this is the bleed of american jobs that would happen. this is a projection. but the fact is, this transportation bill is a typical example of their idea of how the economy should operate. and it is very disturbing. 7.4 million jobs, this would renew a trend that we were on during the bush administration, so i think it's time for republicans to stop offering these bad jobs bills, start offering some things that are going to put americans back to work and they can begin that process by yanking this h.r. 7. ms. schakowsky: you mentioned that the republicans like to point to the democratic proposals and say this is another job-killing measure, you know, the facts are the facts.

and the facts are that we have seen 23 months of private-sector job creation, literally millions of jobs created. and so i believe that, you know -- i haven't heard too much about the job killing lately because it's hard to talk about, every time the job numbers come out and those numbers are increasing. i want to thank you very much for bringing up an example of a piece of legislation that doesn't address our transportation needs that does result in job loss and that is paid for by going after middle class, federal workers as the ones who have to sacrifice legislation like this. thank you. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady. i want to make a few points before we wrap it up. economist mark zandi who was

advising senator mccain real g.d.p. is $200 billion and fewer jobs under the ryan approach than is under the case of the president's. that is one honest economist's estimate. and again, h.r. 1 would cut a couple hundred thousand jobs. the american people need to know what kind of jobs program the republicans are talking. they aren't talking about adding jobs but cutting them and h.r. 7 is the kind of damage these republican majority members would do to the american economy. and with that, i'm going to yield time back. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker. interesting days in which we live. there's supposed to be an old chinese cuffers that says may you live in interesting times and as if that curse has been placed on us. we certainly live in interesting times. on 9/11 2001, this country suffered the worst attack in its history on its homeland. its worse since december 7 of 1941. it left thousands of people dead and left a nation reeling from the feeling of vulnerability

and it pushed the federal government to respond quickly. now there are a number of things that could be effectuated more effectively in iraq and afghanistan though that will be a subject of another time. i recall after 9/11 bill bennett coming to my hometown of tyler texas and speaking at tyler junior college and there was a huge crowd that turned on it. people in fact turned out during those few months after 9/11 in record numbers to their churches, to places of worship in record numbers. because much like the children

of israel after a disaster, they realized they needed to get back closer to our creator. the f.b.i., our intelligence attributes all of our justice department state department, all of the bush administration immediately was pushed into gear to do something to protect us. and in that regard, bill bennett, speaking there in tyler, said, you know, some people get offended if they look some war like someone who committed the worst attack in american history and they searched more thoroughly than someone else.

and bill said i just know that if there was a red-headed irishman that has attacked the united states, he said i could anticipate having to go through heightened security checks, every time i try to fly, every time i try to go anywhere. and he said if that were to happen, i would understand because he said, i love this country. i want people to be safe and feel safe and since someone who looked like me with red hair and my same heritage had committed that act even though he was and is a law-abiding citizen, he would understand being subjected to more scrutiny. there was a time in this country

when common sense like that did prevail, when no one would have ever dreamed that in going through security at an airport and somebody like me asking why did i get pulled aside for the extra inspection and the puffer and the added scrutiny and being told it looked like you wouldn't get mad. i stood there and watched for about 20 minutes. there were a couple of african-american businessmen greatly dressed. they had no resemblance to anyone who had attacked on 9/11.

a little old lady one of our seniors, full of vim and vigor, she was pulled aside. any way, interesting times. i think our justice department some of our folks who are supposed to be looking out for our protection have been lulled into a false sense of security and they have done what some said respond to the squeaky wheel. the o.i.c. 57 islamic nations that make up the o.i.c. made up the term islamaphobia and islamic nations have funded some of our ivy league schools institutions of higher learning, yes or noing for more dollars to accept

massive contributions for doing conferences on islamaphobia and trying to make americans think there is something wrong with them if they fear the people who brought about 9/11. now, i'm grateful for my muslim funds. i'm very grateful for the muslim allies we had and have, although this administration that is thrown them under the bus. that we have in northern afghanistan, the northern alliance those in the area of pakistan. we got muslim friends all over the world. we have muslim friends in this country who love the freedom

here, who don't want to see this country hurt. but there are those who have contributed to trim. there are those who have come here from other countries who hope to see our demise. my brother, who is living out north of the beltway, was shocked on 9/11 that afternoon to see in the muslim area north of the beltway children jumping and yelling and rejoicing over the deaths over americans in the pentagon and in the 9/11 towers. there was a time when americans would have had more sensitivity than that. they would be so grateful to be in america, they would not rejoice in the loss of american lives by islamic jihaddists.

when the 9/11 commission bipartisan as it was came to conclusions, all of which i do not agree, with all of which i do not agree but they made a very good faith effort, and they came to the conclusion about certain things and it was clear that the actions of terrorists that killed over 3,000 americans, were those of islamic extremeists, not rank and file, but islamic extremists who believed jihad meant the destruction of our way of life here in america of americans as infidels because they do not believe the same way. who would have believed that 10 1/2 years later, the mean people

would not be those who have refused to denounce terrorists' activities those groups that not only refuse to denounce terrorist activity, but who have actually supported terrorist activity through hamas and hezbollah, known terrorist organizations and against whom there is sufficient evidence as found by a district court in texas and by the federal fifth circuit court of appeals sufficient evidence to move forward with a case? that's because the judge in the district course, judge solis and the fifth circuit agreed that there was primea facea evidence of muslim groups here

in america that were named but unindicted co-conspirators in funding terrorism. primafacie evidence to go forward. and those were the words used by the judge in his decision. well, the f.b.i. over the years seems to have relaxed in some regards wanting to avoid being called islamafope bilk as they have -- islamafobeic -- islama phobic the archives found across the river in virginia in a subbasement one of those

goals was to subject the u.s. constitution to slia law. and the way to -- shria law and that was to force a pronouncement in america, burn a bible, put a cross in urine and call christians all kinds of names blaspheme jesus christ, burn an american flag, call the american government all kinds of names, but under no circumstances should anyone defile a cor ran. as a chris --

-- a koran. as a christian, i do not think anyone should abuse a koran in anyway. but the constitution says if somebody wants to burn a bible, it's been interpreted to mean you can burn a bible. it's a freedom of speech issue. if you want to burn a flag, we're told you can do that. well we had the director of the f.b.i. come before our judiciary committee, in the not too distant past, and these are some of the documents been involved in the prosecution of the holy land foundation in which groups like the islamic society of north america, care, others were named co-conspirators, in any event,

director mueller, march 16 of last year, before our judiciary committee, had testified and answered a number of questions that gosh, they viewed the muslim community as absolutely the same as any other community, even those muslim communities that rejoiced over 9/11, he didn't say this, but it was clear, that rejoiced over the deaths of americans on 9/11. they saw them just like every other community. and he also testified about the positive outreach that the f.b.i. had been making to muslim communities. well i don't have a problem with that, but why would the f.b.i. see the need to make positive outreach into any

community of a specific nature? so after director mueller indicated, yes, we have this wonderful outreach program with the muslim communities and those communities are exactly like every other community i said this. i said, you mentioned earlier that -- mentioned earlier, that is, in your written statement, that the f.b.i. has developed extensive outreach to muslim communities, in an answer to an earlier question, i understood you to say that muslim communities are like all other communities. so i'm curious, as a result of the extensive outreach program the f.b.i. has had to the muslim community, how has your outreach program gone with the baptists and catholics? mr. mueller said, i'm not certain of necessarily the thrust of that question. i would say that our -- that we

our outreach to all segments of society is good. i said do you have a program of outreach to hindus buddhists, or is it just an extensive jut reach program to. he interrupted and said, we have outreach to every one of those communities. i asked how he did that. he started to filibuster and i said, look, i have looked extensively and i haven't seen anywhere in anyone from the f.b.i.'s letters information that there's been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the f.b.i. has seen in that particular community. and just so there's no mistaking, let me just read directly from the judge's

opinion in the holy land foundation in response to the effort by isna, care, nate, and holy land foundation and others, the judge said, the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of care isna and nate with the holy land foundation, the islamic association of palestine and with hamas. while the court recognizes the evidence predates the h.l.f. date it is sufficient to show the association of these entities with the holy land foundation, islamic association for palestine and hamas. there was plenty of evidence to support that, according to the judge that was affirmed by the fifth circuit.

it is important to note that out of concern for the f.b.i.'s outreach program and the state department and the white house for reaching out and bringing in people who courts have said have supported terrorism, and these people are being brought in in the military brought inside the wire in this case brought inside the state department brought inside the white house on a regular basis, brought inside the justice department my friend frank woleff -- woeful had this language add -- frank wolfe had this language added, this is language in the law, and my friend mr. wolfe included it to reference the f.b.i.'s policy and it says, this is the language in the law conferees

support the f.b.i.'s policy prohibiting any form of -- formal non-investigative cooperation with unindiletted co-conspirators in terrorism cases. the conferees except the f.b.i. to insist on full compliance with this policy by f.b.i. field offices and to report to the committee on propings regarding any violation of policy. guess what? we didn't get this from the f.b.i. we had to get it from the islamic society of north america's own website. they reported that on wednesday, february 8, that's this year, the american-arab anti-discrimination committee the arab american institute the interfaith alipes, the islamic society of north america, which has been pronounced by the fifth circuit as having plenty of evidence to support that they fund terrorism and have, and then it

mentioned other groups, but that they, it says, had a shoulder-to-shoulder campaign, had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the public affairs office of the f.b.i. director robert mueller joined the meeting to discuss these matters with representatives from the organizations. conversation with director mueller centered on material used by the agency that depicts falsehoods and negative connotations of the muslim american community, the use of the material was first uncovered by wired magazine and that was uncovered by an organization that seems to be right in there with those who were unindicted but named co-conspirators in funding terrorism. from isna, they say the f.b.i. took the review of the training material seriously and pursued

the mat we are urgency to ensure it doesn't occur in the future. the isna president a frequent visitor to the white house, who the white house consult on speeches or has, welcome to the inner sanctum of the state department and other departments here in washington, he stated the discovery of f.b.i. training materials discriminated against muslims did damage to the trust built between dedicated f.b.i. officials and the american muslim community. we welcome and appreciate director mueller's commitment to take positive steps toward eradicating such materials and rebuilding trust and an open dialogue. he informed participants that to date, nearly all related f.b.i. training materials, including more than 165,000 pages of documents were reviewed by subject matter expert perts multiple times. more than 700 documents, 300 presentations of material had been deemed unusable by the

bureau and pulled from the training curriculum. material was pull from the curriculum if even one was deemed to have factual errors, be in poor taste, was stereotypical or had other problems. stereotypical would mean if they pointed out terrorists have had one thing in common that that would be stereotypical. well they report it was clear to all meeting participants that trust between the community members and f.b.i. needs to be taken seriously by all the nation's decisionmakers and the bureau must strengthen its efforts to build trust. how about trust from the other side? how about condemnation of terrorist acts? how about coming out and making clear all ties have been severed with hamas and hezbollah and those who would seek to make terror on innocent people.

anyway isna's rejoicing because they have gotten the f.b.i. to actually go through and cull material that includes words like jihad. words like islamists. and in fact and i really do wish mr. speaker, that our director of the f.b.i. would be as concerned about this law as he is about laws that don't exist, but his concern about offending people who have been supporting terrorism that has been killing innocent people around the world. instead, this is what we have as a result of the efforts by this administration and the director of the f.b.i.

9/11 commission report mentioned 322 times islam because the people who were the hijackers, the people that planned the attacks, that hoped that they would kill tens of thousands of americans instead of 3,000, those who helped train them in afghanistan, those who helped plan and participate from other radical islamist groups, they were islamists. they believed in islam. and thank god that they only represent a tiny percentage of muslims around the world but let's be realistic. as one intelligence officer said, we are blinding ourselves to being able to see who our enemy is. our f.b.i. can be very, very proud, no longer in training

materials as the director told the named co-conspirator of terrorism, isna, no longer are they going to mention islam, muslim jihad enemy, they don't mention the muslim brotherhood, they don't mention hamas. they don't mention hezbollah. they don't mention al qaeda. they don't mention caliphate they don't mention sharia law. those have been wiped clean from our training materials so that new and -- so that new f.b.i. trainees, people coming in will have no idea exactly what they're facing because they're being told you must look only at a group as supporting heightened violence. but you cannot examine their books, things that mean very much to them things that motivate these killers, the terrorists, you can't look at the things and their

interpretations, what makes them tick. how do you defeat an enemy if you cannot look at what makes them think the way they do? i would think that groups our muslim friends who want to help keep this country free instead of demanding that we not realize that these are islamic jihaddists that want to kill us that they would be out there pointing these people out publicly and condemning them. instead, they're condemning those who simply want to protect america. who want to live in peace, want to live in freedom imagine what these same kind of groups would have said if they had heard the prayer on d-day, live, can you imagine these groups hearing franklin

roosevelt's prayer on radio as he prayed for six to 10 minutes publicly prayer that you can find online, almighty god, our sons pride of our nation today, have set off on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion and our civilization, to set free suffering humanity. . goes on d-day as our troops were trying to retake europe, he also says in his prayer, and oh lord, give us faith, faith in our sons, faith in each other, faith in our united crusade. let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled or our events or matters or a fleeting moment let these not deter us. with god's blessing we shall

prevail with the unholy forces of our enemy. roosevelt didn't know you couldn't call your enemy that wanted to take over your nation, that wanted to take away your liberty, roosevelt didn't know you could call them unholy forces of our enemy. so he used those terms because he cared about america. he cared about protecting america. we want to live in peace. we want to live in peace with our muslim friends, our atheist but heaven's sake, do not keep blinding our intelligence community, our justice community. there was a time when in america, you could call things just as they were. and the revolution, one of the most quoted statements was attributable to what we disagree

what were you say but we defend with you saying. they want to destroy your livelihood. it's time for america to wake up before we get hit again. we have people in this country who are supporting terrorism. there is evidence to establish it. the courts have found it. this administration refused to pursue it when the evidence was clearly there. refused to pursue these people and instead of indicting the co-upon tors. this -- co-conspirators. the bush administration was going to pursue if they got convictions in the holyland conviction and this administration refused to

prosecute anyone further. instead of prosecuting people, this administration calls them into the white house calls them into the justice department and says, why can't we be friends? it's time to wake up. we owe this country a defense with our eyes open, with our arms and heart open to help those who really areless. but to stand firm even to the death as our service members are pledged to do, as i did my four years on active duty let's stand firm together until those who are intent on destroying us and supporting terrorism are made to account and back off and say we're no longer you are --

your enemy. then all communities can worship and love as one. we got to protect america. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted accordingly the house stands

>> in a few moments, our road to the white house continues with rick santorum and mitt romney campaigning in michigan were the primary is a week from tuesday. in a little less than an hour and a half, a preview of the supreme argument on the constitutionality of the health care law. >> "booked tv" is live on saturday. coverage starts on saturday morning. it is followed on what it is like to go to war and on the

u.s. army's first blind active duty officer at noon. at 1:30, the changing israeli- palestinian conflicts. we look at who is afraid of post-blackness at 4:00 and at 5:15, on the rise and fall of the -- on c-span2. >> republican presidential candidate rick santorum said former president george w. bush and president obama said the wrong precedent with federal aid to chrysler and gm. they should have let the market take its course. the michigan primaries are a week from tuesday. a recent poll showed the former pennsylvania senator leading mitt romney. this is a little less than one hour. [applause]

>> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and to discuss the number one issue in this campaign. it is the help and state of our economy and what we can do in washington d.c. it is a great atmosphere for our economy to grow. here in michigan we have been through a lot of tough times. it is exciting to see the resurgence of the auto industry here. over the last four years michigan has lost over 140,000 jobs. 250,000 people from michigan have left the work force and the unemployment rate is still higher than the national average. if he were to ask the question, are you better off now than four years ago? for many people, it would be no. we do need a strong economic

platform by which to help the private sector successfully compete and to create the kind of jobs that are going to provide for families and grow this economy so we can create the prosperity that this city was known for four decades. i am going to lay out my economic plan. you are going to hear this and you are going to say, this is similar to other economic plans that you have heard from republicans. let me do that and the -- let me do that and then let me tell you how we are different from the others and how we approach the issue of creating an opportunity where everyone in america can rise -- can rise. we can create a healthier country. first, i do believe in pro- growth economics. i am a supply-side economics, a leader. when it comes to the corporate tax, as of april, it will be the highest in the world.

i will cut that to 17.5% and make it a net profit tax. if let tax. with one exception -- a flat tax. with one exception. we need to have a 20% permanent tax credit for research and development in the corporate tax. secondly, dividends, interest, capital gains -- 20% cut. we abolished the amc. and the debt dax -- tax. simplification and lower rates. we have a 10% low rate and we explained that lower rates. we take all of the other rates consolidate it 21 rate. a 28%. it was ronald reagan's top rate. if it is good enough for ronald reagan, it is good enough for me. we have a top rate of 28% and a

simplified tax code. a simple eye test code -- simplified tax code to help promote a strong and healthy society. i also believe that reducing the size of government. that is key. you cannot just cut taxes and reduce, as a result, the revenue to the federal government without creating a balance by reducing the size of government. that is important, too. to remove the burdens from the people of this country. i have proposed 5 trillion dollars in reductions over five years. that can be funny math for a lot of people in america. that is $5 trillion from the baseline or how does that all worked? what i pledges that we will spend less money every year than the year before. until we reach a balanced budget

in five years. 5 trillion dollars in five years, less spending each year, every year. we will reach a balanced budget in five years. i know you folks in michigan have been hearing some things on the television from one of my opponents that i am a big spender. you'll find an objective look at by spending record when i was in congress. there was one that was done yesterday. it looked at the 50 senators in the congress at the same time i was there. there were only four senators who had a better spinning record according to the national taxpayers union. they raided need for all those years and my reading was better than -- they rated me for all those years and my rating was better than four. they were not states like michigan.

i was the most conservative senator by far, based on the state are represented and the spending record i had. any other person in the state with a similar electorial map the closest person to me was not even half as good in spending. i stood up in a tough state and a stood for limited government and for something that was important, if we are born to balance the budget. -- we are going to balance the budget. if we are going to solve the problems of this country, when it comes to getting deficit under control, we have to look at ids -- it as well. we have to look at where the money is. the money is in entitlement.

60% of the budget is in gentlemen. defense used to be 60% -- 60% of the budget is entitlements. the defense used to be 60%. it is now 17%. those who believe it is causing problems do not know the map. when i was born, in diamonds were less than 10%. -- entitlements were less than 10%. they consume all revenues in a handful of years. why? most of the entitlements are targeted towards those on the margins of life which are the disabled and the elderly. and we see the baby boom in generation beginning to retire and all bets are off as to whether we can afford this explosion of benefits. i was out there talking about this problem back when it was not popular to talk about it and i proposed reforms of social security, medicare food stamps.

i led the charge on welfare reform and we need to use the same thing we did with welfare reform, which is cat it cut it, block it. for medicaid, food stamps -- a whole host of others. we need to give them the flexibility to be able to go out and meet the needs of their particular constituency. we did that with welfare. we cut the welfare rolls by 50%. we did that when ralph -- welfare was at the highest level ever. guess what happened? poverty rates went down. people went to work. why? because we put time limits and work requirements on receiving government benefits. we do those things again, we can help turn the economy -- this economy around. i hear it all the time. we have a hard time finding workers. when you have 99 weeks of

unemployment benefits and a variety of other social safety net programs, people can make to assist that they otherwise would not make if the economy was -- people can make choices that they otherwise would not make if the economy was good. this president is interested in redistributing wealth and it has created a dependency class which is a reliable bolting group for him. -- voting group for him. the redistribution of wealth, you run out of other people's money. we're not plan to have a plan that runs out of other people's money. we are going to reduce the entitlement burden on this country. we are going to tackle social security now. i put forward plans, on mike paul ryan. we need to do it now. social security and medicare reform, even in places like the

villages in florida they have a huge retirement community. when i talk about social security and changing benefits i didn't see a single hand opposing what i am proposing. if you have a leader who is going to educate the american public as to the problems we have and the possible solutions out there, you would be amazed at how the american people will rally and do what their duty is to make this country great again. we have a president who does not believe in that. he believes in hiding the ball. pitting one group against another. i believe that lifting of americans, making them participants in the problems and turning them into opportunities for all americans is best. that is out we are the same. let me tell you how we are different. i believe we need to create an atmosphere for everyone to be able to rise in america.

just cutting taxes, supply-sider across the board and reducing the size and scale of government, that is not enough. if that is all we do, i am confident we will not succeed. we will not succeed economically and more importantly, we will not succeed socially and ultimately, we will be back where we were before with government taking the upper hand again. why? because, we will not have done the things that are necessary for people to rise in society and for society to be stable. let me talk to you about how we need to have an economic plan that includes everybody. tim mentioned the fact that we had manufacturing that was 21% of the work force when i was growing up. it is 9%. when i grew up in pennsylvania -- my grandfather was a coal miner. i knew that was the wealth. it was not great. it was well thought that was sustaining the families and

allows spokes to be able to participate in organizations. and they can produce a bit in the help of their community, which is vital for the health of our country. -- they can participate in the health of their community, which is vital for the health of our country. i am about equality of opportunity. i am not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. there is income inequality in america. there always has been. hopefully, and i do say that, there always will be. why? people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and the marketplace. that is as it should be. we should that have a society that has a friend to end these -- envies another. we should celebrate. like you do here. if you build statues and monuments.

buildings you name after them. why? they created wealth, but they created well for everybody else. that is a good thing. not something to be condemned in america. we need to create an opportunity for people to rise. i believe manufacturing is the key to that. people say why do you treat manufacturing differently? i do not cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to 17.5%. we eliminate them. there will be no tax. we create the opportunity for us to compete. why do you treated differently? because you here in detroit have to compete against countries around the world. they want to our jobs and in many cases, the teardrops. and we need to have a plan to retake took your jobs. we need to have a plan in america that understands. we are not going to move the bank or retailers overseas. all those other folks compete internally. if you do not.

no manufacturer compete internally. you compete with the world that want what you have because making things is the key to wealth creation. in any society. we have to just like we do -- we need to make sure we have a military industrial complex in this country because of our national security. we need a stable food policy because of our national security. we need a manufacturing base in this economy because of our national security. ladies and gentlemen, this is a hot spot in the world and we need to rely on ourselves. we need to create a competitive marketplace. and no advantages, just level playing fields. right now american manufacturers have a disadvantage. that is excluding labor costs with our nine top trading partners including canada, mexico china. we need to level the playing field. why is it higher?

because of taxes and regulations. if that is a problem, government has a responsibility to create an opportunity for you to go out and compete. that is why i have zero out the corporate tax. to those of you who have sent jobs overseas, if you take that money back instead of paying the tax, if you invest that money in the equipment, you will pay no tax. if you invest it in the clinton and create jobs here in america. those are two things we can -- if you invest it in america and create jobs here in america. those are two things we can do to create the jobs of the future. that is one big area. there are other things we can do. obviously, with with the future leader of dinette here today, we hear a lot about china. creature -- what i have laid out will

compete with any country in the world. i know folks who are concerned about currencies. i am concerned about it, too. government should not set currencies. market should set currency values. that includes the u.s. if we're wrong to point the finger, we need to look at what we do here in america when it comes to currencies. let us have the market do it. if you do, i have confidence that the american worker in the american companies can compete with anybody around the world. the other thing that is key in making us competitive is energy. energy is key to manufacturing. obviously, you are great users of it. it is a key to the entire prosperity of our country. if you look at any map or graph that shows the cost of energy and the availability of energy, and you look at it relative to

the standard of living of the country, the lower the energy costs, the more available the energy, the higher the standard of living. if you look at the recession that we went into, we went into it in 2008 because of a huge spike in energy prices. now, energy prices going up again, the headwind to the growing economy as we have seen repeatedly as this economy has tried to recover. yet, we have vast resources of energy in this country. we have a president who is doing everything he can to see the oil and gas coal in this country as a liability, not an asset. something that should be kept in the ground to protect you. instead of taken out of the ground to enrich you. yesterday, i was in north dakota. for those of you who may not be close, this man look like a lump of coal. it is not. it is oil. it is oil. it is how we get oil in north

dakota. we fracture this piece of rock and it has oil floating in it, whether you believe it or not. i have a hard time believing it. [laughter] they handed me the oil so i guess i can believe it. we have something called hydraulics. it is being used and we have hundreds of thousands of wells that have used over time. now, we are using horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing and we are producing an energy boom. they told me in north dakota that their crude oil, which is a premium commodity on the market sells at a discount of $32. why? because they cannot get it to the market. we have a president of the united states with knowledge that mexico will be an energy importer within five years.

that is 1 million and a half barrels a day. venezuela, which we did we did we get to a half billion barrels a day from. they're going from an exporter to having china build a refinery there. to linda haft billion barrels lost. -- 2.5 beryl's -- billion barrels lost. we want to extract oil from alaska. we used to produce 2 million barrels a day. it is down to 500,000. it will be down to the point where the pipeline will not work because there is not enough slow to move the oil. within less than 10 years, we will lose 5 million barrels of oil today. the president of the united states says no to a pipeline that would bring that oil down from canada and north dakota, all our people in our states to

get the price for their crude to take 500 trucks a day off the road in these communities and create thousands of jobs. the president said no. no. send the oil to china, which is what canada will do. this is a president who is suffocating the economy. he does not care about you and the cost of living you have to deal with. he would rather tell the auto companies here to increase their standards and build cars that are less safe for you to drive instead of building pipelines and creating oil and opportunities in this country so we can drive cars that our families want to and are safe for us. this is the big difference. we are going to create jobs for everybody in america. energy jobs. there are jobs for everybody at

all skill levels. the average dog in western north dakota, $90,000 per year. -- the average job in western north dakota, $90,000 per year. there is the opportunity for you. that is what energy and manufacturing can do. someone who has a message that says to all workers, let us get to work. let us reduce our energy costs. let us make things here in america. the president says no, no no, no. let me increase food stamps. let me provide a health care system where we take money from some and give it to other so we can then tell you have a right to health care and then tell you how to exercise that right. that is the view of the president of the united states. not the view of a country that believes in free people and free markets. even if we do all the things i have just suggested and we do not do other things to try to improve our economy -- we have to be concerned about those who

are at the very margins of our society. the very core. the president says he supports the occupier. another candidate has said that he does not care about the poor, he cares about the 95%. how about a candidate who cares about 100%? about everybody and gives them the opportunity to rise in society? to understand that unless we have strong families and strong communities, we are not going to be an economically successful country. we certainly will not be able to have limited government over texas. it -- if the family continues to disintegrate. as far as poverty rates two parent families in america have an 8% poverty rate in america.

single moms are wrote to provide care to do all of those things that two parents were designed to do. the poverty rate is 40% in those families. we are not going to have a strong economy and less -- if the family continues to decline. 30 years ago, a 71% over the years of -- over the year of 18 -- over the age of 18 were married. there is a rapid decline now. as that occurs, government will get bigger. the ability for us to lower taxes and creating a vibrant economy will be harder. i spoke with a person who founded a prison group after he left prison. at the time he left, there were to leonard and 50,000 people in for it -- in prison in america.

70% to 80% of them grew up without a father in the home. let us do the math. you tell me how we can be economically successful. we asfolks, we as republicans and conservatives cannot just go out there and say cut taxes cut spending, everybody is going to be fine. everybody is not going to be fine. we have to create an environment where all people can rise and we have to create a culture that is consistent with the values of our country. we believe in creating a just society from the bottom up. believing in faith family the leading institutions that you may have read about for democracy in america. we talk about all these organizations at the grass-roots

level, at the school the little hospital the civic and charitable organization. what we have done. what has happened. as carmen has gotten bigger and more forceful, they -- government has gotten bigger and more forceful, they have swept them out of the way. i have five deductions. triple the family tax credit. why? because costs are higher than they have ever been. why? because we understood the stress of raising children, the economic stress and how finances and economics can be a stress on marriages and families, so we had a government that said we are going to support you. the other deductions that we had in place are for health care and

for housing and for pensions, all things to help stabilize families. and of course charities churches a key to those mediating institutions. what do i mean by mediating? those institutions that stand between you and the government. if there is nothing that stands between you and the government, a government becomes your life boat. and when the government becomes your life boat, freedom is ultimately lost, because you have now sold out. we need to create a rich society with lots of places for you to go before you go to the government for help and assistance with the problems you're dealing with. charities, churches. no wonder the president in one of his tax proposal sought to limit the charitable

contributions. they get in the way of government providing for you. families get in the way of government any reliance on them. we will have a program that will go out and say we need to build a rich society again. why has democracy failed in so many places around the world? because they did not have what we have, which is a great civil society, families, churches, community organizations, small businesses, businesses generally, who are there to help, mediate between you and government. this is an economic vision for america that does not go back. it goes forward in creating an opportunity and a culture that is nurturing, a safe and secure, because we have the strong community, we have the opportunity to rise in society.

we will put americans back to work and we will put them to work in neighborhoods where they feel safe, they can raise good and decent children and live lives that can make this country that shining city on the hill. thank you. god bless. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator. i have the distinct privilege of trying to represent the unified voice of this audience with these blue cards. having the power of the pen is surely a heady opportunity here. we have enough questions that i could almost write a

dissertation on political science, but i am going to get right to them. millions of older americans have lost their jobs. how would you help americans especially those ages 50 +, to get back to work? >> i would just say this, if we can create an economy that is spawning jobs and creating opportunities, one of the things that i hear all the time particularly in the manufacturing sector, is the lack of people with the skills necessary to do the jobs out there. they clearly would be in demand as the private sector economy improves. there will be a demand for experienced workers who have the skill sets necessary to do not just the blue collar jobs but also the white collar jobs. we all know that manufacturing is not just line workers.

there is a whole host of other folks that create opportunities for folks with experience in the past. i cannot say that there is anything specific i would do. one of the concerns i have with this revitalized economy is to make sure we have the education and training available to train people for these new jobs, including older workers. what we have seen from this president is an assault on those very schools that do most of the training out there, and that is private schools. this president has had a war on private education. i know that comes as a shock to people that this president would have a war on private sector something. but it is consistent. he believes that private schools are evil and abusive harry e. has done everything he could to make it harder -- abusive. he has everything he could to

make it harder for them to compete. but it is going to be up to those schools and community colleges to respond to what i believe will be an exploding demand for skilled and semi skilled workers to do the jobs of the future. i will tell you i have a very different attitude toward private schools and training schools and technical schools. we will work to make sure they are available and are around and find it like any other school to help the business community meet their training needs. >> how would you have a voted for tarp money, in particular for the auto loans to gm and chrysler? mitt romney has stated he would not have voted to bail them out. >> i have heard that. [laughter]

i take a little position -- a little bit different position than romney. he supported the bailout of wall street and not a bailout of detroit. my position is that governments should not be involved in bailouts period. by the way, it is not the obama administration. i know that governor romney focuses on the obama administration but this began with the bush administration. i was a critic of it at the time. this was back in 2008, when i was not considering running for any kind of office again. i did make my opinions known within the administration that i thought what they were doing was wrong. they plowed ahead anyway and did some things i think or injury is

to capitalism. what they should have done was let the market work. they started picking winners and losers -- does this sound familiar? once they decided picking winners and losers, the market decided we can wait. if they are going to pick, we will wait for them to do it. if they had stayed out of the market completely, i believe the market would have worked. would the auto industry look different? yes, but i think it would still be alive and well. why? because markets would have had to react and to what is necessary to be competitive. the facilities creating huge profits right now are there and would have been there. the problem was not the facility workers. it was the obligations these

legacy companies have that they could not pay. i went through the steel industry. no one bailed out the steel industry. but it has been profitable most years because they write sized and figured out how to compete. having government involved set the precedent that now is set in america that will make it easier for the next president to step in and make the argument for why government should take over, let's say the health care industry or some other business. this is the role of government we have now set under republican and democratic presidents. i ashley blame president bush more than president obama -- actually blame president bush more than president obama. there may be companies that are doing well, and obviously there are a couple of companies here

that are, but long-term having the government set the role of the economy is not good. >> i own a small business. how will your administration help small businesses? >> well, take for example what we do with the corporate taxes. we cut corporate tax rates in half and make it a flat tax. that is a great advantage to small businesses. why? because they do not have the compliance partners and the accountants to help them figure out how to do their taxes. i pay my own taxes. mitt romney paid half the tax rate i did. obviously, he has better accountants. maybe i should higher than in the future. if you are structuring your company to respond to how the tax code operates -- that is not

the case with a small business person. i would say that having a flat corporate tax is going to be a great equalizer in many respects. i look at the things the government does with respect to the regulatory groups. one of the key aspects of our economic plan is to deal with the explosion of regulation. under the clinton and bush administrations, they averaged 62 regulations a year the cost businesses over $100 million. those are the high cost regulations that are monitored by the general accounting office. well, under this of ministration last year, the president proposed 150 of those regulations in one year alone. and is scheduled to break that record this year. this is a president who has gone hog wild, and guess who gets hurt the most by burdensome regulations? it is the little guy.

i was talking to a mortgage broker in south carolina who told me that prior to dodd- frank, he spent 30 minutes a week on regulations. he now spends three or four hours a day, and he is getting out of business. so the big guys will take over. why? they have big compliance departments that can handle this. unfortunately, big business does not necessarily mind big government. it gives them a competitive advantage. but it kills the little guy kills innovation, kills the and creates barriers to entry. look at obamacare. obamacare, if you get to 50 employees, all of a sudden you are going to get hit with huge tax burdens. i talk to companies that are trying to figure out how to stay under 50 employees so that they will not have to comply with

obamacare. why would they do this? that is what we are saying to small businesses. do not grow. if you do, we will tell you how to manage your business. that creates a huge disadvantage for the entrepreneur to be successful. we will repeal all of that and create a place where you do not have to focus on compliance. big business believes in clean air and clean water and that we can trust states and municipalities to determine what we can put in the water and the air. we can trust ordinary americans of the state and local level to provide for themselves a good and help the community more than washington can. >> what role the use c4 labor unions in america and how would you -- do you see for labor

unions in american, and how would you propose to protect workers' rights? >> i believe in creating opportunities for working folks. i -- my grandfather was a coal miner. he was the treasurer of his union. i'm sure that the fact that his grandson is running as a conservative republican has caused him quite a few flips in the grave. i have no problem with private- sector unions. i think they play a role in society. i am someone who does believe that people should have the right to work. i have signed on and said that we should repeal the law that basically requires states to have union dues being paid as a condition of employment. that law should be repealed and

the states should have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves as opposed to that the federal level. but again, from my perspective unions are one of those mediating institutions in america that have served a legitimate purpose overtime in the private sector. i do not feel as warm and fuzzy about public-sector unions. i think public-sector unions are an intrinsically unfair bargaining position. the people sitting across the table from them, unlike the business person who has shareholders or themselves who has money on the line, or both, the public employee unions are sitting across from someone and it is not their money. it is not their tax dollars by march that is going to pay for these things. secondly where these folks are receiving benefits, getting dues paid from state and local

taxpayers that they then turn around and help elect the people that sit on the other side of the bargaining table. that creates, i think an ugly situation in america an unfair situation in america. and i think as the federal government does, which does not allow public unions to negotiate wages and benefits, i think that is the proper role for state and local governments to be in the same position. >> last question. this is from a 13-year-old student who puts a postscript on theirre that says her teacher will bumper grade up to an a if she gets her question answered. so i am helping her out. as president, how would you help homeless people? >> as i said before, we have to be concerned about everybody

from the very rich to the very poor. if you look at my track record it was david brooks, no great friend of conservatives who wrote several years ago that there has not been a single piece of legislation dealing with the poor in the last 12 years that my name was not on. i really do believe we have an obligation to create opportunities and the ladder of success for everyone, including those who are homeless. i would say that if you look at our record of what we have done in creating the opportunity for states to take responsibility for a lot of these programs, i think what you saw with welfare reform was the flexibility and the dollars to go out and meet the unique needs of the community, as opposed to what the federal government said was the greater needs of greater communities across the country. i think the flexibility we will give states to manage these programs is an important thing.

one of the unique problems of homelessness unfortunately sadly, is that a substantial number of homeless people are veterans. we have seen this -- i have seen this in my own state and in studies that show that because of veterans returning home, particularly now with high rates of pst and other types of stresses re-acclimating to society, we see this problem. this was an area i saw when i worked in the veterans administration. my dad was a psychologist that worked with a lot of these folks. that is an area that i would focus on to make sure that number one, we do not create the situation that creates a lot of this p t s d, which is these repetitive tours of duty, 5, 6, 7, he tours of duty. it is just way too much to ask

and we have a president who says we're going to cut back our troop levels? what does that mean? does it mean we will be going out nine, 10, 11? we also have to look at how we are managing our troops and how we will care for them when they come back so that they can be integrated into society, and obviously we're dropping the ball. that is an area i would stress as president the first and foremost, we take care of those who have sacrificed for our country. thank you for the opportunity. it was great being here in detroit. god bless. [applause]

>> on behalf of the detroit economic club and all of us in this room, thank you very much rick santorum, for joining us today. it is such a privilege to be your host. also, i would like to thank all of you for investing your time with us today. with that, this meeting is adjourned. please have a terrific day. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the governor of michigan endorsed presidential candidate

and mitt romney today. this is about a half hour. >> thank you for having this great event. it is great to be back with you again. i was here last year. it is a wonderful group of people. i am very excited to be here today and i hope you are too to have governor romney here with us. if you just think back to 2010, what did michigan look like? we had been at the bottom for a decade of all 50 states. we had a broken government. but we did not give up. it was not just time to fix michigan. it was time to reinvent michigan. and to do that, we had to take a different approach. it is about teamwork.

i appreciate your support and those wonderful words but it is not about me. it was about doing it together. it was time to bring in experienced from the private sector and the business world and say there is a new and better way of doing things in our state to show success. and we are showing that success. we had a billion and a half dollar deficit. it is gone. [applause] we had the dumbest tax in the united states, the michigan business tax, and it is gone. [applause] it was a job killer, and to put it in perspective the preliminary analysis of the tax foundation that came out last week they put us from 49th in corporate taxation to seventh of the states.

[applause] during this process we recognize that it is not just about balancing a budget. it is about paying down long- term liability about financial responsibility. we need common sense in this state just like we need our family. we started -- need it in our family. we started paying down long-term liabilities last year and that liability will not face our children anymore and we are not stopping. [applause] and you are not here to hear me today, but i could go on. [laughter] we have done unemployment reform workers' comp reform, all of these reforms with relentless action. no blame, move forward, and we are now a role model for the united states of what success is

all about and what teamwork is all about. that is why i am here today, and very proud to be here with governor romney. one of the great challenges we face is at the national level. we have shown what can be done when you are at the bottom, right here in michigan. but if you look at what is going on in washington, the issues are much the same. think about the deficit. trillions of dollars that need to be paid back that are being ignored. the need to balance the budget. and most importantly, the need to create more and better jobs, and create success for us. washington is a divided plays. the job is not getting done. and we need the leadership in washington to get that job done. and to do that, you need the right people leading the charge. we have a person in governor romney who has that background. he has a great combination of private sector experience, knowing how to create a job, and

how difficult that is. he has experience in the private sector. he also has the experience of being the chief executive of the state, being in the public sector and being successful running a state. that is the experience we need in washington. we need to move forward because when i look at the challenges of michigan one of the greatest things holding us back now from all the fabulous things is washington. it is holding us back. it is time for leadership that is going to move us forward. i am very proud -- me being the good nerd that i am, you know that i reviewed the informations. [laughter] is governor has put together a strong plan, a job growth and economic plan that talks about better jobs, a tax system that is simple, fair and efficient the talks about regulatory reform and talks about not just government activity, but our

people our talent, and how to connect people to jobs in the future and to plan for that bright future. another great thing that is just icing on the cake, we have the right man here to help lead our country, but there is a special bonus. he was born and raised in michigan. he understands our state. he is one of us. that is another area of particular pride. from my perspective, it is a great opportunity to say we are showing relent less positive action, we are showing teamwork in michigan. but now we have the opportunity to be part of a bigger team, a team led by an individual who can show that same success of doing what we did, of bringing common sense to government and bring those things to washington. that is why i am very excited today to announce my endorsement of governor romney, and with that, let me turn it over.

[applause] >> thank you. beautifully done. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, a governor. that was quite an endorsement and quite a record. if we could do in washington what you're the governor has done here, we would be -- what your governor has done here, we would be in a very different position as a nation. and i hope to do in washington with your governor has done here. i have a lot of people -- let me ask my brother and my sister to stand up and their families. on the far right of the room, a lot of my family members. thank you, guys. i see the attorney general here. thank you for being here. also, the mayors. i do not know how long you have

been in politics, but it is going well for you. keep it up. mary and dan, thank you for organizing this extraordinary event. a little history. i was born and raised here. i love this state. the trees are the right height. i like seeing the lakes. i love the lakes. there is something very special here the great lakes, but also the inland lakes that dot the parts of michigan. unlike cars. i grew up totally in love -- i like cars. i grew up totally in love with cars. it used to be in the 1950's and 1960's, it used to be that if you showed me one square foot of any car i could tell you what make and model it was. now with all the japanese cars, i am not so sure, but i can still tell you the american

cars, and long made a rule the world. despite my dad and mom is extraordinary contributions to the state, i remember a fourth of july celebration in mount pleasant. my dad had been invited to come speak. it was a large audience, and he got up and said, it sure is great being here in mount clemens. the audience booed. my mom said george, it is pleasant. he said, yes, it sure is pleasant. i have been watching with some interest the record of your governor. i think his success is in no small measure due to the fact that he does not care too much about what people think, the politics of who gets credit, and he comes from a background of conservatism. you can see in the private sector that you all live in, you are either fiscally conservative

or you are out of business. you cannot borrow money every year spending more than you take in, or you go bankrupt. he brings the discipline that is almost second nature to someone in enterprise. if you do not balance your budget, you will kill your enterprise, and killing your enterprise is not a good thing to do. but we are doing that in washington. like him, having come from the private sector -- i spent 25 years in business, in venture capital. i am often asked how private sector is different from the government. one, your job is harder. it is very demanding and less forgiving. you see in government, if you make a mistake, you just blame the opposition. if the numbers do not look right, you just go out and bond

or borrow more money. in private business, if you make mistakes, you lose your jobs or other people's jobs. it is very unforgiving. there are other differences. incentives. you understand the power of incentives. government people do not tend to understand that when they change tax codes that that will have an impact on what people did. when the governor here reduced the infamous business activity tax, it would change behavior. it was not that his desire was to lower taxes on companies. he wanted to get more companies to come here and grow here. that is the whole idea of incentives. government people do not tend to understand that. i had an example of that when i was newly elected governor. i was trying to find ways to balance our budget. we were about $3 billion out of whack. i promise not to raise taxes or

cut services. how would i get the job done? i went through the budget line by line. we had a big program, and still do for the homeless. there was a line there for hotels. i said, what is this referring to? they said, if we have someone who comes to a homeless shelter and they have a child and the homeless shelter is full, we tell them to check into a hotel and we will pay the bill. i said, i get the word gets around that we will put you in a hotel for free. i said, we want to change the policy right now. from now on, we want the homeless shelters to welcome anyone who comes there, and the person who has been there the longest, maybe 30 days, 60 days or longer, they go to the hotel. before i put that policy in place, we were paying for 599 rooms a night.

after i put the policy in place we had no hotel bills, and none. and there were savings in tens of millions of dollars the we were able to use to help people get permanent housing get housing vouchers, get out of homelessness. businesses that understand incentives are something that do not often exist in government. you understand that business is about getting customers to do things. i was amazed in government and how little understanding there is of business. it shocked me to see how many people in government have never spent any time in business. and yet business is what drives the economy and the well-being of our citizens. again, going back we spent a lot of money in my state on

prisons and jails. i met with some legislatures and said, what do you think about inviting in one of these for- profit jail management companies and have them give us a bit and see if they can do the job for a lower cost. they said governor, they will be higher cost than we are. i said, why? he said, they are for profit and we do not have to earn a profit. i said, i do not think you understand how free enterprise works. the whole idea of profit is to create incentives for entrepreneurs and innovators to find ways to do things less and less expensive with better and better quality. we have this belief in free enterprise, that we get better at doing things. that is how the whole system works. by the way, where the think profit those? when a business reports $5

billion in profits, where does it go? they said, it goes to pay executives their bonuses. i said, none of it goes to executives. profit is what your report after everyone has been paid. they say well, it goes to pay the owners. and actually, some of it does go to pay the owners dividends and so forth. about 15% of american public corporate profit goes to shareholders. but most of the goes into the business research and capital. we do not want to depress profit in america. we wanted to grow so that we can put more people to work. i was shocked at how little understanding is -- there is of what you do. some people in government do not like you very much. i love you. i loved your entrepreneur is looking -- working to create

enterprises to make america strong there. now, there is another place where i am afraid there is a disconnect. they do not understand the need for balancing the budget and the critical need for balancing the budget. i look at obama and feel that on almost every dimension because of the lack of business experience, he has taken actions which have made it harder for the economy to recover. i ask people, are the policies of the obama administration making it more likely for you to hire or less likely? and i think i know the answer. obamacare did not make it more likely for people in the medical instrument and device business to build new products because they are getting a new tax. it did not encourage people

wondering what the cost of their employees would be to go out and hire more people. and then of course there was stacking the labor relations board with union stooges. are you more likely to go out and hire people? the answer is no. dodd-frank. did we need to update regulations on financial services? absolutely. did we need hundreds of thousands of pages of the regulation? know. what did it do? it made it harder for community bankers. i was at a bank the other day were the chief executives said they have hundreds of lawyers working on implementing dodd-fr ank. my guess is that there are not many community banks that can afford hundreds of lawyers. it did not help small business to have this past as it was. the list goes on and on, energy

policies. when the president said no to the keystone pipeline, does that encourage energy here and business here? i met with the chief executive of dow chemical. he said they had announced a $20 billion factory that they are building in saudi arabia. he said they hoped to build it in the united states, but they could not count on a reliable source of natural gas because of the epa regulators that are making it harder and harder. so they had to build elsewhere. the president's policy of multiplying regulations adding regulations at a rate two 0.5 times greater than his predecessor that has not made it more likely for america and our economy to recover. it has made it harder for this economy to recover. thank god the entrepreneurial

spirit of the american people is winning out and overcoming all of the burdens placed on it by you obama administration. if i am president i want to be the ally of entrepreneurs and job creators. i want to make america the best place again to grow and thrive. when coca-cola, an american icon says that the business environment in china is more friendly than the business environment in america, you know we have a problem. what i would do is almost exactly the opposite of what the president has done. i would end the practice of what i call crony capitalism. what do i mean by that? when the president of the united states begins taking your money to give to his donors that is a problem. and that changes the dynamic of the free enterprise system. so when i say i'm going to take your money and give it to tesla

that is not dead. when the president says i am going to put it into a battery company that is now out of business, that is not good. when he takes $500 million in puts it into cylindrical my that is not good -- solyndra that is not good. my guess is the president wanted to encourage solar energy, and he thought by taking $500 million and giving it as a loan to a company would do that. it did just the opposite. just the opposite. not understanding the private enterprise system explains why he does not understand that. there are 100 and more entrepreneurs in america that have ideas for solar energy. and they are going out trying to get funding for their business, their startup, their business. going to venture capitalists angels, and their parents to try

to get funding. but when the community years that the government has picked a winner and given them $500 million, i guess what happens to all the other businesses? their funding dries up. who wants to give two hundred million dollars to start a little solar company when the government has are given one $500 million? and by the way, they built the taj mahal with that five under million dollars. a big glass corporate headquarters. when i started, i think our corporate headquarters was a stable. we ran the back of a mall. but that is the government, huge money, picking winners and losers and killing entrepreneurialism throughout america. that is the wrong course.

the right course, let the free enterprise work. do not try to guide the market with government interference. it taxes down for employers. our taxes for employers are the highest in the world. you make michigan competitive by getting your tax rate down. america is tied with japan for the highest tax rate for employers in the world, 35%. then there are regulators to see their job as not just finding the bad guys, but also encouraging the good guys. make it more likely that you want to invest. you also have to take advantage of our energy resources, use all of them so that we have an ample supply of energy ourselves and do not have to send hundreds of billions of dollars outside our country buying energy every year. and by the way, put in place that keystone pipeline. that is a no-brainer. what else do you have to do?

china. look, i like free trade. we are a productive nation. we make more stuff per person than any other major economy in the world. that means we want to sell stuff to other countries and open up opportunities to grow. but if someone cheats. if someone steals your patents your ideas your know-how, they get an unfair advantage they did not have to pay for. if they hack into your computer's and steal your future designs, it makes it even worse. if they artificially hold down the value of their currency and therefore make their products artificially cheap and drive you out of business. that is not fair trade. that is unfair trade. s president, i will take china to the carpet and say i will label you a currency manipulator and not let you continue those practices.

like your governor, i think to create jobs, it helps to have had a job, and i have. i spent my life in the private sector. i appreciate how difficult it is to do what you're doing. i love the businesses in this state. i love the auto industry. i want to see it grow. i am delighted it is profitable. in my view, this auto industry can continue to lead the world and must continue to lead the world with a vibrant and prosperous future. but let me tell you, i think this is a campaign about the soul of america. the question is, do we believe

in a vision of america more and more like europe with the governors saying -- government saying we're going to take from some to give to others, and in a situation like that, the only people who do well are the government who do the taking and giving. or do we believe that america is a land of opportunity where free individuals taking a free pass -- free path can lift the future for all? i happen to believe in the latter. the founding father said that among our rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that last phrase referring to the idea that in america, we could pursue happiness as we choose. government would not buy our lives. we would guide our lives. government would not tell us where we could level or how much we would get paid or what we could make.

those were decisions made by free people. america became the place for entrepreneurs and innovators and pioneers from all over the world came. this is the land of opportunity. that is how we out-competed the world. i wish washington understood that. it is not the government cannot make america competitive and prosperous. it is be free capacity of american people to pursue their unhappiness in the way that they choose, to innovate, to pioneer to create. so as i look at the challenges we face, but it out of balance threats around the world, i do not want to have government take a larger and larger role in our lives and a bigger and bigger share of our economy. i want to do what adam smith and the founders of this country recognized was the right course, and give people more freedom. as a private partner. i love the founding principles

of this country. i love the people of america. i'm actually convinced that our future is brighter than our past. i say that because of our education, our skills, our innovative spirit, our passion for america. i happen to believe that if we have a president and leaders who will tell the truth, and you will live with integrity and to understand the economy, having lived in the economy and you will draw on the patriotism of the american people, that america will overcome the challenges we have, that we will remain the hope of the earth. and i intend to be that kind of president with your help. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. [applause]

>> that includes another chamber event. we will see you at the next event. >> please stay in the room another few minutes while the governor prepares to depart. >> thank you.

>> thank you again for joining us today. we hope you had a great time. this was a wonderful experience for all of us. have a wonderful afternoon and a great day.

>> the associated press reports that in the contest for the republican nomination for president, the delegate count stands at 1234 mitt romney, 72 for rick santorum, 32 for newt gingrich and 194 ron paul. 1144 delegates are needed to receive the nomination for president. you can go to c-span.org to watch the latest video of the republican candidate and president obama read what the candidates political reporters and people like you are saying about the presidential race on facebook and twitter. all of that and more at c- span.org/campaign 2012.

in a few moments, a preview of the supreme court arguments on the constitutionality of the health care law. in a little more than an hour and a half, we will be air our road to the white house coverage of campaign stops by rick santorum and mitt romney. several live events tamara to tell you about. the house armed services committee -- tomorrow to tell you about. the house armed services committee holds a hearing on the budget requests. also, president obama will speak about the economy and jobs at the boeing plant in washington. >> in 1966, and julian bond was prevented from taking his elected seats in the georgia state house after state representatives voted not to seat him to to his stance against the vietnam war. his appeal went to the supreme court. >> i went to the court to hear the argument, and i was sitting in the court just behind the bar

with the lawyers in front of me, and i was sitting with my lawyers partner, and the attorney general of georgia was making the argument that georgia had a right to throw me out because i had said things that were treasonous and judicious. i think it was judge white who said to him is this all you have? [laughter] he said, you come up here and this is all you have? i said, we are winning, aren't we? >> discover more during black history month in c-span-3 and online at the c-span library. search and share from over 25 years of c-span programming. >> the supreme court next month will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the new health care law. up next, a preview of the case,

focusing on the mandate for citizens to buy health insurance. panelists include attorneys who have argued on opposite sides of the case in lower courts. this discussion is a little more than an hour and a half. >> good morning. i am with bloomberg law. i am pleased to welcome you to a supreme court argument briefing co-sponsored by bloomberg lot andaw and scotus log. since the president signed the affordable care act into law, it has been challenged numerous times, and culminating now before the supreme court. this morning we hope to explore some of the arguments underpinning the case. i now have the distinct honor of introducing lyle dennioson of

scotus blog. he has been covering the supreme court should -- supreme court and has reported on the entire careers on the bench of 10 justices. it is also to be noted that he is not an attorney. but he is the author of the reporter and the law techniques of covering the court. it is published by columbia university press and it is still available. welcome. [applause] >> good morning. we're glad you are here. if you were not here, we would not be. contrary to the perceptions of some of my colleagues in the pressroom, i was not around when the steamboat monopoly case was

decided beginning the exploration of the commerce clause, and i would note that that is one case in which all clemens did not appear. i was however not very far behind when theodore roosevelt began exploring the possibility of a care lot in the early 1900's. i can a long after that. my task is not to discuss the case but to give you some outlines of the logistics of what is going to be happening. the first thing that i would tell you for sure is settled is that justice case kagan and thomas will participate in the

case. there have been repeated discussions about whether one or both of them should disqualify themselves. there is one case urging justice kagan to refuse. there have been opportunities for them to refuse and they have not done so. it is perfectly acceptable that they will continue to participate. there will not be in a live television coverage of the oral arguments in late march. there is a request. i do not believe there is any possibility that there will be live coverage. one other thing that is settled is the court has completed the briefing schedule but not all are in yet. i did a count last night in the press during -- pressroom.

there are 93 briefs. there are still more briefs to come including tomorrow i think it is due tomorrow on the server ability question. some issues that are almost settled are how much time there will be for the oral argument. they are committed to pipeline five hours but the parties have asked for another half hour. we presume we will see an order from the court asking for the competing allocation of time request. there probably will not be a safe date release of the

audiotapes made. the current chief justice has a policy that he prefers not to release any idea taste on the same day of the hearing. now the common practice is to release all of the audio tapes on the front of the argument. the daily press has lost interest by that time. there could be a change in policy for that case. it treats this case differently. the court has some of the filings in the case of the website. the court also has set aside 5.5

hours of argument for this case. i would urge you to not overlook the anti induction issue. this is one of the issues for the main street press. it tends to fall over division. there is a mandate. i would like to take up a few issues. most importantly, the birth control mandate is not an issue before the court now.

they publish the regulation where it stands as a legal matter. it will require insurance companies to provide care. i would also like to address one major issue. this is the equivalent. it has been suggested that perhaps i should offer a prediction as to how it should come out. the following panel could be

very informative. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. in the publisher of a blog. we are grateful for those who are watching streaming or three c-span. everybody understands the case that are about to hear on the act. there are incredibly well meaning people on both sides of the case. one small point of privilege is that i have a dog in this fight as a lawyer. i want to make clear that my job here has nothing to do with that. it is simply to facilitate the folks who will do the talking.

we have produced a media guide for the folks who are here. you can find links to the bias in the back. we can give you a little bit of backgrounds about each compliment. he is a former solicitor general. half the states have sued the constitutionality of the statute. he's arguing every case. eking compass at least 10 of the oral arguments. michael carbon is a partner at the bankrupt.

he is a partner at jones day. he is the former deputy head of the office of legal counsel. they have a principal lawyer for the plaintiffs. they have been formulating the legal strategy. they have been involved in the massifmatter involving the business community and a lot of conservative issues. my last is the former acting general. he argued a most of the cases in the court of appeals as this was being litigated. he is now co-head of the super practice which is an international law firm.

he is regarded at the very least among the same generation as the leading democratic lawyer. keela is a professor at yale university. he regarded fairly as one of of the five ones in america today. a particular, my own view. rather than gravitating toward esoteric action gravitating toward the importance and clear beer ithear.

we are here to talk about cases as the whole. we will have a question appeared at the end. it goes on to ask about them, you are welcome to do so. you could talk about this for 5.5 hours. we have less than that. we're going to focus on the core of its. i have urged the panelists to engage other and not call back. none are known as shrinking violets and that should not be a problem. they really should cut to the heart of the matter. and lots of folks know it had bought the case. a lot of folks will not know as much about it.

if i could just ask paul to set the table with a brief description of what the individual mandate is. >> i will give it a try. i think neal of have a different way of describing its. this has generated the most controversy. there is the individual mandates. it requires with one in two minor qualifications, them to maintain health insurance. it is the act when you're putting together this. they have to do other insurance reforms including to make sure it is available to everybody and

then you have not be denied insurance. they have run into problems. one state tried it with an individual mandate that was perceived as more successful. i do not think it was preceded by everybody. it was the only way to accomplish it. there were earlier versions of the act that more affirmatively embraced the taxing authority. it included an individual mandate. it gives rise to the individual issue. this is really completely unique depending on your perspective. there have been a lot of crises in the country where congress

might have thought that forcing individuals toward a particular good or service might be useful. the government never did it. it has resonated with me. it is compelled purchase would have even been more effective regulation. it has incentives for people by giving them the incentives. it would have been much more proficient to simply say that everybody over a certain income level had to buy a car. the government never seen fit to do that directs requirement.

it gives rise to the basic issue to the governments. i think they can see this. many suggest it is a fairly straightforward regulation. the challengers. to the nature of the imposition. there is the government's seeming inability to eliminate a principal such as can engage in this regulation. in a nutshell, i hope that this response of the setting the table. >> thank you for this wonderful

event. i'm glad to be here with all of you. it i am not here now representing the government. i agree with a large part of what paul said. let me fleshed out exactly what congress is doing. it did not understand why this existed until i started getting really into the argument. congress is reacting to a problem with it the people uninsured. a large part of that has to be conditions. if you're in one job they have other employers were to do. this person has high risk and so on. 50 million people are uninsured.

conagra said we will eliminate the discrimination and insist that everyone be rated a certain level and the community. once insurance companies are told you have to do this at a fair cross-section, then everyone could wait to buy them until they got sick. that way you economize on their costs. that will create a massive adverse selection problems. they tried to reform the insurance market. what congress did is they said they would have an individual mandates so everyone has to have a certain amount of insurance. right now congress bounce every

american -- found every american family that pays health insurance pays $1,000 extra for those who are uninsured. that is really what congress was saying. it is approximately 18% of gdp. it is a comprehensive regulation. why did the government do this with respect to the automobile industry? that is not a situation in which she can show up at the car lot a drive off with a car and stick the bill to your neighbor. that is what is going on in the health insurance market. the uninsured and uni and are paying for health insurance are paying for them.

that is an economic effect that israel -- and you and i are paying for the health insurance for them. that is an economic effect that israel. >> is called insurance different in a way that explains how they could impose a mandate here but not in some other contact? >> no. he is always wrong for three reasons. he missed described congress's purpose. this comes straight from this. what we're trying to do is prevent the insured from subsidizing the uninsured. it is the opposite. what you're trying to do is conscripts individuals to buy insurance before and makes any sense for them to do it. it requires insurance companies

to give it to all of the sick people. you counterbalanced by bringing in to people whose insurance some plea makes money. -- simply makes money. how much subsidy coming in from the individual mandates. 28 to $39 billion a year. you are taking a bunch of how the third year olds except for a catastrophic insurance. the only peoplestymied what that is a 30 year old. -- the only time you what that is a 30 old. they say have to buy the contraceptive and wellness programs and things that'll do you a whole lot of good. why do we do that tax what your insurance money.

as for the adverse selection problem, there is an 11 month time period you have a certain opportunity to buy insurance. what kind of person will sit there and say i really need insurance but i'm going to become a casino gamblers. i will be able to buy insurance on the way to the emergency room. cbo did not score it appeared there was not a line of testimony trying to document what causes this election. we can disagree about the policies and economics. what difference does it make. the court is not want to second guess what is beneficial for congress. congress is the one that makes

the power. heat bacon come up with ever policy differences they think are important are what unique aspects. once congress has the ability compelling duty by the one is there. congress has the power. but congress has the power that is the proper role. of the government tries to build these economic reasons while allowing this case, it is not unique. they can require you to buy a car. we impose all kinds of restrictions on the car company that drive up the cost of cars. just like the nondiscrimination

provisions strive of the cost of provision. if congress is allowed to force tankers to the provision there is no reason in the world that they cannot do it just like they can do it and the health care context. as the justice department has been unable to show, congress has the power to serve the public welfare to improve congress, a game over. they can do it for banks and anyone else they want. >> among your reactions, both paul and michael have said that there is no limiting principle. is there no limit in principle or does it matter? >> the most important decision

that the supreme court ever issued is mccullough versus maryland. the take them seriously everything that they said is clearly wrong. clearly. here is what john marshall says. the argument is that this creates a

torts reform. my wife is a physician and we have been sued in malpractice. my brother has been sued. i do not like this as a matter of policy. if you do not, roll them out. we voted for president obama and his party and they said they were going to do this. that is what they did. if he did not like it, we will have another presidential election contest. the limiting principle is that they are taxing us. they are making us pay. if they do a cash for clunkers, i do not think they will because there is no room for it. we do not need constitutional lawyers and judges pulling principles out of thin air to

limit the ability of congress to pass a loss on cash for clunkers requiring you to buy a car. congress will not do it. there's not a need for its. if they do do it, i want to see why they do it. there maybe a reason for it. mike talked about construction. -- conscription. let me read you the language of a law that george washington find his name to appear in. it is this sufficient bayonet and bill. they had a knapsack and bill. does not less than 24 cartridges. if you're 30 years old, you do not need a health insurance

policies unless you're going to get hit by a truck. they're subsidizing older folks. welcome to social security. in denver people may be going in. there's nothing unconstitutional about that. to be will roll back 70 years of progressive legislation. on conscription, the next attack could very well be biological. the germ warfare. everyone will need vaccines. viruses do not respect state lines. two years agotoday is social security means everyone needs to have vaccines. they are more likely to have it if they are required to have insurance. >> i wanted to make sure, there

are too arguable constitutional basis for the statutes that have been discussed. the three be taught about the commerce clause. he has put on the table that there is another power that can be used to justify the statutes. it has blown a little bit hot and cold. can you address the question of whether this is a tax so that even if it worked not with within the power it is within the taxing power? >> mike will probably supplement them. there is this arguments that even if this is not on the individual mandate under the power that congress expressed he said it was exercised. and nonetheless might be supported by the exercise of

congressional power that at least the president said was not being used here. that is the taxing power. in some respects, i think the simplest answer to that argument and to his point about mccullough which i embrace. here is the thing. the simple reason why the mandate is not a tax is because it was not labeled as a tax. it does not operate the way a normal tax does. it is clearly something different. we have not described how the tax does that. >> there is no tax. >> what this does, the mandate is a requirement that every individual say people that are incarcerated in people that are native americans have a separate

plan. everybody else has to get health insurance. there is a separate provision which is penalty that operates as a penalty against those who do not buy insurance. that penalty, which is a little bit closer than the mandate does not apply to everybody to him the mandate applies. there are a lot of people virtually all the low income people that are subject to the mandate. they're not subject to penalty if they don't. it is not the principal focus. it is not the mandate that really has everybody else says. this is to the point from the call-up.

what the chief justice said is that the taxing power is brought power and that once you have the government exercising the taxing power there will not be a lot in court to limit the power and get the taxes too high for that it is some doubt impermissible. all that is fair. the limit on the taxing power has to be structural and has to be people who are the taxpayers. that is as likely what the people said. that is why in earlier versions congress come slatedcontemplated something. the people did speak. the people who passed this law

and congress knew full well there not the votes to do this. they use the mandate. it is a sneaky tax. it is not on any group of people you'd otherwise rationally say to be subject to a tax like people who are high income people are people who engage in certain transactions such are risky. all of that might make sense from a logical taxing policy. it taxes what your people you and not logically want to tax reasonable help the recently unpeople who do not have a lot of spare income. they are inclined to save their money.

it has a lot of assets of the tax. it does not have the one thing that chief justice marshall said is critical, the kind of up front accountability that allows the structural process to work. he said we could start a serious conversation if we had an answer for why this is different from taxing people and taking things from some people in giving them to others. i think the short answer is that this is completely different. there's a lot of accountability in being very clear about to is getting the benefits of the tax. a group of insurance companies who otherwise would protest long and hard against a new impositions that are implicit in the insurance reforms were basically quiet it.

an effective subsidy was devised for they got all this money on the backs of relatively healthy individuals. it would not have passed. >> i absolutely agree with every word he said. anything that congress can tax and take and give to an individual, congress can require one individual to pay for another. since congress can pay for somebody's insurance premiums and can require you to pay for this person's insurance premium. we all agree there is no constitutional limits in principle want to give congress the ability to take it for me and give it to you. this is the honesty of the

political process. somebody ran for president and said hillary clinton, i am opposed to an individual mandates. bill not raise it on anyone with the west into a $50,000 a year. he could not endorse the individual mandate and impose taxes. the big difference is the tax system does apply to all americans or should. everyone to accomplicesh,. this, we need to do for the greater societal good. if you are forcing people to engage in a public good, at the public as a whole should pay for its. that is how we have done it if we require hospitals for people

with their normal charitable instincts. this is all we're asking for. if congress wants to force one private citizen to help other people for obvious charitable reasons, is terrific. what you do not do is then not pay for it. what you do not do is make that take the entire tax. if we think it is so important to get protections against insurance discriminations for pre-existing conditions, terrific. that is a policy choice. we have to pay for it. the cannot ask someone to pay for the other insurance premiums. >> i think you can read this until you are blue in your face.

you'll never find the principle. that is that congress has to somehow face it. but she is saying is that the great check is the political process generally. i do not think anyone was foaledfoldoled that this was a tax and therefore constitutional. the way that you sign up for health insurance you have to report it on your 1040 tax form and pay a penalty. you are reminded that this is a tax. the way that it is calculated is that it looks to a percentage of your gross incomes. it looks and smells like a tax.

congress founded functions like a tax that will raise money. the cbo found it will raise $19 billion and putting it in the federal coffers. it is in the heartland of the power. iti do not think it is as much about the tax power as what is the real check against these worries that my friends have pointed to. isogloss school in the early 1990's. i thought -- i went to law school in the early '90s. i thought it was a great idea do we get this stuff done. i am struck by the change. it is now striking legislation down. they cannot get their victories through the political process. >> the challenge has been laid

down by paul and michael. i want to make sure whether we agreed on it. they say that under the view of the defenders of the statute there is no nonpolitical limiting principle. there is nothing that you could go to a judge and say this mandate is unconstitutional. is that right that's correct that is absolutely wrong. -- is that right? >> that is absolutely wrong. >> it is important to appreciate lawyers. the governor would not come in and say here are limiting principles and close the future congress from something they might decide is necessary on all sorts of situations that we cannot anticipate right now.

the government job is often to say here is what the heartland of our claim is. those cases are for down the road. if they wanted to the principles are fairly easy to articulate. the bill of rights cuts and a structural power -- in any structural power. it will reduce health-care costs. the privacy will preclude the government from acting in that way. the second principle is that they limit this. these are the courses and 1995 and tothat would strange the government. the government takes them seriously. the most important limiting principle is this. when congress is asking to solve a truly national problem that is one in which the states are

separately confident to fall, that is one is at its effigy. congress found that when any individual state like massachusetts ties to reform the health insurance market, and tries to reform the health insurance market, other states will come in and swat the markets. states often will not enact legislation to deal with the problem. they do not want to come back for the uninsured. the only way to solve this crisis is a truly national solution. >> i read you a passage from apollo where he was talking about a tax power. --; mccullough or he was talking about a tax power. there are two different bases for what is constitutional, taxation and interstate commerce. they have to be right about both. we just have to be right about

one or the other. there are at least three different clubs that argued the tax. the constitution does not use the magic word of tax. sometimes it is excises or revenue. the word "revenue" is in. it is titled 26. it is the internal revenue code enforced by the internal revenue service. cbo says it will raise 100 billion overall. it will lower the cost by $100 billion. it will be revenue positive. it is passed by the house and senate under specific internal rules but only apply to revenue measures. if you do not pay income taxes at all the mandate does not apply for the tax form.

if you want to look at the word tax, if you think that is important they understand it is a tax -- the word taxable taxation, a tax payer appeared 34 times in section 26 which is the relevant section. what are the limits that it really has to be a revenue measure. it is. they understand this. on commerce, it passed to actually regulates to act as a whole. it has to really be trying to solve a problem of interstate commerce. it has to be an interstate spillover problem. one problem is the welfare magnet program -- problem that neal pointed out.

you have a job now. you are worth more to the economy. they're willing to pay you more. we have to be paid by the system. they are not their highest. if they do not pay for you you're not going to want to travel. i do not know the answer. every monday i am in new york. if i fall sick, and they will take me to a new york emergency room. i hope they will take care of me there. new york is paying for a connecticut person. that will not be fair and must

actually have insurance. you need to provide for emergency room care so people will be guilt free to travel interstate. the need to make sure that people have insurance so some states are not taking advantage of others. this individual mandate itself need not actually regulate interstate commerce. it needs to be a part of a comprehensive thing as a whole. this is what's they explicitly said in the case. you look at if the law as a whole tries to solve the interstate problems. >> that really puts handcuffs on congress. we have been listening to 20 minutes of this. do you know what congress has to do? the regulation does not have to do anything with congress. as long as to attach it to a

bill that is ok. >> did it its due. did it its due. it is not just attached to something. it is part of an integrated scheme. that does not make it constitutional. explain why it is right to say there is a spill that has five pieces that worked together. one of them is an individual mandate. what we do is assess the constitutionality weather them getting away with the statute as a whole. -- rather than getting away with the statute as a whole. >> i am not sure i really heard one. i think akhil give a great

defense on why this might be in interstate commerce. in doing so, he laid out an argument that would apply to almost every commodity. >> but those are the limiting principles. >> when i asked for my limiting principle, i pointed to [inaudible] that has nothing to do with this particular power. this power is unique, the power to compel people into commerce. that power is what does not have a limiting bridge. there is really no commerce that i cannot foresee to engage in on the theory that could then be easier for the federal government to regulate for the broader commerce. >> the basis for the regulation is not the individual mandate. there is an individual mandate. this is one way. >> maybe we should transition into the question tom asked

mike. your point is that you do not have to show really anything about the interstate commerce or individual mandate as long as it is a broader regulatory structure that regulates congress. we take issue with that. >> your initial statement of the fax, twice he said - -facts, you said "a critical part" of a comprehensive plan to deal with a genuine interstate problem that no individual state can handle. john marshall had no problem with that. >> every word you emphasized in that sentence are the kind of words that the supreme court will prefer to. it is genuine. in the next context, it is all

caps exclamation point "genuine." >> i'm sitting at home in my living room. i am not buying insurance. how can they force me to enter into the stream of commerce? this is not like them growing wheat where he is producing a product that is an distinguishable from they predict which is indistinguishable from the interstate product. -- a product that is indistinguishable from the interstate product. how am i a problem one maywhen i make a choice not to buy insurance? they can still require insurance companies not to discriminate against people with pre- existing conditions.

i am a solution to the problem congress has created. every time congress rises up with a regulated company they can say it is sobbing and interstate commerce problem. -- it is solving an interstate commerce problem. maybe i have a right not to eat broccoli. i can sure make you buy it. i am making two points. one is the limiting principle. this is unique in our prudence. every other person has been regulating an impediment to the congressional scheme at the interstate level. they have abandoned the distinguishing characteristics between interstate and intrastate.

they can get local bootleggers his liquor never crosses state lines. the question is can they get it people who decided i do not want any part of the liquor business tax you will help it if you start making the buy wine -- and to not want any part of the liquor business? you will help it if the start making them by wine. >> he is doing something that affects the national economy. that is what the government is saying. that is what congress is saying. the failure to buy it is different. everyone could get this. >> what does that give rise to a limiting printable? the problem is that people were sitting in their living room and

they were not buying cars. that was a problem. >> what congress is saying is that health care is different than the buying of cars. everyone needs health care and those costs are externalize of people right now. maybe you can make that argument. i do not quite think so. you cannot predict when you will get struck by cancer or heart attack or get appendicitis. let me finish. this is something that is a product that everyone is going to buy. congress reaction is not the failure to buy but the failure to pay for it. health care is going to be consumed by everyone inevitably including mike as he sits on the couch in his living room. congress found those costs aggregated mean that each american family spends $1,000

per year extra. that is across state lines. maybe he can tell the story with other markets. i do not quite think so. >> even if you are right and we can debate the tax that the health care -- the facts why does that limit any principal? if the the supreme court says you can regulate this into the power and is a decision not to purchase health care and has a profound market, why does it mean the next time congress tries to do this with the sec same theory that it is making it a pain to regulate that particular market so we will make you buy its? the next time it'll be cars. some people do not buy cars. they walk. why will that make one bit of difference under the structure

of the argument that the government is making? >> you are truly the best lawyer of a generation. it cannot win this case no one can. i do not think you can because the power congress is seeking -- congress is forcing someone to buy something they would not otherwise by. what congress is saying is that everyone is glad to buy health care. they're going to use health care in consume it. what they're doing is regulating the financing of its. they can easily right in opinion that say that health care is a market that is different than any other markets because of that and because of the demonstrate a cost that occur across state lines. >> healthcare is very distinct because everyone needs to have it and will have it at some point. that is not a direct the states.

it has to solve an interstate spillover problem. there are cases which the supreme court said congress went too far and established a limit. we are on the correct side of those cases. lopez and morrison are cases where there reynaud interstate problems. -- where there were more interstate problems. people in one state were opposing cost of people in another. >> of me ask you to respond to this. what congress is doing is saying that you cannot pay for health care with your own money. you are going to have to pay for with insurance. what michael says you make a rational economic decision not to buy health care, he is talking about an economic choice that is being made by

individuals. fundamentally, the decision not to use insurance is being regulated by congress. is that a limiting principal? >> no. every time you decide not to buy a product, whether it is books or school curriculum or any kind of traditional thing -- i making a purely economic. if you want me to i will. cars are economic. you are going to buy health insurance is the premise of is that it. you are going to buy its. we will tell you how you are

going to buy it. you're going to pay their this with their insurance. it is different telling you how it is that you have to buy health care. it is a when you get health care, you'll pay for with insurance rather than -- how is that different? >> i have decided to self move or a scooter or a cap or an airplane. we are just telling you which way you decide to engage in transportation. it is not a limiting principle. this is the only market most americans will go into. the labor market, however, fell into the labor market perrin. it is predictable than 95 simmel gone to the labor market.

>> this was about as interested in market as you can get. this is not the theory. it is thought have anything to do with economic activity. growing wheat for your on props on your own land and having marijuana in your own basement for your own use affects the interstate market. do you know what facts they were probably right. i do not know how you distinguish between homegrown wheat and homegrown marijuana.

we lost that battle in the 1930's. >> this is why i think your example backfire. our point is that it demonstrates the precise limits that they were separately confidence to deal with guns. there is no spillover about one individual states deals with the gun problem. by contrast, health care is one in which one state does is,. if you can tell your story by which neighbors do not get stuck the same way with bills maybe congress can tell the story and it may be something that is constitutional down the road. >> we've it to a genius to come up with an interstate food market theory.

-- leave it to a genius to come up with an interstate food market theory. you came up with this by saying you're modeling after massachusetts. it is a thing that were perfectly. perfectly. by your own definition, it is not a problem at the state level and you are opening of a cathedral about the -- >> massachusetts supports the solution that did not work effectively because it was -- >> because you can't have your cake and eat it, too. [talking over each other] let's see if anyone agrees with this rationale. if insurance companies have to insure people after their houses are burned down, it raises rates. i am not saying it is a wrong charitable decision to make, but to say it won't drive premiums

through the roof is crazy. the patient protection was protecting six people against discrimination by insurance companies. what made it affordable was having healthy individuals offset the premiums that the companies suffered a. -- suffered. >> vote against it. >> it has to do with your false assertion that this is a unique factual scenario where congress is never going to be able to cobble together a nexus. every time somebody doesn't pay someone, costs are shifted. other customers and absorbed the costs. it is not a limit in principle. -- limiting principle. >> they want you to think that there is something distinctively

dangerous and problematic about a mandate to buy a private supplier. how do we test that idea? we don't see any particular concern about that. they have come up with that, but you won't find it in any supreme court case. it is not in the constitution that it is a special concern. it is exactly like -- the corporation is somehow very bad. john marshall says there is nothing particularly problematic about a corporation. like there is nothing particularly problematic about a mandate to buy -- hold on. >> they would say there is not a big concern about this because there has never been a statute that requires somebody to purchase something. >> every state requires you to

get insurance before you go on the road, because otherwise, you are exporting costs, it is a mandate to support costs. this is proof of the following point, that there is nothing particularly problematic about this. states do it all the time. they do it for cars. massachusetts doesn't, connecticut does it. you are imposing risk of cost of other drivers. car insurance, there is other insurance, too. >> their point as i take it is that this is something that the state should be doing. i don't think they will be persuaded by saying that states do things like this. is there a federal statute to give them their due?

is there a federal statute that requires you to purchase a product? >> is the act of 1792. >> you could have been given the guns. >> you can be given a health insurance policy. it is exactly the same all the way down. one, there is nothing wrong in principle with the government. government requires you to buy something. the government's view that all the time. now, the federal government can't do everything that state governments can do. it is limited in certain ways, and that is where the word that begins with enter and ends with state comes in. there is nothing wrong with a mandate. for insurance and cars, the only question is whether that very traditional governmental tool that has been in operation for a

hundred years is a sensible tool to deal with the distinctly federal problem where people in 1 states are imposing costs on people in other states. that is the interest a problem to be solved with this traditional regulatory tool. i am well, how are you? >> and you want me to respond to the militia act? >> on the question on whether there is a limit in principle you agree that congress could have done this if they were right about us being attacked. i also guess that you agree that congress could require that before you actually consume health services, you require

health insurance at the point of sale, you're going into the hospital, that sort of thing. does that cut into the concern of limited principle and if they can accomplish this through other means? >> it suggests that there is a limit in principle that you can't do this through an individual mandate. it suggests that there are other ways that would be more politically accountable for congress to accomplish these objectives, which i think is important. there is a health care policy debate that i am happy to wade into to the extent necessary to argue this case. there are people talking about the health care market and have dedicated their lives to studying health care. and to the extent that they honestly believe that this series of requirements is necessary. they should take great comfort in the fact that there is a way for congress to accomplish this.

you can't have the shortcut of the individual mandate. that is a really important principle, and to make two points it really is important to distinguish between the mandate and the penalty. because if you decide you're not going to buy health insurance he will pay a penalty if you are not exempt from the penalty, and a lot of people are. that is something that you will have to do on april 15. you don't see the premium which is really what congress wants. they want you to get compliant health care. and you're not going to write a check to the irs on april 15. he will write a check to an insurance company, and to the extent that it is really a tax it is really pernicious.

when we try to figure out this huge budget mess, we will start by looking at what the tax revenues are and government expenditures. to have something that is really a tax that will be completely off of that budget, people are taxed to whatever level they are at forced to buy a product that they don't want, but if they are forced to buy it, they might as well have its. you'll have this whole thing kind of off-budget. i don't think that is what the framers had in mind. >> called a tax? it is unconstitutional because you end up buying the insurance? >> as michael suggests, it will be distributed in a different way more broadway. -- broad way. >> at least it would be on-

budget and i think it would be better. i can't resist saying something about the militia act of 1792, because i do think it is different. congress was given the power to raise a standing army and can certainly be argued that the militia act was pursuant to that power. it is important for two reasons. congress is given the power to raise armies and regulate. it was recognized that those were separate things. the power to raise an army was very controversial. the power to regulate and army wanted was raised was not controversial at all. by contrast, if you look at the commerce clause which gives congress the power to regulate commerce. it assumes that there was actual commerce ongoing that congress had the authority to

regulate. that was the power because it assumed congress to be regulated that was not controversial of all. if you go back to the minds of the framers and causing the idea that they really thought the congress hall clause was brought and if empowered compelling people and congress in order to regulate, the whole constitutional history would be different. we would have had he amendments at the framing in order to control this really brought potentially dangerous powered to compel people to engage -- >> i want to make sure that we have time for questions. >> all the arguments against the act, there is a lack of political accountability, it is somehow stolen to the unsuspecting night and seems to be the weakest.

i think paul's concession, i understand if they did it using the word tax a few more times it would be constitutional and really cuts the legs out from under them and comes to a point about unlimited government. they say as long as they do it with the word tax more than 32 times somehow it makes it constitutional. and we are haggling over how many times they have to say it. >> i am saying you can accomplish the same objective by raising everyone's taxes and providing a direct subsidy to the health insurance industry and end up with the same public policy result, guaranteed issue, community rating, and everybody paying for it. >> i misunderstood you. >> there is no difference between requiring people to do

something directly and creating financial incentives to do so. their entire argument on medicaid as we are not forcing states, we're just giving them a strong financial incentives to do it. >> we have 20 minutes left, let me make sure that we have the opportunity to ask questions. i think we have microphones available. here we go. if you could just introduce yourself. >> i have two questions that have not been addressed by this rather lively debate. the first is, if this is a tax collected by the irs and can be

characterized as a tax, why is it not covered? a therefore putting the case of until 2015 or something like that? my second question, i would like you each, at least one of you to address the question of supper ability and why if you lose any part of this case, the rest of the statute should stand or should not stand. >> let me ask neal first. is that ok? >> i don't remember all the details, it could be close to those two. the first problem of the question is you refer to its as yet. but it is important to distinguish between the mandate and the penalty that enforces the mandate. it looks a little like a tax and is what is collected by the irs.

the challenge focuses on the mandates. most people, if they were rational they are not going to stubbornly said that i am not going to buy health insurance anyways because the tax penalty is key to the amount of the premium you would otherwise pay. most people will make the rational choice that if i have to buy insurance for mss -- asses a -penalty, people will pay . >> assume that the statute is of the -- upheld. does it run into the anti- injunction act. >> it is not a problem because the principal challenges the mandate. it creates an important difference for understanding the anti-injunction act.

it basically says if you are a taxpayer and you are upset about a tax that you think is unconstitutional you have an option that most people don't. most of the time, you face an obligation from the government. you can comply or brain a pre- enforcement challenge. i can pay the taxes and get a refund and to litigate that way. once i pay my premiums to the insurance company i can't get a refund from them. the anti and judgment act -- anti injunction act is still a non sequitur. one of them, i will give you too. how long line of supreme court cases that don't interpret it in a way that making it seem jurisdictional.

they make it seem like it is a defense that the government can raise and also waive the defense. i have created exceptions. the government and to the private parties and the states all agree that the anti- injunction act should not apply. they don't have to reach it if the court agrees it is not jurisdictional. we have arguments as to why the anti injunction act would apply to the states no matter what. >> if the individual mandate goes down, does the rest of the statute have to fall apart? got to the government has taken the position that if the individual mandate falls only a few provisions would be apt to fall the insurance market reforms and community ratings. the theory is what i outlined at the beginning of the hour together that the reason why

the individual mandate was put in was to deal with the adverse selection problems from the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions in the act. some folks have said, there are 24 pages of the act have to fall including things like funding for abstinence education. i think people think is a tough argument to have the entire act fall to make sure that there is no clause in the legislation that is what gives that argument some teeth. alone, it is not this positive. >> is there a question of what falls apart if the mandate goes down? >> i don't think reasonable people can disagree that the individual mandate is tied inextricably to the guaranteed

issue and community ratings provisions. the two provisions that gave the patients the most protection or the guarantee issue and no ban on pre-existing conditions. the thing that made it affordable again was massive subsidy. once you have taken away both pillars of the act, once you have ripped the heart and lungs out of the body, it can't matter if the figures continue to move. it matters if they move in the way that congress intended. it is no way that you can possibly say that the rest of the act is ok. i suppose you can take the anti- competitive provisions out and still have an anti-trust division that can function. but it can function in a manner that congress intended. this is particularly true of this act because we know it was

a series of compromises and if pulling out any one part was going to do them, pulling out the biggest car will doom the whole thing. >> rather than killing the whole tamoxifen, it would be to say if it is all about the fact that they use the word revenue rather than tax it would be obviously ok. we write a the statute so that wherever it's as revenue it says tax and people have political accountability. that is what other cases have done. marshall and the fact, rewrites one clause of section 13 of the original judiciary act. if the whole point is that people need to understand that the supreme court can make that clear, one other very important

fang, we talked about an individual mandate. strictly speaking, you can simply pay instead. it is not a lawbreaker if you choose for philosophical or other reasons not to buy the insurance. >> of the statute is structured in such a way that paying the penalty is not in compliance with the mandate. the mandate continues. >> strike that part down, read the statute so that it is clear that as long as you pay the penalty, you are in compliance. it is a very nice holding. >> i don't care if they call it a tax penalty, or banana. it is a mandate to do something and if you don't do it, you are in violation of federal law.

if a ban cigarettes in the united states tomorrow and said that the enforcement mechanism is a for dollar penalty for every pact to sell, everyone knows the difference of the impact of cigarettes. and the government conceded that if there is any distinction between a tax and something else it is not a payment for an un-lawful act. if they had said the, you can have guns within 1,000 feet of the school in the penalty is a purely monetary penalty that is not a tax because they have made the act of having a gun near a school of unlawful. it is not only from the citizens' perspective, it is from congress's perspective. congress doesn't want people to pay this penalty, i want them to solve the problems that you

folks have articulated all morning. that is why people mandated the purchase of insurance. it is not semantics it is a fundamental distinction between being a lawbreaker and a person that complies with the law that besides the pay their taxes. >> anti-government's position is that to reach the goal of universal coverage, it is necessary to require people to buy private health insurance. earlier this week, 50 medical doctors filed a brief in this case saying that they believe that this mandate is unconstitutional because the government missed an alternative, the single payer that must industrialized countries have. >> i am a libertarian, but

unfortunately, i don't think that the supreme court should judge action by if it is adopted by western europe. is this regulating commerce? it is not remotely involved in commerce, much less commerce among the state to buy a particular product. the powers to congress are completely irrelevant to this decision. >> there are other options including single payer that might be scored differently by the american libertarian association. the fact that they are doable is not irrelevant. this is not an unsolvable problem that this is the only way to go. this is one way to deal with it and it happens to be a way to do it.

if the argument is that they could have called this a tax rather than congress, what is the big deal? who cares if we went on the commerce clause? you should grant us this power because it will not hand as the ability to achieve your policy objectives. really what you are saying is that this is just a two over for congress and this time they have to be honest with the american public during the legislative process and say this is attacks. what is the big deal? i don't happen to believe that, but if that is their position that seems to be a strong strike against their argument, not in favor of it. >> another question? >> barbara perkins, crs. what is the basis of the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional? >> the court has made clear that you have to go back to first principles. federal government is inherently

different from the states because the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. if you enter the commerce power to essentially give them to brett of power that the state's -- breadth of power that the states have come out that in power is to say that the standing alone is wrong. much greater than the commerce power -- i start with the text saying that this is not regulating commerce. even if there is ambiguity with that, we know that is going to be wrong, because if anything is visibly truth from this month, is that there is no limit in principle. congress can treat citizens like they treat militias, which is not a whole lot of limiting principle, and bill of rights would prevent states from doing this. that just means that the feds and states have precisely the same power. that is what the limit in principle conversation is so important. >> as the court has said you should not get up to on on

whether the limiting principle -- the court has said repeatedly it that as long as it is within the enumerated powers the ends are legitimate, there is a means by which the court will defer to congress. why not have a $5,000 minimum wage and punished if you don't pay it by the death penalty? you could come up with a certain samples -- with absurd examples. every government power can be taken to the extreme. do you really want the federal court to be adjudicating these questions on the basis of observe hypotheticals? the court said from mcculloch on no, absolutely not.

>> you can to the same thing with the income tax. they do not concede that there is a living principle. mike said that, i emphatically disagree. he does not want me to keep repeating it. the limit in principle on the commerce clause is about whether commerce among the states -- congress has to be legitimately trying to address a genuine problem between the states where no single state can actually solve the problem on its sound because of spillover effects of one the state passed a policy on another state, positive or negative. you give insurance to one state with health care and you become a welfare magnet. we have one system to deal with the welfare magnet problem certain social security, other state workers' compensation. the limit in principle under the commerce clause is that congress has to act to be tried to address the problem that

individual states are not able to handle on their own. >> i just want to make a comment, because when i went to law school in the 1980's, i spent a lot of time talking about that, and i don't remember ever talking about no limiting principles other than interstate constraints and the bill of rights. how can the supreme court decided based on its president? >> there is an obvious distinction between regulating small producers of the product and the congress that passed the law in the 1930's, instead of telling mr. silver he could not grow wheat, if they told every american to buy wheat. that would have addressed the problem and not more directly

than harassing poor mr. filburn. the fact that congress has never done this before, even during, as tall pointed out, at times of extreme national emergency standing alone it is the indication that they never had the power, and the difference between filburn and my clients is the difference between a local bootlegger and teetotaler. it is far more to require somebody to purchase a product than it to limit their ability to produce the product among interstate. >> in wickard, these were situations where people are not doing anything at all. she was not engaged in interstate commerce when she was trying to grow marijuana in her backyard. as justice scalia said, as long as that regulation on marijuana was part of a comprehensive national solution, it would be

constitutional. here the same structure of the argument applies, that there is this one apart, the individual mandate, a overall reform to the health insurance market, and it is constitutional, and you cannot slice and dice and say that that little provision is unconstitutional. you have to look at the overall structure, figure out what congress is reacting to, and defer accordingly. that is what the supreme court has done and why they have an extremely hard case. >> you offered -- you have heard all this talk about the limits, lopez, morrison, we think we are on the correct side of these cases. they basically draw the line between congress and trying to solve a problem that really does spell over across the state's, an economic problem and congress can regulate that.

there really is an interstate market in drugs. situations where congress was intervening and there was no interstate problem to be soft, of violence against women and guns in schools. >> neal's commentary will capture the government's position. the administration like half of justice scalia's position. we have response to that there are other statutes, other cases, where the court has not hesitated to strike down one part of a broader statute that it did not question. i think i can support it to focus on at that part of justice scalia -- i think it is important to focus on that part of the justice scalia's opinion that what government was doing in regulating conduct involving marijuana was not regulating

commerce at all, and that it was necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce. his case rested on the necessary and proper clause, and that is the third clause you will hear about in these arguments. necessary and proper is going to be at issue. that way of analyzing, that half of justice scalia's opinion, i think is quite helpful to the challengers in this case, because if you focus on the fact that when somebody is in their living room, they are not engaged in commerce. the question is is forcing them into cars to more efficiently regulate commerce -- forcing them into commerce to more efficient at regulate commerce part of the necessary and proper power? it may not be necessary, but in all events it is it not proper

simply not a proper exercise of congress's limited and enumerated powers to force some into commerce and regulate them. you recognize that the interstate fire arms market was something that congress could regulate, but it wasn't necessary and proper to force state regulatory -- state officials to be commandeered into the regulatory scheme. i think there is an analogy between that and what is at issue in this case. >> these are not commerce clause cases, and paul's is the problem is that when you are sitting in your living room, you are, congress found, affecting interstate commerce. creating infrastructure to deal with the problem that you cannot predict when you are going to get struck by cancer or heart attack. >> i really appreciate it, and thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> this saturday on c-span radio's supreme court historic

oral argument, in which the court decided that the eighth amendment protection in holding that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed under the age of 18. the ruling will be tested next month in a case looking at whether a sentence of life without parole for someone convicted of minor who violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. listen to c-span radio in washington d.c. area, a nationwide on the satellite radio, an online. >> we have a country where millions of innocent people have had to go to prison. they have to put bars on their own windows and bars on their own doors because we have abandoned their neighborhoods. i can't live with that.

our neighborhoods should be safe and then people should be able to play in the streets. >> as candidates campaign for president, we look back at 14 men that ran for office and lost. go to see video of the contenders that had a lasting impact on american politics. >> i believe the destiny of america is safer in the hands of the people that in the rooms of the elite. let us give our country the chance to elect a government that will speak the truth, for this is a time for the truth and the life of this country. in a few moments our road to the white house coverage continues with michigan campaign stops by republican presidential candidates. the primary is the twenty

eighth. a discussion on the role of the tea party in the campaign. after that, we will reappear the preview of the supreme court arguments on the constitutionality of the health- care law. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will focus on the deal to extend the payroll tax cut. a member of the oversight and government reform committee, and we will be joined by the former co-chairman of the fiscal responsibility and reform. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i am head of the local content vehicle project. the purpose of these vehicles is to collect programming from

outside of washington, d.c.. we staff each one of these with one person and a lap top editors said they are able to record and edit things from the road. why do i want to do this? to get outside of washington d.c. and collect programming for all networks. we will descend on each city with all three vehicles, one will do history programming, the other will do book deprogramming, catching up with authors, and the third is community relations events. the last thing that is important to know is all of this not only goes on the air but it is archived on the web site. what we're also doing is extensive social media. you will see our cable partners you will see for square.

you will see us on tour as well. it is a chance to get our message out on the air and on line. we want to get in the places we don't normally do programming. we have made a commitment to get outside the beltway. >> watch the vehicle's next stop in shreveport, louisiana. both tv and american history sheehy on c-span 3. speaking at the detroit economic club the republican presidential candidate said that former president george w. bush and president obama said the wrong precedent with federal aid to chrysler and general motors, and they should have led the market take its course. the primary is a week from tuesday and recent polls show the senator leading mitt romney.

this is a little less than an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much, i i appreciate the opportunity to be here and discuss the number one issue in this campaign. the number one issue in the state of michigan, the health and state of our economy. i would put in a creative atmosphere for the economy to grow and the private sector to grow. you have been through a lot of tough times, you know that. over the last four years michigan has lost over 140,000 jobs. thousands of people have left of the workforce and the unemployment rate is still higher than the national average. if you ask, are you better off now than you were four years ago, the answer would still be

no. we need a strong economic platform to help the private sector successfully competes and to create the kind of jobs that are going to provide for families and grow this economy to create the prosperity that this city was known for, really for decades. i will lay out our economic plan, and you will hear this and say it is similar to other economic plans from republicans. let me do that first and tell you how we are just a little different than some of the others in this race, how we approach the issue of creating an opportunity where everyone in america can rise. i do believe in pro-grownth economics. i believe in lower rates at simplification.

corporate tax will be the highest in the world. i would cut the corporate tax to 17.5% making it in net profit tax. the flat tax with one exception. i believe we need to encourage innovation so we have a 20% permanent tax credit. secondly dividends and interest capital gains we abolished the death tax. take a corporate tax again simplification and lower rates. we expanded at lower rates and take all of the other rates and consolidate to one ray. a 20% reduction from the rate down to 28% which was ronald reagan's rate. if it is good enough for ronald reagan, it is good enough for

me. we have a simplified tax cut. i will discuss in a minute, it is not complete, but we have these things there for a reason to help promote strong and healthy society. i also believe in reducing the size of government. he can't just cut taxes and reduce revenues from the federal government without creating a balanced by reducing the size of government. that is important to remove the regulatory burden of the people of this company. i propose a five trillion dollars in reductions. that can be funny math for a lot of folks in america. how does that work as to whether that is real reductions or not? i pledge we will spend less money every year than the year before.

until we reach a balanced budget in five years. $5 trillion in five years, less spending each year, a balanced budget in five years. i know you have been hearing things on television from one of my opponents that i am a big spender. i find that surprising to the folks that are my colleagues and any objective looked at my spending record when i was in congress. the weekly standard looked at the 50 senators. there were only four that had a better spending record according to the national taxpayers. they raided me, for all those years, and my rating was better than everybody but for. they happen to represent states like oklahoma and wyoming not

representative of states like michigan that has now collected a republican since 1988. i was the most conservative senator by far, based on the state i represented at the spending record i had. any other person with a similar electorial maher said i had a run, the closest person to me was not even half as good at spending as i was. so i stood up at tufts date and is good for limited government and particularly stood for something that was important if we are going to get the budget balanced. entitlement reform it managed to put the bill on the floor of the senate. if we are going to solve the problems of this country we have to look at where the money

is. and the money is in entitlements. 60% of the budget is entitlements. defensive used to be 60% of the budget. it is now 17% of the budget. those that believe defense is causing the budget problems simply don't know the math. the math is that what i was born, entitlements were less than 10% of the budget. entitlements will completely consume all revenues in just a handful of years. because most of the entitlements unfortunately, our targeted towards the margins of life that happen to be the disabled and the elderly. we see the baby boomer generation beginning to retire at all bets are off as to whether or not we will for this explosion of benefits. i was out there talking about this problem back when it was not popular to talk about it.

i led the charge on welfare reform and we need to use the same thing on welfare reform, cap it, cut it, freeze it, block grant to the states, a whole host o fof others to give them the flexibility to give them the means to meet their particular constituencies. we cut the welfare rolls by 50% at a time when they were the highest level ever. just like food stamps are at the highest level ever. poverty rates went down and people went to work because we put work requirements on receiving government benefits. we can help turn this economy around. we have a hard time finding

workers. when you have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and a variety of other safety net programs people can make choices that they otherwise wouldn't make if the economy was not one of government dependency. this president is not interested in my opinion, he is interested in providing benefits and redistributing wealth, creating a dependency class that as a reliable voting group. those that want to pass out to read as to the wealth, margaret thatcher, eventually run out of other people's money. we will reduce the entitlement burden on this country and tackle we need to do it now. i will not go into all the

details, it is a longer speech. even in places like the villages and florida a huge retirement community. when i talked about changing benefit, i didn't see a single hand raised opposing what i proposed. because if you have a leader that is going the educate the american public to the problems we confront and the possible solutions out there you will be amazed at how the american people will rally and do their duty and what is necessary to make this country great again. we have a president that believes in hiding the ball and hitting one group against another. i believe in informing americans, lifting them up and making them participants in the problems before -- that is how we are the same. let me tell you how we are different.

i believe we need to create an atmosphere for everyone to be able to rise in america. just cutting taxes across the board and reducing the size and scale of government is not enough. if that is all we do, i am confident we will not succeed. we won't succeed economically, culturally, and socially. why? because we won't have done the things that are necessary for people to rise in society and for society to be stable. let me talk to you about how i believe we need to have an economic plan that includes everybody. tim mentioned the fact that we had a manufacturing sector of the economy that was 21% of the work force. when i grew up in western pennsylvania, i mentioned my grandfather was a coal miner. it wasn't a great wealth or

opulent wealth, but it was sustaining of families and allow folks to be able to participate in civic and community organizations. they could participate in the health of their community which was vital for the health of our country. to me, manufacturing is the key to that. i am about equality of opportunity. i am not about the quality of resolve what it comes to income inequality. there is income inequality, there always has been, and hopefully there always will be. because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to the marketplace. that is as it should be. we should not have a society where the president create class warfare between groups.

you celebrate success and you build statues and monuments. in their greatness and innovation, they created wealth but for everybody else. it is a good thing, not something to be condemned in america. we also need to create that opportunity for people to rise. people say why you create manufacturing different? we eliminate the corporate tax. we create the opportunity for us to compete why do you treat it differently? because in detroit, you have to compete against countries all around the world that want your jobs and to secure jobs. we need to have a plan in place in america that understands the competitive playing field you are on. we're not going to move the bank

overseas or the retailer overseas. all of those other folks compete internally. you compete with the world that wants what you have because they know the manufacturing and making things is the key to wealth creation. just like we do when we have had policies in the past, make sure we have a military industrial complex in this country because of national security. we need to have a manufacturing base in this economy. ladies and gentlemen, we need to make sure that we are relying upon ourselves to create a marketplace where we can compete with everybody around the world. note advantages, just a level playing field. there is a 20 percent cost of rental and disadvantaged excluding labor costs. that includes canada, mexico,

china. why is it higher? because of government taxes and regulations. if that is the problem government has a responsibility to create a problem to go out and compete. instead, to those of view that have sent jobs overseas, if you take that money back, instead of paying the tax to recreate profits, he will pay no corporate -- you will pay no tax. those are two things that we can do that create the opportunity for profitability as well as the availability of capital to invest here and create the jobs of the future. that is one big area, but there are other things we can do. i hear what the future leaders say, we hear a lot about china. we hear a lot about what we have

to do to compete with china. what i have laid out will compete with china and any other country in the world. folks are concerned about currencies. markets should set currency values. if we are going to point the finger at other countries, when you look at what we do in america when it comes to currencies and the value of the dollar. let's have the market do it. i am confident that the american worker and american companies can compete with anybody around the world. the other thing that is key in making us competitive is energy. energy is key for manufacturing. it is also a key to the entire prosperity of our country. if you look at any graph it shows the cost of energy and the

availability of energy. you look at it relative to the standard of living in that country, the lower the energy costs, the higher the standard of living. if you look at the recession we went into in 2008, there was a huge spike in energy crisis -- prices. now this had went to the growing economy we have seen repeatedly. and we have vast resources of energy in this country the president doing everything he can to see the oil and gas it is a liability something that should be kept in the ground to protect you as opposed to taking out of the ground to enrich you. yesterday, i was in north dakota. this may look like a lump of coal. it is not a lump of coal, it is

oil. this is how we get oil in north dakota. we fracture this piece of rock and this piece of rock has oil floating around in that. i have a hard time believing it. they handed me the oil so i guess i can believe it. we have something called hydraulic fracturing that is being used. we have had hundreds of thousands of wells and over the course of time and we are using horizontal drilling producing an energy boom and. at one of the wells, they told me true that as a premium commodity on the market sells at a discount of $32. why? because they can't get it to market. we have the president of the united states with this knowledge.

that mexico will be an energy importer, not exporter. venezuela, 2.5 million barrels a day, going from energy exporter to having china build a refinery there and have a product go to china. alaska. i want to open up alaska for the alaska wildlife refuge, to create more opportunities for us to extract oil from the slope of alaska. it used to produce 2 million barrels a day and in a few years, it will be down to the point where the pipeline won't work anymore because there is not enough flow to move the oil. we will lose 5 million barrels of oil a day. and the president of the united states said no to a pipeline that would bring that oil down

from canada and north dakota, allow our people to get the prize for the crude, to take 500 trucks a day of the roads and create thousands of jobs. the president said no. said that oil the china which is what canada will do. this is a president that was suffocating this economy. he doesn't care about you and the cost of living. the letter rather tell the auto companies here to increase their standards and build cards that will essentially be less safe for you to drive. instead of building pipelines. we can drive cars that the families want to and are safe for us. energy jobs of all skill levels,

and they will pay the average job $90,000 a year. it goes a long way in north dakota. there is the opportunity for you, folks. that is what the energy and manufacturing can do. this is a lefty to work and improve the quality of life. let's make things in america. let me increase food stamps. let me provide health care system where we take money from some and give it to others until you have a right to health care and tell you how to exercise that right. that is the view of the president of the united states, not the view of the country that believes in free people and free markets. even if we do all the things i have just suggested and do not do some other things to try to

improve our economy we have to be concerned about those that are at the very margins of our society. the president says he supports the occupiers that divide america between 99 and one. another candidate in the race has suggested he did not care about the very port, he cared about the 95%. how about a candidate who cares about 100%? who cares about everyone gives them an opportunity to rise in society, and also to understand that unless we have strong families and strong communities we are not going to be an economically successful country. we will not be able to have limited government and lower taxes if the family continues to disintegrate. in america today a single parent families versus a two- parent family come to-print families in america have an 8%

poverty rate in america. single-parent families, as heroic as single moms are to -- the poverty rate is approaching 40%. we are not going to have a strong economy and less would have limited government as the family continues to decline. 30 years ago, 7% of america -- 7% of america were married. it is a precipitous and rapid decline. as that occurs, the government will get bigger. the ability for us to lower taxes and create a vibrant economy will get harder. chuck colson started a group called prison fellowship in the 1970's. he tell me at that time there are 250 nelson people in

america in prison. today there are 2.5 million people in america and 80% of them grew up without a father in home. let's just do the math and what america is going to look like and you tell me how we can be economically successful. folks, we as republicans and conservatives cannot just go out there and say cut taxes, cut spending, everybody is going to be fine. everybody is not going to be fine. we have to create an environment where all people can rise and we have to create a culture that is consistent with the values of our country. we believe in creating a just society from the bottom up. believing in faith, family the leading institutions that you may have read about for democracy in america. we talk about all these organizations at the grass- roots level, at the school, the

little hospital, the civic and charitable organization. what we have done. what has happened. as carmen has gotten bigger and more forceful, they -- government has gotten bigger and more forceful, they have swept them out of the way. i have five deductions. triple the family tax credit. why? because costs are higher than they have ever been. why? because we understood the stress of raising children the economic stress and how finances and economics can be a stress on marriages and families, so we had a government that said we are going to support you.

the other deductions that we had in place are for health care and for housing and for pensions, all things to help stabilize families. and of course charities churches, a key to those mediating institutions. what do i mean by mediating? those institutions that stand between you and the government. if there is nothing that stands between you and the government, a government becomes your life boat. and when the government becomes your life boat, freedom is ultimately lost, because you have now sold out. we need to create a rich society with lots of places for you to go before you go to the government for help and assistance with the problems you're dealing with. charities, churches.

no wonder the president in one of his tax proposal sought to limit the charitable contributions. they get in the way of government providing for you. families get in the way of government any reliance on them. we will have a program that will go out and say we need to build a rich society again. why has democracy failed in so many places around the world? because they did not have what we have, which is a great civil society, families, churches, community organizations, small businesses businesses generally, who are there to help, mediate between you and government. this is an economic vision for america that does not go back. it goes forward in creating an opportunity and a culture that is nurturing, a safe and secure because we have the

strong community, we have the opportunity to rise in society. we will put americans back to work and we will put them to work in neighborhoods where they feel safe, they can raise good and decent children and live lives that can make this country that shining city on the hill. thank you. god bless. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator. i have the distinct privilege of trying to represent the unified voice of this audience with these blue cards. having the power of the pen is surely a heady opportunity here. we have enough questions that i could almost write a

dissertation on political science, but i am going to get right to them. millions of older americans have lost their jobs. how would you help americans especially those ages 50 +, to get back to work? >> i would just say this, if we can create an economy that is spawning jobs and creating opportunities, one of the things that i hear all the time particularly in the manufacturing sector, is the lack of people with the skills necessary to do the jobs out there. they clearly would be in demand as the private sector economy improves. there will be a demand for experienced workers who have the skill sets necessary to do not just the blue collar jobs but also the white collar jobs. we all know that manufacturing is not just line workers. there is a whole host of other

folks that create opportunities for folks with experience in the past. i cannot say that there is anything specific i would do. one of the concerns i have with this revitalized economy is to make sure we have the education and training available to train people for these new jobs, including older workers. what we have seen from this president is an assault on those very schools that do most of the training out there, and that is private schools. this president has had a war on private education. i know that comes as a shock to people that this president would have a war on private sector something. but it is consistent. he believes that private schools are evil and abusive harry e. has done everything he could to make it harder -- abusive. he has everything he could to make it harder for them to compete. but it is going to be up to

those schools and community colleges to respond to what i believe will be an exploding demand for skilled and semi skilled workers to do the jobs of the future. i will tell you i have a very different attitude toward private schools and training schools and technical schools. we will work to make sure they are available and are around and find it like any other school to help the business community meet their training needs. >> how would you have a voted for tarp money, in particular for the auto loans to gm and chrysler? mitt romney has stated he would not have voted to bail them out. >> i have heard that. [laughter] i take a little position -- a little bit different position than romney.

he supported the bailout of wall street and not a bailout of detroit. my position is that governments should not be involved in bailouts period. by the way, it is not the obama administration. i know that governor romney focuses on the obama administration, but this began with the bush administration. i was a critic of it at the time. this was back in 2008, when i was not considering running for any kind of office again. i did make my opinions known within the administration that i thought what they were doing was wrong.

they plowed ahead anyway and did some things i think or injury is to capitalism. what they should have done was let the market work. they started picking winners and losers -- does this sound familiar? once they decided picking winners and losers, the market decided we can wait. if they are going to pick, we will wait for them to do it. if they had stayed out of the market completely, i believe the market would have worked. would the auto industry look different? yes, but i think it would still be alive and well. why? because markets would have had to react and to what is necessary to be competitive. the facilities creating huge profits right now are there and would have been there. the problem was not the

facility workers. it was the obligations these legacy companies have that they could not pay. i went through the steel industry. no one bailed out the steel industry. but it has been profitable most years because they write sized and figured out how to compete. having government involved set the precedent that now is set in america that will make it easier for the next president to step in and make the argument for why government should take over let's say the health care industry, or some other business. this is the role of government we have now set under republican and democratic presidents. i ashley blame president bush

more than president obama -- actually blame president bush more than president obama. there may be companies that are doing well, and obviously there are a couple of companies here that are, but long-term, having the government set the role of the economy is not good. >> i own a small business. how will your administration help small businesses? >> well, take for example what we do with the corporate taxes. we cut corporate tax rates in half and make it a flat tax. that is a great advantage to small businesses. why? because they do not have the compliance partners and the accountants to help them figure out how to do their taxes. i pay my own taxes. mitt romney paid half the tax rate i did. obviously, he has better accountants. maybe i should higher than in the future. if you are structuring your company to respond to how the tax code operates -- that is not the case with a small

business person. i would say that having a flat corporate tax is going to be a great equalizer in many respects. i look at the things the government does with respect to the regulatory groups. one of the key aspects of our economic plan is to deal with the explosion of regulation. under the clinton and bush administrations, they averaged 62 regulations a year the cost businesses over $100 million. those are the high cost regulations that are monitored by the general accounting office. well, under this of ministration last year, the president proposed 150 of those regulations in one year alone. and is scheduled to break that record this year. this is a president who has gone

hog wild, and guess who gets hurt the most by burdensome regulations? it is the little guy. i was talking to a mortgage broker in south carolina who told me that prior to dodd- frank, he spent 30 minutes a week on regulations. he now spends three or four hours a day, and he is getting out of business. so the big guys will take over. why? they have big compliance departments that can handle this. unfortunately, big business does not necessarily mind big government. it gives them a competitive advantage. but it kills the little guy kills innovation, kills the and creates barriers to entry. look at obamacare.

obamacare, if you get to 50 employees, all of a sudden you are going to get hit with huge tax burdens. i talk to companies that are trying to figure out how to stay under 50 employees so that they will not have to comply with obamacare. why would they do this? that is what we are saying to small businesses. do not grow. if you do, we will tell you how to manage your business. that creates a huge disadvantage for the entrepreneur to be successful. we will repeal all of that and create a place where you do not have to focus on compliance. big business believes in clean air and clean water, and that we can trust states and municipalities to determine what we can put in the water and the air. we can trust ordinary americans of the state and local level to provide for themselves a good and help the community more than washington can. >> what role the use c4 labor unions in america and how would you -- do you see for labor

unions in america, and how would you propose to protect workers' rights? >> i believe in creating opportunities for working folks. i -- my grandfather was a coal miner. he was the treasurer of his union. i'm sure that the fact that his grandson is running as a conservative republican has caused him quite a few flips in the grave. i have no problem with private- sector unions. i think they play a role in society.

i am someone who does believe that people should have the right to work. i have signed on and said that we should repeal the law that basically requires states to have union dues being paid as a condition of employment. that law should be repealed and the states should have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves as opposed to that the federal level. but again, from my perspective unions are one of those mediating institutions in america that have served a legitimate purpose overtime in the private sector. i do not feel as warm and fuzzy about public-sector unions. i think public-sector unions are an intrinsically unfair bargaining position. the people sitting across the table from them, unlike the business person who has shareholders or themselves who has money on the line, or both the public employee unions are sitting across from someone and it is not their money. it is not their tax dollars by march that is going to pay for these things. secondly, where these folks are

receiving benefits, getting dues paid from state and local taxpayers that they then turn around and help elect the people that sit on the other side of the bargaining table. that creates, i think, an ugly situation in america, an unfair situation in america. and i think as the federal government does, which does not allow public unions to negotiate wages and benefits, i think that is the proper role for state and local governments to be in the same position. >> last question. this is from a 13-year-old student who puts a postscript on there that says her teacher will bumper grade up to an a if she gets her question answered. so i am helping her out. as president, how would you help homeless people?

>> as i said before, we have to be concerned about everybody from the very rich to the very poor. if you look at my track record, it was david brooks, no great friend of conservatives, who wrote several years ago that there has not been a single piece of legislation dealing with the poor in the last 12 years that my name was not on. i really do believe we have an obligation to create opportunities and the ladder of success for everyone including those who are homeless. i would say that if you look at our record of what we have done in creating the opportunity for states to take responsibility for a lot of these programs, i think what you saw with welfare reform was the flexibility and the dollars to go out and meet

the unique needs of the community, as opposed to what the federal government said was the greater needs of greater communities across the country. i think the flexibility we will give states to manage these programs is an important thing. one of the unique problems of homelessness, unfortunately, sadly, is that a substantial number of homeless people are veterans. we have seen this -- i have seen this in my own state and in studies that show that because of veterans returning home particularly now, with high rates of pst and other types of stresses, re-acclimating to society, we see this problem. this was an area i saw when i worked in the veterans administration. my dad was a psychologist that worked with a lot of these folks. that is an area that i would focus on to make sure that number one, we do not create the situation that creates a lot of this p t s d, which is these repetitive tours of duty, 5, 6 7, he tours of duty. it is just way too much to ask

and we have a president who says we're going to cut back our troop levels? what does that mean? does it mean we will be going out nine, 10, 11? we also have to look at how we are managing our troops and how we will care for them when they come back so that they can be integrated into society, and obviously we're dropping the ball. that is an area i would stress as president, the first and foremost, we take care of those who have sacrificed for our country. thank you for the opportunity. it was great being here in detroit. god bless. [applause]

>> on behalf of the detroit economic club and all of us in this room, thank you very much, rick santorum, for joining us today. it is such a privilege to be your host. also, i would like to thank all of you for investing your time with us today. with that, this meeting is adjourned. please have a terrific day. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the governor of michigan endorsed presidential candidate and mitt romney today.

this is about a half hour. [applause] >> thank you for having this great event. it is great to be back with you again. i was here last year. it is a wonderful group of people. i am very excited to be here today and i hope you are too to have governor romney here with us. if you just think back to 2010, what did michigan look like? we had been at the bottom for a decade of all 50 states. we had a broken government. but we did not give up. it was not just time to fix michigan. it was time to reinvent michigan.

and to do that, we had to take a different approach. it is about teamwork. i appreciate your support and those wonderful words, but it is not about me. it was about doing it together. it was time to bring in experienced from the private sector and the business world and say there is a new and better way of doing things in our state to show success. and we are showing that success. we had a billion and a half dollar deficit. it is gone. [applause] we had the dumbest tax in the united states, the michigan business tax, and it is gone. [applause] it was a job killer, and to put it in perspective, the preliminary analysis of the tax foundation that came out last week, they put us from 49th in corporate taxation to seventh

of the states. [applause] during this process we recognize that it is not just about balancing a budget. it is about paying down long- term liability, about financial responsibility. we need common sense in this state just like we need our family. we started -- need it in our family. we started paying down long-term liabilities last year and that liability will not face our children anymore and we are not stopping. [applause] and you are not here to hear me today, but i could go on. [laughter] we have done unemployment reform, workers' comp reform, all of these reforms with relentless action. no blame, move forward, and we are now a role model for the

united states of what success is all about and what teamwork is all about. that is why i am here today, and very proud to be here with governor romney. one of the great challenges we face is at the national level. we have shown what can be done when you are at the bottom right here in michigan. but if you look at what is going on in washington, the issues are much the same. think about the deficit. trillions of dollars that need to be paid back that are being ignored. the need to balance the budget. and most importantly, the need to create more and better jobs and create success for us. washington is a divided plays. the job is not getting done. and we need the leadership in washington to get that job done. and to do that, you need the right people leading the charge. we have a person in governor romney who has that background. he has a great combination of private sector experience, knowing how to create a job, and how difficult that is.

he has experience in the private sector. he also has the experience of being the chief executive of the state, being in the public sector and being successful running a state. that is the experience we need in washington. we need to move forward, because when i look at the challenges of michigan, one of the greatest things holding us back now from all the fabulous things is washington. it is holding us back. it is time for leadership that is going to move us forward. i am very proud -- me being the good nerd that i am, you know that i reviewed the informations. [laughter] is governor has put together a strong plan, a job growth and economic plan that talks about better jobs, a tax system that is simple, fair and efficient the talks about regulatory reform, and talks about not just government activity, but our people, our talent, and how to

connect people to jobs in the future and to plan for that bright future. another great thing that is just icing on the cake, we have the right man here to help lead our country, but there is a special bonus. he was born and raised in michigan. he understands our state. he is one of us. that is another area of particular pride. from my perspective, it is a great opportunity to say we are showing relent less positive action, we are showing teamwork in michigan. but now we have the opportunity to be part of a bigger team, a team led by an individual who can show that same success of doing what we did, of bringing common sense to government and bring those things to washington.

that is why i am very excited today to announce my endorsement of governor romney, and with that, let me turn it over. [applause] >> thank you. beautifully done. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, a governor. that was quite an endorsement and quite a record. if we could do in washington what you're the governor has done here, we would be -- what your governor has done here, we would be in a very different position as a nation. and i hope to do in washington with your governor has done here. i have a lot of people -- let me ask my brother and my sister to stand up and their families. on the far right of the room, a lot of my family members. thank you, guys. i see the attorney general here. thank you for being here. also, the mayors.

i do not know how long you have been in politics, but it is going well for you. keep it up. mary and dan, thank you for organizing this extraordinary event. a little history. i was born and raised here. i love this state. the trees are the right height. i like seeing the lakes. i love the lakes. there is something very special here, the great lakes, but also the inland lakes that dot the parts of michigan. unlike cars. i grew up totally in love -- i like cars. i grew up totally in love with cars. it used to be in the 1950's and 1960's, it used to be that if you showed me one square foot of any car, i could tell you what make and model it was. now with all the japanese cars, i am not so sure, but i can still tell you the american cars, and long made a rule the world.

despite my dad and mom is extraordinary contributions to the state, i remember a fourth of july celebration in mount pleasant. my dad had been invited to come speak. it was a large audience, and he got up and said, it sure is great being here in mount clemens. the audience booed. my mom said, george, it is pleasant. he said, yes, it sure is pleasant. i have been watching with some interest the record of your governor. i think his success is in no small measure due to the fact that he does not care too much about what people think, the politics of who gets credit, and he comes from a background of conservatism.

you can see in the private sector that you all live in, you are either fiscally conservative or you are out of business. you cannot borrow money every year, spending more than you take in, or you go bankrupt. he brings the discipline that is almost second nature to someone in enterprise. if you do not balance your budget, you will kill your enterprise, and killing your enterprise is not a good thing to do. but we are doing that in washington. like him, having come from the private sector -- i spent 25 years in business, in venture capital. i am often asked how private sector is different from the government. one, your job is harder. it is very demanding and less forgiving. you see, in government, if you make a mistake, you just blame the opposition. if the numbers do not look

right, you just go out and bond or borrow more money. in private business, if you make mistakes, you lose your jobs or other people's jobs. it is very unforgiving. there are other differences. incentives. you understand the power of incentives. government people do not tend to understand that when they change tax codes that that will have an impact on what people did. when the governor here reduced the infamous business activity tax, it would change behavior. it was not that his desire was to lower taxes on companies. he wanted to get more companies to come here and grow here. that is the whole idea of incentives. government people do not tend to understand that. i had an example of that when i was newly elected governor. i was trying to find ways to balance our budget. we were about $3 billion out of whack. i promise not to raise taxes or cut services. how would i get the job done?

i went through the budget line by line. we had a big program, and still do, for the homeless. there was a line there for hotels. i said, what is this referring to? they said, if we have someone who comes to a homeless shelter and they have a child and the homeless shelter is full, we tell them to check into a hotel and we will pay the bill. i said, i get the word gets around that we will put you in a hotel for free. i said, we want to change the policy right now. from now on, we want the homeless shelters to welcome anyone who comes there, and the person who has been there the longest, maybe 30 days, 60 days or longer, they go to the hotel. before i put that policy in place, we were paying for 599 rooms a night. after i put the policy in place, we had no hotel bills

and none. and there were savings in tens of millions of dollars the we were able to use to help people get permanent housing, get housing vouchers, get out of homelessness. businesses that understand incentives are something that do not often exist in government. you understand that business is about getting customers to do things. i was amazed in government and how little understanding there is of business. it shocked me to see how many people in government have never spent any time in business. and yet business is what drives the economy and the well-being of our citizens. again, going back, we spent a lot of money in my state on prisons and jails. i met with some legislatures and said, what do you think

about inviting in one of these for-profit jail management companies and have them give us a bit and see if they can do the job for a lower cost. they said governor, they will be higher cost than we are. i said, why? he said, they are for profit and we do not have to earn a profit. i said, i do not think you understand how free enterprise works. the whole idea of profit is to create incentives for entrepreneurs and innovators to find ways to do things less and less expensive with better and better quality. we have this belief in free enterprise, that we get better at doing things. that is how the whole system works. by the way, where the think profit those? when a business reports $5 billion in profits, where does

it go? they said, it goes to pay executives their bonuses. i said, none of it goes to executives. profit is what your report after everyone has been paid. they say, well, it goes to pay the owners. and actually, some of it does go to pay the owners dividends and so forth. about 15% of american public corporate profit goes to shareholders. but most of the goes into the business, research and capital. we do not want to depress profit in america. we wanted to grow so that we can put more people to work. i was shocked at how little understanding is -- there is of what you do. some people in government do not like you very much. i love you. i loved your entrepreneur is looking -- working to create enterprises to make america strong there. now, there is another place

where i am afraid there is a disconnect. they do not understand the need for balancing the budget and the critical need for balancing the budget. i look at obama and feel that on almost every dimension, because of the lack of business experience, he has taken actions which have made it harder for the economy to recover. i ask people, are the policies of the obama administration making it more likely for you to hire or less likely? and i think i know the answer. obamacare did not make it more likely for people in the medical instrument and device business to build new products because they are getting a new tax. it did not encourage people wondering what the cost of their employees would be to go

out and hire more people. and then of course there was stacking the labor relations board with union stooges. are you more likely to go out and hire people? the answer is no. dodd-frank. did we need to update regulations on financial services? absolutely. did we need hundreds of thousands of pages of the regulation? know. what did it do? it made it harder for community bankers. i was at a bank the other day were the chief executives said they have hundreds of lawyers working on implementing dodd- frank. my guess is that there are not many community banks that can afford hundreds of lawyers. it did not help small business to have this past as it was. the list goes on and on, energy

policies. when the president said no to the keystone pipeline, does that encourage energy here and business here? i met with the chief executive of dow chemical. he said they had announced a $20 billion factory that they are building in saudi arabia. he said they hoped to build it in the united states, but they could not count on a reliable source of natural gas because of the epa regulators that are making it harder and harder. so they had to build elsewhere. the president's policy of multiplying regulations, adding regulations at a rate two 0.5 times greater than his predecessor, that has not made it more likely for america and our economy to recover. it has made it harder for this economy to recover. thank god the entrepreneurial spirit of the american people is winning out and overcoming

all of the burdens placed on it by you obama administration. if i am president, i want to be the ally of entrepreneurs and job creators. i want to make america the best place again to grow and thrive. when coca-cola, an american icon, says that the business environment in china is more friendly than the business environment in america, you know we have a problem. what i would do is almost exactly the opposite of what the president has done. i would end the practice of what i call crony capitalism. what do i mean by that? when the president of the united states begins taking your money to give to his donors that is a problem. and that changes the dynamic of the free enterprise system. so when i say i'm going to take your money and give it to tesla, that is not dead.

when the president says i am going to put it into a battery company that is now out of business, that is not good. when he takes $500 million in puts it into cylindrical my that is not good -- solyndra that is not good. my guess is the president wanted to encourage solar energy and he thought by taking $500 million and giving it as a loan to a company would do that. it did just the opposite. just the opposite. not understanding the private enterprise system explains why he does not understand that. there are 100 and more entrepreneurs in america that have ideas for solar energy. and they are going out trying to get funding for their business, their startup, their business. going to venture capitalists angels, and their parents to try to get funding.

but when the community years that the government has picked a winner and given them $500 million, i guess what happens to all the other businesses? their funding dries up. who wants to give two hundred million dollars to start a little solar company when the government has are given one $500 million? and by the way, they built the taj mahal with that five under million dollars. a big glass corporate headquarters. when i started, i think our corporate headquarters was a stable. we ran the back of a mall. but that is the government huge money, picking winners and losers and killing entrepreneurialism throughout america. that is the wrong course. the right course, let the free

enterprise work. do not try to guide the market with government interference. it taxes down for employers. our taxes for employers are the highest in the world. you make michigan competitive by getting your tax rate down. america is tied with japan for the highest tax rate for employers in the world, 35%. then there are regulators to see their job as not just finding the bad guys, but also encouraging the good guys. make it more likely that you want to invest. you also have to take advantage of our energy resources, use all of them so that we have an ample supply of energy ourselves and do not have to send hundreds of billions of dollars outside our country buying energy every year. and by the way, put in place that keystone pipeline. that is a no-brainer. what else do you have to do? [applause]

china. look, i like free trade. we are a productive nation. we make more stuff per person than any other major economy in the world. that means we want to sell stuff to other countries and open up opportunities to grow. but if someone cheats. if someone steals your patents your ideas, your know-how, they get an unfair advantage they did not have to pay for. if they hack into your computer's and steal your future designs, it makes it even worse. if they artificially hold down the value of their currency and therefore make their products artificially cheap and drive you out of business. that is not fair trade. that is unfair trade. s president, i will take china to the carpet and say i will label you a currency manipulator and not let you continue those practices.

like your governor, i think to create jobs, it helps to have had a job, and i have. i spent my life in the private sector. i appreciate how difficult it is to do what you're doing. i love the businesses in this state. i love the auto industry. i want to see it grow. i am delighted it is profitable. in my view, this auto industry can continue to lead the world and must continue to lead the world with a vibrant and prosperous future. but let me tell you, i think this is a campaign about the soul of america. the question is, do we believe in a vision of america more and more like europe with the

governors saying -- government saying we're going to take from some to give to others, and in a situation like that, the only people who do well are the government, who do the taking and giving. or do we believe that america is a land of opportunity where free individuals taking a free pass -- free path can lift the future for all? i happen to believe in the latter. the founding father said that among our rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that last phrase referring to the idea that in america we could pursue happiness as we choose. government would not buy our lives. we would guide our lives. government would not tell us where we could level or how much we would get paid or what we could make. those were decisions made by free people.

america became the place for entrepreneurs and innovators and pioneers from all over the world came. this is the land of opportunity. that is how we out-competed the world. i wish washington understood that. it is not the government cannot make america competitive and prosperous. it is be free capacity of american people to pursue their unhappiness in the way that they choose, to innovate, to pioneer, to create. so as i look at the challenges we face, but it out of balance threats around the world, i do not want to have government take a larger and larger role in our lives and a bigger and bigger share of our economy. i want to do what adam smith and the founders of this country recognized was the right course, and give people more freedom. as a private partner. i love the founding principles of this country. i love the people of america.

i'm actually convinced that our future is brighter than our past. i say that because of our education, our skills, our innovative spirit, our passion for america. i happen to believe that if we have a president and leaders who will tell the truth, and you will live with integrity, and to understand the economy, having lived in the economy, and you will draw on the patriotism of the american people that america will overcome the challenges we have, that we will remain the hope of the earth. and i intend to be that kind of president with your help. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. [applause]

>> that includes another chamber event. we will see you at the next event. >> please stay in the room another few minutes while the governor prepares to depart. >> thank you.

>> thank you again for joining us today. we hope you had a great time. this was a wonderful experience for all of us. have a wonderful afternoon and a great day.

>> the associated press reports that in the contest for the republican nomination for president, the delegate count stands at 1234 mitt romney 72 for rick santorum, 32 for newt gingrich and 194 ron paul. 1144 delegates are needed to receive the nomination for president. you can go to c-span.org to watch the latest video of the republican candidate and president obama, read what the candidates, political reporters and people like you are saying about the presidential race on facebook and twitter. all of that and more at c- span.org/campaign 2012.

for now about the role of the tea party in this year's presidential campaign. this is a little more than a half-hour. >> mangini beth morton, when did the tea party, and how did the tea party movement start? guest: we started back in 2009. a huge grant complain about the stimulus package and it resonated and responded to people. we started getting smart girl politics on twitter. host: how did you personally