right now the senior population is the highest population in the country. there are more seniors on food stamps, welfare, anything that helps reduce their burden. they are doing it. they have not had, from social security, they have not had a raise in three years. what are we going to do to help the senior population? >> one of the biggest costs in a seniors have is the cost of energy. you think about whether it is buying gasoline for the automobile, whether it is paying for electricity or oil or however you heat or cool. you'll all do not have a real problem with that cooling thing, we have a real problem. [laughter]

the energy cost is one of those things. freeing up our energy production will do two things. it will get this country working and more people put to work than anything we can probably do. to do that, i am talking about removing those onerous regulations we are seeing coming out of the epa that are jobkillers. [applause] and really free up this country. we have got centuries of energy in this country. either oil, gas, coal, wind. allow those energy sectors to compete against each other. that will drive down the cost of these seniors expenses because they are on fixed income. everything that we can do to drive down those fixed costs for our senior citizens th. there may be a lot of those

individuals who might go back into the workforce if there are jobs available, either part-time or full-time. i would suggest that this goes back -- the woes that this country, the problems that america has are associated with over taxation and overregulation, particularly out of washington d.c. our states need to compete against each other. that is what we do. we should compete. i shared with john one of the ways that new hampshire could become one of the most competitive states from the standpoint of a being able to create jobs. you already do not have a sales tax. you are relieved of that income tax. if you make this a right to work say, you will bring people into this state by the thousands. let me wrap up and say one more thing. right to work is not an anti-

union bill. it is a pro-jobs bill. our friends who have chosen to be in unions, they will have access to more jobs, making this a right to work state. >> welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you, sir. >> you have said that you dispute the national academy of sciences finding that burning fossil fuels is the natural cause of global warming. in the california presidential debate, you said find out what the science truly is before you start putting american jobs in jeopardy. when asked twice for sources you use, you ducked the question. i would like to ask you a third time -- was sources of information do you rely on for your views on climate change? >> within the last couple of

weeks, a renowned nobel laureate who joined the course that is time after time, information becomes available, they look at all of the data, and they say, those of one to take the position that global fault and 's incontrovertible, that is not correct. there are scientists standing up all across this country that are saying that. i just have to say -- here is my issue. you have your question and i will answer it. i have the microphone. hear, a nobel laureate of some acclaim who stood and said, i

want to be removed from the role of -- i believe it was the physical society and he said, there is not incontrovertible evidence. here is my point. the climate has been changing for millenniums. it has been changing for thousands of years. for us to take a snapshot in time and say, what is going on in this country today? the climate change that is going fault and we need to jeopardize america's economy. i am a skeptic about that. i am not afraid to say that i am a skeptic about that. why would i put our children's future in jeopardy on science that is not proven? just because there is a large number of scientists that stand up and say that it is man's fault and that is that. we are also seeing scientists

saying, we are finding problems with the model. we are seeing evidence that this is not -- there may be some small part that man is playing in this. in taxes, we have addressed this. we clean up our air more than any other state during the decade of the 2000's. it was not the epa regulation. they try to come into texas and take our air over. that was just kill a bunch of jobs. we lowered our ozone levels by 27%. if we lowered our nitrogen oxide levels by 58%. that is what we need to be working on. allow the states to be flexible in how they do this. i will assure you, those of us that actually breed that air and our children breed that air, we will make the right decisions. we do not need a centralized,

all knowing, one-size-fits-all federal government telling us how to run our states, even with issues as important as air quality. we are doing a good job in texas. you may rebut. >> thank you. you are very kind to let me rebut. it has been said that climate change is not subtle science. do you agree with that? >> i agree we should be a skeptic about those who say there is incontrovertible evidence that global warming is happening and it is man's fault. >> even though we look at other things that are not necessarily -- such as the link between cancer and smoking. obviously, that is not settled science either, is it? >> i would suggest to you that is pretty settled.

>> thank you, governor. four years ago, we had a president that was collected on a tabula rasa, a blank slate. he had no track record 2.2, none for his opponents to demonize. that will not happen this time. my question to you is, if i give you my vote and you are made the nominee of the republican party, i want to eat -- i want to know if you have the stones to take it to him and hang that record around his neck. thank you. [applause] i want to know that you're going to ask him about the $7 trillion in debt that we will have by election time i want to know you will hammer him over the 2.7 million lost jobs over the quadrupling of the bush deficit to $1.60 trillion and forecasting deficits like that for the next 10 years. and lastly, i want to know if

you are going to actually ask him or debate with him about the fact that his budget and his regulatory aspects are not only killing jobs, but we have returned to the days of the carter melees? >> i'm not confused about what you just asked me. let me lay this out. 2.5 years ago, gasoline was about $1.60 per gallon. on agglomerates in this country were somewhere around 5.7%. we had a aaa credit ratings. we also had a national debt that has taken from 70 -- from 1776

to the end of 2008 to reach approximately eight trillion dollars. driving in, gasoline was $3.40 per gallon. the honorable and a rate is somewhere between 9-10%. we have a aa credit rating. and our national debt, stocked up on the back of those young men and women in the middle row, is approaching $15 trillion. ask yourself -- are you better off today than you were to 15 years ago? no sir. we will take it to this president day in and day out. let me ask one other thing -- we need a nominee for the republican party. one who is a clear contrast to barack obama. we need someone who clearly will

draw the line between his policies and republican conservative policies carry -- it republican conservative policies. ronald reagan said now is the time for bright colors and not pastels. i am that bright color. [applause] >> governor, welcome to derry. it is the fourth largest community in this great state of hours. i am glad to see that you signed the pledge for the state of new hampshire on no taxes. before i go into that, when one comment on the debt from mr. thompson. it is no longer $40,000 per person, it is $140,000 per child. now my question -- recently, he

you initiated approved taxes in the state of texas. especially on the internet and. you signed in the sales tax recently. if that came forward to you as a national, where everybody is looking for revenue, which i call it taxes and fees, if it comes to you as you become president, what are you going to do with it and what would your position on those types of taxes? >> that piece of legislation passed in texas. our house and our senate passed it. allowing for the taxation of internet transactions. i vetoed that bill. i vetoed that bill. and that is what i will do in washington d.c. and they get -- it gets back to tom -- low taxes are created by low spending.

you do not raise the taxes, they do not have it to spend. it is important for us to cross the border. it made it into law in the state of texas. it made it into law because they added in a special section to a finance bill that i could not veto. when that bill came to me, initially during the regular session, i took my veto pen out and i vetoed it to send a message that i want people in the country to know that texas is going to be a job-friendly state because we keep the taxes low. [applause] >> do i need a microphone? >> no. >> marines do not need microphones. >> before i get started, i was on the committee to endorse you

because i only wish that we could do half of the things that you have done for veterans in texas. i compliment you there. my question is -- it is not taxes related because you are the only candidate that has stood up and said social security is a gonzi scheme -- ponzi sxcheme -- ponzi scheme. all of the seniors have been promised money to live off of. how do we expect the seniors to live off of this little amount of money? how're you going to protect the seniors? i know what you want to do for one of the line. how are we protecting seniors that are living right now? >> we are going to revisit phyllis' question.

the key for this issue of social security, and americans need to really understand the commitment that this country has made, the men and women who are on social security today, and those who are approaching a social security that have planned their retirement on those social security payments. those payments will be there. do not buy into any individual scare tactics that will try to scare our seniors or those that are approaching social security age that somehow or another, because we are courageous enough to stand up and say, listen, we have a broken system. we do have a broken system. those two young ladies that are sitting right there, they know instinctively that when they get into the work force, if we have not addressed this issue of social security, it will not be there for them. that is, in essence, in the

description and the characterization of a ponzi scheme. those who were in first get the money and those in last do not get it. as a country, we need to have the courageous conversation and say, we have got to fix this for our children. we cannot allow it to continue on and say, let's kick the can down the road and let the next president or congress deal with it. no longer. we are republicans. we fix things and let out ideas, whether it is a staggered moving up the age at which people are going to be eligible for it. we are living longer by a long shot dead when it was initially put into play. it will allow people to have private options, you might sit there and say, i want a private auction to decide how this is going to be invested rather than having the government. somebody else might say they

want the government to run that program. i also think we need to open it up so that the states can again, like they have historically, been able to take the employees of the state or retirees of the state and opt out of social security to create their own programs. all of those would help create a foundation of change for social security so that those mid- career americans will know it is going to be there for them. young people will know it is going to be there for them. our seniors, again, allowing this country to get back to work and creating the wealth, and running down energy costs by allowing a domestic energy industry to flourish in this country are ways that we can help our seniors. i feel comfortable the we are going to be able to get this country working again. everything goes back to that. i cannot impress a enough. we are going to get asked 100

different questions 1000 different ways. i know there are all born to be important questions. if we do not get america working, if we do not focus on creating jobs in this country, all those other questions really do not matter. we are not going to be able to have a foreign policy that matters, a military that is funded appropriately, we are not going to have the research and development on the military side to be able to keep up with an aggressive nations like china. you have to have your economy working and people working in your economy. there is only one way to do that. take the tax burden off job creators, get the regulatory burden off of them and they will go out and create the jobs and create the wealth. yes, ma'am? >> and you are saying that someone like myself in my

mid-'50s, that i would be entitled to social security or maybe a portion of what i might be entitled to. is that what i am understanding? >> what i am saying is, if you said you are 55, you are holding up well. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i am 61. people your age, they are planning their retirement. that security payment, in total, is going to be there for you. any american your age, and i do not know what the top office, but we can have this conversation with congress and come up with what that ages. before that, we are going to have a transitional period. for the 25-36-year-old, we are going to have a new program created for them so that they know they are going to have a

retirement program. for those of us that are approaching social security, planning on it, it will be there for us. it will -- it is not going to be a percentage of it, it will be there in total. guaranteed it will be there. do not let anybody try to scare you and tell you, this guy is talking about taking your social security away. that is an outright irresponsible statement by anyone. >> i work in health care. as of monday, nursing homes are going to be getting 11% reimbursement to their budgets. i am very concerned because of these nursing homes, they cannot cut their lights off. they cannot cut their electric bill or whatever. what is the long term range for these people? they have to cut their food and what they're eating? are they going to get orange juice are are they going to get kool-aid?

are they going to get water instead of milk? i do not know. but they are going to be able to fund these nursing homes so that they can take care of the elderly. and then they're not getting -- if they get a urinary tract infection, if they get a pneumonia, they're not going to get reimbursed for that. unfortunately, when the elderly get dementia, they do not know enough to drink. you can try but they do not want it. it is a circus. we are going to get caught. 20% they are telling us that will cut us. >> the kool-aid was drawn by the members of congress who passed obamacare. they did not read that bill. now we are starting to see the costs. let me tell you what the real tragedy of this bill is. the tragedy is going to be in the lack of access. it is going to be our mothers,

our fathers, ourselves that do not have access to health care because of the cost associated with this. i do not know what it is going to cost the state of new hampshire. i do know what the bill is going to be for my home state. $2.7 billion more every year over and above what we are already paying. in california, i was suggest to you it will bankrupt the state because of that maintenance of effort closet. if there is one piece of legislation that has to be repealed and done away with, it is obamabare. -- obamacare. we will not be able to deliver health care. [applause] there are a number of ways to deal with this. as a governor, i have had to deal with this issue. i have had to balance those

budgets. we have gone to washington d.c. since 2005, we have asked for waivers on our medicaid so that we could deliver health care in a more efficient, more effective, give options to be different populations out there, and we were turned down time after time after time. washington d.c. as to get a lesson. the lesson is -- always and does not emanate out of washington d.c. they need to let the states be greatly more involved in how our medicaid populations are taken care of. i will grant those dollars back. the idea that washington ought to be taken your money out to washington d.c. and deciding how and when it goes back to your state for education purposes is counter to what our constitution -- one of the last things, number six, is too faithfully and forcefully of old and protect the united states constitution. there is nothing in the

constitution that says washington d.c. is supposed to be telling us how to deliver health care. there is nothing the says washington d.c. is close to be telling us how to educate our children. that needs to stop. i am the president is going to stand up and say no longer. washington d.c. is not going to mandate back to the states have to take care of health care or their children triet -- health care or their children. [applause] >> i should start by pointing out that you have a bit of a reputation. that reputation is this -- some of us have blog for you, and one of the most interesting things is i had some winey democrats who were upset because you go around to states and you pull in businesses and bring them into the state. we are about to get a new governor. i have a two-part question. what advice would you have not

for any future governor of new hampshire on how to go get that business into the state? the second part is, while some candidates have built a reputation of succeeding at exporting jobs to china and other places, how would you use what you did in texas to go out and pluck the business's back here? >> states compete against states. that is how it is supposed to work. if a state and their legislators decide they want to have by higher tax burden, more onerous regulatory climate, or however they want to describe the regulatory climate, if they want to allow for the trial bar to have an easier access to sue doctors or businesses, that should be their right. i am a huge believer in the 10th

amendment's. states need to be able to decide those issues. the united states of america, we compete with other countries. why do we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? do you know what that does? it makes us indeed not as competitive with a country that does not have that high tax burden on those businesses. canada comes into iowa. they are coming into iowa and talking to their businesses about coming to canada because we have a lower corporate tax rate. this is pretty simple. i do believe that states should make the decision on their own. if you do not want to compete for jobs, if you do not want to have a lower tax burden, a regulatory climate at a certain level, if you do not want that

to have a legal system with protection from guerrillas lawsuits, that ought to be your call. but when the neighboring governor comes over to ask you to come to that state because you are going to be able to keep more of your money, that is how it is supposed to work. here is the reason why. when my neighbor bobby, who is a great competitor, or suzy in new mexico, when they lower their tax burden, i have got to step back down with our legislature and say listen, we are getting out worked. how are we to make our state more competitive. that is the reason that i the code that internet tax bill. it is the reason that we passed the loser pays bill in texas.

i think that is how this country will get stronger. is to allow the states to compete against each other. you cannot do it when washington d.c. forces you to deliver health care in a particular way, they force you to educate your children a particular way, they force you to meet all of these washington d.c.-centric regulations or tax burdens in. the way to free this country up and get it working again is to lower the tax burdens both on the personal and corporate level, i called for president obama to put a six month stay, if you will, because it is killing jobs, on all of these regulations. pull them back in. test them for whether or not they actually create jobs or they kill jobs. that is how you get america

working again. i am excited about the opportunity of making america competitive again. i think we can bring companies -- i assure you, i do not think companies like to be in china or they like to be in other places. they would rather be it in the united states of america, but we have run them off with over- regulation and over-taxation. if you elect me president, those days are over. [applause] >> are ready to wrap up? >> yes. thank you for allow me to be a part of this today. god bless you. may god continue to bless this great country we live -- this great country we live in. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011]