people -- the cost are monstrous. dodd-frank is another example of a knee-jerk reaction by this administration and congress to put into place another layer of regulation that is not going to -- it puts into law -- it codifies too big to fail a mixed community banks and endangered species. it makes capital very hard to come by. i know i am all over the board on this regulatory world but that is an example. taxes are too high but i will suggest that it is not the tax structure that is killing the

jobs, that is impacting the confidence of the investor whether it is big business or a mom-and-pop hopkins, it is the regulations out there on the environmental side, the part of interior, the banking regulations. two weeks ago as i laid out phase 1 of this economic plan, i talked about the energy side. 1.2 million jobs could be created if we opened up our federal lands for expert rick -- exploration, land and water -- 300 years of energy america has access to. we have proven reserves of 300 million years. texas is now the number-one wind energy producing states. people think we have only oil

and gas. we have only had 2% increase in our oil and gas production in the last decade. >> how come you can't say this in a one minute debate answer? >> how long have i been talking here? >> that was my point. your campaign said something yesterday about the number of debates and whether you want to continue. >> i am a good debater when it is all over with. >> you will do more but not necessarily with -- >> 18 debates seems like -- i would ask you -- you are more than just a passive observer of this process -- 18 seems like an incredible number. >> as of today, i think there were 34 candidates that have registered for the new hampshire presidential primary. if we put them all in one debate, the debate would last

until january. you have been exposed to this process now and you have some specifics you were trying to get across in the debate format. how would you suggest -- the news media have to be careful about going behind a screen and deciding who will be in the debate. how do you improve the level of discourse in a presidential campaign? >> being here is one way. also choosing the forms with which i can go and actually lay out for the people in new hampshire and the surrounding states and cspan, in national audience, that here is the plan i am laying out to get americans working. it is not just rhetoric. if you want to know how someone

will perform in the future, look to their past. for almost 11 years, this is what i have been doing in the state of texas is creating an environment with our legislature so that our private sector had confidence that they can risk capital and have a return on investment. we have done that. 1 million jobs have been created in texas while the rest of the country lost 2.5 million. allowing the states to take over those environmental regulations, allowing the states to deliver health care, medicaid, allowing the states to be making the decisions for their young people on education policy makes abundant good sense to me because what we will do -- bobby jindal is a brilliant governor. he is also a technocrat when it comes to health and human services issues.

he has been in congress. he has run a university system and he has also run their health and human services. he is a uniquely qualified individual. bobby will come up with ways to deliver medicaid whether it be optional programs or insurance cop-pays and he will come up with a lot of different ideas. i will cross the border and pick and choose which one of those will work best in my home state. i believe our founding fathers foresaw this growing country but they did not have any idea that there be 15 years of innovation. the new the federal government needed to do a few things well -- the military, secure our border, the general wear fell ever country -- the general welfare of our country and this

is what the 10th amendment says. >> that is a good segue.. i asked governor romney the same question i'm asking you. you point to romney care and say that is wrong and he says that as a state's rights issue. he points to you allowing illegal immigrants to get in- state tuition and you say that as a state right. can you see the other guys position on this? >> this is the difference. i never wrote in a book that i thought what we did in texas was good for the nation which is what he did in hearse -- in his first rendition of his book. he said it romney care is what would be the cure for america. he rode in his book. it was in the book and he took it out in the paperback. that is my point is that i am

consistent if nothing else. i have stayed true -- unless i have been wrong and i have been wrong on the issue of the human papillomavirus. i stood up in front of my state first and said i handle this wrong. i still think the vaccine should be available but it should not have been done with an executive order and i should have gone to the legislature. >> the health department's suggested it should be given to boys nationally. >> at the end of the day, i was right on the issue and wrong on the delivery model. the difference between romney care and the issue of in-state tuition and i want to address that if i could as an aside -- i have said multiple times that this truly was an issue for texas to decide. i would never go to oklahoma or

to new mexico or any other state and say this is what you need to do. not on that issue. that is one that the state has to deal with. the bigger issue is that we're forced to deal with this because of a complete failure of our federal government to secure the border. i have been dealing with it for better than 10 years. i carried the border sheriff's to washington to meet with congress and the with homeland security and talk to people about the drug cartel and the violence and the moving of weapons and money and drugs and people across the border because of the federal government's failure to secure the border. i passed a voter identification bill and signed into law. aideed said a driver's license

bill. -- i vetoed a driver's license bill. i've got a very strong record -- $400 million we have dedicated to border security of texas taxpayers money. we have done those things because we have been forced to deal with them because of the federal government's failure to act and secure the border. i know how to secure the border. >> how you do that? >> strategic fencing and the obvious places and are places along the border where strategic defenses work well, boots on the ground and i am talking about a spectrum of boots on the ground both military, law-enforcement, and state, federal, law enforcement. we're also talking about predator drowns. there are a couple of predator drones delicate as the border

but it is not near enough. we need to have enough predator droned on the border to look down in real time and give the intermission to the boots on the ground and then we will know when there is activity along that border and we can immediately respond to them. at that particular point in time, the individuals involved in illegal activities will know that that game has changed. we have the technology. we just don't have a president for administration dedicated to securing that border. when the president of united states comes to help pass of and makes the statement that the border -- comes to el paso and makes a statement of the border is more secure than it ever did -- and it ever was -- he is telling the american people a

known lie. >> be nice. a falsehood. >> what you say to some of your competitors -- what do you say to some of your competitors [unintelligible] >> before we get all of the illegal alien tuition issue -- texas had two choices because the federal government had failed to secure the border. the federal government also demands that we give health care and education to these

individuals. i don't have the privilege to stand on the sidelines and say here is what i would do or here is where you made a mistake. we have to deal with these issues in real time in our state. we had two choices -- we could kick these people to the curb and pick up the cost of them being in error state for other sources like social programs up to and including incarceration because they are unskilled workers and what might occur with that scenario or just like we do with anyone else in the state of texas -- if you have lived in texas for three years, if you have done your high- school work and in the case of those who have been brought here through no fault of their own, required that they pursue citizenship in the united states, pay full in state tuition, there is no subsidy,

then those individuals become tax paying, contributing members of our society and a united states citizen. we want to create -- do we want to create tax wasters or taxpayers? >> what about showing the illegal immigrants the door? >> we have had that conversation in this country. the idea that we will run the 12 million people -- america's had that conversation. it will not happen. there may be people out there that say that is the answer. i'm not going to pander. if becoming president of united states requires me to change the position of great import or to pander to a different group, i won't be the president of united states. i know how to govern in the state of texas.

when 181 members of the legislature voted on this issue of how we will deal with these individuals and there are only four dissenting votes, that is the will of the people of the state of texas. i agree that that is a texas decision. i stand by that. i am not going to change my position by virtue of going to new hampshire and saying let's build 200 miles of fence and that will take care of it because it will not. strategic fencing in places is very important work that helps slow down the high traffic areas but obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. you have to have that observation with boots on the ground but also the technologies that are fascinating in how well they work. air force ccreech

base a week ago and it was my instinct there was a young american pilot watching gaddafi paused compound -- gaddafi's compound from nevada waiting for the opportunity to impact that oppressive regime. that technology is there and available and we need to substantially direct more of it to our border with mexico to fight the drug cartels. we know has the law, we know hamas, and now we know the iranians. are using mexico as a base of operation to penetrate into a porous border of the united states to do harm to american citizens or a saudi diplomat. >> understanding this is a

state-by-state issue, what would you advocate to turn these tax wasters into taxpayers? >> the issue is to secure the border. once you secure the border and then you start alleviating the number of people and that we can have a conversation -- a debate, a discussion with congress and with the american people about how we are going to bring the individuals who are here who may have been here for 20 or 30 years out of the shadow of illegality to deal with the issue. i don't know if i have -- >> how would you start the conversation as president? >> you mean immigration reform? i think you start looking at

some type of program where people come out of the shadows of illegality when they work with a visa program. amnesty is not on the table. i'm not for the dream act. i am for citizenship the old- fashioned way and that is the reason we require these young people in texas to be working toward united states citizenship. >> who tracks the progress toward citizenship? >> the universities. that is the way the legislation was written. and then you don't have 50 dim -- different immigration policies. you bet arizona which i don't necessarily agree with everything about their loss. i joined them to support them and their right to pass their law as we did with alabama but

having 50 different immigration laws is not good public policy. america needs to have one immigration policy in place for the 50 states which is one of the things they should be doing. in lieu of them doing their job and the states to have the right and the respect that right of putting issues into place but to go back, the issue of creating a work visa program where individuals -- this is where you pay your taxes, this is where you get a driver's license, here is where you become a contributing member of society -- one of the knock someone is going on now is that these individuals are not paying their fair share and they're taking advantage of the social programs we have. the federal government is forcing the states to deal with this.

i think we can have a debate in the country to find a way for those individuals who are law- abiding and pay taxes and can contribute to society to have the ability to move back and forth. i happen to think that we can get back to having immigration policy that looks at what are the needs of our work force in this country and allow for individuals who can help create a highly technical work force in a lot of the different areas we don't have the engineers, etc. and a federal government that is quite inapt in getting paperwork done. >> you talk about your record on jobs in texas and your opponents have cited the unemployment figures in texas being hired and

getting higher. how you explain the two. you created the jobs but the unemployment happened? >> we still keep growing in jobs. as you would suspect, that is not a secret that texas has created. we have a huge influx of people coming into the state of texas. in this environment, even texas, as good a job creation kleiman as we have created, we cannot keep up with the influx of people. we can pull one number out -- your unemployment went up to 8.1%. yes, but retreated 1 million jobs in that decade them a has .afta bee >> has nafta been good for the

united states? >> we still have free trade agreements with columbia and south korea. we have two that have not been signed in this hemisphere i have no idea why. if you don't overtax and over regulate americans, they can compete with anyone in the world. i truly believe that we can bring manufacturing jobs back from china that have moved there. when the chief executive officer of coca-cola says it is easier to do business in china than it is in the united states, that says volumes about how difficult we have made it to do business in this country. that is where we need to police regulations backed.

we need to audit every one of them since 2008 for their beneficial impact vs their cost. this is my ins -- this is not my instinct. i know this. the vast majority of them caught the cost far outweighs the benefits. >> what about the wage cost? mexico, china, and other third world countries -- >> because the cost of doing business particularly on the regulatory side is so onerous in the united states that we may never compete from the standpoint of an hourly wage but there are a number of issues - davis-bacon i would do away with -- the idea that you have to pay union wages. i am not anti-union.

i am pro-jobs. if you create an environment in this country where entrepreneurs feel comfortable they can risk their capital, that is good for the unions. i am it right to work state governor. the teamsters endorsed me every election that i have had as governor. they understand i care about creating an environment where jobs can be created. whether you are a non-union worker or a union worker, there are more jobs out there and that is good for your rank and file. i happen to believe that america can compete again on the manufacturing side but we cannot if we continue to pass regulations that don't help

safety, don't help air quality, don't help the water quality, down to improve the environment. all they do is create a cost of compliance that then drive jobs offshore. >> what do you do about the global situation we have no where multinational companies who have no particular allegiance to the united states of america -- how you get them to want -- how do you get them to want to rebuild american manufacturing? is there a component of there? in the old days what was good for general motors was good for the country and now you have companies where it is the bottom line -- wherever the taxes are least in the labor is the cheapest they will go to. does that figure in at all? >> sure, that's the reason they left to begin with is it was the bottom line. we overtaxed and overregulated

them. this is not rocket science. for a decade in texas, we operated with four principal principles -- don't spend all the money. it is one of the reasons might cut, balance, and grow program i talk about cutting the spending. there will be some hard decisions. there will be some pain to reduce the spending. i just signed a budget in texas that for the first sentence world war ii, we cut our spending more than the previous budget, the first time since world war two. g r wasnashing of teeth in it what -- there was gnashing of teeth but they will get it and it will raise our taxes and put an additional burden on us to keep more government. >> you said they went overseas

because we overregulated them but that also went overseas because we changed the trade laws and made easier for them to go offshore to do this. we lowered trade tariffs and barriers to international trade which free-market economists has lifted all boats but in the meantime, the general electrics of the world are doing their -- more of their business over there because it is cheaper not just because of regulations because the tariffs are no longer in place which protected men building their companies here. >> i happen to believe that when you look at this plan and part of their decisions to leave have been tax loopholes and other beneficial treatment that corporate america has received, i am for removing all of us. i am for putting a level playing field.

on the energy side of things, i don't think we should be paying any subsidies or tax credit to any energy source period. not for wind, not for solar, not for oil, not for ethanol -- they need to all participate on a level playing field. >> not for solar? >> and not for solar either. if the state wants to put into place an incentive to have a particular type of energy developed in that state, i don't have a problem with that. the states are supposed to compete against each other "laboratories of innovation. we put an incentive for alternative energy and wind energy people said we can't compete in texas. now we are the number-one wind

energy producing state in the nation. it is smart to have a broad portfolio of energy whether it is wind or solar or nuclear or coal or petroleum or natural gas or whatever the alternative source may be. not the federal government, the government needs to not be picking winners and losers. if the states want to compete with each other i agree with that. these companies that have gone offshore have gone offshore i think for two reasons -- tax policy, regulatory, and tax loopholes in to remove all three of those from my perspective -- a flat 20% corporate income tax rate, have the regulatory climate reduced where they know there will be stability and

predictability in the environmental community and have those tax loopholes gone. there is a recent ge doesn't pay taxes. they have really good lobbyists and those need to be removed. need a president who can stand up and have the courage to do that, have the courage to veto spending bills. we are spending more money than what we have coming in. >> who is marcus? who's the guy with b the blackean who did not cast it? >> marcus latrell is a former navy seal. we have a family meeting. we each had a white to be in any black be about whether i would be a candidate for the

presidency and we talked about all the implications that are lives to be changed forever. sydney, the young, right out of college >> that your daughter brett? >> her life would be forever changed. >> griffin would probably have to change his company work because he could not help is dead. they all agreed that the country was making that -- worth making that sacrifice for. >> was the navy still in afghanistan? >> in many places but afghanistan was the place where the event occurred. that was where his four-man team, he was the only one to come off the mountain. i hope you all get a copy of his book, l "one survivor."

-- "lone survivor." he really did not want me to do this. >> i read this in "parade" magazine. a hullabaloo was raised the other day because you entered a question relative to president obama and his birth certificate. i heard this on the radio. i went back to"array" to find --"parade" to find as i could not find it. is the editor dumb or maybe this was not a big issue? >> it was not a big issue. i think i have had the dinner with donald trump the night before it was more of a

humorous back and forth between donald and he is a funny fellow. i cannot speak for him. he may think the birth certificate is a real issue. i think it is frankly a humorous issue that the media would become so focused on that. i think it's a rather distracted issue. i'm pretty sure people are more interested in how you'll get them the dignity of a job. >> there interested in obama's burst of it and whether herman k.'s rep smokes. >> [laughter]

i think we're fighting the wrong kind of war in afghanistan. having been there and multiplications and having had the number of conversations with young man who are under my command until i loaned him to the federal government to go and serve that the change of rules of engagement, i think this is a special operations type of war particularly as our technology advances so quickly. being able to find osama bin laden, to find gaddafi, to findawali - all of these individuals were not found because we had massive numbers of troops on the ground. we need to be able to train the

afghan forces so they have the ability to protect and defend their country. there is some time line out there to bring our troops home and transition that country's protection over to the afghan security force. i don't know when that is an even if i did, we would not be having that conversation in public. i think the president has made a huge error to play to his base and say he will bring everyone home on a certain date. we have the ability to impact the war on terror in a substantially smaller footprint than we are engaged in today. when we reduce that footprint and how we reduce that footprint

needs to be coordinated with the commanders on the ground. again, i would substantially increase the amount of funding for our technological research and development side of the military. i would never put the military's budget on the chopping block from the standpoint of cutting x % out of it. - percent. what is it going to cost us to keep this country secure? that is not to say that there are not places where we need to have good, solid discussions about reductions in places that may not be appropriate

expenditures on the military budget butr &d should not be one of them. that is how we hopefully stay ahead of the chinese but all of our foreign policy issues go back to one thing and that is if we don't first of an economy that allows us to have the resources to pay down this debt and create the wealth to drive this country forward, then foreign policy does not really matter. >> you said you were not a great debater. and you might get better. if you get the nomination, you're going up against a slick and sharp guy. how will you be him in the country if you cannot be a great debater. >? >> if the american people want a

great debater gli and ab and select politician, i don't think the last three years will be could prproof of how that has worked out. >> is in that how many people make their judgment? >> i don't think so. i truly don't think so. 2008 was a most interesting election cycle. when you are sitting at home and your wife and children are sitting around the kitchen table or in the living room together and you don't have a job, care howglib force like the politician is, when there's someone standing beside them the says i know how to get her family back to the dignity of having a job in this country back on track and get america be america again, i think that is a

message that penetrates very much of the heart of this country is. -- part of who this country is. >> you are here and you filed your candidacy. going back to the national media, i am constantly being asked why it is not all over in new hampshire already with running out front? what is your approach? can you still win this primary? >>sure. >> do you need to put other resources into it to give it a go? >> we are here we are campaigning. we know we got in late. laying out after 10 weeks which is a pretty good time table to lay out a rather

in-depth economic plan. that is what this campaign will revolve around -- who has the vision for this country to get america back working again. i think are 20% flat tax and how we will balance this budget by 2020 and get americans back working -- if you want to know how somebody will perform in the future, look at their past. i think people are just now starting to pay attention to the campaign. with all due respect, governor romney has been running for this for six years. i have been added for 10 weeks. polls will go up and down. i was 25 points down at the start of my last gubernatorial race. there is plenty of time to be in new hampshire, to be in iowa, b

and south carolina which i will have been in -- it is my 10th trip to new hampshire. as the voters here look and probe and ask questions and peel back the skin of the onion, i think they will like what they see and at the end of the day, if they want someone who has a track record of creating jobs and creating opportunity. >> there has been so much press about your new organizational hierarchy. you are a gentleman and soft- spoken. they said these people amputate from may. -- amputate romney.

he is way out in front in this state if you believe the polls. will this be a battleground for you? is this a place will -- where you will do just o.k. enough to continue on? >> we are not in any state just for the exercise. we are in every state to win. i am always intrigued by folks to talk about negative campaigns. i have never run a campaign that was not factual. somebody on the other side might not lock the fax -- might not like the fax -- might not like the fatcs but they find some place where we're not telling the truth, i will be the first to pull it down. facts are facts - they may be

difficult for some folks to get their arms around but we will be factual. if that is considered to be hard-hitting then so be it. i think americans are ready for some really straight, honest answers to how to fix things in this country whether it is dealing with the issue of social security which we have clearly said it is broken, those that are on it today, those who are approaching the age to be on it, it will be there for them but to use it as a political tool and say they will take away your benefits, that is dishonest. i will come back pretty hard on that. do we need to give young people the options to have these personal accounts? do we need to raise the age at which people become eligible because we are living longer?

all of those are appropriate questions to ask and i think there are a lot of positive aspects to those. americans want to hear how we will get this country working again. how will we get america back to being a powerful influence in this world? there will be hard decisions that need to be made. people who are misleading america -- i don't have a lot of time for them. >> who is misleading americans? >> anybody says it will be easy. the president of united states of three years ago and said if you allow me to be president, i will create 3.5 million jobs. that is misleading america. we have lost 2.5 million jobs. we will wait till all the plans get laid out. >> what the park and would you

eliminate? -- what department would you eliminate? >> cut, balance, grow -- what would you cut? >> a year when you consider $27 billion by consolidating the elementary and secondary school programs. i would rebuild the epa and substantially reduce the impact of the epa from the standpoint of a federal agency. it should be there as a place to consolidate best practices. there should be a place where they can work out any interstate issues. from the standpoint of making one-size-fits-all regulations -- there is $12 billion worth of administrative costs. this is an agency that is out of control.

i was substantially reduce the epa. the department of energy -- i am not sure there is anything the department of energy does not do that could not be placed in another agency. there's a substantial amount of reduction. health and human services -- the medicare portion of that should be sent back to the states. you have to have agency administrators and the senior level people who are willing to go fight that fight. that is the kind of people i will hire. >> [inaudible] you are in favor of the clean air and clean water act -- [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> your local state would.

texas implemented a clean air act in 1981 and they went forward with their plan. it was 1993. it was put together byann richards and approved by the clinton administration. they are not hardcore republicans. for 17 years, this plan was in place and work well. i shared with you the numbers of the last decade. my point is that the states have the incentive and expertise to put these programs in place. we just got this multiple layers from the federal government. there is nothing wrong at all with the clean air and water act but bobby jindal -- i have great faith that if he were to allow

things to happen in this state that would harm the air in the water, the people of that state will become a rate. they will make the changes. this is a philosophical difference between myself and obviously this administration and the. tickler i trust -- and the citizens of this country. i trust the citizens to make the best decisions and not have all consolidated in washington, d.c. with one-size-fits-all and spread out across the country. i believe the american people will make better decisions than some bureaucrat in washington, d.c. whether it is environmental or race to the top on education or whether it is transportation infrastructure. the idea of earmarks are deciding where transportation projects go in the state and they are now working with the

transportation department -- that is insanity. >> in the east where the states are smaller, environmental issues in one state might affect neighboring states. that therehy i said can be some interstate issues pretty epa could sit down and work issues. it is like dealing with the electrical issues. you have an issue with transportation lines in new hampshire. there is a role -- i am not anti-government. i'm just for a government that works and does not cost jobs. >> what about repeal obama care? >> there are two aspects of

health care -- medicare and medicaid. i would block grant medicaid and put that back to the states and allow them to come up with a program. i need paul ryan and some of the work he is doing has some great examples and we talk about that in our white paper some of the ways to give options on medicare. maybe it is moving up the age where people become eligible or maybe it is having insurance programs that they can access to give people the options of whether they want to have a private sector accounts. there are many different ways in

which we can deal with the medicare side of it. we have a system of said care today. we don't have a system of health care. to give those incentives to the physicians, to the hospitals for outcomes that are healthy outcomes rather than the way we do it today where they get paid on the number of procedures they do -- i happen to think that paul ryan is one of the brightest and most capable individuals who has taken on this issue. i would have him very close to my administration on a regular basis. i would have tom coburn on the spending side. he has put a white paper out to called"back in black" which is $9 trillion worth of reductions.

the answers are there but it will take a courageous administration working with the greatest members of the united states congress and senate to say that we have to. do this america's future is at stake for an economic standpoint and if we don't stop the spending or get the relief on the tax side and don't reduce the regulatory burden, this country will everyday get closer and closer to becoming more like our friends in europe where we have a sovereign debt crisis, a serious sovereign debt crisis. >> probably the main goal with access to health insurance -- if you repeal obama care and take away its incentive to do that -- what would be a parity plan. you say you want to make health insurance more accessible to people. >> i saw an interesting sign

today that said"keep your hands off my medicare." this administration took $500 billion away from medicare to help pay for obama care. they are talking to the wrong people. they need to be talking to the administration for taking $500 billion away from medicare. state-by-state we make decisions every day about how we will take care of our citizens. we get criticized in texas because we don't have everybody covered by insurance. we made the decision that that is how we want to operate our state. if you come to texas, you will have access to some of the finest health care in the world. at the texas medical center

every day there are more doctors commonly -- nurses, researchers, who go to work their than any other place in the world. ut southwestern in dallas -- we have some of the finest health care. we committed $3 billion over a 10-year period of time to find cures for cancer and texas. we have substantial health care and it is available. i passed toward reform in 2003. there are over 20,000 more physicians practicing today in texas than there were six years ago. the idea that texas has a large uninsured population -- that does not mean anything to me. what means something to me is that people in texas have access to some of the finest health care there is. how we choose to pay for it is our business. that is how we have chosen to deal with it.

that health care is available in the state of texas. could we take those medicaid dollars and come up with programs that are affordable to people who don't want to buy health insurance today? it is too expensive for them. are there ways we can -- i think there are. rather than forcing us to deliver health care the way the federal government says. i go back to allowing the states to be the decider is instead of washington, d.c. i don't think texans want government mandated health care. i am positive that don't want obama care. i don't think this country wants obama care after they looked at the cost and looked at the accessibility that will be negatively impacted if it is

fully implemented. again, i philosophically and in a different position than those who think government mandated health care is the correct answer for people's health care. i think we need to give folks a substantial menu of options of which they can pick and choose. there may be folks who say that i am 25 years old and i am healthy as a horse and i would rather spend my money on something else rather than health care. >> you have a chapter on judges. use the phrase"on elected --"unelected judges." would you have the supreme court

elected? >> i would have a term for them. i would have a discussion with the country and ask if it makes sense to have an appointed for life time united states supreme court justice? i happen to think lifetime is a long time. when you are talking about a court that has the biggest impact, is it 12 years, 15 years, i don't know. i would have a term limit on the united states supreme court. i would have a limit -- why do we limit the president of united states m yearsax yet we put a person on the united states supreme court serve 60 years.

? from time to time, we decide as a country that the founding fathers -- >> the founding fathers had on limited terms of presidents. fdr came along and the country balked. with supreme court nominees, the way the battles are now, what is the realistic chance of anybody having a term limit for you to get anybody in the next position? >> somebody would. >> you mentioned earlier when you're talking about the 10th amendment that would go to states and you would -- and you said cajole or threaten. >> that means if your guy does not vote to get spending under control, you unelect them

. we do that all the time across this country. you basically say that here is what is going on in washington, d.c. and your guy or gal is part of the impediment. i don't consider that to be negative. i consider it to be factual. when the president of united states who has a big megaphone stands up in your state and says ,"senator smith, why are you not supporting a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution?" they can have that conversation with their folks back home. >> we have to cut >> it >> i enjoyed it, thank you. >> thank you and thanks cspan per >> watch more video of the candidates ensue a political reporters are saying and track

the latest campaign contributions which our website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feed 10 facebook updates from the campaign and candid a bias on the latest polling data and links to our media partners. it is all a c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> coming of "washington journal,." after that, a house natural resources committee hearing on the golf course oil spill compensation fund and later remarks from the former pakistani president pervez musharraf. this morning, coffee party president annabel parts talks about their upcoming rally today on the west lawn of the u.s. capitol and a discussion on the obama program to help with the cost of student loans. later, an author talks about his later, an author talks about his latest