prosperity in the new economy. professor rice currently serves as a professor of public policy at the goldman school of public policy at the university of california berkeley. time magazine named him one of the most 10 effective secretaries of the century. robert reich points out it was last century. but i say it was this century as well. please help give a welcome to one of the greatest contemporary thinkers of modern american life, professor robert reich. ♪ ♪ >> thank you.

as you can see, the economy has warned me down. -- worn me down. [laughter] five years ago, i was 6 foot 4 inches. i have also been worn down by the radical right. but let me tell you i am growing back. [applause] in this country, there has always been a kind of tension between two great forces. one is the progressive force that is inclusive and tolerant, which stands for equal opportunity and assumes the nation is a community in which we all have responsibilities for one another. on the other side is the regressive chorus, which takes

the opposite position on all of these. instead of it being inclusive, the nation under the regressive regime is exclusive and intolerant. instead of equal opportunity, it is unequaled opportunity and widening inequality. instead of us being together, everybody is fate interdependent, we are all on our own. let me tell you something. the progressive forces always win out over the regressive forces. [applause] right now, there are two strategies. the basic strategy is the regressive radical right is using -- understand them in economic terms. we have to spread the truth about the economy.

why is this important? it is one of the big allies george orwell and others understood. what is the big lie? if you state it over and over again, even though it is absurd, if you state it over and over again on fox news, radical radio, rush limbaugh -- if you say it over and over again on the editorial pages of "the wall street journal," people start believing it, because "i keep hearing that." unless the truth is told firmly and loudly, the lies takeover -- take over. it is our responsibility to make sure the truth gets out. in the economy, there are a lot of lies. they are big lies, walkers.

for example, the lie i keep hearing is that corporations need tax relief, tax cuts, and less regulation in order to create jobs. my friends, corporations in america are sitting on two trillion dollars of cash. the ratio of corporate profits to wages has never been as high since before the great depression. for anybody to argue that corporations need more money, need higher profits, need fewer taxes, need less regulation, save the environmental protection and small investors -- if they are not creating jobs with the money they have, the person saying that is either a

fool or a knave. take another. that we need to provide a wealthy people in this country with more tax cuts, or cannot raise taxes on people at the top, because that would in some way interfere with job growth, is a repeat of the same trickle- down economics we have had for 30 years. here is what we know about trickle-down economics. it does not work. it is a fraud. it is not trickle-down economics. it is trickle unexonomics. -- it is a trickle on economics. george bush cut taxes, and far fewer jobs were created during -- than during the clinton administration. the median wages, the average

worker -- by the way, there is a difference between average and medium. if you hear average wages are going up, watcher wallets. the basketball player shaquille o'neal and by have an average height of 6 ft. 3. do you get my drift? averages pull up the data. you do not want to look at the average. look at the median, the person in the middle, an equal number above and below. median wages have trended downward since the bush tax cut. note trickle-down. trickle-down economics is a fraud. the radical right, the regressive as were saying that -- the progressives and -- the regressives were saying you would raise taxes on small

business owners, who would not create jobs. do you know how many small- business owners are in the top bracket? 2%. that is only the% over the margin for the top tax bracket. this is an absurd argument being used by those with power, those who are privileged in our society, to retrain and intrench their own privilege. -- to retain and entranch -- entrench their own privilege. you hear this over and over. if we shrink government, we are going to create jobs. this is a very interesting issue. how you create more jobs if you are firing teachers, firefighters, police officers, and social workers? how do you create more jobs if you are putting out of business

all the government contractors on roads and bridges, rebuilding infrastructure? how do you create jobs if, at a time when consumers, who are deathly scared about not making mortgage payments and bills, consumers whose wages are going down, and who are losing their jobs, consumers who are looking at their homes and see the major asset worth a third less than it was worth five years ago -- consumers are not going to go shopping. the real problem of the economy is that consumers, who are 70% -- their spending is 70% of the total national economy. if average working people cannot and will not, are not able, to purchase, businesses

will not hire. where did you get the demand in the system to keep the system going? you go to the one institution that is the system of last resort, the government. right now, when you have 25 million americans looking for full-time work, right now, when you have an infrastructure, bridges, ports, public transportation, sewer systems, school buildings -- when you have it crumbling because of deferred maintenance, and when interest rates on the 10-year treasury bill are under 2%, making it painful -- making it easy for the united states to borrow -- put those together, and anybody with half a brain understands that now is the time

to borrow, to put americans to work rebuilding america. [applause] but apparently, there were not enough people in washington in power with even half a brain. i could go on. i could go on with the lies. social security is the biggest problem for the budget? come on. social security is rising in the out years, but it is not a problem. it is not a ponzi scheme. i used to be a trustee of the social security trust fund. social security is fine for the next 26 years, and it would be fine for a century if you lifted the ceiling on the income subject to social security taxes. [applause] the regressive forces in america

say medicare has to be cut. medicare is a big problem in the future in terms of the debt? wrong. medicare is not the problem. in terms of the administrative costs of medicare, relative to private insurance -- medicare is the solution. in fact, i will tell you. allow medicare to use its bargaining leverage to drive lower drug prices and medical supply prices and hospital prices. let medicare use its bargaining leverage to move from a fee-for- service system to a fee for healthy outcome system, and we control medical costs and get good results for every american. we need medicare for all. [applause]

and you have some people on the extreme right, the regressive forces. believe me. they say corporations are people. [laughter] the supreme court, in one of the worst decisions in supreme court history, right up there with dread scott and bush against gore, and plessey against ferguson -- these are shameful. this is the hall of shame in supreme court decisions. the supreme court, in citizens united, said corporations are people entitled to first amendment rights. corporations are legal fictions, my friends. they are legal fictions. how do you know it corporation is a person? when texas and georgia start

executing corporations. [applause] in fact, in fact -- even then, i am not sure i am going to believe the verdict. you see, a lot of those on the right say the budget deficit is the most important thing we can deal with right now. no. the biggest crisis in america right now, the biggest crisis since the great depression, is not the budget deficit. it is jobs and wages. jobs and wages. jobs and wages. let me tell you the logic, because there is a logic behind what i am saying. the real issue in the out years -- anybody who is concerned

about the budget deficit, the real issue years from now is the ratio of the debt to the total economy, debt versus gdp. the only way you get the ratio down is to build the economy. you build jobs. that is step number 1. if you do not do that, the ratio gets worse and worse. before you start cutting or doing anything about the budget deficit, what you need to do first is jobs, wages, and growth. we have to spread that understanding. the president says it is a matter of math, and it is a matter of math. but it is also a matter of morals. [applause] right now, 37% of families with young children in america are in

poverty. that is the highest percent we have seen since records have been kept. 37% of americans, american families with young children, are in poverty. and yet we have now, at the top, the top 1% raking in over 21% of national income per year. that is higher than it has been since 1928. we have the top 1% with 35% of total wealth in this country. that is the highest it has been since 1922. you see come up with the radical right -- you see where they want to take us? they want to take us back to the 1920's, or back to the 1890's,

the gilded age. or back to the stone age. and we cannot let them. the weapon they are using is not just the big lie. the weapon they are using is also demoralization and cynicism. i cannot tell you how many people come up to me. because i am pretty short end of this, people i do not know come up to me in airports and say, "you are what's his name." they cannot remember, but they look at me and know i was part of the administration. they say to me, "how are we going to survive?" on the streets, they come up to me and say, "my family is really

hurting." they say, "have you ever seen anything this bad?" after tens or 20's or hundreds of people come up to me like this, it can get a little bit demoralizing. but the worst thing is when people say nothing can be done. when people say nothing can be done, when they are so cynical about the ability to change the direction of the country, we know the other side has won. their number one weapon is to so discredit government, so discredit the capacity of us working together through the institutions of government given to us by the constitution and the founding fathers -- whether it is lies about weapons of mass

destruction or the response to katrina, or a huge fiasco over raising the debt limit -- it should never have been even an issue. but it paints it all, in america's mind, as a fiasco, that government does not work anymore. government is for the big guys, the powerful and privileged. i no longer have a say. i cannot do anything about it. that demoralization is their biggest weapon. if people really believe nothing can change and they can have no part in changing it, then that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. and that is why so much of what we do, so much of what you do, so much of taking back the american dream is taking back

our power and confidence in that power. right now, there are demonstrations all over this country on wall street. 70 other cities. 70 cities. [applause] if you listen to the media, most of the media are not even playing it. but if they are, what are they saying? this is a movement. it is not really a movement. there is no direction. they do not have a plan. let me tell you something. these demonstrations are the small tip of an iceberg. [applause] they are an iceberg of discontent. and i say demonstrate like mad.

because that wakes up others to the possibility of change. when barack obama was elected, i was one of those who supported him. i was delighted. i could not believe it. i had a meeting with his advisers shortly after he was elected in chicago. he walked in the room and i could barely contain myself. he walked around and shook hands. he came to me, and i started crying. i felt like such an asshole. he was the new president of the united states. i was a blithering idiot. -- blubbering idiot. but i was crying because of him. and i was also crying because a black man had become president of the united states. [applause]

like many of you, i am not content. i wish she had done much more. i do not like the fact that he has compromised or tried to compromise with the other side. there is no compromising with the other side. but let me tell you this. i have been in washington enough to know you can have the best people here, but if people outside washington are not organized and mobilized and energized in a continuing basis, nothing good happens here. [applause] we -- when all those people come up to me and say, "isn't it awful in washington?" you know what i say back? what are you doing about it? because i think many of us have

let president obama down. i think that if we were more and are in the future after today more mobilized, better energized, but organized, and pushing harder, we will get what americans need. that is the heart of taking back the american dream. [applause] i have just one more thing to say, and then i will turn it over to your questions. [laughter] you want me to just continue? no. i just have one more thing to say, and this is important. i opened by talking about the progressive forces and the regressive forces in america, and how the progressive forces always win. my first entry into politics, or

at least the key thing that propelled me into a life of politics, writing, agitation, making a ruckus, and doing whatever i could, happened during the civil rights movement. i was always very short period -- very short. let me confess this to you. as a kid, i was very short. i would get beat up by the big kids. it was not fun getting beat up. i did not like to do that. here is what i did. i made alliances with some of the big fellows, who would protect me. i have a protection racket. -- had a protection racket.

i made alliances. some of them were older. they cared about me and did not want the belize to prevail. -- bullies to prevail. in the summer of 1964, one of my protectors, one of my wonderful protectors, named mickey, was down registering voters in the self -- south. the sheriff of nahoba county and others took mickey out of his car, and to others, black and white, took the three of them and tortured them and murdered them. and when the man who had been my protect from the police-- bullies was tortured and killed

by the bullies, who wanted to prevent black people from voting, i said to myself the most important thing any of us can do is to protect the powerless, and to make sure that the people with power, the people with privilege, were not going to use their power and privilege to bully anybody, and to give ordinary working people and the poor a voice so they could not be bullied ever again. [applause] but here is where -- here is

where my confidence comes from. here is where my confidence comes from. the progressive forces -- what happened with the civil rights struggle and the anti-viet nam struggle? what happened? the darkest days of the 1950's, with mccarthy. what happened with the great depression and second world war? every time this country has really been challenged, every time the regressive forces look like that are going to win, -- they are going to win, the progressive forces rally. [applause] that has been the history. that is the history of the united states, a history of two steps forward, one step back. the progressives fight the regressive forces, but eventually win, because

americans in their hearts are not just progressive, but sensible. they understand the truth. that is a big if, but it is more a when. when they understand the truth, we roll up our sleeves and get on with what has to be done. this terrible jobs and wage depression, and it is a depression, continues for most americans. there is a small group that does not want to do anything about it, that rejects any common- sense solution, that just says no. the nabobs of negativism. but americans are not going to stand for it. we are going to say to those with power and privilege, "no

more bullying." thank you. [applause] [changing: -- chanting: no more bullies] >> now, it is time for your questions. not your speeches. you see, when i am in front of a wonderful, wonderful group of people like you, you have a lot

to say. but if we want to have time for your questions and my answers, we have to say no speeches. is that ok with you? i apologize in advance. we're going to have questions, just questions, and no speeches, and then answers. if i do not have an answer for your question, i will make up the question and answer it. i will repeat your question. let us start with this gentleman. >> [inaudible] >> how to get the belize -- bullies out of the filibuster? one thing that needs to get done is to get rid of the filibuster altogether. let us be clear about this. the founding fathers did not put

the filibuster in the constitution. there was no revision to the constitution that says you must have 60 votes in the senate to get anything through the senate. there is no provision in the constitution that says the people in the house of representatives can threaten to close government down, and even threatened the full faith and credit of the united states, if they do not get their way. the constitution does not contemplate that. the founding fathers did not say that. do you want to be really conservative and go back to the founding fathers? then go back there. let us have a real democracy. unfortunately, the founding fathers did not contemplate the kind of democracy we should have in every respect. what can we do about citizens united, was the question.

here is what we can do about citizens united. we can dedicate ourselves to making sure that when one of the five justices that voted for the outrageous case either retires, leavis, or dies, that he or she -- that he, i should say, is replaced to somebody committed to overturning citizens united. that means, at the very least, we have to have barack obama as president of the united states, so he can make sure that we get decent supreme court justices in there. yes? >> [inaudible] >> how do we get decent people to run for office so we can get these jerks -- that is what you said -- out of there?

how many of you have run for office? how many of you have run for political office? keep your hands up. let us everybody else applaud the people that have run for office. [applause] it is no fun, in most cases, to run for office. it is very hard. i ran for governor of massachusetts in 2002. out of six democratic candidates, i came in a close cent -- a close second. if i had run, i would have run against the republican nominee, mitt romney. i would have with his ass. -- whiopp -- whipped his ass. if he becomes president, i have nobody but me to blame. let me tell you something

seriously. i have been around politicians my life -- my whole life. i have learned by doing that a greater respect for politicians. anybody who runs for office knows how difficult it is. you have to kiss ass. a lot of it. you have to raise money. you have to really deal with people who are very demanding. you have to explain reality in ways where the burden of proof is against you, because they are saying, "why should i vote for you?" when people are scared, and this is true now -- when people are scared, they are fertile ground for demagogues, who want to come along and use the politics of resentment to blame scapegoats,

to blame immigrants, to blame the poor, to blame minorities, to blame foreigners, to blame europeans -- the french. remember that? to blame unionized workers. too bland government workers, public employees. -- to blame government workers, public employees. blame knows no end. do it again. you are in your fourth term? where are you in your fourth term? new hampshire house of representatives. that is marvelous. [applause] by the way, i spent many of my formative years in new hampshire. the new hampshire house of representatives is one of the largest legislative bodies in

the world. it is the only state where every family has a representative. [laughter] that is not true. other questions. >> i have a microphone. i am crazy cake from kansas. -- kate from kansas. i want to go back to kansas and hit the ground running with my group, move on community. what you recommend should be our top priority right now, with the economics and the jobs? what would you do? >> i think the top priority in the very short-term is to get the jobs bill enacted. that is the number-one short- term priority. right behind the jobs bill priority is to create enough pressure, enough mobilizing of

the base, whether we are talking about the democratic base, the progressive base, or americans overall, to get a more powerful jobs bill, and to avoid some of the crazy cuts that are going to happen. what is going to happen now you have a super committee? it is going to report back in not that many weeks. if it comes up with cuts, you know a lot of the cuts will be in domestic non-defense discretionary spending. even if they do not agree, the automatic trigger is going to trigger cuts in non-defense discretionary. i asked you -- i said before a 37% of american families with young children are in poverty. where are the programs that help that 37%? in non-defense discretionary. i have not even said anything

about the state and local cuts. it is like a cascade downward of cuts. what is happening at the local level? you know these people in your towns. teachers are being fired. school days are shortened. social workers are fired. family services are cut. local governments are not getting aid from the state. states are not getting help from the federal government. the cascade down word is not being told. you need to tell that story. [applause] yes, sir. >> is it on? i am david cooper, president of michigan. i am a college professor like you, only i teach philosophy. you talked about scapegoats' a minute ago. i hear so many students say they

are tired of welfare mothers getting all this help while they are struggling for jobs. they are scapegoating. you gave the data earlier on the transfer of wealth since the reagan era, in terms of the 1%. the have any data on what it has been like for welfare mothers in that same time? >> what has happened -- ever since so-called welfare reform in 1986, we had a replacement of all welfare reform with a five- year lifetime entitlement. that is ok, as long as you do not have a lot of long recessions. what we are now seeing is that a lot of those people, who are very poor, are exhausting the five-year lifetime because the great recession is a great jobs and wage depression for a large

portion of the population. that started in about 2008 for most people. it is now 2011. 8, 9, 10, 11. you see how many people are getting to the end. here is a related issue. unemployment benefits that so many people are relying on -- unemployment benefits, at best, reach 40% of the unemployed. 60% of the people who have lost their jobs do not get any unemployment benefits at all. congress do not want to extend unemployment benefits. i talk to radical conservatives in congress. they say if you extend unemployment benefits people would rather say -- rather stay not working. right now, it is 4.3 people

looking for work for every job opening. how can you say that if you extend unemployment benefits you will encourage people not to work? right now, the safety nets of america are shredded at a time when we need them to be strong and solid, more than ever before. one of the additional things to organize around is to make sure that when people fall out -- and a lot of people are falling out right now. it is not just the poor. it is the middle class. everybody is falling through the cracks. make sure there is enough safety net that they can bounce back. this is important, and it is good for the economy. it is not just a matter of generosity. if they do not have money in their pockets, they cannot buy food and clothing and everything they need to buy to keep the private sector going, and to

keep jobs. do you see? we are all in it together. there is actually a line over there. i did not see you. please go ahead. >> secretary, thank you for your passion and heart this afternoon. [applause] i think it is vital that we all leave here with a common message, which conservatives have had since goldwater -- reducing government, government is bad. please give me your understanding on what your frame would be. my friend is the common good versus corporate greed, or the public good, that which we pay for with our taxes, versus private greed.

>> another way of saying that is something al gore said the last month of his campaign in 2000. you know al gore, the person who won the presidential election in 2000. in that last month, his ratings started to go up, because he started to talk about the reality many people understood in the depths of there being -- their being. that is the people versus the powerful. there is nothing wrong in having a lot of money in this country, but there is a lot of wrong in of using that money. -- in abusing that money. if you are looking at a way to frame it, another way of saying it is that the regressive forces in vision america as a

society in which each person is on his own, or her own. but in reality, we are all in it together. even the very rich would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than they would with a large share of an economy that is dead in the water. we knew this is a country. people come up to me, skeptically. they say, "what country would you recommend we emulate?" people think i am going to say sweden or denmark, and they are going to sneer. the you know what i say to them in all sincerity? we emulate the united states between 1946 and 1978. that was an economy that grew for everybody. that was a society in which we actively sought to expand the

circle of prosperity, in which we struggled toward civil rights and voting rights, in which we struggle for equal opportunity for all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. productivity went up. wages went up. there was a lot wrong, but we tried to mend it. in 1982, productivity continued to go up, but wages flat line. what happened to all the money? it went to the top. what happened to the power? it went with the money, to the top. that is the simple and true thing. other questions. we still have a queue.

>> what you think about two of the proposals we have here -- curb wall street with a transaction tax, and rebuild america. as you know, if we do not have a dedicated revenue stream for a program, it goes away. the second part -- what you think about getting congress off the hook for raising our taxes? >> let me say something loudly and clearly. i want you to remember this. the other side, the regressive forces, want to spread a mythology that we are a poor nation. the reality is that we are a rich nation, the richest country in the world. we are richer than we have ever been in our history. the idea that we are poor and cannot afford to do what we must

do for our poor and middle- class in terms of education and infrastructure -- the idea we have to sit back and allow people to have as much pain as we are in during in this great depression is absurd. it is immoral and scandalous. do not believe that we are poor. the second thing, in terms of how we pay for it -- a small half of 1% financial crisis -- financial transaction tax would generate $200 billion a year. europe is doing it. europe is moving toward a transaction tax. they say, and europeans agree, that we are in trouble financially, and we are in trouble financially in part because we bailed out big banks. it is appropriate that we have a small transaction tax.

0.5% is a rounding error. wall street would not even see it, but it would generate $200 billion a year. let us dedicate that toward rebuilding america. but what about something else we could easily do, if we have political will? that is a 2% surcharge on well over $7 million. -- wealth over $7 million. that is a 2% surcharge on wealth over $7 million. we are not talking about the average person. i want to make that clear. we are talking about not even the top 1%. this is the top 0.5%. that would yield $70 billion a year. can you imagine what that would do for our schools, for young

people, for the future of america? yes. we can afford it. it is not a question of affordability. it is a question of will and organizing. it is a question of making sure the american people know the truth. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for just one more question. >> we have time for one more question. let me just ask you a personal favor, since this is the last question. i want a doozy of a question, a question that enables me to summarize everything i have said and provide a kind of rhetorical expression of a

rousing spirit. but you have to ask the right question. no pressure at all. the go-ahead. >> nice try. what can we do and force our government to do to genuinely help small businesses? >> why is it that you can hear and i cannot? what can we do to help small businesses create jobs? >> and forced the government to do the same. -- forced the government to do the same. -- force the government to do the same. >> one of the conditions, when we build up wall street, should have been to help families reorganize their mortgages. number two, you make sure there

is enough lending so small businesses can expand. three, you make sure that wall street has agreed to resurrecting the glass the goal -- the glass-steagall act, separating investment from commercial banking. small banks and small businesses in america are in trouble now. the best thing we can do to help small banks and small businesses is to make sure there is enough money in the pockets of working people and the poor so they can go to small businesses, and small businesses can thereby go to banks and expand. that is what it comes back to the demand side of the equation, not the supply side.

every time you hear somebody using a "supply side" methodology -- supply-side thinking says it is the big businesses, wall street, and the rich who supply the jobs and the innovation, and everything else in america. what you need to do is stop them in midsentence and say, "supply- siders have been proven wrong for the last 30 years." here is what we know. it is the demand side, because it is the aggregate demand -- it is ordinary people, working people, that are the center of this economy. we have to get them working again. we have to get their wages up. we have to make them more powerful. not only do we need a stimulus that is big enough, but we have

to tackle the skewed and growing per se of widening inequality. -- purse of widening inequality. as the rich get richer, the middle-class and working-class do not have enough to keep the economy going. we have more speculation, more booms and busts. some of the rich, like the koch brothers, abuse their wealth and the political process. we have to get that together. the only way we can deal with that together is if all of us dedicate ourselves to this movement, to taking back the american dream. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on tomorrows "washington journal," we talk with allen west of florida about the agenda in the presidential contest. filmmaker ken burns will discuss his latest film project on prohibition. and a professor joins us to discuss pakistan and global terrorism. the house will continue work on a short-term spending measure to keep the government open through november 18, 2012. legislative work begins at noon. you can see live house coverage here on c-span. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to

you? that is the question in this competition.tcam make a video and tell us which part of the constitution is important to you, and why. be sure to include more than one point of view. entries are due by january 2012. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> a congressional report dirt of bloomberg government -- what is expected when the bill comes up in the house on tuesday? guest: as you mentioned, the spending bill that would fund the government through nov. is up for a vote on the house tomorrow. all indications are that it would pass. it is expected to get widespread democratic support, unlike an earlier version of the

republican-controlled house passed with predominantly republican support. >> you were at majority leader eric cantor's briefing. what did he say about plans to keep the government operating? >> he expects they will not encounter difficulty in clearing the continuing resolution tomorrow for the president's signature. that would give congress a breathing room in a series of divisive spending fights over the last several months. they would not have to readdress the issue until november 18. but time will fly between now and six weeks from now, just before thanksgiving. it could be another battle for how to keep the government running, a last-minute show down. >> you mentioned spending as divisive. what does the recent skirmish say about the congressional ability to wreak which -- to

reach agreement? >> the super committee established through the august 2 law which raise the debt ceiling -- they are meeting and have a deadline on november 23 to reach a consensus. there is a deadline december 23 for both chambers to vote on some of those recommendations. i think the fact they are still continuing to have difficulty reaching agreement between the democratic senate and the republican house on the more short-term spending measures only underscores how difficult this process is going to be when they get to more significant decisions about how to revamp federal spending in the long term. >> what are some of the other legislative items on representative kantor -- cantor's to-do list? >> this week, there are two bills coming up that would stay

some epa regulations, which is part of the broader agenda the majority leader announced over the summer, a series of initiatives to roll back regulations that republicans -- obama administration regulations that republicans have been the burdensome-- deemed burdensome to job creation. since the briefing, it looks as though the white house will be sending out three free trade agreements with columbia, panama, and south korea. there could be an agreement to move some assistance for displaced workers, which democrats have been seeking. >> ms. hunter is a congressional reporter for bloomberg government. at a news conference today, nato's said it was concerned

about a report that thousands of surface-to-air missiles were missing in libya. that is next. then president obama talks about jobs and the economy. leiter, a presidential candidate mitt romney sits down for an editorial meeting with a new hampshire union leader. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying. track campaign contributions. the c-span website is easy to use. it helps you navigate the political landscape, with candidates biographies and polling data, plus links to media partners in early primary states. that is all apps c-span.org -- at c-span.org. >> oral argument is the first time that justices talk about a case together. when justice scalia or justice ginsberg asks a question, i can

figure out where they are leaning. >> the new supreme court term begins the first monday in october, each year during almost 70 cases. this year, cases include gps tracking without a warrant, profanity on television, and copyright protection. watch recent appearances by the justices around the country on the c-span video library on line. it is washington your way. >> the nato secretary general gives an update on the nato mission in afghanistan and libya. he spoke in brussels for about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. the secretary general will start with a short introduction presenting and then we will be open for your questions.

>> good afternoon. this week to the defense ministers of allied nations and our partners will meet here at nato headquarters. we will discuss our current operations and our future capabilities. what we're doing now, but also what we will and must be able to do in the future. our operation to protect civilians in libya has been a great success. the united nations security council called for action. nato decided to respond. we put together a complete package of measures by air and sea to protect the people of libya. and we are -- we are near to successfully

completing that task. it has done what we said it would do. we have kept our commitments to the united nations, to the region, and to the libyan people. we will also meet with our eyes off -- isaf partners to discuss progress in afghanistan. there has been significant progress since our last meeting. the transition is fully entr'acte -- contract --on track and we will not allow insurgents to derail it. afghan forces are providing security for one-quarter of the population. i expect the next phase of transition to be announced soon and i expected to be substantial.

at the same time, our military authorities a says that the insurgency has been weakened over all. the levels of violence are of concern. in number of spectacular attacks of captured headlines recently and created the perception the security incidents are on the rise. however, our commanders are confident that security incidents initiated by insurgent groups are lower than last year. let me tell you about a specific case. about a year ago, we were talking about the security situation in central helmand. this was the focus of our efforts. we said that things would get

worse before they got better. now we're seeing the results of our efforts. attacks since june are significantly lower than last year. some districts have seen reductions in violence of nearly 80%. our strategy is working. we should concentrate on the competence of the afghan security forces in dealing with the tax -- attacks. that will remain our focus as we complete transition by the end of 2014 and as we continue to stand with the afghan people after 2014. nato will not abandon the afghan people.

we have agreed to have an enduring partnership and we will live up to it. finally, we will discuss the developments in kosovo. we have seen reminders of how quickly tensions can arise and how important nato's mission remains. we're there to maintain a safe and secure environment for all people of kuntsevo regardless of their ethnicity. giocoso -- for all people of kosovo regardless of their ethnicity in full compliance with our united nations mandate. that is what our troops have been doing for the last 12 years at considerable risk to their own safety. nato forces will always use the minimum force necessary for they have the right to self-

defense. that is what they did on september 27. i urge all parties to avoid unilateral actions and inflammatory statements. i urge everyone to put their efforts into dialogue and not confrontation. all the people of kosovo have an interest in a secure and stable future. nato supports the aspirations of the whole region towards integration into the euro- atlantic family. from operations, we will turn our discussions to capabilities of what we wanted to be able to do tomorrow and what we need to do to defend.

in these times of austerity, this may sound unrealistic. we already spend so much on defense, why spend more? let me point out that it is not about spending more. it is about spending more effectively to get more for what we spend. my message is clear. improving our capabilities is not only necessary, it is vital. that means spending on the right things and spending together. spending on projects that makes us all safer.

solidarity and security is what i call a smart defense. our operations in libya and afghanistan have shown areas where the allies must continue improving the availability of capabilities such as drones, intelligence, and air-to-air refueling. we cannot rely on one ally only to supply these. [speaking french] some can keep our soldiers safer. vehicles that detect and clear roadside bombs. some can make our operations

more efficient. we can cool maritime control -- patrol aircraft and made better use of the resources that we have. there are many different examples. the bottom line is this. no capability, no authority. if we want nato to remain credible, we have to be able to act. if we want to be able to act, we have to keep and acquire the capabilities to act. i will be encouraging ministers to identify projects that their nations would be willing to lead in the coming months. i will ask kim all for their commitment to making these projects a reality as we head towards our chicago summit. one excellent example is

missile defense. tokyo and turkey have agreed to host key elements of this system. i expect other contributions soon. step by step, nato's territorial missile defense is becoming a reality. i expect that in chicago we will declare an interim operational capability. this defense ministers meeting will be a milestone on the road to the chicago summit which will reinforce nato's status as the indispensable alliance. with that, i am happy to take your questions. >> we will start with dpa here.

>> i am from the german press agency, gpa. there were reports over the weekend that the ministerial meeting might consider ending the libyan missions. could you comment on this? if not a complete end of mission might decide on fewer operations in libya? on smart defense, can you be more specific? are there any specific deliverable is that you expect from the ministerial? can you talk about the sharing of the cost between the nations? thank you. >> on the libyan operations, we will discuss those. i do not expect any decision on the termination of the operation. we're pretty close to the end

of this operation. as you know, we have decided to extend the operation by up to 90 days. however, we will review the operation on a regular basis so that we stand ready to terminate it as long as this region as soon as the situation allows. on the one hand, we have declared we're ready to continue our operation as long as it takes to make sure that we fully implement the united nations mandate to protect the civilian population against any attack. there are still attacks against the civilian population. this is the reason why we continue our operations. on the other hand, we will not continue for one single day more than necessary. we stand ready to terminate the

operation as soon as the situation allows. i would not expect that situation to be taken during the defense ministers meeting. we will make that decision based on a comprehensive military assessment and in close coordination with the united nations and new authorities in libya. as far as smart defense is concerned, at the meeting, we will discuss reports from our allied commanders. the task force has prepared a report with a number of concrete proposals as to have -- how allies can cooperate on acquiring military capabilities as well as conducting operations like training, logistics, maintenance of equipment.

we will discuss a range of concrete proposals. we will decide to continue that work with a view to the upcoming defense ministerial in february and later at the summit in may. we will not make concrete decisions on concrete projects at this meeting, but we will ensure that the working continued with a view to the summit in may. >> secretary general, over the past couple of days, there has been a spat between afghanistan and pakistan over the role of the network in the attack. does nato have any information

over who killed rabani? >> no, we do not have any information. let me stress that it is office that the network is a threat is a threat to the afghan people and our troops in afghanistan. we encourage the pakistani government and military to deal with to deal with the safe havens in the border region. it is obvious that there is cross-border traffic that makes it possible for the haqqani network and other terrorists to operate in afghanistan constituting a clear threat to

our troops and the afghan people. then they go back to save havens in pakistan. it is a matter of common concern. we need a positive engagement of pakistan to address this issue. we need a positive partnership with pakistan in general. >> [speaking french] >> what could nato do to avoid the dissemination of arms in libya? could you confirm there are over 10,000 ground to air missiles that have gone missing in libya? i shall month -- -- >> i shall not comment on issues to do with intelligence. as a rule, any weapon landing in the hands of ill-intentioned

people raises an issue obviously. this issue mostly affects the national transitional council as stated in resolution 2009 of the unscr. the national transitional council must make sure that weapons are secured, under control, or are eliminated in an appropriate fashion. it should strive to reopen the

country to contribute to that effort. as you know, nato's mandate is to protect the civilian population in libya. the allies are in contact with the ntc to address the issue and are monitoring the situation closely. >> i am from readers -- reuters. comment on the current debate in the united states about budgets and the need to trim spending. that has raised the possibility of significant reductions in u.s. force levels in europe in

the future. is that something that will be discussed this week at all? how much of the concern is it to you? you mentioned missile defense. that is one of the areas that people who want to see cuts have been looking at. the other is the tactical nuclear weapons in europe and the programs to refurbish those. how much of the concern is this debate for nato? what are the consequences if there should be significant reductions in troop levels? >> let me stress the u.s. commitment to european and north atlantic security remains as strong as ever. long ago, the u.s. announced its plans for future troop presence in europe. the plans were welcomed by

allies. i consider the decision to develop a nature-based missile defense system -- in a nato- based missile defense system a clear testament to a general commitment to our common security. the united states provides input to the nato-based defense system. european allies provide input. some of them have already announced input. further announcements can be expected in the coming months. i consider missile defense a

very strong signal and a strong commitment to our alliance. let me add to this that in general, we will discuss resources and capabilities at this defense ministers meeting. i have put it on the agenda because of defense ministers are faced with a challenge. they are forced to make deep cuts on defense budgets. we have to find ways and means to acquire the necessary capabilities in the coming years. this is the reason why i have launched the concept of smart defense. >> i am with defense technology international. >> i have not heard the term of the " transformation" used recently. you did not mention it on friday or in your speech today.

has the concept of transformation been replaced by smart defense? if so, it seems as if it is only one element. a couple of years ago, you mentioned eight points in the transformation agenda. has smart defense replaced transformation? the eight points of your transformation agenda was alliance reform. military headquarters seemed to be reduced. i understand there are certain problems with the actual nato headquarters, with the reform of this headquarters. >> first of all, let me stress that we have no problems at this headquarters. i have launched reforms of his headquarters as well.

we are in the processes of reforming this headquarters. for the reforms will follow. transformation is an integrated part of smart defense. we need to transform our armed forces in the direction of more flexibility and mobility. that is part of a smart defense agenda. at the upcoming meeting, we will discuss not only how we ensure necessary resources to acquire the necessary military capabilities, how to spend money more efficiently, but also how to ensure that input is followed by appropriate follow- up. that is the essence of transformation. it is still on the agenda as an integrated part of smart

defense. >> mr. secretary general, it is reported that 10,000 missiles were lost in libya. do you have any information on that? what does nato plan to do to lessen the possible damage? >> we do not comment on specific intelligence matters. in general, it is a matter of concern. if stockpiles of weapons are not appropriately controlled and monitored, it is a matter of concern. this is our responsibility for the new authorities in libya, for the national transitional council. -- this is a responsibility for the new authorities in libya, for the national transitional council. as of 2009, it is the

responsibility of the national transitional council to ensure that stocks of weapons in libya are appropriately controlled and insured. nato has no troops on the ground in libya. we conduct our operations from the air and at sea. individual allies are in contact with the national transitional council to ensure that they address this issue effectively. >> the first question, you said that nato will always use minimum force but also has the

right to self-defense. someone stay did he talk to you announced for a special investigation of violence on the crossings in kosovo. there was a hospital where live ammunition was exacted from the serbs. was it self-defense needed because the to be shot with live bullets instead of rubber bullets? will there be some kind of police on the border? now on the crossings, the situation is tense.

normally it must be the role of the police units or cause of vocalise. or kuntsevo police -- normally it must be the role of the police units or the kosovo police. >> i have received detailed information. they acted in self-defence. i have full confidence in our commanders and troops and the way they have acted. i think they have done a lot during recent months to come down the situation -- calm down the situation in an impartial way of handling the situation. it is important for us that we are there to protect all people in kosovo.

according to our mandate, we are there to maintain a safe and secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. in that respect, we assist. we have an agreement that the point of departure is that we are a third responder. the first responders is kuntsevo police. k4 ax as a third responder. during a crisis like the one we have seen. it has been necessary for it to act as a first responders. we want to return to a more normal situation. it is not our ambition to be

the first responder. that is for other authorities. we will stay and maintain a safe and secure environment. >> i do not see a need for further investigations. i have received information. i have spoken the president. i have offered the service -- serbs information through the usual military generals. >> two questions on smart defense it touches national sovereignty. these questions are very difficult. would you be happy in chicago if the heads of government agreed on one showcase project? or would there have to be more?

who would have command over these, and capabilities? would it be nato under the command of others or would it be a national command? >> as far as the command structure is concerned, it is dependent on how how each arrangement is organized. if we have a common-funded nato project, there is no doubt it will follow the usual chain of command. you may have eight now -- you may have a multinational project for a number of countries pool resources to

acquire specific capability. it will be based on a memorandum of understanding or another document on how exactly the command structure will be organized. if such a capability is offered to nato during a nato operation, it will be a part of the nato command structure. as long as you are speaking about capabilities at the disposal of nato during operations, there is no doubt it will be handled within the nato command structure.

as far as your first question is concerned, you are right that if we embark on specialization were not all allies have all capabilities of their disposal, it may touch upon the question of national sovereignty or raise a number of questions. we should realize that it is a specific challenge to address this. having said that, i think the economic realities will move the agenda forward.

in the future it will simply not be possible from an economic point of view or all allies to have all military assets at their disposal. the only way forward is to cooperate and specialize. it is not a handover of sovereignty. when it comes to defense and security policy, nations will safeguard their national sovereignty for many good reasons. it is about corporation -- cooperation and helping each other. that should be possible within an alliance of friends so that we can help each other without considering it as giving up national sovereignty.

>> [unintelligible] >> you have to wait, klaus. >> a symbolic gesture would be to agree to build up, and capabilities -- to build up, capabilities, that would make you happy because it would be a start? -- is symbolic gesture would be >> the first start has been a report from our allied confirmation. there have been reports with a number of concrete proposals. we would try to provide further

products the could be elements in a comprehensive package to be endorsed at the nato summit in chicago. and to further facilitate the process, i have asked the allied confirmation confirmation, together with our dietary secretary to act as a special on voice. they will engage with allied nations from now until the nato summit in chicago, discuss with our allies how we can develop such multinational promised -- projects. i will not hide the fact that it is a challenging mission.

i do not leave it is the only way forward. if we are to acquire the me necessary capabilities, not only during a time of economic austerity is but also taking into account that there is a tendency that prices, sophisticated military equipment, rises more rapidly than inflation and our gdp. taking all that into consideration, we have to find new ways and means to acquire expensive military equipment in the coming years. >> one final question. >> i am from the italian news agency. if i understand you correctly, it seems you are pretty cold

about the letter that the five member states including italy, france, germany, spain, and poland wrote just two weeks ago proposing projects for a common defense. it is my feeling that you are opposed to these initiatives. can you explain why? what is the main reason you are not for this project? >> first of all, let me stress that i will not interfere with e.u. business it is for the e.u. to make such decisions. i have been asked if we need new headquarters in your. -- europe. i do not think it can be a big surprise that taking into account that we are reforming nato with the aim of reducing headquarters, to reduce the

number of headquarters, to reduce the number of posts, that i would answer that i do not think we need more headquarters. then i have added that i think we need more hardware. that is my point speaking about smart defense. we need to find ways and means to use our resources better in the coming years to acquire necessary military capabilities. on the final note, our mission and operation in the bill has been a great success. -- in libya has been a great success. it has revealed we need critical military capabilities. when it comes to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, it is obvious. still it was a great success, but it has also been a lesson learned on the capability side. in the coming years, we have to

focus investments on acquiring these necessary assets. it is in the context that i stated it is more necessary to spend scarce resources on acquiring these assets in building new headquarters and bureaucracies. thank you. >> we hope to see you all on wednesday at the defense ministers meeting. >> ben bernanke will be on capitol hill tomorrow to talk about the u.s. economic outlook. the labor department will release its jobs report this week. bernanke is testifying before the joint economic committee. live coverage is at 10:00 on c- span. later, the house panel will

examine a program to provide drug trafficking assistance to help fight organized crime in mexico. coverage from the house floor begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> president obama talks about key elements of the economic agenda. he was also asked about the status of pending trade agreements. this took place during a meeting with cabinet members at the white house. >> how do we put america back to work? each of the secretaries has been assigned to look at what we can do to decelerate in job growth over the next several months.

working with the jobs council, working with the private sector, we have been looking for a wide range of ideas we can take. a good example would be accelerating the payments to small businesses so they have better cash flow, trying to figure out ways that we can work in the housing market without congressional action to provide relief for homeowners. ultimately, we still have to have congressional action. it has in several weeks since a set of american jobs act. i want it back. i am ready to sign it. my expectation is that now that we are in the month of october, we will schedule a vote before the end of this month. i will be talking to senator harry reid, mitch mcconnell, as

well as john boehner and nancy pelosi and is -- insist we have a vote. there are some proposals they are interested in which is not surprising since the contents includes proposals that have been supported by republicans and democrats. if there are aspects of the bill they don't like, they should tell us wooded this. they should tell us what they are prepared to see move forward. i cannot imagine any american i have been talking to the does not interested in seeing construction workers back on the job building schools and airports and putting teachers back in the classroom so our kids are getting the best education. and the small businesses have a further incentive to hire.

i am looking forward to seeing congress debate this bill, pass it, get it to my desk so we can start putting hundreds of thousands of americans back to work. i will continue to put as much pressure as i can on my administration and agencies without congress's help. they have to do the right thing for the american people. >> after this meeting, the white house sent those trade agreements to capitol hill. house republicans are going to vote on the next week.

there with south korea and panama. >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor and a governor. though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact remains, serving as a secretary of state and chief justice of the u.s. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new series, the contenders. live on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview, watching number of videos about him at our special website for this series. >> with congress back in session, the house will consider a bill that will keep the government open for another six weeks and the senate is proposing a bill.

watch our live coverage on c- span. use our resources on congress to get more information about your elected officials with the this chronicle including video of the voting records, the daily schedule and more. it is washington, your way. >> former massachusetts governor and presidential candidate mitt romney is evident -- interviewed by an editor. the new hampshire and union leader is one of the largest newspapers in the state. the meeting was held in manchester, new hampshire. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> the reason the lights are on is our friends from c-span are here.

our editorial writer wrote a piece for tomorrow's paper about the new hampshire presidential primary and unlike the sound bites you guys get on these debates on tv, in new hampshire you get to sit down with people, either newspapers or people in a backyard and answer questions at some length to get your perspective across. we have been friends with c-span for several editions of the primary. when they asked to come in, you have graciously agreed. they taped the proceedings. i'm going to let john do most of the heavy lifting. >> c-span is keeping john honest. is that the idea? [laughter] >> i wanted to start out by

saying it is all about jobs and the economy. i want to ask you about military and overseas questions. you say in your book that the u.s. has a total responsibilities, including the responsibility for worldwide humanitarian relief and preventing ethnic cleansing and genocide. why is it the u.s. responsibility to provide those services? >> we would have to look at the book to get the words precisely but i would say our military has missions in those areas. our military has a broad set of missions. they're mostly related to protecting america's interests abroad and at home. but we are called on in

humanitarian roles. >> the tsunami, for instance, to do what no one else can do. i do not believe it is our responsibility alone nor is that a statutory responsibility. it is irresponsibility we, from time to time, assume when we have the capacity to do so. >> the reason i ask is that you devote quite a bit of time in your book to foreign policy and the military. you argue that military spending should be at a minimum, 4% of its gdp. that obama is taking it in another direction. you argue we need 100,000 more army and marine troops alone. as well as sprucing up our nuclear submarine fleet. our question is, in this economic time, how are you going to pay for this?

>> the federal government assumes -- spends 25% of the gdp. under more normal circumstances, if we can bring back phaedrus spending, it will consume 20% of the gdp. to say national defense is going to take 4 points of that 20, is an appropriate investment for a nation that sees a number of threatening forces. we want to maintain a world where sovereign nations have independence. where there are represented the forms of governments. free trade and so forth. that is good for america and good for the world. china has a differing view. they would like to expand into the south china sea. they have their eyes on taiwan. what their objectives might be are uncertain at this point. you have people who have a

dramatic role in terms of what they would like to take over. you have the russians trying to rebuild parts of the old soviet union. they would like to be able to take part of a majority at this juncture. you have a number of dimensions that are threatening the stability of the world and the piece of the world. in that kind of sending to say let's pull back a military strikes me as being a stranger approached. we have iran about to become nuclear. we have pakistan which could become a failed state. it is not a more peaceful place. the trajectory is not in the direction that is comforting. pulling back are military does not make sense. our navy is smaller than it has been at any time since 1917. our air force is smaller and older since 1947 when the air force was established.

our soldiers are on multiple rotations and are stretched thin. we have national guard troops filling in the extensive deployments that would have normally been considered for active duty. you need more troops, more ships, you need a more modern air force. you have to give the chair to our veterans to come home from the conflicts we have just endured and are continuing to endure. that does not suggest there is an opportunity to shrink the military. it should remain 20% of our federal budget. >> are you in favor of a stimulus fund going to pay for the military buildup? >> i am not wild about a stimulus. i supported the concept early on. there was a bush stimulus and

then president obama came along and put in place his stimulus. every republican voted for a republican version of it. today, we are way beyond his stimulus. that was an effort to keep us from going over the waterfall. we already did. we are looking for a dramatic restructuring of their economy to grow from an anti-business approach to a pro-business approach. i am not in favor of a new stimulus but i can say when the last stimulus was crafted, $787 billion borrowed, the fact we did not use any money to provide for armament and our troops, for weapons systems, i find it incomprehensible. we have men and women in afghanistan and iraq been shot weand exposed to ied's and

spend no money protecting them or rebuilding the argument that has been damaged and destroyed? the national guard has to suffer the loss of equipment around the country. in my testimony before congress before a republican group in congress, if there were to be a stimulus, a portion should have gone to modernizing military equipment. that would have stimulated the economy and it is something we're going to have to do anyway. >> you say in your book that united states is the only remaining superpower. how do you define that? what does it take for china to become the next superpower. ? >> what america does is keep bad people in check. it keeps people, those that are not delusional, it keeps them to

say, i had better not attack this person. our nuclear umbrella, for instance, dissuade people from thinking they might have to develop their nuclear capability. or other bad people about using their nuclear capability. american strength is america being a superpower. that helps to preserve peace and stability in the world. can china become a superpower? absolutely. the military buildup in china is at a very rapid rate. it can only be seen in the context of wanting to become a major military power. ultimately, who knows? their forays into latin- american might suggest they

have interest further afield than just the south china sea and the pacific. when you build aircraft carriers, you are looking to project power. do they intend to be a military superpower? absolutely. same with russia. they are modernizing their military. this fell into disrepair. putin has said the collapse of the soviet union was a tragedy. i think he is intent on reversing it. i do not know whether they -- i think they want to become a military powerhouse. the new treaty negotiated is a one-sided document. it places russia in a position of supremacy relative to ourselves.

technical -- tactical weapons, they are way ahead. there are other nations who will attempt to equal or surpass our military capabilities. that is not something should be acceptable. that is one reason why we have to modernize. i am sure you know the number is as well as i. we have gone from a 600 fleet navy down to 28044. we have gone way below that. we're going to go further. that invites adventurism. american strength keeps some bad things from happening. >> what to do you do with this commission in washington which

has a thanksgiving deadline to agree to cuts across the board or there are going to be cuts across the board including serious cuts for the defense department which you are in the house to go and the other way. >> i am very disappointed with the decision to make defense cuts the penalty for the fear of the committee to make a conclusion. the ability of america to protect itself, to keep a malevolent forces from hurting us or hurting our friends is a high priority. to say we're going to put out on the chopping block is a grave mistake. the on secretary of defense said it would gut the u.s. military. at a time of war when we're bringing our troops to afghanistan and iraq, this is a

time of fragility. risk is entering or leaving a theater of conflict. bringing our troops out in a setting where the taliban is still around is a dangerous time. to say we're going to cut our expenditures and we have equipment that has been destroyed in these conflicts, not to replace it would be a serious error. >> i will stay with the theme for a moment, taking our troops out of afghanistan. are you comfortable with the situation of a starting to withdraw? are you comfortable about the jihadists given your view that it is up to us to keep the people in check? >> my view is we have assumed a

responsibility of pushing back the taliban and standing up the afghan military. at some point, they have to take the responsibility themselves to earn and keep their independence from the taliban. it is time for the troops to take that responsibility. we will not stay there protecting their independence forever. the generals that are closest have indicated we can pull back our troops in december 2012. the president moved into september. i think that is a mistake. i think puts our troops in greater danger. it should have been pushed back to december. the rest of our troops come out through 2014. at that point, we think the afghan military is ready to assume responsibility. do i look at that with

confidence? no, there remains risk. there will continue to be a taliban force in afghanistan. at some point the afghans must take that battle themselves. our commanders believe that at that point they will be prepared to be able to shoulder the burden. i have hopes and confidence they will be able to shoulder the burden. >> another potential -- governor rick perry said he would not consider -- would consider sending troops to mexico to do with the drug cartels. >> let's build a fence first and have sufficient agents to protect it. if the mexican government wants us to help with logistics, intelligence, satellite images and so forth, we can provide

that kind of support like we do in colombia where we use our technology to help the colombian government. mexico has its own military. i think it is a bad idea to send american troops into mexico. >> staying with foreign policy, i ran. -- iran. sanctions you would put in place against them. what are the sanctions, and is it realistic that this is going to cause these guys to stop doing what they're doing? >> joe, about five years ago i spoke at the conference in tel aviv and laid out seven steps that i thought we needed to take to dissuade iran from going nuclear. unfortunately, i don't think any of those steps have been taken.

let me tell you three of the most salient of those features. number one was indeed crippling sanctions. economic sanctions, indicting mahmoud ahmadinejad in the genocide convention. it's tough. really go after iran, hurt their economy in a major way. that, in some respects, could have been prevented by votes of russia and china at the security council. and -- but the president had an opportunity to get russia to blink on that. when the president gave russia their number-one foreign policy objective, which was the withdrawal of our missile sites from eastern europe, he could have exacted a price from them. >> that wasn't five years ago. that wasn't president obama. >> i'm talking about president obama. president obama could have exacted that from the russians. did not. that was an opportunity for us to be able to put in crippling

sanctions. and that did not occur. second area, we should have very substantial covert activity in iran to communicate -- by the way, both in a covert way and in a more public way, the peril of becoming a nuclear nation. there is pride on the part of the iranian people at becoming nuclear. on their currency there's a nuclear symbol, they have nuclear day. they're very excited. what people don't understand is if you develop fissile material and it finds its way into the hands of terrorists, the response of america will not just be against the entity that used it, it will also be against the entity and the nation that supplied it. developing fissile material puts us in a circle of suspects you don't want to be in and the people of iran need to understand that. we have to push public opinion

against this nuclear approach. and finally, to concentrate the minds of the leaders in iran, you have to have them legitimately believe that america is considering a military option and has military options, and that we would consider using them, that they're on the table, or even more, they're in our hand. the combination of sanctions, a concerned populace and a strong america, in my view, have the best prospects of getting iran to reconsider their course. >> where are we now? >> we're further down the road. the sanctions -- all three ought to be pursued, but our prospect for success has been diminished by the length of time we've been delayed. . . >> i think finally establish ago clear and understandable -- establishing a clear and understandable military option is something which has to be

carried out. . the palestinians acknowledging israel's right to exist. >> i am not going to tell them what to do. i think the president through the israelis under the bus. if you disagree with your eye like, you do it in private. and public -- if you disagree with your ally, you do it in private. in public, you show support. there is no question about whether there will be a palestinian state. the real question is whether there will be a jewish state.

a leader said, we have no problem with a palestinian state. the question is will they allow israel to exist, and they continue to say no, and in the absence of an agreement that does not just go one way, how in the world can you possibly have stability if there continues to be an ongoing effort on the part of palestinians and their allies to obliterate the right of israel to exist. the idea of putting pressure on israel -- no one is saying, we are with you. we are your allies, we will be with you through thick and thin. never questioned the commitment of the united states to the defense of israel, and if we have suggestions, if we have

negotiating strategies, make , but make sure commo the palestinians understand if they want to make progress dealing with boundaries or anything else, they should do so in speaking with israel, not going to the united nations to try to get around the party directly in front of them. >> whenever you want. >> you wrote a fascinating book, and i actually read it. you acknowledge there is climate change. >> it is probably happening. >> you said in june and it is getting warmer and i believe people contribute to it. it is important to reduce

greenhouse gas but maybe significant contributors. >> i believe it is getting warmer. we contribute to it, but i do not know by how much, so i am not willing to adopt multi trillion dollar programs to reduce greenhouse gases in america of. they do not call it america warming. they call it global warming, and i am post near -- i oppose cap and trade programs. i oppose the imposition of a carbon tax. what i look to do with energy policy is to develop american sources of energy, and those have the byproduct of being less co2 admiting, so if we use natural gas, it is less co2 emiting. in north dakota, there is a

huge asset of this country. my priority in energy policy is to get american energy secure and independent of cartels, so i would aggressively develop oil and gas as well as use our coal resources. ultimately common and nuclear as well, and i like renewable resources, but i am not in favor of sending checks to various solar companies. >> you have said you think we should do these things. how old? how can the federal government do that as opposed to industry? >> the answer is the federal government should allow private industry to do so, so on day one i would direct the secretary to provide licenses to those enterprises of have already been

approved to start getting oil and gas, and i would carry out a nationwide a valuation of our potential for exploration and and what are additional resources might be, and seek to take advantage of those, on shore, offshore, alaska. let's see what energy resources we have and employ those, but this is a private sector issue. letting the private sector have its way with how to get the gas to the power sites better most amenable, -- that are most amenable, this is something the government should not stop. it will happen and now in a speedy way if the government does not stop it, and what is happening with the obama administration is they have

stopped offshore drilling. they have put the brakes on coal. this is an administration that likes solar and wind. we all like solar and wind, but we have to have more, and we need carbon-based fuels, and we have them in this country. markethen the private take care of them and let the government do what it can to provide access to explore and develop these sites. >> do we have any role in funding research, much of the federal government have of role? >> my view is the federal government's role is in basic science. it is not in taking companies that are going to be successful. why do we participate in the

space program, in part because of the science we learn. the federal government participates in the science that the corporations tend not to want to do because they do not know if it will lead anywhere or not, but we as a nation pursues science because it leads to a host of different industries. as to the role of government saying we are believers and are going to build windfarms, that would be a mistake. yousn't and not -- when allow them to find any research, how do you avoid taking winners or losers? >> it is how far you go upstream. when you get to the part of the stream where you are talking about individual corporations, you have shareholders and directors and managers who are

winners and losers, and they get a billion dollar loan, and it is a bonus time, and it is a depressing feature to their competitors. in selecting winners, you are creating a losers as well. if you say, we are going to have a mission to mars to see what the planet is made of, it is hard to say which industry is going to benefit from that. we may learn something about new materials and a source of energy we are not familiar with. i look at basic science and research and funding that at colleges and universities. at the air force base, many have military applications.

that is where we should be funded, not with half a billion dollar loans to individual companies the president favors. >> you talk about how innovation is going to win today, but how does the united states uses global -- how does the united states compete with countries that have if not slave labor van federer -- done very low- paid labor, have no rules whatsoever. you have china hoping to put the american companies out of business, but they are going to have to buy the chinese solar power's to adhere to mandates. you have now multinational companies that are no longer base in the united states.

with a country of 260 million people who have good jobs and have seen them go offshore, how are you going to compete? how is innovation in tax policy going to help us compete? >> the good news is we are competing and we are a highly successful economy. we continue to lead the world in innovation. others are gaining on us. >> you make the point that most of the students in america getting the patent are going home. >> we are the most productive nation in the world per person, so we have a lot going. we have the best universities, the best science.

what we are doing is making ourselves and less competitive. what is happening is we are burdening the private economy so businesses and enterprises are saying, i am going to go elsewhere. it is not a they have a brilliant tax accountant. now they have their businesses out of the country. they have left america, and that is happening across this country. i was speaking to the head of zero large chemical company. we build outside the u.s. more and more. he said, that is governmental

costs. they put a huge burden on us. now i said, if those were gone, could we be competitive? absolutely. they have a facility in china and the united states. i said, can they keep up? we are more innovative and able to keep up with the chinese factory. if we can get the government to stop being a burden to the private sector, america can compete that is part one. no. 2, stop people from cheating, and china is so smart they have been cheating for some

time, and we sit there smiling insane and we like free trade, but as the it -- smiling and saying we like free trade, but if the other guy is she doing, -- is cheating, they cannot manipulate our currency. they hold our prices low the market price. >> you say we should be tough with them, but what does that do? >> by bringing in action against some, there is a provision you cannot use policies to circumvent trade, so bringing an action in addition to saying they are currency manipulators, and applying tariffs to clients

that have stolen intellectual property. we cannot keep talking about this. china has to recognize we will not continue to allow our manufacturing base to be hollowed out by people who are cheating. >> you said you do not have great faith in the world trade organization's ability, sir you present your case, and you lose. >> that is a multi-party case. no. 2 isn't new labeling them a currency manipulator, and -- #2 is labeling them a currency manipulator, which i would do, and i would not wait for the wto, because whoever wrote the book is right. they did not deal as explicitly with currency manipulation as they should have to. look at what is happening in europe. when you thank nation region

when you link a nation like that is with greasece, like china. china has lot of their currency with us. they are paying people 50 cents an hour. the price of goods are exceptionally low. now you have to let those prices low, and then we are more competitive. >> labeling them a currency manipulator, i do not care what you call them. ofay the terrorists's chance success -- chance oftarriff's success -- >> i saw a letter saying, please label them a currency manipulator. we cannot continue to allow them to have free access to our market when they are officially

pegged their prices sometimes 50% lower than they otherwise would be. i spent 25 years in the business world competing with businesses across the world. i know what it takes for businesses to succeed. the president is wrong. they are soft on him, but america is strong, capable, highly competitive, ready to be led, but i know what it takes to get america competitive. you cannot have china sheeting and long-term have the kind of vitality in each of our sectors that we can. perhaps you have got him pretty

good for allowing illegal immigrant kids in texas to get the in state college tuition rates. he has got you pretty good for your massachusetts health care. both of you say, what texas wants to do is up to texas. you say, what massachusetts wants to do is massachusetts business. on the mexican standoff, aren't you both saying the same thing? >> out as a starting point, but you have to go to the merits, and states have the right to create their own plans, and in the case of obamacare, he violated the 10th amendment responsibility of states caring

for their own accord. that is one slightly significant difference, but there is more. with regards to granting tuition to illegal immigrants, that is a mistake. we are not talking about a handful of people. there are 16,000 illegal immigrants getting in state tuition rates. >> it was cited as a fraction of 1%. >> 16,000 people. we are talking about a substantial investment by taxpayers common and and people could decide whether they like it or not.

the individual mandate for people who could afford did not go to me. i test our plan was quite different than what the president did. i joked his is a wolf in sheep's clothing and his most of not quite fit. we had 8% that were uninsured, so we wanted to get them in sure. the president's plan is taking over 100% of health care, and that is the big difference between the two. rss some modest plan dealing with the other 82 -- ours is a

modest plan dealing with the other. >> in texas, he said the policy is to let those kids have in- state tuition. in your book, you argue we have to educate the kids. if you were in texas, what would your policy the relative to the illegal immigrant kids in college classes in texas? they should pay out of state tuition? they should be thrown out of the country? what should happen to them? >> the first round is if they want to go to college in texas, they could apply for a visa to be here illegally and go to college. we provide college visas for people around the world, and

there is no reason they would not be able to obtain a visa. people come into college to get education visas, and if they are going to school, they should be treated like anyone else from a foreign country who comes here, and that is they pay the full tuition. and why it is taxpayers are going to give people a break to have been in the state illegally for three years strikes me as creating a magnet that draws people into the state. isn't it like amnesty. we have learned you create an incentive for people to come in again. you have a lot of people saying, let's go to the united states and get that break. it is different from in

massachusetts. there were a enough democrats to join with my 12% republicans. if we are going to give tuition breaks to kids, let's give it to our own kids and kids' in surrounding states. >> in the state of texas, the voters of legislation and government said something different. >> i am not sure it is the voters. >> it happened sometime ago, and they have not overturned it. >> i have no question whether a state can do something i disagree with, but as to the merits, i took a different course. i am not arguing with the 10th amendment rights. to say people here illegally are going to get a break relative to

u.s. students -- u.s. citizens is wrong. >> you said on hannity's program last week regarding the massachusetts mandate, people have responsibility of caring for themselves if they can. wouldn't that lend itself to government at the state level being able to say, you have to go to the dentist twice a year? you have to do other things to take care of yourself if you are financially able to. >> there is a federal law that requires hospitals and states to care for people whether or not they have the ability to care for themselves, so you are required to provide this care for each other. we were spending hundreds of millions of dollars giving out care to people, many of whom were perfectly able to take care

of themselves, and in a circumstance where we rely on the federal government to provide something for free when they have the ability to care for themselves, it would be what i am describing. there are people who say, i expect the government and to feed me. if you can feed yourself, you cannot expect the government to give you free food. what is unusual about health is that an individual says, and i am well, but if i fall into a coma or get cancer or heart attack, the cost of the treatment is so much larger than my ability to pay, i cannot pay unless i have insurance to cover the debt burden. >> there is a lot of chatter

going on in the mainstream media about some of the goings on with the debates, including questions with a soldier in afghanistan and iraq who happened to be gay. now did you hear the question and answer with this guy? >> i heard the question and answer. you are concentrating on the people and what they are going to say. >> it was audible to the home from people in the audience, and i could not silence whether you could hear it, and if you did, what was your reaction? >> i will tell you there has been a lot of doing -- booing

and applause, some of which i do not agree with. i have not made it my practice to school one person or say i disagree, because it throws a lot of directions. >> they did it as soon as he identified himself as gaiy. >> i do not know why, but i will tell you boos and applause do not always coincide with my own views, but i have not stepped in to say this one is right and this one is wrong, but i focus on what i should say. >> herman cain was asked about it, and he said, he should have to criticize whoever was booing in the audience. >> i understand.

there were people who cheered when the statement was made in the reagan library that to enter people have been executed in texas. i do not know if cheering for executions is something i would agree with. i have not needed my practice to listen to the cheers and boos and correct people on the expression of their views. >> we discussed earlier presidential primary calendars. not that you or the other candidates could do anything about it like say anybody who goes before the republican committee calendar that was set out, we are not going to participate in anything in your

state. if you have all the candidates doing that, i imagine it could do something to dissuade some of those states to maybe go a little bit later in the cycle. >> i do not know if i want to be involved in the entire calendar other than expressing my view and commitment to a process of has iowa as the first caucus and new hampshire as the first primary. i want delegates from all 50 states. i will try and a friend -- and offend no state. that is a joke, for the record, but i will agree with the

process and new moves to new hampshire's primary, and there may be other things that i would think are sacrosanct, but those two are important to me, and the reason is not a vicos everyone in iowa and new hampshire are special, but we have tested this overtime and found the people in both of those states to be highly attentive, to attend meetings, ask tough questions, and it is a tribute to these states but such attention is paid to the process, and i think it makes sense to follow that course. price we were close to it for years ago, and it must frustrate you. your campaigns must take that

into account. you get the message out differently? is there any suspension, or do you buy everyone i get? is your christmas card ready? >> by christmas card is not ready, but we picked the picture. now getting all 28 of us to look ok, the first thing is, how does maslow -- mom look. my guess is whether you had the primary on january 2 or january 12 or january 15, the christmas and new year's are going to be busy times without much time off. if it all started in march, that might be different, but in

january we will all be campaigning hard in the holiday season. >> when you came in, you noted the teddy roosevelt picture of there. we have 15 cabinet departments now, and you see any opportunities for savings or a efficiency's? >> it is not just the extra six or seven people are around the table. associated with them are tens of thousands of workers who find things they need to do to improve america, and it becomes overwhelming to the private sector. that is why we are going to have to take some of these agencies and streamline them dramatically, maybe combine them, but just streamline them.

i believe at least a 10% employment reduction in the government is something that is called for. i think that will result in savings of a budgetary nature but also savings to the economy, and there are a lot of candidates in the department of energy, department of education. the department of housing, the department of congress. the department of energy was formed to get america independent. the agency is now tens of thousands of people. this does not make sense to me, so a lot of those agencies have become a lot smaller. will there be interest on the part of the federal government

in energy? of course, but as an agency that is under the department of commerce, that is something i would undertake, of fulton re- evaluation of how we organize the federal government. i think bringing in the best minds to say, how do we stream line and reorganize for the 21st century, it makes sense. >> what would be your view of the new federal role for education? i know you have said it should be on a state-by-state basis. what core areas are federal responsibility in k-12 public education? >> responsability would be providing information to the state, but the federal government being the founder of

education is not a necessary response ability of the federal government. that is a choice we can make, but it does not strike me as necessarily a responsibility of the federal government to take on funding matters, but we have begun picking up some portion of education funding, and i am not proposing a eliminating that or shifting that, but it is certainly not the federal government responsibility. i think the federal government was wise to stand up to the teachers' unions. we have national unions, and president bush said it is hard for states to stand and up to these national unions, and i am going to use these federal

governments, and he insisted on testing of kids of the local level. i think that is something that needed to be done. not there, hey was ran from it. there is a lot of no child left behind that does not work and needs to be shifted, but the principle of insisting on testing in schools was a step that needed to be taken. at the current stage, if arnie duncan is going to encourage states to have more charter schools and to employ merit pay, i would say it is a good thing. when democrats stand up to the teachers' unions, we have to say good. teachers' unions are trying to pretend this is a republican verses democrat issue. some of what army dunkin is

doing i disagree with. he is also trying to promote a nationwide curriculum. i think that is a mistake. i think the states should craft their own curriculum, but when and if he does some things i agree with, i will point that out. by the way, the school choice options closing in washington, d.c., what a terrible decision by this administration, "a good, the bad, the ugly." >> last week the president ordered an air strike in yemen, and he got to the new american citizens. what are your thoughts? was it appropriate? >> it is appropriate. when someone is engaged in treasonous behavior and has aligned with the force but has declared war with the united states of america and is an

enemy combatants, then we have every right to fire upon them as they have fired upon us. >> i have a question. you are a fairly well off individual. why should it be that effectively warren buffett's secretary or your secretary pays more in taxes than warren buffet or yoon do? >> i would like to do a test to see if that is the case. i am not worried about warren buffett says taxes or my taxes. what i am worried about is we do not now taxed job creators and engage in a brand of class warfare. this is a time that a lot of

people are upset for a good reason. the president's failure has resulted in tens of thousands of people out of work and engaging in a class warfare is dangerous , and it is counterproductive. we need americans pulling together, not pointing fingers. if i become president of the united states, i will not agree to a program that reduces the tax burden paid by the top 1%. i am not looking to lower the tax burden paid by the top 1% of taxpayers, but i am also not looking to single out success and try to tax it or somehow suggest that steve jobs or bill gates or warren buffett need to

be punished in some way. >> often has not shown his tax returns -- buffett has not shown his tax returns, but if what he is saying is true, it is coming from capital gains, and the associated press has said that obama and a buffet are incorrect in saying the average millionaire is paying less than the average middle-class person. >> the percentage. the highest quarter pays 20%. the next highest is about the same. the whole inquiry to say who is paying how much, and let's get some more from these people is seen by those that are job

creators as being an attack on business, an attack on investment. this is not the time to be talking about raising taxes. this is a time to talk about investing in america. you have record levels of cash on corporate balance sheets in america. thanks with a lot of cash. corporations are not investing in america, and we can engage in talk of punishing them, or we can talk about how we can make it attractive to invest in america and create more jobs. it's people's priority is finding someone to take from and give to someone else, they should vote for democrats. if their priority is having good jobs and investing in america, they should vote for me. i am not looking for someone to scapegoat.

this president of's presidency so far has been about demonizing and scapegoating fellow americans, and that is not something i am going to subscribe to. >> would you also close the loopholes to corporations, as you did in massachusetts? >> the definition of loopholes is important, because people use that term loosely it is where someone has found a provision of the tax code, and they employ that in a way that is not intended by the legislation. it is an unintended advantage for an individual or a corporation. they are calling something a real estate investment trust, which is not at all, and they say, you cannot continue to do that, and any time someone distorts the tax code for gain, i would say, i would try to close the loopholes. there are other advantages given

to corporations or individuals. we give people the right to deduct their mortgage interest. that is not -- that is something given by congress. that is not a loophole. if we eliminated that, that would not be closing a loophole. that would be eliminating the deduction, so my answer is, i am not going to be increasing taxes, but i would love to see if people are taking advantage. when i came in, the biggest loophole my commissioner of revenue found, and he was a former accountant -- he said, you have names that are putting

some of their assets into these entities they are calling real estate trust, and they are pretending to be real estate trust, and they are not. i said, that does not make sense. a bank is a bank, so we close that loophole. i am sure there were others. that is the biggest one that was very different to provide a special opportunity to real estate in massachusetts. >> you attempted now an effort were people who buy fuel- efficient cars have lower tax rates and people who bought less fuel-efficient cars. is that something you would support at the federal level? >> i have not thought about that at the federal level. that was a sales tax, so we basically reduced the sales tax.

we did not add a tax to people who had fuel inefficient cars. we just added a break. we also have a break if it was an american-made car. some of those things you could do of the state level you would not be able to get away with at the federal level. it was encouraging people to be more fuel efficient. we do not charge a sales tax of the federal level. >> you can get subsidies if you buy fuel-efficient cars and so forth. a is a similar goal. >> should i let you reload th? i will consider policy related

to energy efficiency. i think right now we are using mandates to try and guide this. i would prefer a market- regulated approach. do we create incentives and not through market mechanisms hamas precisely how to do that, i do not have an -- create incentives not through market mechanisms? i do not know precisely how to do this. >> i was ready to go. >> i saw a bmw and a renault like that, single white vehicles, but how to encourage more energy efficiency in a market way as opposed to government mandates is a question i will explore, but

sales tax rebates would not work out a federal level. >> you have been consistently ahead of president obama in many polls, but they appear to be searching for someone else. right now it is a love affair with chris christie. how you feel about that? how you feel that there appears to be some second thoughts about you? how you let the republicans know you are the real thing? >> that is nothing particularly

unusual. four years ago, polls were all over the place. john mccain was third or fourth, and we have other people higher, so it is a natural part of the political process for it to be open for a few weeks. i think it is so critical to replace her rocker obama and return america to a posture of economic greatness and -- to replace barack obama and return america to ' of economic greatness, but the american people want to take a look of the candidates and to test them well. they want to look at a track record. they want to look at what it is obama would use against them, so the fact that people want to take a careful look, i would say of course. this is really important common and and we have to have a candidate who can beat him, because rob obama is extraordinarily effective at

rhetoric and -- barack obama is extraordinarily effective at rhetoric. what he says and what he does are different things, and we are going to have to have someone explain why it is that raising taxes on certain individuals or businesses is actually going to kill jobs, and this is a fight for the future of america. this is not just to is going to build a better school. it is who is going to preserve america, because this nation is under extraordinary threat, with iran about to become nuclear. if iran becomes nuclear, saudi arabia and egypt, and others will, too. it has a way of finding a way into the hands of bad people. replacing this president is essential, and having a person

that has the strength of character, a resume, and the capacity to remove this president and get the country back on track is so important i salute the american people giving this a zeroth look. >> gov. terry famously referred to social security as a ponzi scheme, and you criticized him for that, but in your policy you compared it to bank fraud. how is your idea more legitimate than his? >> i said congress taking money out of the social security trust fund is like a criminal activity. that is a different thing. congress took money out of the trust fund and used it for spending. if that had been done in the private sector, you would be in trouble. that is very different from saying social security is a ponzi scheme. a ponzi scheme is created for

someone to get richer at the expense of someone else. that is not what social security is. to the numbers not work, is it going to be technically a bankrupt? yes, so the foundation is severely in jeopardy, and it needs to be fixed and made sustainable, but that is very different from saying it is a ponzi scheme. i do not know who the great beneficiary of the ponzi scheme is, so who got rich from this program? >> wouldn't you say the government got rich from skimming money off of program? >> the government has to replace the money, so is it a ponzi scheme by the government? that is very simple. the government could have just taken the money out of the treasury, so i do not think the

government has gotten rich. the government has a responsibility to pay this down the road. it is more debt on the federal balance sheet. >> this guy has to write a story. >> can i help you with that? >> we thank you very much for your time. thanks for sticking up for new hampshire. >> good to see you again. thanks for having me. are you taking any notes? good. h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> there we go.

>> good tuesday do. -- good to see you. congratulations. >> i want your endorsement. but i want your help. this is important. as you know.

>> you go to the one institution that is the purchaser of last resort. and that is the government. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] right now when you have 25 million americans looking for for com wo full time work. right now when you have an infrastructure, roads, bridges, public transportation, school buildings, when you have all of the crumbling because of deferred maintenance. and right now with interest

treasury a 10-7yeayear bill under 2% making it so cheap for the u.s. to borrow. put those three dots together and anyone with half a brain understand that no is the time to borrow, to put americans to work rebuilding america. [applause] but apparently, there are not enough people in washington in power with even half a brain. i mean, i could go on with the lie. social security is the biggest problem for the budget? come on. social security is rising in the out years, but is not a ponzi scheme. i used to be a trustee of the social security trust fund.

social security is fine for the next 26 years. it will be fine for a century if you lifted the ceiling on the proportion of income subjected to social security taxes. they, the regressive forces in america, they say medicare has to be cut. medicare is the big problem in terms of the the debt. wrong. medicare is not the problem. in terms of administrative costs of medicare relative to private insurance, medicare is the solution. alaact, i'll tell you, medicare to use its bargaining leverage -- allow medicare to use as bargaining leverage to lower prices, let medicare use as bargaining leverage to move from of fee-for-service system to a fee for healthy outcome system, and we actually control

medical costs and give good results for every american. we need medicare. we need medicare for all. [applause] and you have some people on the extreme right, the regressive forces, they say, believe me, they say corporations are people. the supreme court in one of the worst decisions in history. it is right up there with up dredd scott, bush v. gore and plessy v. ferguson. in citizens united, the supreme court says corporations are

people entitled to first amendment rights? corporations are legal fictions, my friends. they are legal fictions. i'll believe a corporation is a person when texas and georgia start executing corporations. [no audio] [applause] [applause] in fact, even then, i am not sure i will believe the verdict. you see, a lot of those on the right say the budget deficit is the most important thing we can do with right now. no. the biggest crisis we have in america right now, the biggest crisis since the great

depression is not the budget deficit. it's jobs and wages. jobs and wages. and let me tell you the logic of this, because there is a logic behind what i am saying. you see, the real issue in the is years, yeraars from now, the ratio of the debt to the total economy. debt versus gdp. the only way you get the ratio down is to build the economy, build jobs. that is step number one. if you do not do that, it gets worse and worse and worse . before his start cutting, and doing anything with regard to the budget deficit, what you need to do number one is jobs and wages and growth. that is what you have to get done first. and we have to spread that understanding, because -- the president says it is a matter of math.

and it is a matter of math. but it is also a matter of morals. you know, right now 37% of families with young children in america are in poverty. that is the highest percentage we've seen since records have been kept. 37% of americans families with young children are in poverty. and yet, we have now at the top 1%, raking in over 20% of total national income per year, that is higher than it has been since 1928. and we've got the top 1% with 35% of total wealth in this

country. that is the highest it has been since 1922. you see with the radical right, the regressive forces, d.c. where they are doing, where they want to take the steps they want to take this back to the 1920's theback to the 18 eighties80's, gilded age, or back to the stone age. and we cannot let them. the weapon they are using is not just the big lie. the weapon they are using is also demoralization and cynicism. in other words, i cannot tell you how many people come up to me because i am sure in pretty obvious, people do i do not know, to me in airports and they say, you were what's your name,

george stephanopoulos. they cannot remember. but they looked at me and they know i was part of the clinton administration. and they say, is not it awful? or they say to me, how will we survive, how will we make it? or on streets they come up and they say, my family is really hurting. or they say, have you ever seen anything this bad? and after tens or 20s or hundreds of people come up to me like this, i tell you if it can get a little bit demoralizing. but the worst thing is when people say nothing can be done. but when people say nothing can be done, when they are so cynical about the ability to change the direction of the country, then we know the other side has won. their number one weapon is to so

discredit government, so discredit the capacity of us working together through the institutions of government given to us by the constitution and the founding fathers, so discredit them, whether it is lies about weapons of mass thetruction or it's response to katrina, or it's a huge fiasco over raising the debt limit. it should not have even been an issue. you see, it paints at all in america's mind as a fiasco. government does not work any longer. government is for the big guys. it is for the powerful and privileged. i no longer have any say. and that is demoralization, and that is cynicism. that is their biggest weapon because if people really believe that nothing can change and they can have no part in changing it, then that is a self-fulfilling

prophecy. and that is why so much of what we do, so much of what you do, so much of taking back the american dream is taking back our power and confidence in that power. you see, right now, there are demonstrations all over this country on wall street. 70 other cities. and you know -- [applause] if you listen to the media, first of all, most of the media are not even playing it. but if they are, what are they saying? well, this is a movement. there is no direction. there is no head. they do not have a plan. let me tell you something. these demonstrations are the small tip of an iceberg.

they are an iceberg of discontent. and i say, demonstrate like mad. because that wakes up others to the possibility of change. now, when barack obama was elected, i was one of those who supported him and i was delighted. i could not believe it. i had a meeting of his advisers shortly after he was elected. he walked in the room, and i could barely contain myself. everybody he walked around, all of his advisers, shook their hands and came to me. and i actually started crying. i felt like such an asshole. i mean, here is the new president of the united states and i was a blithering idiot.

but i was crying because of him. and i was also crying because a black man had become president of the united states. [applause] >> yeah, thank you. >> and like many of you, i am not content. i wish he had done much more. i do not like the fact that he has compromised or try to compromise with the other side, because there is no compromising with the other side, but let me tell you this -- i have been in washington and of to know that you can have the best people here, but if people outside washington are not organized and mobilized and energized in a continuing basis, nothing good happens here. we, we, we.

when all those people come up to me and say, it is awful what is going on in washington. you know what i say back? i say, what are you doing about it? what are you doing about it? because i think that some of us, many of us, have let president obama down. i think that if we were more, and if we are in the future after today, more mobilized and energized and better organized and pushing harder, we will get what americans need to get, and that is the heart of taking back the american dream. now, i've got one more thing to say and then i will turn it over to you and your questions. you want me to continue on? >> yeah. >> no. i've got one more thing to say

in this is important. remember when i opened by talking about the progressive forces and the regressive forces in america, and how the progressive forces always win? well, my first entre into politics, or at least the key thing that propelled me personally into a life of politics and writing and education and making a ruckus and doing whatever i could happened during the civil rights movement. you see, i was always very short. let me confess this to you. and so, as a kid, i would get beat up a lot by the big kids. it wasn't fun, getting beat up at the bus stop.

here is what i did. i made alliances with some of the big fellows, who would protect me. i had a protection racket. and i made alliances, and some of them were older, but that all cared about me, and they also did not want the belize to prevail -- the bullies to prevail. in the summer of 1964, one of my protectors, one of my wonderful protectors named mickey, he was down registering voters in the south, and the the sheriff of the county and others took mickey out of his car and two others, one black and white, the

three of them took the three of them and torture them and murdered them. and when the man who had been my my protector from the bullies was tortured and killed by the bullies, who wanted to prevent black people from voting, i said to myself the most important thing any of us can do is to protect the powerless and to make sure that the people with power, the people with privilege were not going to use their power and privilege to bully anybody and to give ordinary, working people and the port a

voice so there would not be bullied ever again. and that -- [applause] but here is where my , but it comes from. -- my companies comes from. the progressive forces. what happened in the civil- rights struggle and the anti vietnam struggle? what happened? the darkest days in the 1950's with regard to mccarthyism and the blacklist. what happened with regard to the great depression and the second world war? every time this country has really been challenged, every time the regressive forces looked like they are going to win, the progressive forces rally.

that has been the history. that is the history of the united states, history two steps for, one step back. history of progressive forces fighting regressive forces but ultimately winning out because americans in their hearts are not just progressive, but they are sensible. if they understand the truth, and that is a big if, but it is more or when, when they understand the truth we roll up our sleeves and get on with what has to be done. this terrible jobs and wage depression, and it is a depression, continues for most americans. there is a small group that does not want to do anything about it, that rejects any common- sense solutions, that just says no. the naybobs of negativism.

what americans are not going to understand -- to stand for it. we are going to say to those with power and privilege, no more bullying. thank you. [applause] >> no more bullies! no more bullies! no more bullies! no more bullies! no more bullies! >> ok. >> freedom plaza. be there october 6.

>> so now, it is time for your questions. now your speeches. of aee, when i'm in front wonderful group of people like you, you of a lot to say, but if we want to have time for your questions and my answers, we have to say no speeches. is that ok with you? ok. and i apologize in advance. so we are going to have questions, just questions and those speeches and then answers. if i do not answer your question, i will make a question and answer that. and i will repeat your question. let's start with this gentleman right here. >> [no audi[inaudible] a filibuster. >> can i tell you how -- ?

how to get the bullies out of the filibuster. one of the things that has to be done is to get rid of the filibuster altogether. the founding fathers did not put the filibuster in the constitution. there was no provision that says you have to have 60 votes in the senate in order to get anything through. there is no provision in the constitution that says the people in the house of representatives can threaten to close government down and even threaten the full faith and credit of the united states if they do not get their way. the founding fathers did not contemplate that. let's get back. you want to be conservative? you want to be really conservative and go back to the founding fathers, then go back there and let's have a real democracy. by the way, unfortunately, the

founding fathers did not contemplate the kind of democracy we should have in every respect. yes. what can we do about citizens united was the question. here is what we can do about citizens united. we can dedicate ourselves to making sure that when one of those five justices who voted for the outrageous citizens united case retires or leaves or dies that he or she is replaced -- he is replaced with somebody who is absolutely committed to overturning or overruling citizens united. and that means at the very least, it means definitely we obama have brought the baarack

president of the united states so he can make sure that we have decent supreme court justices in there. yes? >> [inaudible] >> how we get decent people to run for office so that we can get these jerks, that was what you said, out of there? look, how many of you have run for office? how many of you have run for political office? keep your hands up, and let everybody else applaud the people who have run for office. [applause] it is no fun in most cases to run for office. it is very hard. i ran for governor of massachusetts in 2002. had i, out of six democratic candidates, i came in second. if i had one, i would run against the republican nominee

who was mitt romney. i would've whipped his ass. and if he becomes president, i have nobody but me to blame. but let me tell you something seriously, i have been around politicians my whole life, but i learned by doing that, to respect politicians much, much more. anybody who runs for office knows how difficult it is. you've got to kiss ass. you've got -- a lot of it. you've got to raise money. you've got to really deal with people who are very demanding, and you have to explain reality in ways where the burden of proof is against you, because they are saying why should i vote for you? and when people are scared, and

this is true now, when people are scared, they are fertile ground for demagogues who want to come along and use the politics of resentment to blame scapegoats, to blame immigrants, to blame the poor, to blame minorities, to blame foreigners, the french? remember that? to blame unionized workers, to blame government workers, to blame public workers. so i say to you, run. do it again. keep -- you were in your fourth term? where are you in your fourth term? new hampshire house of

representatives. that is marvelous. [applause] by the way, i spent many of my formative years in new hampshire. new hampshire house of representatives is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world. it is the only state where every family has a representative. [laughter] that's not true. other questions. >> so everybody will be able to. . >> i am crazy cake from kansas and i wanted to go back, i wanted to go back to kansas and really hit the ground running with my group of moveon community. what do you recommended should be our top priority right now in the economics, and the jobs? what would you do? >> i think the top priority in

the short term is to get the jobs bill enacted. that is the number one short-term priority, but right behind that is to create enough pressure, and of organizing, mobilizing, energizing of the base. we are talking about the democratic or progress of days or americans overall as a base to get a bigger jobs bill, a more powerful jobs bill, and also to avoid some of the crazy cuts that are going to happen. what is going to happen now? you have a super committee. that is going to report back in not that many weeks. if it comes up with cuts, you know a lot of those cuts will be in domestic, non-defense discretionary spending. and even if they do not agree, the automatic trigger is going to trigger cuts in non-defense domestic discretionary.

i ask you, i said before, 37% of american families with young children are in poverty. where are the federal programs that help that 37% in non- defense domestic discretionary? and i have not even said anything about the state cuts and the local cuts. it is like a cascade down word of cuts. what is happening at the local level, you know. you know what is happening. teachers being fired. school is being shortened. social workers being fired. family services being cut. why? local governments cannot do it. they are not getting any aid from the state. the states say they are not getting help from the federal government. that cascade down word is not being told, that story is not being told. you need to tell the story. yes, sir. >> is it on?

ok. i'm david cooper of michigan. professor, only i teach philosophy. i need data. you talk about scapegoats. i get so many students to tell me they are tired of welfare mothers getting all of this help, when in the upper peninsula they are struggling for jobs. they are scapegoatsing. you have the data earlier on the transfer of wealth since the reagan era, the 1%. do you have data on what it has been like for welfare mothers in that same period of time? happened, evers since so-called welfare reform in 1996, we had our replacement of welfare reform, so-called, with a five-year, lifetime entitlement.

five-year lifetime. that is ok as long as you did not have a lot of big, long recessions, but what we are now seeing is that a lot of those people who are very poor in our society are exhausting that five year lifetime because the great recession is actually a great depression, andepressige that started in about 2008 for most people. it is now 2011. 8, 9, 10, 11. you see how many people are getting to the end? here is another related issue. employment benefits, unemployment benefits. too many people rely on. unemployment benefits at best reach 40% of the unemployed. you see, 60% of the people of those that lost their jobs do not get any unemployment

benefits at all. in congress, they are saying they do not want to extend unemployment benefits. i talked to radical conservatives and they said we will not extend unemployment benefits because people would rather stay not working than there woodworking. when there are five, actually is 4.3 people looking for work for every job opening, how can you say that if you extend unemployment benefits you are going to encourage people not to work? right now, the safety nets of america are torn and shredded. at a time when we need them to be strong and solid more than ever before. and so one of the additional things to organize a round is to make sure that when people fallout, and a lot of people are falling out right now. it is the middle class, everybody is falling through the cracks. make sure there is enough of a safety net there so they can bounce back. this is critically important and

it is good for the economy. this is not just a matter of generosity. because if they do not have any money in their pockets, they cannot buy food and clothing and everything else they need to buy to keep the private sector going. and to keep jobs. you see, we are all in it together. >> that's right. >> other? yes? there's a queue, a line. i didn't see you. for yours so mcuuch passion and your heart this afternoon. [applause] we all it's vital that leave here with a common message that which conservatives have had since goldwater -- reducing government, government is bad. i would like to try i knew

something i have been thinking about, and please give me your understanding on framing. and my frame is the common good versus corporate greed or the public good, that which we paid for with their taxes versus private greed. >> another way of saying that is something that al gore said in the last month of his campaign in 2000. you know al gore, the person who won the presidential election in 2000? and in that last month, his ratings started to go up because he started to talk about a reality that many people understood in the depths of their being, and that is the people versus the powerful. the people versus the powerful. it is nothing wrong in having a

lot of money in this country, but there is a lot of wrong and abusing that money. looking see, if you're for a way of framing, another way of saying it is they, the regressive forces, they really envisioned america as a society in which each person is on his own or her own. but in reality, we are all in it together. even the very rich would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than they would with a large share of an economy that is dead in the water. we knew this as a country. people tend to come up to me and say, wait a minute. what country would you recommend we emulate? people always think i will say sweden or denmark or they will sneer. but you know what i say to them

in all sincerity? i say, we emulate the united states between 1946 and 1978. that was an economy that grew for everybody. it was an economy and a society in which we actively sought to expand for prosperity. in which we struggle for equal opportunity for all people regardless of their race or their creed or their sexual orientation or their gender. it was a society in which as productivity went up, everybody's wages went up. there is a lot wrong, but we tried to mend it. then what happened in 1980 -- 1982, productivity continued to go up, but wages flat and. and what happened to all the money? it went to the top. what happened to all the power?

it went with the money. that is the simple interest rate. other questions. oh, we still have a queue there. >> what do think about combining two of the proposals we haircare, which is the curb wall street by a transaction tax with the rebuild america which is where we need to spend money, because as you know if you do not have a dedicated revenue stream in government it goes away. and part of that is what do think about getting the congress off the hook for raising our taxes by putting it as a national referendum? >> first of all, let me say something login clearly, and i want you to remember this. the other side, regressive forces, want to spread a

mythology that we are a poor nation. the reality is we are rich nation. we are the richest country in the world. we are richer than we have ever been in our history. the idea that we are pork, that we cannot afford to do what we must do for our poor or middle class in terms of education and infrastructure, the idea that we have to sit back and allow people to have as much pain as they are in during in this great recession, this jobs depression, is absurd. it is immoral and scandalous. so do not fall for the idea that we are poor. the second thing in terms of how to be paid for? oh, yes. a small 1/2 of 1% financial transaction tax would generate $200 billion a year.

europe is doing it. they are moving towards a transaction tax. they say, and the europeans agree, they say we are in trouble financially, and we are in trouble financially in part because we bailed out the big banks. and so is appropriate that we have a small transaction tax. it is a rounding error. 1/2 of 1%. wall street would not even see it. it would generate $200 billion a year. let's dedicate that towards rebuilding america. there is something else that we could easily do if we had the political will to do it, and that is a 2% surcharge on wealth over $7 million. 2% surcharge on well over $7 million. we're not talking about the average person here.

i want to make that clear. we are talking about the people who are not even the top .5%. sa 2% surcharge would yield $70 billion per year. can you imagine what that would do for schools? le, for young peopole the future of america? yes, we can afford it. it is not a question of affordability. it is a question of will and organizing and it is a question of making sure the american people know the truth. thank you. [applause] >> time for just one more question. >> what did she? we have time for one more question. let me ask you. this is a personal favor, since it is the last question. i want a doozy of a question.

i do not want to put you on the spot. but i want a question that enables me to summarize -- [laughter] everything i have said and provide a kind of a rhetorical expression of just rousing spirit, but you have to ask the right question. again, no pressure at all. go ahead. >> nice try. what can we do ourselves to genuinely help small businesses, because we do not? >> why is it you can hear and i can't? oh, what can we do to help small businesses create jobs? >> and force the government to, too. >> ok. look, one of the conditions that

should of been laid down at the feet of wall street when we built the wall street, one of those conditions should have any you help families reorganize their mortgages. number two, you make sure there is enough lending to small businesses so small businesses can expand. number three, you make sure that you wall street as a condition for getting this money agreed to resident -- resurrecting the glass-steagal act, separating investment from commercial banking. [applause] small banks and small businesses in america are in trouble now. the best thing we can do to help small banks and small businesses is to make sure there

is enough money in the pockets of average working people and the poor so they can go to small businesses and the small businesses can go to banks and expand. and that is why it comes back to the demand side of the equation, not to the supply side. whenever you hear somebody using it supply side methodology or supply-side thinking. supply-side thinking says, look, it is the big businesses, and it is wall street, and it is the rich. they are the ones who supply the jobs and the innovation and everything else in america. what you need to do is stop them mid sentence and say, you supply-siders have been proven wrong for the last 30 years. here's what we know. it is the demand side, because

it is aggregate demand. it is ordinary, working people that are the center of this economy. and we have to get them working again. and we have to get their wages up. and we have to make them, make them more powerful, and not only do we need a stimulus that is big enough, but we also have to tackle this huge and growing curse of widening inequality, because as the rich get richer, the vast middle class and the poor and the working class to not have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going. and as the rich get richer, we have more speculation, more booms and busts. as the rich get richer, some of the rich abuse their wealth and a corrupt the political process. and so we've got to deal with all of that together. and the only way we can deal with all of that together is if

we, all of us, dedicate ourselves to this movement, to taking back the american dream. thank you. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, a governor of new york. though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on political history maine, serving as the secretary of state and ultimately chief justice of the u.s. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new series "the contenders." friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

for a preview about charles evans hughes, what a number of videos that are special website -- c-span.org/the contenders. yesterday, republican presidential candidate mitt romney sat down and spoke with the editorial staff of the "new hampshire and union leader." that is next. on today's "washington journal", we will talk with republican congressman alan west of florida and later a filmmaker ken burns will discuss his latest pbs series on u.s. prohibition. "washington journal" starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the house will continue work on a short-term spending measure for 2012 to keep the government open through november 18. you can see live house coverage here on c-span. >> oral argument is edge of the first time the justices talk about a case together. nd so when justice scalia or

justice ginsberg asked a question, i can figure out what is bothering them about the case and where they are leaning. >> it by law since 1916, the supreme court term begins the first monday in october. each year hearing 70 cases. this year cases include gps without a warrant. profanity on television and copyright protection. watch the justices online at the c-span video library. all archived and searchable. washington your way. >> former massachusetts governor and president of canada mitt romney is interviewed by publisher of the new hampshire and union leader. it is one of the largest newspapers in the state. the meeting was held in manchester, new hampshire. from c-span's road to the white house, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> governor romney, the reason

the lights are on is that our friends from c-span are here. drew klein wrote a piece for tomorrow's paper about the new hampshire presidential primary, and on like the two second sound bites to get on the so-called debates on tv, in new hampshire you get to sit down with people, either newspapers or people in the backyard and answer questions at some length to get your perspective across. so we have been friends with c- span for several editions of the primary. when they asked to come in and it is ok with the candidate, and you graciously agreed, then they taped the proceedings. i am going to let john do most of the heavy lifting, since he is the political writer. >> c-span is keeping john

honest. is that the idea? >> yes. i wanted to start out by saying that since it is all about jobs and the economy, i want to ask you about military overseas questions. you say in your book "no apology," that the u.s. has total responsibilities, including the responsibility for world wide humanitarian relief and preventing ethnic cleansing and genocide. why is it the u.s. responsibility to provide those services? >> i think we actually have to look at the book and get the words precisely, but i would say our military has missions in a series of areas. our military has a broad set of issues, mostly related to

protect america's interests abroad and at home. defending those interests. but we have humanitarian roles. people look to america, following a tsunami, for instance, to do what nobody else in the world can do. but i do not believe it is our responsibility alone, nor is that a statutory responsibility. it is the responsibility we from time to time assume when we have the capacity to do so. >> the reason i ask, governor, is that you devote quite a bit of time in your book, which i am happy to see, to foreign policy and the military. you argue that military spending should be at a minimum 4% of gdp. >> yes. >> and that obama is taking it in another direction. you argue that we need a minimum 100,000 more army and marine troops alone, as well as pressing up our -- sprucing up our nuclear fleet.

my question is in this economic time, how the heck are you going to pay for it? >> the federal government spends about 25% of gdp. under more normal circumstances, if we are able to bring back federal spending to a balanced level, it would consume 20% of gdp. to say national defence will take 4 points, 20% of 20, is inappropriate investment that sees the world with a number of threatening forces. we want to maintain the world were sovereign nations have independence, where that is representative forms of government, to win rights, free trade, and so forth because that is good for america. that is good for the world, that is good for the peace in the world. but china has a different view. david like to expand and to control in the south china sea. -- they would like to expand and control and the south china sea.

what their objectives might be are uncertain. you have the jihadists who have dramatic roles. you have the russians, now trying to rebuild parts of the old soviet union. they would like to be able to take a part of georgia at this juncture. you have a number of dimensions that are threatening the stability of the world and the piece of the world, and america's interest. in that setting to say, let's pull back our military capability, strikes me as a strange approach. we have the wrong about to become nuclear. we of pakistan which could become a failed state -- we have iran about to become nuclear. the trajectory is not even in the direction that is comforting. so to say, let's pull back our military does not make sense. our navy is smaller than it has been any time since 1917.

the air force, our fleet of aircraft, is smaller and older than it has been since 1947, when the air force was established. our soldiers are on multiple rotations and are stretched thin. we have national guard troops in some respects fulfilling the kinds of extensive deployment that would have normally been considered for active duty personnel. i think we need more troops, warships, a more modern air force, and of course you have to give the care to our veterans that, from the conflicts we have been stored in iraq and afghanistan and are continuing to and/endure. that is not to suggest there is an opportunity for us to shrink the size of our military. it should remain 20% of our federal spending, which is gdp.ly $5 of4% of >> are you in favor of a stimulus act paying for the military buildup? >> i am not one about stimulus

at this stage. i supported the concept of a stimulus early on. there was a bush stimulus. then president obama put in place this jobs stimulus. i oppose his stimulus, but every republican in congress voted for republican version. today, we are way beyond stimulus. stimulus was an effort to keep us from going over the waterfall economically. we already went over the waterfall. we are looking for dramatic restructuring of america's economy to go from an anti business, anti investment approach to a pro-business, pro jobs approached. and so i am not in favor of a new stimulus. but i can say this. when the last stimulus was crafted, $787 billion borrowed with the obama stimulus, the fact that we did not use any money to provide for armament and our troops and weapons systems that are in active combat, i find it incomprehensible. we had men and women in

afghanistan and iraq been shot dead and being exposed to improvised explosive devices, and we spent virtually no money protecting them or rebuilding the armament that has been damaged and destroyed in many cases in this complex. you know the national guard has suffered a lot around the country. my testimony before congress, before a republican group in congress, was that if there was to be a stimulus, a significant portion should have gone to replacing and modernizing military equipment because that would have stimulated the economy. and it is something we have to do anyway. so let's follow that. >> governor, you say in your book that the united states is the only remaining superpower. how you define that, and what does it take for china to become the next superpower. ? and what do you do with it? >> what american strike does is

it keeps a very bad people in check. it keeps people, in some cases, those that are not delusional, it keeps them to say, i had better not go attacked this person because the united states might step in. our nuclear umbrella dissuade people from thinking that they can develop their own nuclear capability. or other bad people thinking they might want to use their nuclear capability. so american strength, as ronald reagan said, he saw four wars begun in his lifetime -- not one of them began because america was too strong. america being a superpower helped try to preserve peace and stability in the world. >> can china become a superpower? absolutely. is that their intent? absolutely. the military buildup in china is at a very rapid rate. and it can only be seen in the context of wanted to become a major military power. certainly, initially, in the

pacific and ultimately who knows? their forays into latin-american economically might suggest that they have interest further afield than just the south china sea and the pacific generally. when you build aircraft carriers, you are looking to project power. you do not need aircraft parts -- aircraft carriers around china. do they intend to be a military superpower? i think absolutely. would russia like to reassert itself as a superpower? i believe so. there again, modernizing their military. it fell badly into disrepair during or yields in years. putin said the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy in the 20th century. i think he is intent on reversing it. i do not know how far that would go, whether they intend to annex other nations or how they intend to do it, but i think they want to become a military power house. the new start treaty negotiated is a very one-sided document in my opinion, which places russia in a position of supremacy

relative to ourself, particularly attached to strategic nuclear weapons. technical nuclear-weapons -- they are way ahead. yeah, there are other nations in the world that will attempt to equal or surpass our military capabilities. that is not something that would be acceptable. that is one reason we have to modernize our navy. the numbers are extraordinary. i am sure you know them at least as well as i do. we have gone through 600 fleet navy down to the 280 plus range. the navy said we could fulfil our mission at 313. we are headed to go even further. we will probably go down to the low 200's. that invites in venture is . american strength keeps some bad things from happening. try tohat do yoou do,

steer this tour domestic stuff, what you do with this super commission in washington that has a thanksgiving deadline to agree to cuts or across the board or they're 0-- there are going to be cut across the board including serious cuts for the defense department that you argue has to go the other way? >> i am very disappointed with the decision to make defense cuts. the penalty for the failure of the super committee to reach a conclusion which can be acceptable. the defense of the nation, the ability of america to protect ourselves, to keep low land forces -- malevalent forces from hurting us is a high priority. the highest priority of our government. to say that we will put that on the chopping block is a great mistake. leon panetta, the president and secretary of defense, said that it would gut the u.s. military.

in a time of war? when we are bringing our troops out of afghanistan and iraq. as we should. but this is a time of fragility. in the military world, the time you are at greatest risk is when you are entering in or leaving the theater of conflict. and so bring our troops out, certainly in a setting where the taliban is still around is a dangerous time. to say that we are cutting expenditures and we have equipment that has been destroyed in this conflict, not to replace it would be a serious error. >> i'll stay with the theme, taking our troops out of afghanistan. are you comfortable with the situation of us now starting to withdraw from afghanistan? are you comfortable the jihadists are in check enough jihadists are in check enough for us