resolution. we spoke to someone about this and beyond. >> for the moment the debate over short-term spending measures has been resolved on capitol hill. richard kohn, a staff writer for theit is about disaster aidd spending offsets. >> basically, i think the deadline broke the impasse. action by congress and the house, the house still needs that. without further action by congress, the government will run out of money this coming friday. and it was time to make a deal. and the senate leaders, bipartisan leaders, senator harry reid for the democrats and mitch mcconnell, minority leader for the republicans, they reached an agreement to continue

funding for the government for another seven weeks, and then the senate quickly approved it last night. now it will go to the house, which is expected to approve it, although there might be some complications in the next few days. >> the house wants to come in and approve a short-term measure. when will that happen? >> we are talking about two separate bills. one, the short-term bill, was extended for four days, from october 1, the start of the fiscal year, this saturday, and it will go for four days until the following tuesday. the second bill would extend for another seven weeks, until november 18, just before thanksgiving. in theory, the house could pass the seven-week bill and the four-day bill would become a moot point. the plan is that the house would take of the four-day bill when it meets this thursday, day

after tomorrow. in what had been scheduled to be a pro forma session. in that theory, it will remain a pro forma session in that the four-day continuing resolution to keep the government operating for four days, that bill is expected to pass by unanimous consent. meaning that there will be no objection. their world be perhaps brief statement. but there certainly will not be roll call votes. we should point out though that when a bill comes up by unanimous consent, as is the plan for the four-day bill this there is to come under those circumstances, any member of the house, any one member among the 435 can object and that would be the end. the bill would not be able to be taken up that day, in which case, since the government is about to run out of money, the house leaders, republican leaders, would have to come up with a new plan. probably the house would come a

decision friday or over the weekend to make sure to pass this four-day bills and keep the government operating. while there is an expectation that all this will be taken care of quickly, expediently on thursday, there's no guarantee. >> and fema will not run out of money? >> assuming the four-day cr is passed, there will be the money for fema. subsequently, the seven-week bill will have additional money for fema and the rest of the federal government. >> what does this exercise and a bit over the continuing resolution say about the ability of congress to come to an agreement on the $1.20 trillion in cuts by the debt reduction committee by the end of the year? >> i think we have been reminded that nothing is easy in this congress. as you and your viewers know, we have a democratic-controlled senate and a republican- controlled house. each of them assert their

prerogatives. obviously we have a democratic president at the white house who has his own interests. and republicans were elected last year. they took control of the house the other wanted to make change. and they take every opportunity to deliver on their promises, and the democrats often object. we have seen on this debate on the continuing resolution, including the money for fema for disaster assistance, that is often a problem to move anything. therefore, the $1.20 trillion deficit reduction bill is going to be tough. >> richard cohen covering congress and the spending debate for congressional quarterly. you can read his work at cq.com. thank you for that update. >> thank you. >> again, the house coming in tomorrow in a pro forma session, expected to pass the short-term

spending measure by unanimous consent. we will have live coverage of the house here on c-span. political coverage coming up in about 20 minutes or so. we will take you live to lynchburg, virginia, liberty university, to hear republican presidential candidate michele bachmann. some other notes for you, coming up on thursday evening, a speech by newt gingrich and i know what. that will be 8:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night. friday night, we're live in new hampshire. republican candidate rick perry, his first town hall meeting in new hampshire. friday night at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. while we wait for michele bachmann at about 10:25 a.m. or 10:30 a.m., we will take you to this morning's "washington journal" for headlines and phone calls. of 2012 politics, here is the front page of "the washington post," referencing chris christie's speech last night in california.

here is a little bit from the question and answer period from the speech last night. >> i hear exactly what you are saying. i feel the passion with which you say it. it touches me. i can tell you, i am just a kid from jersey that feels like i am a luckiest guy in the world to have this opportunity to be the governor of my state. so, people say to me all the time, when folks like you say those kinds of things, for as many months as it is being said, governor, leave me alone. everyone else who was a nice enough to applaud what she said. it is not a burden. the fact of the matter is,

anyone with an ego large enough to say -- please, please stop asking me to be leader of the free world -- [laughter] it is such a burden. [laughter] if you could please, just stop. [laughter] what kind of crazy, egomaniac would you have to be to say please, just stop. it is extremely flattering. by the same token, that a heartfelt message is not a reason for me to do it. that reason has to reside inside of me. host: they write this this morning in "the washington post."

host: then they have this from

the governor's brother -- i would be stunned if he was lying, and he told me he is not going to run. sarah palin, running out of time if she wants to run. starting in mid-october, several primary deadlines will begin to pass, including the critical state of florida. more on 2012 politics in the paper this morning. here is a piece about governor rick perry and his decision on that h-p the vaccination, saying that she is a proponent of it. this is from "the washington post." moving effectively, rick perry.

host: sharon, independent, north carolina. can government be fixed? caller: it is such a mess. i wanted to comment on that one caller, the republican that called in and said that the democrats have been in charge for two years and have done nothing. he seems to forget that from the day that obama took office, they have been obstructionists with more filibusters -- they had control of the house and the senate, but they did not really. because of all of the filibusters, nothing could get done.

host: as an independent, do you want to see compromise? caller: yes. i do not want to see my way or the highway. that is what republicans have been doing. it has to be their way or no way at all. it is destroying the company -- the country. host: on what issue would you like to see compromise? caller: in middle-class. i will need social security. i am a small business owner, but i am a middle-class. they want to cut anything and everything that made this country great, they want to get rid of it. also, they have gotten greedy. it just needs to stop. host: let me get your reaction to this. this piece is from the editorial

page of "the new york times." this is untitled "we will not back down." he says this -- host: republican from illinois. caller: anyone the signs any kind of a pledge from government, i would never vote for. if you sign this pledge, which most of them have done, the emergency comes up and you cannot do anything because you have signed this pledge -- there

is no way i would vote for anyone to sign the pledge. host: what is your concern with democrats. and caller: they have tried to compromise. i think they really have. when you think about the cuts that have been made and democrats have gone along with it. you have to have a middle ground. burn everything when there is nothing left? we are turning a lot of people away. they all have their money. they just do not seem to realize that there are people out here that need help. there are a lot of people out of work and are just struggling to pay their bills. they just do not seem to realize that. i will tell you what they ran on, that they will create jobs. where are these jobs that they were supposedly going to create.

all that i see them doing is cutting, which translates into people losing jobs. host: this story made the front page of many newspapers. "health costs shift to workers at." host: antonio, the electronic -- democratic caller. usa today, a front-page story this morning. can this government be fixed? what do you think? caller: i believe that lady 100%. i do not want another dictatorship in this country.

like we have in cuba. i do not want a dictatorship telling the people what to do. it happens that most of the people that become officials, they are lawyers. they go to college and be a lawyer to get to know the loopholes of the country. host: let's hear from a republican. athens, alabama. charles, good morning. caller: yes, yes, how are you doing? host: we have heard from a couple of democratic callers that republicans are saying my way or the highway. caller: we are listening. -- host: we are listening.

caller: washington, d.c., is throwing money away for things like how to find out about a bird in montana and how to get on the internet to search this out. all of these people in congress are making big money and all of this. our nation is crumbling before us. if we do not stand firm in christian areas, but the coming of the lord is -- host: you are breaking up and it is very hard to hear you. harry, michigan. caller: we have a president, a strong president that has been fighting hard to do these things. the first time that our president, barack obama, stepped into office, mitch mcconnell and

john von declared war on him. we have a president that is working hard. republicans keep bringing down the country, because they want the country to fail, because we have a strong president that was doing the right thing. the tea party really wanted to do something that was the american. and american jobs plan, putting a million people back to work in six months. that is all that they have to do. they have to stop following mitch mcconnell. these guys have been in the house for over 50 years. host: here is an e-mail from a viewer that questions the premise of our question, or the ."estion from "usa today

"who said the government is broken. broken and how? stephanie, good morning. caller: first, the government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. we are supposed to recognize that the government is for the people. [unintelligible] can anyone tell me that? host: there is a story in "the new york times," about the story -- about the protests happening

around the world. host: front page of "the new york times." a lengthy piece, if you want to read that, about the protests from individuals who say that they do not think that voting -- one " from one young woman says "we are the first generation to say that voting is worthless." texas, what do you think? caller: i think that we elected

a president that has no legislative experience. has never had no job. just a community organizer. in the senate for a relatively short period of time. i would rather have a president with a record. and was elected after serving less than a full term. so, >> we take you over to more wrote to the white house coverage to lynchburg, virginia. michele bachmann is being introduced by jerry falwell. this is live coverage on c-span.

>> please welcome to liberty university, republican candidate for president, michele bachmann. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you so much for this wonderful opportunity to be here at liberty today. is there any better university in the history of the world? i think we all know, it is hossan to be able to be here today. -- it is hossan to build a be here today. thank you for inviting me to address the faculty and also the students and the staff at this absolutely amazing university. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to congratulate you and

congratulate this university for your 40th anniversary on training champions. [applause] had a university like liberty, which is the largest christian university in the world and the largest university here in the state of virginia, it may seem strange when you look at the topic -- i want to challenge you with the concept of not unsettling. not selling. because at a campus like this, where everything is big, where you have accomplished so much, where the vision of dr. jerry falwell and if you committed christians who came together and put their needs before an almighty god and said this is the project that we will start. and we looked around amazed at

this university. it has only just begun, the greatness that is going to come out of liberty. these are just the early days of the greatness that god has planned, not only for this university bed for each one of your lives as well. it is the topic of do not settle. in the midst of this success and in the midst of this great as, i would like to say that, first of all, 33 years ago this month, i did not settle. i married the very best man that i know, my husband, who is here with me today on this platform. [applause] and ladies and gentlemen, i challenge you. you can have it, too. do not settle in that department either. make sure that you get got's very best for you, too. it is worth it.

and have you ever noticed, when we talk about this concept of saddling or what -- of settling for will be settled, when we settle, we're usually selling for the easy choice. right? it is not the hard choice. sometimes you settle when it is not so hard. you are going to go for some yogurt. you decide that you really want cookies and cream, but it is out, so you have to settle for cake batter. that is not so much an issue. that this settling, but it is not so much of an issue. or maybe you started a habit that was not so good. you decided you were going to cut a couple of glasses. you had maybe two or three steps that you could handle. suddenly, it felt pretty good to sleep in. then all of the sudden you lost 75 points on that final grade.

then it was 150. you know who i am talking to. [laughter] then it was 225. now it is getting serious. it is called settling. but when you settle, you find out that you may have some negative consequences that you have to pay. all of the seven, saddling does not seem quite as fun as it looked before. and in your generation, i can understand why you may decide you have been through a lot. in your lifetime, all of you in this room remember what we just observed, the 10th anniversary of 911. you can remember where you work. some of your seven, eight, nine years old, maybe some older. you remember where you were. that was a point in your life -- [inaudible] you have lived through two protracted wars did you have lived continually with the threat of terrorism in your

life. every time you go through an airport york -- [no audio] of that. those are completely different times. you also recognize that you're told frequently that yours may be the generation, the first generation in 235 years that may not do better in economically than the generation before. your parents' generation. no other generation in 235 years would say that, because every generation of americans has always done better than the previous generation. we have thought that is our birthright. because we are a nation that was on the move. we were not a nation that settled. and that is why this is such a precarious -- [no audio] for your generation. because i am not willing that we settle, because you deserve

more than a nation that settles. [applause] him because i believe, as believers in jesus christ, that each of us have only one life that god has given it to us. the greatest benefit we could have, so i charge you this morning, do not settle. do not settle with this gift he has given it to you. do not settle when it comes to your personal life. do not settle when it comes to your career decision. and certainly do not settle on a comes to your relationship with jesus christ. he is the lord of the universe, the master, the creator, the alpha and the omega, the beginning of the end. why in the world would we do anything less but settled. we should never settle.

>> we apologize, folks. we're having some signal problems from lynchburg, virginia with our life event with michele bachmann. we hope to have a taped version later on in our program schedule, and we will update if we're able to. we're going to tell you about some other political programming coming up. tomorrow night, we will bring you the speech by nuking rich. we will have that the speech for you thursday at 8:00 p.m. -- by nuking bridge. then we're in no hampshire on friday night with rick perry's first town hall meeting. we will have live coverage beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern. if you want the latest c-span schedule here on twitter, follow us at c-span now. next, yesterday from new hampshire, a politics and eggs breakfast with david axelrod.

>> thank you so much. i want to thank neil and the father and the entire family for inviting me here today. i am so impressed with this program. i cannot think of a higher calling than to expose young people to politics, to public life, the issues in public life and public service. and hopefully to spawn a new generation of leaders. we so desperately need that. places like this are a wellston ring. i know some of the young people i shook hands with this morning on this receiving line are going to be -- we are going to be working for them sunday. i am sure of that. i congratulate you on your work. i want to thank larry of the new england council. there you are. thank you for your long association with this event and

for putting this together. though he cannot be here this morning, i want to send my best to your governor, john lynch, and thank him for his splendid years of public service as he completes his term. i am happy to be here. there have been quite a few republicans coming through lately. i am happy to be back in new hampshire. jim tried to blunt the truth, but actually 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 was here -- remember i was assigned in 1984 to do a profile of governor ruben ask you of florida who is running for president. this is what happens when you are a young reporter, you get assigned to do profiles of

people like ruben askew, who is a fine man, a splendid man, but not likely to be the next president of the united states. [laughter] i went to him -- i went with him to a high school here in manchester, and he spoke. i did what reporters do and i grabbed a couple of kids after. i said, so what did you think? the young man said i thought he was very impressive. i said, if you could vote, would you vote for him? this kid was so offended. he said, i have not heard all the candidates yet. [laughter] i have to hear from the others. but i am is a big believer in the new hampshire primary. i think that these early states, i have to throw i was in, i do not want to offend anybody, but the early states are the only place in the presidential process for candidates, and a regular basis and face the citizens. the people of new hampshire take that responsibility very, very seriously and put these

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

the quality of ideas, the vision and character of the candidates who come before him. i think that is one of the reasons why president obama won new hampshire in 2008. the president's view them as the same that it is now. he said then and believe now that we have to ride the withering partisanship and ideologies and the hammer lock the special interests have too often in washington to meet the great challenges we face as the country, and there's no more pressing challenge than the challenge of the economy. people in new hampshire and across the country live with that every day. i do not have to tell you how important it is, this immediate challenge of accelerating jobs and growth, and particularly in light of the strong headwinds that we have faced this year

from all around the globe that has made a recovery that much more difficult. that is why the president is fighting right now for the american jobs act, to put teachers back in the classroom and put veterans back to work. construction workers back to work, rebuilding crumbling bridges, roads, and highways, and airports and the schools. it would open the door for people who are currently receiving unemployment to get valuable on-the-job training in skills of local businesses as the look for local employment. it would put additional money in the pockets of 160 million americans, working americans, and in the pockets of small business people who are trying to make it in this economy. let's acknowledge that beyond this immediate crisis, there is a long-term trend that we have

to focus on, and that is the hollowing out of the middle class in this country. it threatens to change the character of our country in the basic assumptions that we have about our country. for the 35 years after world war ii, and comes group, wages grew in tandem with the economy. of folks truly were lifted when the economy grew. for the last three decades or more, that has not been the case. wages have been essentially flat lined for 80% or more of the american people and in real terms. of course, prices have not. there was a census report just a couple of weeks ago, and what it says was that the average white male worker in this country, a typical 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. but we know prices have not gone along accordingly. one example, and i am here at a school of higher education, but it cost of the college education has increased by 429% since 1985. and that is just one of the things that people are struggling with that very much part of a middle-class life, educating your children. whether it is health care, certainly housing, all of these things have put enormous pressure on families who grapple with it by putting things on their credit cards, maxine out their credit cards, by borrowing against the value of their home, which was fine as long as the

value of their homes were escalating. but we know what happened in 2008, and 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, but it is also to make sure that hard work is rewarded, that responsibility is rewarded, that if you work hard, you can get ahead. that everyone gets a fair shake and everyone does their fair share. so we're working on two projects at once. and we honestly thought that when we got to washington, we would get some cooperation from folks across the aisle. after all, we were in the midst of the biggest national economic crisis since the great depression. but they had a different plan. senator mcconnell, the majority leader -- the minority leader in

the senate, the republican leader in the senate, did interview in the "new york times" in january 2010 that was revealing, maybe the most important interview the last couple of years. he said that we made the decision from the beginning that we were not going to give the president's support on any major initiative, because to do that would be to confer a sense of bipartisanship, and we do not want to do that. so in the midst of this tremendous challenge, essentially, the judgment was to let the president's democratic party grapple with that on their run. you can question the appropriateness of that decision. i certainly do. but it was diabolically clever. the republican party was able to, having forced the president to take a series of very difficult decisions, many that were as necessary as they were unpopular in the recovery act, the intervention to save the

automobile industry, certainly to shore up the financial industry. they were able to go to voters in 2010 and say he did all this on may bipartisan basis. he is being too partisan and a audiological. azine know, here in new hampshire and elsewhere, they want a victory. they want a victory primarily because independent voters wanted less partisanship, wanted more cooperation and washington, and thought that if we elected a republican congress, that somehow that would force a greater spirit of cooperation in washington. that of course is the great paradox of 2010, because instead of forcing greater cooperation, with these independent voters did with the best of intentions was sweep in the must it be logical partisan group of republicans of my lifetime.

and the consequence of that has been felled all throughout this year in, did it in this summer's debt ceiling debacle. and these same forces that are very much in control of the congress now, the republican side of the congress, and the majority in the house, are very much a force in the republican nominating process. you see republican candidates, and many of them come through here. including the most strident voices in their party. we all saw it last week in the last republican debate win a young soldier appeared on the screen from iraq who happened to be a gay american and and asked a question related to that and was booed from the crowd.

and not one person on that platform, not one candidate, was willing to say "do not do that." was willing to say it is inappropriate isboo someone who is risking his life for our country, serving our country honorably. no one said that because they feared deifying the crowd in that room and elements of that party. that is extended to economics as well. they have all sworn oaths of obedience to grover norquist and his basic construct that we never again should ask for not $1 more from any american, from any corporation, from anyone to help solve our problems. they come closely to the tea

party line. 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 formula that we heard 10 years ago and that helped lead to this crisis. yeah, this is the economic massed ground that you probably hear from this podium and you'll hear in the debate in a couple of weeks. when republicans gather in new hampshire. this is not just -- this is not new wine in old bottles. this is old wine in new bottles. i believe is ultimately not going to sell.

what americans want is an economy where everyone is a fair shake and where responsibility is broadly shared so that we will meet our responsibilities, meet the challenges that we face together. and let me say, one of those challenges absolutely is dealing with our fiscal mess. we had a budget surplus in 2001. we squandered that surplus, and now we have a fiscal crisis, and it is a big dark cloud over our future. and there's no doubt about that. but 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? or 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 have probably heard a lot in this room from people who say we

cannot mortgage the future by failing to deal with our fiscal challenges, and 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. but let's acknowledge that there are other ways to mortgage the future. we have to be cognizant of that. if you cut education by 25%, which is what has been proposed on the other side, we are mortgaging the future. in this world and in the 21st century when we know that the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. you see that our students are sliding relative to students in other countries. this is the prescription for disaster. one of the candidates that i covered when i was a reporter in 1984 here in new hampshire was

gary hart. wherever you went, he always said, if you think education is expensive, wait till you find out how much ignorance costs. that is a profound statement. and 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 that it did 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 simply cannot afford to do and provides the seeds for progress. we know that all around the world, other countries are investing in that kind of research. we see it in china, india, and

in brazil. we have to compete. if we're going to maintain and develop, encourage the kind of economy in which good middle- class jobs are available, we have got to educate our work force, and we have to make sure we're demanding those high-end jobs, advanced manufacturing jobs, and other jobs will pay the kind of salary that will allow people to live the 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 that it is competitive and functional, then you are mortgaging the future. in one of the early debates, speaker gingrich wound himself up, which is not an unusual event. [laughter] and said, we do not need a department of railroads to build the transcontinental railroad.

and that is true, but what we did need was abraham lincoln, in the midst of the civil war, making a decision that once that war was over, we better have a transcontinental railroad to connect our country or we were not going to grow. he also made the decision to move forward on land grant colleges in the midst of the civil war. you can argue that the demands on the government or even greater than the ones we face today. and because he had the vision, even as he was trying to save the union, to do those kinds of things, to set up a patent system and to other kinds of things that were going to be the foundation for growth, we became who we were. his vision helped set the stage for 100 years of progress. so that is a lot of what this election is about. 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 going to provide real opportunity for 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 pollyannish about the challenge. i know what the challenges. in 2008, president obama about 53% of the vote. 47% of americans voted against him. we do not have the wind at our backs in this election. the wind is in our face, because the american people have the wind in their faces. this is going to be a titanic struggle. but i firmly believe we are on the right side of the struggle. this is a tough time for our country, and it is a tough time

for the american people. the president will take responsibility for everything that he has done, as he should. but it is not going to be enough to simply point fingers of blame and try and lay on him the responsibility for all of america's ills without offering credible prescriptions for how we solve them. it is not going to be enough to offer back to the future failures. the president wants to point to the future and offer a solid realistic plan for how to get their. through this process, that you guys are so much a part of, they will evaluate all the candidates. there will evaluate their ideas. they will evaluate their records. and they will evaluate their character. then there will make the judgment about who they can count on to fight for them and

the values and visions that are so central to who we are as a country and hold up the greatest hope for the embattled middle- class and for the sense that in america if you work hard, you can get ahead. i very much look forward to that debate, because i am very, very confident it is one that we're going to win. and i know by standing right here in this arm of very sophisticated political observers that i am going to be held to it in the future. so i appreciate the opportunity to be with you. i look forward to your questions. i applaud both the state of new hampshire for the role it plays and this institute of politics for the extraordinary work that it does. we are a better country for what you do here. as i said, i look forward to the leadership that a lot of young people who are here this morning and who participate in

this program will provide in the years to come. thank you. [applause] >> can you take a couple of questions? >> as many as you want, yes. >> david, thank you. i am terry shoemaker. thank you for being here. thank you for your kind words about our primary. i would like you to pick your political strategist hat on for a moment. we have a primary early next winter. we're not quite sure exactly when yet. we are the first secret ballot contest, and like quite a few the states before us. the one before us and after risk, we allow independents, the largest group in our state, call them and declared, to vote. after the results are in, i

would be interested to hear how you will analyze those results, what will you take from them which will market from iowa for south carolina? >> obviously, we will look hard at that, and we will look at how both independent voters behave in this primary. obviously, there are elements of this primary that are not evident in iowa, and people are competing in this primary who are not competing in iowa. we're making specific appeals to independent votes. we will look hard at that end at the level of participation. but most of all, what we are going to be looking at is the quality of the debate and exactly what assertions are made during this process.

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

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, while senator clinton campaign very close to the ground and made a very compelling case. and we lost. and it was a great lesson for us. so i think it will be interesting to see how these candidates -- i know there are certain assumptions about this state and how it is going to go, and there is the home court advantage for a candidate. but new hampshire is always a test, and i think it will be again. >> i cannot believe you did not get the first question, because i saw your hand shooting up over the cameras there. [laughter] >> i am is off more politician

major. in a question for you is, with the economy clearly being the thing that is the thing to focus on, how you feel about the amount of money that is being asked, on both sides, to raise in terms of campaigning, and you think that amount of money is justified? >> well, you raise a very, very concerning question, and that is, you know, what is the effect of all this money in the process? of course, we have a new and kind of menacing dimension to this this year because of the citizens united ruling of the supreme court. now a third-party groups can raise unlimited amounts of money, in undisclosed contributions, and deploy it in these elections. you know, there was over $200

millions spent in the midterm election. i expect that number is going to be between half a million dollars and $1 billion this time, and that has never happened before. it is going to force us to raise more money. you know, we have put restrictions on ourselves that other candidates have not in terms of taking money from registered lobbyists and taking money from pac's. i do not regret that. i think that is the right thing to do. you know, it is an unknown question as to what the impact of all this will be. you are about to become a test cases on this, because i suspect that the so-called super pac's of undisclosed funds will begin to mobilize and the republican

primaries here. you are going to see candidates attacked from these sort of still the operations. governor rick perry has one. governor mitt romney has one. they are chasing each other in this menacing kind of war game. you know, you guys are going to see a close-up. the answer is i have been concerned about money and politics for a very long time. we have tried to raise as much low dollar money as we can. our contributions tend to be, on the average, lower. we will see when we file our report, but we had over half a million contributors as of the last report. that is one way to fight it, but it is not enough. the question we all have to ask ourselves as a country is what

we can do about this, if anything, especially given the supreme court ruling. what real risk here is turning into a kind of a gilded age where interest groups can simply by a congress or even a presidency and really control public policy in a way that serves the interests who fund these campaigns and fund these operations, these super pac's, but not the interests of the country. as we move forward, you and your peers are going to have to struggle with us. if unchecked, it could help shape the course of the future in ways that you and others will not find pleasing. my answer is a of a very concerned about it. i am not going to justify it. and i have to live with it. we have to combat it as best we can. but it is not healthy, and i

think it a buddy who argues otherwise would have a tough case to make -- i think anybody who argues otherwise would have a tough case to make. go ahead. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> that gives him a decided advantage. >> thank you for coming in this morning. i am with the sheet metal workers in new hampshire and with the new hampshire building trade. it was interesting to hear your opening remarks about the middle-class and about how our wages have gone down since the 's.0 seaso it is a direct correlation of union membership dropping as wages go down. unions have always supported the middle-class and raced up the standard of living. right now in new hampshire, all over the country we're getting beat up back. my guys and girls to work in construction are wondering what exactly we can do to put them

back to work. the jobs bill is great, and we support it. we needed now, because three years ago, four years ago during the campaign, there were out there working hard. now they're disenchanted. there have been all kinds of problems. and we really need some help. we need some jobs now, and we need to have something like an employee free choice that which would grow union membership and will grow the middle class and would get people health insurance. you can hit a lot of problems directly to us with an employee free choice act. >> ok. >> ok. obviously, i feel strongly about the jobs at the you mentioned. when you look at what has happened to our economy, and new hampshire has felt some of this. we have seen a precipitous decline in manufacturing leading up to the crisis. a lot of folks that made a good living in manufacturing moved to

the construction, and then the construction industry deflated as a result of the housing collapse. so, you have a lot of people, construction workers, tradesmen, so on, who are idle. they were 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 approve some of the president's plan, but are not sure about most of the plan. at first, they said none of his plan, including the payroll tax cut for americans. it finally became clear that it is not a tenable political position to say we will not raise taxes on the wealthy, will not close corporate loopholes, but will raise taxes on 160 million working americans. there seems to be the indication that they might be receptive to

that. the other components are equally important. the infrastructure elements are very important for the reason that you suggest, which is that will go right to the heart of the people that are most severely hit by this economic downturn. it would get people back to work, and more than that, back to work rebuilding schools and doing the work around the country that is desperately needed. this is not just about putting people back to work, doing the work america needs done. i am hopeful. i do not think left to their own devices the guys across the aisle who will embrace any of that, but what the president is trying to do now is engaged the american people in this fight, because the great thing about democracy is ultimately the american people have a say in

this. i think to the degree that people make their voices heard, it will be harder to say no, and if they say no, it will further describe what this battle is about in 2012. as the president said in his speech, your members and others cannot wait 14 months. they are desperate for work now. the country needs them working now to support our economy. so, we will keep plugging away at that. the employee free choice act, as -- there is a new normal in washington, which takes 60 votes in the united states senate to pass anything, and 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, to the

principle of collective bargaining, and very much understands the connection between the right to organize, and the strength of the middle class. >> one more. >> david, thank you for being in new hampshire. >> happy to be repaired >> i heard your remarks, and i appreciate them. there is a perception on behalf of leaders in the state, and the reality of those that are down and out that this administration and this congress, both parties, are not able to get control over this economy, and with the head winds blowing in from europe, and in this country, before the election happens, this gridlock that we see in washington is just not going to change. >> not going to what?

>> not going to change. as a strategist, how you deal with that? this will not change soon and is of deep concern to business leaders, of which i am one of, in terms of getting the capital we need to expand, and for hiring. the gridlock is something that we look at, and john the size, and wonder what in the world will and do it? >> we have had a number of blows to our economy -- the air of the spring and the impact on oil prices, the japanese earthquake, and 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 it is a self-inflicted wound, which was the debacle in the summer where the low -- there were those willing to what america

over the cliff of default. i think that has had a chilling effect on markets and on businesses, who expressed the concern that you expressed. i am not willing to stand here and to accept that is ordained -- 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 in my remarks when you have leaders who say our strategy is not to cooperate, when leaders say, as senator mitch mcconnell did, that our top priority is to defeat the president, it does not create a climate for progress. we have to stop thinking so much about how we care the other side

down, and held together we can build this country. but will only happen if people demand it. -- that will only happen if people demand it. i will say this. i am not willing to assign equal blame for what has happened in washington. there are democrats in this room who i think would argue the president was too eager to try and find a path forward, too eager to try and bring people together, in the face of the evidence that the other side did not want to do that. i do not regret and making the effort because people elected him to get things done, not to wage a partisan war. but, he has been almost

uniformly rejected. we have 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, but ultimately the american people are going to have to demand that we do find a path forward. most people understand. we are a better country than we are getting from those who would simply make this a partisan battle, one after another. so, i accept your premise in that i believe that if we do not solve this it will help tremendously negative effects on the country. -- will have a tremendously negative effects on the country. we will continue to find those paths, and as the president said every idea he has offered at one time or another was offered by republicans.

if there is no reason we cannot come together, i hope we can, and that we can find common ground on dealing with fiscal challenges, and the only thing that will make that happen is if american people demand it, and we are recruiting the american people in this fight. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for coming. he will spend some time for students now. we usually beg the speakers to do that. thank you to all of the sponsors whose banners are on the wall. >> thank you. this is like a hot tub, it is so big. [applause] [laughter] [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> more road to the white house coverage coming up on c-span. at thursday night, presidential candidate newt gingrich is announcing his campaign platform in iowa. we will have the speech tomorrow. back to new hampshire on friday for texas governor rick perry holding a town hall meeting friday, at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with the website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign, kennedy and biographies, and the latest polling data.

it is all let c-span.org. >> president obama the libbers his third annual back-to-school speech in washington, d.c., this afternoon. this year's school opened in 1981 as a magnet school, and is featured in "newsweek" as one of america's best high schools in the country. tonight, in our prime-time schedule, our road to the white house coverage continues with anita perry, the wife of presidential candidate rick perry, and then ann romney talking to women and a republican luncheon, and then after that republican presidential candidate michele bachmann, and her remarks today at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. next, remarks from new jersey

governor chris christie, who was invited to speak last night in california at the reagan library. this is 40 minutes. [applause] 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] >> in just a reminder, that and many other speeches at our website, c-span.org/

campaign2012. coming up, the president delivers his third annual back- to-school speech. we will have the comments live for you at 1:30 eastern. tonight, more road to the white house coverage with anita perry, the wife of texas governor rick perry, as she is on the campaign trail. then, mitt romney's wife talks to women at a luncheon in new hampshire, and then we wrap up the evening with comments from michele bachmann at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. >> you should always start with the assumption that when a politician or a ceo is saying something they are not telling you the truth. they might be telling you the truth, but the burden should be

on them to prove it. >> he has directed three of the top 10 grossing documentaries of all time, and a best-selling author. his latest, a memoir, "here comes trouble." on sunday, your chance to call and tweet micahele moore. >> he found several labor unions and ran for president five times. eugene debs lost, but changed political history. get a preview, and watch some of our video about him at our special website about the series. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is the question in the

studentcam competition, open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary, and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you, and why. include more than one point of view, and video of c-span programming. there is $50,000 in total prizes, and a $5,000 grand prize. >> "know your times columnist thomas friedman -- new york times" columnist thomas friedman joined us this morning. with the co- authors of a new book, thomas friedman andichael mandelbaum, "that used to be us." you call this a wake-up call. you address the wake-up call. gues we argue that the reason this book has a backward- looking title but a four-looking

book, we had a formula for success in this country and it has gotten away from the senate fundamental way. it was to educate our people, up to whatever the level of technology is, the cotton gin or the steam shot or the computer. second was infrastructure, road, helicopters. we had the world's most on immigration policy to attract energetic individuals. we had the most government- funded research. entrepreneurs could fall -- plucked off the flowers. that was our formula for success. it was backed hamilton and lincoln. but at the last decade, a decade that we call the terrible twos, you see the arrows pointing down on all five cylinders of tarp formula.

host: you decided to write a book and a pep talk. michl mandelbaum. guest: we are on a slow decline so this is a wake-up call. we got into this but it is also, and this is where we come to the pep talk, it also offers suggestions for how we get out of it. as tom said, we get out of it by going back to our traditions, how our values, our policies, things that we abandon or have forgotten of the last two decades. they hold the key to success in the future as they did in the past. we a optimistic, although frustrated optimist. we outlined the reason for our frustrations, but the country is doing wrong, but also the reason for our optimism.

host: let me go back to this success that the united stas said. the first two things you talked about sound about -- sounded like a government stimulus, that the government has to get them up and off the ground. guest: yes and no. let's start with the broad view. we did not become the world's richest company or most powerful country by accident. we had the greatest public/private partnership in the world. we are capitalists. we believe in markets and innovation, but that is best exploited when you have the proper balance with the public's sight. when each is doing its part. i thought i was one lonely guy and did this all my own. you did not do anything at all. did you build that train station of a subway on your run? did you create that market on your room?

you want to have a balance between the two. that is what we are calling for. it has gotten out of balance. we talk about education or infrastructure. we haven't $2.2 trillion deficit in and for sure to spending. we could build better schools but we do not think that education is a government problem. we think it is of parenting problem. we think it is a teacher problem. we think it is a student problem. this actually requires collective action. does not like world war ii or pearl harbor. it is happening. pearl harbor is happening but

you cannot see it. host: you start a book out carping about china. -- talking about china. they have trillions of investment compared to our deficit, and they invest in their country. some of their industries are heavily subsidized by the government. why is it so different? guest: we compared it briefly to china for two reasons. a few ofhe things that china is doing are things that we ought to be doing. china is very good on infrastructure and we're not. by some estimates, we are $2.1 trillion in arrears in investing in infrastructure, and china has the can-do spirit that we used to have in the united states. but we a clear that the key to american renewal is not to imitate china. china has plenty of problems. china will not have a smooth

path upward. we need to not imitate china's ecomic or political system but get back to our own basic values in the best features of our own system. -- and the best features of our own system. we respect what china has done but we think that that china in the uc in the united states is really a comment on ourselves, looking at the mirror and not liking what we see. one of the themes of this book is to look in the mirror and not like everything that we say. we do need to change but not more like china. we need to be more like our own best selves. host: thomas friedman, let me get your response to this headline. their currency manipulation bill, what do you make of that? guest: i am all for taking on china whether stealing american

intellectual property or manipulating its currency. remember, when they overvalue their -- when they undervalue their currency, excuse me, they are subsidizing everything that theyell to us. for 10 issues are cheaper your computer is cheaper. we do need to keep that in mind, but they are also taking american jobs. i just not think that is the only thing that will solve the problem. host: a lot of people calling in to you. a democratic collar in portland, oregon. -- caller in portland, oregon. call: i heard him on another new show blaming baby boomers for being an obstacle for the american dream. i wanted to say debt i'll live with and economists -- i live

with an economist to as good a forecasting things like the housing boom and what that would cause. how that would affect our economy. when you said baby boomers were a probl today, i wanted to say that i get very angry and everyone -- every time someone blames me, a bab boomer, for causing this terrible thing. guest: let me defend, and myself. we're both baby boomers and we are very hard on ourselves, on our generation, because we have let things slide. we are the generation that has not squarely addressed the four major challenges that we see facing the country and that really forms the spine of "that used to be us." we need the boomer is what we

dominate the society and economy is and we have the responsibility to face up to these challenge things at this live on our watch but we have itithin our power to deal with these challenges and we can leave a better chance at -- country for the next generation. it is up to us to deal with the consequences of globalization is and the information technogy revolution. it is up to us to deal with deficits and debt. it is up to us to deal with our pattern of energy consumption and its affect on the climate. but s a boomer, speaking as one o is just as guilty as anyone else, we cannot avoid responsibility for this slow decline. if you do not recognizeur responsibility, we will not be of a change things or reverse the decline. host: that is one of the four major challenges for america in your book. adapting did globalization, adjusting to his permission technology, coping with budget

deficits, and climate threats as well. guest: what they all have in common is that they all unfold gradually. they are all products of our success. we invented the i.t. revolution, we had all this consumption which created all the debt, we created of world of such fast growth. they are products of our success. but we have faced them before. we have fixed social security, we got the deficit down, we had energy taxes. we have actually done all this before. that used to be us. the problem is that we are not doing it all. host: 8 tweet. guest: very good question. if you look at growth in china since the 2008 crisis, you see a huge spu in this kind of debt-

driven growth. one enormous here and suddenly you see this happening, you have to ask a question, how efficient you think all of that money was spent in china? i think there is real reason to be concerned that the bubble there, of which we know is in real estate and could be in other things, but china has one advantage -- they have $3 trillion in the bank. we are driving around the wld without a bumper. they have a bumper and a spare tire. they can avoid to be a little more like that and we are. guest: one of the major themes of our book is the hyper connectivity of the world. we are all much more connected than ever before, even than five years ago when he wrote "of the world is flat."

if and when china is in trouble, and there is a real danger of a real estate basel, that would be bad for china but we will not escape the effect. we should not be routine for a chinese collapse. oting for chinese collapse. caller: i watch thomas friedman on bloomberg and i kind of understand what he is saying. please do not cut me off. when it comes to the lending, the the last 30 years with the great divergence, and you depreciate the value of american citizens and property. when it comes to innovation, you have not allow people from all sectors to comment. with all of the major funds cutting people off, there's no way that anyone can bring new ideas.

finally, as a millennial, 25 years old, some of you need to hold fashion retire. this is in congress and in the nectar sector. we cannot keep on living off the old ideas. it is not the 1950's and 1970's. you guys need to get over the cold war. germany is abouto save america and you're talking about what happened with hitler. guest: i am not sure that germany is about to save america but i welcome anyone who believes -- and we argue this in the book -- there is a new generation out there full of spirit and ideas, and the more they bring to the marketplace, the better. steve jobs is also a baby boomer. he still has a few good ideas. host: michael mandelbaum, another tweet.

guest: a very good question and we devote a lot of attention to that in the bow. the two things that we sing aloud, and one is the political system. it is broken. the two parties are more polarized than ever before, for reasons deeply rooted for decades and cannot be fixed easily. that means that they barely even speak to each other, let alone cooperate on the big things that we need to move the country forward. there's been a serious degradation of the political system and we do have ideas in the book for fixing it. second, our values have changed. what we emphasize is that there has been a shift from all we call the sustainable values, values for the long term, to situational values, which said basically do whatever you can get away with at the moment.

that is what led to the financial crisis. there is a problem with our politics but also with our values. it is a problem with us and that's why we say we have to get back to what we used to be. we have to remember what used to be us and go back to that. host: let me reaone of the critical views of the book from david from. -- frum. guest: one of the things that everyone is looking for is the press the button, and we go back to where we were. the reason there is no press here button is because we got here by getting away from our formula for success.

the only way to get back is to get back to the formula for success. education, infrastructure comic imitation, incenvize, and government-funded research. i do not know how to be more specific than that. everyone wants a simple, quick answer. we are are there going to have a hard decade or a bad century. we're going to spend this next decade, and do what got us here, this formula for success, or we will have a bad century. there is no quick fix. there is noimple answer to this. do what we were -- getting back to the funmentals. host: in history, when was the last time that we rolledp our sleeves and got back to work? guest: we have the example of the greatest generation in world war ii and then we sacrifice during the cold war. we undstood we had a major challenge, that it was long

term, and we all had to contribute and make some sacrifices in order to prevail, and we did. but at the end of the cold war, as we say, we misread our circumstances. we thought that this was a great, historic victory and it surely was. but it was also something else. he created a world in which individual americans would be and are more challenged economically than ever before. it was not at time to roll up our sleeves and take up our shoes. it was time to redouble our efforts in education and research and infrastructure. we need to understand that we face a challenge in some ways just as great as the challenges that the greatest generation faced, but not so obvious but just as serious. guest: let me make another point that we emphasize in the book, almost half of which is about education. why is that? as mike alluded to come

something has happened in the last seven years and we have not been talking about it. we went from connected to hyper connected. in different talks, we say in the book, i wrote "the world is flat" in 2004. the world spend -- has become connected. when i read that, twitter did not exist, the cloud did not exist, clinton did not exist -- linkedin did not exist. skype was just a typo for most people. there is a camera in there, there is a camera man there, there was a cameraman there. host: we may have been in a different study of them. guest: now there is a robotic camera and someone is that a

toggle state. they have outsourced. here is what has happened in the last seven years, we argue. what blue-collar workers are feeling in the 1970's and 1980's, now white-collar will feel it. we've gone from the threat of cheap labor to the threat of cheap genius. it is a huge challenge. there is only one answer, education, infrastructure, rural and government infrastructure. it is getting back to basics. host: are you talking about high skilled immigrants? guest: anyone who wants to come here and work hard. caller: i have a question. where did you get your research -- who did you speak to chris marker to just people of the government?

and now like to make a comment so do not cut me off. mr. george soros has organizations, tend to 15 different names. every time that they are on, they do not say, well, we are funded by george soros. a multi billionaire in brazil right now investing in oil. host: betty, what are you referring to? caller: he supported obama. he funded obama for his election. host: a little bit off track. we will take the first part of it. who are your sources? guest: that is an interesting question for weast talk to some government officialsmembers of congress, who were leaving congress and could speak freely. guest: all of the republicans. guest: in one chapter in

particular, we talk to employers and ask them, what are you looking for in an employee? we talked to a white-collar law firm. we talked to an indian outsourcing firm, a call center. we talk to dupont, and to the largest green collar firm, the u.s. army. we talked to general martin dempsey, who is head of education for the u.s. army, and now is the head of the army and the chief military officer of united states. very interesting, because they all basically said the same thing. we're looking for people with critical skills and initiative and a gd educational background. and when we find such people, we will give them an interview. we will not nessarily hired them. first, they were all looking for the same kind of thing, white- collar, blue-collar, a grn collar, you have to have advanced skills.

and those skills show how difficult it is going to be to get and keep good jobs and how important it is to upgrade our system of education in order to train americans and prepare them for the jobs that we need. in answer to your question, we went out and talked to people who are doing the work of america every day. " we found was surprising and i think that people will find it interesting. guest: and just to the caller's question, this is a non-partisan vote. we do not have a candidate. we have an agenda for america. we are not funded by george soros or anybody else. we're quite self-initiated. host: jim hines as this tweet. guest: it is certainly part of it. when the cold war ended, we unleased 1 billion people just

like us. our dominance would naturally not be what it was. others were going to catch up. what we want to prevent is an absolute decline. we recognize that india will rise and china will rise. they are customers and collaborators and competitors. but we want to make sure we do not have an absolute decline at the same time. est: if i uld just add, to summon our view of this, change is inevitable. decline is not inevitable. we do not have to decline and we will not decline if we adapt successfully to the changes going on around us. and that -- we wrote this book to say what changes we need to make to make us successful adaptation. host: thomas friedman we are talking wet and michael mandelbaum, co-authors of several successful books, including this one, "that used to be us."

let's talk to dorothy, a democrat in baltimore, maryland. caller: this is great. this is wonderful what you're talking about. i do not know what is wrong with people now. some people want to g back to a horse and buggies, typewriters. you're right -- we need technology. i do not see how this is partisan. this is the future of our children and grandchildren. and obama has strive to priestess' the people. and they call them partisan. host: both of you talk about education in this book. you use the advance -- the example of singapore. what is singapore doing right in education? guest: it is waking up every morning and asking one simple

question, what world we living in? we are a little question. how we take advantage of those trends? no natural resources. the import sand, ok? they have to import their sand. and yet they have a better standard of living. a singapore economists said something that struck us. we feel every change increase in temperatures and we adjust. you live in a brick house with central heati. you're not feeling anything right now. they are so alive to what is going on with the i.t. revolution. and they take education very seriously. on any givenay in singapore, trust me, they are not talking about vaccines for whatever. on any given day, the entire

singapore government can be thinking about how we better teach fractions to third graders. i exaggerate. but that is what they are thinking about every day. they start their day by thinking how do i take this crowbar and stick it intohe wheel of the other party and other to bollocks them up for that next cycle on c-span or cnn and. that is how we start our day. it means you can never get optimal solutions. you only have suboptimal solutions. how long do we remain the greatest country when all we can do is produce about to pull out comes -- suboptimal outcomes? host: a headline about the protests taking place in spain, israel, india, and it quotes by 27-year-old woman saying our generation feels that voting is worthless. guest: voting is not worthless

if you have the right candidate for whom to vote. we have a chapter called "shock therapy," this says that in order to get the political system on stock, we need a shot from the outside. we put forward an independent candidate with a platfo of responding seriously to the challenges that we face. but another point worth making -- we're not going to get out of this fix with one policy or congress or president or one presidential term. this is a long-term challenge. we have to understand our circumstances. we have to ask ourselves the question that tom post -- what world are we living in? we would be a lot better off at the people in that building would ask themselves that question every day. but ultimately we each use them and therefore we have to ask ourselves that question. host: margaret from connecticut. caller: allike to ask about

the policy of outsourcing. i saw on cnbc a documentary on the production of the boeing streamliner -- dreamliner. a senior that in 2001, engineer warned against outsourcing up to 70%f this project. he warned that things would not go well. it seemed that virtually everything happened as he predicted. they have several boeing upper management on the documentary. there were so many problems, they admitted damage to their reputation, they needed to build a plant costing $1 billion just to solve the problems that came along, and like a said, a lot of pas to not work out coming from some entities -- different sources around the world. there were three years behind in

the production. and japanese customers weren't happy about that. they got up to a 50% discount. they all seemed to say at this policy of outsourcing to not work. it seems it could produce good american jobs in manufacturing. if a company like boeing had a problem with outsourcing, what you think the future policy of outsourcing for corporations should be? guest: an important point and a good question. in the last decade, a lot of companies have experimented with outsourcing. some have found that it worked for them and they continue to do it. you're at all ipod is assembled in china and i do not think that that would change. other companies have discovered it has not worked as well as they wanted. they are brought those jobs back. -- they have brought those jobs back. it will not be one size fits

all. but the most important question we should focus on, and i am glad that you ask it, is another big shift in the globalization, the term made in america or germany or china is really on its way out. the new term in the business world is made in the world. made in the world. the head of the trade organization uses that. designing and here, manufacturing and in hong kong, that is over with. it is designed ever wear, made everywhere, sold everywhere. even at outsourcing is no longer -- we send it out and it comes back and, we have leapfrogged that now. it is not outsourcing. it is made everywhere, designed evywhere, sold everywhere. host: a republican from texas.

caller: thank you for c-span. i am tired of being treated like a blob of goop, only good as a monthly payment. my question is, is there enough to go around for everybody? can we work together as individuals and looking out for the success of each other? it is a waste of time to listen to some of the comments that i hear from the young people today. they are being distorted in the way that they can work together with each other. host: michael mandelbaum. guest: we need a minimal level of cooperation to do what is necessarfor our prosperity. we have to arrive at a formula for deficit reduction. otherwise, that deficit will be there for life. but everyone has to sacrifice,

and neither of the political parties hathe proper formula. there has to be reduction in spending including some modifications to our entitlement programs, sells a security and medicare. and anyone who says that you can never touch these programs is not being serious. but at the same time, we have to find more revenue, whether by modestly increasing marginal taxation rates, or as we believe, having wholesale tax reform and eliminate some loopholes and especially an energy tax which would t world of good. but we have to have more revenue, and anyone who says we can never raise taxes is not being serious. and in addition, and we make this especially in "that used to be us," we have to spend more money on our historical formula. we have to invest in research and development and much more in infrastructure.

we need cooperation, we ne compromise on this issue and other issues. and if we do not get it, we will continue our decline. host: john is in massachusetts, an independent caller. caller: no one is blaming our politicians for anything. if you talk about that complicity of the politicians, who in this country has all these policies benefit? the rich and the corporation. the blue-collar worker and everyone else gets poorer and poorer. guest: a very poignant question and a very seriousuestion, one we deal with in the book. i wish we had a simple answer. i wish we had a pleasant answer.

one chapter talks about this world, when you have access to all of the robots and software, and not just cheap labor, but cheap genius, fall whole global curve has risen. what is average before will not return average wages them. i now have a robot camera instead of a regular cameramen. as t caller indicated, it is putting huge stress on everybody. you might think, you are in new york times columnist. let me tell you about my life. i inherited jam reston's office at the "new york times," agreed journalists. people used to come to the office back in the 1960's and said, i wonr what my seven

competitors will right. and he probably knew all seven. i did the same thing. i come to the office and ask, i wonder what my 70 million competitors are going to write today. how wonder what the people on twitter are going to write. if i write about india, i come in on sunday morning, you could have in front of you the " hindustan times," and we have but tweaked here -- we all have of our game. i wish there was an easy answer. polls are gone. in this world, there are many more opportunities and for people or entrepreneur, i can start a multinational almost overnight with almost no capital. if i have a great idea, i can go to taiwan and get a cheap

manufacture, cut amazon and get distribution, and get my accountant. those are all commodities. if i have andea, i can do that. unfortunately the down side is that we all are going to have to be a little more entrepreneurial. michael and i are fuddy-duddies. we are retiring baby boomers. we had to find a job when we graduated from college. today they will have to invent a job. host: most of what you have written about in the past as foreign policy. hadou come together and decide to write this book? how was it different from what you have done in the past? guest: we've been friends for 20 years and we talked frequently about foreign policy. but over the last couple of years, we discover that no matter the subject that our conversation began, it always came back to the condition o

the united states. we concluded that the condition of the united states and the need for american renewal is the most important foreign-policy issue for the united states and the most international issue in the world. the world depds heavily on the united states. we are the 10th pole that holds up the tent of the international system. that kind of role that the united states plays in the world, we both believe, is unprecedentedly constructed. it requires a vibrant united states in order to sustain that role. if we do not solve our problems and meet our challenges, we will not have the resources or the political will to continue our global role, which means so much for global stability and prosperity. when people say, why did you not write another book about our policy, our answer is that this book is about farm policy. host: thomas friedman, how does

this differ from your past book guest: i have never written another book with another person and i found it was quite fun. two heads are better than one. they're reay help contribute to the boo we wrote it for the reasons that michael said, we disvered that america, its vigor and vitality, are really at the biggest questions of the world today. if we do not get this right, greta, your kids will not just grow up in a different america. they will grow and a different world. we have -- we are at an important juncture right now. host: from your book.

how you quantify 50%? guest: let's use a simple one that people are familiar with. the old debt and deficit fight. i'm not even sure that we reached 50% in the conclusion of that. we know what we need to do. we need some short-term stimulus and invest in infrastructure. we could easily dip into another recession. we need the short-term stimulus. the second thing that we need is long-term spending cuts. we have made promises to the next generation we cannot keep. and if you'd do just the stimulus and not a long-term fiscal work to get our budget in balance, are you going -- i tell you what i willo with my stimulus. i will put it into gold. i will go into mattress' warehouse and buy a new mattress.

i have no confidence to spend my stimulus except on cereal and milk. we need to do both together. in the long run, we also need to invest in those pillars of our success. we know that. but that, and amy dog's breakfast that came out of that budget debate. does anyone think -- they say in the middle east that that camera was up -- a camel was a horse designed by committee. it is not going to solve our problems. host: michael mandelbaum, a member of the tea party rights in the "usa today" editorial pages that we will not back down. we were sent to washington to change the status quo. and that every federal dollar is worth fighting for. guest: we certainly need deficit

reduction and spending ts. to the extent that the tea party has put that on the national agenda, that is a good thing. the that's not the only thing we need to do. we won't be able to have a vigorous, vibe rant market economy which we need for prosperity without a safety net. it will be too risky and dangerous and people will simply refuse to sustain that system, so we've got to have revenue increases and what is necessary for our future prosperity as well. i don't know representative walsh, and i haven't had a chance to read what he said, but i will respond in this way, he and all of his colleagues were sent to washington to solve the nation's problems,

and their responsibility so identify their problems and find solutions to them, and so far each of the two parties has only found at best a partial solution, and that won't get it done. >> we're talking to thomas and miael mandelbaum. we're discussing their book "that used to be us." caller from cleveland, ohio? caller: yes. i live in cleveland. i'm a 70-year-old lifetime democrat. you guys can tout your book all you want, but you missed the point in ur talks this morning. the main problem is exports. we export millions and tons of raw materials, which tes minimal amount of people to get into the exports, and we import

the finished products that are made by these raw materials that takes thousands and thousands and thousands of people. host: all right. so we're sending all the jobs overseas. guest: until last year we were the world's largest manufacturing power in terms of total value of manufacturing. just in this last 12 months china leapt ahead of us. but here's the problem. china exports the same dollar value we do roughly with 110 million people and we do it with about 11 million people. so we're high-end manufacturing, but the -- we're super productive, but it's the opposite of what the caller is saying. we're designing the products here, the ipods and then we're

having it assembled and manufactured abroad and there the caller has a point. how do we not just design things here bu manufacture them at scale here? and that's something that will require a real strategy to do but we're not here exporting raw materials and importing the finished product. we'remporting tennis shoes and t-shirt. they are importing technology and that. host: good morning in san diego. guest: isn't it early in san diego? what are you doing up so early, honey? caller: my nights and days are turned around. anyway, we're the people on the street here, and i respect your education and what you're talking about tremendously. the problems we see here in our

community, which you know, you hear about it across the country. we see people here who are unemployed, underemployed, but there's a cash flow here that's incredible. you go to the local market and you see individuals with lots of cash and they are doing a lot of the oh, housekeeping and what have you. and actually, i have a neighbor who isenting a house out, and there's like three families living in it now. and we were offered gee, we do carpentry and this and that, and they are a wonderful family that moved in, but what we see here is we see our education in the state of california has plummeted to the bottom. we see peopl are pushed out of schools because of their age. they have aged out of the system. got to move them on. more children coming in. we see kids coming here from

over the border, and i'm not knocking them, because they really attempt to get the education they need so that they can do for their families what the rest of us wanted to do years and years ago. host: so gloria, do you s an immigration problem? caller: i see that but also a huge welfare system that has gotten so out of control. we just had our tax dollars driven into our little sidewalks here so people are not tumbling out into the street. host: either one of you have a comment on that? guest: i'm a native californian and i grew up when california was the goln state and the things that have happened to california over the last four decades are tragic, and one of the points we made in "that us to be us," california could be the future, the future of the wholeountry if we don't seriously start addressing our challenges.

we have a jobs problem in our country. it's a short-term problem. we need hope to get people back to work but even as we have over 9% employed, we have jobs customers can't fill because they can't find people with the qualificationings for highly skilled jobs. the burden of that problem rests on our system of education. that's why a huge part of "that used to be us" is about our system of education. because that is e key to sour economic future. onef the points we make is that we've got t trays people who are at the lowest end of the educational achievement spectrum at least to the average. because these days, if you don't have a good high school education, plus something else, vocationalnal or military or some college, you're not going to be able to make a living. that's the result of the global

realization. the people the caller sees on the seets in san diego and that we see on the streets all over the country are people who don't have the education that's necessary really to survive in the 21st century, and that is a huge challenge for us. guest: unemployment for people with a college degree is significantly lower if -- education is still your best ticket out. host: fript michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm taking that book from a different perspective, "that used to be us." and we used to be our unto the lord, god, jesus, but now we've gotten away from that. you're talking about china. china is on top for a little bit. but we'll get back to christ and god. we're not going to -- because god made -- and he tears them down. so the point of "that used to

be us," we used to be a godly nation. we've gotten away from that. so bank on that. guest: well, we don't really say too much about religious faith. in fact we don't say anything about it in this book, and religious faith is an important thing and important in the united states. but i would mention one old saying in which most americans are familiar, which i think is relevant to the theme of this book and relevant to american renewel and that is god helps those who help themselves. host: the united nations meets again tie discuss the bid by palace for statehood. we're going to have live coverage of that starting at :30 a.m. eastern time in about 20 minutes. tom, i wanted to get your thoughts on what palestinians are trying to do here? guest: they want to get

recognized as an independent state and use that as a over there pressure into negotiations. i don't think it's going to work. understand their frustration, why they are doing it. if there's one thing i have learned, it's that in any of these norningses, the person who wins and gets what they want is the person who has the israeli public on their side. because ultimately it's about israeli having to give something back. when anwar sadat got his republic on his side, he got the west bank in principle back. right now we have to look and ask the question why is -- it has to do in part with the fact that israel did withdraw from gaza and got rockets in return

and the is rail annual prime minister made sweeping offer to the palestinian leader mahmoud abbas. and really didn't get a vigorous response. it has to do a little bit with netanyahu with his draw backs, my opinion considerable, they gave them things and the israelis only showed up at the last minute. the israeli sentiment is inin an effort. you can say netanyahu doesn't want to negotiate, but unless you can say they are really for a secure peace, i don't see anything happening. and there's a lot more israel could do, as i wrote this morning. so i think israel should do another settlements freeze. test the palace. stpwhinet what's the span of a

10-month freeze if you can bring about a peace agreement? i think nothing is going to come out of this that's good, and that's sad. host: let's go to democratic caller in michigan. call: good morning. the reason i was calling is i think that they need to hold these politicians accountable. let it be democrat or republicans to see what people is actually taking money from these lobbyists and selling america out. and i think tt they really need to put politicians' feet to the fair to. host: let's stick to the point. michael mandelbaum. we had in the first 45inutes, we asked viewers how to fix washington. if you think it's broken, how do you fix it?

one caller said youe got to get the money out of it. lobbyists have too much information. guest: money is a problem. lobbyists are too much of a problem. these trends have gone much further than ever before. but we ha to be realistic. we're never going to exclude money from politics. we do have a proposal in the next to the last chapter and that is for an infential candidate running on the platform of radical centrism and proposinging solutions to the four major challenges we outline in "that used to be us." such a candidate would not be elected. but if that candidate did appreciably well as well has the they did in previous years, that would send a signal in the two major parties and create incentives for both parties to move to the center and it would meanhat whichever candidate was elected, would have a

powerful incentive to adopt some of the program of the independent candidate nord get that candidate's voters in the next presidential election. we think in short that the political system needs some shock therapy and the proposal that we make is perhaps not the only proposal, and but we think one well worth considering is an independent candidate for prident next year. >> you give me an insight sfwoof c-span program run every night. and looking at those who ran and lost but changed political history nonetheless. ross pro-, you referred to his bid in 196. george mcgovern and going back to henry clay. fur interested in that. tune in 8:00 p.m. friday night and go to journal@c-span.org you n find a the contender's series. and next republican in kyi.

caller: goofpblgt i had 10 quick questions for your guests if they don't mind. i eye agree with the potential for entrepreneurship everywhere. but the first question was when they spoke abo little to no availability of capital with entrepreneurship. what's the best way to go about that? and the second question is what are the three most importantly rules or guidelines or steps to entrepreneurship in their snn thank you. guest: well, it's a really good question. the point i was making to the caller, and we actually profile companies in the book who demonstrate this,hat if you leverage global zphion i.t. now, you can actually access talent and markets and suppliers more cheaply and easier than ever, but it's not free.

people that start up things have having trouble to get access to capital to grow. that's something we need really be thinking about. i would be for a tax cut on capital gains saying if you fund a successful startup, you pay no capital gains. at the same time we have to remember we cannot bail our way out of this crisis. we have to invent our way out of this crisis ultimately. we have to invent zwhroobs make people more healthy, educated and comfortable andore scumplete host: wright today, every job requires an entrepreneur. what we can do and absolutely must do is knock down all hurdles that create disincentive for business. >> yes. guest: that's true, and we say in our book, "that used to be us" we need more regulation. we surely needed more regution of that in our book.

it cost us $12 trillion of -- in wealth but we have a huge thicket of regations that make it hard for people who want to start new businesses and we've got prune that away, because new businesses are where the jobs are going to come from. so we have to encourage entrepreneurship in every way we can. host: >> coming up, president obama delivers his third annual back- to-school speech. this year's school opened in 1981 as a magnet school. was also featured in newsweek as one of america's best high schools for 2011. we expect that to get under way at 1:30 eastern.

primetime road to the white house starts with anita perry, wife of rick perry. she is on the campaign trail in iowa. mitt romney's why speaking to women at a republican luncheon in new hampshire. after that, candidate michele bachmann from earlier today at liberty university in virginia. all of that coming up this evening on c-span. the u.s. half -- house tomo rrow, ticking of a spending bill. here's a preview. what broke the impasse between senate democrats and republicans? >> basically, it was the deadline that broke the impasse.

without further action by congress, the house still needs to act. without further action by congress, the government would run out of money this coming friday. it was time to make a deal. the senate leaders, bipartisan leaders, senator harry reid and mitch mcconnell, they reached an agreement to continue funding for the government for another several weeks. the senate quickly approved it last night. now it will go to the house, which is expected to approve it, although, there may be some complications in the next few days. >> the house approves the short- term measure, when will that happen and what about the long- term question are >> we're talking about two separate bills. the short-term bill, it would

extend from october 1, the start of the fiscal year, will extend until the following tuesday. the second bill would extend for another seven weeks, until november 18. in theory, the house could pass the seven-week bill and the four-day bill would become a moot point. the house will take up the four- day bill when it meets this thursday. in theory, it will remain a pro forma session and that the four- day continuing resolution to keep the government operating for four days, the bill is expected to pass by unanimous consent, meaning, there'll be no objection, perhaps a brief statement. there certainly will not be roll-call votes. when a bill comes up by unanimous consent, as is the plan for the fou