to be doing that, given your view that it is up to us to keep them in check? >> my view is that we have a similar responsibility of pushing back the taliban and standing up the afghan military. they have to take responsibility themselves to earn tand to keep their independence from the taliban. we will not stay there protecting their independence forever. the generals closest to the theater had indicated that we can pull back our surrogate troops in december 2012. the president move that up to september 2012 which i think it's a mistake in politics and put our troops into greater danger. it should be pushed back to december 2012. the rest of our troops, rigid

come out through to thousand 14. at that point they believed that the afghan military is ready to assume responsibility. to look at that with 100% confidence? no, there will continue to be risks with taliban forces in afghanistan, but at some point, the afghans must take that battle themselves, and our commanders believe that at that point they will be sufficiently prepared to shoulder the burden. and i have hopes and confidence, not 100%, but confidence that they can shoulder the burden. i guess, front, l military governor perry says he would consider sending troops to mexico to deal with the drug cartels in concert with the mexican government. your thoughts on that? >> well, let's build a fence first and let's have sufficient border patrol agents to protect it. and if the mexican government wants us to help them with

logistics, intelligence, satellite images and so forth, i'm certain we can provide the kind of support we provided in colombia, where we use some of our technology to help the colombn government in their effort. mexico has their own military and i think it's a bad idea to send american troops into mexico. i think mexico is considered a bad idea and i consider it a bad idea. >> staying with foreign policy, iran. you said iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear nation, and you cite tough -- really tough sanctions y would put in place against them. what are the sanctions, and is it realistic that this is gng to cause these guys to stop doing what they're doing? >> joe, about five years ago i spoke at the conference in tel aviv andaid 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 genode 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' 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 agains 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 cbination 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 tee ought to be pursued, but our prospect for success has been dinished 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 goingo 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 sw 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 n 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 palestinis 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 defensof 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. >> wnever 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 t. what i lk 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 ll, 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 tse 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 he put the brakes on coal. this is an administration that likes solarnd 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 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 tsay 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 goingo 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 cpete? >> 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 wld 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 t 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? 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 peoe 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 organizati'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 e 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 ve 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 youave 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 se thing? >> out as a starting point, but you have to go to the merits, and states have the right t

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 ition 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 indivual 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 betwn 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 colle classes in texas? they should pay out of state tuition? they should be thrown out of t country? what should happen to them? >> the fst 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 thenited 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 ste 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 expe 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 fl to 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 wi 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 itand 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 ones wrong, but i focus on what should say. >> herman cain was aed 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 exetions is something i would agree with. i have not needed my practic 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? >>y 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 goingo be busy times without much time

off. if it all staed 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 th 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 s 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 wou 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 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 bushaid 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 tt does not work and needs to be shifted, but the principle of insisting on testing in schools was a sp 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 nationwide curriculum. i think that is a mistake. i tnk 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 wh the united states of america and is an enemy combatants, then have every right to fire upon them as ty have fired upon us. >> i have a question. you are a fairly well off invidual. why should it be that effectively warren buffett's cretary 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 reas. 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 pd 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, its 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 i 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 erica and create more jobs. it's people's priority is finding someone to take from and give to someone else, they should vote for docrats. 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, 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 he 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 peopl who buy fuel- efficient cars have lower tax rates and people who bought less fuel-efficientars. 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 sal 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 a over t 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 postur of economic greatness and -- to replace barack obamand return america to ' of ecomic 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 real 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 gog 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 thi 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. th is a different thing. congre 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

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i want it to note that i want your help. that is why you are in the venture. thank you. >> this will be my 12th town meeting. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns.

candidate bios and the latest polling data, plus links to c- span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at -- c-span.org/campaign2012. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will be on capitol hill this morning to talk about the u.s. economy. the labor department releases its latest jobs report later this week. mr. bernanke is testifying before the joint economic committee. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. "washington journal" is next. we will take your phone calls. the house will continue work on the short-term spending measure for 2012 to keep the government (november 18. the house cavils and at 10:00 a.m. eastern and legislative work begins at noon near you work begins at noon near you conceal live house