>> we are planning live coverage of a campaign meeting with ron paul this morning at 10:30, as we continue with our road to the white house coverage wit. tomorrow is the new hampshire primary. coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. there will report on primary results. we will have a candidate's speeches from their headquarters in manchester. you can join in the conversation on phone and on facebook at

facebook.com/cspan as well as follow us on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj. watch all our coverage online at c-span.org/campaign2012. with the new hampshire primary to march, we will continue showing some of the key victory speeches from the 200, 2004, and 2008 races. that same block of speeches will re-air tonight on c-span3. a discussion now on mitt romney 's strategy from this morning's "washington journal." host: former governor of new

hampshire, judd gregg, also a supporter of mitt romney. governor, could you tell us when it was you decided to put your support for mr. romney? guest: well, my wife and i talked about it for quite a while. there were a lot of people running, or who considered running, who were friends who we admired. but we decided to support governor romney last summer, i think. host: what specifically is it about mr. romney, in principles and the issues that he has proposed that set him apart from the other candidates? guest: i think he is the guy who could get this country going to get. -- going again. we as a nation are unfortunately struggling. we have a massive debt will i think will bring us down if we do not address it. we have a government that is

becoming excessively regulatory in its approach to small business especially, making it hard for small businesses to compete. we are participating in a lot of international activity that needs strong leadership, where the world looks to us and expects us to leave. -- lead. we did not seem to have that type of leadership, in my opinion. i think governor romney carries a strong message in all of those areas. i think he clearly understands you got to get the fiscal problems under control, or you cannot get the country to be economically strong. and it if you do not stray in now fiscal house we will be passing this -- straight to up our fiscal house we will be passing all of this to our children. it is inappropriate to pass on all this debt. he appreciates we have to address the debt problem. he also understands how to create jobs. jobs are created in the private sector and not created by government. that is important from my viewpoint to have somebody understands job creation,

because that -- the basic quality of life is tied to the ability to have a good job. and he appreciates the fact that the massive expansion in the size of government cannot be continued. we have to rein in the regulatory excess, occurring at the federal level, making it very hard for small businesses to compete and be successful. and i think he will be a strong international voice for us, making it clear america is willing to leave in the world -- lead in the world -- because there is no one else who subscribes to the values we have which is so important, and so many people round the world look to these values and it is important to of a strong spokesman. host: business skills -- what would you tell those who expressed here on the show, those republicans who were on the stage, about mr. romney's career at bain capital? and concerns about that. how would you express -- address those concerns? guest: i would say that he went out and took risks and created

jobs. sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not. that is how the private sector functions. you know, folks to look to the government to create jobs cannot appreciate the fact that every job that is creative and the government has to have a private sector job paying the taxes to support it or it would not exist. you have to have a vibrant private sector. you have a vibrant private sector by having competition and people who go out and are a lot cheaper norris who take risk. -- entrepreneurs who take risks. of the governments of the kids -- suffocates that ability or makes it difficult to take the kind of action, then you will not have a vibrant economy. when you have a government that taxes excessively or regulates excessively or creates an atmosphere where the government is so big that it crowds out business's ability to borrow money, that is a problem. and i think mitt romney understands that you can't create a stronger economy if

you have a government that is excessively large. host: his career at capital, this film coming out from this super pac -- what the make of that as it comes out and the overall in the campaign, talking about his history at bain capital. guest: first off, i have not seen the film. i understand it is a very negative piece. but that is politics. as he says, if you can't handle it, you should not be in the business. you should not be running for office. i am sure he will have a very effective response to what ever it says. but there is no question this election is going to be, i think, a very typical election -- pivotal election for our nation. we have two paths we can choose. the president has decided to put us on the path to an ever expanding government. we have gone from the government historically 20% of gross national product under this president, and it has gone up to 23.5% and is headed toward

30. that is european-style government. that is a huge percentage of the economy being absorber by the -- absorbed by the federal government. i think it is the wrong course. first, it is extremely expensive. you end up either with this mass of dead or a tax burden which -- massive debt -- makes it very hard for the private sector to be competitive. secondly, it is just not our culture. our culture is not to have a large, wealthier state kind of government. we are a center-right nation. we believe in giving people opportunities. we do not believe the government to be in everything. the choice is whether we want to continue on this path of expanding the government along the european model or if we want to return to the american model of exceptional was on where you -- exceptionalism where you give individuals the ability to expand the economy by giving them an atmosphere where they will take risk and investment. this will be a clear choice. obviously the president is going to -- and is already -- trying to divide the country.

going from all unchanged to divide and blame. he will run a campaign on envy -- something inconsistent with our country -- culture. we do not believe in envy, but opportunity, people taking risk and creating opportunity not only for themselves but those who work with them. i think this campaign will be about what type of culture we want. whether we want a culture that is divided and has this class warfare atmosphere and language like you get in europe, or eric holder that continues the american approach toward sectionalism and opportunity and optimism. host: our guest is here until 8:30. we put our numbers on the screen and also a special number for new hampshire -- debra, the first caller. go ahead. caller: first, i want to say and you were my governor and congressman and senator and we were calling for you to run for president herself. you are supporting mitt romney and we will as well. of course, mitt romney has very

high expectations for the campaign. what kind of lead you think he needs to avoid a disappointment -- to host: apologies, governor. charlotte, north carolina. caller: with respect to mitt romney, i would like to know where is bain capital now and why is he not still doing what he is doing if he was making a change? because i have not seen anyone. i watch politics of the closely. i have not seen anyone come out and tell mitt romney, thank you. none of these people have come out that he so-called created jobs for -- has fattened his pocket, and that is cool -- i

am not against the private sector or anything like this. mitt romney, come on? just saying he has private sector experience, that is nothing. that is not a president. the president has really high standards. if anybody who have private sector experience -- i could be president. host: we will let the guests respond. guest: not anybody is running for president here. what we have are a series of candidates running for president and the person i think who has the most ability to be the next president is mitt romney. it is not only his experience leading and working in the private sector in creating jobs, which he did it, and i think you will probably appreciate that if they have a job at staples or any of other places where he basically built these enterprises to being so successful. but also his leadership of the olympics. he turned it around. that was pretty impressive. olympics are very hard things to put on and it was in serious trouble, the winter olympics in salt lake, and it brought him

in and he turned round and the end of the successful and actually made money for utah. and then of course he was governor of massachusetts, a big state. pitsch with a very complex system of government -- a big state with a very complex system of government, who week -- that we in new hampshire make fun of because a lot of people in massachusetts moved to new hampshire to avoid the massachusetts burden but he reduced that burden. while he was governor of massachusetts, i was serving in government in new hampshire and we used to have a huge exodus of people like mike dukakis coming up to new hampshire after they built their businesses up to 10 or 15 people, they could not deal with the massachusetts government. they would move across the state line. we benefited from that significantly at a state. but when mitt romney was governor of and actually wleeld was governor before him, it stopped, the exodus, because the state became much more

receptive to people in the private sector who were creating jobs. so, he's got a pretty good track record, in my opinion, and a strong track record, and of the candidates running on our side i think he will have the best chance of running strongly against president obama. this election -- for president obama to win -- i believe, because he really has taken the country down the wrong path, he'd be passed to make the republican candidate issue. his policies cannot be the focus of the campaign. so, if they were economic somebody who he can character or make a person the issue, he will probably be reelected. but if we nominate somebody like mitt romney who can stand up and say i have this strong record, and this is what i intend to do, and not the caricatured by the obama machine, i think the president will have a very challenging reelection effort. because when you look at the policies he has put in place, they really have not worked. especially on the domestic side. and they are taking us down this road of dramatically

expanding the size of our government and the cost of our government and the burden of our government, none of which i did most americans want. host: the republicans on stage took on from the's rationale for running for president. one of them was newt gingrich. here is a bit of the exchange concerning the rationale, and i want to get your response. clip: can we drop a little bit of the pie is baloney? -- pious? you ran in 1994 and lost and that is why you are not -- were not serving with rick santorum. you have a very bad re-election rating. you dropped out of office -- out of state for 200 days and preparing to run for president, -- you were running for president while you were governor, going all over the country, held a stake -- out of state consistently, probably reentered politics and happen to lose to mccain. you have been running consistently for years and years and years. so, this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your

mind -- just level with the american people. you have been running at least since the 1990's. host: governor judd gregg, what about mr. gingrich's assertion? guest: well, newt is newt, and i think one thing i like onemitt is a positive campaign -- one thing i like about mitt romney is his policy -- positive campaign. good.nk it is co we should be focusing on obama's policies. these types of attacks, i did not think, are all that constructive and, really, i did not see it as being a very viable statement. host: fredericksburg, virginia. republican line. louise. go ahead. caller: good morning. i personally -- i would not like to see mitt romney win. i guess i would vote for him. but i would want to see somebody like rick perry or jon huntsman. i do not want to see -- use a

character -- like they did -- you say character. george bush. george bush was a fine man and no matter what they did, he did not use big words. everybody understood exactly what he said. he said what he meant. i like jon huntsman and rick perry. those are the two that i think should win. newt gingrich and his comment about the palestinians was out of line. i think we need to support israel less and become a member of the world. i'm for preparing. -- i am for rick perry. i think he has good ideas. social security is a ponzi scheme. anybody can make gaffes or misspeak. that does not affect his brain. host: governor gregg. guest: i respect the caller's

opinion. those are two quality people. they have strong track records. but i've chosen my candidate and she has chosen hers -- i guess she is still thinking about, and i respect that. that is the banished that we have in our party -- that is the advantage. we have some talented people that are running. that is why we have these early primaries and caucuses. once we get a nominee, i presume most republicans will support that person and we will come together as a party. we are going to the process of sorting it out. everybody has a right to their opinion. host: rochester, pennsylvania, on our independent line. caller: the burden of the government with obama is the

result of having to take care of the mess that republicans left. just like the mess that the republicans left in the 1980 's. you talk about a country about envy. you're a great example of the opposite of that. you worked in congress for 12 years. now you're taking a big fat paycheck from goldman sachs so you can make money to give it to people like mitt romney and continue this crooked system that we have. the weekend of march 30 and april 1,there'll be an occupying washington and millions of people show up. host: governor gregg. guest: the gentleman has a right to his opinion. i find them to be inappropriate.

host: unemployment is 8.5%. what if unemployment keeps dropping. he keeps running on his ability to improve the economy. guest: let's hope it does. i think we're moving towards a good recovery. that is not because anything the obama administration has done. it would be a much more robust recovery if we had a government that was more tolerant and supportive of people who take risks and make jobs. you can only keep americans down so long and they start doing things. that is what is happening in our economy. people are moving forward. if we had a government that was

getting the deficits and debts under control, we were not looking at potential train wreck. if we continue to run up this debt. the small-business person and job regulators. if we have a government that was not putting such a big tax burden on people who are creating the economic activity, the small businesses and job creators. i tend to think our recovery is coming. it would be much more robust if we had a government that was more responsible in the area of supporting it. host: what does mitt romney offer to those points? guest: if you had policies like ones that mitt romney is proposing, then this recovery would be a lot faster and more people will be going back to work.

we will be getting a recovery but it would not be with more robustness. it doesn't have the energy. they are layering on the burden of debt. if you take those things off the table, like mitt romney would, you would see a much faster recovery. we had job growth of 800,000 jobs a month as we started to come out of a recession. we're not seeing that at all. we're seeing 200,000 if we're lucky. that's good news but it should be more. host: manhattan, good morning. caller: good morning, pedro.

good morning to your guest. a couple of questions that i hope i will be able to get answers to. you have been asked questions and you refused to answer the questions. you advocate the people should support you for mitt romney. pedro asked you what would mitt romney would do for changes of the economy. you skirted one of the answers. you never answered. the other gentleman brought up goldman sachs. you are not an honest man. you sound like rick santorum. making a statement about food stamps. do you believe with that? most people who collect food stamps have a caucasian background.

this proves republicans don't have america's interest at heart. host: governor gregg. guest: i think some of your callers got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. i think i did answer your question. mitt romney would create tax policy which to be more conducive to entrepreneurs taking risks. he would reduce the regulatory excess and would create an atmosphere so that the government debt does not become the problem of the next generation. those are big things that have to be done. he would have an energy policy that would be much more american centered so we would be producing the energy we need in the united states rather than having to buy it from overseas. i think that's very important. if they're going to school here, stay here to create jobs. he has specific proposals and

i've outlined them. i have been fairly specific about them. the other issues are personal and have no relevance here. host: what is your role at goldman sachs? guest:my role at goldman sachs is i'm an international adviser. host: connecticut, charles, republican line for governor judd gregg. caller: good morning. i always appreciate you on the floor. my first vote for president was for president truman, a democrat. but i switched when it tried to nationalize the steel industry. what i would like to say -- as a republican, i am not happy with the whole republican contenders. what i would like to see is every one of those contenders

advocate his position and -- abdicate his position and advocate the drafting of senator tom coburn, who would have more public support than any presidential nominee since george washington. i would like to have your opinion on that. thank you. guest: if you get a republican president as the next president, i think tom coburn will play a major role in that administration if he wants to. he is one of our best senators. tom coburn works part and he is hard and he is veryhe i thoughtful on issues of fiscal policy. he has put out a list of places where we could save money and an excellent menu to try to reduce the growth in government. i'm a fan of tom coburn. he is not running for

reelection. he has announced that, which is unfortunate. if i were president, i would try to get him in my administration. i'm not running for president and i do not intend to. i would hope he would choose tom coburn. he would be a positive force. host: if you were asked what makes mitt romney a conservative, how would you respond? guest: i think his experience. it will be nice to of someone who created jobs in the private sector. think about president obama's experience before he became president. he was a state senator from illinois. before that he was a community

organizer. you have to understand how the economy works and how people when they take that risk of creating a job, put their whole livelihood at risk. the person who starts a restaurant or a software company, those folks are going through a lot trauma to be successful, and if they are successful, they create jobs for people. it will be nice to have a president that understands that. it goes to the core of our philosophy as a party. the strength and vitality of our nation comes from individuals who take risks and create jobs. host: what does it mean for mitt romney? guest: he would encourage entrepreneurship and encourage people to take risks and create

jobs, where government has a responsibility to participate in making the workplace safe and help making our country healthy week through regulation. it cannot be excessive and directive at targeting certain industries and trying to make them uncompetitive as the current structure is as it expands under this administration. he would reduce our federal debt. our debt is going to triple in 10 years and we will be in the same type of situation as some of the european countries. they are bankrupt. host: along same-sex marriage and their rights and this is , mittnd gay rightst romney responded to that. clip: i do not discriminate. a member of my cabinet was gay.

i appointed people to the bench. in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring or legal policies. i said to the gay community, i do not favor same-sex marriage. i oppose same-sex marriage. that has been my view. if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays were tried to suggest the people with sexual orientation do not have rights, they will not find that in me. host: how you see that bearing out in a romney presidency? guest: that was a pretty comprehensive statement of his approach. basically he is saying he is not going to discriminate and that he believes that people should be able to participate in his administration no matter their sexual orientation. i think that it's a thoughtful approach. host: have you articulated a thought on the constitutional

amendment towards marriage? guest: he said he was for that, i think. host: atlanta, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to make a comment that we have a wonderful democratic process of elections. looking at the republican field, we're dealing with some candidates who are talking about the truth. i think ron paul and jon huntsman are hammering home the truth. i like to comment on the senator -- he was talking about a platform of division. that is a little bit too political for me. i think he is stretching the truth. we are in the deep debt and the only way that we can get out of

that is to get into the debt. we have to get the money out to the businesses, the small businesses in particular. the only way we can do that is by eliminating the debt. what would the senator proposed to do that? thank you. guest: i am not in the senator and a longer. -- any longer. i wanted to get our deficit and debt under control. i have led bills the the senate -- through the senate which accomplished that. i was the author of a budget reconciliation bill that reduced the size of our entitlement spending by tens of billions of dollars. i proposed language which would

eliminate an entire entitlement, and they had to kill the program. i have a pretty strong record in this area. i have proposed numerous bills to get our d debt under control and had some success. host: st. petersburg, florida, don. good morning. caller: i have a question on governor romney's support for the second amendment. i heard he passed a law that all guns have to be registered and you would pay a $100 fee to the state for every gun that you owned. is there any facts to that?

guest: i cannot believe that is true. i'm not aware of it. host: democrat's line from michigan, becky, good morning. caller: i am so sad. i hear the republicans talking. you were one of the republicans that i have respect for. my husband is in his 50's and his job of 30 years he lost four years ago. for three years he put in applications everywhere, everywhere, and during that time, he got a call back on 3. thehe three, he didn't get job on the last cut or whatever. he is not making minimum wage. -- he is now making minimum

wage. we went from $25 an hour down to minimum wage and luckily we just -- we live in a small house. we have used cars and we had to declare bankruptcy because the credit cards were threatening to take us to court and we didn't have the money to pay them or we would have. we do not believe in that. my husband's brother is sending us $500 a month and my daughters are each sending $100 to keep us afloat. you're talking about -- everyone in this area --this is represent -- he never comes here. representative camp. he sends his aides. he does not want to see this

place. host: and your question for our guest? caller: what are you talking about? you are talking about the economy. i would have agreed with you on cutting and all this stuff to ago. ag10 years host: let our guest respond. guest: she is going through tremendous trauma and her husband is, too. the best way is to get the economy going. that is the bottom line. there are two approaches. philosophically they are different. there is the approach of this administration that you grow the government by creating a larger government. there is the approach that i take which is you encourage the private sector to expand. these are two different

approaches. how they affect this woman's situation, i can say that i -- i cannot speak to the specifics, but i think our economy will grow more robustly if we give the people of the individuals in this country who are willing to go out and create more jobs by having a government that is less intrusive and less of a burden. host: jackie is next from ohio. independent line. caller: i am an independent and there are two issues that i think romney will end up being the republican candidate. i think romney is a truly compassionate conservative. i think some of those values were reflected in some of his actions in massachusetts likby making sure those have access to health care.

i hope once he gets through, the evangelicals and the teabaggers, after he gets through, i think he is going to fly and be a real contender against obama. these are the issues --where are they both heading in regards to our foreign policy? will they be racing us towards iran? or will they base foreign- policy on evidence -- real, true facts. the other issue is the lack of regulatory oversight which brought us to this point. the lack of regulation is what got us here. i will be looking at both of those candidates.

will they hold those who got us to this point with the economy -- i encourage people to watch professor william black on youtube. he was the head of litigator during the savings and loan scandal and he said there were 10,000 prosecution referrals and over 1000 people were prosecuted. the middle class is held responsible for the crimes we commend. host: if you could trust the -- if you could address the foreign policy aspects first. guest: i'm not sure which one she is speaking to. foreign policy is one of those things where a president does not know what he or she is going to get in farm policy until it arrives. i'm sure president bush did not expect to be a work president, -- a war president, but we have been attacked and we responded.

we have to respond. what will be the next hot point? it appears it will be iran, but it could be pakistan. it could be some relationship issue with china. you don't know where it will come from. you need somebody that you have confidence is a good decision maker and understands how to lead. that is one reason why i support mitt romney. i think he has those credentials. president obama foreign policy has been pretty good on balance. i do not disagree with a lot of the initiatives he has taken in the area of farm policy. -- foreign-policy. i thought the decision about executing osama bin laden was the right decision as president. and his decision on iraq is the right decision.

we were there long enough. it was time to get out. the departure may be chaotic. i would like to see us to accelerate our withdrawal from afghanistan. those are my views. you have to elect somebody that will make intelligent decisions and can lead and i think mitt romney is that type of person. host: kevin from california on the republican line. caller: i will support ron paul -- if not ron paul, it will be or jon huntsman. thank you. host: if mr. paul decided to go to a third-party candidacy, what happens to mitt romney's campaign?

guest: this primary process is not over yet. we've only had iowa and we have not had new hampshire yet. from me andaway line about who the nominee is going to be. i would not presume who that nominee is going to be. governor romney is in a strong position. the unexpected happens occasionally. i do not know the nominee would be. as to ron paul, he is but for a strong case and he has an ardent following in new hampshire and in other places and he will do well. host: chicago on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i do not agree with the conservative view that government cannot and will never create jobs. since mr. gregg has been an employee of the government for

24 years, i want to know what it comes from. -- where that comes from. the constitution provides for the government to create jobs. it created the legislative plabranch, and controls the hoe and the senate and created the judicial branch. every town, city, and state has a government jobs. we have police, fire, teachers, public health workers. what is as garbage about government does not create jobs? guest: government does not create the economy that creates jobs. every government job has to be paid for by revenues, primarily in the private sector. unless you have a robust private sector, you cannot have a strong government.

you cannot put governments be the job creator in an economy because the government has to be supported by the private sector in order to exist. will we see in countries where the government has got a large is that it gets very stagnant and they do not have the robust prosperity that we had as a nation for so long. our prosperity comes from private sector. host: what are you doing in new hampshire for mr. romney? what is your role? guest: i'm losing you, pedro. i can barely hear you. host: your role in the romney campaign. what are you doing in new hampshire? guest: i do not have any official title, i do not think. it. not aware of t

i just support him. i have been to a number of his events. we have no them for a number of years -- we have known them for a number of years. we're friends and admirers of what they have done and what they represent. host: glenn bernie, maryland. caller: good morning. how're you doing? guest: i'm doing ok. you.ust barely hearing caller: as an advocate for mitt romney, i am independent- leaning. in the past, their art to its -- two incidents incidence of money being spent. there is money being spent in iraq and money being spent trying to seed the american -- trying to save the american economy.

advocate on behalf of your candidate that was better spent or would you advocate money towards iraq or to save the american economy. there is an argument about the stimulus money. the $800 billion was spent in iraq. let's be honest. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: the first obligation is national defense as a national government. that's your primary responsibility as a national government. we were attacked. the decision was made to go into iraq as part of the war on terror. we went in with our people putting their lives on the line. when something like that happens, you give them every dollar of support they need.

anything to do with stimulating the economy. it is about giving people in the field and putting their lives at risk the support they need to make sure they have what they need to fight the war effectively. the two are not related at all. there's no relationship at all to a stimulus package and fighting a war. you don't compare the two. host: our guest has been judd gregg, a supporter of mitt romney. thank you for your time. >> we are continuing our live coverage this morning in new hampshire. ron paul is holding a meeting today and one of three campaign stops he is making today. he should be with us in just a couple of moments.

a reminder, we'll also have live remarks from mitt romney. he will be talking about jobs and the economy. we will take your phone calls after that event here on c-span. we will be covering a jon huntsman event at 7:00 p.m. eastern in exeter, new hampshire, live on 7:00 p.m. here on c-span. >> good morning. thank you for your patience. welcome to hollis. i live here in town.

all i have to say is this is supposed to be a living room event with ron paul as of thursday and we have been building a head of steam and things got out of hand in a good way. we are overwhelmed but honor to be here. i'm here to introduce congressman ron paul. i want to turn the microphone to a local home schooling family. they want to say the national anthem for us. >> ♪ o, say can you say/

early lightns what so proudly we hail at the twilights last gleaming. whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous night watched ramparts we or so gallantly streaming -- were so gallantly streaming. glaree rocket's red the bombs bursting in air

gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave brave ♪ calle [applause] >> thank you, girls. speechless. so, again, one day before the

primary, to take a huge honor to be here with congressman paul. he has momentum and we're seeing things we have never seen before in the freedom and the constitutional movement. dr. paul will return -- he's speaking about things like ending the fed he can get our economy going again. i have a couple of acknowledgments to make. jim foresight is the campaign manager for the state of new hampshire. this was supposed to be a living room home school event. going mad. [laughter] the former president of the christian home educators of new hampshire and i would like to the knowledge him.

welcome and thank you. we appreciate your patience. it has been a long week. i would like to turn it over to congressman ron paul. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much for putting this little reception to gather. originally this was at your home and it looks like the meeting outgrew the home. i'm glad we were ever to come over here and have our little gathering. i would like to introduce a few members of my family. my wife is sitting over here,

carol. [applause] a daughter-in-law and her daughter, peggy and melinda. thank you very much for coming out. i guess you've noticed the campaign has picked up a lot of steam and interest. there have been a lot of questions and some that are undecided and hopefully we can reach them with the program that i have been talking about and why i think we have gone into trouble and what we have to do. no matter where i have gone around the country and also on the talk shows, the tv programs, the big issue has been the economy. the first time i ever ran for office was in the 1970's and i ran because i saw some big

changes being made in our monetary system. we have come to the conclusion that we embark in a dangerous period in our history. it is still important history. the bubble that has burst and white employment rates still a serious problem is the fact that we embarked on a financial bubble, the biggest in the history of the world. the marketplace tries to unwind the mistakes by politicians and central bankers to correct mistakes. if you equate debt with prosperity, it will keep building on so you run out of production. we have too much debt and not enough production. .

fudge the books in the longer. at the very least, we have to have a full audit of how the federal reserve system has been operating. [applause] because of the monetary system, it contributes to this distortion. the worst distortion and why people feel badly about the economy -- people feel frightened about what might come even if they have a job. destruction of money means devaluation of the money. nobody has wanted to talk about it. the founders warned us against this.

we do not want to go through the destruction of the continental dollar. you can only use gold and silver as legal printer -- tender. we have this undermining of the middle class. you have free markets and contract rights like we enjoyed for so long, you have a large middle class. the wealthiest middle class ever. this is not true anymore. the middle class is shrinking. is the wealth of the world shrinking? no. the wealth is taken from the middle class and it goes to a select few, who are the insiders. sometimes the anger directed to the unfairness of the system.

this has a lot to do with influence in washington. the government has become a distributor of wealth. this is why it big money talks. money has more control of our system. that's why lobbyists get paid more than politicians. lobbyists run the show. this is what we have to overcome. people have been supporting me and we are undertaking challenging decades and decades of control of our government. involvement in a foreign policy that makes no sense. we need a foreign policy that defends the american and not tells americans how to live. [applause]

in debates, the moderates will say that tonight we will come in and talk about economics. they do not want to talk about farm policy. -- foreign policy. you have to talk about both together. war is connected to the economic system. war drains wealth. we have been taught that in school. "war got us out of the depression." complete nonsense. we're not producing like we used to. the economy is being drained and we have to address foreign policy. it is sample.

-- simple. we should not send anybody to washington that will not obey the constitution. [applause] since world war ii, we have had numerous wars. we were fighting countries and involved in nation-building in countries that were far from perfect but they never attacked us. it has added $4 trillion in debt by being engaged overseas. i do not believe people want to, and free us because we are free and prosperous. that has gone way astray. we shouldn't do anything to any other country that we would not

have them do to us. [applause] if we would follow the constitution and require that the people give permission to go to war by voting to go to war, we would not have had probably any of these wars in the past 20 or 30 wars because the congress would not have done it. they could approve it there was a threat to our national security. it is important that we follow the rules. the government is supposed to protect our liberties. that is the number-one job. we gain our liberties from our creator and we should protect those liberties. we shouldn't be telling people how to run the economy.

[applause] but by changing the foreign- policy, we can start talking about the necessity of dealing with the debt. debt as a problem. right now, it is similar to if you are in debt it way over your head and you get too many credit cards and what you are learning to take care of your daily needs, you do not have anything left to finance their debt. that is where we are today. we do not. to finance our debt, we do not have enough growth or people laugh or we can tax them and pay for the debt. what we have to do is eliminate the debt. when an individual is in debt, they either have to sell stuff, work hard, pay off their debt, or declare bankruptcy. the market and insist on the bankruptcy. when our financial system -- it

became evident that it was truly bankrupt, that was in 2008, a lot of people were doing a lot of gambling with derivatives. people would pay a lot of money when the financial bubble was being blown up. so when they went broke, the establishment people, the federal reserve, treasury, and bankers, and corporations under the gun, they came screaming, there is going to be a depression, you have got to bail us out. well, they did not deserve to get bailed out. that debt should have been liquidated, not to dump on the american people. and that is what happened. [applause] so we're still paying for that debt. what about the people who made the money during the financial bubble, they're back in business again. their corporate leaders are making big bucks, and they're making a lot of money, getting money from the federal reserve for at practically zero and

rest. it has changed dramatically from our fending -- founding, because the emphasis is not on liberty anymore. the emphasis is on special interest and controls. right now, the american people have the weekend. they, all of a sudden, realized -- even those with jobs, even those who seem to be doing ok, there is a sad and discontent in this country. i think it is the worst our country has ever experienced we have gone through a lot of rough times. great depression in the 1930's, world war one and world war ii. but i think a lack of confidence in the future is more significant than ever before, because the foundations have been undermined. the foundation of the free market and property rights, we do not really own our property anymore. also, the foundation of the monetary system and the foreign policy that does not serve our national defense needs. and then the people know this. they're begging and pleading for some answers. this is a story i have talked

about and offered solutions and tried to point out the financial bubble, but there was not much attention paid to it. and i never really thought one way or the other whether anybody would pay attention to it. but right now, it just happens they are very interested in it. the world has changed, our country has changed, from four years ago. i was involved in the campaign. there was a lot of support, but there was still, you know, not enough to say it is coming, let's prevent it. no, but it hit. it hit in 2008, and now people are looking and wondering about what we can do about it, and there is a lot we can do about it. we have to cut spending that is the top priority. get spending under control, get debt under control. you cannot keep running the debt at $1.50 trillion a year and is put in the money for it. it is a row for disaster. my proposal is, and the very first year, we should cut real spending by $1 trillion.

[applause] and then immediately, where are you going to cut $1 trillion? well, if you do not start cutting, everything goes to pot. everything is totally destroyed because the money will not work. even the people you're trying to help out, you cannot help them. the more you print the money, the less it has value, and its compounds itself. we have to propose these cuts. i do it with priorities. i do not say -- i think the worst place to start would be child health care or social security or medicare benefits. we can work our way out of it, but you have to be willing to cut some other things. and that is why we, as americans, not only as conservatives, moderates, liberals, everybody else, we should agree that it makes no sense to spend much over $1 trillion a year overseas. why do we spend that money --

why don't we spend that money here at home? [applause] half of the cuts would come from overseas. i do not believe for one minute it undermines defense. cutting military is a lot different from cutting defense. they say, he wants to cut all the defense -- no, i do not. i want month -- i want more money for defense. i want to defend this country and not be spent getting involved in wars that do not help us at all. the other money spent, we would have to cut back here at home. i have five departments i would cut. the first department i would cut would be the department of education. [cheers and applause] if we look at education, both in a constitutional fashion, along with a moral responsibility, education in a free society is the responsibility of parents.

[applause] certainly, if there are no provisions for the state to be involved in education, there is no authority at the federal level. but what the federal government better make sure they do, as well as state governments, is make sure there is never a law that prohibits homeschooling or private schooling to compete. [applause] other departments, department of energy committee permit of commerce, department of interior, hud -- just think of all the damage hud did. all this with good intentions. we're going to take care of the port. everybody will have free health care, feared to -- free education, houses, everything can qualify for a loan. sounds like it will work. we have students graduating from college, education is poor. they're not trained to do the jobs we need. as with a hat, and $1 trillion

debt and cannot get a job. so it failed. so the hud program and afford a budget -- a firm of -- affirmative action, everybody can qualify. people ended up with a house and thought they had a money tree. the prices of houses keep going up, keep borrowing. borrowing, borrowing, and borrowing the this is wonderful. yes, and the bubble burst. and the people who were involved in the mortgage derivatives, they were making a lot of money. so what happened to the middle class? they got the debt. they lost their jobs, and lost their houses. so even with the best intentions, you cannot provide the goods and services through the government. this is what we have to come to realize, that if you want goods and services, if you want the maximum distribution, you have to pay attention, and you have to believe that the free market is a much better distributor of wealth than the u.s. government. [applause]

at one of the shortcomings that we come up with, whether we call ourselves libertarians, constitutionalist, or conservatives, is that we have -- we compete with people who are well-motivated, and they believe themselves to be humanitarian spirit of those of us who believe that the market should work and protecting liberty is most important, they call us cold hearted. if there are ideas did not work and ours do, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that we are the humanitarian, not them? [applause] we do need to cut back, and we can do this with protecting certain programs and work our way out of it, but we cannot do it without working at the monetary system and in foreign policy. we have to look at property rights. but we also have to look at individual liberty. because all these things we have been talking about, it is

individual liberty that would protect us all. the right to your life, the right to liberty, and you should have the right to keep the fruits of your labor. [applause] it is individual liberty which is under threat as well today, because once you have a perpetual war atmosphere, personal liberties at home have always been under attack. and today, they are. we have more attacks on our personal liberty -- whether it is the patriot act -- quite frankly, i do not think we need a patriot act to undermine your personal liberty. [applause] and also now, just recently, the government gave the president the authority to use the army to arrest an american citizen without charges and held indefinitely. that is not protecting the american tradition. those kind of infractions and insults to the american people have to be addressed.

we have to get confidence in ourselves once again that a free society and free markets work. we cannot continue to depend that the federal government will always take care of us. what we need is a free society where we are allowed to take care of ourselves. i believe in it that. [applause] i believe in that. we have a wonderful opportunity to express those views. it will be tomorrow night. i am encouraged. the young people that i need -- that i need really encourage me because they are enthusiastic about hearing the truth. even if it is negative and that u.s. big debt, you have a mess and talk about the war's going on, all of the sudden i am excited and optimistic that at least if you admit the problem, maybe you can solve that problem. despite all my concerns, an optimist because the things i am seeing across this country.

people are starting to once again look at the great issues and the great ideas and all those principles that made america great. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have time for a few questions. we want the questions from the non-media. >> all of this microphone, and we will try to get as many questions as we can. we have a little bit of time. >> go ahead and pick somebody. >> i believe that many americans think that the value in keeping the bases overseas is because by

pulling the bases out of the overseas countries, like germany and japan, it sort of recognizes that our empire is shrinking and and maybe they cannot handle that. how can you get them to see the benefits in doing that? >> well, empire's always end, not because another military power comes along, but for economic reasons. sometimes they end even though we have to stand up to them and paid them. they had a lot of these weapons, but they have been bankrupt and had to be developed for economic reasons. and then they were foolish and went into afghanistan. we will come out, but it is the way we come out. you talk about germany and

japan, why should we -- we're not on the verge of being attacked. one of the greatest successes in our country has been that we have a strong national defense. nobody is about to invade our country or to attack us. i think people have to be convinced that bringing troops home is one way we will not have a dissolution of our country completely. obviously, i want to discourage people from that -- i do not think that empire serves the interest of the freedoms of individual americans. [applause] >> i feel strongly that

protecting our environment is a very urgent issue, and i was wondering how, through the enforcement of property rights, what exactly is property rights violations? that would be our environment. how would you determine who to prosecute when that a violation happens? >> people get worried when you talk about free markets and property rights, but they will not be good environments -- that they will not be good environmentalist. when you look at a government with the most extreme amount of government, they have been the worst protectors of the environment. if you look to private property, most people who own property, i have an interest in taking good care of it. but that comes up with the subject of pollution. but if you have a strict understanding of property, nobody has a right to pollute

anybody. you cannot dump your garbage in your neighbor's yard. you should not be able to dump your smoke in their yard. you should not be able to dump chemicals, you should not be allowed to pollute the water. you should be immediately held accountable. the big problem occurred in the industrial allusion with collusion between big corporations and also a big government. in the city of pittsburgh, it was probably one of the most filthiest cities in the country, and the rivers where sewers. governments and dumping their source in there, and the skies were filthy black. that eventually got filled up with the protection of rights by the city a long time before the epa. so the epa is a bureaucratic special interest answer to a problem that should be answered with private property rights. but the basic principle is that if you really enforce contract rights and property rights, you would probably be much tougher a lot sooner than we have been. and i just do not believe that

the bureaucratic approach can ever do the trick. [applause] >> can you address the agenda 21, please? >> you're talking about the u.n.? well, agenda 21 and the u.n. is a little bit more than i can take, especially since my position is that i do not think we should be in the united nations. [applause] so any plan that the u.n. will undermine our national sovereignty, i am absolutely opposed to it and would want to protect it. right now, the biggest threat to the international governments is in the monetary affairs. because they know what we know about the monetary system, and they know there is a big crisis coming. they are talking about monetary reform, and they're talking about an international paper

currency run by the imf, which is a part in the united nations. that is, indeed, a big threat. that is why we should not be in those organizations. [applause] >> two more. >> [inaudible] >> come towards the microphone. >> [unintelligible] south america, a lot of work in the private sector can be compared to slave labor. how you feel that should be addressed? >> are you talking about what we're going to do about -- >> [unintelligible] >> i do not think it is true slave labor. they work for very little, but i do not have sovereignty over

other nations on what they should do and should not do. so i cannot go down and change it. my job is to make sure that we do the best in setting an example in this country so others will do the same thing. >> [inaudible] >> what we want to do is protect civil liberties in this country and make sure we have sound money and a prosperous economy and have a foreign policy were people -- you see, right now, we have a policy where people believe that america is an exceptional nation. i think we are. but what they believe, because we are exceptional, that we have the responsibility to invade the country and force that country to do exactly as we do, and i do not agree with that. i think we are exceptional, but i think we are slipping. so i think we should work much harder to be an exceptional nation, to practice what we preach, to follow our constitution, protect all civil liberties, to make sure we have

a market and have prosperity and have people look down and say, you know, america is a great place. why don't we try to copy what we're doing, and that would be a much better way than as forcing them to do something. [applause] >> what is your stance on legal and illegal immigration? >> i am against illegal immigration. we shall not have that here. my approach to that is not to report something that is illegal so if states are forced to provide services and benefits to illegal immigrants, they will take -- make benefit of it. illegal immigration is down now, and that tells you something about how weak this economy is, because of the jobs. even today, welfare both for illegal immigrants as well as our system encourages people not to take jobs they might have to

take if they did not get these benefits. so we should not be foreseen free schools and free medicare on people who are here illegally. i think we should have a revamping of the whole thing about the workers program. i think the people -- we should, you know, keep the doors as wide open as we can. i have had many to come to me in my congressional office looking for work. even today, they're coming because our people are not as well-drained. that is -- we do not want to ever close that off, but we should not have this big problem with illegal immigration. i think we should have more control and a different system on our borders. i am disgusted that we spend so much time, money, and lives worried about the borders between afghanistan and pakistan. we should worry more about our borders here at home. [applause] >> one more. >> i serve on a local score --

school board, and i support the many things in the department of education. the system is really broken. how are we going to fix it? how do we get the power out of the union's and the influence? >> well, union power is -- and union power is the right word, it is not workers' rights. it is union power. and they get it legislatively. voluntary contracts is the basic principle of the marketplace. so if a businessman -- and there are no laws prohibiting unions from forming in the private sector. but there should be no power to force unions on a businessman that does not want to voluntarily have them. but you should have a voluntary union, and the businessmen to make those choices. as long as you understood the principle of voluntary association. but when it comes to government, that is for the bigger problem

is today, with the government unions. but it should be our officials who are representing us as to the private marketplace, so they should not be signing these contracts. in state, it would be different. i know you are finding the right to work laws up here. right to work is very, very important, and the federal government has, you know, cause of the problem with the national labor relations board and the act from 1935. that was to give artificial power to a certain group. but the market is the most powerful force to raise wages. we do not want to throw out the whole system of volunteerism, because the problems of the depression had nothing to do with the lack of labor union. yet the labor unions said, if leakages forced labor prices at -- matter of fact, to correct some of the problems, the problem we're facing today, you want prices to go down. prices of houses are still going down, but it should have happened in six or 12 months and

then been overwritten. it is indexation of wages that makes us less competitive -- it is the fixation the wages that makes us less competitive. jobs are lost. we have more right to work, but jobs go overseas, to be there is a lot of other regulation but you cannot avoid that discussion if you really want to change our environment and get our economy growing again. thank you very much for coming. [applause]

>> wrapping of this event with republican presidential candidate ron paul in hollis, new hampshire, his second campaign side of the day. many political pulse of ron paul in second place, behind rick barack -- behind mitt romney. this afternoon, we will cover an event with mitt romney. he will talk about jobs outlook and the economy in hudson, new hampshire. we're planning to take phone calls after that event. that is expected to start in about half an hour, at noon eastern, here on c-span. we're planning live coverage of the jon huntsman event later today, 7:00 p.m. eastern. he will be holding a rally in new hampshire.

all of this as we approach the new hampshire primary tomorrow night. live coverage of new hampshire starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern with a simulcast at abc news if elliott wmur tv in manchester as the report primary returns. we will have candidate speeches for primary night headquarters in manchester. be sure to join in the conversation by phone and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan, as well as following us on it twitter. what all of our road to the white house coverage online at c-span.org. and with the new hampshire primary taking place tomorrow, today we will continue showing you some of the key concession in victory speeches from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 races. today we begin at 2:00 p.m. eastern with a speech by republicans john mccain, mitt romney, and mike huckabee. then the democrats hillary clinton and barack obama. that same lot of speeches will

be aired tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, all of this on c-span3 today starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a check now on the validity of some of the statements made by candidates during this political season and some of their political ads from today's "washington journal." host: back in new hampshire. we will take a look at another group of radio hosts. we're joined by bill adair with politifact. he is an editor. guest: we are fact-checking website and we have nine other states where we have reporters from the various news organizations that do fact checking. the purpose is to take claims and research them and come to an independent conclusion about whether they are true or false. host: when you look what happened over the past two days, what is your general assessment about what is being said and what is truthful? guest: a lot of false closed

yesterday and also on -- a lot of falsehoods yes day and also -- yesterday, and also on saturday night. these are talking points the week researched in tremendous -- talking points that we have researched in tremendous depth. this is the nature of campaigning. campaigning is a matter of you find you're talking points, you repeat your talking points and in some cases they do not stand up to research. host: how you and your group analyzed these claims for their truthfulness? guest: we go to independent some sources -- we go to independent sources like the congressional research service, the census bureau. we make an effort to find original data. we try to go behind the surface

-- beyond the surface and dig deeper. we talked to sources on both sides of the claim and try to find somebody who is independent and then come to an independent judgment. what is rigorous about our effort isto come up with the truth-o-meter ruling, it requires three editors and they decide whether the truth-o-meter is true or not. host: you can ask questions about what is being said in the campaign and here's how you can ask your questions. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. you can reach us on twitter or on facebook.

you said you rate the truthfulness and you have a section that stems from a debate looking at record. and what he said about barack obama. guest: he was asked in the new hampshire debate if he agreed with senator john mccain who said that barack obama was a patriot. this was in response to charges that barack obama's tax plan was socialism. perry said that he was proud to say that barack obama was a socialist. pretty remarkable statement by the governor of texas. by a presidential candidate. we decided we would fact check

that and look at barack obama's policies that you could call socialism. we talked to some conservative economists and said, you know his policies. would you consider them socialism? we concluded that it is a ridiculous claim. host: let's show the folks at home what he said. clip: we have a president that is a socialist. foundinghink the fathers wanted america to be a socialist country. somehow president obama reflects our founding fathers. he does not. he talks about having a more consuming and costly federal government. i'm a 10th amendment-believing governor. i believe we need a president that pushes back to the states

whether it is how to deliver education or health care or how to do our environmental regulations. the states will do a better job than a one size fits all washington, d.c., led by this president. guest: we did give it any pants on fire. conservative economists said there are policies that they disagree with and policies that they think expand the reach of government. it is falls to call that socialism -- it is false to call that socialism. this is the nature of the american political discourse these days. it is important to check these things and to help people make sense of this. this is a claim that has been repeated over and over again. people began to hear it and get

numb to it. it is important for politifact to assess these things. host: our first call is from fort lauderdale, florida on the democrat line. caller: yes. a question i'm thinking -- what percentage of jobs in the country does the government actually create? all the jobs, doing the work on the roads and the railways. i know that there are a 100 million contract. what percentage of the job market, of the government create jobs for us? and a lot of the jobs around military bases that are private jobs -- a lot of jobs around military bases.

guest: you bet. i do not know the overall figure. as the economic stimulus money ran out, the mix of government jobs credit versus private sector jobs changed and there were some months when there were for not any private-sector jobs created and nearly all of the jobs were government-funded jobs. that has now changed in the past few months. the private sector is create a lot of jobs. i do not know the overall numbers. host: san diego, california, republican line. caller: i find it interesting you're doing this topic on the republicans. have you done that before?

i do not know if you have done a segment on democrats and especially the obama administration with politifact. have you done that before? guest: you bet. i have been on "washington journal" a dozen times and talked about president obama. we talked about is campaigns and we do the same kind of research we do for truth-o-meter items. you can go to our web page. we have checked a couple of claims from an ad that president obama put up on the night of the iowa caucuses last week. we have checked president obama more than anybody, more than 330 times. we checked democrats and republicans. right now, naturally, the conversation is occurring largely among republicans. the debates over the weekend

work with republicans. there were seven major republican candidates that we are following. that is where our emphasis has been lately, but we also check democrats. host: newt gingrich was talking about the epa. that is one of the mislead true comments from the debates. can you talk about that? guest: we have a great partnership with two newspapers in new hampshire and new hampshire public radio. the claim was that when asked about a landfill in nashua that the epa was confused and so we checked that. the reporter looked into that and talk to a colleague who had researched this and written an article about that. we determine that gingrich had accurate, that there was confusion about this on the part of the city of nashua. they were not familiar with the fact that this landfill was listed on an epa list of sites.

we gave gingrich eight mostly true on our truth meter -- we gave gingrich a mostly true. caller: the lie about medicare. -- they had their why it of the year. supposedly democratic st. paul ryan would end medicare as we know it. he wants to give vouchers to buy medicare. ask anybody out of work trying to buy insurance on the open market, they will tell you it is a scary prospect. that would end medicare as we know it. guest: we got criticism about our lie of the year. i should explain to viewers exactly what we are talking about here. for the past three years, politifact has awarded a lie of the year. we select the most significant falsehood.

of the previous year. the first two were claims made by republicans. the first one was the claim that democratic health care law had death panels. a claim made by sarah palin and others. the second year it was acclaimed by many republicans that the health care law was the government takeover of health care. we got criticism from republicans. particularly about the government takeover of health care claims. in this past month, we have gone a lot of criticism from -- democrats because we shows the claim by democrats that the ryan plan would end medicare. the ryan plan does not end medicare. it protect medicare for people who are now 55 and older. it does change medicare and it does go to a privatized system using what you could describe

as vouchers. it is not accurate to say it ends medicare. they told us this was a scare tactic aimed at seniors, something that democrats have used over the years. this has been a successful strategy for the democrats. i have to disagree that this was not a significant fall sold last year and so we chose it as our lie of the year. host: medicare was a topic during debates. rick santorum brought it up. here is a look at that. you can tell me how you read it that. clip: i just talked about -- this is an anti socialist idea in health care. we also structured the medicare part d benefit as a way to try

to transition medicare. we did not pay for it. that was a mistake. there were a lot of good things. there was one that really bad thing. we should have paid for it it. host: there would give seniors the same benefits and that was rated as mostly false. guest: this is a popular talking point that we've heard from gop leaders. they have tried to say we will not be special anymore in congress. the health care will be available to all seniors and it is not a perfect comparison. there are some similarities. the ryan plan would rely on standards set by the office of personnel management. there are some differences.

by the best estimates, it would not keep pace with rising costs in health care, and the premium support will not be as generous as they are for those in congress so we raided that mostly false. -- we read tidbit that mostly false. caller: i believe the republicans do not empathize with average americans. the moderator on sunday asked jon huntsman and ron paul if they would support heating oil subsidies for people who cannot afford to pay for oil this winter? especially in new hampshire. ron paul, as usual, went on and on about state rights. jon huntsman never addressed the immediate needs of the people this winter. he talked about drilling for oil. and being energy-independent.

this is typical. republicans make political points. it is still about big business and not average americans. guest: i watched that debate and that was the first time we heard the low-income heating assistance program discussed in the primaries. that might be the last time for a while given the next primary in south carolina and florida. we have not done any fact checks on that. i do not really have anything to add. host: are the trends during this cycle? guest: we have an iphone app and has a truth index. it abrogates the average from -- aggregate's the average of all the states and it went up in the last week and was above zero,

which means the average was more truth than false. i think that is a function of what happens in the final days of a campaign. the tv ads tend to go positive. we found a lot of them are mostly true. that is one sort of micro trend. another or the super pacs and -- another one that has been fascinating to watch are the super pac and what they have done in these big advertising buys that took place at the last minute in iowa and they are enabling supporters of a candidate to basically work around the standards that have put limitations on contributions to candidate campaigns. but even those ads, we found a number of half true complaints.

host: supporting newt gingrich. this comes on the eve of the super pac supporting newt gingrich, coming out with the fairmont mitt romney. guest: we will be looking to fact check that. that looks quite interesting. we've had some requests about a claim that mitt romney has stated about how many jobs were created and the number of net new job, and i expect the pro- gingrich commercial will be critical of that. one thing we do at politifact is we define political speech broadly. we don't just fact check things like that. we checked e-mails, web page statements by candidates, we checked with videos, any place where there's a political

message, we will fact check it. host: barbara jean from georgia. republican line. caller: he said obama is not a socialist. he is talking to joe the plumber and said -- i meant to distribute the wealth. he just meant distribute the wealth, take from some and give it to others. we already paid taxes. i think he is a socialist. and your facts are wrong. guest: i appreciate your opinion. let me put the joy of the plumber conversation in perspective -- joe the plumber. that in thatt conversation, then-senator obama talked about redistributing the wealth. joe the plumber said what obama

would do it is practiced socialism and that led to sarah palin's comment about that. they were talking about a fundamental concept that goes back to abraham lincoln and that is a progressive tax system. it redistributes the wealth. you charged higher rates on wealthier taxpayers. it is fair to say you are redistributing the wealth. is that socialism? i don't think any economists we talked to yesterday would call that socialism. conservative economists, people who want to see barack obama defeated. that is a progressive tax system. two very different things. wantdoesn't mean they government to take over the economy.

which is what you would have under socialism, to take over the means of production. host: jon huntsman -- he talked about simpson-bowles and one from -- it won from barack obama's desk to the garbage can. you rated that false. guest: this is one we heard before. the simpson-bowles commission was supposed to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. dealing with the long-term debt problems of the united states. there are frustrations if you talk to members of the commission. they say they wish president obama and the congress would have done more. congress was completely tied up in knots about it. there are a fair number of examples of things that the simpson-bowles commission recommended that ended up in obama's budget. even the members of the commission will acknowledge that. we rated debt falls on our truth-o-meter -- we rated that

false. caller: i have two questions. have you look into governor romney's tax returns? to see what he is hiding? president obama -- his tax records. he is hiding something, too. to you believe obama suspended the constitution on new year's eve because he put us under martial law? ron paul seems to be the only one concerned about this. i think he might be impeached for this. guest: let me start with -- the first part how to do with -- host: college records of the president. guest: let's start with mitt romney's tax returns. he has not released them. i think he is hiding his tax

returns. we did a fat check about a month ago about this and the question was, is it customary for presidential candidates to release their tax returns? we looked at all the major candidates going back for 20 or 30 years and most had released their tax returns. hidingcorrect he is them. perhaps at some point the romney campaign will release them. that has often come later in the campaign. as for obama's college records, i'm not sure that will yield a lot of useful data for anybody. you can look at my college records and i'm not sure what that will show except i could have done better in american history. we need to focus on the policies of this president and that is what we do in the case of politifact. host: you looked at an ad by the president about promises

made and kept. here is a little bit from that ad. clip: i will be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. and put a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of working americans who deserve it. ♪ i will be a president who harnesses -- farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all. host: when you look at the website for the statements about the historic fuel efficiency standards, you can read it -- you rated that half truth.

and also for the overseas profits. guest: these are classic half true ratings. we define a hampshire as -- half true as something that is partially accurate but leaves out important information. his claim was basically three parts. historic efficiency standards -- standards, yes. the efficiency standards are higher than ever. would they lower costs at the pump? yes, conceivably they will. but the issue is that they will actually force the manufacturers to make cars that cost more money. that is an important caveat. people would pay more on the front and to buy the car but the fuel would theoretically be less expensive. the final part -- reduce dependence on foreign oil. unproven. it depends, of course, on consumption and really the greater market forces, how many domestic sources of oil there are. all in all, classic half-truths

for us. host: dee on the democrats' line. thank you for waiting. caller: a couple of statements. this idea about wealth redistribution is not just about wealthy to pour, it is also -- one publicly traded companies and private companies profit from war in afghanistan and iraq, that is a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers to stockholders and owners and those businesses. secondly, this claim that rick perry makes about the obama administration being socialist, it is kind of hypocritical given the fact that -- using the stimulus money to close the budget deficit. finally, mitt romney is making his claim that he created more jobs in the state banned the -- than the obama administration created was sort of ridiculous and that he was ranked 47th in

job creation. if the guest could address these issues i would appreciate it. guest: i will address a couple of those. sure. as it relates to really any job claimed that is made by president obama, mitt romney, by governor rick perry, you really have to look at the broader picture. texas did have tremendous growth in jobs. how much do you credit rick perry with that? we typically give his job claims a half truth rating, because while he did -- he is usually right about the numbers, how much do you credit the governor of a state with what is happening in both the state's economy and the overall economy? often the case of governor perry, he benefited from a really booming energy industry, and how much is that is his responsibility? the energy industry, of course, is driven by a much broader economic forces. in the case of president obama, when we have looked at claims about job gains or losses in

his administration, we have tried to, in talking to economists, is -- sift out, how much do you hold his economic policies response will? -- responsible? wheat ended up giving a lot of -- we end up giving a lot of half true ratings -- we end up bin laden have a true ratings because you cannot pin this entire economy on one person. it is important for voters to keep in mind that there are a lot of forces, really, if the present or the governor had a lot of control over these things, things would be conceivably a lot better than where they are. host: florida. ron, republican line. dunedin. caller: dunedin, yes. it is hard to understand how you can say -- stand there and say you're being unbiased when you are affiliated with the "st. pete times" which is essentially dead and going out of business and cannot sell advertising, and you perpetuate

this half true, half live perception to the american people -- half lie. it is either true or ally. -- either true or a lie. one of the other. not have this or the other. host: what is your question, caller? guest: i can comment on that. thanks for your opinions. i respect your criticisms. i've got to say, though, that the fundamental concept of the truth-o-meter recognizes something that is important, that statements are not black and white. it is not correct to say that things are either true or false. they are not. and i think the service politifact is doing is by reading things on a relative -- rating things on a relative

scale -- the truth is not black or white. it is shades of gray. things can be technically true but have important caveat that really make it a half truth. that is the value of politifact. what we are doing is going solid research into these things and then putting out our rating. are you going to disagree with some of them? of course. when you are making judgment calls like this, inevitably there are going to be things people disagree with. one final point about my newspaper, "the tampa bay times," formally "the st. petersburg times," it is well regarded. i am sure there are lots of people will find reasons to criticize it. but it has an excellent reputation. it has the courage to create something like politifact and stick with it for four years. and i think our journalism speaks for itself. host: one other pants on fire was not romney -- -- mitt romney when he said the u.s. was inches away from no longer being an economy. guest: these are another one of

the big, bold claims to try to win votes, the specter of socialism, that the growth in government spending is so great that we are on the cusp of a government-run economy, of the government taking over the means of production we did fact check this one. there was a great one done by lou jacobson who specializes in economics. and he went to, i think the heritage foundation had global ratings of where countries stand for a free economy and the u.s. is way up near the top in having a free economy. it is just not accurate to say that. host: california. our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i did a little bit of checking myself on the internet last night because of ron paul's comments on santorum being a lobbyist. what i found out is that his

records show that he earned $1.3 million between january 2010 from august of 2011. this was as a consultant. also, that he filed for those -- the campaign in june of 2011. so, essentially, he is a lobbyist running for president, it seems, according to the fact that i checked. guest: that is a really good question. in fact, we adjust that several times. -- we have addressed that several times. for instance, president obama has said his campaign does not accept any money from lobbyists. that is technically true. what the obama campaign does is not accept -- it runs contributions against a list of

federally registered lobbyists and if there are any matches they reject the money and send the check back. but the part that makes the claims half truth is that in washington these days, you don't have to register as a lobbyist to be involved in lobbying. i think you make a great point about that, about whether it is senator santorum or others, once they leave public life they will often go to work for a firm that those lobbying, one gauge in strategy sessions, but will not -- they will engage in it strategy sessions about lobbying, but they will not actually register as a lobbyist. we have typically given claims that people are lobbyists and those circumstances a half true rating. it is true they are not registered as a lobbyist but they are involved in the lobbying business. host: new york city. good morning. john. democrats' line. caller: two things that bother me.

i have heard for a long time republicans saying that what the first two years of barack obama's presidency, he had the congress and could do whatever he wanted. right? is it true that there was a 60- vote threshold for anything to get past and they're actually was 58 democrats and two independents, one of which was joe lieberman who campaigned for mccain. so, that is not really true that he could do anything because there were also take independents there, not 60 democrats. and one other thing that bothers me is something rick santorum said yesterday. he said that this administration does not allow people to talk about abstinence. my understanding is that this