and draw the conclusion that had to be drawn. it is only this way that we are going to come out of this huge crisis. also, we need to take prevention measures so that we do not go into the next crisis, which will be a lot worse. we have to take preventive measures. that is the third pillar. preventive measures to gain more trust. we want to have sustainable sustainability and have new rules. the rules will be respected. that they will be controlled. a bridge will be punished. the should be anchored in national mall or the different constitution. we're going to have duties that

will be at the european level. the translation of the national law will be supervised by the european court of justice. this is important. the justice as opposed to the positions are the two institutions that have kept their credibility. in future, we are going to be a lot tougher on the deficit procedure. countries that go above the 3% will fall under the deficit. unless ththis is what happened e

lisbon treaty. we're going to apply that in the deficit procedure in the next steps. all this will be dramatic. they will have to enter into a reform partnership for the detail reform will consolidate their finances. it is the law under the sanction that we had mentioned earlier. in the future it will be binding steps with the commission. this is such as what we had today.

we're going to apply the famous one 20th role. the crisis has already changed today. today we are getting the bill for all the neglect. last friday the council has not committed another mistake. it would be to introduce eurobonds and simple solutions that does not get at the roots of our problems. they are not appropriate as a measure to solve the problem. the crisis has certainly enormous importance for the whole construction. the euro has survived. it is much rather than the

deutsche mark ever was. this is only true of big companies but also a small and medium enterprises in germany. the euro is much more than a currency. it is a symbol for the death of the union. therefore we are going to be much more united than we were before. this is true for the franco- german cooperation which has revealed itself so useful in work that contributed to solving the crisis. it goes further. we want to use this crisis to improve ourselves. the european council last week

had the members that will be more tightly united for a better european future. the decision, i've discussed it with my colleagues. they all feel the same thing. we have this new feeling of unions. this will keep way beyond the crisis. it is nothing else than the vision of a real political union. this is much more than just the stability. it means we will grow to get their with sustainable growth. it is growth that has turned toward the future. it will create more jobs in europe.

>> therefore it the agreement that we had a year ago with the euro will be the most important all and all of us have to take laws that take into account the situation. every national parliament is at a point where they have to change their minds. they have to take it to the other policies before they passed a law. they have to take the lessons from each other. we have been through one of the worst crisis we have ever known. we will know the origin of the crisis. we are all in agreement to fight.

we're all in agreement as opposed to what one to pursue. this was unthinkable a few months ago. i am convinced this is much bigger than the risks. it is the historical task that we have. the way to overcome this crisis is long and hard. at the end of people have a eurozone that is stronger to restrain it. this is the best condition for a good future for europe and germany. the federal government is working on its. we am by you to contribute to this as well. -- we invite you to contribute to this as well. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next mitt romney me to the des moines register editorial board. then an editor talks about their endorsement of mitt romney. tomorrow, a look at developments on the presidential campaign with armstrong williams. then a discussion on privacy issues with the george washington university law school. then debr>> the des moines regis

endorsed mitt romney. the editorial board has been interviewing candidates for the past several weeks. this is the former member. this is just over an hour. >> nice to me. we have the publication team. must be getting kind of tiring. hello. how are you? she sits in the back row.

>> e are very different. i have weighed the same since high school. maybe it is gravitating. i'm doing my best to keep it off. >> you have done a little bit of running a round, these past five years? >> i did get a chance to write a book. something i had wanted to do. you become frustrated that the positions that you have are not fully frost out. one minute answers, i got a chance to write a book. by the way, i hired a

ghostwriter. i took a look at what he wrote and said that it would never work. writing it myself turned out to be a great experience. other members of the team here. let's shake hands on the way out. hello, tony, how are you? >> you might want to introduce -- is that david? >> you know david. next to him, andrea. on the road with me this weekend. >> good. welcome to iowa. >> it is not bad. when it is sunny and clear like this, with no precipitation, it is kind of a nice day.

>> it is a pretty nice weekend by iowa standard in december. my name is ricky green, editor of the paper here in iowa. we welcome you to our editorial board meeting today, with former governor, mitt romney, who is seeking nomination in the 2012 election. you have met our editorial board. for the next 45 minutes or so we would like to give you time to talk about what you're seeing on the campaign, issues the are important to you, and frame why your seeking the nomination. >> i thought that, having lost last time, i would not be running again. i wrote a book early on in the president's term, describing what i thought the country needed to do.

in the ensuing months, it was my wife who said i would have to do it again. she continued, relentlessly, because the president, she said, does not get america, the understand what it takes to make our economic engine the kind that will put people back to work and provide for our future, children, and grandchildren. she and i both believe that, having spent my life in the private spend -- private sector, taking it into government, it gave me the kind of leadership experience that the country needs. i think that the issue or the choice that americans face is whether, as a nation, we will continue what the president called a fundamental transformation of america. or if we will see that europe is not working in europe, time to restore the principles that made us the economic powerhouse of the world.

making america more like america, with a merit based society where individuals, through education, hard work, and risk-taking are able to build a better future for themselves and at the same time lift up the entire nation. i see this as a clear choice for the american people. do we transform america, or turnaround america? i spend my life in turnaround's. political, a volunteer. and business, or private sector. i have had the chance to run two different businesses. the kind of experience is what america needs at a time when we are headed in a very unfortunate direction. which is tending to weaken us. the president's direction has slowed down the recovery, in my view. he has not put forward a plan to reinvigorate our economy. at the same time, not only has

it hurt us on a near-term basis, i believe this program has made it difficult for america to remain the economic leader of the world over the coming century. the consequences of america falling behind economically, in a global race, is that the defense of freedom itself could be in jeopardy. i am concerned, both short-term and long-term, because i do not think the president understands how this country works. at the individual level, the private sector level, or the governmental sector. i do not think he has the experience or the leadership capacity to lead in a time of difficulty. he continues to complain about government? look, that is -- he continues to complain about congress? look, that this government? -- that is government.

they have been there for a long time. they need a new leader. >> the good news this week is that you made the cover of "time," magazine. >> you know what the numbers look like in iowa. why do you seem to be stuck in this number? why have others been able to soar above you? >> so far as i can tell, over the last year or so, i have been towards the top of the polls for most of the last year, which i consider to be pretty good news. in the last poll i was number two, yes, and no. 1 or no. 2 -- was i no. 3? by two points? oh, well. i have watched surges of various people over time. my experience with those is that people take a look at someone, project on them a sense that they are exactly conforming to their own views, and as they get deeper and watch that person more carefully, they realize that there are elements that they do not agree with. background issues that are not consistent with my own views. people come down. my guess is that over time, speaker gingrich will follow a projection that is only unique to him and by the time that we finish this, i will get the nomination. i am pretty pleased with the fact that i have been either at or near the top of the polls at most states for a long period of time.

that is a good thing. there are a lot of competitors. it has been a long time since i could recall a race where someone got 50% or 60% and held on to that. last time around, let's see, we had john mccain, myself, fred thompson, rudy giuliani, mike huckabee. we were all bouncing around between 10% and 20%. i consider high teens and low 20s to be pretty good news. in the final analysis, i have to get 35% of the delegates in the first few, then 45%, then 50, which gets me the nomination.

>> you have not spent as much time in this state as the and the candidates. why is that? >> we track the number of days for all the candidates. there are some, like rick santorum, who focus entirely on iowa. they will spend a lot of time here. newt gingrich and he are the ones that have had more days the have here. i am also campaigning in new hampshire, south carolina, florida, and nevada. i want to do well in the early primary states, but i also want to get the delegates to win the

nomination. this is not try to surprise people by doing better than expected in a few states, i want to do well in all the states. this is about getting the nomination. for me, that meant -- that means spending time in various states. we have spent a lot of time raising money. whether or not that is a wise strategy, i do not know. that way, i can go out and get my message to the people in south carolina, freeing up a lot more time. going around the state, making sure that we have the resources. not just to do well once or twice, but to go through the process of the nomination. >> it is not the issue feel there are social conservatives that dominate the party better

pushing the question? >> i realize that i have an uphill climb to get the no. 1 spot in iowa. i would like to get that spot. but, if i do not, i will be happy if i do well. i would like to do well here. again, i am a delegate. in a lot of the early states, they will award delegates on a proportional basis. i want to get my fair share of that portion from the beginning, taking larger shares as time goes on. >> is it different from four years ago? is it changed, forever? >> it really is. >> the way we view this process, in this country? >> it seems to change every cycle. theuldn't tell you what next will be like. it will likely be different from

this. for me, this cycle, i have folks that had supported me before that were inclined to do it again. last time, i had no one. i had to spend a lot of time getting to meet people again and again, signing them up to be a part of my team, hoping that they would be with me. this time, i started with a bit of a base that i did not have less time. it has allowed me to spend some time in other states as well. rekindling mild support, generating support from folks that do not know who i am. i do also think that one of the things that changed in this cycle is the importance of debates. the audience for the debate is much larger than last time around. i do not know why. last time, with three giuliani, fred thompson the movie star -- [laughter] tv personality. tv star.

he was famous. these guys, john mccain, a famous. i was 1%, 2% in the poll last time. i had to allow with shoe leather and get known. -- go out with shoe leather and yet known. hopefully, i can get support here and down the road. >> when we think about personality, we think about donald trump. tell us why you decided not to participate in that debate. >> well, in the month of september, i had requests for six, eight debates. we all met and compared schedules. we could do two to keep up with fund-raising and campaigning. we picked two debates. well after we announced those, of posts -- the folks from the trump debate came and said that we would like to host one as

well, and we said that we have already sell our calendar. we respect news max, donald trump, and his conservative organization, with nothing against the debates proposed, but that we can only do so many. i joked that people would call in to returned to regularly scheduled programming. someone said the other night that we have had 14 to bite -- debates and forums. i think we have already had more than we had last time for the whole process. so, there comes a point where people feel like they have seen it enough. ifre's also the concern that you had that many debates, the questions begin to become more and more arcane. they are not the questions at the front and center people's minds, which may not have helped the process.

two in december made sense. yours being one of them. then, in january, maybe a few, again. maybe three. time will tell. >> [unintelligible] >> some of the candidates for the republican nomination, there being portrayed as a wrecking ball coming into washington, d.c., destroying congress, the courts, and the presidency. what is your take on that approach? what is your philosophy of governing at the federal level? up >> heated rhetoric generates

a lot of support. but we have got to fix the country. there is no question, but there are needs for reorganization in much of what government does. i will eliminate programs and combine agencies. when i was the governor of my state, i brought them down into three groupings, but i did not eliminate everything that they did. i simply streamlined the way that they worked together. congress has been a difficult body to get to act on key measures. in my view, that is because of lack of leadership from the white house. we have had the same structure in government for a long, long time. right now we are in a crisis setting, economically. with the right leadership, i

think we can make it work. do we need to change washington and the nature of the discourse? absolutely. i think that flows from the white house. this president, despite the rhetoric, has really been missing in action. he is almost like a by standard president. stimulus came along in his first weeks in office. that was apparently delegated to nancy pelosi and harry reid. the obama care health care plan was ultimately something that was devised and worked out without as much direction from him as was expected. three years in, we know that the president has said that medicare and social security are both fiscally unsustainable. three years in, he has made no proposals to make them sustainable. i find it to be a very unusual presidency, with a white house that has not reached across the aisle, worked with republican leaders, battled it out in

private, refrained from attack, and thereby been able to lead. >> what would you do differently? >> i will tell you, specifically. i remember the beginning, with the stimulus he said that he wanted republican input. eric cantor called me at my mother's to come testify before a group of republicans in congress, to lay out our views about what we should do. meg whitman was also there. we testified together. the day that we were there, nancy pelosi introduced the democratic plan. it was clear that they had no interest whatsoever. obama care came along. in every way possible, they said -- the american people said they did not want obama care. they elected scott brown, for gosh sakes.

they wanted no input from republicans. they have bipartisan plans that were just pushed aside. from what i could tell, this white house has led harry pelosi -- harry reid and nancy pelosi run the show. was the governor in a state where my legislature was 85% democrat. i figured out that i would get nothing done if i attacked them on a personal basis. the speaker of the house has suez -- has to have respect for me, and i have to have respect for them. we established the practice of

meeting every monday. we rotated offices. we fed each other. we got to know each other. we talked about the challenges going on around the state, none of it ever beat, all of it off the record. on one occasion one of the leaders said to me -- look, this bill that we're pushing is not one that i am crazy about, but you have got to give me more cover so that i can stop it. we had that kind of open discourse. i never attacked them. we talked about differences in issues, but there was no attack. the result was that we have enough respect for each other that we did a lot of things that were quite successful. the balance the budget every year, for four years. we built a rainy day fund by the time that i left. we held the line on education. some people said not to implement this requirement that

you cannot graduate from high school of was to pass the graduation exam for. i said the would hold firm to that. they stood by me on that. issue after issue, we were able to work together. >> you think you could have the same kind of influence in the house? and in the senate? >> they are pretty independent. >> people are very independent. as i can assure you, the leaders in the massachusetts state senate are quite independent. there were places where we disagreed and i was unsuccessful. but i worked at it hard enough on a personal basis that we were able to make progress on very important measures. this was done against long odds. our education system is now 1 in mint -- no. 1 in the nation. republicans and democrats,

working the other. i cannot guarantee that everything i want to do in washington will get done. i will focus on getting that job done rather than getting reelected or pursuing a partisan agenda. i have run for office and lost. i have run and one to make better. i am in this race to fix the country and get on track again. i am concerned that if we stay on this track, we will be italy or greece. in five years to six years, we will face the same problems that they have right now. the consequences of america in distress are virtually impossible to calculate, because no one could bail us out. i am concerned about the trauma that so many families feel today, who are out of work. i am concerned about the

catastrophe that would exist if we fell into the italy, europe, ireland distress. i am concerned about protection of freedom long-term. >> talk about programs the would specifically eliminate and how else you would reduce the federal deficit. >> there are two parts of the federal government that i think we have to address. number one is the income statement, the other is the balance sheet. the annual budget is when we have to cut annual spending, in my view. there are three parts of that. the first is to eliminate programs. the easiest to get rid of is the ones that we do not like. obama care, that will save us much by the fourth year of the next term.

amtrak, the endowment for the arts, public broadcasting. there is a long list of programs that some people like. even i like some of them. but the test is -- is is so critical that it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for? right now we are funding most of these things by borrowing money from people that will demand interest and pay back at some point. i will eliminate a lot of programs. the -- even the ones that i like. no. 2, there are programs that we need to keep in place that can be run far more efficiently as we return to the states. one of those is medicaid, for instance, the program for the poor.

taking last year's no., inflating it, saying to iowa that there's a mandate and you cover it. you structure that and give the state time to organize programs of that nature. just out of medicaid, making that change, growing it out of state direction saves $100 billion per year. there are 47 different work force training programs that have been put in place in the federal government. the gao did an evaluation of those programs. they did not find any of them to be effective. i would take all of that money, bundle it, send it back to the states and say that you craft year-round programs to train

your own work force for the jobs that exist in your state, as opposed to having the federal government telling you how to run those programs. looking for candidates that would also be returned to the states. housing vouchers, food stamps, other programs where we could return these to the states. it is different from iowa, massachusetts, or mississippi. >> how are you going to ensure millions of americans? >> i have a model for how we did it in my state, let them craft

their own programs. by returning medicaid dollars, iowa will then have the resources to care for its own uninsured. the iowa solution will look different from massachusetts. we will learn from each other and the laboratories of democracy will provide the models to help people become insured. i would replace, obama care, for instance, at the federal level. i would allow individuals to purchase health insurance on their own with the same tax advantaged basis that occurs for corporations. we would discourage against individuals that would purchase their own. that is, by the way, tax advantage. a deduction for the company to be able to purchase it for you. if you are running out of it -- running your business out of your home, you have to pay with after-tax dollars.

i want to change that. i know that people like you would say the would rather purchase your own insurance and have the register by for you. that is a change that you can make. i would like to make sure that we provide for the concerns of those who have pre-existing conditions. they should not to worry that if they change jobs or become ill, or are laid off or whatever -- you have to cover those things, i would insist, at the federal level. the other side is the balance sheet. medicare and medicaid, social security and other entitlements. social security is relatively easy to make balanced. medicare is a tougher one. with regards to social security, for the next generation of would -- not the current generation, for them things stay the same -- before

the next generation i would lower the growth rate of benefit for higher income social security recipients. for the middle income recipients, the growth rate associated with the wage index will stay the same period for higher income people, they will have lower growth rates. that balances social security. >> what about private accounts? >> without regard, i do this. i eliminate, for anyone making $200,000 per year or less, i eliminate any tax on dividends or capital gains. i let people create the account that they want. there would be no tax on their savings. over to medicare, we have got a program for some time called medicare advantage. where people have a choice of traditional fee-for-service medicare or private insurance. that is a choice that they have

that exists already. people have a choice between private plans. my plan takes that idea and says that we will provide that for the next generation and give people a premium subsidy, purchasing of any product that they want. the private plan or the medicare fee-for-service plan. that takes advantage of the concept of medicare vantages that exists right now. by virtue of congress adopting a plan for those support payments over time at a controlled rate, we are able to make medicare cost effective without breaking the bank and making sure that it is sustained long-term.

a simple question to which i am giving you a long answer. getting america's fiscal house in order is not a quick sound bite answer. it is several things to do to get our income statement in line. getting our long-term obligations in line. >> are there any cuts in military spending in the balance in your budget? >> there are a number of areas in government itself. those exist in the military, as well as other agencies. those programs are defense programs that i think our

insisted upon by various congress people that have their various projects in their home district. in some cases there are various weapons systems and i anticipate that money not going to paying down the budget deficit, but being used to update the navy, the air force, and bringing in off-duty personnel and providing veterans with the benefits that they deserve. i anticipate no net cuts to the defense department. i think we ought to keep approximately 4% in the near term. federal spending as a percentage of gdp today is 25%. there is also wartime cost. i should clearly communicate that as our conflicts in afghanistan and iraq wind down, there will be savings there.

>> the final date in afghanistan, the appropriate date to set as a target is 2014. the 2012 pulled down on the surge of troops has been accelerated by three months, for political purposes. i think that is a mistake. the pullout should have been in december, as requested by commanders --

>> iraq? >> i was talking about afghanistan, there. i hope that i got that right. i think of the september date is a political date and it puts our troops in a withdrawal mode during the fighting season, which is dangerous. regarding iraq, we are following the bush timeline, with one exception. president bush and others anticipated that we would have an ongoing force their to help in the transition. the president's secretary of defense suggested that would be the case, but they were unable to negotiate a status. by the way, the money from those things, which is quite substantial, as you know, that funding i did not keep in the military. >> what is the basis of your opposition to it?

same-sex marriage? what would you do, if president? >> the ideal setting for raising a child is a male and female being involved. marriage is a relationship between a man and woman and i support that concept. the action that i take as president depends upon washington, the people there, and the options that exist. certainly, i would defend the defense of marriage act, which the current president has refused to defend. i believe it was well constructed and should be maintained. i would like to see a national amendment to finding marriage --

to defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman. but that was three or four years ago and is not likely to receive the necessary support in the near term. >> what about gays serving openly in the military? >> that is already occurring and i am not planning on reversing that at this stage. >> you are not planning on reversing it? >> by virtue of the complicated features of a new program in the middle of two wars, they are winding down and moving in that direction. >> let me ask you a quick question. was the difference between you and the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. right now there is a situation where his numbers are surging. and >> what is it the look for when you are choosing a president? you have to think about that every four years. one part the to look at is -- what are their ideas? that is an important part.

there are some issues on which he and i disagree. that is one measure. the other -- tell me about a person's capacity to lead. have they been a leader before? what kind of job do they do? how did it do under their leadership? i grew up in a home with a father that was a leader. i grew up by watching him. i was asked to run a company that got into distress. i made it into one of those successful of its kind in the world. salt lake city also became a success. in each of these cases, you do not do things by yourself. i came to massachusetts at a time of difficulty in the state and was able to turn around the state to make it more successful.

looking at the candidates, how does he lead? what are the measures of success in that role? looking back, what made ronald reagan a great president? jfk? dwight eisenhower? one of my favorites. teddy roosevelt, john adams, lincoln and washington -- what made these people great president? it was not necessarily that they had the best answers on issues, although they were pretty good at those things. but they were leaders. they confronted the challenges faced by america was the set -- sobriety, wisdom, and judgment. they had the capacity to lead. i believe that that is an area where you will be able to look at the various candidates and say -- who has been a leader and who will be the best leader in a time of challenge.

i have also spent my life in the private sector. the speaker has spent his life in washington. there is nothing wrong with that, it is just different. i think that having spent time in the private sector and understanding how jobs come and go, why businesses grow and shrink, competing globally, that experience is essential at a time when the battles that we are facing a round of world are not military as much as they are economic over the coming century. i hope that our military is so superior that no one thinks of testing it again. i understand how the economy works. and then, of course, there are the issues and policy decisions, with regards to medicare, i agree with "the wall street journal."

i disagree with the speaker, saying that we should eliminate parts of child labor laws so that children can clean schools. i do not think that that is a great idea. the speaker had a measure to put a permanent colony on the moon to mine rare materials. i think we have some other priorities for our spending, before we do that. even talking about a series of mirrors in space that can light a highways at night. we have differences on issues and ideas. i respect to the speaker as a bright and capable guy.

but we are different people. my background and his, we followed very different paths. i happen to think that at a time like this, someone who has spent their career in a private-sector and in the government sector has, by far, the best chance of defeating the president and fixing the country. i said this at the outset, and i am really concerned. the president believes that there's something wrong with the way that this works. i'm afraid that entitlement is the wrong way to go. we have to be a mirror of society. if there have to be places of on fairness, and there surely must be, i think -- i am trying to think of anyone besides me has adopted the idea that there should be no tax and interest in capital gains. if that was the case for anyone, i would have paid no taxes over the past several years.

neither would bill gates or warren buffett. in my view is that the place that we need tax relief is middle-income americans. that is where i think the help is needed most. >> i have been accused of being conservative. my friends do not trust you to be a reliable conservative. >> i ran four years ago as the conservative alternative to john mccain. mike huckabee and i were battling it out as conservatives. my opponents tried to characterize me to their

advantage and i did the same to them. i will not cry about the nature of politics. four years ago i was seen as the conservative candidate. i am just as conservative today as i was quite sure years ago, maybe more so. it is issue by issue. newt gingrich said paul ryan's plan was right wing social engineering. i said it was a big step forward and we were on the same page. newt gingrich is trying to do something about climate change. he supported cap-and-trade. i oppose cap-and-trade. we have differing views on immigration.

mine is more conservative than his. we have had a pretty big field. i would be contrasting myself with herman cain, rick perry, or michele bachmann. now it is newt gingrich. we will finally talk about contrast there. hopefully as people take a close look, they will say that mitt romney has been out there fighting for conservative ideals for some time. >> tell us how your positions have changed or evolved over time. how do we know the mitt romney today will be the one in the white house?

will it change again? >> i continuously have people say i have changed my position on gay-rights. i did not. i have had the same position on gay-rights since the beginning of my political career. i am opposed to discrimination based about sexual orientation. from the beginning i have said i oppose same-sex marriage. so unions are virtually identical. that has been my position. i am told i changed my position. i did not. i did change my view on abortion. it changed when as governor, a piece of legislation reached my desk that raised the issue. i thought i could leave things the way they were.

then a piece of legislation came to my desk about redefining when life begins. instead of saying it begins at conception, we will say this later. and we will allow the creation of embryos for the purpose of experimentation and destruction. i could not sign legislation like that. that was not reading things the way they were. i vetoed those pieces of legislation. that was four or five years ago. that was six or seven years ago. i said i am pro-life. as the governor of massachusetts, every issue that came to my desk related to abortion, i came down clearly on the side of life. i was awarded by the massachusetts citizens for life their award. this is not something that happened just before the election.

i have a record. >> is there any abortion you would accept? >> yes, in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother. in those cases, i believe it should be legal. >> those of the only thing to have changed your mind on? >> over 20 years and thousands of issues, i cannot imagine there was not something i changed my view on. in the business world, if you do not admit you are wrong -- >> is it fair to say you have changed your mind? >> on some issues. on abortion, i thought i had the right position until it confronted me. when i saw it in light of creating new life to destroy it, i could not go along with it. that led me to change of position. i am sure there are other places where by virtue of experience i concluded i was wrong. >> if you had it to do over again, would you do the health care plan exactly the same way in massachusetts? but it was never exactly the way i wanted it in massachusetts. i vetoed measures that were different.

would i have done a plan that everyone insured without raising taxes? yes. it was a step forward. it was not perfect. there were things i wish we could have done differently. but the plan there is favored three to one by the people in the state. it costs the state about 1.5% of the state budget. it was supposed to cost no additional money at all under the plan i proposed. they added features to it that made it more expensive. i would not have done it. if i could go back in the governor, i would pull that out. elections have consequences. they will be able to choose people who hopefully do the right thing.

>> the individual mandate was part of the massachusetts plan. >> and support states being able to craft plans that work for states instead of having the federal government impose a one size fits all state. what we did in massachusetts was what we thought would work well for our state. for 92% of our residents, nothing changed. their health care options did not change. the only change was for the 8%. with obamacare, it changes for everybody. medicare cuts cut by $500 billion. this is something the president will hear about. the only person i know to cut medicare is president obama by

$500 billion to fund obamacare. republicans are talking about how to preserve medicare and make sure it is an option. i do not know anybody talking about cutting it. the only one cut in medicare for recipients is president obama. this is an issue i am looking forward to taking on as president. you will have a choice. that exists now for people with medicare advantage. i will broaden it. you will have that choice. under that plan, we will be able to keep medicare financially sustainable.

the president has been in office three years so far. were you planning to do to make sure that medicare and survives and is fiscally solvent? i find it amazing we have a president with an issue that they not proposing a plan that solves our needs. >> the medicare plan costs more. how does it save more to increase private features?

test.

i have also some prepared notes, but i realize time is short, so we're going to make

this fairly short. from my point of view, the person we put in the white house is going to have to be a statesman, a leader, and a president. not a conservative, not a liberal, not a republican, and not democrat. and from that reason, i am honored to have the opportunity to introduce someone who offers everything we need and by all rights should be our next president, jon, i welcome you to rochester. [ applause ] >> thank you, my friend. i appreciate that. thank you, thank you. thank you. bob, thank you for that great introduction. i'm honored to be with you and everyone else here in rochester today, it's an honor and a privilege. welcome to our campaign's 400th public event. that many? no, i'm just kidding. i think this is 126, 126.

julie's been to a lot of them. pleasure to be with you. jeff's been to a lot of them. it's a pleasure to be with you again. thank you so much. i want to take a few moments and share some thoughts with you. but before that, i'd like to turn you over to the greatest human being i've ever met. i think it's important when you get to know the candidate, to get to know who the candidate hangs out with. because that will allow you to better understand me. so today i'm privileged and honored to be here with my wife mary kay and honored to be here with a couple of daughters, marianne? right back here. elizabeth, right back here. two of our seven, three girls on the campaign trail, two boys in the united states navy. i'm honored by their commitment to their country and two little girls at home who don't know any better. so they're doing what they ought to be doing.

so by way of -- by way of bringing mary kay up here, let me tell you that we were thrilled this morning to hear that we've received 2 of the 5 newspaper endorsements so far in this state, which is terrific. s thank you, only five given so far. we received two of them. that's good considering we were given the margin of error and now we're sitting at third place, overtook ron paul with third place in new hampshire i can -- thank you. i can feel the energy in this state. when that wave effect in physics begins to take over, it moves and there's no way it's going to turn back, i feel that wave effect in physics. once it begins, you can't stop it. and i feel it, you know, moving through the end of december on in to early january and peaking right about january 10.

why is that important? there's a very important happening in the entire country on the 5th. i want to mention this before i bring up mary kay, you all have a chance to change history. if you stop to argue that the election of 2012 will be the most important in our lifetime because therein, we'll determine who we are and what we will become in the next generation of americans, that's you. the first primary, you do the diligence. you get to meet and hear from the candidates on a very up close and personal basis. you then render a judgment. when you do that on the first primary that this great country has, the rest of the country pays attention. how do i know that? because i'm from outside of the state. and when this country registers a vote, people pay attention

because we know you probably have seen these candidates and heard from them a lot more than anyone else will. so do you have a chance to make history? do you as individuals have this awesome responsibility on january 10 to begin what will be this march toward change next year in november? of course you do. and to that end, it is an honor and a privilege to be a candidate for the presidency of the united states of america. but it is an honor and privilege as well to participate in this most extraordinary new hampshire primary process. do i understand the part about having to shake hands with everybody in the state 15 times before you get a vote? of course i do. and i think we're halfway there. most of us have given our time on the ground and we're willing to put in that work and that effort in order to make it possible. so thank you for being here. now, ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to turn this microphone

over to the greatest human being i've ever known, the next first lady of the united states of america. my wife, mary kay, thank you. thank you for spending your sunday with us. let me tell you about the most valuable candidate in this race. he's the man of honor, integrity, of great character, he is disciplined, he's focused. and he has, i think, just about every trait that one would look for when looking for a candidate. i was reminded of that the other day. two days ago, we were on a plane going from one place to the next. i can't even remember where we were going at this point. but we were flying somewhere.

and i opened up "the economist" magazine. and i found this article entitled, let's see, "wanted: a fantasy candidate." where is the alternative. i started reading about who the candidate could be. said america is looking for a candidate with these traits. number one, somebody that has extensive executive experience like running a state effectively. i thought, check that box off. then, the next thing was somebody who understands business and can take this country back to where it needs to be and to -- to talk about, you know, pro growth and getting the deficit down and making that a priority. i thought check box number two. the next thing was, people were looking for a candidate that has extensive foreign policy that would make a commitment to that. check box number three. and number four was somebody that has the ability to unite

this country. there you go. checked all of those boxes. i thought this is really interesting. every single trait. it says looking for an alternative. i thought, you know what, this is what happened in my own opinion. we got in this race and jon jumped into this race and was immediately discounted because he did something which i'm actually proud of what he did, serving his country. he did cross party lines to serve his country because he was asked. and i think that was something that as a wife and a mother of two sons serving in the united states navy, i'm very proud that he chose to serve. what kind of an example would that have been to our own children who were out serving if he had not stepped up to serve at a time that our country needed someone with his expertise and background in china. i'm proud he did that. i thought, i think he's overlooked when he first got in. i feel what's happening in this country as we've gone through

many candidates going up and down, jon says he gets whiplash watching the candidates going up and down throughout this race, people are coming back and say, you know what, we're going to be honest, we forgot to give you the first look. we appreciate you being here, giving him this first look. i think he's been the most undervalued stock. he's going to be the most valued stock. he's the most valued stock in my book. i'm excited for you all to get to know him and to understand why i love the man that i do as i do. and realize that this is somebody who is not only a mile long, he's a mile deep in all of the issues. so excited for you to get to know him. thank you. [ applause ] so i like to tell people, if you can't find anything to like about me, i hope that's not the case. you've got to find something to like about her. and if you can't find anything to like about her, you're crazy.

if that's the case, i have seven kids and we can divide and conquer in the state pretty well. i like our chances in new hampshire. i like our chances in new hampshire. this is a fabulous state. i want you to walk away with two things. what i'm going to do when i'm elected as president of the united states of america. the two things that i believe this country needs most in order to get us back on our feet and together as americans first and foremost. they're both deficits. and they both need to be addressed. one is the economic deficit. it's called $15 trillion. it's a cancer metastasizing in this nation. and if we don't deal with it aggressively and realistically, it will consume the next generation. and i say, that's not fair and that's not right.

i don't want to see it just as a debt problem, because if you have 70% debt to gdp, look around the bend to europe. what does italy have? 120% debt to gdp. japan, well over 100% debt to gdp. your economy doesn't grow anymore. it peters out. we need to quit looking at the debt as a debt problem. it's a national security problem, ladies and gentlemen. and if we don't deal with it aggressively, it will hurt our economy and our ability to compete in today is what a highly competitive marketplace. not only am i going to hit it hard from a debt and spending standpoint, i agree with the ryan plan, what congressman ryan has put out. the only candidate on the stage who agrees with the ryan plan and what he says in the $6.2 trillion in cuts that need to be made in the next ten years. is it tough, aggressive, is it

aggressive? of course it is. do we have a choice as people? no, we don't have a choice as people given where we are in the debt load. let's get realistic about that. the other part of it is, and i learned this is governor, i want to fire the engines of growth in this country. because our people know we're ready to grow. we're the most creative entrepreneurial innovative people on earth. and we're stuck. we're in a hole. we have no confidence. we want to break out of the box. we want to grow and we want to get out of the hole. but we are stuck. and i say we're stuck because we don't have a plan. we're stuck because we have structural challenges called a 1955 tax code trying to travel on the super highway of the 21st century and we wonder why we can't compete. we have structural problems called too much in the way of regulatory red tape. we have structural problems like a country that wants to become

energy independent and wean itself from the heroin-like addiction. but we're not bold enough to take the steps necessary to get us there. i want to get it done. and i want all of you in this room to take a copy of my economic plan as you walk out if you haven't seen it already, endorsed by "the wall street journal," the most respected editorial page in economics in this country who came out and said the only candidate that makes any sense on tax reform is huntsman. we like his tax plan. and what i'm asking for is the phasing out of loopholes and deductions in total. i delivered to our citizens in utah what is effectively a flat tax. everyone said it couldn't be done. tough, challenging politically, maybe treacherous. i said the same thing, facing loopholes and deductions. i wanted to do the same thing. i wanted to lower the rate, broaden the base, and simplify. i'm speaking to you all not as

an academic theorist. i'm speaking as a practitioner. i want to do for this country what i did for the state in firing up the engines of growth and in boosting confidence in our overall direction. it can be done. and we can launch as a people a manufacturing renaissance in this country. you know, i get around this great state and i see hollowed out old red brick manufacturing buildings from the last industrial revolution and i say these people were once fired by energy and productivity and the competitive spirit that we all embody as americans. i want to get back to those days. some people say that's impossible. huh-uh. that's totally doable and totally within our grasp. we have the largest marketplace in the world. we're 25% of the world's gdp. we have the most productive worker on earth.

we're just a little tired. we're falling behind in terms of the environment. we know we can get it done. i want to have a manufacturing renaissance in this country. we have to be a more competitive environment to operate. china is riding high, 8%, 9% economic growth for 30 years, they're coming down. inflation is going up, cost of manufacturing is going up. 10%, 15% per year, political uncertainty around the corner. that has plays out, the investment dollar that convenient lip lands in china is going to be looking to go somewhere else. we in this country would be crazy, a, if we didn't recognize that, b if we didn't do anything about it. the investment dollar doesn't want to go to europe, they're dead. they're not competitive anymore. it's going to want to come here. if we're smart enough as people to fix our taxes, to improve the regulatory dynamic, to take steps in the greater energy

independent to work on training and skill development, expanding our community, we can be that manufacturing power. we all know it's possible. i want to get it done. i want to lead the charge in making that happen, in providing, creating the jobs and expanding the wherewithal to broaden the base and pay down the bills. that's the deficit. that's how we deal with it. the second deficit, ladies and gentlemen, is not an economic deficit, it's a deficit of another kind. it's called a trust deficit. because the people of this nation no longer trust the institutions of power. we're a nation founded on institutions developed on -- based on trust. and i look today, we've lost trust in our institutions of power. i look at congress, 8% approval? 8% approval? i'd like to know where those people are hanging out. and i say, well, it's no wonder.

you know what? congress needs term limits. nobody wants to talk about it. i'm going to lead the charge around this country talking about term limits for congress. you know what else? congress needs to close the revolving door that allows members to just file out to the lobbying profession where they can trade in on the insider information and relationships driving cynicism among the people. we wonder why they're at 8%. and i say we ought to do something about docking the pay of members of congress until they can balance the budget, for heaven's sake. ought to be some minimal requirements for congress in order for us to give them any trust consideration at all. but trust to our congress doesn't exist. we've got to change that. i trust in the executive branch, gone. no presidential leadership at a time when this nation desperately needs to be led.

the president had two years in the beginning to address our competitive deficiencies in this country and create a more hospitable environment for job growth -- didn't get it done. instead, health care reform. obama care dropped on us when we didn't want it and can't afford it, $1 trillion in the next ten years. no trust in the executive branch. no trust in our tax code. loopholes and deductions for anybody who can afford a lawyer or a lobbyist on capitol hill. i say, what do we get for that? we get crony capitalism. crony capitalism. who got a loophole or deduction in this crowd, anybody? who has a lobbyist on capitol hill doing your bidding for you? anybody? who's paying for it all? we're all paying for it. i say in my tax code, if you want to get seefrs you about cleaning up washington and addressing lobbying and the special interest carveouts that i think are ruining this

country, change the tax code. phase out all of the loopholes and the deductions and the corporate welfare and subsidies on the business side. that's what i'm going to do. because when you get rid of all of that, there's not much to lobby for anymore. that's a good outcome. if you get rid of all of that, it levels the playing field for businesses and they're trying to get up and on their feet. that's what i want to have happen. i want to infuse trust back in to our tax code. i look to our wars, no trust in our wars. ten years we've been fighting the war on terror. ten years. we've given it our all as people. some families have given the ultimate sacrifice and we offer a deep sense of gratitude and thanks and respect. and i say we've got a lot to show for what we've done in afghanistan as people. i want to stand up and explain to the american people that we rallied the taliban for power.

we upended and dismantled al qaeda. they're in subsidiaries, sanctuaries in waziristan and beyond. we free elections, we killed osama bin laden. it's time for these people to come home. [ applause ] thank you. 100,000 troops in afghanistan, nation building at a time when this nation so desperately needs to be built. if we don't have a strong core, we don't have today, our economy is not working. you can't protect your values. we're worse off because we're weak. when this nation is strong, i lived overseas four times. i've seen this nation at its best. it projects the values of liberty and democracy and human rights and free markets. we're not doing that today. i want to fix this core, i want to get this nation back on its feet. because until we do so, we don't have much of a foreign policy.

if we're weak at home, we're weak abroad. i'm going to pull out the map and i'm going to say 700 american installations in 60 countries around the world? we've got a little bit of the overhang from the cold war mentality. george tennett circa 1946. we need to be in the second decade in the 21st century in terms of the nation foreign policy. i look at germany, 50,000 troops in 20 different installations. troops, the russians aren't coming anymore. let's get real about where we need to be in terms of our position throughout the world. i want a foreign policy for the american people that is led by economics first and foremost. got to recognize the ongoing counterterror threat that we have. that's going to be with us as far as the eye can see in the 21st century. we have to take it seriously. but i want a foreign policy led by economics.

it used to break my heart running the embassy in beijing. the second largest embassy in the world. i look at neighboring afghanistan, we have 100,000 troops there, securing the premisis. the chinese would move in and take the mining and they say there's something wrong with this picture. i want a foreign policy driven and led by economics plays right back to strengthening our core, creating jobs. i look at wall street. no trust. no trust toward wall street. and why should there be? banks that are too big to fail. banks that have an implied guarantee on the part of the taxpayers. so if they screw up, they get a bailout. because they're too big. if they go down, we all go down. what i'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, is we're not going to do bailouts anymore. we've been there, we've done that. we're not doing it again.

[ applause ] thank you. but in order to ensure that, we're going to have to have a president who can right sites the banks. here's what i mean, six institutions that combined have assets that are equal to 2/3 of our nation's gdp. $9.4 trillion. we're talking about $2 trillion to $3 trillion institutions. if they get sick, catch the flu spreading in europe, they get infected, they can't fail. they take us all down with them. i say in our books, capitalism without failure isn't capitalism? it's the way it's set up on wall street. banks as institutions that we're just going to bail out over and over again because they're too big to fail. i say that puts taxpayers in a very careful position.

i want to right size the banks and put them back to the level they were in the 1990s. if they screw up, make bad decisions, that they can fail. if you're too big to fail, we're going to fix it. in a free market economy, that does not serve our interests longer term. ladies and gentlemen, when you leave here today, i want you to remember, that huntsman guy is going to deal with the economic deficit and he's going to draw from his experiences as governor where he took his state to the number one position in job creation, where he took his state to become the best place in america in which to do business. and i want you to remember that huntsman gipe as someone who's going to deal with the trust deficit as aggressively as he does the economic deficit. because it is equally corrosive for our people in america if we don't. because, in the end, we've got to come together as americans. we can't park in our little cul-de-sacs and alleyways and

expect us to find solutions to our problem. we've got to come together as americans. and draw from the best traditions of our past. and i'm going to help get us there. i want you to do is take a look at where i've been and what i've done. i want you to know that i'm not going to pander. not going to contort myself into a pretzel. i'm not going to sign the silly pledges like everybody on the debate stage is done. i'm not going to do i9. i'm going to do what's right nor the people i represent. that's what i've done. i have a record that speaks to being a consistent conservative. mary kay mentioned early on there may have been people who passed right by me. that guy went over and passed a partisan line to serve in china as u.s. ambassador. i was raised with the idea that you put your country first. and that is a belief, ladies and gentlemen, i'll take to my grave, i'm sorry. that's who i am. you're asked to serve your

country, you do. i served president reagan, bush, and president bush. i will always believe in putting this country first. so as you weigh my background, as you look at where i've been, what i've done, who we are as a family, i hope we can win you over. so my final request is this -- i just want your vote. that's all i want. i want your vote. that isn't asking for too much. i know i've got to earn it and win it over. part of that is taking a look at where i've been and what i've done. you might not like 100% of it, that's okay. that doesn't mean you can't be friends. it doesn't mean we're going to win you over. we're going to recognize what exists in our great country of ours, we're going to recognize we have everything we need to succeed in this country. we don't have the confidence right now to break out and get it done. we have everything any nation would want to succeed. i saw that living in china 10,000 miles away. you reflect on this country, the

greatest nation that ever wautz, the most blue sky optimistic solve problem solving people in the world, that's us. that's who we are. we're a little down, in a funk, dispirted and dejected which is not natural, that's not who we are as people. we have to get out, find solutions, march forward together as americans. you look at china 10,000 miles away on what we have in this nation, we've got it all. we're in the envy of the world still in this regard. we have stability. we have rule of law. we have the longest surviving institution in the world. we have property rights. withe have the greatest universities and colleges anywhere on earth and people flock here to attend them just to prove the point. we have the most entrepreneurial, creative, and innovative population of people anywhere in the world. we have a pretty brave and courageous armed forces.

and i'll be darnled if we're going to let those who have been on the front lines in the theater of combat come back to the unemployment lines, that's just not going to happen. we're going to come back to our respect, our admiration, and our gratitude. and they're going to come back, ladies and gentlemen, to jobs. and opportunity because they deserve it. and they like the greatest -- thank you. thank you. they, like the great estrogen ration, they have some in the audience that may be from the great estrogen ration. i have the great opportunity to shake hands with members of the great estrogen ration. just like they built this country in their generation, we have another great estrogen ration coming up, i'm here to tell you. they're going to participate in the rebuilding of this great nation. they're going to be part of that as well. do we have everything to succeed in this nation? of course we do.

we don't have leadership, we don't have confidence, we don't have a plan. is 2012 critically important for our future? absolutely it is critically important. and therefore all of you are too. as participants in the first primary in this great country of ours, not to put too much pressure on you, but the world will be watching, ladies and gentlemen. thank you so much for coming here today, i appreciate it. thank you. thank you. [ applause ] >> now mindful that there's a patriots game and the most dangerous place for a candidate to be standing is between you and a patriot's game, i know we want to get through some questions, comments, whatever we have and then we'll let you go so we don't disrupt the most important event of the day, right? we'll turn the time over to you. yes, sir?

i come from an open state, a right-to-work state. and i think right-to-work states have a distinct advantage in the marketplace. and i think time will prove that capital is a coward. and capital always flees risk in the marketplace and finds a safe haven where it parks itself. i think given what we've seen play out in the boeing situation in south carolina, for example, that's a perfect example of the manipulation of the marketplace and capital is going to flee from that type of activity. i don't think it bodes well for the right to work states or the nonright to work states. if i'm a nonright to work state as a governor, and i have companies looking to expand to other states and got that kind of treatment, i'd worry about the rest of the companies headquartered in my state. what's the alternative? that go overseas, to china, i say that's a loser for everybody in the united states. so let this be debated.

let it play out. but as for me, i've seen in my own state the power of the marketplace at work. and how right-to-work status contributes to that. thank you. yes, sir? >> a lot of candidates -- >> sorry about that. >> listen to a lot of candidates with all of their promises and what they're going to do and what they've done and most of the time, nothing happens. and, of course, right now, for a long time, we've been looking at all of this partisan bickering in washington. how on earth are you going to get past that to implement some of the wonderful ideas that you have? >> i'm going to lead. i heard the same thing when i was governor in 2004. how are you going to make it happen? everybody talks about this. i let out -- i came out with a very simplistic template for

economic revitalization. we started with tax reform, flat tax. went all the way through to health care reform. took us a couple of year else. we got it all done. went back to the people when i was re-elected and said if you like your state, i fulfilled my promises, took us a while. it might have been ugly to watch play out. we did what we said we were going to do. if you like where your state is, i want your vote. if not, you can vote for the other guy. they got 80% of the vote for re-election. i learned and important election through all of that. you tell the people what you any you can get done. you work your darnedest to execute and to get it done. no politics, no theatrics, no nonsense. in the meantime, just get the work of the people done. and i'm telling you, when you're elected as i believe i will be next year, you've got the will of the people, for a certain period of time. you have the good lil of congress as the governor does with the legislature for a certain period of time.

remember, congress wants to be led. they don't like to be left doing nothing. we find that today. there's a vacuum on capitol hill. what happens in that vacuum? mischief-making. and everybody finds their political corner, their extreme part san. and they finger point and engage in the blame game and all the while, the work of the people doesn't get done. congress wants to be led. so, in the first year and a half after i'me lengthed, i -- i'm elected, i'll take three things to the people, i'll say to the leadership. ronald reagan did a great thing in 1980. he befriended tip o'neill and the senate minority leader. relationships do great things. i'll do three things on capitol hill. i want to do the work of the people. they want it done. they just spoke out in the last election. let's not rest until we can get

it done. that will be the tax package input forward. then in a bipartisan fashion. i know he can get through congress. he's not a pie in the sky thing that might get a wild applause line at a political event. it's a real thing. you can get through congress. second, regulatory reform. simple steps like repealing obama care and dodd frank. everybody knows we've got to clean up the marketplace. that's going to be part of it. and third, in the spirit of moving toward energy independence, i want to dismantle, disrupt, that one-product monopoly. it's great if you want to use oil or the oil derivatives. it's terrible if you want to use any alternative product. and i say we're a nation that's going to draw more and more from alternative fuels like natural gas. how do i know that, i rabb minute car on natural gas when i was a governor. the number one problem was distribution, finding phillips stations. how do you get fuel in your car? we have a problem in this

country. we have a whole distribution system that favors one product. and consequently, we have a heroin-like addiction to imported oil, $300 million transferring this nation to other places every year. and i say that's coming to an end. we're going to take control of our energy future. why, because we can? we have all of the raw materials necessary in this nation to make it happen. we have structural problems. we have to do to that one product distribution system. the broadcast communication in the early 1970s. it's taken before the federal trade commission and the senate judiciary committee, it was blown open. look at what we have today. i say those are the three things we'll take to capitol hill. we have a year and a half to two years in which to get it done. let's get busy. assert a little leadership on top of that. and i think this country is hungry to see things happen. and i'm guessing that congress, for all of the appearances of their being divided and poe

larpized, there's no leadership on capitol hill. because, of course, the fall-back position is mischief making. that's not going to happen when i'm elected president. we're going to focus on the three or four key objectives for the american people in order to revive this economy and we're going to get i want done, thank you. yes, sir? [ inaudible question ] >> there we go, right behind you. >> i have to now tell my wife i'm not as loud as she thinks i am. i've always believed that one really great way of saving money in this count ry was by stoppin pork spending. one of the reasons why i liked senator mccain so much, and i really am against pork -- i'd like to know where you stand on that issue.

>> no pork. no pork. [ applause ] but on top of that, what is the best safeguard in moving forward? just in ensuring that we clean house? a tax hole as we move out the loopholes and deductions. that's what i want to do. i can say no pork which is a great sound bite. structurally, i want to change the system so that we have a level playing field for everybody. and we'll end up in three different rates. it's a flatter system. it will broaden the base, allow us to simplify. it's the most powerful contribution we can make toward getting a stack on our feet, in terms of economic revival. and i think it's the most important steps we can take toll cleaning up the practices of washington. no question about it. that's what i want to do. thank you, yes, sir, right behind you. >> yep, i would like to have you talk a little bit about family

and roe versus wade. and what's the last part? >> roe versus wade. >> roe versus wade. i'm pro life. i always have been. so those who might not agree with our position, that's where i am. i have two little adopted girls at home who remind me every day, one is from china, one is from india. and i'm remind ed -- i can't sa every day, i don't get to see them every day anymore. that's a heart breaker for me. when i do see them, i'm reminded about their mothers whom i'll never get to meet. and for whatever reason in their cultures where it would have been a whole lot easier to not choose life, they chose life. and we now have the great blessing as a family to raise these two gifrls. and i see how powerful their life is and i see the

contributions they will make as they go forward in making the world a better place and bringing joy and happiness to people's lives and i say, that's a pretty powerful thing. and that's just another example, to me, of the power of life. so that's been pretty central to my -- my core philosophy. and that's where i come down on the whole issue of roe versus wade. thank you. yes, sir? back here. >> governor huntsman, i've been so impressed with your speaking in the national televised debates. i work with general tom mcinernie. if they're attacked, an article came out and said if iran is attacked, quote, there are elements in america who will detonate nuclear bombs in american cities. i wonder if you could address the threat from iran?

>> sounds like a lot of -- a loft threatening hyperbole to me, not completely unexpected in a war of words. i believe the most transcendent challenge for our country is iran. you have two things. you have centrifuges spinning in iran making lower enriched product which will become higher enriched product in they'll have enough material to make a weapon. you combine that with the rhetoric that's been on display towards israel. you combine that with the kerks that teheran has with damascus in syria and support for hamas and hetz bow la. and i say we've got you on a very lethal combination of elements that are playing out here. so as for me, i say the leadership in iran has already decided to go nuclear.

i say they've looked at the world, they've looked at north korea and they said they're a nuclear power, maybe a handful of crude devices. they're really out of reach for most people. and they look at libya, which had a program they gave up in exchange for international friendships and alliances. look what happened there. and i think in teheran they're saying, we want the -- we want the leverage and the stature that being a nuclear power will bring. so we have to ask ourselves a central question -- can you live with a nuclear iran. if the answer is question yes, i think you'll have to look at the dramatic proliferation implications, including saudi arabia going nuclear. turkey, likely going nuclear. egypt, although we don't know what the leadership structure is going to look like any time soon. but chances are with the strong backbone of the egyptian military, they go nuclear. and i say at that point, you've lost control of proliferation in

the middle east. and that is, i think, an unsustainable position for the -- for the region to be in. so i can't live with a nuclear iran as i play it out on the chess board. if you can't live with a nuclear iran, you have to conclude that all options are on the table. all elements of national power are then on the table to be used in however -- you know, whatever fatzed way, incrementally in order to keep iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that would be my position. i say i think we're going to have to preare with the conversation with israel. a year from now, three years from now, it will likely happen. and that is there's enough information out there that leads us to believe that they've got enough missile material. are you with us or not? and we're going have to remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally with the united states. that you stand with your friends, you stand with your allies. there's certain implied security commitments.

there are certain implied economic commitments. there's certain values that bring nations together. and at that point, we need to stand on our commitments. and i think make sure that the mullahs in teheran understand without ambiguity that all options are on the table for the united states. thank you. yes, sir. well, i see in your documents here that you believe in reducing the tax rates for corporations. and also eliminating the taxes for the dividends and capital gains. it seems to me, that leaves a lot of high-income people who work in the securities area of not having any personal taxes. and i'm wondering why you chose to delete the taxation on that

side as opposed to the corporate side where you want to stop those anyway. >> i'm guessing on the corporate side, not everyone is paying the 35% rate. i want to recognize that reality. a lot of the corporations can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to do their bidding and figure out ways around it. so i want to recognize the reality of the world in which we live, phase out corporate welfare, phase out subsidies for which this nation has at last count $90 billion worth, lowered from 35% to 25%. in the name of growth, i said on capital gains and dividends, i want to take it to zero. i know we've got a lot of investors in this nation, at all ends of the income spectrum. a lot more than people realize. i say i'm going to ere in this case knowing that we have a legislative battle ahead. my going-in position would be just that, it's ering on the side of growth. but we need to fire up a level

of confidence in terms of people's ability to begin deploying more capital to the marketplace in ways that will allow this nation to take off from a growth perspective. so in my own call cule lags analysis, i was everying on the side of growth in making that decision. thank you. yes, sir. >> governor, thank you for coming today. >> thank you. >> two issues that are high on our concern list, one is i'm a small businessman. over the years, i always played health insurance to my employees. it's getting to the point where i question how much longer i can afford to do that. the insurance rates that we see keep on climbing and climbing. and frankly, i don't entirely agree with your position. i was disappointed that obama didn't offer either a single care or a public option. because i see the subsidies, the tax subsidies that we continue

to -- will continue to have to pay for programs and community health centers and things like that. we're subsidizing. we're subsidizing uninsured people through our insurance rates at hospitals who don't have insurance. we have all of the subsidies that are going to health care and the people who are paying the insurance are absorbing a significant portion of that cost. and the question to you on that issue is obama care or -- eliminating obama care leafs us with the same system we have today. hough will it be any more affordable in the future? that's the first question. the second quickly is in terms of open trade policies, between countries, how do you feel about fair trade? and i don't hear any of the candidates talking about that in terms of fair trade where we allow our corporations to send jobs overseas to create things by avoiding the regulations here

that have made clean air, clean water, good regulations. good labor regulations where we don't have child care, we have worker's comp and protectionings for people. if you send them overseas and they don't have the policies that can ship the products back, of course all of the jobs are overseas. what are you willing to do make it fair trade rather than just open trade. >> i want to reverse this trend by -- by launching a manufacturing renaissance in this country. and recognizing full well at year's end what they're going to look like. the outsource to china is becoming insourcing to the united states. look what ford motor company is doing, dow corporation is doing. look at the natural gas revelation is doing in terms of providing way of opportunity in this country. so guessing that the largest consumer request in recent history is developing in china and in india, we have a huge export opportunity in this

country. exports have been on average 12% to 15% of our gdp. i can see a time when it goes to 20%, 25% gdp, we're a great manufacturing power in this country. we're not going to get back to the reality. recognizing as we did earlier the changes that are taking place in the macroeconomic environment with china coming back on the high and giving us the opportunity to get bigger in terms of the manufacturing capability here. i want to promote imports and the rising consumer market plays. we're beginning to fully understand. i think its's a powerful thing for our country. recognize the magnitude for what it might mean in terms of a single engine of growth that we might not be counting on right now. in the area of health care? what are you going to do after 2014 when obama care takes

effect? i ask you as a small businessman? are you -- [ inaudible question ] >> yeah, but the problem is affordability with insurance policies. as we embarked upon health care reform when i was governor, i thought we made important contributions to health care reform which stumbled upon problem numb we were one, which is cost. it's a $3 trillion industry equal to that of france. half of that number is needless spending washing around in there. the question is how do you take it out? what are the drivers of the cost that you don't need and how do you take it out of the system? frivolous litigation is part of it. tort reform is one step. second, the fee for service approach where you're directed to any procedure -- 234i

procedure you might have available, you're billed for it later not fully understanding what the costs are, we need to empower the patients a little more when they walk into the doctor's office understanding what procedures are available to them, what the costs are, and what insurance actually covers at the end of the day. we don't -- nobody understands costs. doctors don't know what the costs are. patients don't know what the costs are. we're in a highly ambiguous environment that we need to tighten that part of it up. and i would say that finally closing the gap on the uninsured, we're never going get there. you can either man date your way on closing the gap on the uninsured like they have in massachusetts where cosco is up $2,000 a person. quality goes down, emergency room visits go up. or do what we do in our state, expand the marketplace for affordable, accessible insurance options. withe had to find an affordable insurance option for the largest group of our uninsured, the young immortal population.

18 to 35-year-olds, they're never going to die, why would they need health insurance. even if they wanted it, nothing to afford in the marketplace. we worked hard in getting something is that's accessible and affordable. the states are working on the same thing. this is a good breakthrough because it's proving the point that in the end, we can get insurance companies to do what they're supposed to do, take a risk. i believe the insurance companies haven't done enough of what they're supposed to do. provide to the american people in terms of affordable accessible policies. we don't have those today. if you want to buy the affordable policy out west, you can't do it today. it's a cross-state transaction. you can't do it. i want to eradicate the barriers that makes it possible for you to take it somewhere else. that's going to drive costs down because the providers here want to compete as opposed to going

out of business. they want to compete. take a step back. before we get the $1 trillion that lands on everybody in the next ten years with a mandate that may be unconstitutional next summer when the supreme court takes it up, not to mention the uncertainty use in the marketplace for you and others in small business. don't know what to do about hiring, don't know what to do about infusing capital expenditures in the marketplace, so everybody is sitting on their hands. waiting for greater clarity in this particular area. the clarity i'm going to bring is i'm going to do away with obama care and we're going to sit down together. i'm going to sit down with 50 governors and i'm going to say take two years because the american people can't afford to wait any longer. we take the next year or two. we're going to find the best approaches for cost containment. we know we can do it. it must be done. we're going to be looking at individual responsibility. 75% is for cancer,

cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity. there are choices that every american citizen can make in terms of bringing improvements to the table, in terms of overall costs, and we're going to figure out a way to bring about enough of a marketplace to bring successful insurance companies. we'd like to close the gap on uninsured. that's what i like to do. we'll take one more and i'll let you go. i know we have a game around the table. yes, sir? >> i agree. >> i agree with your earlier comments that rather than making too big to fail less like lip, you made it worse by letting big banks get even bigger. can you talk more about how procedurally you would address that. and on a related know, how would you favor bringing back the glass dreceiling restrictions? thanks. >> they're good and powerful

thoughts. what i would say is what i would do in the spirit of glass steagall. in terms of a remedy, i would impose a fee, an onerous fee causing the banks to say, we can't afford to pay that fee so we better divest ourselves of holdings that would allow us to go from $2 trillion or whatever down to a size that's commiserate with where they were in the mid 1990s. goldman sachs in the mid 1990s was $600 million in sites. by 2008, $1.1 trillion in size. did we get any better as people? was our nation better served by size alone? or did we assume more of a risk as taxpayers? we assume more of a risk. since the economic collapse of several years ago, the banks have only grown bigger because they've been encouraged to buy

up these underperforming subsidiari subsidiaries. so i said we'll impose a fee until they get down to a size until they're no longer too big to fail. then i would withdraw the fee. i think it's the right approach. it needs to be done. if we don't, we can fix taxes. this is what we talked about. we can improve the regulatory environment. we can move toward energy independent and all of that, butch we have a damac ardamacle hanging over us that is banks are too big to fail. that doesn't help us as people. l let me reiterate my one request. i want your vote. go back and read up on our economic proposal on the table there. it's great nighttime reading. its's riveting reading from start to finish. you will love it. and take a look at where our service years have taken us.

as governor and serving this nation overseas. if you like what you see and you like the choices that i've made as a governor in terms of economic reform, education reform, health care reform, we did a lot when i was governor. i want your support. i 23450ed your support. we can make the change the nation needs so desperately in the runup to 2012 but it starts here in new hampshire. it happens with you, not me. but you, the people. thank you so very much for being here. [ applause ]

thanks for being here. >> deeply honored. representing the same age group. >> same age. >> you won the -- >> we did. >> yeah. >> nothing like it. >> great to see you. thank you for being here and giving us a listening ear. great. great. the best to you. you have a great son here.

>> living this dream in the early stages. >> that would be awesome. keep that dream alive? think about it all the time.

>> if you ask the consumer of the one i faster down low, they will say yes. if you want that they don't want emergency information, they say that is not the trade-off. >> national association of bread

"-- broadcasters head of wilson smith on broadbent spectrum to create new space. that is tonight at 8:00 on "the communicators"on c-span 2. this week on "q&a," john feinstein talks about his new book, "behind the scenes with the greats in the game." >> john feinstein, author of "one on one" how much impact has the government had on the world of sport? >> i go back and forth on how i feel about that. sometimes i think it would be best for government to stay out of sports. when congress gets involved, a lot of the times the hearings