encroachment of government, what is the advice you give other ceos as they try to plan survive all when they're faced with the fact that washington is so odd of control? what is your advice to other ceos and? >> my advice to them is something i realized when i first became president of godfather's. if i did not get involved in these issues, there were going to collapse our entire free market system. my advice to ceos, don't play it safe. the part of the solution. some of us are fighting.

the good news is, and i want to congratulate the tea party group for putting this together, not to just rallies, let's educate people. better informed people are going to change this country. [applause] become better informed. this movement that i call the citizens movement for the tea party movement is real and it is growing. you have liberals that they're trying to put a bad name on it. they call me names. they call me a racist like hugh -- you. my advice to business people, and get involved. so you can be a part of this movement and not sit on the sidelines and think you're going to stop it with lobbyists down the road.

>> any questions of newt gingrich? >> my question is that you spent a lot of years in congress. you have a distinguished career. then you left congress. that gave you an opportunity to start of their ventures and to think. you have been studying and thinking about things rather than being in sign that washington bauble. quarter the three biggest things that you have come to realize being outside the bubble? >> first iraq, it is it -- first of all, it is an interesting reversal.

you got drawn into public life by the pressure. i left the public sector and opened a number of small businesses. the first thing i learned which is the opposite of how government works, if you do not get up every morning trying to find a customer, please a customer, renew a relationship, you don't get to stay in business. this is part of why and so intrigued with strong american now, and applying it to the american government. if you have not burned your pay today, "you think we will pay you? -- why do you think we will pay you? [applause] the second thing shaped my career in congress. now that i have been out for a while, it is even truer. i was struck with this the other day at premier, which builds heavy equipment for

construction. it started with one person in 1948 and now has about 2000. i was looking at their model. look at what they built in 1948. the great reason for the american people to be optimistic is that in every part of the private sector, somebody was doing something brilliant that could be transferred to government, and that would lead to dramatic declines in cost and a remarkable increase in effectiveness, and the challenge is this wall which consultants and the news media create, which blocked from having that conversation. i am very optimistic, because i helped found the center for transformation. i really believe that if you went around the country and found best practices, you would be astonished how much you could change medicaid and medicare,

how much you could change private-sector health care, and how much better and cheaper our health would be. something i learned when i balance the federal budget -- i brought in a bunch of ceo's. i would say, "we are going to balance the federal budget. it is an act of will. what is your advice?" my record was when i entered office, but the cbo projected for 10 years a two trillion $700 billion deficit total. when i left, the projected a surplus for the next 10 years, a swing of five trillion dollars. and here is what they said. set very big goals. with tight deadlines. delegate like crazy. do not let any experts in the room. [applause] [laughter]

>> we are going to move on to our next subject. please give our candidates a round of applause. >> thank you. >> gentlemen, we are going to try to tackle the problem of social security entitlement reform. it seems like the problems are relatively basic. we have less young workers contributing into the system, trying to support older americans, and more americans are getting older. it would seem to me we have three basic options. we can raise the retirement age, we can reduce benefits, or we have to raise taxes. herman cain is going to tackle that one. by all means. >> will you what first on the first issue. -- well, you went first on the first issue. social security.

the three things you mentioned, none of the above, because that is not solving the problem. i am a firm believer in let's solve the problem. with all due respect, those ideas prolong the problem. this is why i am a strong proponent of an idea that president george bush introduced but could not give momentum. that is the idea of personal retirement accounts, optional personal retirement accounts. [applause] 30 countries have optional personal retirement accounts. the chilean model -- i started studying eight years ago, and asked, "why can't we do that?" the answer is we can. but there is demagoguery whenever you try to fix the

problem. and we have to fight all the people who do not want the system to change. i believe strongly in that approach, and that is an approach i know i am going to try to promote. the other thing we have to try to do is to educate the public on it, such that they understand it. when the country -- but the country of chile did nearly 30 years ago -- they have a social security system very similar to ours. the workers had gotten up to 27% on the dollar of every dollar they earned, and the system was broken. somebody said, "we have to change this. it is in st.." when they gave the workers the option of that model in chile and -- they gave workers the option. within three years, 90% of all

workers said they wanted the option even if there were close to retirement. why? because it became their money on an account with their name on it. today, they do not have the problems we have, trying to do with social security. >> herman cain, what about the older americans that have already paid into the system? would they get their money back if they elected the private option? >> to the ones that have already paid into the system have a choice to continue to get the benefits that have been promised. but if they opt for the new system, if they take the option, i do not believe that is how it would be structured. you have a choice. stay with the current system if you are close to retirement or already getting retirement. those benefits are going to be paid. the option is for the younger workers, who would get a greater return on the amount that does

not go into the system as they opt out of the system. all of the groups i have talked to, i have asked young people on a routine basis, "if you have the option to take a portion of your payroll tax and half of it, hypothetically, would help pay for the benefits that have been promised, and the other half would go to an account with your name on it, would you be willing to forgo 50% of payroll taxes to take 50% in an account with very conservative investments?" i have not found one young person who would not take that option. they understand that they will end up with a greater retirement fund, investing half of what that are contributing, then what they are promised today if we continue with the old system. >> , and despite roughly 6% of wages paid by the employer --

>> 7.65% by the employer, 7.65% by the employee. >> how does the employer portion end up in a private account? >> to first have to convert the tax code to a nine-nine-nine plan. i am about fixing the problem. one of the biggest problems we have is that the payroll tax is the biggest tax that a lot of workers paid. it is the biggest tax that they pay. we're not going to talk about taxes tonight. maybe we can talk about the economy another time. i would be happy to do that. but seriously, we have to change the tax code. the tax code is one of the

reasons that, to get back to the other issue, that health care costs keep going up. they contribute toward employee health insurance, but an employee cannot. there is the idea there is somebody else's money. in fact, that employer is taking out of your wages indirectly. the payroll tax is eliminated, such that the money that is connected with this bold idea of 9-9-9, optional personal retirement accounts would be with that money, because we raised the same amount of revenue. [applause] >> for this evening's purpose, i will sidestep the great temptation to discuss 9-9-9, although i was just sharing the

that our mutual friend, shawn hammett, has asked us to spend an hour with him in this kind of dialogue one evening. i suspect in that setting we might get around to comparing tax codes -- tax notes. frankly, i am delighted peter ferrara is here. he is part of an emerging intellectual revolution that in many ways began in chile, but also began in texas, with the galveston system. public employees in galveston, what they discovered was that you could put in about half as much money and get back twice as big an amount if you did it in the private sector, rather than turn it over to the government. i want to give you three large principals for fundamentally rethinking the system. this is one of the reasons we are happy to be here. any candidate who is not

prepared to talk about giving younger americans the right to choose has no serious solution on social security. [applause] and you can say to everybody who is currently on that that you are fine, and it is not quite to be touched. do not let the aarp or anybody else lie to you. having said that, there are three principles -- growth, honesty, and not miss an of social security by trying to bounce the budget on the back of a retirement plan. if you go back to 4.2% unemployment, social security is more solvent, because more people are paying taxes. do not look at a static model and decide anything. under jimmy carter, social security was going to collapse. if you look at the reagan

recovery, social security got healthier. it is amazing what 20 million americans going to work does to make the country healthy, ok? second, honesty. this is a challenge for the super committee and the current congress. lyndon johnson, in order to score a cheap political point, presented the budget and brought social security into the general budget in order to hide the deficit. that is why social security got sucked into the budget. prior to that, it was not part of the budget. it was a freestanding retirement account to be solved on its own. ever since, people have been trying to figure out some way to steal the money. the president said it this summer. we are putting together a youtube video of president obama twice in july going, "i mean not be able to send you your social

security check." there are two trillion dollars in the trust fund. what kind of dishonest president scare's senior citizens? they do not need to be involved with the debt ceiling. take it off budget. get it back to being a free, independent retirement account. third, if you want to solve social security in the long run, you go to a system -- we are not far apart on this. go to a system where younger americans, or a deal logically right-wing americans in their 60's -- or is geologically -- or ideologically right-wing americans in their 60's, you have a choice. you can let politicians scare

you for 60 years. and do not have it as an estate, so if you die early, it does not go to your family. have a politician says, "we have to tell you to work more years." it is not courageous to say that my grandchildren may have to work three extra years 60 years from now. the idea that is going to significantly change the present is lunacy. if you have your own personal savings account and want to retire early on a smaller amount of money, because you are willing to have more free time, why would the congress to you not to? on the other hand, if you are like andy rooney, who passed away having worked until he was 91, and you love what you are doing, why should the congress tell you if you cannot? let us get politicians out of the decision process. return it to americans. let americans control their own lives.

[applause] >> let me add the other challenge that we have. we are not short on ideas about how to fix social security or medicare. what we are short on is the ability to educate people on the solutions. this gets back to the questions about ceo's. ceo's can educate and help inform their workers about what is truth and what is garbage. unfortunately, they are not going to always hit the truth, depending on what station they watch or newspaper their watch. i believe the businesses in america provide a tremendous service, helping to change the paradigm in washington, d.c.,

but also becoming vehicles to inform your employees about what is fact and what is not. secondly, one of the big advantages we have in this election cycle that we did not have 20 years ago is power of this movement, the tea party movement, and the power of the internet. people are more informed. we must use that to our advantages. i believe the president of the united states, in addition to being commander in chief, must also take on the role from that particular bully pulpit. the communicator in chief as well. [applause] >> i want to build on this for a minute. we were talking before one of the debates about herman's role in turning around godfather pizza, which he was sent into

when it was a very troubled country -- company. the enthusiastic, positive, solutions-oriented leader suddenly changes the team. i want to thank everybody who has given up what every s.e.c. member believes is the national championship game tonight in order to be a part of this. here is a true story about leadership. the history of the franchise in 1958 -- have not had a winning season since 1947. vince lombardi and arrives in february of 1959. from the worst team in the history of the franchise, 15 players become all-pro. that is leadership. i tell the truth to the house republican party for a decade. they finally decided it was ok

to become the majority. he became a leader because he saw what it would take to have the country be -- to make the company be successful. ronald reagan told the truth. compare his ability to talk directly to the american people, makes sense, and have the american people move the congress with the current president. this president is about as candidate -- is about as accurate as bernie madoff in what he tells the american people. >> as a matter of cleanup on these proposals, i am hearing a personal retirement account advocacy from each of you. i am presuming it is patterned of the federal government employees savings plan. as i heard from the speaker, to

take the social security trust fund off budget -- i will oppose this first to mr. kane, and then back to the speaker. where do you put the money? i have one of those sheets in my briefcase. i carry it around. all it is is copy machine paper. all of those are in a filing cabinet. it is and i owe you from the government to the government. where are you going to put that, if you are not going to loan it to the government? >> this is a topic i was involved in back when we were trying to balance the budget in the 90's. this whole way that congress and washington deals with social security is a fraud and a lie. it is because of the congressional budget office and the unified budget.

there is two trillion 400 billion -- there is $2.40 trillion that you have put in the federal budget. any amount of money in a bank account is a set of numbers called electronically. but everybody wants to find a way to balance the budget on the backs of the american people. my point is that money does exist. it is a debt the united states owes every working american. if you take it off the budget, this is all psychological. you figure out how to get a balanced budget on the rest of the money. social security -- it turns out to trillion $400 billion, which is not big money, but it is a start -- these are modeled more

on chile than the federal retirement plan. you find that with a few modest cuts in spending you can get to a very stable retirement system. it does make it harder to balance the rest of the budget. we have been hiding the size of the real budget deficit behind social security. i think it is time for us to be genuinely honest and deal with them as separate issues. here is the government. let's get the budget balanced. >> let us first realize, and this is why we have to be honest with the american people -- it is going to take a long time to work ourselves out of this mess that has been created for decades. we're not going to be able to

deal with the unfunded liabilities and the money that has already been stolen. let us go to a situation where -- there was a bill introduced in the senate a couple of years ago. the bill said starting from now all social security contributions would go towards social security benefits. it was defeated in the united states senate. that is what people are saying. the money was corrected for it it. we have to start at that point, going forward, as we work our way out of this mess. >> the federal government is going to collect social security and invest it somewhere. park it in the private market, but where?

>> the money which is raised in taxes goes into treasury notes on which the u.s. government pays interest. that is fine, as long as you recognize that is a real debt, not smoke and mirrors. the private sector money you would have in your personal savings account would go into the private sector. reagan's chief of the council of economic advisers think you get a one percentage point increase in economic growth over the next 15 years, but i was out of the principal group in the morning and let it sleep. -- in des moines lately. they have savings equal to 67% of the annual economy. that gives you access to a scale of capital for economic growth

that is breathtaking and long- term and stable. the money we are raising through taxes can stay in treasury notes, as long as it is separate, and the money individuals put into personal accounts would go into the private sector in a way that would dramatically in which the whole country. >> i do not think i did a good job the first time. in the private sector, let us use this as a model. most companies have moved to a defined contribution retirement approached for their employees. the employee name is on the account. the employee makes contributions based upon how much they want to put in. the company will make a contribution.

the employees of blacks from three or four -- the employee selects from options for how they want to be invested. you can declare yourself low- risk. there are mutual funds you can select. you can select a medium. you can select high. based upon what you want to do, you can do exactly the same thing for individual retirement accounts, a personal retirement accounts, using that model. you select the level of risk you want. in that model, he the money will not be the problem. yankee in the money out of the national budget is going to be the hard part, dealing with other unintended consequences. >> re-are going to move on to the next topic and you another

round of applause. >> we are going to discuss medicare respond -- reform. we can discuss obamacare as well during this 30-minute segment. i would like to ask. the ryan plan proposes block grants to the state for medicaid. my first question is, do we need to retain the medicaid scenario, where we have to program at all? do we continue with the program medicaid as health care for the poor? should we maintain it? should we agree to the block grant proposal by congressman

ryan, or do you have another alternative? >> i absolutely agree with the block grant to the states as a way to begin to get these costs under control. it gets back to my overriding principle. in order to solve the problem, go to the source closest to the problem. the states know better how to use those resources in order to be able to provide the greatest amount of help to the greatest amount of their citizens. the other reason i believe in the block grant approach is because since medicare and medicaid were created, what it has done, trying to control it out of washington, d.c. -- it has states hooked on it like people getting hooked on crack. we have to break the crack problem. if you block grant the money with the general guideline and let the states do it, depending

on the resources for coming in, that is going to go down. i do not believe we should cut the state's off cold turkey. that would leave too many people without the help. but it is a way to end the dependency on washington, d.c. bureaucrats making those decisions. >> you are talking about the federal mandates. >> ending the federal mandates to the states. cut those mandates, and let the states decide. >> let me go back to where you began, which is obamacare. if you go to my web site and go to my proposed 21st century contract with america, the first item is to follow steve king's leadership and repeal obamacare.

i strongly support paul ryan's general approach to block granting and medicaid. we could block grant all the remaining welfare programs, an opportunity for states using innovation and new approaches in a way that saves a lot of money. i want to talk very briefly about medicaid at a couple of levels. picking up on something harmon has said that is exactly right, this is where we are going to have a real national debate. i do not believe you solve problems dealing with poverty under the liberal model that we have had for the last 40 or 50 years of people being helpless, ok? there is a remarkable book called "the tragedy of

compassion,"which helped define welfare reform in the 1990's. we need to rethink medicaid, much the way we rethought the process of welfare reform. for example, governor jeb bush, when he was governor of florida -- if you had diabetes or asthma and you took care of yourself, so you did not need to go to the emergency room, you got a christmas bonus, because you had saved the state so much money by taking care of yourself that it was profitable to reward you for being a mature and responsible person. the notion of linking behavior to award, which turned out to be very effective with poor people, because it turned out they were aware of money. i will give you a classic example of how you save money in medicaid. the number of people who walk

into emergency rooms in order to get aspirin is absurd. if you simply had an ability to triage as you walked in -- if what they needed was an aspirin, the could go to a minute clinic. that lasts 30 to $40. if the hospital was not charged in an emergency room visit, you save an immense amount of money. second, you start tracking that person's visits. if they are clearly abusing the system, the should be a point where there is a consequence. this is going to be very controversial. we have to start distinguishing between the taxpayer as being concerned for charitable care and the taxpayer as being a sucker to be exploited. that is a big difference in the current system. >> one of the general

principles that i firmly believe is an underlying theme in all of the ideas that we are putting forth is that we must go from an entitlement society to of empowerment society, which teaches people to help themselves, not another entitlement. anecdotally, not long ago, we were in florida. we were in a restaurant. a young man who is a waiter recognized me. he came up to me and said, "you know that old saying, give a man a fish, he eats all day, teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime?" this young man, who happened to be black, said, "i want to fish.

i want an economy that teaches me to achieve my american dream puzzle that is what we have to tell people. >> would you favor a voucher system, he where you gave people that gave -- that needed health care some type of a voucher to acquire the health care, as opposed to a benefit system? >> i could be supportive of a voucher system, but not if the voucher was going to pay all the costs. people need some skin in the game. if they are playing with skin in the game, it is easy for them to say, "how much more is the government going to give me." >> first of all, i think we ought to have genuine block grants. that means if one state wants to try a voucher, it can try it. some state might decide to give doctors a tax credit for providing care for free, as long as the doctors document to the

care. i think the whole purpose of getting back to the 50 states is to create 50 laboratories of experimentation. we have proven decisively washington cannot fix this. that is a reasonable step in the right direction. let me also build on this idea of responsibility. you have to think of the complete person. we talk about medicaid. we talk about education. these things all become integrated in one human being. we need to be looking at public housing, the notion that if we are going to provide you an opportunity to live in public housing, maybe you should have a role in cleaning it up and pointing it and fix it. there is a whole range where we should start -- this will be a huge debate with the left. the left has this model in which

everyone is weak, hopeless, and stupid, but government will take care of them, which leads me to wonder -- who do they think government hires? >> medicaid fraud is all over the newspaper headlines. the states do not seem to be able to prevent the frost from occurring. they do not know what they are being billed for. the have to go back and try to find it after they have paid millions of dollars. how do we change the system and how do we prevent that from occurring? >> you do not just a block grant the money. you also block grant the responsibility out of washington, d.c.. they are trying to pull the strings in washington, d.c. states are trying to adhere to these rules without building up a big investor function. it also puts the responsibility

and decisions of the state level. if it is their money, they will find that money and stop the fraud. right now, they are caught up in bureaucracy. they do not have the resources. >> this is one of the areas where i sometimes cause some weights. i believe in health information technology. i believe it is important we apply the same patterns of information flow that everyone of you deals with with an automatic teller machine. how many of you get money out of an atm? how many have done that outside the united states? you walk to an anonymous machine in a foreign country. seven languages come up and you pick one you're good at. he put in a plastic card and punch in a form number code. it crosses six borders, find your bank, verifies you are who you say you are, gives you money

in the local playing card, and you have no idea what the transaction meant. you are happy. you took 11 seconds. the center for medicare and medicaid services does paper. when they started going to macarthur park dietz, they met with the pharmacist. -- to medicare part d, they met with the pharmacist. everything in the pharmacy is electronic. they said, "how are we going to get you guys to go back to paper?" you have a crook who stays until 8:00 or 9:00 at night with an ipad, competing with a bureaucrat who is using five -- who is going home at 5:00 and using paper. the major inhibitor to change is the center for medicaid services, which is an inherently obstructive paper-based

bureaucracy that stops us from getting into a better future. [applause] >> i would like to bring up an issue by the current governor of georgia. the eligibility standards for medicaid -- those eligibility standards were significantly eroded by actions that were initiated by then-speaker pelosi. i mentioned in my remarks how they set up a requirement for citizenship which included a birth certificate and other identifying documents. it has now been reduced to attesting to a nine digit number. which you restore that standard? >> absolutely, i would restore that. we should not make it easy for people to cheat. we cannot get on an airplane without showing the right kind of identification.

it is not just restoring the requirement in order to keep medicaid. i agree with what the government was trying to do. i also happen to believe that we should require photo ids for people that vote, so we can get fraud out of that. why not? the people that are fighting, here -- that are fighting using voter i.d. in order to do one of the most important things we do -- they want cheating to continue. they are for cheating in this country. [applause] >> this is one of the areas where you have this

extraordinary gap between the private sector and the government. why you can be an optimist in the long run, once you have people in the government who have the courage to be rational and to what is obvious. let me give you an example. who has tracked a package to see where it is going? we have technology that allows us, at the cost of shipping a package, to go on line and find out where it is with remarkable accuracy. this is not a theory. one of my proposals was that in order to find everybody who is here illegally, we send them a package. [laughter]

it is funny, but it is making a profound point about where we are. i think we should be able to identify every person who gets emergency aid of any kind. candidly, i think every state should sue the federal government every year for every penny they have to spend on people who should not be in the united states, because it is the federal government pay for responsibility. >> i want to shift is over just a little bit. you know how hard it is for me

to stay out of this. but i really want to be objective and as a question. the heritage foundation did a very expansive study. the identified, graft, and charted the means-tested federal welfare program. this number is astonishing. 72 different means-tested federal welfare problems. that is wrapped up in this program. i would ask how you would address those 72 different programs that all have constituencies, how you would approach that. i have maybe a follow-up. >> this goes back to my statement about changing these entitlement programs, changing them to entitlement -- to empowerment programs. i am thinking about the model that was used in wisconsin, but

fundamentally we defined the entitlement program. you could not get benefits indefinitely unless you prove you went to look for a job or take a class to improve yourself. a lot of people ended up getting off the welfare rolls. i do not have a problem with means testing, but we have to do more than that. means testing will help, but we need to make people take ownership and want to get off of those programs. that is what i believe we have to do. that is fundamentally restructure them. >> would you block grant them back to the states? >> i would send them back to the states and give the states the flexibility to modify some of those, because they know better how they can stretch those dollars. they can make those dollars complementary to the dollars they would be able to spend. >> first of all, you have to

start with the question of whether or not means testing encourages people to remain below. think about it. you say, "i want to give you some food stamps, and we have today the most effective food- stamp president in american history puzzle that is not a positive thing. but think about it. but you get a little or no income tax credit and public housing. do i want to rise above the point where i am going to be means tested? you actually create a discouragement. this is the work that was done by charlie marie -- charlie murray, in a book called "losing ground." we are teaching people to be dependent. we are teaching people to fail, teaching people to give up the american dream. second, i am very much for

rethinking -- nobody should get something for nothing unless they have a very severe disability. if somebody has a temporary problem after a car wreck, that is one thing. if somebody has a lifetime severe disability, that is another thing. if you are an able-bodied person getting something for nothing, we're pretty stupid for giving it to you. you can read abraham lincoln's letter to his brother in law on why he would not send him any more money. there is a certain tough love we need to be adopt as a country. i favor fundamental change to unemployment compensation so it has attached a training component and you cannot get money for doing nothing. you could get an associate degree in the length of time people have been sitting around waiting for obama to create jobs.

peter ferrara, who is here, has a proposal that is very powerful for taking all of these programs, block granting them, going back to the states and saying each state ought to consider what it wants to do and how it wants to deal with these issues. i think that is the right general direction to move back toward implementing the 10th amendment and giving the state's primary responsibility on these issues. [applause] >> we have talked about the biggest elephant in the room, entitlement, social security and medicaid. we are not afraid to talk about this. the united states government has been intellectually dishonest

with the american people for nearly 50 years. let us not forget, getting back to another point that newt made, that if we talk about these programs individually, ultimately, they all worked together, and it all comes back to what is the best form of help to people, that you want to get them out of medicaid -- education and a job. we have to grow this economy, which is job one. that is looking at the whole problem we need to address, and not just how we more efficiently give away money. you are going to have a few people that are going to be lazy. people choose to be lazy and do not want to help themselves. that is there little boogie-

woogie, as my grandmother used to say. >> i have watched unemployment benefits go from 26 weeks paid for by the employer to 99 week'' paid for by borrowed money. i wonder if either of you have information about unemployment benefits. >> i am thinking about what newt wants to say. that is not a big. -- a dig. i would recommend changing how it works. the states have some part in this. if you had 26 weeks of unemployment, the next time you go back and apply, you get 13 weeks.

you make diminishing benefits, because that is good to make you work a little bit harder to get out and try to find a job. >> this is probably a place where we approach it differently. i would say if you do not sign up for a training program offered by a business, you do not help people. we have millions of jobs we cannot fill because we have an older work force that is not trained for the new kinds of jobs. we pay the older work force to do nothing for 99 weeks while we are trying to find money to train people for the new jobs which cannot fill. i would say from day one you ought to get trained. your goal should be to get trained as fast as possible to get a full-time job to get back

on track. they would have to do something every single day in order to get a penny. >> i want to give you a chance to ask each other the question. who would like to go first? [laughter] >> i am going to ask you a softball i think these folks would find interesting. i hope you will notice we have not played gotcha one time tonight. [applause] i want to give you a chance. you have had a terrific life. we've known each other for many years. you had a great radio show. you decide as a citizen to dive into this.

what has been the greatest surprise to you out of this whole experience? >> maine nitpicking of the media. i expect to have to work hard. i expected to have to study hard. i did not realize this media when you start moving up in the polls. that has been the biggest surprise, because if there is a journalistic standard, a lot of them don't follow it. too many people get misinformation and disinformation this is probably going to get taken the wrong way, but i did not take political correctness school. there are too many people in the

media that are downright dishonest. not all, but to many of them doing a disservice to the american people. >> do you have a question for newt gingrich? >> yes, i do. if you were vice president of the united states and -- [laughter] what would you what the president to assign you to do first?

>> having studied dick cheney, i would not go hunting. >> i hope you enjoyed tonight's debate. let's give our candidates the round of applause. i want to thank congressman king for doing such a great job. thank you for showing up tonight. let us hope they do this again released soon. -- really soon. >> we would like to thank our moderator's. -- moderators, along with our

presidential candidates. thank you for a to avoid big texas patriots political action committee newt gingrich-herman cain debate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪

>> this is the formal part, filling out the declaration of candidacy which has been completed except for -- >> just needs a signature. >> this is a filing fee of $1,000. >> you got that. >> this is a space for your slogan. we do this every four years. >> you have done a great job for the last 40 or 50 years and we appreciate your leadership. we want to make sure new hampshire remains first in the nation. it is the responsibility and honor which new hampshire richly

deserves and i am happy to be part of that process. i hope this time it will take and i will be able to become the for my party and hopefully the next president of the united states. >> new hampshire primary is set for beginning of the year. you can access the candidates and speeches on line at c- span.org. >> this morning, we'll take your questions and comments on "washington journal." guest: stan steny hoyer on the presidential campaign and later, "the contenders," we will look at at stevenson >>