integrate the festivities here. i am happy to beat back in new hampshire. jim tried to blunt the truth, but my reporting days went back to 1976. as part of that reporting, i was through new hampshire quite a bit as a young reporter covering the new hampshire primary. i remember i was assigned in 1984 to do a profile governor askew of florida when he was running for president. this is what happens when you are a young reporter. you are asked to do profiles of governor askew. he was a splendid man, but not likely to become president of the united states. i went to a high school here in

manchester, and he spoke. i did reporters to end i grab a couple of kids after. i said, what did you think? one man said, it was very impressive. i said if he would vote, would you vote for him? this kid was very offended preset, "i have not heard from all the candidates yet. i think in these early stage -- i have to throw iowa in. these early states are the only states were candidates come face-to-face with citizens on a regular basis. people in new hampshire take the responsibility very seriously and put these candidates through their paces. they are a test for the most difficult assignment in the world. it begins here with very good

questions from citizens who take the responsibility seriously. i know there is always a controversy about that. why should these early states have so much influence? i really think the people in new hampshire take their responsibility well. even though i do not always agree with their verdict, i respect the role that they play and how seriously they take it. one of the characteristics of new hampshire voters that i have been aware of over the years is their sense of independence. generally, they are people who are less interested in party labels and more interested in the quality of ideas, the vision, a character, and candidates who come before them. i think that is one reason

president obama won new hampshire in 2008. the president's view then is the same is now. he said then and believes now that we have to rise above wintering partisanship, rigid ideology, the effect that part of some people have too often on our nation to face the challenges we meet as a country. there is no more pressing challenge and the challenge of the economy. people in new hampshire live with that every day. i do not have to tell you how important it is. the immediate challenge of accelerating jobs and growth. particularly in light of the strong headwinds we face this year from all it around the globe that have made a recovery that much more difficult. that is what the president is fighting right now for the american jobs act which would put teachers back in the

classroom, veterans back to work, construction workers back to work rebuilding our crumbling bridges, roads, and highways. and schools. it would open the door for people who are currently getiving unemployment ito valuable on-the-job training and skills as a look for employment. it would put additional money in the pockets of 160 million americans and in the pockets of small business people who are trying to make it in this economy. but let's acknowledge that beyond this immediate crisis, there is a long-term trend that we have seen for decades that we also have to focus on. that is the hollowing out of the middle class in this country that threatens to change the character of our country and the

basic assumptions that we have about our country. for the 35 years after world war ii, incomes grew, wages grew in tandem with the economy. all books truly were lifted when the economy grew. for the last three decades or so, that has not been the case. wages have essentially flat line for 80% or more of the american people and real terms. and, of course, prices have not. there was a census report just a couple of weeks ago. what it said is the average white male worker in this country is making in real terms what he was making in 1973. in total, the average worker is making what they were making in 1996.

we know that prices have not gone a long accordingly. one example -- and i am here at a school of higher education. the cost of college education has increased by 429% since 1985. that is just one of the things people are struggling with that are very much part of a middle- class life. whether it is health care, housing, all of these things have put enormous pressure on families who grappled with it by becoming double income families and by putting things on their credit cards, and acting out their credit cards, borrowing against the value of their home -- that was fine as long as the value of their homes was escalating. we know what happened in 2008. that whole house of cards came crumbling down.

so our task is not just to rebuild our economy in the short run and create more jobs. it is also to make sure that hard work is rewarded. that responsibility is rewarded. if you work hard, you can get a head. everybody gets a fair shake, and everybody does their fair share. we are working on two projects at once. we honestly thought what we got to washington, we would get some cooperation from folks across the aisle. after all, we were in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. but they had a different plan. senator mcconnell, the majority leader -- the minority leader in the senate did an interview in 2010 that was really revealing.

he said that we made a decision from the beginning that we were not going to give the president support of any major initiative. to do that would be to confer a sense of bipartisanship. we did not want to do that. in the midst of this tremendous challenge, essentially, the judgment was to let the president and the democratic party grapple with that on their own. now, you can question the appropriateness of that decision, i certainly do. it was diabolically clever. what happened was, the republican party was able to force the president to take a series of very difficult decisions, many that were as necessary as they were unpopular. the recovery act, the intervention to save the auto industry, to shore up the financial industry. then they were able to go to

voters in 2010 and say that we did all this on a partisan basis. he is being ideologue's rigid ideology call. in new hampshire and elsewhere , people wanted less partisanship. it wanted more cooperation in washington. the thought if we elected a republican congress, somehow, that would force a greater sense of cooperation and washington. that is the great paradox of 2010. instead of forcing greater cooperation, what these independent voters did with the best of intentions was sweet indeed most ideologies all group of republicans in my lifetime. the consequences of that have been felt all throughout this year and culminated in the debt ceiling debacle.

the same forces that are very much in control of the congress now -- of the republican side of the congress and the majority in the house are very much a force in the republican nominating process. ec republican candidates. many of them come through here. we all saw last week in the last republican debate when a young soldier appeared on the screen from iraq to happen to be a gay american and asked a question related to that and was booed from the crowd. not one person on that platform, not one person was willing to say, "do not do that.

it is inappropriate to do somebody who is risking their life for this country and is serving honorably. do not do that." nobody did that because they feared it defined the crowd in that room. that is extended to economics as well. they have all sworn oaths of obedience to his basic constructs that we never again should ask -- not $1 more from any america, for many corporate -- corp., from anyone to help solve our problems. they have laid out a familiar prescription for america, one that we have seen very recently. that is to continue to cut taxes at the very top to maintain tax

loopholes for corporations, to roll back all the wall street reforms that promote transparency and accountability on wall street. it is the same for below we heard 10 years ago which helped lead to this crisis. yet this is what you probably hear from this podium and he will appear in the debate in a couple of weeks when the republicans gather in new hampshire. this is an old line -- this is old line in old bottles. i believe it is ultimately not going to sell. as i said, what americans want is an economy where everybody gets a fair shake and where responsibility is broadly shared so we will meet our responsibilities -- meet the

challenges that we face together. let me say, one of those challenges absolutely is dealing with our fiscal mess. we have a budget surplus in 2001. we squandered that surplus, and now we have a fiscal crisis. it is a big dark cloud over our future. there is no doubt about that. the question is, what is the best way to go about solving that? are we going to do it in a way that is balanced? are we going to do it by cutting the things that will make our country stronger and our economy stronger in the future? you hear a lot, and you probably heard a lot in this room from people who say, we cannot mortgage the future by failing to deal with our fiscal challenges. that is absolutely right. that is why the president went to such lengths over the summer

to try to reach a major agreement that would solve this problem for decades to come. let's acknowledge there are other ways to mortgage the future. we have to be cognizant of that. if you cut education by 25%, which has been proposed on the other side, you are mortgaging the future. we know the countries that out educate us in out compete us tomorrow, and d.c. our students aren't sliding relative to students in other countries, this is a prescription for disaster. one of the candidates that i covered when i was a reporter in 1984 here in new hampshire was gary hart. he always said, if you think education is expensive, wait until you find out how much ignorance costs. that is a profound statement.

i think we as a country need to recognize that. if you cut research and development by 70% as has been proposed, you are mortgaging the future. if the government had not done the things in terms of funding research, there would be no internet. there would be no google. there would be no gps. this is how progress happens. when the government takes on basic science that corporations cannot afford to do and provide the seeds for progress. we know all around the world other countries are investing in that kind of research. we see it in china, india, and brazil. we have to compete if we are going to maintain and develop and encourage the kind of

economy which good middle-class jobs are available, we have to educate our workforce and make sure we are commanding height and jobs, it chance manufacturing jobs and other jobs that will pay the kind of salary that will allow people to live lives they want to live. if you walk away from our commitment to infrastructure, to rebuilding, the basic physical plant of our country and making sure it is competitive and that it is functional, then you are mortgaging the future. in one of the early debates, speaker newt gingrich's wound himself opt into a state of high dudgeon, which is not an unusual event, and said we did not need a department of railroads to build the transcontinental railroad. that is true. but what we did need was abraham lincoln in the midst of the civil war making a decision that once the war was over we better

have a transcontinental railroad or we would not grow. he also made the decision to move forward on land grant colleges. in the midst of the civil war when i think you can argue the demands on the government were greater than the ones we face today. because he had the vision, even as he was trying to save the union, to do those types of things to set up a patent system and do other things that were going to be the foundation for growth, we became who we are work. -- we became who we were. that is a lot about what this election is it out. it is about what we do in the short term to spur jobs and growth. it is what we do in the long term to lay the foundation for the kind of economy that is one to provide real opportunity to the broadest number of americans and reverse the trends that we have seen over the last

30 years that culminated in this collapse in 2008. i do not want to leave you with a sense that i am pollyannas about the challenges. we had the wind in her back in 2008. president obama got 53% of the vote. that means 47% of america voted against him. we do not have the winds and our backs in this election. we have the wind in our face because the american people have the wind in their faces. this will be a struggle. i firmly believe we are on the right side of the struggle. this is a tough time for our country, and is a tough time per the american people. the president will take responsibility for everything he has done, as he should. it will not be enough to simply point fingers of blame and try

to lay on him the responsibility for all of america's ls without providing credible prescriptions for how to solve them. it will not be enough to offer back to the future proven failures. the american people want the president to point to the future and offer a plan for how to get there. through this process that you guys are so much a part of, they will evaluate all of the candidates. they will evaluate their ideas. they will evaluate their record. they will evaluate their character. then they will make a judgment about who they can count on to fight for them and the values and vision that are so essential to who we are as a country and hold out the greatest hope for the embattled middle-class.

i very much look forward to that debate because i am very confident it is one we are going to win. i know by stating that he year in history of very sophisticated room of -- in this room of very sophisticated political observers, i will be held to it. we are a better country for what you do here. as i said, i look forward to the leadership that a lot of the young people who are here this morning and who participated in this program will provide in the years to come. thank you. [applause]

>> will you take a couple of questions? >> as many as you want. >> thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for your kind words about our primary. i would like to ask you to put your political strategists had on for a minute. we have a primary early next went to trade we are not sure when yet. unlike quite a few of the states before us and several after, we allowed independence -- which is the loudest -- which is the largest group in our state. after the results are in, i would be interested to hear, and i bet a lot of students would as well, how will you and the president's campaign analyze those results? what will you take from them that you will not get from iowa

and south carolina? >> it is interesting. we will look hard at that and held those independent voters behave in this primary. obviously, there are elements of this primary that are not evident in iowa. you have people competing in this primary who are not competing in iowa. they are making explicit appeals to independent votes. we will look hard at that. we will look hard at the level of participation in that primary. most of all, what we will be looking at is the quality of the debate and exactly what assertions are made during this process. we are going to ask questions. the questions are going to be if the representations are consistent with what people have said and done before?

are their ideas credible? are they simply tailored for specific constituencies to get through the nominating process? that is really what i look forward to. i can tell you there is a lot of criticism about our nominating process. it is pretty barbaric at times, having participated in and i can tell you it is hard. there are a lot of the veterans of the process in this room. what it does do, as i said in my remarks, it tests you. it tests your ideas. tests your character. it puts your record up. i think people in new hampshire do a good job thrashing that out. i can tell you i remember in 2008, we won a big victory in iowa. several days later we came here to new hampshire for the

primary. we spent five days effectively taking victory laps around the state of new hampshire and while senator clinton campaigned very close to the ground and made a very compelling case. we lost. it was a great lesson for us. i think it will be interesting to see how these candidates -- i know there are certain assumptions about the state and how it will go. there is a home court advantage for a candid. but kantor is always a test, and i think it will be again. i cannot believe you did not get the first question as big as you are. [laughter] >> hello. i am a politician major. my name is zach greggor. with the economy clearly been the thing that is the thing to focus on, how do you feel about the amount of money that is

being asked on both sides to raise in terms of campaigning? do you think that amount of money is justified? what are your thoughts on that? >> you raise a very concerning question, and that is, what is the effect of all this money in the process? we have a new and kind of menacing dimension this year because of the citizens united ruling over the supreme court. now, third-party groups can raise unlimited amounts of money and undisclosed contributions. there was over $200 million spent in the last election in the midterm election. i expect that number is going to be between half of

$1,000,000,000.1000000238 dollars. that has never happened before. it is going to force us to raise more money. we put restrictions on ourselves that other candidates have not placed on themselves in terms of taking money from registered federal lobbyists, in terms of taking money from pacs. i do not regret that. i think it is the right thing to do. it is an unknown question as to what the impact of all this will be. you are about to become our test cases on this. i suggest these so-called super pacs will begin to mobilize in the republican primaries. you are going to see candidates attacked from these sort of stalled the operations. governor.

house 1, governor romney has won, -- governor perry has one. you guys are going to see it close up. the answer to your question is, i have been concerned about money in politics for a very long time. we have tried to come back to some degree by raising as much lower dollar money as we can. our contributions tend to be on the average lower. we will see when we file our reports. we had over one half million contributors as far as the last report. it is not enough. the question we all have to ask ourselves as a country is, what if anything we can do about this, especially given the supreme court ruling. what we risk is returning the in many different ways, kind of a gilded age where infrastructures

can simply by a congress or even a presidency and really control public policy in a way that serves the interests who funds the campaigns and fund the operations of these super packs -- super pacs but not the interest of the country. as we move forward, your peers are going to have to struggle with this. if unchecked, it could help shape the course of the future in ways that you and others will not have please synch. i will not justify it. we have to live with it. we have to come at it the best we can. but it is not healthy. i think anyone who argues otherwise will have a tough case to make. go ahead.

>> sorry about that. thank you for coming out this morning. it was interesting to hear your remarks as he opened up the got the middle class and how our wages have gone down since the 1970's. it is a direct correlation to your membership and it did see dropping as witches have gone down. the unions have always supported the middle class -- middle-class and risk that the standard of living. right now in new hampshire, we are getting beat up that. my guys and gals working construction are wondering what we can do to put them back to work. the jobs bill is great. we support it. we need it now because three years ago and four years ago at the campaign, they were working.

now, they are disenchanted. they are having all kinds of problems. we need some help. we need jobs now. we do have something like an employee free choice act which would grow union membership and would grow the middle class and give people health insurance. you can't hit a lot of problems directly with that. >> obviously, i feel strongly about the jobs act as you mentioned. when you look at what happened to the economy, and new hampshire has felt some of this, we have seen a decline in manufacturing leading up to this crisis. a lot of folks who made a good living in manufacturing moved over to construction. and then the construction industry deflated as a result of the housing the collapse. you have a lot of people --

construction workers, tradesmen , who are working before. we have to get people back to work. we have heard from the folks on the other side of the aisle that they might perk -- they might approve some of the president's plan, but they are not short about most of the plan. at first, they said none of the plan including the payroll tax cut for americans. i think it finally came clear that it is not really a tenable political position to say we will not raise taxes on the raising, but we will raise taxes of 160 million working americans. there seems to be an indication that they might be receptive to that. the other components of the plan are equally important. the infrastructure element of it is very important for the reason that you suggested, which

is that will go right to the heart of the people who are most severely hit by this economic downturn. it will get people back to work. more than that, it will get them back to work rebuilding our schools and doing other work around the country that is so desperately needed. this is not just about putting people back to work, it is putting people back to work doing the work in america needs done. i am hopeful that -- i do not think left to their own devices, the guys across the aisle are going to embrace any of that. what the president is trying to do now as he has been out and about his engage the american people in this fight. the great thing about democracy is ultimately the american people have a say in this. to the degree that people make their voices heard, it will be harder to say "no." if they do say no, it will

further describe what this battle is about in 2012. as the president said in his speech, others cannot wait 14 months. they are desperate for work now. the country needs them working now. it is important to our economy that they are working now. we are going to keep plugging away at that. the employee free choice act, as you know, there is a new normal in washington which is it takes 60 votes in the united states senate to pass anything. that makes a lot of things more difficult to do. as the president said in his speech to congress, he is committed to the idea. he is committed to the principle of collective bargaining. he very much understands the connection between the right to organize and is the strength of the middle-class.

>> why do we not do one more? >> hawaii. thank you for being in new hampshire. i heard your remarks, and i appreciate them. let me ask you -- there is a perception on leaders in the state of all stripes. the reality of those who are down and out at the moment that this administration and this congress with both parties are unable to get control of this economy. with the headwinds as he said blowing in from europe as well as the headwinds in this country, before the election occurs, this gridlock that we see in washington right now is just not going to change. >> is not going to what? >> is not want to change. as a strategist, how you deal with that? it is a deep concern to business leaders in particular, which i am one of, in terms of getting

the capital we need to expand in hiring. the gridlock is something we look at with john the size and wonder what in the world as 21 do it. >> i think it is a very good question. we have had a number of blows to our economy this year. the arab spring and its impact on foot oil prices pretty japanese earthquake had enormous negative impact. the ongoing situation in europe is tremendously negative in terms of its impact on our own economy for a variety of reasons. the biggest hit we have taken is a self-inflicted room -- a self- inflicted wound is the debacle in the summer when we had those willing to walk a america over the cliff of defaults. i think that has had a chilling effect on markets and businesses

to express the concern that you expressed. i am not willing to stand here and accept that it is ordained that we cannot come to terms. there is good reason to believe that we cannot come to terms on some of these things based on past experience and based on what i said during my remarks. when you have leaders who say, our strategy is not to cooperate. behalf leaders who say that our number one priority is to defeat the president. it does not treat a climate for progress. we have to stop thinking so much about how we tear the other side down and how together we can build this country up. that is going to only happen if people demand it. i will say this. i am not willing to a sign a

sort of equal blame for what has happened in washington. there are democrats in this room i think you would argue that the president was too eager to try and find a path order -- forward. he was too eager to try to bring people together. that is in the face of evidence the other side did not want to do it. i do not regret him making the effort, because i think people elected him to get things done. they did not elect him to wage a partisan war. his treaties have been almost uniformly rejected. we had a few patches of sunlight in this long dark journey. last winter, we were able to get a lot done after the election and before the new congress took office.

i think ultimately the american people are going to have to demand that we do find the path forward. most people understand that this is not -- we are a better country than we are getting from those who would simply make this a partisan deal one after the other. i accept your premise in that we do not solve this, it will have negative effects on the country. we are going to keep trying to find those paths. as the president said in his jobs speech, one thing that has been offered has been offered time and again by republicans. there is no reason we cannot come together on these issues. i hope we can, and i hope we find common ground on physical challenges. the only thing that will make that happen is if the american people demand it.

we are trying to recruit the american people in this fight. thank you very much for having me here tonight. [applause] >> thank you very much, david axelrod, for coming. we usually been the speakers to do that. he actually said, i want to spend time with students. we appreciate that. thank you for all the sponsors whose banners are on the wall. thank you. >> i appreciated. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a member of countries have

expressed their support for the measure. a formal vote by the un is not expected for several weeks. the united states has said it will veto the request. we will have live coverage at 9:30 eastern on c-span to. last weekend, he said he would run for the russian presidency. later in the day tomorrow here on c-span, a look at what the move means for u.s.-russia relations. that will get started at 12:20 eastern. in a about 20 minutes from now, we will go live to california to hear from new jersey gov. chris christie who is speaking at the ronald reagan presidential library. he warns that a america's promise is being menaced from within.

our coverage of that speech will begin at about 9:00 eastern here on c-span. and as we wait for governor's remarks at the top of the hour, here is a discussion on congressional redistricting in the 2012 elections. our final segment will take a look at the topic of redistricting. our guest is tim storey. he is an analyst when it comes to redistricting. welcome. guest: you are welcome. delighted to be on the show again. this is a really good time to check in on the line-drawing redistricting the states are going through. 19 states have completed their map. seven states only have one seat. that is a total of six. we are over half way. the entire conversation this

morning will have a giant astra it appended to it, because all of this is pending legal challenges, which are raging in a handful of states, inevitable in other states. have tor of the state's have their plan approved by the district court in washington, d.c., so we are over half way, depending on how things go with pre-clearance and how litigation turns out. host: as you see it, what are the states causing the most concern and who are filing the legal charges? guest: the most high-profile case on capitol hill and redistricting circles, because the outcome could have ramifications for all states is at texas. it is no surprise. they gave more seats in the u.s. house than any other state.

when the census results came out we learned through the process that texas would be gaining four new seats. they have one of the earliest primaries of any of the states. it is scheduled for march of next year, 2012. more than a handful of states with march primaries. texas has the redistricting done very quickly reelected to the other states. it is also a section 5 states, so the plants have to be drawn and approved or pre-cleared by event the department of justice or district court in washington, d.c., before they can become law. the legislature met and enacted plans. they submitted them not to the department of justice, which is somewhat unusual, they submitted them to the district court in d.c. the state has a choice in which entity gets to review the plan.

there were numerous lawsuits filed against the texas congressional map. i think there were about 14. i could be wrong about that. they were all consolidated into one case in san antonio. that trial has already been held, but there is no decision. the judge in that case is waiting to see what the district court will do. what is really interesting is when the state goes for this pre-clearance and washington, the department of justice essentially becomes the plaintiff and the case. the department of justice has echoed they believe the texas not violate the voting rights in section 5. -- they believe that texas violates the voting rights in section 5. some of the bigger states, there are a handful of states that are still to come. pennsylvania and florida are the two biggest everyone has their

eyes on. host: if you have questions about the process of redistricting, tim storey is our guest until 10:00. you can e-mail questions also at journal@cspan.org. who is gaining when it comes to the redistricting process -- republicans or democrats? guest: i am a little reluctant to say this team is winning or that team is winning. you know, you have to go to a granular announces -- analysis of how the states are turning out. i want to make two quick points. one is that redistricting sort of gives one party or another a

head start in a congressional election, because inevitably districts will favor one party or another. because the nature of how people vote and where people live. regardless of who draws the plan, and in some cases the maps are drawn by a commission -- in most cases they are drawn by state legislatures, but whoever draws the line, often times districts will be one way or the other. that gives the party a head start in the election. of course elections still matter. if you have to run a good can reach a campaign and raise money to get your message out. -- you have to run a good campaign and raise money to get your message out. redistricting is one piece of that. having said that, there is a great deal of of people in this cycle of redistricting, partly because the redistricting in california where the process has

changed from 10 years ago. when the map was released by the new commission that dropped the plan in california, the 14- member commission, when the plan was enacted by the commission and now likely to be challenged in california, but it has been released in the plan used in the 2012 election, it pared 19 incumbents and the same district. they will not have to run against each other. many of them will wind up moving or running in other districts. you do not to live in your congressional district to run in it. you do not to be a resident of your district in congress. your opponent will point that out. there will be a handful of incumbent versus incumbent matches in california. i think we will see a record number of incumbent verses incumbent challenges come either in the primary or general election. host: we have a list of some of

those incumbent districts. in illinois. n illinod jesse jackson jr. and illinois. -- in illinois. guest: right. what is interesting is you have to look at who drew the plan and what was the intent of the plan. another myth of redistricting is that it is all about gerrymandering and going after the other party. if you are the democrat from the plan you will annihilate the republicans and vice versa, and that is not entirely the case. i am not naive, and i understand politics as part of this off, but the outcome of the process political. inarily

a read a quote the other day that said it is 100 percent political. regardless of how you approach the plan, it will be a political process. you do wind up with interesting incumbent matches. to me, the most interesting is an ohio. the plan that has not been signed by a governor as of today. it is not a final plan, but it house and senatete and hous and ohio. -- in ohio. the district is connected only by a bridge along the northern shore -- southern shore of the northern part of the state of lake erie. that is definitely want to watch. and i also think there are some

of these cases where you will see movement. none of this is final until they have to file their papers declaring their candidacy. some of the incumbent verses incumbent matchups may appear that way today, but could well be resolved because someone will decide i have represented the majority of this district, even though i do not live here anymore, maybe it is time for me to move. sometimes when your company you, you have to move your family, and members of congress will do that as well. host: first calller from georgia. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. please do not cut me off. my comment is this -- it is 100 percent political i have no question it is. i go back to the year when [inaudible]

it is a political move. it is to shake up the support that the democratic power took over. basically what i am asking is how is that they are changing -- like before we had early voting, at this redistricting is time to find a way to disenfranchise voters because the outpour of the population, the people that came out to vote, how was it you are redistricting and changing things the wing it will benefit the republicans? guest: thank you, kimberly. we have to do redistricting. it is the mandate of the u.s. constitution. it is a process that has to be done every 10 years. once we get the new census data. the census is taken in the year that ends in zero, come in different states approach the process differently. note to states do it -- no two

states do it exactly the same way. kimberly's point is right that it is it's an extern the early political exercise come in different states have attempted ways to somewhat managed the politics, but it is really important to understand as well that there is a very extensive body of federal law that governs this process, so whether it is legislature's strong this map, republican or democrat, or a commission, a smaller group of people who do it offline, you always have of these criteria, these federal laws that govern the process. states have to draw districts that are even in population. the reason we do this is because the constitution requires one person, one vote. but everyone is equally represented in the u.s. house of

representatives -- that everyone is equally represented in the u.s. house of representatives. the voting rights act of 1985 guarantees whoever draws the line cannot drop plans that intentionally or have the effect of discriminating against minority voters, and of course that is where a lot of the with of the litigation is taking place. a handful of states in the legislature was gridlocked, partly because of partisan purpose, and now courts are drawing the plans. states have to drop districts that are relatively compact, contiguous, so all of the territory is connected to a district. there is a great deal of legal parameters in which states operate. host: we have a tweet from florida --

guest: well, two really interesting thing about florida. one is they have not enacted plans yet. the legislature is holding meetings as we speak. this week they are expected to release draft maps and florida. florida is a state, one of 16 states, where the entire county is covered by section 5. florida will have to be reviewed because a handful of counties are covered by section 5 of the voting rights act. the answer is somewhat yes, because florida it gets to decide, just as texas did and other states like north carolina, south carolina, georgia and alabama, who have all enacted their plants and have to submit them to the department of justice or a district court in d.c., so there is a process before it will become law. the other interesting thing about florida is the florida

when the legislature draws the new congressional maps, they have to drop plans that do not favor or disfavor political party. political party or political candidates. that will be a really interesting process play out to see if there is a great deal of change in how the map looks now in florida, which is what happened in california when they shifted their process to a different system. a great deal of change in the california maps. host: 4 worth, texas. terry on the democrats' line. -- fort worth, texas. caller: if this was a bunch of people who are from texas legally and people that are not

from texas. how can you cast their votes when they're not even allowed to vote? how is that even legal? guest: the senses has very established roles -- the census has very establish roles. it actually counts everyone residing in the united states, regardless of their immigration status, and people represent -- elected officials representing people and residents, so people of texas, including people who are not eligible to vote, because maybe they're here working on a work visa or they are under 18, they are still represented in the u.s. congress and other elected bodies -- city councils, commissions, and state

legislatures. the census actually count everyone in the united states. this senses in particular in texas showed a tremendous surge and the population. -- this census in particular in texas showed a tremendous surge in the population. they added four seats because of population growth in texas. and another at advocacy group in texas, they are maintaining the new congressional plan in texas does not discriminate against the hispanic population in texas, and that the majority of the growth in texas was because of growth within the hispanic community come and get that is not reflected in the maps. the department of justice agree with them. -- the majority of the growth in

texas was because of growth hispanic community, and yet that is not reflected in the maps. host: a tweet this warning about redistricting -- this morning about redistricting -- guest: that is a bit past the point. really focus on the u.s. house congressional districts in for get when you have the reapportionment -- and a quick clarification because people use reapportionment and redistricting interchangeably, but they are different terms. reapportionment means they take the data and feed it into a formula called a method of equal proportions, and it is a mathematical formula that assigns one seat in u.s. house

to every state and distributes the rest of the seats, up 435 u.s. house seats get distributed on population and the districts have to be drawn with the people are. in rural areas -- in fact, the census showed a continuing trend that urban and suburban areas are growing at a far faster rate than rural areas, so the rural representation in the u.s. house and in state legislatures is going to go down in the next election. there will be fewer districts of legislators from rural areas because the population is growing faster in urban and suburban areas, and that will be reflected. the retro college is a win or take all in all states except for nebraska and the state of maine. maine has to congressional districts. whoever wins congressional district one in maine in the

race for white house, the presidency get one of electoral votes. if you win the second congressional district, you get that vote. whoever wins the white in maine, you get the votes that come from the u.s. senators. everyone gets these based on the total number of u.s. house seats. the states that have gained in population like texas, florida, nevada, their votes will go up in the 2012 presidential elections. the electoral map will be different and 2012 that was in 2008 strictly because you got through a reapportionment cycle. -- we have went through reapportionment cycle. states like nevada, texas, and florida are gaining seats in the electoral college. host: ohio is next.

danny on the republican line for tim storey caller: i was going to ask you about texas, but that was answered already, so i want to ask you about ohio where i am from. what is the population in ohio? i know we of lost seats. we were like no. 7. -- i know we have lost seats. guest: i am sorry, i do not know what the top of my head with a population of ohio is. my recollection is that ohio has lost two seats in the u.s. house. a u.s. house seat will be roughly 740,000 people after this census. all states grew between 2000 and 2010 with the exception of michigan, which actually lost population during that time some

states grew much faster than others. what matters is that you are growing at a faster rate than the other states, so i do not know exactly off the top of my head where ohio stands in terms of the overall population, but it is a state where congressional delegation has been steadily declining. every reapportionment cycle for the past several cycles -- states like ohio, pennsylvania, new york, mich. -- states that once had very large delegations in the u.s. house up and seeing been seen as the drop of their representation in the house. host: tim storey joins us. maryland on the line. caller: i want to say redistricting is a good idea, but i think you should have a commission of citizens that are

on the board of elections of those areas where they live, and they should be the ones that should be selecting the redistricting, this way you have no political cronyism that will influence the process. another point, i see there is a lot of u.s. territory like texas' commonwealth of pr. these citizens have no congressional representation, but meanwhile they have people fighting in afghanistan. anyway, that is all i want to say. aguest: i will take the last point first and come back to the commission question. of course the district of columbia, porter rica reporter do not haverico representation, and there have been various proposals to make

them estate. to my knowledge those are not on the agenda right now in washington. to the question of the commissions, there are seven states that do not do redistricting within the legislature. this is how it was originally established when the constitution was drawn up in 1789, and the framers of the constitution established that legislatures would determine the time, please come and manner of the but collections, u.s. congressional elections. when the congress -- when the constitution was first adopted, the u.s. senate was adopted by the legislatures. that was undone by the 17th amendment to the constitution. a handful of states, seven, including california -- california was the only state in the 2010 >> you can see all of this at c-

span.org. now live to governor chris christie. he was invited to speak here by nancy reagan. he will talk about his life and politics. you can see the former governor of california there. >our outstanding congressmen. it thank you. we have congressmen from maryland's first district. from the california state assembly mr. and mrs. cameron smithe.

from the great billy of simi valley, -- area of simi valley. then the director of the reagan library. thank you all for coming. i have had the honor to serve mrs. reagan and the foundation for over two years. in that time, there is a long question i have fielded more

than others. hugh is the next ronald reagan is the next ronald reagan? that is on the question reminded of people's questions. it takes is to a time 30 years ago when a malaise had said in over the land. jimmy carter was openly questioning whether our country still have the national will to succeed. ronald reagan answer the question. of course we do. who is the next ronald reagan? we will probably do well to ask the world's leading authority on this.

he is at his side every step of the way. i imagine whaher answer. you can stop searching. there'll never be a another ronald reagan. she would be right. there are leaders that recalled the service and to have set their own compass based on the ideals that president reagan stood for. they have learned to talk the talk. some have gone further.

they have gone further to walk the walk. one of those is with us today. he is the governor of new jersey. he is governor chris christie. it is the process of plugging an $11 billion hole in the state budget of 29 billion by reducing the size of government, cutting spending, regulating regulations and reducing taxes. he has worked with republicans and democrats and adhered to conservative principles and attacked and tie them in programs.

it is no wonder that some of our nation's most successful businessmen, entrepreneurs and political leaders have placed a when warren path, urging him to jump into the race for president. his repeated answer was "i need more experience." said porter said "you're not ready. the look at barack obama -- his supporters said "you are not ready. look at the barack obama." i am fully convinced that those longing for him to lead the nation are not after him solely as some pundits would suggest.

please welcome me -- join me in welcoming governor chris christie. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. it is great to be here. we are here. it is an honor for me to be here at the library to speak with all of you today. i want to thank mrs. reagan for her gracious of irritation -- gracious invitation.

people become passe after a while about things that have happened. i have a partner year that majors in passe. he says this will even impress you. a written this letter over the phone. i said it is signed by nancy reagan. it is great to be here. thank you for your invitation. he believed in this country. he embodies the strength, the press serbians, and the faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible.

they would be better for more americans in future. it is this vision for our country that guided his administration over the course of eight years. his commitment to making america stronger, better, more resilience. it allowed him the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom. it dared to put results ahead of political opportunity. everybody in this room has his favor ronald reagan story. it happened 30 years ago on august of 1981. the air traffic controllers went on strike. president reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refuse would be fired.

in and, thousands refuse. thousands were fired. -- in the end, thousands refused. thousands were fired. as a parable of principle, ronald reagan said what he meant and meant what he said. those who thought he was bluffing or sadly mistaken. he was not an empty political ploy. it was leadership. he said he could convince people that i meant what i said. i would have been just as forceful as i thought management have been wrong. i recall this pivotal moment. most americans viewed his firm handling as a domestic matter.

this misses a critical point. the whole world was watching. what happens here does not stay here. this is not in vegas. another way of saying that americans do not have the luxury of thinking that while we have long viewed as purely domestic matters have no consequences before our borders. what we say and what we do at home a backs -- at fax -- affects how others see us. america's role is defined by who

we are at home. it is defined by how we conduct ourselves with each other and how we do with our own problems. did it is determined by how we set an example for the world. we still understand form policy. it is carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. to some extent it still is. one of the most powerful forms of form policy is the example we set. this is where it harkens back to president reagan. his willingness to articulate that he could be predicted to stand by his friends in stand up to his adversaries. if president reagan would do that at home, they realize that he would do it abroad as well.

principal would not stop at the water's edge. it supported terror was the same. it does have a meeting. it is not what it was. it is that what it can be. it is that what it means to be. this is been the case. we pay a price and our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult and necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending.

we pay a price one special interest went over national interest. we're saying justice that made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits to create an environment in which there's more job creation and job destruction. this is where the contrast between what happened in new jersey and what is happening in washington, d.c. is the most clear. in new jersey, you have actually seen divided government that is working. it does not mean we do not have arguments or acrimony. you have all seen my youtube videos. there are serious disagreements. sometimes it is expressed loudly. this is what we did.

we propose specific means to fix them. we educated the public on the dire consequences of inaction. we compromise on a bipartisan basis. this is what people expect. how do we do this tax how do we do it? thru leadership and compromise is the only way you can balance budgets. leadership and compromise is the only way. you reform the health benefits system. it is collectively $121 billion underfunded.

leadership and compromise is the only way you can cap of the property taxes. there's some of the most powerful public sector unions in america. we have done this before. the executive france has not set by and waited for others to go first to suggest solutions. [applause] this is happened in trenton. we have done this with the legislative branch held by the opposite party. it is led by two people who

often but the interest of our state above the partisan politics of their caucuses. that is why i call them my friends. they set a tone that has taken hold against many other states. it is a powerful message, a lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the deaths of our challenges. tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solution. this is the only way to lead america. we watched a president to talk about the courage of his conviction but still found the courage to lead. we watched a congress at war with himself. they're unwilling to leave campus in south politics at the door.

it made our democracy appear as if we can no longer effectively govern ourselves. so we continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the oval office. we hope that she will shake up the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things better so obvious to all americans who are watching and anxious. we hope. his steelyard is our failure, too. the failure to -- his failure is our failure to. it is a report the president asks for himself. the failure to act on the crushing unemployment and ever expanding the entitlement programs, and the failure to discern pork barrel spending

from real of-archer investment. the rule is simple. it is the one ronald reagan knew by heart. it is the one he successfully employed as social security and the cold war. you cannot wait for someone else to do it. we pay for this failure of leadership many times over. as it slows, high levels of unemployment persists. it makes ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of skittish markets with the political decisions of our lenders. there's also foreign-policy price to pay. we diminish our ability to influence thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. there's no better way to persuade other societies to

become more democratic and more market oriented than to show that our democracy and markets work better than any other system. why should we care? why should a matter to us ta? we believe in democracy is the biggest protector of freedom. history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against their own people or their neighbors. increases consumer choice and keep their prices down. around the world, people are debating their own political and economic futures right now. we have a outcome in those debates.

we'll have a middle east that except israel and is a dependable source of energy. there's no better to enforce the likelihood that others will opt for more social societies than to demonstrate at home that their own system is working. a lot is being said about american exceptional as some. we are different and better in the sense that our democracy and our people have delivered. for american except journalism, to truly deliver hope to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated. they will be more than likely to follow our example.

if they see what we are doing and are out to emulate it, it is a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity, and the strength of our democratic institutions. one there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and the greater interest first. we did it their strong leadership. we did it through reagan like ileadership. we have failed to live up to the traditional of exceptional as a parent.

when the only look at comments from the recent meeting of the european finance ministers in here's what theere finance minister had to say. i found a peculiar that even they have more fundamental data set and the eurozone they tell us what we should do. without strong leadership, without our domestic house in order, we're taking ourselves out of the equation over and over. we must be prepared to act and lead.

it is for diplomacy in common security. the united states will be able to sustain a leadership of the resources are there. it is a security issue as well. without the authority that comes from real american exceptional as some, burned exceptional as some -- exceptional -- earned exceptionalism, which cannot be a beacon of hope. ronald reagan face today's challenges. we know exactly what he would do. he would face the problems directly with leadership and without political calculation. he would take an honest and tough approach to reforming our programs and our

tax code. we would confront our unemployment crisis by giving certainty to businesses about our tax and regulatory future. we would unleash entrepreneurship their long-term tax reform. we would reform the system by applying free-market reform principles, rewarding outstanding teachers, the demanding accountability from everyone at in system, increasing competition, and making the american public patience -- public education the best in the world.

it must always be put ahead of the comfortable status quo of adults. [applause] the united states must become more discriminating in what we tried to accomplish. we cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion. local realities count. we cannot have forced makeovers of our societies in our image. we need to limit to what is in our national interest so we can bounces here at home. this needs to be built in part so we can sustain a leadership role. this is not an argument for turning our back on the world. we cannot and should not do that. our economies depended on what

we export and import. we are vulnerable to box cutters and bonds and viruses. we need to remain vigilant and be prepared to act with our friends and allies to discourage or deter against traditional aggression, to stop the spread of nuclear materials and the means to deliver them and continue to deprive them of the opportunity to succeed and kill our people. i realize that what i'm calling for requires a lot of our people and officials. i plead guilty. i also plead guilty to optimism. i believe in what they can accomplish. if they understand what is being asked of them and how we all benefit if they meet the

challenge. that's no doubt in my mind's our economy is strong and the largest. risk-taking is a part of our collective dna. there's no better place in the world for investment. we have a demonstrated record as a people and nation of rising up to meet any challenge. today the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves and not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of difficult troops and not become a people that think so little of ourselves that we demand and a sacrifice from each other. we are better people than that. we must demand a better nation

than that. the america i speak of is the america and ronald reagan challenges to be every day. it is what his leadership helped us to be. there are conduct, indeed, it demonstrated principles and for the greater good of our nation. we become emulated throughout the world. another is because of what we said both home and abroad. american excess alyssum can set an example for freedom around the world. we must lead with purpose and unity. illinois state senator barack

obama gave us a window into his vision for american leadership. he said this "even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us to those who embrace the politics of anything goes. americanot a liberal and a conservative america. there is the united states of america. there's not a black america and a latino america. there is the united states of america. seven years later, president obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve reelection. this is not a leadership style. this is a reelection strategy. telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to

diminish the success of others. trying to convince those who are suffering that the american economic one is no longer growing. we must tax and take and demonize those who already achieved the american dream. did that may turn out to be a good reelection strategy. it is demoralizing message -- a moralizing message for america. what happened to state senator obama? when did he decide to be one of the dividers? there is a different choice.

it is the way ronald reagan led america and the 1980's. he spoke during a farewell address. he made clear he was not there just making a time. he is theirs to make a difference. he spoke of the city on the hill and how he made a stronger. he does not know if the ever quite communicated with what i saw when i said that. it is a tall and proud city built on when set -- on people living in harmony and peace. it had freed ports that hong. if there had to the city walls, they had doors. the doors were open to anyone

with the will and hard to get there. this is how i saw it. this is how i see it still. that is american exceptional as empyrean r.j. exceptional -- exceptionalism. it made as an american revitalization. we will be that again. not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the church, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes and leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish. only when we do that too finely

ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in second american century. we owed them as well as ourselves. thank you for inviting me. bob pleasant view -- god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much.

thank you. gov. christie has been gracious enough to answer questions from the audience. i like you to pay attention to the one role we have. if you could wait for one of our staff to handle your microphone so it can be picked up. with that, let's get on to the questions. >> hello. could you please tell us more about how you think our immigration prices in this country should be handled as well as the education expense associated with this problem? >> thank you. there is some very basic principles that we need to stand by. our borders have to be secure.

we have done an awful job of doing that. we had to take every step necessary to make sure that happens. we have to make sure we have a fair way to allow people to continue to legally immigrate into this country. this country is built on immigrants. my relatives or immigrants. we need to make sure we are a country that expands the american economic pie by expanding the innovation and thought and dreams and hopes of having people coming here of looking for a better life. i doubt this problem in new jersey. i need to be crystal clear. i want every child to comes to new jersey to be educated. i do not believe that for those who came here illegally that we should be subsidizing with taxpayer money to restate tuition.

let me be very clear from my perspective. that is not a heartless position. that is a common sense position. >> you are known as a straight shooter was not giving to playing games. can you tell us what is going on here deck? are you reconsidering? are you standing firmly? >> listen, i to say the truth. you are an incredible this appointment as an audience. the fact that it took the second question. [applause]

is shows your of your game. to that is not american exceptionalism. i will be six think about this. i saw something on a political -- succint on this. i saw something political were they strong my answers back to back of running for the presidency. it is right on the front page of politico. cut on it. it is in the answers. >> you have some grumbling. i have rules, too. item 56 town hall meetings. we have all the same rules, wait for the microphone. to say who you are. we have a role that is really important in in new jersey.

even though i am on foreign soil, i will enforce this rule. there could be people who do not like one of my answers that would disagree. we walk and then to stand up. if you express said in a reasonable and respectful manner, you get a reasonable disagreement in return. however, if this is the day that you decide you want to impress your friends on television and you decide you want to take the governor out for a walk, i will give you the role i given new jersey. we are all from new jersey. if you give that, you are getting it back.

>> never mind. >> if you are running the country, what would you do to win people -- wean people off entitlement stacks what would you -- entitlements? would you do to turn around the country? >> we have examples of what we have done in new jersey. equivalent on the federal level is medicare, public sector pensions, and health benefits provided. i mention that those items where underfunded when i took office. $121 billion underfunded. that is four times our annual state budget. what did we do? i went out september 2010. i put out a specific plan.

not a plan that says all of light to rein in these expenses. if i can come to agreement with the other side of will tell you what they are. no. that is not leadership. [cheers and applause] i set some very specific things. i said you have to contribute more to pensions. we're not going to pay coal as any longer until your funds reach eighties thermos solvency. we will make sure that only full time people get into the system. on the health insurance side, when i came into office many were paying nothing for their health insurance.

the drop in to every collective bargaining agreement from the school board all the way of to the state vessel. i make people unhappy. i honor them for what they do. i went to the firefighters' convention after our proposal. i went to new jersey. about four dozen firefighters were at in room. nots just say that i did get their reception gave me tonight. they continued to boo.

when they saw me they really started dbooing. i said you can do better than that. and they did. do not skip ahead to the next jury. [laughter] you're killing me. this is in essence what i said. i said i understand your scared. i understand you're angry. i understand you feel betrayed. for 20 years, governments have been coming to this convention telling you they will be the more than a band and a bigger pension and do not have to pay for it. every year they voted for increase benefits. they never gave you money. now you sit here and agree -- angry and scared. i understand why. why are you booing the first guy

who told you the truth is that there's no political upside for me doing that. [applause] 19 i told them you may hate me now and you may vote me out, but if we do what i'm saying we should do 10 years from now, you will be looking for my address to send me a thank you notes. you will be collecting a pension. that is what we need to do on the federal level. we need to tell people the truth. medicare, medicaid, and social security are eating away at every dollar we raise and in taxation. we need to get to a common sense approach to reduce the benefits, to test some of this stuff and to get people who do not need it to stop taking it so we can give it to the people at

an affordable price to people who do need it. that is common sense. i am no genius, clearly. why can we do that? every time someone says it, every time someone goes near it, it gets vilified. they read the polls. they say, ok. real leaders to not read polls. they change polls. [cheers and applause] >> i've been there for 2.5 years. you make is so proud to be from

new jersey and be americans. and my italian mother told me to tell you they have to run for president. >> and led to press my luck and respond to that. press my lucko and respond to that. if you're italian mother wanted to run for president, what redoing in california? come home. what are you doing? i have a plane. you can come back if you want. we will take you home. >> get team more taxpayers one at a time. >> i have been listening to your

very powerful and eloquent speeches. aquino had to tell the american people what they need to hear. i say this from the bottom of my heart from my grandchildren who are at home, i know new jersey needs you. i really implore you -- i really do, this is not funny reject we urnnot wait another fo u years. i implore you as a citizen of this country to please reconsider -- do not even say anything tonight. of course you would not. go home and think about it. [laughter] do for my daughter and grandchildren. we need you. your country needs you.

>> let me just say this. there are a lot of people who have asked me about this over the course of the last number of weeks and months. that is all i will say about this tonight, i hear exactly what you are saying. i feel the passion with which you say it. it touches me. i can tell you.

i'm just a kid from new jersey who feels like i'm the luckiest guy in the world to have the opportunity that i have to be the governor of my state. people say to me all the time now -- and folks like you say those kind of things for as many months as it is being said -- why don't they to leave you alone? your party given your answer. isn't is a burden? what i say to you and everyone was nice enough is that it is not a burden. anyone who has an ego large enough to say please stop asking me to be leader of the free world -- [laughter] it is such a burden. if you could please just stop. what kind of crazy ego maniac would you have to be to say

"just please stop." it is extraordinarily flattering. by the same token, that heartfelt messages you gave me is also not a reason for me to do it. that reason has to reside inside me. i know, without ever having met president reagan, he must've felt that he was called to that moment to leader country. my answer -- to lead our country. i thank you for what you are saying. i am listening to every word of it and feeling it, too. please do not ever think for a second that i feel like i am important enough that somehow, what you are saying is a problem for me. it is a great honor.

this country is a great place because the folks like you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much, governor. on that night, if i could ask everyone to remain in their seats. governor, we cannot thank you enough for gracing us with your presence. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> said the governor continues a three-state tour. on thursday, he heads to louisiana. a reminder, tomorrow morning, michele bachmann will be at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. we will have for remarks on c- span at around 10:30. she's the second candidate in the 2012 presidential election to speak there. earlier this month, rick perry spoke out liberty -- spoke out liberty. up next, james chessen talks

about the u.s. and global economy. then speeches at the u.n. general assembly today, followed by the former -- foreign minister of pakistan. david axelrod was in new hampshire this morning talking about the 2012 presidential race. we will have this remarks later tonight on c-span. >> watch more video of the candidate. see what political reporters are saying. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape. >> the chief economist for the american bankers association said earlier that the u.s.

economy is stronger than it was in 2008, but still faces problems. he assesses the global economy and how europe could affect the u.s. recovery. how many people know green day as a group? i am really stunned. you must have kids that are teenagers or young adults here. these are some lyrics out of that. we were really struggling and britney came up with the title.

we were trying to think about the dean's and britney and ryan and morgan and others put these wonderful and slides together. this sort of captures the teams that we had. think back three years ago and lehman brothers failed. two years ago, we at the peak of unemployment in september. we tried to think about bad things that happen last september and we just did not find any. i'm sure there were some. and now we are back in the mess. and the other thing that always happens in september is the imf always needs -- and with their big planning meeting, of course, we know what the outcome of that has been in the last several years. and of course, we have our congress that continues to create problems and after the latest round of the fights in shutting down the government, let's just all go to sleep. here are the key themes that i want to talk about today.

the first is, it is not 2008. although, it feels that way. second, if your time frame is one or two years, you are way too short. we have talked a bit about that. i do have some of my favorites like to update you where we are with that. the third one is, it is a small world. meaning, everything we do in the u.s. is affected by what happens in the rest of the world, and we cannot escape that. we will talk a bit about the sovereign debt crisis and greece. and the last is, self-inflicted head wounds. we manage to do this all the time. let's jump in. it is not 2008. it feels that way. i understand. in washington, it does not feel that bad, but i know that most of it -- most of you are not from washington and i know you feel the impact in other parts of the world. oddly, if you have been to a mall lately it does not feel like a recession.

many are commenting that if people spend, it makes them feel better. this is the measure of market volatility. you can see what happened. i have a laser pointer, which is always exciting, as you know. do any of you have cats? laser pointers are the greatest things on earth, right? [laughter] it is a reason to get a cat, frankly. [laughter] anyway, this is what happened we have the crisis. there is still a lot of volatility in the markets. it is still a big problem. but it is not rising to the level that we saw before. there is volatility in the markets, but risk spread remains very low. and we have shown you some of the immense -- events that occurred before.

in contrast to before, we're almost at abnormally low levels. but even the debate that we had over the deficit, i did not create risk spread. that is a good sign. there are still liquidity issues. but the markets are not in the state they were three years ago. consumers are adjusting to -- this is a cole porter song, as you know. it is really one of my favorite lyrics and it kind of sums up all the things that were going on with consumers spending with great abandon. i want to tell you a story. you probably do not know that there is a self storage association. and you should, because they have the greatest fact sheet on earth. one of the things that happened, of course, was that

people were spending a huge amount of money and they had to do something with that money. let me give you a sense of how much they were spending. between 2003 and 2007, cash out refinancing -- of the cash out part was $870 billion. if you add the cash out and home-equity lines for refinancing in that five-year time frame, $1.3 trillion. a huge amount of money was pulled out of inflated house prices. and done what? put into things that people now have to store. [laughter] right question there is -- right? there is 2.2 billion square feet of storage space. that is the equivalent of 78

square miles of covered, self storage space. i want to ask how many of you have self storage. you know who you are. [laughter] you wonder each month why you are writing that check. brian and i were talking about this. he told me a story about a friend who is destroying things for marriage and paying $200 per month for that. i said, wow, that is a lot. and he said, i gather, and she does not even have a boyfriend yet. that is an extreme.

$200 a month for furniture once you are married. this is a financial obligation ratio with the fed. it is the old debt service ratio. you will notice by the trends that is down to what it was back in 1994. some of that is the interest rates are low. that helps on the debt service interest repayments. some of that is with lenders because of his credit. you can also see the personal income growth is rising. in contrast with what the growth in personal income has been over the big expansion period. personal income growth is growing.

it has made up the losses incurred in the recession. it is not enormous, but it is certainly positive. we tend to forget that when we we get all of the bad news. look at household net worth. this is financial and real property. trillions and trillions of dollars in decline, that is the green bars there. the first net worth increase was the inflated values of home prices, which were not sustainable. they were artificial. the other thing that happened was that savings rates have been much higher as a consequence. and just to put that in perspective, this drop, even if you assume it is less, still

requires a savings rate of about 10% to make up for the losses in wealth that occurred. even though the savings rates are up around 6%, they should still be higher to make up for a loss of that wealth that happen. but the good news is, net worth is recovering. it is a slow process. consumers are saving more. they are borrowing less. they are making the effort to get their balance sheets back in order. that is an important change that is occurring. it is a slow change, of course. businesses are doing better as well. one of the most interesting charts is this one, corporate cash levels.

you can see it is up around $1 trillion in corporate cash. if you add other liquid assets, money market funds, mutual funds that businesses hold, you are up around $2 trillion. businesses are sitting on a lot of cash now. it is that uncertainty that exists that they are not willing to deploy the cash now. that is the biggest concern now. there is a huge amount of uncertainty. it is freezing business decisions. it is putting all of this cash vitally on the sidelines. but the point is, businesses are doing the right things to prepare themselves as things turn around and uncertainty disappears. banks, too, are improving, as hopefully you are all aware. this is the level of capital. the level of their for the industry, the capital to assets ratio is highest it has been in years. all of the assets, total risk- based, they're all at record levels in the united states since we have been collecting this info.

very strong improvements, and sometimes we forget all the things that have happened. there are still challenges, and this is the asset quality is side. you can see charge-offs are nonperforming. they are still high relative to historic trends. but look at the trends now, very sharply downward here in the changes of that. in fact, we have had many quarters over the year in improvement in the non-current loans. we are past the home. it still struggles for many institutions, but capital is at record high and assets are improving. same thing with the profitability of banks. you can see the profitability is at a low for a number of the institutions that were profitable. the recovery has been slow. we are now getting back to historical standards with a high percentage of the industry being

profitable. the banking industry is certainly improving and that is very good news for the u.s. and the u.s. economy. this is jobs. that picture, while we know it is still struggling, it is certainly better than the job losses that were experienced in the recession. you can just see that visually. it is just a stunning chart when you look at the magnitude of those losses. 8.5 million jobs were lost during that time. and you can see, there are still struggles. it look at the pattern before the big crisis. not too far out of line with that. but again, it is not 2008. we haven't moved through all lot of that. you always have -- we have moved through all lot of that. you always hear about high prices and liquidity.

but another good news piece is that we are back in a better equilibrium. is it enough to get the economy going? not so much. you need to hundred jobs on average -- 200 jobs on average per month and about a 4% gdp to get the economy on a trajectory that moves us back to normal levels in five or six years. and i will show you that, but think of that magnitude. whenever you think of new job figures, if they are short of 200,000 jobs created, we are not moving fast enough to significantly reduce unemployment. i will have a chart on that in a moment. here's a look at payroll. let's back up for a second. if you look over here, we will break that down for you just

over the course of the last year. the thing to recognize here is what is happening on the private sector verses the public sector. the interesting thing that is obvious from this chart is that you see that the private sector has been adding jobs for 18 months straight. it is not a huge increase. it is not the kind of thing that grabs headlines, but it has been a fairly consistent pattern. of course, things have slowed down. and this month, the latest month, was at zero. but that was not because the private sector was not adding jobs. look up what is happening on the public sector side. they have been reducing jobs. that has been a drag. the drag is coming from the public sector, both on the federal level and certainly on the state and local level. again, the point is, it is not what it was before.

it is not great, but let's not really of 2008. -- relive 2008. the time line is five or six years. that is the key message i want to leave you with. and it goes back to my chart. this is the unemployment rate. i think i showed you this before where these are the trends in the previous recessions and all we have done is a straight line that out in the peak of that with others. this is a glass-is-half-full chart. and we are not generating enough jobs to really get down to that 2017 level. what is really disturbing, though, is that we have had some of our economists on some

of our guys 3 committee who are not even convinced that the 9.1 is going to hold. paul is one of the outsiders who says, i do not believe any of this stuff. he has the album -- the unemployment rate next year at 9.5%. he is not confident we will follow any of this path. and again, it takes 200,000 jobs, on average, each month, and a strong gdp to drive that break down. we are not there yet -- drive that rate down. the we are not there yet, and i will show you some things to convince you. how did start it is another -- is another enormous issue. you can visually see the contrast here with other recessions across the same time frame. you can see how sharply other recessions redounded.

housing is such an important part of the u.s. economy. look at what is happening. we are barely treading water. this is the average rate across that time frame, 1.5 million housing starts. typically, the 1.5 million is in enough to handle the increase in population, the structural rebuilding of houses that have deteriorated. we are nowhere close to that at all. and the obvious reason, of course, is we have a huge overhang of existing properties that are outstanding. there is no reason to build new houses. the other thing that is disturbing -- now, the housing starts include multifamily and single. you have to keep that in mind. but you may have noticed this week that new home sales were at $295,000.

we are producing -- and this includes multi family -- we are producing at $571,000 -- we are producing at 571,000 and is still low because we have a huge overhang of existing houses. in fact, there's 1.7 million houses in that shadow inventory, the ones in the process of being sold. whether they are in the process of foreclosure or serious the linwood. there are one in 10 properties that are nonperforming. it is still a huge overhang and that alone will take three months to wind down the current sales rates. the shuttle inventories lower than it was a year ago. that is a good thing. it is down about 18%, in fact. but we still have this enormous

overhang, this pipeline of houses that are in the process of being sold. babel be a drag on this economy. that will be a drag on this economy. if your time on this one or two years, you will be short. you could look at this picture a year ago ended -- and there would be no difference because we have not made any significant improvement on this. all of this if you wrap all of this up, is what one economist coined as a confidence recession. there is no confidence, and you can see that particularly on the consumer side. businesses are kind of hanging in there. they are wondering what is going on and they are building their balance sheet, so it is not quite as bad.

but it is a recession based on a lack of confidence that we have in this country. the next game is "its a small world." and i know some of you are singing the song, as painful as it is for you. [laughter] but it did kind of capture what is happening around the world. and the first thing is, looking at a comparison of what the other countries around the world are doing. one positive thing when you look at the united states and say, what state is still in a recession, the only state that is still in a recession is nevada. a couple of years ago, every state was in recession. but in the united states you think more globally. what is the nation's gdp?

you have movement of population and all kinds of things balance that out. take the view that we often have of the united states and blow it up to the world and ask yourself, is 4% world gdp all that bad? and you might say, well, no, it is not, really. there are parts of the world that are doing better than others, and that is what happens in economies and resources flow to those places that are doing better. the interesting thing is, the emerging countries, the developing countries used to be at about 24% investment. they are now up to 40% or more investment. money is flowing to the places where big changes are taking place. look at the strong growth.

and they are not even too great for 2012, but look at the strong performance in these countries. and others worry about those economies, but those countries are driving resources. china is absorbing half of the cement in the world. it is the biggest purchaser of aluminum and copper and other materials that often get exported back to us. and this is great, china consumed half of the pigs consumed in the world, and one- third of the eggs produced in the world. it is a very quickly growing economy that is sucking, a lot of the resources and is not far behind india and other countries. with all of the problems in

europe, it is still projected to be doing better than the u.s. we should be careful not to be too critical. japan is still struggling, and they had that tsunami and other problems that have added to that. for the u.s., let's look at some of the risks for some of the things that make things work. and we have looked at this with our advisory committee about what would make the u.s. economy go slower. look at all these things. decline in equity values, yes. weaker external demand, yes, because those countries are slowing down. it is everything that could happen drive the economy's slower has happened this year.

and we have a self-inflicted head wounds, which we have not talked about yet. one of the things in thinking about china, and what of the things that struck me is that we're always looking at tons of data and charts. this is commodity prices and indexes that start at the same level in 2003. you get a sense of how quickly they are growing, and growing relative to one another. look at all the changes that are occurring. you have doubling and tripling. the whole index, if you take that all together, is doubled or tripled with all of those things. think about what that means for the u.s. economy. we have had a strong increase in all of these commodity prices. it is because of these developing countries of or been a lot of these increases in demand.

what does that mean in the u.s.? here's what happens to the price of a gallon of gasoline. it is back toward levels that we have seen. and to put this in perspective for the u.s. economy, a 1 cent increase in gasoline is $1 billion worth of added expenses. it is a huge impact on what happens with the u.s. economy. whether you get high ones or low ones, you know do free up a lot of money when gas prices fall. we are back up absorbing a lot of spending that consumers would otherwise have. let's talk a little bit about what is happening in europe and the debt. this is a bit more complicated slide. we always try to keep it simple, but we are trying to

show you is the different countries and focus, really, on this light blue line all the way across. that is the 2010 increase in debt that has occurred in every case. debt has been rising across europe and in the u.s. no surprise. the only country, you may notice, where that line is down is sweden. good things, of course, often happen in sweden, i am sure. but sweden, 10 years ago, put in place changes to bring their debt levels back in place. i had the pleasure of listening to one of there of the elected officials -- one of their elected officials out aei. and he said the thing in sweden is, we know what to do to get elected as a politician.

if we just did not know what to do when we do it. what they learned is that if they do the right thing, they get reelected. they took the hard decisions, cut back, and of all the countries that are out there, they have the best fiscal position among all the countries that you see there. they took the hard things fast. we will come back to some of the factors that build upon that and what makes a credible plan, and some is based on the sweden experience. but we believe that for a little bit. this is a measure of portugal, ireland, greece. italy would also be in there, and is often added as a second "i" in there. the problem is that we continue to let this thing continue to

grow. greece is way up here. to-year greek bonds are trading at 70%. that is the interest rate. 70% interest rate, which has got to frighten you on this. the one thing we were looking at is that there was an agreement on july 21 to try to move and reduce some of the debt, help fill holes in the stabilization fund that they had. and that would involve a 20% reduction in the outstanding debt. it was called a debt swap. and it had a tiny affect that this little downturn may have been responsible for that. but in the meantime, reece's debt because the economy is a week is almost up to 20% of gdp. it is almost at depression levels.

it is also true of ireland and portugal. what i am told is that portugal and ireland have at least implemented systems that seem to be credible and seem to be working because they have the political will to do that. there does not seem to be the political will increase. the situation has gotten worse as debt has built up. there are losses there that have to be written down. again, july 21, that 20% haircut on those losses, that has not been adopted by any of the 17 countries. there are some people saying that the losses really -- you know, the reduction, the year cut on that should be 50% now. but the key thing is, there are losses that have to be recognized and we have not recognize them yet. you've got to get to levels down to sustainable levels and the

issue is, someone has to pay for that. a 20% reduction would be severe, particularly to greek banks and others. that may be doable. a 50% hair cut, then you have problems with capital at all the major banks. this is the chart that i asked morgan on my staff to put together because when the united states got downgraded, we said promote weight, what is happening with the defaults and risk? and we still have the lowest credit rating of all of the other countries. it really bugs me that the s&p did that because it was not recognizing the overall strength of the u.s. specifically, one of the questions that we were trying to answer, which may have been

of interest to you, is what the direct exposure is on on greece's debt. we looked at the sovereign debt, which is in yellow, but we also looked at the bank and private debt. if bad things happen in greece, what does that mean for the rest of the country? you can see what the political issues are. france and germany obviously have big exposures to greece. they're worried about that and it gives them incentives to do things. look at the u.s., and it is a very low levels, particularly to the sovereign debt. even if you add up the private and bank sector debt, it is low exposure compared to the europeans. if you look at this as a share of gdp, you can see that the

u.s. is very low. the direct consequence from greek debt to the u.s. is small. and even on the interbank transactions, that is declining as banks are positioning themselves to deal with the counterparty risk. lowe direct exposure to greece. what is a good relative measure to capture the direct exposure to greece, both the public with the banks and on the private side. we compared the industry in 2010 -- sort of, stunningly, i guess -- charged off over $2 billion. that was a shocking year, of course. this year, it looks like it's going to be about $140 billion.

still a lot of losses and the banking industry is working through that. the exposure to greece is tiny compared to what is relative to what the industry has charged off in the past. look at the gap between the two. there's plenty of capacity, assuming there is the capacity to be able to charge this off. the banking industry's direct exposure to greece is very small, very manageable, not really an issue. the exposure changes, though, as we look to what happened with other countries and other countries exposure. we have greece along the bottom here. and then we have the exposure for other countries, and you can see france and germany again, very large exposures, particularly when you hear talks of italy.

there are big issues for those countries, particularly spain. exposure is more on the indirect nature of what happened. this was at a recent imf report that just talks about if you narrow down the greek diet. well, that is one thing. but then you get this exposure that spread across europe as you include all of the exposures, the counterparty exposures between them. the imf's conclusion is you have about 200 billion euro exposure just in the name countries at risk. and it is 300 billion euro if you spread that out across the high risk countries across europe. it gives you a feel for the magnitude. it is not small. and it has implications for the

u.s. because 20% of our exports go to europe. if there is a problem created in europe, it directly affects u.s. exports. and i will remind you, u.s. exports have been a shining star throughout the recession that have kept gdp moving forward. that has been a huge benefit to the u.s. and think about exports across the rest of the country and the rest of the world, including china and india. the point is, this has an impact because of the secondary effects that occur, not necessarily the direct effects. self-inflicted head wounds. there is a picture of our congress. they continue to do this. winston churchill reportedly said something like this and i've been unable to confirm it, but i like it. so i will say it. [laughter]

winston churchill reportedly said, "americans can always be counted on to do the right thing after exhausting all of their options." [laughter] and that seems to be our congress, right? we lived through the biggest self-inflicted head wound, which was the debt ceiling debate. god help us win the super committee comes up. -- when the super committee comes up. it is just a horrible situation. in my opinion, and i think this is shared more broadly, again, it is back to the confidence recession. we have no confidence that our government can take the steps to do the right things to get us back on track. they have done these last- minute moves that have created business uncertainty in the markets. i do not know how i'm doing with time. we will talk a little bit about what this means. i think it shows you something like the federal deficit last year.

i may not have done this, but i think i asked you all to get out your checkbooks -- did i ask you to do this? and write a check for $4,000 for you and every person in your family. how many of you did that? a show of hands. and you wonder why we have a problem. just to put a fine point on that, it takes about $4,000 per person in this country to eliminate that debt for one year. you have obviously not stepped up and add your obligations here. -- met your obligation to your. this is cbo's baseline estimates of what they think is a reasonable assumption of the government does certain things. this includes things like continuing the tax breaks for everybody except those -- couples over $250,000, individuals over $200,000.

it also includes the act fakes and the fix on medicare. this is not very good at all. and it includes others, like the concorde resolution, who believe it will not be -- and it does not include others, like the concorde resolution, who believe the deficit could be as much as $2 trillion at the end of this time frame. we want to contrast this between what the administration has proposed to give you a sense of what is being in -- give you a sense of the impact of what is being proposed. you can see where it is front loaded. you know, you need spending. you have small tax cuts for small businesses. that is extended not only for

individuals, but businesses as an incentive to hire. that is a big portion of that. we're continuing long-term unemployment relief, which we could probably debate about. and tax breaks for families as a payroll deduction. some of these, like the tax breaks, are a continuation of what we had. it is probably not a bad thing if you think that without that, we have a contraction in spending. it will have the impact of increasing taxes. and at the end of the day, some things are paid back as it goes on. here is the obama deficit plan. you can see the components. you get savings if you change things. you get savings every year and it continues to compound. you can see the different

elements of what is involved. some of the war spending was built in. let's combine these two things. to give you a feel of the jobs plan and the deficit-reduction. because they have to work together if you are going to do a stimulus to try to keep the economy going. it is an interesting pattern. look at the deficit reduction under the plan for 2012. it is tiny. it gets back to whether we are taking action quickly enough to encourage investors are run the world to put capital in the u.s. all of these are back loaded things. remember, congress can do anything they want at any point in time, so this does not lock them into these changes. if you wrap all of that together, you get this blue line here.

it improves the picture. notice how the deficit gets worse because you are doing all that spending to begin with. then you get the savings as it starts to kick in and then things go back on track. again, look at the position at the end. you are still adding to the overall debt. you have not totally change that curve. understand what that means. to give you a better sense of the context, this is what omb's baseline adds up to a cross that time frame, 2012-2021. this is what the president has proposed. it does not come close to closing the gap that has been created. and this is what the super committee has to come up with, otherwise, you get the sequestration of spending cuts.

as good as those savings are, it still does not change the fact that the debt is rising. the issue is dealing with the entitlements. what we have done is you can see the path of the entitlements. this is the cbo's alternative scenario. there is the general assumption that revenue, if you even take it back in history, does not change back even with tax rates. it stays fairly consistent at about 18%. it is hard to influence tax revenue. if you go to an implication of the tax system, maybe you can improve some of that. i think that is a good idea. but look at this right here at about 2024.

if revenue stays about the same there, we would only have enough money to pay for social security and medicare on the interest on our debt. we would have no other money left over for any other spending -- defense, social programs, things like that. no money left over. if you have got to deal with medicare and social security. social security is not growing very quickly. that is one of the easier ones to deal with, particularly if you deal with that and say that it only applies to people under 40, or some level like that. here is the issue with the social security. look at the workers and the beneficiaries. the path is that we have less than -- what is it now? almost less than two people working for every retired person out there. you have got to deal with it, and with medicare and medicaid.

to just kind of conclude this and then we will tie things up in a bow in a second, the states also have an issue. this is the state cumulative budget deficit. there are two interesting things to think about. if you look at the total bars, the state deficits are closing and they are doing a better job of closing that deficit. that is a good thing. but the yellow component here is the part that was filled by the stimulus package. you can see the stimulus package is going away. that is why in the president's proposal, he got more money back to states because the burden, even though the total deficit is declining, the portion that has

to be handled by the state alone is bigger than it was in previous years because you do not have that federal contribution. all lot of pressure back on states to close that gap, a lot is spending four teachers, police, first responders, that sort of thing. that is an issue that he is trying to redress -- he is trying to address. these are just some high-level principles. we have given us a lot of thought. you have to have a credible plan. to me, what that means is more money up front. you have to have investors believe that you are dealing with the problem soon and pushing everything off as an issue. i would be in favor of more

upfront things produce up to address it comprehensively, which means medicare, medicaid, social security on the table. you have to talk about tax simplification and reform. you have to change the structure of that. you can preserve spending that does the right things you want, the infrastructure spending. the original stimulus is that it did not have much money for infrastructure spending. those are investments in things that make a difference. we are having the same argument today. when they say infrastructure spending, the response is, there are no show already programs. we are three years into the spirit -- shovel-ready.

that is the high-level principles that i thought of. we have some things that i hope that you are looking at. one is the dodd-frank tracker. every day, we produced the banks in the economy so we are updating things, including the things that happened today. there was a lot of economic news coming out today. i do not know if i have totally exhausted my time. i'm certainly happy to entertain your comments and questions. i do have this effect of stunning audiences into silence. i have done that once again. >> [inaudible]

>> of the question was, what i choose to say, when will congress wake up and do the right thing? there was an interesting comment recently. i was at the international institute of finance weekend -- meeting this past weekend. you have to get the pain threshold high enough for congress to take action. it obviously is not there. one of the interesting things -- the turkish finance minister was there. they have taken a lot of steps to do things. they have put in place a 6.5% surplus targets and his comment was, if you would ask anybody on the street, what is the target for the surplus, they knew it. they would have 6.5%. if you walk out on the street in

washington, no one knows. having a consistent message that everybody understands. i do not have a lot of faith that the super committee is going to come up with something great. i wish they would, it gives them an opportunity to back out of all of the politics. the past history is everything goes down to the brinksmanship. i do not have a lot of confidence. everything is being pushed to be a debate after the election. i think we will struggle through, most likely we will get the sequestration result. i may be surprised by that. it does not come into effect until after the election. then we will deal with it. it is still partisan politics. i do not think congress believes that it is an issue that they

have to come together. and i do not believe the general public believes there is an issue that really is worth coming together. some of the advice is, getting back to -- in getting the media to focus on that, you have to make a convincing argument that people are going to totally lose something you are going to lose this unless we take some change, and then you change the public sentiment. i do not have a lot of great hope that we will do anything over the next year. we know what the right thing to do is, but we do not know how to get reelected. i think that is the attitude. >> [inaudible] >> what is the likelihood of another credit downgrade by one of the agencies? you know, that is a possibility.

i was disappointed that s&p did it, partly because they did it because of the lack of political will. i understand that. when he made 8 $2 trillion mistake, it still awed -- it is a little odd. when you do a downgrade, the banks also get downgraded. we're starting to see that in the the united states and europe. there are implications. >> [inaudible] what are the odds that we will slip back into another recession? >> a few months ago, i had the odds being better than 30%. i think the gods -- have been the odds of gone up to about 50% right now. it is sort of a tossup. we are in a painfully slow

growth period. there will be growth, i think it will feel like it is a recession it is not to thousand a, but it feels that way. the rna -- it is not 20 08, but it feels that way. if you do not have enough momentum, you end of stalling and declining. that is where the fear is coming in. to me, it is all about uncertainty. coming back to some of the things that i described, banks are better, businesses are stronger. consumers are doing better in this country. there is a right kind of base for that. there's plenty of money to be lent, there is to stop a desire to borrow the money. there is uncertainty about what the prospects are. most businesses and individuals are now worried about what is my tax burden going to be?

what am i going to do as a business? are there more regulations? what are my health care costs going to be? i am not want to do anything because i do not have the certainty that things will change. probably 50-50 now that we would get that. it is going to be an ever so slow increase. maybe it is not a technical recession, but it is going to fill painful. -- feel painful. it is a pleasure to be back here. [applause] >> on tomorrows "washington journal," a conversation on the health of u.s. cities. thomas friedman, they take your

calls. after that, at a look at the railroad industry. "washington journal," each morning at 7:00. later in the morning, michele bachmann will be at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. we will have for remarks live here on c-span. >> he found several labor unions and represented the socialist party of america as candidate for president, running five times. the last time, from prison. he lost, but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured and the new series, " the contenders." it is friday at 8:00 eastern.

>> yemen's foreign ministers said the opposition's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election was to blame for the current political unrest in this country. his remarks at the u.n. general assembly came after the security council urged all sides to move toward a transitional government and put an end to the violence. anti-government protests have continued since earlier that -- earlier this year. >> [speaking arabic] >> your excellencies, make godspeed and blessings be upon

you. allow me to congratulate our brother on his assumption of the presidency of the general assembly. i'm fully confident that given his renown experience and wisdom, he will ably conduct the business of his position. i wish him every success in his endeavors. i wish to thanks -- express thanks for constructive efforts in presiding over the 65th session of the general assembly. our thanks also go to mr. ban ki-moon on his reelection as secretary-general of the united nations. we express thanks and appreciation to him, and that

general secretariat staff for their efforts over the past year. in particular, is falling out of the situation in our country. excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to congratulate the people of south sudan on the assumption other place to united nations. we use it or do we wish to congratulate the transitional council in libya. -- we wish to congratulate the transitional council in libya. my country has been witnessing since last january a huge package -- a put huge political crisis. the political opposition that has been one of the main components of our system since the establishment of a state of

unity in yemen in may 1990. it decided to relinquish and rejected the principle of consensus. refusing to implement the agreement that we have had since 2006. following its failure in the elections. as these parties -- they will not allow them to seize power. therefore there has been violence which threatens the outbreak of civil war and devastating conflicts in yemen. that may undermine all the achievements made by our yemeni people in our modern era. as well as a struggle to have a

democratic political system and the protection of its national identity, social fabric, and its unique human fabric -- and a system that we have. at the beginning of the 1990's, the national movement in yemen accomplish a great achievement. it established a unified state in yemen. pluralistic, democratic foundations coupled with several institutions promoting human rights. however, those who made narrow, individual, and partisans interest prevail did not approve

historic achievements. their five -- therefore they started commotions. to the challenges of development, the unbridled population growth, the paucity of human resources, the drought , and other resources which were the main sources of income -- all of these factors have made it impossible to find employment for thousands of university graduates.

however, all of the national powers and all the opposition power is use this tidal wave of change being witnessed by arab countries in order to prevent him and to achieve -- prevented yeman to achieve the democratic offering -- thing through elections. however we have listened to the demands of youth. we started a dialogue with them in order to respond to their requests. tens of thousands of jobs in order to aid employment. however the opposition party is abused and misused the youth in

order to seize power. some of their elements are subversive -- use subversive actions to sabotage the movement of the youth. in the the project is the democratic elections and conducted under international supervision -- it is the democratic elections conducted under international supervision and several international organizations so that these elections were fair, democratic, and transparent. our government is meeting the request of our youth.

and they want to build a better future for ourselves and prosperity. a future that is hindered by the limited resources of my country and the prominence of poverty in addition to terrorism and the global financial crisis. our governments kept calling on our development partners to provide financial and economic support in order to achieve comprehensive development in yemen that will guarantee security, stability, and in our country. the upheaval that is taking place in yemen is a dissatisfaction of the opposition and its refusal to endorse the elections that took

place in 2006, where our people entrusted the president of the republic and chosen as our president. -- chose him as our president. that has led to the conflict you are witnessing nowadays it and the economic development, security, and other levels. despite the intransigence of the opposition, the president of the republic offered compromise in order to reconcile between the opposition and the government. this is led to the performance of the parliamentary election -- the postponement of the parliamentary elections for two years. however, resistance to the president continues.

he is assuring that he has had no intention to run for presidential elections, and he accepts the election of law. in addition to a full package of reforms. our country has incurred heavy losses, estimated at more than $2 billion, as a result of the chaos. caused by the opposition parties, who explode oil pipes and possibly electricity lines. especially in our capital. however, the government continues to abide by the

peaceful solutions and continues to call on the opposition to come to the table and start dialogue. we're confident in yemen that the division -- being witnessed will only be overcome by the return to the legality of prosecution and by the providing remedy to the shortcomings. the government offered a new opportunity for dialogue eve. his excellency decided to

entrust to conduct all of the prosecution of -- all the prosecution powers to an interstate dialogue with the signatories of the initiative, and to achieve in order to guarantee at democratic transition of power. this will lead to reconstruction in yemen without a violation of the constitution or the democratic principles. this is why we see that yemen will provide a model for change, where all parties will be winners.

and where the status of women will be enhanced as a country that opted for dialogue and the means to overcome a crisis. the president offered his return and no one big u.s. terms that he adhered -- in no ambiguous terms that he adhered to defease predicted decency. -- that he adhered to decency. and he was reaching compromise to implement it. i country continues to make every effort and ordered to -- my country continues to make every effort in order to capture al qaeda with its limited resources. what we need at the

international level is a comprehensive global strategy in order to enhance our national capacities to fight extremism and terrorist ideology. of course not recourse in to military might, but based on social and political backgrounds and strives to achieve international levels. the republic of yemen attaches primary importance to human rights which are the main pillars of the united nations. since the return of the unity to yemen in 1990, my country has made great strides in this

field. we have established a ministry on human rights, and yemen has been a signatory and party to many international instruments on human rights. we provide support on our implementation on these instruments. we have also provided and offered our national report within the comprehensive review to the human rights council. and we welcome the results of the review conducted by the council in new york, where we actively participated. the political crisis -- in the political crisis, there have been many violations of human rights by all parties.

nevertheless, the government is conducting independent national investigations to bring perpetrators to justice. the government opened our doors wide open to the fact-finding mission sent by the human rights council. in response to an invitation by our government, the fact finding mission visited yemen in july and presented its report to the council on the 19th of september. during the presidency of the group of 77 in china continues to actively work in order to achieve consensus and unity

within the group. it led to a consensus on many issues of interest to that group. namely, the agreement on the review conference on the npt, as well as a reform of the united nations. we wish every success to the republic of argentina. we wish also success to the republic of out gyrus -- of jerry f. who will preside over the group in the year 2012. bridget of algeria -- we wish

success to the republic of algeria who will preside of a group in the year 2012. an objective understanding of the a conflict shows the intransigents and the policies being pursued by the government of israel to establish settlements and its rejection of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the palestinian people, and its refusal to abide by international legalities. it is the refusal also of the peace initiative. we call upon the peace sponsors, namely the united states of america, to continue its efforts in order to achieve a universal resolution of the state of

palestine, allowing it to join as a member of this organization. i wish to renew my thanks to the secretary general for his efforts following the crisis in yemen, and i like to thank all the united nations agencies for their efforts. i thank you for your kind attention. >> more now from the united nations appeared we will hear from the foreign minister of pakistan who discusses her country's average to support security in the region. if she also talks about the monsoon rains that have caused widespread flooding in pakistan. from the un general assembly in new york, this is about 25 minutes. >> mr. president, excellencies,

ladies and gentlemen. i begin in the name of god, the most beneficent, the most merciful. i am honored to be here today, and to represent the brave and resilient people of pakistan before you. as you may know, the prime minister of pakistan, syed yusuf raza gilani was due to visit new york and address this august house. unfortunately, the prime minister could not come, owing to the humanitarian disaster caused by the floods in pakistan. once again i feel privileged to be able to deliver the remarks of the prime minister to the general assembly. i bring to you mr. president and all the nations of the world assembled here, salaam, peace, and the greetings and good wishes of the people of pakistan. we are delighted mr. president, to be able to address the general assembly under your leadership. this is an important session of the general assembly, the state of qatar is a truly deserving

and able country for this occasion. the pakistani people have intimate brotherly relations with your great country, and i speak for my people in welcoming your presidential term. your election to this high office is as much a tribute to your outstanding qualities as it is to the high esteem that your country is held in the comity of nations. why are we here, mr. president? other than the allure of new york city, why have we converged at the un general assembly? pakistan is here because it believes in multilateralism. each september we return to this great city, and this grand stage so that we can restate and reaffirm the principles and values of multilateralism. it is and has been one of the abiding central tenets of our foreign policy. we are committed to the very idea of the united nations. to us, this idea is simple.

we can do more together than we can apart. we can solve complex problems by consensus rather than by unilateralism. multilateral cooperation can help us deal with the spectrum of global challenges, old and new, in our interdependent world. as we grow more and more dependent on each other, the space for unilateralism and uni-dimensional answers to the most difficult questions shrinks. those who are skeptical of the future of multilateralism are living in the past. the future, our collective global future, inshaallah, is bright. it is the united nations and multilateralism that will safeguard this future. mr. president, pakistan believes in the promise of the united nations - a world free from the scourge of war, a world governed by rules and norms of civility, of decency, of good will, creating a better future for the peoples of the world,

interstate conduct premised on the respect for the immutable principles of the united nations. we must ensure that our united nations is the best representation of the aspirations of our peoples. mr. president, we must do better. there is far too much distance between these aspirations, and the sometimes dark realities of our times. we are constantly struggling with difficult choices and cycles -- expediency versus values, interests versus ideals, there is conflict, discord and death. natural and man-made calamities spread fear and destitution among millions, and often exacerbate and expose already unacceptable levels of poverty and deprivation. we face these challenges in every country. we cannot afford to face them alone. the importance of togetherness and of our faith and collective commitment to the ideals, principles and values of the

united nations cannot be overstated. togetherness, or multilateralism of course, does not mean uniformity or conformity. it does not mean falling in line. instead, it means harmony, tolerance, respect for diversity and a pragmatic cognitive realization that no one system, no single prescription, no one raah, or path works for all. each society, every culture offers a raah, a path for the march of mankind. preconceived assumptions about the superiority of one way or the other must not be allowed to contaminate the spirit of the un. pakistan's oldest spiritual traditions and most beloved poets and peers have taught us there can be no progress where the mind is divorced from the heart. faith in the united nations is a manifestation of the best

rational traditions, and the most cherished traditions of idealism and believing in something. we believe in the un system. the spirit of the united nations must permeate all our endeavors. the peoples of the world await the advent of the true age of the united nations. we must reassert our promise to deliver it. mr. president, i would like to compliment our secretary general mr. ban ki moon, for his tireless efforts in bringing to bear the vast reservoir of good will, compassion and common humanity of member states in successfully addressing a wide array of challenges. on behalf of the people of pakistan, i wish to convey our grateful thanks to the secretary general and the international community for their support and solidarity expressed so generously in the wake of devastating floods last year. this year again, heavy monsoon rains has caused widespread flooding. millions have been affected.

around 5.4 million people rendered homeless. human and economic losses as well as the pressing requirements of relief and rehabilitation obliged us to seek international assistance. we again thank you for your support and solidarity. the pakistani people continue to consistently demonstrate their immense reservoir of courage, forbearance and generosity. inshaallah, we shall overcome this misfortune through the same fortitude and resilience that our people have been blessed with. mr. president, at this session of the general assembly, pakistan is seeking election to a seat on the security council. in soliciting your support, i wish to assure you that we would discharge our responsibilities with utmost dedication to the high ideals and principles of the united nations. pakistan attaches the highest importance to promoting the goals of peace, security and stability in the world. in our own region we have relentlessly endeavored towards creating an environment of

shared prosperity and peace. a democratic, progressive and prosperous pakistan embedded in a stable, secure and prosperous region guides the framework of our foreign policy and could yield enormous benefits to not only the peoples of our region but of the world. we have reached out to our immediate neighbors with a sincere desire to join hands in bringing about durable peace and development, by a win- win approach. situated as we are on the cross roads of central, south and west asia, we realize the enormous opportunities that ensue from pursuing with diligence the vision of common development and cooperation. i am happy to note that both pakistan and india are now engaged in a substantive dialogue process. a dialogue process that we in pakistan hope will be uninterrupted and uninterruptible. we certainly intend to make

this engagement fruitful and premise it on the promise of a mutually rewarding enterprise that would enable us to optimally avail the complementarities that exist. we look forward to resolving all outstanding issues including the jammu and kashmir dispute, which is among the oldest on the agenda of the united nations and the subject of several security council resolutions. a peaceful resolution that accords fully with the aspirations of the kashmiris, is a sine qua non for durable -- is indispensable for durable stability. as is the need for safeguarding of their fundamental human rights. the reality of a nuclearized south asia, imposes on both pakistan and india, the onerous responsibility to work together for creating mutual confidence, avoiding an arms race, and enhancing strategic stability. we look forward to moving in this direction in the dialogue process. pakistan is also firmly committed to promoting stability and peace in

afghanistan. we respect and support the efforts of the government of afghanistan under the leadership of president karzai for reconciliation and peace. we strongly condemn the recent terror attacks in kabul in which many precious lives were lost. we also express our sympathy with our brothers and sisters and the leadership of afghanistan on the tragic assassination of professor burhanuddin rabbani, former president and chairman of the afghan high peace council. such cowardly attacks will never succeed in deterring our proud afghan brothers and sisters from realizing the noble goal of reconciliation and peace. pakistan fully supports an afghan-led and afghan-owned inclusive process of reconciliation and peace in afghanistan. we want to see afghanistan as a united, independent and sovereign state. we urge all concerned to join the reconciliation process. we also call for a de-

escalation and cessation of violence. the road ahead for peace in afghanistan and our region as a whole is full of challenges. the complexity of the situation and the ground dynamics need to be analyzed objectively and carefully. clarity and strategic coherence, especially among afghanistan, united states and pakistan is of utmost importance. it is for this reason that we attach importance to the work of the trilateral core group. we also attach considerable importance to the afghanistan- pakistan joint commission for peace and reconciliation. it is only by charting a clear roadmap that we would be able to bring about necessary operational policy coordination to achieve shared goals and objectives. given the volatility of the situation, it is perhaps understandable that there is a high level of anxiety and emotions. but we must not lose sight of the goals. we must work closely and as

responsible partners together in a cooperative manner and not rush to judgments or question each other's intentions. a cooperative endeavor, in full solidarity with the people of afghanistan, is the only sure way of ensuring peace, stability and prosperity in the region. pakistan is willing to do its best with the international partners and, most notably, the governments of afghanistan and the united states, to acquit itself of this high responsibility, at this defining moment in one of the most important struggles of our times. mr. president, pakistan has always upheld the realization of the inalienable rights of the palestinian people, including their right to an independent homeland with al quds al sharif as its capital. i would like to reaffirm our principled position. president mahmoud abbas made an historic and memorable case for his people. we stand by him and the palestinian people. we stand by our brothers and

sisters. and we agree -- this really is not, sustainable, anymore. we support the quest of the state of palestine for membership in the united nations. in north africa and the middle east, we have witnessed important developments. pakistan believes that the aspirations of the people must be accommodated peacefully, without external interference and in a manner consistent with the principle of sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states. mr. president, very few countries have been ravaged by the monster of terrorism as brutally as pakistan has. we are keenly aware about the threat terrorism poses to pakistan, to pakistan neighbors, or to the rest of the world. 30,000 innocent pakistanis have been killed-men, women and children. the ever valiant pakistani armed forces have defended pakistan, and the rest of the world at the highest cost. our troops have laid down 6,532 shuhada, or martyrs. 19,190 of our strongest,

bravest and most honor-worthy boys have suffered injuries. and it does not stop there. we have seen 3,629 of our police and paramilitary personnel embrace shahadat, or martyrdom. 10,720 of these men and women of the police and paramilitary services have been injured, since 2002. the grieving mothers, daughters, sisters and wives of these brave men and women are a constant reminder of our need to be vigilant and to fight the menace of terrorism. pakistan's most popular leader, shaheed mohatarma benazir bhutto, was assassinated in 2007. numerous politicians have lost sons and brothers and fathers at the hands of terrorists. our streets are filled with armed police posts. we cannot enter our parks, or shopping centers, or churches or mosques without being searched and frisked. terrorists have attacked our military installations, attacked

the gravesites of our spiritual elders, attacked our minorities and attacked the very idea of pakistan. if i began recounting pakistan's sacrifices and pakistan's suffering, i would keep you here till next september. we do not take terrorism lightly. we cannot. we have suffered far too much. our nation is united in its determination to eliminate the specter of terrorism from our soil, from our region and the world. it is important to enhance international cooperation to totally obliterate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. our resolve is inspired by allama mohammed iqbal, the legendary poet-philosopher to whom pakistan owes a debt of gratitude. iqbal said --

and that translates. "the eagle does not fall from its soaring height if you have the will, there is nothing to fear from adversity" pakistan has the will. we do not fear adversity. it is pakistan's firm determination not to allow any space on its territory for militants and terrorists. at the regional plane, we must all pledge that our respective territories will not be allowed to be used against others by terrorists. the issue of organizing, financing, arming, supporting and abetting terrorist violence needs to be addressed seriously and effectively. notable success against al qaeda and its affiliates has been registered in recent years. it is well known that following the tora bora bombing and consequent dispersal of al qaeda, it was pakistan's intelligence and security agencies that interdicted a large number of al qaeda operatives. very recently, yousuf al mauritani, the chief operative of al qaeda was arrested in a joint isi and cia operation.

we must demonstrate complete unity in ranks, avoid any recrimination, build greater trust and more importantly bring about the requisite operational coordination in combating this menace. otherwise, only the terrorists will gain. national interest. we believe that our success is critical to regional and global peace and security. despite our limited capacity and other constraints, we have done all we can for the sake of realizing the vision of a bright future for our people and the peoples of afghanistan and of the region. we have actively advocated and worked for closer regional economic integration. we believe that without prioritizing development and creating win-win scenarios in terms of mutually beneficial joint ventures in connectivity, infrastructure, energy and trade, we cannot succeed in

changing the picture. we need to give hope and provide a silver lining to those who have not seen peace for three generations, and have only taken mercenarism and guns as a means of livelihood. pakistan's commitment to eliminating terror and militancy is irrevocable. we believe that this warrants a comprehensive approach not only to deal with violence but also its root causes. this requires enhancing international cooperation in multiple domains. pakistan has reached out to all countries of the world to establish mechanisms and arrangements ranging from intelligence cooperation, mutual assistance in legal and criminal matters, as well as joint operations, where required. we believe that this is a global issue and needs to be addressed effectively. mr. president, pakistan supports initiatives to strengthen the united nations. however it is important not to start anything that proves divisive or has the potential

to unravel the essential pillars of the un. the process of security council reforms must be worked in a manner that will reinforce the confidence of the peoples of the world in this body and enhance its credibility and effectiveness. the reforms must enjoy full consensus of the international community and accord with the fundamental principle of sovereign equality. i remain committed to the vision of pakistan's martyred leader, shaheed mohtarma benazir bhutto, who reminded us time and again that selective morality by definition is immoral, and that fundamental human values alone must guide our actions. pakistan attaches high importance to un peacekeeping functions and is a major troop contributor to the un peacekeeping. pakistan has consistently been among the top un peacekeeping contributors for many years. we have over 10,000 troops in the un blue helmets. we also attach importance to

the united nations work in the field of disarmament and non proliferation. our collective endeavors in these fields could best be effective if we could enhance security, for all, and pursue approaches that are not selective or discriminatory. normative work must be premised on principles. mr. president, we applaud the work of the united nations in multiple domains. the specialized organizations, bodies and institutions are veritable examples of accomplishing shared goals and broadening vistas of cooperation. pakistan played a leadership role in conceiving and piloting the un's delivering as one agenda. this is a potentially vital informant to global development, and to the aid effectiveness. despite the paris declaration and its reaffirmation at accra, we have a long way to go. the one un pilot exercise in pakistan has struggled to achieve the lofty goals it set for itself, but we continue to

invest hope in its eventual success. of course, the most important kind of harmonization is the one that takes place between people, between hearts and minds, between people. -- between nations. we place immense importance on our ability to promote harmony and tolerance among and between societies, cultures, faiths and nations. we know the price to be paid when these values are breached, having lost the governor of our most populous province, salmaan taseer, and our valiant minister for minority affairs, shahbaz bhatti to acts of violence perpetrated by extremists. for us, the process of harmony and tolerance begins at home, we take it very seriously. we are committed and our resolve is strong. at the international level, we are confident that un provides the best global forum, that is fully equipped to enhance understanding and good will between all members of the international community. respect for beliefs, cultures

and traditions are the hallmark of civilized conduct. we are particularly concerned over campaigns that tend to stigmatize islam and muslims. islam is a religion of peace. it is important that the international community celebrate our common humanity and unity in diversity. mr. president, the systemic fault lines in the global economic landscape have surfaced lately and remain a source of immense concern. the debt and financial crises adds another worrying dimension to the existing disparity between developed and developing countries and the need to promote holistic development and economic growth. this requires re-visiting the fundamentals and readiness to equitably address the underlying issues. mr. president, as a democratic country, committed firmly to the ideals, values, and principles of the united nations, pakistan will continue to do its best for the cause of global peace and prosperity. under the leadership of president asif ali zardari and

prime minister syed yusuf raza gilani, the pakistani nation is moving ahead confident of itself and its enormous capabilities. as a vibrant democracy, we are in the process of accomplishing a historic societal transformation. the challenges our people have dealt with empower and embolden us. we will remain unflinchingly democratic. we will defeat those that seek to terrorize us. we will empower women. we will protect the weak and the vulnerable in our midst, especially minorities. we will stand up for the weak and vulnerable abroad. we will support the human rights of kashmiris. we will speak in support of the palestinians. we will educate our children. we will protect our children. we will face any and all challenges with determination and faith. most of all, we will be a peaceful and prosperous society. there will be challenges, but inshaallah, we will overcome them.

we don't anticipate doing any of these things alone. with our neighbors and our friends, we will do all this in the spirit of togetherness. in the spirit of harmony, we will forge ahead despite the darkness of our times in the spirit that helped build this great institution. that spirit, a spirit that speaks to the very heart of pakistani identity, is the spirit of the un. let us join hands and marching forward! for the good of the peoples of our countries and for the good of the world. mr. president, with your permission, i will conclude my statement with the words of pakistan's founding father qauid-e-azam mohammad ali jinnah which is the quintessential expression of pakistan's foreign policy. mr. jinnah in a radio broadcast in february 1948 stated and i quote "our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards the nations of the world.

we do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. we believe in the principle of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world, and in upholding the principles of the united nations charter." with this, mr. president, i thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the united nations security council meets tomorrow morning to consider the palestinian request for statehood and formal membership in the wind.

and number of nations have expressed their support for the measure. a formal vote is not expected for several weeks and the u.s. has said it will veto the request. far aren't live -- watch our live coverage and 9:30 a.m. on c-span tune. -- on c-span to. and vladimir putin has said he will run for russian president after dmitry medvedev said he would not. live coverage from the center for the national interest at 12:20 p.m. eastern. today in new hampshire, president obama's a senior strategist dave rolde packs for us is that the president took a large challenges in his reelection because of the economy and high unemployment. those remarks are next on c- span. in new jersey gov. chris christie at the ronald reagan presidential library in simi

valley, california. later, the chief economist of the american bankers association talks about the u.s. and global economy. >> the president faces a titanic struggle to win reelection next year according to his top campaign strategists, david axelrod, who ran his successful bid for the white house in 2008. mr. axelrod spoke saturday -- spoke at a politics and eggs event in new hampshire. this political forum started in 1996 and is a regular stop for the presidential campaigns and candidates. it is 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you so much. i grimace when people start reading that. every year it gets longer and longer. i feel older and older. first of all, i want to thank neil and the entire institute

for inviting me today. i cannot think of a higher calling than to expose young people to politics, to public life, the issues in public life and service. hopefully, we will upon a new generation of leaders. we so desperately need that. places like this are a wellspring. i know some of the young people i shook hands with this morning are going to be -- we are going to be working for them some day. i am sure of that. i congratulate you on your work. i want to thank you for your long association with this event and putting this event together.

though he could not be here this morning, i want to send my guest -- i want to send my best to your governor. i think in our his splendid years of public service. i am happy to be here. i understand you had quite a few republicans lately. [laughter] i am happy to integrate the festivities here. i am happy to beat back in new hampshire. jim tried to blunt the truth, but my reporting days went back to 1976. as part of that reporting, i was through new hampshire quite a bit as a young reporter covering the new hampshire primary. i remember i was assigned in 1984 to do a profile governor askew of florida when he was running for president. this is what happens when you are a young reporter. you are asked to do profiles of people like governor askew.

he was a splendid man, but not likely to become president of the united states. [laughter] i went to a high school here in manchester, and he spoke. i did reporters to end i grab a couple of kids after. i said, what did you think? one man said, it was very impressive. i said if he would vote, would you vote for him? this kid was very offended preset, "i have not heard from all the candidates yet. i think in these early stage -- i have to throw iowa in. i do not want to offend anyone here. these early states are the only states were candidates come face-to-face with citizens on a regular basis. people in new hampshire take the responsibility very seriously and put these candidates through their paces.

they are a test for the most difficult assignment in the world. it begins here with very good questions from citizens who take the responsibility seriously. i know there is always a controversy about that. why should these early states have so much influence? i really think the people in new hampshire take their responsibility well. even though i do not always agree with their verdict, i respect the role that they play and how seriously they take it. one of the characteristics of new hampshire voters that i have been aware of over the years is their sense of independence.

generally, they are people who are less interested in party labels and more interested in the quality of ideas, the vision, a character, and candidates who come before them. i think that is one reason president obama won new hampshire in 2008. the president's view then is the same is now. he said then and believes now that we have to rise above wintering partisanship, rigid ideology, the effect that part of some people have too often on our nation to face the challenges we meet as a country. there is no more pressing challenge and the challenge of the economy. people in new hampshire live with that every day. i do not have to tell you how important it is. the immediate challenge of accelerating jobs and growth. particularly in light of the strong headwinds we face this year from all it around the globe that have made a recovery that much more difficult.

that is what the president is fighting right now for the american jobs act which would put teachers back in the classroom, veterans back to work, construction workers back to work rebuilding our crumbling bridges, roads, and highways. and schools. it would open the door for people who are currently receiving unemployment to get valuable on-the-job training and skills as a look for employment. it would put additional money in the pockets of 160 million americans and in the pockets of small business people who are trying to make it in this economy. but let's acknowledge that beyond this immediate crisis, there is a long-term trend that we have seen for decades that we also have to focus on.

that is the hollowing out of the middle class in this country that threatens to change the character of our country and the basic assumptions that we have about our country. for the 35 years after world war ii, incomes grew, wages grew in tandem with the economy. all books truly were lifted when -- all boats truly were lifted when the economy grew. for the last three decades or so, that has not been the case. wages have essentially flat line for 80% or more of the american people and real terms. and, of course, prices have not. there was a census report just a couple of weeks ago. what it said is the average white male worker in this country is making in real terms what he was making in 1973.

in total, the average worker is making what they were making in 1996. we know that prices have not gone a long accordingly. one example -- and i am here at a school of higher education. the cost of college education has increased by 429% since 1985. that is just one of the things people are struggling with that are very much part of a middle- class life. whether it is health care, housing, all of these things have put enormous pressure on families who grappled with it by becoming double income families and by putting things on their credit cards, and acting out their credit cards, borrowing against the value of their home -- that was fine as long as the value of their homes was escalating. we know what happened in 2008.

that whole house of cards came crumbling down. so our task is not just to rebuild our economy in the short run and create more jobs. it is also to make sure that hard work is rewarded. that responsibility is rewarded. if you work hard, you can get a head. everybody gets a fair shake, and everybody does their fair share. we are working on two projects at once. we honestly thought what we got to washington, we would get some cooperation from folks across the aisle. after all, we were in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. but they had a different plan. senator mcconnell, the majority leader -- the minority leader in the senate did an interview in 2010 that was really

revealing. he said that we made a decision from the beginning that we were not going to give the president support of any major initiative. to do that would be to confer a sense of bipartisanship. we did not want to do that. in the midst of this tremendous challenge, essentially, the judgment was to let the president and the democratic party grapple with that on their own. now, you can question the appropriateness of that decision, i certainly do. it was diabolically clever. what happened was, the republican party was able to force the president to take a series of very difficult decisions, many that were as necessary as they were unpopular. the recovery act, the intervention to save the auto industry, to shore up the financial industry.

then they were able to go to voters in 2010 and say that we did all this on a partisan basis. he is being ideologue's rigid ideology call. -- in ideological. in new hampshire and elsewhere, people wanted less partisanship. it wanted more cooperation in washington. the thought if we elected a republican congress, somehow, that would force a greater sense of cooperation and washington. that is the great paradox of 2010. instead of forcing greater cooperation, what these independent voters did with the best of intentions was sweet indeed most ideologies all group -- sweep in the the most

trivial logical group -- ideological group of republicans in my lifetime. the consequences of that have been felt all throughout this year and culminated in the debt ceiling debacle. the same forces that are very much in control of the congress now -- of the republican side of the congress and the majority in the house are very much a force in the republican nominating process. ec republican candidates. -- you see republican candidates. many of them come through here. we all saw last week in the last republican debate when a young soldier appeared on the screen from iraq to happen to be a gay american and asked a question related to that and was booed from the crowd. not one person on that

platform, not one person was willing to say, "do not do that. it is inappropriate to do -- boo somebody who is risking their life for this country and is serving honorably. do not do that." nobody did that because they feared it defined the crowd in -- feared the piping -- defying the crowd in that room. that is extended to economics as well. they have all sworn oaths of obedience to his basic -- to grow vern norquist and his based -- grover norquist and his basic constructs that we never again should ask -- not $1 more from any america, for many corporate -- corp., from anyone to help solve our problems.

they have laid out a familiar prescription for america, one that we have seen very recently. that is to continue to cut taxes at the very top to maintain tax loopholes for corporations, to roll back all the wall street reforms that promote transparency and accountability on wall street. it is the same for below we -- same formula we heard 10 years ago which helped lead to this crisis. yet this is what you probably hear from this podium and he will appear in the debate in a couple of weeks when the republicans gather in new hampshire. this is an old line -- this is old line in old bottles. -- old wine in old bottles. i believe it is ultimately not

going to sell. as i said, what americans want is an economy where everybody gets a fair shake and where responsibility is broadly shared so we will meet our responsibilities -- meet the challenges that we face together. let me say, one of those challenges absolutely is dealing with our fiscal mess. we have a budget surplus in 2001. we squandered that surplus, and now we have a fiscal crisis. it is a big dark cloud over our future. there is no doubt about that. the question is, what is the best way to go about solving that? are we going to do it in a way that is balanced? are we going to do it by cutting the things that will make our country stronger and our economy stronger in the future? you hear a lot, and you probably heard a lot in this room from people who say, we cannot

mortgage the future by failing to deal with our fiscal challenges. that is absolutely right. that is why the president went to such lengths over the summer to try to reach a major agreement that would solve this problem for decades to come. let's acknowledge there are other ways to mortgage the future. we have to be cognizant of that. if you cut education by 25%, which has been proposed on the other side, you are mortgaging the future. we know the countries that out educate us in out compete us tomorrow, and d.c. our students aren't sliding relative to students in other countries, this is a prescription for disaster. one of the candidates that i covered when i was a reporter in 1984 here in new hampshire was gary hart.

he always said, if you think education is expensive, wait until you find out how much ignorance costs. that is a profound statement. i think we as a country need to recognize that. if you cut research and development by 70% as has been proposed, you are mortgaging the future. if the government had not done the things in terms of funding research, there would be no internet. there would be no google. there would be no gps. this is how progress happens. when the government takes on basic science that corporations cannot afford to do and provide the seeds for progress. we know all around the world other countries are investing in that kind of research. we see it in china, india, and brazil.

we have to compete if we are going to maintain and develop and encourage the kind of economy which good middle-class jobs are available, we have to educate our workforce and make sure we are commanding height and jobs, it chance manufacturing jobs and other jobs that will pay the kind of salary that will allow people to live lives they want to live. if you walk away from our commitment to infrastructure, to rebuilding, the basic physical plant of our country and making sure it is competitive and that it is functional, then you are mortgaging the future. in one of the early debates, speaker newt gingrich wound himself up into a state of high dudgeon, which is not an unusual event, and said we did not need a department of railroads to build the transcontinental railroad. that is true.

but what we did need was abraham lincoln in the midst of the civil war making a decision that once the war was over we better have a transcontinental railroad or we would not grow. he also made the decision to move forward on land grant colleges. in the midst of the civil war when i think you can argue the demands on the government were greater than the ones we face today. because he had the vision, even as he was trying to save the union, to do those types of things to set up a patent system and do other things that were going to be the foundation for growth, we became who we are work. -- we became who we were. that is a lot about what this election is it out. it is about what we do in the short term to spur jobs and growth. it is what we do in the long term to lay the foundation for the kind of economy that is one to provide real opportunity to the broadest number of americans and reverse the trends that we

have seen over the last 30 years that culminated in this collapse in 2008. i do not want to leave you with a sense that i am pollyannas about the challenges. we had the wind in her back in 2008. president obama got 53% of the vote. that means 47% of america voted against him. we do not have the winds and our backs in this election. we have the wind in our face because the american people have the wind in their faces. this will be a struggle.

i firmly believe we are on the right side of the struggle. this is a tough time for our country, and is a tough time per the american people. the president will take responsibility for everything he has done, as he should. it will not be enough to simply point fingers of blame and try to lay on him the responsibility for all of america's ls without providing credible prescriptions for how to solve them. it will not be enough to offer back to the future proven failures. the american people want the president to point to the future and offer a plan for how to get there. through this process that you guys are so much a part of, they will evaluate all of the candidates. they will evaluate their ideas. they will evaluate their record. they will evaluate their character. then they will make a judgment about who they can count on to fight for them and the values and vision that are so

essential to who we are as a country and hold out the greatest hope for the embattled middle-class. i very much look forward to that debate because i am very confident it is one we are going to win. i know by stating that he year in history of very sophisticated room of -- in this room of very sophisticated political observers, i will be held to it. we are a better country for what you do here. as i said, i look forward to the leadership that a lot of the young people who are here this morning and who participated in this program will provide in the years to come. thank you. [applause]

>> will you take a couple of questions? >> as many as you want. >> thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for your kind words about our primary. i would like to ask you to put your political strategists had on for a minute. we have a primary early next went to trade we are not sure when yet. unlike quite a few of the states before us and several after, we allowed independence -- which is the loudest -- which is the largest group in our state. after the results are in, i would be interested to hear, and

i bet a lot of students would as well, how will you and the president's campaign analyze those results? what will you take from them that you will not get from iowa and south carolina? >> it is interesting. we will look hard at that and held those independent voters behave in this primary. obviously, there are elements of this primary that are not evident in iowa. you have people competing in this primary who are not competing in iowa. they are making explicit appeals to independent votes. we will look hard at that. we will look hard at the level of participation in that primary. most of all, what we will be looking at is the quality of the debate and exactly what assertions are made during this process.

we are going to ask questions. the questions are going to be if the representations are consistent with what people have said and done before? are their ideas credible? are they simply tailored for specific constituencies to get through the nominating process? that is really what i look forward to. i can tell you there is a lot of criticism about our nominating process. it is pretty barbaric at times, having participated in and i can tell you it is hard. there are a lot of the veterans of the process in this room. what it does do, as i said in my remarks, it tests you. it tests your ideas. tests your character. it puts your record up. i think people in new hampshire do a good job thrashing that

out. i can tell you i remember in 2008, we won a big victory in iowa. several days later we came here to new hampshire for the primary. we spent five days effectively taking victory laps around the state of new hampshire and while senator clinton campaigned very close to the ground and made a very compelling case. we lost. it was a great lesson for us. i think it will be interesting to see how these candidates -- i know there are certain assumptions about the state and how it will go. there is a home court advantage for a candid. but kantor is always a test, and i think it will be again. i cannot believe you did not get the first question as big as you are. [laughter] >> hello. i am a politician major. my name is zach greggor. with the economy clearly been

the thing that is the thing to focus on, how do you feel about the amount of money that is being asked on both sides to raise in terms of campaigning? do you think that amount of money is justified? what are your thoughts on that? >> you raise a very concerning question, and that is, what is the effect of all this money in the process? we have a new and kind of menacing dimension this year because of the citizens united ruling over the supreme court. now, third-party groups can raise unlimited amounts of money and undisclosed contributions. there was over $200 million spent in the last election in the midterm election. i expect that number is going to be between half of $1,000,000,000.1000000238 dollars.

that has never happened before. it is going to force us to raise more money. we put restrictions on ourselves that other candidates have not placed on themselves in terms of taking money from registered federal lobbyists, in terms of taking money from pacs. i do not regret that. i think it is the right thing to do. it is an unknown question as to what the impact of all this will be. you are about to become our test cases on this. i suggest these so-called super pacs will begin to mobilize in the republican primaries. you are going to see candidates attacked from these sort of stalled the operations. governor. house 1, governor romney has

won, -- governor perry has one, governor romney has one. you guys are going to see it close up. the answer to your question is, i have been concerned about money in politics for a very long time. we have tried to come back to some degree by raising as much lower dollar money as we can. our contributions tend to be on the average lower. we will see when we file our reports. we had over one half million contributors as far as the last report. it is not enough. the question we all have to ask ourselves as a country is, what if anything we can do about

this, especially given the supreme court ruling. what we risk is returning the in many different ways, kind of a gilded age where infrastructures can simply by a congress or even a presidency and really control public policy in a way that serves the interests who funds the campaigns and fund the operations of these super pacs but not the interest of the country. as we move forward, your peers are going to have to struggle with this. if unchecked, it could help shape the course of the future in ways that you and others will not find pleasing. i will not justify it. we have to live with it. we have to come at it the best we can. but it is not healthy. i think anyone who argues otherwise will have a tough case to make. go ahead.

>> sorry about that. thank you for coming out this morning. it was interesting to hear your remarks as he opened up the got the middle class and how our wages have gone down since the 1970's. it is a direct correlation to your membership and it did see dropping as witches have gone down. the unions have always supported the middle class -- middle-class and risk that the standard of living. right now in new hampshire, we are getting beat up that. my guys and gals working construction are wondering what we can do to put them back to work.

the jobs bill is great. we support it. we need it now because three years ago and four years ago at the campaign, they were working. now, they are disenchanted. they are having all kinds of problems. we need some help. we need jobs now. we do have something like an employee free choice act which would grow union membership and would grow the middle class and give people health insurance. you can hit a lot of problems directly with that. >> obviously, i feel strongly about the jobs act as you mentioned. when you look at what happened to the economy, and new hampshire has felt some of this, we have seen a decline in manufacturing leading up to this crisis. a lot of folks who made a good living in manufacturing moved over to construction.

and then the construction industry deflated as a result of the housing the collapse. you have a lot of people -- construction workers, tradesmen, who are working before. we have to get people back to work. we have heard from the folks on the other side of the aisle that they might perk -- they might approve some of the president's plan, but they are not short about most of the plan. at first, they said none of the plan including the payroll tax cut for americans. i think it finally came clear that it is not really a tenable political position to say we will not raise taxes on the raising, but we will raise taxes of 160 million working americans.

there seems to be an indication that they might be receptive to that. the other components of the plan are equally important. the infrastructure element of it is very important for the reason that you suggested, which is that will go right to the heart of the people who are most severely hit by this economic downturn. it will get people back to work. more than that, it will get them back to work rebuilding our schools and doing other work around the country that is so desperately needed. this is not just about putting people back to work, it is putting people back to work doing the work in america needs done. i am hopeful that -- i do not think left to their own devices, the guys across the aisle are going to embrace any of that.

what the president is trying to do now as he has been out and about his engage the american people in this fight. the great thing about democracy is ultimately the american people have a say in this. to the degree that people make their voices heard, it will be harder to say "no." if they do say no, it will further describe what this battle is about in 2012. as the president said in his speech, others cannot wait 14 months. they are desperate for work now. the country needs them working now. it is important to our economy that they are working now. we are going to keep plugging away at that. the employee free choice act, as you know, there is a new normal in washington which is it takes 60 votes in the united states senate to pass anything. that makes a lot of things more difficult to do. as the president said in his speech to congress, he is committed to the idea.

he is committed to the principle of collective bargaining. he very much understands the connection between the right to organize and is the strength of the middle-class. >> why do we not do one more? >> hawaii. thank you for being in new hampshire. i heard your remarks, and i appreciate them. let me ask you -- there is a perception on leaders in the state of all stripes. the reality of those who are down and out at the moment that this administration and this congress with both parties are unable to get control of this economy. with the headwinds as he said blowing in from europe as well as the headwinds in this country, before the election occurs, this gridlock that we see in washington right now is just not going to change. >> is not going to what? >> is not want to change. as a strategist, how you deal with that?

it is a deep concern to business leaders in particular, which i am one of, in terms of getting the capital we need to expand in hiring. the gridlock is something we look at with jaundiced eyes and wonder what in the world is going to undo it. >> i think it is a very good question. we have had a number of blows to our economy this year. the arab spring and its impact on foot oil prices pretty japanese earthquake had enormous negative impact. the ongoing situation in europe is tremendously negative in terms of its impact on our own economy for a variety of reasons. the biggest hit we have taken is a self-inflicted room -- a self- inflicted wound is the debacle in the summer when we had those willing to walk a america over the cliff of defaults.

i think that has had a chilling effect on markets and businesses to express the concern that you expressed. i am not willing to stand here and accept that it is ordained that we cannot come to terms. there is good reason to believe that we cannot come to terms on some of these things based on past experience and based on what i said during my remarks. when you have leaders who say, our strategy is not to cooperate. you have leaders who say that our number one priority is to defeat the president. it does not treat a climate for progress. we have to stop thinking so much about how we tear the other side down and how together we can build this country up. that is going to only happen if people demand it. i will say this. i am not willing to a sign a sort of equal blame for what has

happened in washington. there are democrats in this room i think you would argue that the president was too eager to try and find a path order -- forward. he was too eager to try to bring people together. that is in the face of evidence

the other side did not want to do it. i do not regret him making the effort, because i think people elected him to get things done. they did not elect him to wage a partisan war. his treaties have been almost uniformly rejected. we had a few patches of sunlight in this long dark journey. last winter, we were able to get a lot done after the election and before the new congress took office. i think ultimately the american people are going to have to demand that we do find the path forward. most people understand that this is not -- we are a better country than we are getting from those who would simply make this a partisan deal one after the other.

i accept your premise in that we do not solve this, it will have negative effects on the country. we are going to keep trying to find those paths. as the president said in his jobs speech, one thing that has been offered has been offered time and again by republicans. there is no reason we cannot come together on these issues. i hope we can, and i hope we find common ground on physical challenges. the only thing that will make that happen is if the american people demand it. we are trying to recruit the american people in this fight. thank you very much for having me here tonight. [applause] >> thank you very much, david axelrod, for coming. we usually been the speakers to do that. he actually said, i want to spend time with students. we appreciate that. thank you for all the sponsors whose banners are on the wall. thank you. >> i appreciate it. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

? the financial health of u.s. citizens. then thomas friedman of the book "that used to be us. they take your calls. been able to get the u.s. freight rail industry. it is like each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we have your remarks live here on c-span. this is open to middle and high school students. be sure to include more than one point of view.

there are $50,000 of $5,000. >> he said he is not going to run for president. he is asked about that decision. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you.

>> it is an honor for me to be here at the reagan library to speak with all of you here today. there have been a lot of throwing things at that happened to me. people tend to become a little passe. i called him. i said i something that will impress you. a written this letter over the phone. i said it is signed by nancy reagan. it is great to be here. thank you for your invitation.

he believed in this country. he embodies the strength, the press serbians, and the faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible. they would be better for more americans in future. it is this vision for our country that guided his administration over the course of eight years. his commitment to making america stronger, better, more resilience. it allowed him the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom. it dared to put results ahead of political opportunity. everybody in this room has his favor ronald reagan story. it happened 30 years ago on august of 1981. the air traffic controllers went on strike. president reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refuse would be fired. in and, thousands refuse.

thousands were fired. -- in the end, thousands refused. thousands were fired. as a parable of principle, ronald reagan said what he meant and meant what he said. those who thought he was bluffing or sadly mistaken. he was not an empty political ploy. it was leadership. he said he could convince people that i meant what i said.

i would have been just as forceful as i thought management have been wrong. i recall this pivotal moment. most americans viewed his firm handling as a domestic matter. this misses a critical point. the whole world was watching. what happens here does not stay here. this is not in vegas. another way of saying that americans do not have the luxury of thinking that while we have long viewed as purely domestic matters have no consequences before our borders.

what we say and what we do at home a backs -- at fax -- affects how others see us. america's role is defined by who we are at home. it is defined by how we conduct ourselves with each other and how we do with our own problems. did it is determined by how we set an example for the world. we still understand form policy. it is carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. to some extent it still is. one of the most powerful forms of form policy is the example we set. this is where it harkens back to president reagan. his willingness to articulate that he could be predicted to stand by his friends in stand up to his adversaries.

if president reagan would do that at home, they realize that he would do it abroad as well. principal would not stop at the water's edge. it supported terror was the same. it does have a meeting. it is not what it was. it is that what it can be. it is that what it means to be. this is been the case.

we pay a price and our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult and necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending. we pay a price and our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult and necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending. we pay a price one special interest went over national interest. we're saying justice that made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits to create an environment in which there's more job creation and job destruction. this is where the contrast between what happened in new jersey and what is happening in washington, d.c. is the most clear. in new jersey, you have actually seen divided government that is

working. it does not mean we do not have arguments or acrimony. you have all seen my youtube videos. there are serious disagreements. sometimes it is expressed loudly. this is what we did. we propose specific means to fix them. we educated the public on the dire consequences of inaction. we compromise on a bipartisan basis. this is what people expect. how do we do this tax how do we do it?

thru leadership and compromise is the only way you can balance budgets. leadership and compromise is the only way. you reform the health benefits system. it is collectively $121 billion underfunded. leadership and compromise is the only way you can cap of the property taxes. there's some of the most powerful public sector unions in america. we have done this before. the executive france has not set by and waited for others to go first to suggest solutions.

[applause] this is happened in trenton. we have done this with the legislative branch held by the opposite party. it is led by two people who often but the interest of our state above the partisan politics of their caucuses. that is why i call them my friends. they set a tone that has taken hold against many other states. it is a powerful message, a lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the deaths of our challenges. tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solution. this is the only way to lead america.

we watched a president to talk about the courage of his conviction but still found the courage to lead. we watched a congress at war with himself. they're unwilling to leave campus in south politics at the door. it made our democracy appear as if we can no longer effectively govern ourselves. so we continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the oval office. we hope that she will shake up the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things better so obvious to all americans who are watching and anxious. we hope.

his steelyard is our failure, too. the failure to -- his failure is our failure to. it is a report the president asks for himself. the failure to act on the crushing unemployment and ever expanding the entitlement programs, and the failure to discern pork barrel spending from real of-archer investment. the rule is simple. it is the one ronald reagan knew by heart. it is the one he successfully employed as social security and the cold war. you cannot wait for someone else to do it. we pay for this failure of leadership many times over. as it slows, high levels of

unemployment persists. it makes ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of skittish markets with the political decisions of our lenders. there's also foreign-policy price to pay. we diminish our ability to influence thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. there's no better way to persuade other societies to become more democratic and more market oriented than to show that our democracy and markets work better than any other system. why should we care? why should a matter to us ta? we believe in democracy is the biggest protector of freedom. history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against their own people or their neighbors.

increases consumer choice and keep their prices down. around the world, people are debating their own political and economic futures right now. we have a outcome in those debates. we'll have a middle east that except israel and is a dependable source of energy. there's no better to enforce the likelihood that others will opt for more social societies than to demonstrate at home that their own system is working. a lot is being said about american exceptional as some. we are different and better in the sense that our democracy and

our people have delivered. for american except journalism, to truly deliver hope to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated. they will be more than likely to follow our example. if they see what we are doing and are out to emulate it, it is a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity, and the strength of our democratic institutions. one there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and the greater interest first. we did it their strong leadership.

we did it through reagan like ileadership. we have failed to live up to the traditional of exceptional as a parent. when the only look at comments from the recent meeting of the european finance ministers in here's what theere finance minister had to say. i found a peculiar that even they have more fundamental data set and the eurozone they tell us what we should do. without strong leadership, without our domestic house in

order, we're taking ourselves out of the equation over and over. we must be prepared to act and lead. it is for diplomacy in common security. the united states will be able to sustain a leadership of the resources are there. it is a security issue as well. without the authority that comes from real american exceptional as some, burned exceptional as some -- exceptional -- earned

exceptionalism, which cannot be a beacon of hope. ronald reagan face today's challenges. we know exactly what he would do. he would face the problems directly with leadership and without political calculation. he would take an honest and tough approach to reforming our programs and our tax code. we would confront our unemployment crisis by giving certainty to businesses about our tax and regulatory future. we would unleash entrepreneurship their long-term tax reform. we would reform the system by applying free-market reform principles, rewarding

outstanding teachers, the demanding accountability from everyone at in system, increasing competition, and making the american public patience -- public education the best in the world. it must always be put ahead of the comfortable status quo of adults. [applause] the united states must become more discriminating in what we tried to accomplish. we cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion. local realities count. we cannot have forced makeovers of our societies in our image. we need to limit to what is in

our national interest so we can bounces here at home. this needs to be built in part so we can sustain a leadership role. this is not an argument for turning our back on the world. we cannot and should not do that. our economies depended on what we export and import. we are vulnerable to box cutters and bonds and viruses. we need to remain vigilant and be prepared to act with our friends and allies to discourage or deter against traditional aggression, to stop the spread of nuclear materials and the means to deliver them and continue to deprive them of the opportunity to succeed and kill

our people. i realize that what i'm calling for requires a lot of our people and officials. i plead guilty. i also plead guilty to optimism. i believe in what they can accomplish. if they understand what is being asked of them and how we all benefit if they meet the challenge. that's no doubt in my mind's our economy is strong and the largest. risk-taking is a part of our collective dna. there's no better place in the world for investment. we have a demonstrated record as a people and nation of rising up to meet any challenge. today the biggest

challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves and not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of difficult troops and not become a people that think so little of ourselves that we demand and a sacrifice from each other. we are better people than that. we must demand a better nation than that. the america i speak of is the america and ronald reagan challenges to be every day. it is what his leadership helped us to be. there are conduct, indeed, it demonstrated principles and for the greater good of our nation. we become emulated throughout

the world. another is because of what we said both home and abroad. american excess alyssum can set an example for freedom around the world. we must lead with purpose and unity. illinois state senator barack obama gave us a window into his vision for american leadership. he said this "even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us to those who embrace the politics of anything goes. americanot a liberal and a conservative america. there is the united states of america. there's not a black america and a latino america. there is the united states of

america. seven years later, president obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve reelection. this is not a leadership style. this is a reelection strategy. telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. trying to convince those who are suffering that the american economic one is no longer growing. we must tax and take and demonize those who already achieved the american dream. did that may turn out to be a good reelection strategy. it is demoralizing message -- a moralizing message for america.

what happened to state senator obama? when did he decide to be one of the dividers? there is a different choice. it is the way ronald reagan led america and the 1980's. he spoke during a farewell address. he made clear he was not there just making a time. he is theirs to make a difference. he spoke of the city on the hill and how he made a stronger. he does not know if the ever quite communicated with what i saw when i said that.

it is a tall and proud city built on when set -- on people living in harmony and peace. it had freed ports that hong. if there had to the city walls, they had doors. the doors were open to anyone with the will and hard to get there. this is how i saw it. this is how i see it still. that is american exceptional as empyrean r.j. exceptional -- exceptionalism.

it made as an american revitalization. we will be that again. not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the church, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes and leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish. only when we do that too finely ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in second american century. we owed them as well as ourselves. thank you for inviting me. bob pleasant view -- god bless you. god bless the united states of america.

thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. gov. christie has been gracious enough to answer questions from the audience. i like you to pay attention to the one role we have. if you could wait for one of our staff to handle your microphone so it can be picked up. with that, let's get on to the questions. >> hello.

could you please tell us more about how you think our immigration prices in this country should be handled as well as the education expense associated with this problem? >> thank you. there is some very basic principles that we need to stand by. our borders have to be secure. we have done an awful job of doing that. we had to take every step necessary to make sure that happens. we have to make sure we have a fair way to allow people to continue to legally immigrate into this country. this country is built on immigrants. my relatives or immigrants. we need to make sure we are a country that expands the american economic pie by expanding the innovation and

thought and dreams and hopes of having people coming here of looking for a better life. i doubt this problem in new jersey. i need to be crystal clear. i want every child to comes to new jersey to be educated. i do not believe that for those who came here illegally that we should be subsidizing with taxpayer money to restate tuition. let me be very clear from my perspective. that is not a heartless position. that is a common sense position. >> you are known as a straight shooter was not giving to playing games. can you tell us what is going on

here deck? are you reconsidering? are you standing firmly? >> listen, i to say the truth. you are an incredible this appointment as an audience. the fact that it took the second question. [applause] is shows your of your game. to that is not american exceptionalism. i will be six think about this. i saw something on a political -- succint on this. i saw something political were they strong my answers back to back of running for the presidency. it is right on the front page of politico. cut on it. cut on it.