vernon was talking about european leaders. during the 1980's, but in almost every european country there were conservative governments. starting with tony blair and the new labor this formula that bill clinton really developed changed the whole face of world politics. i think there are some things, probably, some of the political things where there might have been some backsliding in the party and where the party has to work through again but i think there are a lot of other things that are really very important. nobody questions and lot of the ideas -- nobody questions a lot of the ideas that caused us some much grief. i don't see people wanting to repeal welfare reform. the whole idea of americorps and the national service.

we changed the national system with community policing and 100,000 cops. charter schools is the central element of president obama's reform agenda for education. and i think most importantly, i do think -- you know, there is always some backsliding in any political party. we are a political party, we are not like the republicans everybody is not exactly the same. but the understanding that if we are going to be a successful party, you have to grow the economy, create jobs for ordinary people. i don't think our party has lost that. that may seem like a simple thing, but it was not a simple thing in 1991. >> that seems like a good final summary on which to stop. thank you all for listening. i think the president would like to make a few final remarks. [applause] >> thank you.

first of all i want to thank the panelists. i think they were great. and thank you for taking me down memory lane. not everything they said was true. the truth is the day i declared for president, my mother was the only person in america who thought i could win. [laughter] hillay and chelsea were undecided, leaning maybe. that is not quite true. there are a couple of points that i want to make, based on what they said. first of all, we could not win the election in new hampshire but we could have lost it. and new hampshire worked for me because it was a lot like a year. -- i just want to say since we are

here in little rock, it would be a big mistake -- here is what the deal was. the republicans thought that i was the only person that had a theoretical chance to win even though i -- when i started running, i was low in the polls. they decided to go after me. i went up to 35 and got down to 18. i was heading down to single digits. greenberg said somebody has a pretty small -- strong foot to put on the brakes. 18 was not enough. hundreds of people came from arkansas spontaneously. literally, it was almost like it was organized. a friend told his employer he had to go but cannot afford to fly, so he drove straight through.

he started going on radio stations saying iraq to let me talk about this. 600 people from arkansas took out a full-page ad in the manchester union's leader with their phone numbers and said call us collect, do not believe you -- do not believe what they are telling you about our governor. new hampshire took it seriously. thousands and thousands of people called these people in arkansas collect. [laughter] [applause] then, with our volunteers that were already there we bag at 100,000 -- bagged 100,000 little films. do you remember that? we put 100,000 of them on the doors of the voters we

identified as still persuade bloaable. we came back and said we start going down at some point below 18% and we got back up to 36%. the rest is history. that is the first thing i want to say. i am very grateful for the people of this date. -- of this state. [applause] having a narrative is really important. if one side does and the other side does not, it is a very bad deal. the one thing that people like me who are oriented towards policy need to guard against is losing the forest for the trees. one of the things that really helped us was when not only had

a narrative, but in the beginning we had a theme song. remember that? this man right here was responsible for it. stand up. [applause] a little known factoid in american history. i flew to california to give a speech not particularly political, and he said, "i think you are going to run for president next year. i hope you do and if you do, this should be your theme song." it is a true story. there were no cds then. he puts the song in the tape deck and it is fleetwood mac singing "don't stop thinking about tomorrow." i said, "you were not born when that was made. actually, he was 2-years old.

the minute i listened to it, i knew he was right. you were part of that campaign. you should thank him. he had a lot to do with it. [applause] you all talk about race and that brings me -- i want to come back to the narrative. one of the things that always mystified me, every time i look back at something i said in 1974 or 1976 is how all the media said i did not believe anything. what they were really saying is how dare you not talk like all the people in washington and how dare you expect us to have to look at your record as governor in arkansas to see if you are serious about this. they know how we want to talk about politics. a conservative is someone who

despises government, hates taxes, hates regulations thanks all programs will mess up if you incorporate, and a liberal is anybody who disagrees. you are confusing us, therefore you have no soul, no nothing. it did not work with african- americans who have a very good detector -- an additive which we cannot use on c-span. [applause] [laughter] it is not rocket science. i did not leave vernon in 1973. i had already been friends with hillary for four years something he never stopped telling me. in 1977 i became attorney general. i had taught in the law school

at the university of arkansas. three-quarters of all african- american lawyers practicing in the state up 20% of my professional staff was african- american. 25% were female lawyers. i had one of the highest percentages of women lawyers of any attorney-general's office in america. the highest percentage of african-american lawyers. they went after me in the boardrooms of the elite, liberal -- liberal newspapers. 15 years ago when i was attorney general, i had a high percentage of african-american lawyers in my office than you do today. when you catch up to me, come back to see me and tell me how i do not believe in something. meanwhile, i will go back to work. [applause] but the media then it was coming

to grips with the problem that they have now. this is not a criticism, i am expressing empathy with them. it is the top running these tv shows today. the economics for newspapers are horrible. they are horrible. the economics of magazines are horrible. that is why you see these boilers of news, commentary, and entertainment. if you are like me and our semi- retired, you do not have to watch the news at all. you can change the channel and watch a movie sports, or something. this is difficult. that is why they look for short in boxes to put people in. when president kennedy was in office, the average president when he was on the evening news talk for 30 seconds or something. maybe 40. now it is down to six or eight. this is a generalized problem. anyway, i want to thank

everybody, starting with the people who are here in arkansas. rodney slater who started with me in 1982 and rode it all the way to the cabinet. richly deserve, i might add. ron brown is a new democrat, even though he is never with us. not a week goes by i do not think about him and thank god for his presence in my life. i love him. [applause] but this idea of having ideas -- that is the other thing i was going to say -- 2008 was the first time since 1992 i think because people were hurting so bad that people were starved for ideas. but i put out this little booklet and people were making fun of me saying it was too detailed, it was to policyo policy

wonky. we got 60% of the vote in a six- person field because we were the only people who said this is what we were going to do. we were driving to claremont one night and i asked how many people we had to have in new hampshire to avoid humiliation. someone said 50. i said what is the grand success? he said 150. we show up as 400 people and the fire marshall will not let them come to the door. why? but because i said what we were going to do. it is important for people to remember that when they hire you to be president people understand it is a job and they want to know what the heck you are going to do. paul tsongas had a very detailed plan. it did not heard anything that

he was a town south of the new hampshire border. they made fun of us saying after we did all of the activity we were second. i said that is right. let's see how he does in memphis. [laughter] 81% of the people voted for me. but i like paul tsongas because he said what he was for. that is important. it is important not to forget. i will say all of this to the rest of you -- it is very important not to get caught in all of this. it is important to take it back to the people and make it about the people in the circumstances of the time. i go crazy every time i read the conventional wisdom which is the republican narrative. they are so much better at narrative than we are. it is easier to have a narrative if the story is always the same.

but they are good at it. [laughter] part of the republican narrative is that i was saved from myself by the election of the republican congress. it may be balanced budget possible. a lot of these folks in ron's profession keep saying this. overlooking all relevant facts. fact number one, the budget was 90% balanced before the balanced budget act was passed. [applause] so it is not a tree that the democrats voted for the '93 budget agreement. they toted the load. fact number two, when it comes to welfare reform, the first new democrat was bobby kennedy. if he had not been killed, the

whole world would have known it. the second new democrat on welfare reform -- welfare reform was jimmy carter, who gave four of five states the right to start welfare reform experiments. i beg the white house to make us one of the test cases and they gave it to us. fact number three, before the welfare reform bill passed donna shalala and i had given 43 of the 50 states waivers to implement welfare reform before we ever had a bill. yet i kept reading how this was a republican idea just because president reagan had a good story about a welfare queen in a cadillac that did not exist. [applause] i am telling you this -- i want you to laugh, but it is kind of

sad. we need a coherent narrative. we need -- [applause] this is the only thing i will say about the current circumstances -- i thought the president did the right thing to lay out a coherent plan to jump- start the economy now and try to get the growth rate higher. he did the right thing to tell the american people the truth -- we are never going to balance the budget at this rate of economic growth and this rate of low business investment. you have to have spending cuts, new revenues, and economic growth. my last budget was also a surplus budget. they sparked a lot of growth. you have to have all three things. i think it is really important for those of us when we look back at that time to remember

what they said. the economy was not as bad then as it was now, but it was pretty bad. we kept slipping back in. we would get out of the recession and slipped back in. we're not generating job growth. a lot of people were really hurting. we went to see a bunch of them. do you remember that? the number-one rule of effective politics especially for the people you are running again is to have a simple narrative. the government is always the problem, there is no such thing as a good or bad tax cut, there is no such thing as a good or bad cut, there is no such thing as a good or bad regulation. your counter have to be rooted in the lives of other people. and so they made that happen. the other thing i want to say i

have the gratitude for every one of these people, but i have to tell you -- we were looking at total meltdown about one week before new hampshire. we were in a little room and james carville -- he likes to act crazy because it helps him get speaking biggegigs. the figures if he goes around acting like he needs a rabies shot, more and more people would want to see him. [laughter] we were alone, do you remember that? just a handful of us in that little motel room. they were saying i was dead and all the commentators said i should withdraw. james carville stood up and said "i served in the united states marines. i come from louisiana. i like people who believe in serving this country and combat.

unlike all these people who are saying bill clinton is dead, i have actually read his letter and i believe we should take a full-page ad out in the manchester union leader and print his vietnam letter. it made me think more of him. do not let people define this. this is a kid. he was a kid. he said some things he would say different today, but he loved his country and he had a good reason to do it. now everybody get up and go back to work." the deserves a lot of credit for that. he stood alone in that room and said that. [applause] that is my thing. we always need a narrative. it needs to be people-centered. we need to let people know what we are going to do.

one of the things that tends to tilt things towards the republican's anti-government narrative is our country was born out of the suspicion of government. king george's government was not accountable to us. that is what the boston tea party was about. with the tea party started out at least, they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom and more to into something different. if you want to go against that grain, you have to tell people you understand it is a privilege and responsibility to spend their tax money, but there are some things we have to do together. that is the purpose of government -- to do the things we have to do together that we cannot do on our own. believing in shared prosperity and shared responsibility and sharing our membership in the committee is better than "you are on your own." if we can make that choice

credible, then our candidates, starting with the president, and our principles will be fine. we also have to always realize that we might be wrong about some things. that also is a good thing. if one group, once you show your own strength says i might be wrong about a particular thing and the other group never does, the average person thinks more of the honest side than the proud side, the falsely proud side. i do not think any of that has changed very much. i was touched when frank greer said he read the gop announcement speech. again, i thank all these people for what they did all those long years ago. i thank all of you who were part of it.

i probably would not have survived in new hampshire. i am afraid it will cost him half of his news gigs, but i considered him to be a righteously honest person who had convictions about the way the world works, about the way the world should work, and did not ask what he said -- what you said through a priest conceived -- preconceived smokescreen. benjamin franklin once said our adversaries could be our brands because they show us our faults. i always played it straight and at i am honored by your presence here. thank you all. it was great. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tomorrow on the "washington journal," a discussion on the deficit committee's inability to reach a deal with josh boak of "politico." after that, joseph mcquaid of the "new hampshire union leader" and later compound daniel seddiqui talking about his book "50 jobs in 50 states." that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on "newsmakers raul grijalva rau talking about the progressive agenda and his grave for the president on his first three years at in the office. >> what grade would you give the

president for his first three years in office and do you plan to endorse him? would you commit to us on this program that you will endorse him for a rebid for re-election? >> and i would give him a passing grade. >> congressman c is a passing grade. >> yes, b minus or c, i have a starkly guiding those grades and skills, so i would give them a passing grade. you would give him a c? >> i would give him a passing grade. in terms of an endorsement. i've seen the cast of characters on the other side. i would think that what they bring to the discussion right now is the same kind of hard extremist position both on the economy and on the social well-

being of this country. the contract with the president is obvious. i will support the president. did you watch the entire interview with congressman raul grijalva -- >> watch the entire interview with congressman raul grijalva tomorrow. from today's "washington journal," a look at the in bed ability of the deficit committee to reach a deal. this is about 40 minutes. what happens if they'd do this? caller: defense is one that of the president's budget.

they would take 50% of the cut. so the defense department would be cut significantly. we refunding operation in iraq and afghanistan through supplemental funding. president obama shifted that funding. he did not have any money to the budget to do that. that money was already in the budget. so that will be cut to be able to buy new equipment and patrons. it is about zero hundred billion dollars in cuts that have already been put in place by the administration. this will be on top of that. we're looking at maybe over $1 trillion in defense cuts. >> in terms of programs and various departments? >> that is the $100,000 question. no one knows the answer to that.

the automatic cuts have not actually gone into effect. even some of the cuts the president has put in are not in the budget yet. you're just guessing for the house armed services committee did a very good report on their website. they said that if all the automatic cuts went into place, what kinds of things with the defense department have to cut? normally troops and things right? they would lose wings, new programs which serve not built yet like a new bomber for the air force, those things night -- might not be built. we have the nuclear triad that we've had forever. three different ways to launch nuclear weapons so that no enemy can look at the united states and figure out how to get away

with it. we have nuclear weapons delivered by bombs, land-based, and sea-based ballistic missiles. so there is some question whether we can maintain all three of those. that is one of the pillars of nuclear deterrence in the cold war may die. >> how does that compare with your own list as you look at where the pain would be felt within the department of defense? >> it is pretty significant. last year we did report called the strong national defense. we listed the five major areas of national security. i may be having a rick perry moment. asia, western europe, the middle east homeland security, and then global. the nuclear deterrent. we went through those five areas and looked at the things are things the we ought to be

concerned about. then we went to the fore structure and listed out what forces we had to deal with all of those things. and we added them all up, including things that you can use for more than one threat. it costed out to $700 billion a year for expense spending, and we will spend in the nature of $500 billion. so we are already, in terms of meeting our global commitments most people agree in the national interest of the united states, we are already under funding it. and the other significant issue is all last time we really rebuilt the military was at the end of the cold war. it started under ronald reagan's presidency. we got a whole new class of ships and planes. armored vehicles, and we really have not rebuilt most of those things since then. that was in the 1980's.

now it is 2011 and we have been underfunding at $50 billion a year. whatever people think about operations in iraq and afghanistan, we have spent a lot of additional money on the military under president clinton, almost all of it going to fund operations in iraq and afghanistan. none of it went i equate this to a a credit- card bill. you pay the minimum payment. we call it the recap. fixing and upgrading installations. that is a huge bill which has been left on paid. host: even if tempos in iraq and afghanistan will wind down? guest: yes. the president said he will cut the budget the money that was

paid for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it frees up resources. the siezze of the pool will get smaller. we recently announced we will put marines in australia. how will we do that? we rotate them through their which means if you have marines on the ground for four months, that means you have to have another group of marines getting ready to deploy. of of the marines then had to come back and rest. you need about -- and reset. where are they going to come from? there will not come from the marines because that force structure is going to be cut paren. host: gudemocrats 202-737- 0001 202-737-0002 for

republicans. twitter as well. at the debate, newt gingrich was asked about ways within the defense department where he could see some savings. >> no. i helped found the military reform caucus in 1981, because it is clear there are some things you can do better less defensive. if you take 20 years to build the western system -- weapons system at a time when apple changes a system every 9 months. guest: he compares defense systems to the rate of technology and how it changes. i was with the heritage foundation and american enterprise. because bonded -- co-sponsored that event. what happens with the automatic

cuts is nothing about what speaker newt gingrich just said. the automatic cuts is for every account in defense and there are separate accounts, one account for an f-35 another account to pay people, that cuts are going to be apportioned across the board. so that means they will not be able to do anything like newt gingrich was saying. let's invest smarter, because that will have to take the cuts across the board. for example, it would be like if you had to cut your a household budget and you have to cut 10% of everything. 10% of your mortgage payment and for your netflix account bank will not be happy pay them 10% less each month.

they are not cherry picking and saying, let's find real investment. they are not doing savings. secretary gates trumpeted $100 billion in savings which was across-the-board cuts in savings. they are not making smart investments. people can go to our website heritage.org. we identified $130 billion in inefficiencies. in terms of reduced spending, let's say we find hundreds of billions of dollars of savings and everybody agrees that every aspect of federal spending can be more efficient, if we found hundreds of billions, can we recoup those? that still does not solve the problem of the re-investing we need to do. i am all for finding savings but the savings we do find, the efficiencies that newt gingrich talked about, if we find them,

we have to reinvest them or we will have a less capable military. host: the report from the super committee highlights the need for our focus on entitlements. guest: absolutely. entitlements spending in the defense department has really been growing out of control. it is the fastest growth in the defense department, 14% over the last three years. health care, retirement, benefits. it really is growing at an unsustainable rate. it is almost making the military on affordable. ironically, it is the congress's fault. they keep throwing these benefits on there, because they want to be for the troops without any sense of fiscal responsibility. or really any sense that these are the kinds of things that the troops need and want. most of the troops that go win they will stay for a couple of years and leave. a lot of these benefits to not

affect them. saying we have to do this to reward them, they will never be rewarded. there will not stay long enough to qualify for retirement. when you do this survey, most young troops would say that they would rather have cash benefits, what is called in kind or deferred benefits. cash is something that comes in your paycheck. deferred is what you get later on if he stayed. most people would just rather have cash in their paychecks. not penalize the troops. still be able to recruit. and also, honor the commitments we made to assisting veterans. but there are substantial savings there, particularly in

military health care reform. host: you change tricare? guest: i get tricare. i was in the army for 20 years. it is a great program. i think i am a good deal for them because i cannot remember the last time i used it. i premiums are ridiculously cheap. host: calls lined up. waterford, pennsylvania, you are our first with our guest james carafano. we are talking about defense cuts in the u.s. military. go ahead. caller: i have not read too much about you got a lately. -- about uganda lately.

guest: i don't think anybody is advocating for that. i and that would be a huge mistake. we established africa command which is responsible for overseeing u.s. military operations in that part of the world. the argument for some of the command was not to give the u.s. military more involved. it was to get u.s. military less involved. this came after libya when there were many people that wanted a u.s. military intervention in libya. president bush refused to do that. lydia came out ok. -- libya can out of it ok. we were doing less deployments and we were not jumping on every request for military forces that came along the ugandan operation is constrained. i was more concerned about the libyan operation which was a huge investment in u.s. military capability. it put nato operations on the line and it was out of proportion as to what u.s. interests were in that area. host: ronald gumm as this money why the dod is not audited? guest: are audited.

-- they are audited. it is difficult to add all those audits up. it would be very difficult because you are comparing different kinds of business practices. i don't think any complex company in the world could produce the kind of audit that would let you see everything compared and one white. the problem with all the taping -- auditing, it actually makes some things work. in some ways, it has complicated business practices. they said that if you disagree with the finding of the audit that was an automatic referral for possible criminal investigation.

essentially, the audit had the power to decide something was illegal or not. that is not the purpose of an audit. auditing is an important tool but it is not a silver bullet answer. we can do better but when we added more requirements for auditing, sometimes the auditing makes things worse. when you think back to the huge political scandal -- the huge economic scandals we have in this country whether it was exxon or the meltdown, there is lots meltdownauditing being done. the audit tors made things worse by non measuring the right things.

host: illinois, democrats line good morning. caller: i get tickled when i hear right wingers talk about american interests when we are talking about defense. this country as over 800 military bases in 160 countries. most of them were set up to protect rich people businesses. they don't even belong to america. they have moved there corporations overseas to avoid paying taxes. we are protecting bat guano factories. this is just incredible. we've got to stop maintaining these bases. every base should be looked at it we are protecting rich people pause businesses when they should be providing their own security, we've got to pull out.

800 bases and there is no telling how many secret bases there are everywhere. guest: that is a great question. that is the one thing that the pentagon has been looking at. the number 800 does not make sense. that number fluctuates and it includes everything from the tiniest handful of people in an embassy to a large base. there are about 35 major u.s. military bases around the world. all of them are designed primarily to support the use of u.s. military troops. if you don't like the bases bring all the troops home but the problem is you will need twice as many ships and people and planes to get there and it will take you twice as long. it would make things twice as expensive.

host: where are most of the bases located? guest: people ask why we still have bases in europe. we have closed a lot of bases in europe. i had two tours in western europe and every place i was stationed is long gone. we will probably close about 11 facilities over the next few years. the basing in western europe is to protect u.s. forces into the middle east and other places and the world. and in -- in the world. in many cases, the u.s. does not pick up the cost of some of these facilities. south korea has a major u.s. military commitment and 50% of the basing costs in south korea is paid for by the south

koreans. we should look for military efficiency and we should look to save money where we can because we need to reinvest in military. we will probably not find big savings in bases. host: what about the base realignment commission? guest:the brac mostly a political tool. every congressman does not want to see a job leave their district and if you have a base in a district or a state regardless of how useful it is they will fill obligated to protect it. they cannot put this process. they did a review of all the bases in the united states and they will say which ones we don't need and presented to congress. overseas, you don't have to do that because they are not in somebody's district. they do look at basing overseas.

there have been many studies and people should take comfort. if you look at the large and medium facilities we have, they are very different than they were 20 years ago because they have shifted to where u.s. interests have shifted and where our needs have shifted. i have not just sat there because they have always been there. host: south carolina are independent line, go ahead caller: i am of the opinion that the entire military budget needs to be cut in half. i say that because if you look at during the eisenhower administration and the cold war, you will notice that defense spending was actually lower during the cold war than it is now which makes no sense. we have no enemy anywhere near the level of the soviet union. you can look at china which has

around 10% of our current defense spending. russia has about 6%. the amount of money we're spending on our budget does not match the threat we are facing. guest: i think you make a great point in that we should look at what we are putting in defense overtime. in many ways, we should look at defense like a mortgage or insurance. it is there to ensure the safety and security of the country. some days you may use it as some days you may not by you want to consistently invest in it so it is always there. i think that is the right way to look at it. the numbers are interesting. where are we today? as a percentage of national wealth, we are spending about half what we averaged during

the cold war. we spent much, much more during the cold war in defense. we average about 8% during the cold war and we're now at about 4%. host: what about gross domestic product at the time? guest: as a percentage of the federal budget it is interesting. eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex and military spending was half the military budget -- federal budget. we spend more on social security and medicare and medicaid now then we do on defense. in a few years, the national debt will be larger than defense. if people are concerned about federal spending in washington and our ability to pay for government and services, they need to focus on social security, medicare, and medicare which are growing at an unsustainable rate. forget about cutting defense

and half, we could take defense spending today to zero and did you don't do anything about the social security, medicare, and medicaid, in four years it would consume the entire federal budget. host: utah, republican line, good morning. caller: i had a job offer that was rescinded. i am heading profiles and other ones that are in different states. are these positions going to keep being rescinded? i'm sure many people are concerned and quite worried about their positions being cut. i would like to know -- do i still have a chance to maintain

employment for the government? i am ready, highly willing and highly able to go and perform work for any of the defense contractors in a federal capacity. i want to know if i will have a chance and have the respect for the people for already employed. they are at less pay. we want employment. i would like to know if these positions will keep being rescinded. guest: if you're looking for a job in the federal government and defense or the military, the reality is you are in for a wild ride.

i don't think anybody knows how exactly the cuts will play out over the next couple of years. many people will be making decisions and many of them will get conservative about bringing on staff because they don't know what their budget will be like. many people will get let go. these cuts will raise unemployment. i have never been an advocate of spending money on defense as a jobs program more economic stimulus program. it will put a lot of people out of work. host: the president spoke about the work of the super committee at its failure to come up with consensus and what happens when it comes to automatic spending cuts. he talked about efforts to veto efforts to stop the cuts from going into effect. this is what he had to say -- >> some in congress are trying to on to the automatic spending -- trying to undo these

automatic spending cuts. my message to them is simple -- no. i will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts domestic and defense spending. there will be no easy off-ramps on this one. we need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure. the only way these spending cuts will not take place is if congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.20 trillion. that is exactly what they need to do. that is the job they promised to do. they still got one year to figure it out. host: he said he will veto any efforts to turn back the cuts -- guest: it is not smart. these cuts are across the board which don't differentiate between good programs and wasteful programs. in all likelihood because you do cut in official like that it will wind up costing you more money.

if your interested in saving money and having an efficient government, the across-the- board cuts of the worst possible thing to do we also know it will probably never happen. the federal government has never stuck to a sequester over a long period time. , never. it is unlikely and. it is again about plain chicken. -- playing chicken. the president made significant tax increases for republicans and conservatives in congress are against that. one thing that was done in the balanced budget control act of 2011 which set up these automatic cuts was to really put defense on the chopping block. conservatives care about defense and they don't like tax cuts. i think the administration wants to offer them a choice of a tax hike or defense. i think it is about playing politics.

it is probably not the smartest thing to do coming out of the box that you will hold everything hostage. congress will not stand for that. host: what out -- what about the resolve by next year? guest: congress will do something to avoid the automatic cuts but it will occur in the middle of a presidential campaign and there will be an awful lot of politics. the one thing they have been consistent on is they kicked the can down the road. everybody on all sides is looking for a way to kick the can down the road past the next presidential election and to get some kind of political benefit out of the debate. host: illinois, you are next, thank you for waiting on our democrats line. caller: this is indiana. host: i'm sorry, the state with all the jobs.

caller: this country knows nothing, absolutely nothing. our media is entertainment now. i want this guy sitting there and all the other thing tanks to know that there billionaires' will not get their way. i want everyone to go on youtube and type in michael connell who was murdered because he stole the election in 2000, 2004 and 2008. i am curious that our media as never investigated this and has never reported it they are trying to do this again. $40 billion is in a rainy day fund for sells a security. -- for social security. did you hear that in the media? host: what about the defense department? caller: my two sons served in the military. they are now 48 and 50.

the first bush went to the carlyle group. they went around the world buying munitions. host: you can address that if you wish. guest: she raises the point about think tanks and i work at the heritage foundation. we are completely donor-funded. most of the donors are small donors. we have very small corporate giving. host: any of that from the defense department? guest: we don't do contract work and we don't take any money from the defense department. i don't think represent billionaires'. i think think tanks play an important role. the presidential candidates'

debate we sponsored last week was the first debate ever sponsored by a think tank. it was different because all the people of the questioners in the audience were experts. not that average americans should not get a chance to ask questions because they should but i think it was great to have an opportunity for people live and breed and worked as all the -- that live and breathe and work as wall the time to ask questions and this debate was a national security and foreign policy. they cornered the those people for 90 minutes and i was really pleased. i thought would be difficult to walk away and not get a sense of who those people would be as commander in chief. host: what would those people do with the defense department should they win? guest: were all agreed that if you want to risk -- sustain the

defense capability we have today, that will be very difficult without doing some very significant fiscal reforms. they all recognize that keeping the defense we have today will be a huge challenge. we did a plan, our own budget plan called saving the american dream which is on our website heritage.org. we competed with four other think tanks. host: commissioned by whom? guest: it did not raise taxes and a fully funds defense for the next 10 years. host: savannah georgia republican line.

caller: good morning. thank you for having vespertinethis. i have a couple of issues. i keep hearing about the baby boomers. i am a baby boomer. i am 66 years old. did they not see it coming? it was like a freight train headed for a freight train. you know it is coming. why not do something about it before it comes? my other question -- my son designs and builds some kind of thing for the military. he is called from savannah ga. down to panama city, drove down there to fix this thing whatever it is, and it took in two hours to get on the base which is understandable, i guess. he got to the job site at 3:00 in the afternoon with a

military guard standing over him and he started unloading his truck to work on the piece of equipment and a guard said the close at 3:30. he loaded his stuff back in the truck went back to the motel and came back in the morning. in the morning, he located the problem and he went to his truck and they got a calibrated to put it on the machine. the guard said to wait a minute. did you just put something on that machine? the guard said to wait a minute. that machine? he said yes, it is working. the guard said he is not authorized to let him do that. he asked what he wants him to do. do you want me to put this machine back to where it is not

working? host: what is the question? caller: he had to take the part back off the machine, go back to savannah, and they called monday for him to come back down. he said he was booked for two weeks. host: thank you, caller. guest: i was in the military for 25 years and i think i lived that story. when you look at the way our population bubble and the enormous amount of people over the next decade who will retire on seoul's security -- on social security and the cost behind that and the fact that we have been raiding the trust fund forever, didn't we see that coming and the answer is of course we did. like good politicians, we in washington, as a city did nothing about it. this ties directly into defense

and brings up an object lesson. the last time we are in a situation we were in now was in the 1990's under bill clinton. we had a democratic president and republicans took over congress and said we want a balanced budget and clinton said if you want a balanced budget, ok. he cut defense spending which he got away with as it was after the cold war. we had the reagan military buildup. and the military was in good shape. he gutted to defense spending, he held discretionary spending in place for a couple of years and did nothing about social security and medicare. it was like taking a heroin fix. so here we are the problem is just bigger. what do we do now? cut defense spending fiddle around with other discretionary spending, did nothing about social security and medicare and medicaid and do the same mistake again. the problem is much bigger now. when we come back in 2020 to do this again, the problem will be

even bigger. if you want to know where this is going, look at greece and portugal, that is america's future. flat economic growth, unsustainable social programs, dwindling capacity to defend yourself -- that is us and 15 or 20 years. portugal got into junk status. belgium just got downgraded. we still have time, i believe to get government spending under control, get back to solid economic growth, and not go through another crippling defense drawdown. we really are at the point that we can do that. the next time, eight years from now, it will be more difficult. host: what lies ahead for leon panetta with the potential cuts? guest: he will be like the rest of us. he will be riding the wave in

the next 12 months because nobody knows what will happen. i doubt we'll get a budget next year and will probably be a continuing resolution. everybody is playing ice hockey until after 2013. they're making it out as they go along. -- making it up as they go along. host: calif., independent line, go ahead caller: i am an independent. guest: so why, good for us. -- so am i.. good for us. caller: it is hard not to take a democratic stance listening to this conversation. what i hear is very on balance. -- unbalanced. i hear every detail about the military and yet when it comes to other types of spending which would be social spending, it is just cut and dried. that is what makes me frustrated. in the beginning, you said the things that most people consider important in this

country. i get frustrated with that because i don't believe that. i don't usually agree with what you say most people consider is important. i would prefer that we get away from the way military is going. it is like let's force a new type of strategy for defense. it is like the military ends up with some of the deaths and damage people and social spending is helping people. i just understand how republicans can be so adamant and so informed on military and yet, in one swipe, right of all -- write off all social spending. guest: i am not writing off all

social spending. everything should be efficient and effective. military spending and social spending. it is not what we spent, it is how well we spend it and how effective it is. that's to be the standard for every program. we should hold both sides to the same accountability. you could cut all the discretionary programs in the federal budget including welfare but it still will not balance the budget. social security, medicare, and medicaid will still eat up everything. cutting defense is not a partisan position. the president and secretary of defense have said these automatic cuts will be damaging to defense. that is the position that honestly everybody in both parties agree with. host: secretary leon panetta painted it as a hollow force. guest: the president does not even disagree with that.

he is the commander in chief and has no desire to try to meet america's national security interest with a force that is inadequate. bill clinton did 7 military cuts -- did significant military cuts over his term but at the end of his term, he realized he needed to stop the bleeding. he knew he could i go any lower. -- he knew he could not go any lower. on the path we are on now, we are likely to see a smaller and less capable military than when president obama came into office. i cannot even imagine that. host: louisiana, democrats line, go ahead. gretna, louisiana. caller: hello there. i have a two-part question.

i have a suggestion anyway. it is about the military. i want to know who watches over the store? who buys the medical supplies for the military? who was watching over it? guest: that is a great question. the answer is congress. the irony is congress is a big part of the problem. somebody might want to protect something in their district, in many cases, a congressional rules make defense spending less efficient and less productive. there's probably no area more ripe for savings then in logistics, by and supplying goods and services to the military.

we estimated you could save $90 billion. fed ex moves from a to b and maybe five people touch the part -- and maybe three people will touch the part, but in the military, maybe 50 people will touch the same part. there is enormous inefficiencies in logistics. host: how much of that spending is because of contractor work? guest: most of it, but some of it is because were passed to go richard work has to go -- some of that is because were cast to go -- work hasto to go to a government facility and they won't let it go to a contractor and some of it is because of the inefficiencies of the contractor. probably the poster child for this is the scandal recently -- the irony is that it is somebody in the military where they were funneling money to a contractor and these are alaska- based companies, native-american

companies. their companies that congress set up for these native american communities where they could set up a defense company and get no-bid contracts. these are small communities with people that do not know how run and. you'll get a couple of native americans on the board and they will hire some washington company to run this and they will get the small dividend checks. these are not companies that are benefiting native americans. the fact that there automatically get in no-bid contract was a scandal. shock and surprise, it turned out to be huge amounts of corruption. whose fault is that? let's give the defense department credit for fun and -- are finding the corruption but congress set up a situation where it was ripe for an efficient activity and -- for inefficient activity and corruption. shame on congress. host: pennsylvania democrats line.

caller: we are in afghanistan for oil in the caspian region, trying to get a pipeline into china and we recently close our borders because hezbollah moved their military base in cuba. i'm not saying we should cut spending on military but we should be closer to our borders. we are in afghanistan and they have oil and gas deposits in the caspian region. guest: this gives me a chance to talk about border security. i think it is important. there is an important role for our military there because of the experiences we had in iraq and afghanistan. a lot of ways you can combat

the insurgencies their, those techniques are very useful for going after the transnational criminal cartels. somebody asked a mexican colonel what his vision is for his country. he said his vision is for it to be like it was 10 years ago when we showed up, the cartel's ran away but now they fight back. there are many people in moscow that want their country back -- are many people in mexico that want their country back. there is at an appropriate role for the u.s. military. there is a lot we can do with the u.s. military, and not boot on the ground but working with them. that is the first kind of thing that will fall off the table when these cuts go down. there will not be training or resources for the border. they are automatic cuts. those things will just get swept

away. it does not matter that they are important and it will help secure our borders and they will help fight these cartels and help restore -- reduce the level of violence. the cuts are just mindless. host: david carafano, if you want to hit -- read his research and others, heritage.org is the website thank you. guest: thank you for cspan. it is a great service. >> tomorrow, a look get that deficit reductions in ability to reach a deal with of the gear from the "new hampshire union leader. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

it is easier for you to get our schedule with you features like the three network layout to quickly scroll through all the programs scheduled on the c-span networks and even receive an e- mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. if there's a section that access our most popular series and programs, like "washington journal," book tv, american history tv, and "the contenders." the all new c-span.org. next a discussion on a wall street journal op-ed looking at the u.s. education system in the jobs market. this portion is about 35 minutes.

making it easier on themselves and allow them to hire more. the complaints they go from the article and the second one that i wrote responding to the avalanche of comments on the first one basically dealt with this issue that surveys and lots of stories on today's wall street journal about employers saying they cannot find the people that they need to hire. to some extent these are manned -- dog bites man stories. with 13.9 million people unemployed, you wonder how that could be the case. and the employers are saying that it is a mix of what they're looking for and they cannot find in the market. the issue is what can we do about that and should the

employer make it easier to get the people that they need. some part of that has to do with the standards that they're looking for but some part of it has to do with training and developing people which employers are much less likely to want to do now than a generation ago. >> you mentioned the "wall street journal" story. part of it talks about a recruiter who find yourself on a hiring hall, anxiously awaiting the arrival of two people she invited to interview from an initial pool of nearly five dozen applicants. guest: a good place to start is to think about what the actual model is. a lot of people have what i call a sort of home depot model of hiring, and that is that employee -- an employer is like a machine and they have requirements which are very precise and they go to theit is like needing it -- a 3/1" screw

-- 3/16" screw and plugging it into this job. it is interesting to note that during the tet boom of the 1990's, only 10% of it professionals -- of i.t. professionals had credentials in the i.t. field. and% of those jobs were done by people who did not have an i.t. background. they learned as they went along -- 90% of those jobs. we know when the economy gets really going and labor markets get tired -- tight and labor markets get scarce, jobs and not require as much experience or as much education. when things get slack requirements rise a little bit so this lots of different ways you can get things done during the "wall street journal" story -- i think this is the anecdote. if you drill on that a little bit, you see what she really wants is a recruiter with somebody with a particular set of experience. they are not looking for people coming out of school with a particular degree or only in a few cases is that the story.

they're looking for people who had work experience, usually three to five years. in the case, they are looking for diesel mechanics with three to five years' experience or something like that. the skill problem really seems to come down to work experience. not so much people coming out of school. then we have this question of how you will get work experience if everybody wants to hire somebody who has already got work experience, and that is the heart of the problem, i think. host: is there something in the process that employers have in trying to find these potential candidates, things that could be changed as far as the process is concerned? guest: when i wrote this piece i got about five -- actually, they are still coming in. it was about a month ago. i got 500 or so replies, and most were from people on the employer side. i learned a lot from those about the quirkiness of the hiring process.

basically, this is it -- it works like this in corporations in particular. i am a hiring manager and i need someone to work in this job or here. i filled out a requisition which is what i want in that position. it is like asking you or me what we would like in a car, so we start laying out requirements and we do not necessarily put the bare minimum on. we might as well, since you are asking, put everything we want in those requirements. then it typically goes in a kind of mechanical fashion into a piece of software, which then screens applicants. we are looking at resumes that come in because there are thousands coming in to most any place that has a job now and frankly, it is difficult to get human eyes to read all those. it takes too much time. they screen them electronically and look for key words, key sets of experience, and if you are missing any of those requirements that the hiring manager put it, your regiment -- your resume is thrown out.

in and stay at how. you do not stay in the pile. some of those requirements also include wages, what your looking for in terms of wages, and if you are looking for more than you are offering, out you go. you can come out of the process and said there is nobody qualified to do the job because the standards that we have set our in some cases impossibly high and in some cases, it is just because the wage we are offering is below what the market seems to demand. after the process, we say that we do not have anyone who can do the job. when i heard back from employers complaining about this, by the way, the people who thought this was not the case -- it was really the workers -- were all people in upper management levels and the people who thought the system was screw we were the people who were actually doing the system and close to the action. host: our guest with us until 10:00. we are talking about the process of getting a job. we divided the lines differently.

if you are an employer who wants to weigh in on the hiring process, we have set aside a line for you. if you are seeking work, it is 202-737-0002. if you have stopped looking for work, 202-628-0205. for all others who want to weigh in on the hiring process, to 02-628-0184. how do companies especially large ones, set up these requirements? is it mainly down from an hr perspective? >> one of the problems that happened that has maybe made it difficult is a lot of human resources staff are taken out of these processes. a generation ago, you would have someone working with a hiring manager to draw up the job requirements and there would be a little push back on the hiring manager, so you really need that. do you really need this degree? do you really need this many years of experience?

the hr people are gone from the process. it has become mechanical. it is a way of making things more efficient. human resources departments have really been downsized bigger than most any functional area inside corporations. a lot of it is very mechanical. it is done with software. it is done with in putting the forms. we see what comes out the pipeline. at the end, nothing comes out and we say, "cannot find anyone to do the job." there is and -- there's not a lot of human judgment in the processes. host: you started off by looking at the education system, saying there's not enough preparation going on. guest: i think that is a common response. this is, for the most part and an accurate response. -- an inaccurate response.

there is a view that our education system has collapsed and you could argue that it is not doing as well as it should be doing. but if you look, over time it appears that the bottom of the u.s. high-school education attainment was in the 1970's, and since then, things have improved at may be a slow rate but more or less steadily. the dropout rate in the u.s. has fallen by about half. the dropout rate is about 8%. it has fallen even more for african-americans and fallen by half even for hispanics who still have the highest dropout rate at about 70%. -- 17%. the dropout rate has fallen a lot. if you look at these comparisons between the u.s. and other countries -- it is funny there's not a single measure. they do it for math students in fourth grade, eighth grade reading students, etc. you can get different measures depending on what you are looking at, but basically, the u.s. court is in the upper -- the u.s. scores in the upper quarter of comparison groups in other countries, and some of the other countries are pretty small the do better than we do

pure hong kong, for example, which is only part of china. and singapore, which has 3 million people. and there are countries like house extend -- like kazakhstan, which seemed to do well. the idea that the u.s. education system has collapsed is not true. yet that we are at the bottom of international rankings is not true either. thinking beyond high school, we have an incredible percentage of kids who go on to higher education. probably more than any other country. we have problems on the education site in terms of getting people through higher education, but we are sending a ton of people there. for the most part, they are pursuing functional degrees. the biggest major in college by far -- more than twice as many students as any other -- is business. it is not that people are going and studying liberal arts. they are trying to get jobs.

they are trying to get employers what they want. i do not think we could point our fingers on the education system on this one. host: jim hines of footwear asks -- -- off of twitter asks -- guest: nothing, and sometimes we see a disconnect between what employers want and what the schools are turning out. maybe the best way to get people work experience, which seems to be the big issue that employers want, is to get closer to the schools. to go on to college campuses and say, "here is what we are looking for, to engage students in a co-op programs and internships so they can get a feel of what the work is like. one of the best things that happened to the u.s. education system in the 1990's was the school to work movement, trying to get employers engaged with schools to do more to spend that boundary. -- span that boundary.

but, i think, frankly, the employers pulled back from it once the labor market began to soften. i think the problem was less the schools reaching out to employers and more now the employer's not reaching out to the schools. host: we have an employer from springfield, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. interesting conversation. one topic that i have got quite a bit of experience with, and i would have to disagree with your guests regarding his opinion about schools and universities adequately preparing especially newer entrants and recent graduates into the job market. what our experience has been from being a small employer is one, getting these applicants to show up on time for their interviews. also, their entire and their etiquette -- their attire and etiquette. we do not use the online application process your guest was talking about.

maybe this is something that these students or applicants are expected to have been done possibly prior to them coming in, assuming they have gotten the job. but it has been very disheartening. the lack of attentiveness to timeliness and the entire -- attire you would expect someone to show up in an interview in a professional environment. i think that these goals may be -- i do not think the schools may be should be responsible for teaching them the entire process. maybe this should be a family or upbringing thing, too. -- i do not think that the schools should be responsible for teaching them the entire process. you think they should show up and look like you wanted them to have a job. guest: it is interesting. this has been true for employers for quite a while. the number one thing that they complain about in school leavers, as people coming right

out of school, is work attitudes and that sort of thing. i may be older than some of your viewers today -- i am a baby boomer. i remember when i was in high school and people were entering the labor market. our parents' generation said we were the laziest, most unkept regeneration. attire -- we were all disheveled and did not know how to show on time. ungrateful. employers have been saying this about young people forever. by the way, it is not employers. the older generations have been saying this about people leaving school for at least 50 years. perhaps it has been true for 50 years. there is nothing particularly new about these complaints, though. just a reminder, the boomers that came in and we were thought to be the laziest generation ever, we grew up to be the workaholic generation. a lot of these things take care of themselves over time.

it was an interesting question, though, about what we should do about work attitudes and to what extent we can blame the schools for that. i think would it be a good idea if schools spend more time helping students think about these things? my sense of schools now is actually they do spend more time doing this than a generation ago. i can tell you at least from my experience with college students -- and i see sort of the cream of the crop -- but i would say they have got much better and more sophisticated in terms of job-seeking overtime and more presentable. it is also worth pointing out that for the most part the experience the caller had is pretty unusual in that not many employers are looking to hire straight out of school. everybody wants somebody with three to five years' experience and that is part of the problem. that is one of the reasons the unemployment rate for teenagers looking for full-time jobs is about 25%. host: new jersey, kathy on our line for those seeking work. go ahead. you are on. caller: thank you very much for

having me on. i went to a local fair, and i am a nurse. i got my bachelor's degree in nursing when i was 45. i have neonatal certification. i am unemployed. i have over 30 years-plus of nursing. hospitals only hire for 12-hour shifts, and i have -- being 60, i have a knee problem, and i cannot do 12 hours. i can do eight hours five days a week, but they do not want to hear it. on the web, i had a local hospital said they would not take my resume when it took 25 and put it on line -- when i tried putting it on line they

want one year recent experience in the position that i am applying for. how can you do that when i am on unemployment, laid off how can you do that when i am on unemployment, laid off in philadelphia because of $300 million shortfalls two years ago, and i worked as a home care nurse, and it is so frustrating. host: thanks for the call. we will let our guests respond. guest: i think that is a common problem. employers, understandably, are picky, and we cannot blame them for that. one of the things that most people do not realize is that hospitals and the health care industry is not so desperate for nurses anymore. a few years ago, they would have made more accommodations for somebody like our caller because they really needed nurses. once they do not need nurses so badly, once the supply catches

up to demand, they start to get picky. the problem -- and this is something that is new in this generation -- is that employers are expecting people to come in with the skills that are needed to do the job right now. a generation ago, most of us who are older can remember people leaving school and going to an employer who would then train them. you could go in with no skills and could be trained to do a job. that is pretty rare these days. we cannot blame employers for not wanting to invest in training if they do not need to. but now, they are looking for someone who not only has the academic training but has experience. in this particular labor market, they are looking for people who have had recent experience. you may have seen a few months ago, there was a story with the equal employment opportunities commission was investigating employers that were refusing to take job applications from people who were unemployed. they only wanted to take

applications from people who currently have jobs because they are looking for skills that are absolutely up to date. i think that is the big disconnect now. that employers are not expecting to have to hire people who they need to train. i do not blame them for that. they need to make money. it is cheaper if you can do that. the question comes whether we think there is a problem in the workforce because employers cannot find the people they want when the people they want are people who currently are working someplace else. host: this is jim on twitter who talks about internships. he says -- guest: that is an interesting question. employers do a lot of internships, and one of the quirky things we are seeing now is the rise of all these unpaid internships. the rise even of vendors to get

into the business of brokering. you pay the vendor and the vendor and the broker will then try to find you an internship someplace. someplace often it is free. you are paying to volunteer to get job experience some place. for the most part, a lot of these internships that do not pay people are probably breaking the wage and hour law and it basically is that if you are doing work for the employer the benefits the employer economically, you are supposed to be paid for that. if you have an unpaid internship, you are not supposed to be doing the kind of work that employees can do but, frankly, nobody watches that. nobody particularly wants to report it, so it goes on a lot. it is an interesting question as to whether there are ways around that if we thought it was useful to do. certainly, blurring the school and work boundary is one way to do that. to get students to come in to employers and see how the academic schools are used, go

back into the classroom and learn more of those academic skills. it is a good thing to blur that for the most part. that is all perfectly legal. the question is whether it is in the employer short-term interest to do that. the answer is probably know. is it in the longer term interest? the answer is probably yes but not everybody is willing to take that long term view. host: next question is from scott who stopped looking for work in new jersey. are there? caller: can you hear me? yes, i am calling in mainly because i just want to support what you are saying this morning. it has been exactly my experience that the requirements of employers seem to have gotten so tight that virtually the only person qualified for the job is the person that just left that job. i have been unemployed for three years. i have sent out hundreds and hundreds of resumes and in the

three years i have been unemployed from my engineering job, i have not gotten one response. i do not want to say i did not get one interview. i have not gotten one response. early in 2009, all of my friends who are also engineers or engineering managers were also laid off. in that entire time, only one of them has since gotten a job and that was with one of his previous employers. it just seems that the bar is so high for getting into a place and the grass apparently to employers looks greener everywhere they look that you cannot get in. host: what type of engineering? caller: manufacturing engineering. host: thank you, sir. guest: i think that raises a really interesting question as to whether the bar is too high. i think to some extent, the bar is often peculiar. for example, i heard from some people e-mailed maine about their own experience in the i.t. world, for example, and the

job they were applying for was a job using a particular piece of software. one of the people who wrote in said they had actually designed software like this, so they had made the software that the job required using, but the software they had made was different -- similar but not identical -- to the one that this particular company had used, and they were rejected for the job because they did not fit precisely the job requirements. this is a person who could have apparently written us off for themselves. was not hired to use the software because they did not fit it exactly. i think the other thing that the caller is hinting at is that there is a fair amount of age discrimination going on in a lot of employer context. some of this is because of they believe, wage issues. if you see a job application that says they're looking for three to five years' experience.

in the legal world, those are called experience-limiting requirements. the question you have to ask yourself is why is it that someone would six years could not do that job? why is it that someone with 10 years could not do the job? in practice, the issue is often about wages. they think that the folks who are applying what had 10 years' experience will not want to do the jobs because they do not pay enough. i think this experience limiting requirements are almost always a mistake. i do not think you need them. the job pays $50 an hour let people see it. they want to do it for $15 an hour, that is fine. often, employers are trying to guess at what the applicants might do. they are saying, "this person is overqualified for the job, so they are just going to quit when they get here and things improve." the turnover rates are so high in most jobs now that some of these surveys suggest that 50% of the people currently working say that when the economy picks

up, they are going to search for a new job. trying to guess who is going to quit and expecting that people will send -- stay for a very long time is probably a mistake anyway, so prodigy why even bother with this experience -- so why even bother with these experienced thus limiting requirements that probably shut out workers anyway? >> -- caller: i have an employer for about two years at a social service agency, and i found somebody qualified workers that came in, and at the same time there were those that were not. the reality is that it is a buyer's market. they can pick and choose. the biggest problem we have in america is global competition. employers have -- they have the advantage. workers are working harder. they are more productive than their counterparts. it is just unfortunate that we have the level of competition we have to the point that we are

at a significant disadvantage, but this notion that our education system is debunked and our employers are picking leisure over working hard -- it is just not true. we must change that perception. there are some changes we need to make in terms of urban education. there's a tremendous gap in urban education as it relates to others. that part must be tackled and it takes a community effort. it takes individual effort. it takes a whole lot, not just government. short of that, we are moving in the right direction. we have to continue to fight discrimination as it relates to age and race and so forth, but american workers are doing fine. but we have to continue to fight those obstacles. professor, i like some of the comments you are making. i think you are dead on. thanks. host: go ahead, sir. guest: the idea that employers are picking now is absolutely right, and that is not

surprising and we cannot say there is anything wrong with being picky when you have lots of choices. i think the problem comes when picking this leads to a belief that there is nobody out there that you can hire and a perception that there's something wrong with the applicants as a result. one of the other things that often goes on when you look at the data on these things -- you see reports like a lot of companies have vacancies that they are not filling. often, that is the case because they, frankly, do not want to fill them. we get permission to hire, but it actually helps my department's budget -- i have profit and loss responsibility if i do not hire. if i can keep the position open and try to get by with the workers i've got, that helps me get by pierre you look at the data and say it is a vacancy that can be filled. it is not that they cannot fill

it. it is that they do not want to. there's nothing wrong with it. that is the way business works. i can tell you at my own school we posted the same job notice every year saying we are looking for candidates in xyz and we did it for administrative reasons. even when we are not looking for anybody, the notice goes out saying that we are hiring. it does not mean that we cannot fill the job. it just means that in practice, we have decided not to. host: this is from suzanne who says public schools are dropping programs like wood shop and our mechanics and moving them to career centers and community colleges. guest: this probably something to that. at the moment, the public sector and schools associated with the public sector are all being squeezed. if you ask folks who are watching with the biggest education provider is in the united states at the post- secondary level, you are trying

to think about the biggest university you know -- the biggest university regular university, i think is arizona state, but the biggest post- secondary provider is the university of phoenix, which is a private, for-profit institutions, which is about five times bigger than the next biggest institution. there are a lot of private providers making up the gap. people want skills. they are going back to school to try to get them. 1/4 of the students in community colleges at least a few years ago, are people who already had bachelor's degrees. they are going back to community colleges. the problem is community colleges are overwhelmed with demand and partly under funded. part of it is because a lot of the traditional vocational

education programs are being squeezed at the secondary school level, and this creates a problem. if you think you need new skills and where you're going to get them, the private-sector is out there. private-sector is pretty expensive to go to a for- profits school and try to get skills there. again, we come back to the problem of if you are a job seeker, what do you do? you are trying to figure out what employers want. i can tell you that i have two kids in college -- actually, i have one that is graduated. unemployed. back to a community college. got a health care certificate and still cannot find a job. the employers all want someone who has job experience in the field that everybody thought was hot in health care. the problem, if you are a job seeker -- i think they are for the most are knocking themselves out trying to figure out what to do to get jobs. students in school are trying to figure themselves out -- trying to figure out what employers

want. i do not want to see us blame the students for this, and it is also difficult to blame the schools for what is going on. host: this morning, joe -- diane, go ahead. caller: i had a few problems. i do blame employers for not training. i do think they should be criticized for that. i also think we should change priorities so schools are not eliminating. these questions that are important for a lot of different cognitive and emotional developments -- would shop the auto repair -- that enable self-sufficiency -- it is a paradigm that is important. one of the jobs i did have a temporary job, was editing standardized tests, and i came through school when we did not have standardized tests. we had wonderful critical and analytical thinking in school

that everybody was able to participate and encouraged to take. those standardized tests are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from the courses that to translate to cognitive and voc-ed level skills. guest: back to the first point about training, i think the issue is a fundamental one. many of the complaints about job skills are with respect to what we used to call a skilled trades. these are plumbers, electricians, machinists. those are jobs that historically people would train four through apprenticeship programs. the apprenticeship programs have largely died. there are so few of them. the bureau of labor statistics does not even track them anymore. it is hard to know how many there even are. they died in part because many of them were union-based and as the union's decline, the

programs declined as well and employers did not pick them up. the thing about apprenticeship programs is the work really well. it is an efficient way to train people because they are learning as the work and as they contribute. but part of the problem is these programs are gone. you cannot do these programs without employer help. employers have to be involved in them. otherwise, there is no apprenticeship program. the complaints about skilled trades -- very big issue, but i think the idea about assuming that vocational education schools should not take this on is something we'd better think about. historically, they have not taken it on. historically, they have an apprenticeship programs and it is very difficult and said lynn -- and it's certainly not the best way to do it to try to assume that students are going to learn how to be an electrician or plumber without an apprentice-like experience. host: this is joy in villanova who said --

guest: i think that is a great point. it goes back to the idea that the typical company -- it is not like a home depot model where it is a machine and they know they can look and see certain workers with exactly these skills and plug them in here. employers can adjust the work to the worker. that happens all the time in various kinds of ways. most people who are pretty literate and smart can learn how to do things pretty quickly with little but a trial and error. the question is -- how do we pay for that? in fairness to the employers out there who have a very difficult job trying to make money in any kind of environment -- they do not want to invest in

people and then have the people leave and then go someplace else. certainly, that is happening now. the reason it is happening by the way, is because their competitors across the street who are not training are willing to wait until they finish training and then hire the people away. how do we solve this big problem for employers about how to make investments in skills and training and not see them just walk out the door? the best way to do this is to get the employees to coexist. -- to co-invest. again, this is what apprentice- like programs did. when you are an apprentice, the lowest level in an electrical field or masonry or something like that, you are doing sort of the heavy lifting and being paid something, but you are probably contributing more value than you are actually being paid. by the way, the same thing is historically true in law firms. if you are a necessity in a law firm, the firm is making money because the value of what you're doing is more than what they are paying you, so they can afford to train you in an apprentice-like model along the

way. that is not a bad model, and for the most part, i do not see employers making use of that anymore. as soon as formal apprenticeship went out the door, they stopped that approach. i think some of this is we have got to be a little more creative. i think in fairness to employers, they have to figure out a way to do this way they do not lose their shirts, and that is the way to do it. host: another e-mail that lists problems with recruiting. >> tomorrow on "washington journal", the ocjoseph mcquaid. later, daniel seddiqui talks about his book, "50 jobs in 50 states."

sunday on "newsmakers", raul grijalva co-chair of the progresssive caucus. that is at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, the u.s. capitol historical society freedom award honoring senator daniel iouye and congressman john dingell of michigan. from the u.s. capitol, this is about 45 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen for being here this evening.

we at the u.s. capitol historical society and i am ron serenson the president and ceo of the u.s. capitol historical society. we have the great honor this evening of making a presentation of our freedom award to two very distinguished gentlemen. before we get to that part of the program however, i do want to bring to the podium for two purposes, really -- one to greet all of you here and also to make a presentation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the honorable john boehner of ohio. speaker boehner? [ applause ] >> this happens to be john boehner's birthday. so we have a present for him.

and the present is a letter that was written november 22nd 1800. does anyone know what that date means? that was the day the first session of congress was opened in this building by president adams. and the letter was written by a gentleman -- a member of congress named louis morris of vermont who is a nephew of senator gerben morris of new york. congressman morris was appointed the first united states marshal by vermont and appointed by george washington in 1791. he provided an eyewitness account of president adams' speech here in this building. and he said it was a very modest, good speech. and he also discussed in this letter the living arrangements he and his uncle had in one of

the two houses on capitol hill built by george washington in mrs. washington's house, he talked about it. and he complained that dining in mixed company, which meant the other people who lived in the house, was very unpleasant but otherwise the accommodations were, quote, comfortable. so mr. speaker, please accept this letter this historic letter on this historic occasion of your birthday on the day we honor the historic service of two very prominent members of congress. mr. speaker? [ applause ] >> ron, thank you for the letter. and i'm honored to aept it on behalf of the people's house. i've had a chance to review the text of the letter. and first, i'd say this, i feel

a little better about joint ssions of congress back then when i didn't have to sit straight up for an hour or so. but, you know, according to the letter -- and i looked at the letter earlier -- president adams said this -- he said that he hoped the manners and morals of the people of this city would long resemble the great character the name the city bears. i think our honorees tonight are certainly among those who have. john dingell played a role here in the joint session of congress long before he served. he was a page when fdr addressed the congress the day after pearl harbor. his job was to take care of a radio reporter. and when the speech ended, john was supposed to turn the reporter's recorder off.

but instead, he let it continue rolling as the house debated whether to go to war. the recording is now a critical piece of the capitol's history and, frankly, the nation's history. on that day of infamy, daniel inouye was getting ready to go to church when he heard the news of the attack. it came over the radio in honolulu. he ran outside and he looked westnd saw the sky filled with smoke and exploding shls. and he was a red cross volunteer. so dan tended to the wounded and then of course went on to serve in the war. over the 70 years since these men have shaped some of the most significant moments in our history. today they are the deans of the house and the senate. and while the facts of their

careers speak to their longevity, it's their character and their contributions that we will remember. and it's no surprise that in the finest traditions of the congress, they will be honored toght by members of the other side of the aisle. daniel inouye, john dingell have not simply honored freedom. they've preserved it for us with courage and with grace. so this award -- any award, really represents a mere fraction of our gratitude to them. so gentlemen congratulations. it's an honor to be here with you. and, frankly it's an honor to serve with you as well. thank you. [ applause ]

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i have to take the letter back so it can be secured properly. again, i want to thank all of you for joining us tonight. the united states capitol historical society was created in 1962 by iowa congressman fred schwangle and chartered by congress in 1978. its genesis was sparked when fred encountered harry truman when fred was a history teacher. prior to running for congress. and truman told him, young man, you have to know your history if you want to be a good citizen. that the founding rock for the united states capitol historical society. fred took that advice to heart when he entered the congress. he worked with then speaker of the use sam raburn

congresswoman church, among many other members of congress to create the u.s. capitol historical society. his vision w that the society would be the history teacher to the nation. next year in 2012, the society will celebrate its 50th anniversary. obviously fred had an idea that was right for the time and for the next five decades. given the state of history and civic education in our schools today, the society's educational mandate is much more important than it ever was. if we are to involve knowledgeable participation in government by future generations. it's part of its mission to educate the public about the history of the u.s. capitol and the congress. the u.s. capitol historical society created the freedom award. it was inaugurated in 1993 to honor the 200th anniversary of the laying of the u.s. capitol cornerstone by george washington in 1793. for 18 years, the freedom award

has been presented annually in recognition of the dedication to recipients, to freedom, democracy and representative government. named for the statue that graces the capitol dome, the freedom award recognizes and honors individuals and organizations who have advanced greater public understanding and appreciation for freedom as represented by the capitol and the congress. we're pleased to have with us tonight several past freedom award recipients. cokey roberts in 2010. dr. richard baker in 2009. congressman bob michael. speaker pelosi who presented the award to former speaker tom foley in 2007. and tonig we pay tribute two gentlemen who have devoted their lives to public service and have left their mark on every aspect of america life.

the society has named the deans of congress as co-honorees to receive the 2011 freedom award. daniel inouye of hawaii, president pro tem of the united states senate and john dingell of michigan, dean of the u.s. house of representatives and the longest-serving member in the history of the house of representatives. [ applse ] >> together they represent 110 years of public service in the congress. for more than five decades their lifetime leadership has guided legislation affecting all walks of life in their respective states and in the nation. their dedication to public service and to the nation represent an extraordinary example for all americans, as well as their colleagues in congress.

to provide an introduction to senator inouye, i have the pleasure of introducing senator thad cochran. i'm pleased to call upon senator cochran to say a few words about his friend and colleague. senator cochran was first elected to the u.s. house of representatives from the fourth district of mississippi in 1972. a banner year, because thad cochran and i were members of that freman class. in 1978, he was elected to the united states senate and is currently serving his sixth term in offic senator cochran is the vice chairman on the senate committ of appropriations on which senator inouye serves as chairman. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator thad cochran. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you very much, ron, former colleague in the house.

it is a great honor for me to introduce the distinguished senator from hawaii, dan inouye who serves as chairman of our appropriations committee in the senate, has been president pro tem as well. we look to him for guidance, for wisdom and friendship. 's a friend to everybody, and he is a leader for all. in my jugment, in the history of the senate, we've probably not had someone with as diversified a background of military service and experience along with public service of a civilian nature in the house and the u.s. senate. so it is my pleasure to introduce, really present to you, dan inouye as the recipient

of this diinguished award from the capitol historical society. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> the ard reads "to senator daniel k. inouye, presidt pro tem of the united states senate, in grateful recognition of your lifetime leadership in the united states congress and for all you've done to advance greater public understanding and appreciation of america's representative democracy." there you go, senator. >> thank you. >> i will take it back from you

so you can say a few words. >> i thank you very much. i'm humbled by this award, but as i said i couldn't help but recall my first days here. i arrived in washingtonn the eve of my 35th birthday landed in baltimore. i didn't know who to expect. and there was this young fella at the foot of the stairs. and he's john dingell. well, that was the beginning of an adventure. but believit or not, the dates that i recall and the moments that i recall are not watergate

or iran control or civil rights. i remember the first day i sat in my office. i had no staff. i was there by myself. answered the telephone. and the phone rang. i picked it up. hello? and the voice said i'm looking for the congressman from hawaii. i can't pronounce his damn name but his first name is dan. i said, that's me. then he says, this is speaker raburn. [ laughter ] if you're not bsy, how about dropping in to see me? i said, i'll be right there. i had no idea where the speaker's office was. but i figured it was in the capitol. and i inquired. and this young kid says, there. so i didn't know there was a subway.

i ran across -- this is in august, hot, hot hot. and for the first time in my li i that had a three-piece suit. i was told that washingtonians all wore three-piece suits in the summer. so i got to the speaker's office climbed up those stairs and he took me on a tour, a tour that i'll never forget. the speaker of the house took me around. he took me to the barber, took me to the shoe shine boy. and i still remember. this fella gets paid almost nothing. so when you get a shoe shine you pay him least 25 cents. yes, sir. he pointed out the bank. then he took me in his chamber. that's my seat. you can sit here. [ laughter ]

someday you may be able to stand behind this long table. but that day will come. well, those were happy days. but day, i'm here because i've had a good constituency. somehow i kept them happy. second, i've been blessed with two wonderful women -- two wives. i did pretty well. one good one would have been plenty, but i've got two. then i've got good vitamin pills. that's very essential because you're honoring me for having lived this long. yes, i was when i came here. i'm a bit older now.

i have a cane, but if you guys are looking for money, my committee is the one. [ laughter ] thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we've invited congressman fred upton to introduce our next honoree, representative john dingell. he and mr. dingell have worked together for mr. years both in their home state of michigan and in their work asgnments in congress. mr. upton has represented the sixth district of michigan since

1987. in 2010 he was selected by his house colleagues to serve as chairman of the commite on energy and commerce. ter having served as the ranking member of the subcommittee on energy and environment from 2007 to 2010. fred has a well-earned reputation for getting things done in washington and at home in southwest michigan. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome congressman fred upton. [ applause ] >> thank you. it is my job to introduce my dear friend, john dingell. he certainly has looked out for our great state of michigan virtually every day and every night. and by anyone's definition he is more than just a legend. he's a remarkable character in every respect. a world war ii vet a member of that greatest generation who

never asked for thanks for a job well done but just did his job. and that attitude has carried on in his service in the house. everyone does know that he is the dean of the house. he has had a remarkable journey with so many legislative achievements. john always carried about the michigan delegation, both sides of the aisle. and i actually got to know him when i was a staffer when i worked for another michigan member of congress. he has always been a gentleman, whether it's dealing with members, hds of state, presidents, staff or constituents. he is ever so gracious and sincere and as we all know he uses a special adjective when he

describes his wife the lovely deborah dingell, always at his side, a real partner. he's always wanting to find a just solution. and i've been with him and against him on both the winning and the losing sides of lots of different issues. and it's no secret that it's a lot easier to be with him than to have him be the adversary. but if he is, he will always lighten your intellect. henry hyde once chastised one of our colleagues from the mike on the house floor saying john dingell has more character and integrity in this little finger than lots of people have in their whole body. that's true. he is a man of integrity a man of the house and from the great wolverine state of michigan.

let me present to you our friend, john dingell. [ applause ] >> congressman dingell, we prent this award to y. it says in part "in grateful recognition of your lifetime leadership in the united states congress and for all you've done to advance greater public understanding and appreciation of america's representative democracy." congressman dingell? [ applause ]

>> thank you, my friend, ron. my former colleague. and you, my friend, fred thank you for your gracious introduction. mr. speaker, madam leader my dear friend, ted cochran th whom i serve with and my nderful friend, dan inouye. receiving this great honor is important and i'm very proud and very much honored. but standing on this platform with my friend dan inouye who is a rea american hero is something that brings me particular pride and pleasure. our friendship goes a long way back. as he said, i was one of the early members to meet him when he came here. and it's also to be remembered that my family helped his family

select the doctor who was going to take care of his wonderful wife maggie, during the birth of one of his splendid children. and that's a matter of some pride to me. to the lovely deborah, my wife, i'm delighted to see you here as always and to be with you my sweetheart. and my dear friends i want you to know it's a great pleasure for debby and for me to be with you this evening. to susie dicks, ron, becky evans and the entire historical staff and the board of trustees i express my thanks to you for the great work that you do in preserving the history of our nation's capitol and in organizing this event tonight. having said these things, i see so many friends here. minority whip hoyer minority

leader pelosi congressman larson, the democratic leadership and caucus, and also speaker boehner who does difficult tasks well and to whom i have the gratitude of many years of friendship with him. and i want to thank all who have been responsible for this wonderful evening d to the republican leadership and their staff for their assistance in organizing this event. i want to thank my michigan friends and colleagues. i see senator levin and his dear brother, congressman sandy levin. they and their family are great friends going back to before the day that i was even on this earth. my dad was friends of their fathers and grandfathers. to all of you i express my thanks for being here. and express how grateful i am to

have friends like you. i've had the privilege of long service with distinguished people, real men and women, people of incredible values and decency. and i value the memories the history and the thoughts. i also am deeply grateful for the privilege of serving as a part of this glorious institution which l of us have reason to love and which is such an important centerpiece to this nation and to its greatness and to its history. and i'm particularly privileged that i can serve here and that i can have the wonderful friendships and personal relationships and that we can be here in an old chamber of the house of representatis with the statues of great americans

around us. i'm delighted that i've been able to serve michigan. it's a wonderful state. and it's a great part of our beloved country. and i want to again express my pleasure that i've been able to serve with so many superb colleagues on both sides of the sle. i have a wonderful lifetime of memories, going back to the days when i was a page. and, frankly was of generally good behavior during those times. and i think that it is very important that not only the members of congress should know and cherish the history of this country, but that we should keep it alive and cherish it so that we can share it and pa it on to those who will follow us. but more importantly, so that we can learn from it, we can learn from the trials and tribulations. we can learn from the successes and sorrows of this great nation. and we want to express, i think

all ofus, our special thanks to the united states capitol historical society for their work in preserving the history of this building the people who have worked here the events which occurred and the history of the united states in reminding us of how important this institution and this wonderful old building is to the history and the reality and to the future of this country which we all love. we only have to look around to imagine all of the wonderful history that occurred here. but also to look and to remember those great men and women who served this wonderfulountry from this building and in this city. we have the privilege of serving as the part of perhaps the greatest history -- rather, the

greatest experiment in the history of government, the most successful democracy and something which was characterized, i think, by ben franklin. ben franklin was leaving the constitutional convention one time. and somebody said to him, what have you given us a deocracy a kingdom? he said, we have given you a republic, if you caneep it. he was giving us then through the generations a tremendous challenge. our founding fathers gave us a great institution, the government of the united states. 's our duty to see to it that we preserve it protect it and pass it on to generations yet to come. we function under a living breathing document, the constitution of the united

states, the declaration of independenceworks that have seen changes in the countrynd whose meaning has somewhat changed but whose basic principles remain the same in each case. they've served us through a tremendous civil war, through tremendous wars, through a hideous depression and many tumultuous events. these are not only the documents that guide us and shape our life and that of the country, but they're a reminder of the great hope and the vision that our founding fathers had for this nation. we are in rough times. and we must all work together. the lessons that the founding fathers and our predecessors taught us are valuable. they were the visions of a country that's free that

embraces liberty and that provides equal opportunity for everyone who works hard and plays by the rules. this organization, the historical society does something that was characterized by comments by george santana who said those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. some of our history we would like to repeat. some of it, very much not. congress here is at an enormous juncture in our nation's history. we are a great nation. we are a wonderful country. we are a part of an extraordinary instituti, the congress and the government of the united states. we are amecans. we share all the privileges that were left to us by our founding fathers. and we enjoy the promises that the founding fathers made to our

people. but we must remember that having these wonderful privileges, these wonderful possessions, these wonderful things which they left us is a trust of the highest character. we have a vision of the nation which we hope is the vision of our founding fathers. and we hope that that vision we can puinto and keep in practice. to carry forward what they intended for us and for this nation. that we can protect it and that we can work together with affection and respect. i have to say at times i see things wch cause me considerable sorrow. i see that we're not able to do that. and it's not frequent. it's not infrequent that we find that we cannot make this place work.

and i think a little bit of reflection on perhaps that and those facts would be important to us because as we hold the trust that was given us, it's important that we recall that that trust imposes upon us a duty to cherish and guard and to protect the things that our founding fathers and that our forebearers and that our predecessors in the congress left us. we have difrent viewpoints. but we can honor those viewpoints while at the same time we respect each other and while at the same time we understand how important they are to us but also to the future of this country. i'm enormously fortunate. i'm perhaps one of the luckiest men alive. i have a wonderful wife, great constituency, a wonderful place to live, a nation that's the

greatest in the world and a group of men and women to work with who are a credit to this country or any nation. i give thanks each nigh when i go to bed that the lord would so favor me. and so i thank you for tonight's honor. and i ask god to bless you and i and all of us. and i asked that he give us his blessing upon this great institution and upon the united states of america. thank you very much. [ applause ] [ applause ]

>> we are in this magnificent room which has now called national statuary hall and as most people know is the hold house chamber. this is old house chamber. this is where the congress met for about fbt -- and i wanted to spell a rumor. it's not true that congressman dingell served in this room during that time. but it is a magnificent room. just look around you. the opportunity we have those of us who are part of the u.s. capitol historical society to make a small contribution is, for us, overwhelming. we appreciate theork and the effort of all that allow us to do that and work with the congress, the house and the senate. i want to thank the people who participated in this evening's event. especially, our honorees.

and also our sponsors, as well as all of the supporters of the united states capital historical society. i would point out that there are guest books on each side of the room. we'd ask you to take a moment and add some thoughts in those guest books, which willhen be presented to congressman dingell. they are located just at the desks onhe outside of the chamber. so ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our evening. please enjoy the reception. thank you very, very much. [ applause ]

here with us is ron paul, representatives from the fourteenth district of texas. the congressman is a candidate for the republican party nomination for the presidency of the united states. it is a pleasure to have you with us today. we want to give you a couple moments, where you are with the campaign. we will start asking you questions right after that. >> my campaign has been going on for a long time. campaigning in the early 70's

for liberty. i want the rule of law and the constitution. i got involved in politics inadvertently because it was a place where i could express myself. the on those issues have been very important to me and there has been a tremendous change in the country and in the interests of what i have been doing since the 1970's. the financial crisis we're suffering from now, it is very appropriate that i continue this effort and especially in this campaign because the whole country is looking for a new direction. not only is it different from the 1970's, it is a difference -- is different from 1994. the big change in attitude that reflects upon how our campaign has been the financial crisis which has been recognized now by

just about everybody from 2008, the collapse of the financial system that we are in the middle of. it is very serious. i think the people in washington that i know, whether is the administration and congress are just frown -- the floundering. the views i expressed aren't actually the most popular in washington but the last four years, the interest has just exploded. take for instance, the subject of monetary policy. we who have fallen -- and follow the austrian school of economics, as far back as 1912, writing about this and why you have booms and busts it has been totally ignored for another school of thought. we believe that is what is happening right now.

that has been around, and now a lot of people are looking because the usual answer is, you have a little recession you spend more money you print more money, you borrow that more money, congress spends a little bit more money and you can snap back to a degree not realizing all you have done is passed the leak in the bubble. and delayed the inevitable. the inevitable is now here. there is no patching up the bubble. the so-called success of those that believe differently than we do allow the bubble to get bigger than ever. we have a worldwide bubble better than the history of the world, and now we are facing in. this has allowed the popularity of the views i have been working on to be much more acceptable because of the failure. when i leave washington, when i

come to iowa and go to the university campuses and talk to young people, and the last couple visits, and they have been slightly different. in the middle of the day rightly so, we have a lot of people at retirement age. when they are very open to what i am talking about. it is sort of the condition of the country, the need for change and the open message that people have now from different viewpoints. with our foreign policy, civil liberties, and economic problems. in that sense i am very encouraged and it reflects on our campaign. it is easy to raise money and get supporters. our advertisements have been fantastic. we are getting a lot of attention and the volunteers

are there. what we have done is something that i don't watch from day to day. and to get people, give them a little incentive and a little explanation of what our goals are. for that reason, i have become very optimistic in the political sense of what we are doing. i also know that if we continue to do what we do in washington and we don't change our ways, i am very much a pessimist. long term, i think we will turn this around the country will be better off for it. >> we will talk about the economy and getting the economic house back in order. you introduced a bill in 1973 -- in 2001 to repeal the 1973 war powers resolution to president clinton for some of his contacts during because of a war.

you voted against the iraqi war resolution. he supported the withdrawal of the united nations and nato, are u.s. isolationist? >> note. >> talk a bit about your foreign policy. gosh people that tend to be a more isolationist and me are the people that criticize me for being isolationist. they tend to think more internationalist deck. if you are involved in nato and the un and we need a presence in 150 countries and 900 bases they are the ones that of the most anxious to put on tariffs and restrict trade and do what isolationists to do. they become mercantile lists. they're the ones that promotes trade barriers on cuba. how long do we have to have trade barriers on cuba?

i want to make use of our 12,000 and diplomats, talk to people, try to work out problems, and be more engaged in the world. and use military force and violence as a last resort, and do it properly under the constitution and not allow a president to do it on his own or to do it under authority from the united nations or nato. i see myself as the phrase trader in the congress, and i am an internationalist in the sense that it will be voluntary. you have much more diplomacy with people. it follows the constitution, it follows the strong advice of our founding fathers that we shouldn't be engaged in nation building. as a matter of fact, it was really george bush's policy of the year 2000 when he said that we should not be arrogant, they will not like us if we are air

again. he was criticizing the democrats. too often, both sides say that they are for less war. and yet, they end up doing more. as far as being isolationist, i think an isolationist is somebody that wants to wove themselves off. you can hear it in the own -- in our own campaigns on this side. blame china for everything, punish china. i don't want to do that. i am not the isolationist. they are the isolationists. i think they are making a lot of mistakes. >> you support wars with clear missions. the wars that we have been engaged in, what about -- >> world war two. the japanese bombed us and it is a good example of how it works.

the president didn't go to war without coming to congress, the people knew about it, we made the declaration of war and everybody got behind it. in four years we won. today, because it is nebulous and we don't know who the enemy is, we go to war not against the government's but we go to war against a group of people that are causing trouble, and we go into nation-building and we go to war with false information some people call lies. in iraq, no al qaeda there or weapons of mass destruction. if you add men lost, we lost 8500 people during these wars. we have not had any real

victories. 40,000 people come back seriously wounded the filling of the veterans' hospitals. we have hundreds of thousands begging for help, there is an epidemic of suicide from people who have returned. a young veteran told me that he was so upset because he was upset to see his buddies killed over there and he figured out what am i doing over here. i see some of my friends committing suicide because their mind is all twisted up. to me, this makes no sense whatsoever and is completely different from declaring war when someone attacks us. >> have there been any examples since world war two? >> absolutely not. it was botched, it was wrong we

are still suffering the consequences. $4 trillion was added to the national debt for this. no, they were off zero unconstitutional which is why address at the war powers resolution. it was a reaction to vietnam and was meant, the intention was to restrain the president from doing this. so often what happens in washington when you see an opportunity, there is a problem. what they do make things worse. it legalized war for 90 days, and once you are in war for 90 days it is pretty hard to come back out of it. get permission before you go win. the president's dislike it because they think they are restrained too much. but we object to it because we think they get too much license and we believe the constitution is quite adequate on going to

war. >> roosevelt had to do some fudging early in world war two before congress -- >> that type of maneuvering. >> would you have opposed what he did? >> absolutely. if the policies are not well informed and they cause trouble, it is difficult. i mentioned that the foreign policy stimulates the hatred toward us. once 9/11 occurs, you can say people in the past messed up so we don't care about this. you can't do that. but if you don't learn a lesson from it and change the policy -- as a matter of fact, to great examples of where ronald wyden as well as robin -- robert mcnamara.

it was sort of the confession about mistakes and he wasn't feeling good. he was getting pretty old and he was asked by a reporter, does that mean you want to apologize for vietnam? he said, what good as an apology? if you don't learn something from this and change your policy it means nothing. ronald reagan did something very similar when he sent the marines to lebanon on. i was in congress and spoke out strongly against that. reagan said, i will never turn tail and leave, tough. he goes in there we occupy, it stimulates the incentive to use a suicide terrorism. the israelis were there, the french were there, and three others. suicide terrorism was going on. he lost 241 marines, and the

marines came home. he did exactly what he said he wouldn't do. is that i know i said that, but i changed my mind because i didn't realize our rational the politics was of that region. we should have been more neutral. if we have followed a position of neutrality, those marines would be alive today. those are powerful messages that we should pay attention to. these are people that pushed these policies. we have to learn our lessons from this. so yes, some of the things that we did prior to world war two history shows it wasn't the best thing for us. if we were motivated and gave incentive for people to attack us, it is probably more true with japan than with germany but once you are at war, you have to win. and then, it is a lot harder.

you don't have an descent during world war two like you had that vietnam. today it is not so bad, but does a lot of anti-war sentiment. people want to get home from afghanistan. we are not winning the war, and there is no end in sight. we are expanding these wars. that is really a strong issue going on. when i talk to the elderly people i have a plan where i can take care of the elderly that have become dependent by cutting spending massively elsewhere. if we do nothing you will get nothing because you'll get printed money and it won't be worth anything. i say cut this money overseas and they are with me on that. the military is with me, the young people are with me, the

majority of americans are with me. the policies are one party, it is the same thing over and over again and no matter what they talk about. presence around the world continues and expands. it is done in a moralistic way. we have the imperative to spread goodness around the world, and we have this obligation to do it. i consider that a very serious mistake. if you want to be an exceptional nation i think what we should do is set a good standard, have peace and prosperity, of the that everybody around the world. and what failed for more than 10 years, killing between a million vietnamese, and we have peace and they are westernize. we didn't have to fight the soviets or the chinese. we worked out a deal at the

height of the cold war when they had missiles in cuba. the month i was drafted i remember it well. this idea that we can't talk to people, think of the ridicule heaped on an individual like myself for saying, maybe we ought to talk to people before we start bombing them. and that is what we should do. and people say no, you can't talk to them. if you can talk, we as a country can talk to the murdering communists of china and the soviets that killed hundreds of millions of people at work out a deal can't we talk to somebody who doesn't even have a nuclear weapon? and try to work it out? why should we be so anxious to resort to war and the secret prisons and torture and assassinations? it makes me rather sad to see

this being accepted as a good american and patriotic. i have a strong disagreement with those sentiments. >> and bring the troops home will not be enough to solve the financial problems, what do we need to do beyond what the super committee is deadlocked over? >> of the cold war and did -- and then the military more streamlined. you want to cut spending --

almost everything goes back to 2006 budget. there are a lot of cuts, overseas spending, we call of foreign expenditures. foreign-aid itself as a small part of that. it is a different attitude. foreign expenditures is a couple hundred billion and that -- >> does it include military spending? >> there is a lot in the military. that is where the dilemma is in washington. republicans are known they would be hysterical if you cut a nickel. but the democrats and not willing to cut it either. obama once more money. the secretary wants more money for this stuff. who did that?

[laughter] i am wanting to bring the troops home. the president is putting troops in australia because he is afraid china is going to attack us. it doesn't make any sense. we don't have any money. if we want to preserve enough funding to take care of the children that are dependent and the elderly dependent on medicare and social security, a narrow group of people i want to protect, because we condition them to be so dependent everything is up for grabs. a budget sometimes can be thousands of pages long. ours is more generalized. >> if you preserved those programs to protect those groups, the elderly then you haven't got $1 trillion out of the budget.

>> i do. we do cut enough. it wasn't easy. i wanted to balance the budget in one year, and i think your concerns or your point is that this was really tough. it was tough for me to do it, and we have some transition accounts for educational programs and some of these medical programs, something like if you get rid of the department of energy and the controlled nuclear power. we do, with $1 trillion. there is the reduction back to the 2006 budget. >> what about projected deficits? >> of the only thing that counts is the first year. we go three years because by our projections, we would be at a balanced budget that would take care of the other 600. we don't push this, but the truth is, if we gave reassurance

and did everything right business would boom. we would have low taxes, less regulations, we bring capital back into this country. we wouldn't be putting money into bonds there wouldn't be an increase in the standard of living. it would be very encouraging because there be a lot of the regulations and the businessman might decide to come back here and spend money here. there is no incentive right now. business people can do it easier in china than they can hear. i have one businessmen tell me that it took him three weeks in china and would have taken him three years here to get the permits taken care of. >> and do you want to turn the united states and to china where you read about the quality of

the era and this of the urban areas there the pollution? part of the lack of regulatory involvement in china is that we don't care. >> it is true, is not getting worse. they are doing some, but it is still a big problem. you don't want to, but if you have a free-market economy, it is not going happen. nobody has the right to pollute. they will have the right to pollute and they would have to not to pollute the air. i would say that we can do it, we can be competitive but if we don't do it and we allow all the jobs to overseas, it will be devastating.

that is what has happened. somebody makes money overseas and we charge them 35% corporate tax and. their job is to be productive. that is what they are and business for. to make money. it is what markets are for. if we change the conditions, you don't have to give up on environmental controls and it will be done differently. the understanding of property rights ha, again, it was the partnership of big government and big business. i lived in pittsburgh. the sooners were put into rivers and the air was permitted -- polluted by permission of the court. to divert to clean up without the epa. it is not like any 10,000 bureaucrats from washington to come out of pittsburgh and tell them what to do.

they decided it was filthy and they cleaned up their act. >> to an earlier point, if you support diplomacy why do you oppose membership in the united nations? >> because it is a loss of sovereignty. the first thing that the united nations did was put us into a war that was undeclared. it went in under un resolution, congress didn't vote for it and the people didn't care about it. we went in and 40,000 americans were killed. >> a un didn't declare that war. >> it was a un resolution. they gave us the authority to go there and the truman accepted it. it didn't come from congress. i would say it is the loss of sovereignty. the president of wanted it and did not come to congress.

he said that we are going made of give us the resolution. we went to afghanistan under nato. it is giving up national sovereignty. we need to pay more and arrests and it is not a good investment. the money should be spending here at home. and >> the model of an international peace organization that you would support? >> the organization is this there for somebody to get control over it and they fight over control. to be controlling the organization? so far, we have a lot of control because we have a lot of the money. but orchestrating it doesn't give us more peace it just means that they become tools of the foreign policy. if you don't have another government player, it doesn't mean that you don't want to use diplomacy and talked to people.

it wasn't the un that saved us from the nuclear clash in october 1962. it had to do with common sense between two leaders that did not want to blow up the world and fortunately, it worked out. >> you criticize using moral imperative as a rationale for going to war. is there any reason whatsoever that you would and the condition under which he would use a moral imperative for going to war or would you go to war only if the united states were attacked. >> of the constitution is very clear. the moral responsibility of defending people of this country and to obey the law. the moral imperative is not that somebody needs us and you can draft somebody else's kids, take your money, and say that we are going to make it a better place. that was the motivation -- they

had this moral imperative that was well-intentioned, but it ended badly. world war one was a moral imperative making the world safe for democracy. but the world is not a greater democracy. the moral imperative is to give them a democratic government. at the same time, we're the best of friends with the dictators of saudi arabia and the other dictators we supported, like we used to support saddam hussein. our children die and we go broke on that. what about democracy in this country? if you ever came to the conclusion that the parties are similar, which they are above and doors of the federal reserve and that both endorsed the ownership system. so where does somebody go? where do they go?

you can't go into a third party. it is not available. the laws are written by the republicans and the democrats. who controls the debates with next november. even if you had, it is not likely used to be when the league of women voters did it. the party's control it. what right do we have to assume that we can have the moral imperative that we can impose goodness on them. >> the equivalent of a holocaust? >> it depends on what the status is. we were involved in world war two. the people that committed the holocaust and declared war against us, to see the issue. >> if germany were not at war.

>> our government doesn't have it. if there was a compulsion and public sentiment for it, believing it was a threat to our national security, i wouldn't be the decision maker that is the u.s. congress. i don't think that is necessary. i don't think -- people have the right to do whatever they want, but i don't have the moral authority to compel you to go over and settle a dispute. think of many other episodes, how many times has that happened in africa? they are killing millions of people. nobody pays any attention to those. there has to be a moral imperative there. you would have to get involved in to every single thing. it is endless, and that is more or less where we are. in is inconsistent and hypocritical because at the

same time, we prop up the dictators. we brought of the kings that practice their own lot in saudi arabia. and we pretend that we are going to get rid of the dictator that he did the iranians and he the al qaeda. we throw him out and when we take over iraq, we get rid of the christians and the al qaeda comes in. i don't believe i will persuade the majority of american people from the moral argument. the majority of the american people are with me right now because half of them understand exactly what i am saying and the other half know we are broke and can't afford it. and the other group that does exactly what i am doing other military people. they want to come home, they see

no future in this, and that is why they give me support overwhelmingly. >> are you ruling out a third- party run? why? >> i don't want to. >> why shouldn't there be a third party? >> because it is a losing venture. you probably wouldn't have me in here. you wouldn't be talking to me. >> a lot of republicans say that you don't uphold a lot of republican viewpoints. >> it is the funniest thing in the world. take a look at the republican platform, personal liberty a strong local government, free markets. i have the best of all of those. i voted against all the spending. i care about personal liberty and all the things they talk about and they say i am not a republican?

anybody bison to that, they are not listening. i am closer to the republican platform that any of the others. >> there are republicans in name only? >> they don't follow the platform or what republicans profess to believe in as i do, and they should be called on its. >> you will be participating in a debate later today which is basically a test of the christian social conservatives. where do you say you fall in the spectrum of candidates on that issue, social conservatism? >> i am very conservative on social issues. i strongly believe that life is precious and a gift from our creator, and if you don't believe that protect life, you can't protect the liberty. if you don't understand the essence of life, you cannot protect liberty. >> women should not have the

right to choose abortion? >> somebody has to speak for the fetus. i have seen babies eight and nine months of pregnancy has pretty much a human being. who speaks for them? who speaks for a one-minute old baby? how does a 1 minute old baby have that right? what if there is no mother. do you throw it in the garbage and kill it? nobody speaks for the 1-minute old baby. who speaks for the fetus before birth? why does the fetus get excluded? is this not a human being? what is it? who speaks for it? >> we have no moral imperative of for a holocaust, but we have a moral imperative for a fetus. is that what you're saying? >> i'd see the connection at all. we're not going on the china to say that you shouldn't abort female fetuses.

that would be a description of a moral imperative. does the state of viyella have the right to protect a fetus and that before birth because it deserves protection and has freedom of choice to live? under our constitution, it permits i was to have a law that prevents that? it is not alive it is not human, it is not an act of violence to destroy the unborn? the federal government has no authority whatsoever to tell i was to decide what they should do with what they construe as violent acts. the be like saying that you are allowed to prosecute people for first-degree murder, but not for manslaughter. these are difficult subjects. the founders were geniuses, not

having one monolithic solution for the whole country because different states will do it in different ways. there is a very strong argument. i am very much aware of it. if the mother comes to my office and i give the wrong drug what if i damage or hurt or kill the fetus? i am in big trouble. if you are in a car accident and the mother doesn't get hurt, but the fetus dies, you are in big trouble because you have committed an act of violence. if you want to deal with the legality of when it gets legal rights it is at conception. the inheritance rights are determined by the date of conception. it would be determined by the father. there is every president in the world that there is a legal being there that has qualified

for protection, but you can't just say that is of pay, it is illegal here. if a mother makes her argument it becomes difficult. believe me, i have been in the business for a long time. i of the difficult situations and that is why i don't want one answer for all. i don't want amendments to the constitution. i don't think it is the prerogative of the federal government to be involved. >> would you select the supreme court justices opposed to abortion? >> i would select the supreme court justices on their understanding of the constitution. if they describe what i just described, their personal position would not be quite as important. but i want to know what they think about the first amendment, how they reflect on all the bill of rights, property rights, the general welfare clause.

i want them to know about this, i know what they think about the necessary and proper clause. their whole issue of abortion would be less important because their proper position would have been on roe vs wade and the states can make their own decisions. >> [inaudible] you have read the document and it doesn't specify very much. would you agree that most laws on the bugs don't have a constitutional basis? >> it is true, and all the regulations and the legislation done by executive order. we do not have the rule of law. we have the government now that is known that we have endorsed torture, we have rejected defense of habeas corpus, we

have endorsed assassination by our president one person deciding which americans can be assassinated. however. even when they kill a 16-year- old boy that happens to be the son of a guy that wasn't very nice and was never tried no charges made. we should be outraged over this. if we accept this without saying anything we are in big trouble. that is why the rule of law is so important. to me, that is very discouraging. but i can go out and i talk like this to older groups, and i talked to them about bringing our troops home, and the reception is very good. >> if you were in the white

house during the past three years, would you have had a different strategy has related to saddam hussein. >> no, i votded for that. we voted for the authority of going after the individuals responsible for 9/11. we had him more or less traffic. i have an image in my mind but they have essentially trapped forgot about them and we have to go after a raft. iraq had nothing to do with it. it is just horrible. i lament the fact that it took 10 years. we will try to prevent them from going into this war. you can literally hire people to go out.

it wasn't the government that was attacking us on the high seas. they were pirates. we would hire people. this was legally recognized internationally. and even though that you have this authority the authority was very limited to go after certain people. i wanted them to do that, and remember how ross perot and killed with as hostages. he hired her ex military special forces and he went over there. he got his people out. when we attempted to do it, it ended in disaster. a letter of reprisal, just think of what $500 million would have meant in saving the lives of how many americans? how many that are casualties

now, and how many innocent iraqis. close to 1 million iraqis died. that is when you live within the confines of the constitution, always trying to hold back on the military rather than saying that we are powerful, we are going to do it. weapons themselves do not bring peace unless you know how to use them. that is what i think the letter was a great idea. if we are arrested and gave trials of people, it could have been above -- [unintelligible] you know, we give trials of

people -- israel gave them a trial. we gave trials to all the nasty war criminals. with the war criminals that participated in the holocaust we gave them trials. >> if it was declared -- >> you supported the authorization, you're talking about after 9/11. >> it does not give authority for the drum strikes? docile they are not bombing everybody -- >> we declared war on terrorism. >> where? i would like to see the document.

kerr -- at terrorism as a tactic. they want you to understand that you're out or out of fear, they can violate your civil liberties. when war is going on, they can undermine your liberties at home. i think it is dangerous. that is just returned to generate enough fear to get the people at the congress to capitulate. if you don't agree with it, you are american. you don't care, your week on national defense because you want to defend the constitution. i think it is wrong. law > how do you reconcile the interests in a marriage with the liberty, pursuit of happiness. what is the role of government there?

>> not at all? >> that is my idea, just to but out. a lot of the importance of marriage, a lot of the dictionary too. i don't want this -- i didn't vote for the marriage amendments. to me, the finding a word, if you want to define it one way and it be another way, that sounds like a first amendment issue. why should i try to convince you of my definition? why what someone oppose their ideas on me? i want the government out. if you are going to have government under the constitution. the states have a lot more authority than the federal government has. i would rather see a the outside of government. and then we would not be arguing about this.

>> of the state of marriage under tax laws, etc., conveys certain privileges that don't go to those that are unmarried. >> probably change the tax cut and get rid of it, that would be a solution. dodge get government out of the business of authorizing marriage? >> i would. if you go back in history and find that tradition of going to the bible and following it back people married and their churches to me it seems like such a wonderful solution. you can have your definition, i'll have mine i want to tell you what to believe you don't tell me, i don't force my views on you. i think it is wonderful.

>> isn't that what the iowa supreme court did? in >> and not familiar enough to know exactly what they did. >> mistakes can grasp the rights under this definition -- >> in the states won't necessarily agree. i am giving my personal opinion of what i think should be done. under the constitution, the government should not have saidy. the states will still have the authority. >> is there a federal role in sort of -- kind of bringing a sense of equality across the country? so a person that lives in texas isn't left with fewer rights and liberties that the person who lives in iowa?

there are some staetstes where there would be a sense of -- we don't think blacks are the same as whites. it was the government that did it. >> the government was at fault with the slave issue and discrimination. national laws, the fourteenth amendment applied. we can't take a group of people and deny them certain rights. the biggest discrimination occurs now in the judicial system. have you looked at the people that end up getting the death penalty? it doesn't seem to be fair and balanced. but the number of people in prison for drug usage. 12% or so or black 37% are

arrested. 50% are arrested. the people that don't get the death penalty for rest of our people that are wealthy and tend to be whites. that is still where there is a lot of discrimination or the federal government would have helped. they could have an influence on that because you're not allowed to discriminate. you can't have a discriminatory laws and treat black people a certain way. >> you define yourself as a free market person why shouldn't that apply to emigration as well? >> there is a pretty good idea for that. that is the ideal. and away, that is what the founders argued and that is why they give us the interstate commerce clause. it is mostly distorted and is used now to regulate rather than

the regulate. i would argue in the sense and that's conditions today are really tough. for economic reasons because we have people that come over the borders and i deliver a newborn baby, the baby becomes an automatic citizen and the next day the hospital needs money so they signed him up for a welfare program and they get charged a lot of money in the process continues. the welfare state interferes with it. if you had a free market healthy economy, i believe we should have a much more generous approach to immigration on the work force. i would not say that just walking in and out under today's circumstances would be a good idea. >> if the market calls for a certain number of workers -- >> that is what that we should really work for.

even with the problems today, i have people come to my office looking for workers. there are jobs out there, they just have to be trained. but the system of education coming out of college all they have to show for it is that. that can't take these technological jobs. they say, get me somebody from japan or india. we have messed up our economy so badly just bringing more people in that will bring their families over compounds the problem. but as the problem that hit california and texas literally because there is no control at all, the hospitals have had the clothes and school districts going bankrupt. a free and prosperous economy would be very generous for emigration. even though we were very generous in our early history,

we never had a free emigration. everybody came man and what to do some ritual. back then, it was health reasons. >> what about decisions where this -- what about the states where the decisions to regulate beyond constitutional restrictions might be the result of national consensus a democratic process people choose not to contest it because it is so important that it can be a national standard for something. would you make allowances for that? >> yes, if you did it properly. you can say the consensus of the country is that we love the federal government controlling our education. i was doesn't know how to do it. if you want national laws, you have to change the constitution. if you do it without change the constitution, you diminish the importance of the rule of law. that is why you write the

regulations, make them national, who once national regulation the most? the corporate industries. and consumers never asked for it. never is too strong, but the left in the congress mocked the republicans because they are opposed to some of the state rights issues, republicans tend to support nationalizing regulations. they want more regulations because of big businesses want this and they don't want more stringent regulations by the state. you should modify it in the constitution. otherwise, there is not much left to its. everything is going to be so out of control. privacy is gone, the patriot and controls the gsa malls us and we don't care. it will go on and on.

if you want federal regulations you have to change the constitution. >> how you desire the balance for tree -- balance the desire for free trade against american business interests? >> a free trade is good for american businesses. i don't think it is a cliche or a method that if you don't have free trade, if you have free trade it hurts us. and we have to manipulate interest rates. if you don't have free trade you go to protectionism. that is why currencies worldwide is a detriment. we scream at them, it leaves to trade wars, and there are these tariffs. right now that is the argument. china is unfair. one candidate wants to go to the wto and its sanctions put on.

it is a myth. it might help for a couple weeks or months, but the prices adjust and the prices go up. business people say that you don't improve the free markets but somebody can produce something cheaper than us, that is good. we are getting a better deal. we have to take those resources and improve the productivity the that we compete. we were the great producers. if we can produce the steel cars everything else. but we can't compete because we have undermined the whole concept of a market economy. >> what is the government does a responsibility supporting people in poverty? >> and the government house irresponsibility? the responsibility to the poor is to provide the maximum of prosperity and the maximum and

jobs for people so that there are very few poor. but if you are indicating that maybe this would invite the force of government to come and extract funds from one group and give to another, that is very bad. it ends up like the housing program did. that was the principal based on the housing program. print money have affirmative- action programs, and everybody gets a house. it gets out of control. the mortgage companies run us off, the banks make billions, and they get into derivatives and the housing bubble bursts. they got the bailout what happens to the people that you wanted to help? it doesn't work. >> there are an estimated 15% of americans living in poverty right now. should they not be entitled to welfare? >> all my cuts are cut from the

big industry, the corporate welfare, the overseas spending, and what i'd do is the only way you can protect these people is doing what i am talking about. it doesn't mean i endorse this forever. if we continue to do this, everybody will suffer because there will be less wealth, more poverty, and i preserve taking care of those that are indigent and the need of medical care. the elderly and the medical care, social security. but it won't happen if people don't endorsed a change in foreign policy. but the president to send 15,000 troops to australia and never asked any question and stir up a fight with china. you can't do it. the poor people will become more numerous. coming from overseas, you can help save and work. you have to change the monetary

system the tax cut, to get production back. you can't borrow forever. we have been led to believe that we can get away with this guy just printing more money because the world has accepted our money because it is the reserve currency of the world. and now we interest rates are going to go up, and prices are going up. guess who gets herurt. poor people. they are the ones who suffer the most so if anyone cares

i think it is important to see how important monetary policy is. >> talk to me about the ramifications. >> i am against the committee. they will not admit we are now bankrupt. even if they fail and there is an automatic cut, there is no actual cut. there is a coalition of democrats and republicans that will exempt military expenditures and make sure nothing gets caught. -- cut.

>> what cuts would you make in medicare and social security? we are talking about the future. it depends on how productive and we are. productivity is unpredictable but if it was favorable it might not be five or 10 years before you have to change a page and benefits, but the problem is the benefits are going down automatically because the value of the dollar is going down.

it depends on how well the economy recovers. >> you have got about six weeks before our caucus. i wonder if you have any final comments about whether a iowa caucus goers should support yoonu. >> if they care about freedom and prosperity and peace they will be their common and and there is a large number that will be there. he said, one thing we know is he has a lot of supporters. one thing we know is that if on january 3 it is 10 below zero and 10 inches of snow, and ron paul supporters will be there, so that made me feel good. >> thank you.

good to chat with you. >> today on washington journal a discussion of the impact of the deficit reduction committee's and ability to cut a deal. after that joseph mcquaid the endorsement of the 2012 gop potential election. later, daniel seddiqui talked about his book "50 jobs in the state's." necked, reporters, writers, and a commentator talk about the future of news. this discussion is part of the chicago ideas inaugural conference. it is moderated by time magazine editor rick stengel. this is over an hour. >> thank you.

ok. come on down. come on out. i am rick stengel an editor of time an old medium brenda is doing fine things. it is appropriate that we are here at a museum for broadcast communications. the question we are going to talk about today is whether the very idea, broadcast communication, is an oxymoron. how much broadcast is there any more? everything is delivered to you directly. think about it. there is no twitter museum yet. there is no facebook museum yet but there are television and radio museums. museum is a great word. it has to preserve something that is going away. yet nothing ever goes away in the media world. there is still radio. people still write poetry.

you will hear from this incredible panel about what is going on now and what the future holds. evan ratliff is one of the best young magazine writers around. he wrote a fantastic pace a couple of years ago for wired where he went off the grid. it was called "banished." he is the founder of something called "the atavist." one of the things he is doing is a mini publishing empire where he takes text and puts in music, video, and enhances it in a way i think all media will have to be going forward. kara swisher the a presario of all things digital. she has been a longtime reporter

for the wall street journal and washington post. she followed aol like it was nobody's business. and it was nobody's business. those folks like me who worked at a country -- a company that used to be called aol read everything you wrote like it was the bible. joe mcginniss wrote a book that changed the way people report about politics. he went inside the nixon campaign. it is a book i read a couple of years ago. it is incredibly well reported and well-written. that was a bomb time ago. he has written many best sellers. joe, once again, has been in the news because he rented a house next to sarah palin and has

written a book that sarah palin and her many fans do not pay is so great but that may be good for you. i was reading it this morning. ayman mohyeldin was the face and the voice for many of us the biggest story of the year -- the arab spring. you saw him many years ago as a desk assistance. he migrated to al jazeera where he had a chance to do something that was a lifetime thing. it was truly transformational. he has cast that in and has gone back to nbc as a foreign cobblers -- a foreign correspondent. ollie a american media company would call and at international correspondent a foreign correspondent. anything that is not american is

foreign. jim warren is the dean of the chicago press corps. one of the things that is ed -- that is fantastic about jim is you are one of the few people in the business who actually manages to know how to keep the best ad important of shoe leather and journalism, and how do you measure that with the new media, with twitter, with facebook? jim was the managing editor for the chicago tribune. we now -- he now writes for the atlantic's monthly, the chicago times, -- the new york times. we are going to figure everything out today. we chatted a little bit beforehand and basically this is a conversation that journalists have all the time. what is happening and what is the future?

we are going to talk about what is happening now and we are going to talk about the future. i had a piece of paper stuck to my foot and cara told me to take it off. kara let's start with you. what is going on? you have managed to migrate. you are tracking as a journalist but you are also a participant. you have a new -- you have a unique perspective. >> i was a reporter for the new washington post. of with the first internet reporter. when i got to the journal, i started covering it at the washington post. i wrote a book about aol when things were going well for the company. once i saw the internet for the first time, i knew it would change everything. this was the end of newsprint. it was the end of everything i was doing for the was attend

post. -- the washington post. when i was walking out the door, john graham asked why are you leaving? i said the water is rising and you are on the or plane at the wall street journal. i want to go up. i will leave that when i feel like the water is rising there. news organizations did not understand what was happening. when i got to the journal, i was the only internet reporter. one of the media reporters -- that with the hot thing at the journal, to be one of the media reporters. he said i would be covering the cb radio. i said the internet id: to kill you -- you, you're beat, and everything about it will be washed away. i was very struck by classifieds. the classified business could be attacked. they were losing big retailers

and advertising. even while i was at the journal covering the internet, it was almost impossible not to see the biggest implication was on the news and how the news was delivered. my premise is that people did not want a newspaper, but they did what the news. years later when the journal was turned into the saturday journal, they had focus groups on the saturday journal and what people eat like about it. i thought the saturday journal was homework. great, i have to read the saturday journal. what do you think about this? what do you think about that? but finally got to me and asked what i thought about the saturday journal. i wanted to put all the money and into online. i said how could we get young people to read the news? i said if you placed a joint between every page, maybe that would work. [laughter] the kick me out of the focus group. it would be fantastic.

what are you talking about? [laughter] so i kept pushing it and pushing it until finally i was going to leave. i wanted to do a thing called a block and the publisher did not know what a blocg was. this was 2001-2002. i essentially threatened to leave. they said you believe in this. there is a very smart executive there. he founded it and let us do it. it is still a struggle within the journal and within the dow jones empire. everyone understands how quickly everything is changing and how you can do more with less. >> that struggle puts it -- is what lots of people in traditional media worry about. i find it a strange question. never in the history of the world has there been more information available to more

people in greater amounts and greater depth in human history. in some ways, it is the greatest age of media, we just have not figured out how to charge for it or make money for it. jim, you have a foot in both camps. how is that going to work bamut will traditional media survive? can they charge for it? one of the things we have seen on the web is that people like the washington post. unlike the new york times. -- the they like the new york times. they do not care about the form it takes. they do not have to have it on paper. >> i did not see any of this coming. i was clueless, like most of the newspaper industry. when key decisions were being made in the 1990's and the turn of the decade, it is almost like