france give his speech, which you could watch on france 24, which would you do? >> is that directed to the president? >> i did not know the game was on, so i watched the news about the president of france. let me take it. indeed, let me take this and add this to it. when we had discussions like this, we like to talk about covering revolutions and the crises. covering people who have been thrown into prison. much is new music reviews, celebrity interviews. the newspapers, when they thrive, they have a monopoly.

are we seeing new forms? whatever social media. are we seeing these with larger things, like a newspaper, which is a vehicle for all sorts of information. it is not only reporting. are they linked together? journalism from the of the things that used to come along, which was rock music or the society page, it used to be. it got people to it attention to it. there are some who will pick the french president inauguration speech over the orioles. what do you think? >> there are different platforms serving different segments. there is general stuff, and there is some that is more entertainment heavy, but you are seeing more sort of niche media

actually doing pretty well with those, and so there is a certain -- there is a pretty big percentage of americans who were actually interested in that speech. not the same number as are want to watch a baseball game, but there is enough, depending on how you kind of set up your platform and how you are targeting your audience. there are online publications, like foreign policy, for instance, which has a very good website that is targeted. it is not as large as the baseball audience, -- >> i think it is bad, but i am not sure there is a lot we can do about it. when it was still the soviet union, you could actually see

people on the subway. that was normal. and then the soviet union collapsed, and they were reading porn. before that, my family is ukrainian. a higher culture, sort of culturally superior, and then we found it was not. that was the only thing available, and when other things were available, people wanted other things to. -- too. this is why i think you might want to have other forms of intervention to create a common platform because we are no longer forced into the common platform. >> i would say on the first point, and thinking for the observation about yale and setting up a liberal arts college in singapore, because universities are doing exactly what we are talking about here, and what needs to be done with respect to the press. and that is we are in a new era.

we are incredibly interdependent now economically and psychologically. we have to know more than we do. we have to educate young people, and how are we going to do that, having lots and lots of international activity, in universities are responding in different ways, and one is the yale, and why you, qatar, abu dhabi campus. we are doing something different. as different cities now are around the world, which are a network where the faculty and students work on research from around the world, but we are doing, i think, in the university world what needs to be done. >> a question in the front row and then to the back. >> would news vouchers make news

better or worse? within the government subsidy that you are proposing, president, some of these went to news consumers, and they could pay for websites that charge. would that make things better or worse? >> well, i mean, i think these kinds of questions are very important, and i do not want to speak as if i have thought through every dimension of this. my own personal view at this stage is that having funding mechanisms that create and nurture institutions, like npr, like our international broadcasters, like pbs, like universities, that will give you these very important in distinct voices in the world of the press. if you just give a tax rebate or a voucher to individuals, you

know, that will not result actually in this kind of free- market economists would say that only proves that, in fact, what you're trying to do is impose something on people who do not want it, and that is an old debate. i happen to take the opposite view. i think we have collected public values. we have national parks. we have public lands. we have city parks. we really benefit as a society from having a mixed system in which we can make our individual choices, and we do not always reach shakespeare when we go home at night, and we do turn on the baseball game and watched it, and we do not always participate in public debate when we should. we have that option, but we also have the option of going into a national park that does not have amusement parks and the like, and it has been preserved as a matter of public values, and i think that is what we need in the service.

>> a question in the back row. >> thank you. i am here almost by accident, and i happen to be the publisher of a website, alaskadispatch.com, and it is an on-line web site, conceded to be, but others than our own family, and the news and information in alaska. however, we have no physical world presents, and so i am sitting here listening to this conversation and thinking that in my prior years, when, for example, "the washington post" wet 3 the janet cooke incident, and realizing that print as a medium or broadcast or cable television as a medium has not necessarily done all of that that we are presenting trick,

and we can concede the many examples, so what is your feeling, all of you, or anyone, about how a site like mine, which is honest in its attempt to present straightforward, highly edited and in bad journalism, how is that to be recognized by folks like you and particularly by the readers of the world as something different than other things you would refer to as citizen journalists? >> well, who would like to venture an answer? rebecca, you want to try? >> sure. i think news organizations or online organizations that are doing a good job developed a reputation of being credible and straightforward and fact based. and that is how you distinguish yourself from random commentators who may not be as

rigorous, but i do not see how else one goes about distinguishing themselves other than reputation. you go by brand, and you build a name for yourself. >> and you hope that your readership increases over the years. where is the microphone now? let's get another question from the audience. >> it was touched on a little bit earlier, but if you can go back to the issue about how technology is affecting news organizations, access, if you could talk a little bit about that, but right now, the united states and other countries are not really covering the drone strike in pakistan because they are saying we are not allowing access, and i think viewers -- the less sophisticated may not

be aware of what not has been firsthand reported, because somebody is relying on a citizen blog or a twitter or youtube feed for a report. the editor is happy, and cnn is happy, because they feel like they are reporting it, but i think there is a disconnect coming, and from what i believe, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for news organizations to cover all wars those. the gaza strip in 2009. we are seeing it now in pakistan. but because of the proliferation of technology, getting information in wars cents, we kind of feeling we are doing our jobs, but the trends are there, and we want access, and these things are going to become a culture. >> i am not sure where the

journalists would have access to the drone strike. >> well, they are not allowed in the northwest tribal zone, just not allowed, and the u.s. military is not commenting. >> rebecca, is not the voice of america covering the drones? >> that is a story, like any other, and if we can double source and make sure we are correct, we can publish a drone attack. because of the iphone and the devices and the proliferation of cameras of one kind or another, there are more pictures and alleged reports about war zones and everything else. the problem is, it has joined the fog of war. a war zone has tons of information. what part of it is accurate? that is where journalists come

in and sifting it through. i know at cnn and abc news, they had the same. they are really getting into the business of analyzing. for example, photographs. where was this picture taken? we spend time on that. we have professional help to figure out which corner of an area it was taken in. i think there is not less but more. there is more information, but we are less sure about authenticity comeback because it is hard to have a professional reporter with credibility get to the place. other news organizations do. and i am very proud of the courage shown by the journalists that do. >> rebecca? >> to complicate the picture even more, i am a board of journalists, and they pointed out a trend in war zones using freelancers. not citizen journalists, not people working for news

organizations, freelancers, professional journalists that are not tied to support to a news organization, among the largest growing source of news, and also local journalists in these places you are covering the wars, and they are more vulnerable than ever. freelancers and local journalists in more sense. it is growing very rapidly. >> i want to make two very quick comment. one is that all the information that i have about major news organizations and the coverage of war, current wars, establishes that we have far less than we have ever had in recent memory. in so far that that is true,

there is the essential problem of how do we get the information we need, and the second point is it is always interesting that we no longer think seriously about what the first amendment might say about a claim by journalists to have a first amendment rights for access. 30 years ago, the supreme court made a narrow decision, 5 to four, to say that we would have protection for whatever it is published. that was "the new york times" vs. sullivan. government documents, government secrets, and so on, but there would not be any right of access by the press when the government-held or controlled information. that was a very vital debate about the scope of the first amendment and the 1960's and 1970's and into the 1980's. i am not saying i think this

particular supreme court would be favorable towards that, but when you think long term, you think several decades and have all principles developed, one of the things we should be thinking about in the united states is a first amendment right to access. >> the last questioner began with the impact of technology, and i will just note, a former television journalist for confirmation, the device that one can take pictures of an event and then transmit those images back to some place, which used to be a crew of three or at one time four people to drag some camera somewhere. the videos are being shot was something that looked like a single lens reflex camera. it gave no indications. the access, the ability to make a video images in any location

has become phenomenally greather than it was. >> the ability to transmit them live. in the early 1990's, you had to have a crew with a satellite dish who knew how to operate it. or to stick a videotape on a flight and get it somewhere. >> of was in new hampshire just before the primary. i realized what the current press corps looks like, a bunch of single people with cameras, live access to any event been just that any mediant could have delivered -- any medium could have delivered. the landscape has been greatly changed. we can go on like this for quite awhile, and i must say, these are the kinds of issues that justify an require this of the columbia journalism review, to actually treat seriously the questions about the intersection between technology and free speech and new media.

i wish i could share with what was expressed on the panel. it seems to me there are some necessary alternatives, but to our guests, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i am the chairman of the columbia review, and this is the anniversary, so i want to join in thanking all of you for being here today. they believe you can be both a watchdog of the media and an ally in searching for the model that sustains quality journalism. i think we would all agree that those were the goals are more critical than ever before, and i think today's discussion, whether it was around public spaces, funding, values, twitter, access to academia, the

role of universities, or, indeed, the role of the relationship between privacy and freedom, it is a discussion that is going to be ongoing. we hope you will join us for a short session afterwards and that you will pick up the 50th anniversary copy of the magazine, and i just want to say thank you to jim in shelby, -- and shelby, for very much developing this program with us and for developing these issues. i want to thank bob and our friends at google, not just for sponsoring this but for providing the videos. i want to think our fans at c- span's so more people can watch it. we really appreciate that. and again, i want to extend my thanks to president bollinger, who traveled to be here. he has many demands on his schedule, and he would not be here if this was not something he cares about, and particularly

to rebecca, now flowing -- flying with a 24-hour turnaround to oslo, which i think is above and beyond. and the moderator put and a great deal of work before this panel ever met, so thank you all very much. [applause]

>> republican candidate mitt romney campaign in ohio. that is next on c-span. and in the 2012 presidential election, with a moderator, and the defense secretary leon panetta met with the china defense minister, and they spoke after the meeting. that is later. tomorrow, north carolina will vote on a state constitutional

amendment to ban gay marriage. on our next "washington journal," we will talk to darlene lipper, and on lobbying, a lobbyist joins us, and we will take your phone calls about this weekend's elections in france and greece and what it can mean for the year of recovery efforts. from the brookings institution, we have a guest. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. republican presidential candidate mitt romney held a town hall meeting with supporters in euclid, ohio, outside of cleveland. the former massachusetts governor focused on the economic record of the obama administration. ohio has picked the winner of every presidential race since 1954. president obama kicked off his reelection campaign in ohio on saturday.

♪ >> thank you so much. mr. mayor, now we know why you got elected. [cheers and applause] he speaks well, doesn't he? that is why you elect the mayor, right? great guy. thank you for being here today. middle of the afternoon. a rainy day and you came out to see me. i appreciate the chance to say hello to so many folks from northeast ohio. you are lucky to live in such a beautiful state with such wonderful people. [applause] you know,i have had the occasion over my life to get to know our country pretty well. of course, the last couple of years, i have been campaigning but before that, i worked in the private sector and had the occasion of actually winter games in 2002. [applause] that was a real thrill.

actually, i came into the olympic games at a time of scandal. there was a report of bribery and the people of utah who normally you look to to help support an event like that were pretty discouraged. there was a call on the part of some people to send the games back. do not have them. give them back to the international olympic committee. and i was worried. i took the job because i knew we needed about 25,000 people to volunteer to work the olympics. and it is 17 straight days. by the way, a volunteer is. 17 days without pay. and, by the way, and without tickets either. you work for the olympic games and you host the figure skating and the downhill skiing and so forth but you do not get to see them because you are in the parking lot, taking tickets or manning the security booths and so forth. and so, we needed about 25,000 people. i wondered if the people of

america would show up given the scandal. and so, just before the games began, reran and at -- we ran an ad -- about one year out. we ran an advertisement that said something like this. no pay, no tickets, no benefits. sign up quick, the positions are going fast. tickets, no benefits. [laughter] much to our surprise, some 47,000 people signed up. [applause] this is an amazing country of people that will do extraordinary things for their friends and make a difference in their lives. i love america. i heard a story -- i will not tell you exactly when but very recently about a small business owner. and she had two employees, one of them was her husband and the

other was the technician. the business has not been doing very well during the obama economy. and so, she ultimately lost her house. the business shrunk by about 40%. she lost her house, but do you know what? she made sure that her technician did not see a decline in incomes and the technician still lives in her house. and she made a priority of keeping her technician in her house. it feels good that she was able to do so even though she lost her own. it is an amazing country. the kind of sentiment we have, the sense of right and wrong. these have been tough years. as you know. these last three and a half, almost four years. actually, four years of tough times. as i've gone across the country, i have heard stories that sometimes break your heart. i was with one couple. they are planning for their retirement. both in their 60's. they bought a couple of duplexes and the rental income

from the duplexes, and the value of the duplexes was going to be their income, but the values have collapsed and they now do not know if they can retire. they are wondering how they are going to do it. i met a barber in his 70's. he thought he would have retired by now. i said why haven't you retired? he said because my investments are not worth much anymore and i cannot afford to retire. i met a woman who said she and her husband had one child and wanted another child but needed to take out a second mortgage on their home. this was in florida. to be able to pay for the expenses of the second child. so they took out the second mortgage. and then everything collapsed. the value of their home collapsed and that mortgage, like the first mortgage, became under water with their equity. she wondered how they're going to make things through. i was at a rally in norfolk last week shaking hands with people as i will at the end of this event and a young woman came up to me and said i have

been out of work for a year. for one year. can you help me? it touches your heart. i said i will do my very best to help you. and millions of other people who are out of work. this is very different than what we were promised. as the mayor said, at the convention, the democratic convention about four years ago, the president spoke about hope and change and together we can do anything. but he has not lived up to those kinds of expectations. the american people are a good hearted people. with a desire for good things to happen to one another. we hoped this president would be successful. i sure did. and he has not been. i know how many people are struggling. i want to do my very best to help them. i am convinced that my experience will help me get this economy going and people back to work with good jobs, which they need.

[applause] [cheers and applause] now, the president in his speech said at the democratic convention that he measures progress in an unusual way. i thought it was kind of a usual way but he said it was different. he measures progress by whether people can find good jobs, whether they can pay a mortgage. well, the last three and a half years, not enough people have been finding good jobs and a lot of people lost their homes. that is a promise he was not able to keep. he is now very excited about the fact that the unemployment rate has gone from 10% down to about 8.1%. of course, we will not forget the fact that when he was putting in place $787 billion of borrowing in his first few months in office that he said the borrowing would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

for 39 months later, it is still not below 8.1%. there is something about that 8.1% number of that you ought to know. that number -- you might assume that number came down because of all the jobs that have been created. that assumption would be wrong. the reason that percent came down was because of the people that dropped out of the work force. as a matter of fact, if you go back to the 10% from october 2009, the percentage of workforce age americans in the work force was 58.5% and today it is slightly less. so it is not that more people have been able to find jobs. so it is that the number of people have dropped out of the work force and that is why that percentage has come down. i want to see a low unemployment rate and more people working in good jobs and can afford good mortgages. [applause]

[cheers and applause] now, in just a moment, because this is a town meeting, you will get a chance to ask questions and i will do my best to answer them. and so any questions -- a hand is already up back there. we will get there in a moment. and there is a hand here. and there is one here. deckhands are going up. -- the hands are going up. this is a good sign. i would just say a couple of things. i will begin by saying this -- president obama is employing policies that have not worked. you know that by virtue of looking at the results. we do not have enough people that have got good jobs. incomes have dropped. you know,the median income in america has dropped by 10% over the last four years. the median household income is down $4,000. this is at the same time that

the costs have gone up. health care is up, gasoline, food prices -- it is harder. americans in the middle class is feeling squeezed, even if they have a job. and obviously most of our citizens have jobs but boy are these tough times during as -- these are tough times. i spoke with a college student. jobs, all part time. well ben she has three jobs, all part time. well beneath the level of skill she was trained for. wondering how she will possibly make ends meet when those college loans start coming due. these policies have not worked. you look at them, you ask it obamacare make it easier for small businesses to create new jobs? no. did the financial-services regulations make it easier for small banks, community banks to make loans to people or renegotiate mortgages? no, no, no, absolutely not. and did the effort to change the deal between labor and

management and to put the labor stooges in the labor relations board, that make it more likely for businesses to say let's hire more people? no. thank you, i appreciate that. did the energy policies of cutting back on the leases on federal lands by about half, saying no to drilling in anwar, putting a moratorium on drilling in the gulf, not drilling in the outer continental shelf, did those things make it more likely for americans to work in the energy sector? no. the president's policies have not encouraged americans to add jobs. they make it harder for small business to do so. we need a president who understands what it takes to get the economy going again, not what policies of the past that in the work. -- that do not work, but a vision for the future that would put american people back to work and in good jobs. [applause]

the president and i have very different visions of what it will take to get america working again. his visit is to keep spending -- his vision is to keep spending about $1 trillion more than we take in. in my view, that is immoral for us to pass those obligations on to the next generation. not just bad economics. [applause] his vision is that it is ok for a small business to raise taxes from 35% to 40% of small businesses. i do not want to raise taxes on small businesses, i want to lower them. -- lower taxes on business. [applause]

his vision is that in order to doubt to the extreme -- to bow to the extreme environmentalists, we should not build the pipeline for take advantage of our oil, coal, gas. i like energy that comes from all sources and i will get that pipeline into our country. [applause] [cheers and applause] his vision says it is okay to cut our military. that is okay to cut the budget of the military, even as the world is not safe. his vision would reduce the number of ships in our navy. you know, the number of ships in the u.s. navy is smaller than any time since 1917. our aircraft in our air force, our air force, it is older, and it is smaller than any time since it was founded. do you know how many troops -- active duty personnel. he wants to cut the number of armed services personnel.

my view is very different. i want to add to shipbuilding, i want to add to purchases of aircraft. i would more troops in our military and the want to give our veterans the care they deserve. [applause] let me tell you, we will take america in a very different place. he is taking america on a path towards europe and europe is not working there. it will not work here. europe is in trouble as their debt amounts and people demand more and more from government and the government has to borrow more to satisfy their demands. we believe it until the freedom -- we believe in the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams, and courage small businesses to grow and thrive. this is a land of freedom that drives an economy based on freedom. [applause] so i want to think the mayor for his introduction.

i want to thank bill. where is bill? where is he hanging out here? it is that way? this is his plant. thank you. [applause] i want to thank the auditor for introducing me. days. -- dave. i think he is in the back. and the chairman of the republican county. where is the chairman? will he raise his hand? he is around here somewhere. thank you. right that there. thank you. and i want to thank you for your questions. so with that, let's start of with this man. i am the closest with a microphone, soi will give you my microphone. >> what is the first issue you will check -- tackle on january 21, 2013? >> she has got the date, did she not? boy. well, was there are some things

that have to be dealt with immediately. and right now, there is a cloud hanging over the health-care sector, the employment sector. you have employers wondering what will happen to their capacity to provide insurance for their employees. this is a huge crowd. -- cloud. so the first thing i will do is to take an action to stop obamacare in its tracks. [applause] [cheers and applause] it is classic. which is, health care has some issues. there are some things we ought to do to make sure we saw those -- solve those issues. people that have been working and develop a sickness, a so-

called pre-existing condition and then change jobs. let's say they have been previously insured and now they have changed jobs or move somewhere. the fact they cannot get insurance again would not make any sense at all. you have got to prevent that from happening. people should not be dropped from insurance because they get sick. we have to fix that as well. right now we make it hard for individuals who want to buy insurance. if you are an employer of one person yourself, the but getting -- good luck getting an insurance policy that is affordable. we have to make -- good luck getting an insurance policy that is affordable. we have to make it easier. the cost is going through the roof. we have to fix those things. the president said i have the answer. let's have government take it over. that is not the answer we need in the 21st century. we need health care to work more like a consumer market with a kind of -- the kind of provisions that the cost down and quality up. i will do that and get health care to work for the american people. [cheers and applause] get rid of obamacare.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you for taking my question. in this age of tough foreign competition, we need to invest smart in america to help our country grow. based on that, i would appreciate your comments on an investing strategy that seems to have resulted in several million dollars of your personal income taxes being paid to foreign countries instead of hours. i'm referring to page 169 of your 2010 income-tax returns where you took over $1.5 million in foreign tax credit in 10 years. i appreciate your comment. >> i will look at it. [laughter] i am not familiar with that. i did not think i paid to any foreign income taxes but i will be happy to look at it. others? yes, please.

>> what were the most important qualities of leadership that he would say and what is an example of someone you would say would be a good role model as a leader? >> thank you. the best qualities of leadership critical qualities of leadership. vision, of course. -- capacity to see what other people do not see. the capacity to see change and to be able to make adjustments before the change occurs. you look for leaders that have that kind of insight and capacity. integrity. people will not follow someone who they do not believe follows their own principles. [applause] loyalty. and loyalty to the principle and the nation that follow them. ability to work hard. to lead not just by pointing but to lead also by walking forward and running hard and making sure others recognize it in you. you do not does have some of his speech well but who also

works well and hard. -- who speaks well but who also works well and hard. i mean, my role model is my dad. my father was undaunted. i guess that is another word i would use. undaunted. despite the odds and circumstances, he plowed ahead. leaders do that. when things are tough, they did not get terrified and turn in the other direction. they do not blame other people. four things getting tough. they acknowledge their own mistakes. [applause] my father did not get a college degree. did not get the time and money together to actually get a degree. when he married my mother, they could not afford a 50 honeymoon. -- a fancy honeymoon. they drove across the country in an old car. my father sold paint out of the car to tell it -- paid for gasoline and hotel bills. he went on to become the head of a car company and became

governor of a state where he once sold aluminum paint. determined. undaunted. indefatigable. the qualities of leadership are many. i appreciate the fact that we have been led by good men and women over the years as a nation. from our founders. even through these days we have around as many great leaders. i like your governor a lot. i think he is doing a heck of a job. governor kasich. [applause] thank you. i spoke with sarah before the meeting began here and she is seven-years old and a first grader. she raised her hand. does she really have a question? dad? she does? sarah? >> what are you going to stop wasting money for my future? [laughter] [applause]

>> for those who did not hear it, how will you stop wasting money for your future? let me tell you. that is a very good question. becausewhat we have right now is politicians promising lots of free stuff, free for me and my generation and maybe for a lot of you but not free for her. because as we spend we are borrowing money from nations and other nations, and we have to repay with interest. it is like a credit card. low introductory rates. right now by virtue of a series of financial mechanics, they are able to keep the rates low but in the future, the rates are likely to go up and you will have to pay for it. i find that unacceptable. so here is what i will do -- i will take everything that government does, print out a list of programs and say to those programs, is this one so

critical that it is worth a pay for it? if it does not pass that test, i will get rid of it. [applause] and i will also take a lot of programs that are critical and send them back to the state where they can be run more efficiently and with less fraud. [applause] so my job is to get america on track to have a balanced budget. now, i will not cut $1 trillion in the first year. and i heard a question. why not? the reason is taking the $1 trillion after -- out of a 15 trillion dollar economy would cause it to shrink and put a lot of people out of work. but i will eliminate programs and solve our long-term problems so we get a balanced budget and america to a position where we can get rid of this

extraordinary debt that will strangle future generations. thank you. [applause] >> we have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our constitution. and -- [applause] i want to know -- i want to know -- i do agree, he should be tried for treason. but i want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you will be able to do to restore our constitution in this country. [applause] >> i happen to believe that the constitution was not his billion -- not just a brilliant but probably inspired. i believe the same thing about

the declaration of independence. [applause] and i believe unlike what the president said about the supreme court where he suggested that it was -- he said it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn a decision by the legislature. actually that is their role and has been since the early 1800's. marbury vs. selling madison. -- versus madison. i will respect the different branches of government if i am fortunate enough to become president. [applause] one more thing i will mention in that regard. if you have some specifics you want me to address in terms of policy, i am happy to. the go ahead. >> some of the executive orders specifically that he has made with regards to the secret service and their protection of

people and people being allowed to exercise their first amendment rights to protest. in the presence of the secret service. and some of those other types of the executive orders he has done just recently. >> i am not familiar with the orders with regards to the secret service but i will be happy to take a look. at what he has done with regards to the secret service and protests. we obviously have a right to protest in this country and express our viewpoint. at the same time, we want people being protected and not be in danger. i will see specifically what he has in mind. obviously we have all been disappointed by the number of things that have happened at the government level. but i will look at those executive orders. i would reserve the right as our president to put in place executive orders. one i would put in place is i would have in place an executive order that grants a

waiver from obamacare to all 50 states. [applause] [cheers and applause] i will use the provision in ways i think are appropriate and constitutional. and ultimately the congress and supreme court and i will have the experience of defining exactly what those lines might be. thank you. let's see. what do we have? yes, sir. there is a young man there with a microphone. hi. >> i go to medical school at case western reserve university. just down the street. so my question is related to graduate education in general. we talk about investing our future and borrowing too much. unfortunately, graduates school is expensive and my mother is not able to pick up the $70,000 a year tab. but it is all the worth it. what are your thoughts on education and financing still more individuals like myself

who cannot afford it can still often be the future of america? >> what's the answer is not to say let's have the federal government give unlimited and lower interest loans with no interest to everybody that wants them. and i know that is going to be -- by the way, you are going to hear that in an effort to try and reach college and graduate students to get involved in the obama campaign. and they are pulling back, obviously. they are not as a enthusiastic as they were. in an effort to get them in case, he will promise giving a say i will pay for your education or get rid of the loans. i am only guessing but my expectation is he will find as politicians do promises of free stuff as a way to try to get people to vote for him. we have heard that time and time again. but the country is in the balance. but we cannot promise you -- money we do not have. so what do i do? [applause]

how do i help? we have to find a way to get higher education to be more competitive and to take advantage of the technology of the day. businesses like this one used technology, software, computer systems to bring down their costs and become more productive. colleges and institutions of higher learning need to take advantage of some of those things. i heard aboutone college is saying that every semester people are supposed to take one cyber course, one online course to help bring down costs. i think i read thatharvard and mit have a joint program that provides an education to people online. we will have to take advantage of some of these innovations in -- and get education -- get these institutions of higher learning to compete with one another to find ways to provide the same educational experience at a lower cost. because, i mean, there was a time -- i remember. i know, it sounds like forever go but there was a time when people by and large could pay for college with their summer job and by working during the school year.

you know? i am seeing some people here -- that is not the case anymore. that is $70,000 after-tax dollars. you wish, exactly, and so, we have to find a way to say why is education -- has education become so expensive and how do we get it to become more cost- effective? justwriting checks from government in my opinion is not the right way to get it done. thank you. question over there. >> i have the microphone. pardon me. mr. romney, when rob portman was campaigning in 2008 in ohio, he addressed the republican club and from the floor i raised this question -- i asked if he could elaborate on this small subcommittee in the house somewhere from about 1984 that has been working up a bill to nationalize the retirement plans of everybody in this room.

ira's and 401 (k)'s. on and what would you do about it? he knowledge that has been happening. where is that legislation and what would you do about it? >> never heard of it. i cannot imagine nationalizing the iras or 401ks. if i'm president, i will not nationalize them. here is a gentleman up here. you have got a microphone. whoops. there is a microphone to your right. there you go. >> president romney -- [applause] [cheers and applause] i am one of 17 million veterans, not all alive now, from world war ii. [applause]

my companions and i all kind of agree when you speak about the situations and the one that concerns us is the young people and the young males and females that we now have in the armed services, regarding their welfare and the foreign situation in the world that seems to require our intervention in every little thing with a loss of american lives. as a result. sometimes it seems as if they are neat list. -- needless. i know they are not in the are

doing their jobs but you cannot blame the soldiers, sailors and marines during their jobs. i am wondering what can we do -- regarding foreign affairs and our entanglement's? >> thank you. that is a big topic. i happen to believe that in foreign affairs and dealing with nations that have a choice to make -- whether they will be friendly to human-rights, to principles of freedom and democracy or whether they will instead become more entrenched in authoritarianism. it is important for these nations to know exactly where we stand in for us to stand for our principles and for america to be strong. by that i mean this -- our communication with other

nations and our ability to help lead them toward prosperity and freedom is enhanced if america is strong morally, economically and militarily. [applause] so i want to make sure we have a strong military not so that we can win awards -- wars, but to prevent wars and to help encourage people to move towards an american and eternal principles of freedom and opportunity and human-rights. there are circumstances in the world today which are threatening and of concern. number one on the list is iran becoming nuclear. iran is the world's national supporter of terror. and has as its objective in the

words of their president, the elimination of our friend israel. iran with fissile material which they could provide to has the law or other terrorist groups could execute terror here and in other parts of the world. hezbollah now exists in latin america. it is important for us not to allow iran to become a nuclear power and provide material to any entity that would use against us. i would reserve the right to take whatever action is necessary to prevent iran from becoming nuclear. [applause] at the same time, there are other nations that are charting the course, developing nations be. i would like to work with them.

i want to increase trade with them and encourage them to move towards modernity, to move toward an economic system that their people. that is something i consider president of the united states and his administration. one more point with regards to there is a little sliver of hope with regard to iran and it relates to syria. syria is iran's source of access to the mediterranean. syria is iran pose the only arab ally. being -- syria is iran pose the only arab ally. -- iran's only arab ally. the president of the united states should be leading an effort to help encourage syria to make that change, rather than waiting for someone else to do it. [applause]

>> walgren to cleveland, governor romney. ideas wanted you to know -- wanted to know about what your time line is on the xl pipeline, if you were to be elected. ohio is blessed with an abundance of gas and oil. terps -- how does ohio fit in your energy policy? [applause] >> oh, well has natural gas, oil, coal -- ohio has after gas, oil, coal, and those natural resources are extraordinary valuable, and those resources or in short supply around the world and abundant here and abundant in america. the idea of making it harder and harder to take advantage of to me.

in my view, the efforts to make it almost impossible to mine building a new coal powered electric plant would put you bankrupt, that is not the kind of policy that makes sense in a nation that has the kind of coal we have. the efforts to try and stop the fracking for natural gas does not make sense, in my opinion. natural gas is an extraordinary blessing. we have the capacity for natural gas and coal and oil to make is that extraordinary energy producer and to make energy lower-cost in america. by the way, manufacturing goes to the point where the costs are most competitive. it is not just labor. it is energy, transportation

costs, taxation costs, regulatory costs. but energy is a big piece of it. in some businesses like this one, my guess is the energy bill here is pretty substantial. look at the size of that press. how many tons press is that? 800 ton press. 3,000 ton press. my guess is when the electric switch is turned on, it draws a little power. the capacity of manufacturing to be in ohio or to be in america is directly related to what the cost is of electricity. windmills and solar are great and we are going to develop them and perhaps that technology will become economic, but right now is multiples of the cost of natural gas or oil or coal. i want to develop those we can show manufacturers who are here or thinking about moving here, if they're thinking -- sources of energy

bill -- will be reliable. we can get more demand. how do you get higher wages for folks and an answer is you have so many employers competing to hire people they have to raise the benefits and wages to be able to secure you. it is supply and demand. you can try an artificially raise wages but that collapses. they go to other countries or other states. i want to make this the place that manufacturing wants to come again, where jobs come back to america. [applause] energy is a big part of that. i am told i will get one more question. there is the microphone right behind you. >> hi.

there are two things i think are critically important. these are the things i want you to be passionate about. our country's relationship with israel and number two, i am concerned about partial birth abortion. >> thank you. i agree on the latter and i will do all i can do to prevent partial birth abortion from being legal in this country. i also agree with you with regards to israel and also with our other friends in the world. israel is in a dangerous place so we pay attention to israel. it is surrounded by a lot of folks who do not like them. some of those nations suggest hostile intent towards israel

and its existence. that puts us -- upon us a special responsibility to stay with our friend. [applause] there are friends -- they are our friends and not just because they're nice to us. because we share our values. they believe in freedom, of freedom of speech. if you want to find a place that is critical of israel, go to the newspapers in israel. it is like our newspapers. this is a wonderful thing in a free economy to have the capacity of people to express their views and to do so publicly. we will stand with israel. we will show something i think this president has not done well enough. it is better to be an american friend than an american folk. we will stand by our friend. [applause] -- it is better to be an

american friend than an american foe. this is a nation that respects those who share those values. we are in a bit of a global competition. it is not military. accept perhaps with regard to the jihadists, the radical violent jihadists who would attack one another and attack us. it is a competition of ideas and philosophies. china and others think an authoritarian government which restricts freedom can be a highly effective economy and power. russia, likewise authoritarian and blessed with extraordinary energy resources is becoming resurgent. and has a very different view than ours with regard to freedom and human rights. and then there is ourselves, where we combine economic freedom and political freedom

and personal freedom in a way that has changed us and changed the world. we will stand with people who stand for freedom and move the others toward freedom as well. [applause] your very kind to be here and spend some time with me. it counts. what we're doing matters. this is an election where former first lady barbara bush said this is the most important election of my lifetime. given the fact she has a son and husband who were presidents, that is saying something. you may have gotten in ohio from first lady barbara bush. she has never done robocalls before. but we asked her to help out, and she said yes, this is important. this is a question about what kind of america we are going to have. this is a question about whether we are going to have an america more and more and more dependent on government, which

gets deeper and deeper in debt, or whether we will be a nation that returns to the principles of freedom and free enterprise. [applause] thank you so very much. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

>> presidential primary voters go to the polls in india, n.c., and west virginia. go to our web page to watch video of presidential candidates and president obama on the campaign trail. you can also search on the issues. go to c-span.org/campaign2 012. and ron paul on changing the federal reserve system.

a form on this november pose a presidential election. joe klein and richard reeves discuss the role of money, technology, and media. it is moderated by lesley stahl of "60 minutes." >> good evening, everyone and welcome to the new york historical society. i am vice-president for public programs and i am thrilled to welcome you to our spectacular auditorium. if you have not had the chance to visit our new installation and exhibition, i hope you will return during regular museum hours. i would like to ask how many people here are members?

instead of asking you to become a member, i would ask you to think about giving the gift of membership to someone very special. i know when i give the gift of membership, people love it and they're very happy. we also have our new children's museum. that is a great member shift gift in itself. if you're interested, just stop by and talk to one of the staff members. it is great to have so many members here. we really love it. tonight's program is open " politics and power, elections 2012." this is part of the distinguished speaker series which is the heart of our public program. i would like to thank mr. and

mrs. schwartz for their support which has enabled us to invite some money prominent authors and historians to the society. i know mr. schwartz is here. is mrs. schwartz here? let's thank them. thank you so much. they're the most wonderful people. the program will last one hour and include a question and answer session and toward the end of the program, lesley stahl will invite the audience to approach two standing mike's where we will have them set up in the aisle. we ask you to do this so the speakers and everyone in the audience can hear you. the programs are recorded. many of them are posted online and we want our listeners all over the world to hear you.

so onto introducing our wonderful speakers tonight. lesley stahl has been a correspondent for "60 minutes" since march 1991. prior to joining, she was cbs news white house correspondent during the carter, reagan, and george h. w. bush presidencies and served as moderator of the sunday public affairs program "face the nation." she has a collection of emmy awards for her interviews and reporting, including a lifetime achievement ami in september 2003 and wrote her experiences in a book, "reporting live." ver latest -- her latest gig is on sirius radio. and joe klein who writes "in the

arena" for "time" magazine and is a regular contributor to "swampland." he is political reporter for "newsweek." he is a two-time winner for best magazine column and the author of several books including the acclaimed novel, "primary colors" and "democracy lost." richard reeves is senior lecturer at the annenberg school of communication at the university of southern california and an author and syndicated columnist. he is the former chief political correspondent of "the new york times" and a former national editor and columnist for "esquire."

he has made six television films winning the m. e. and columbia -- emmy and columbia- dupont board. he is working on a book about the internment of japanese- americans by the united states government during world war ii. we will be having him back. we're also pleased to welcome their early gauge -- beverly gage. she is the author of "the day wall street exploded." she is working on her new and next but, -- book, "g-man." she has written for numerous journals and appears as an

historical commentator on "the news our -hour." i would ask that you please turn off your cellphone, an electronic devices. please note that photography is not permitted with the exception of the new york historical society's photographer. please turn me in welcoming our guests. [applause] >> can you hear us? the new yorkt love historical society? i will guess that everyone here and this is build up to the top. you are all political junkies, right? my husband always says the only time anyone knows what they're talking about is when they talk

shop talk. tonight we're going to have the most exquisite shoptalk there is. we have the most brilliant political thinkers and writers we could gather on the stage anytime, anywhere. can we start with the issue of inequality, class warfare, and the buffett rule? i hear that cat it to bring up the quality issue and never get -- candidates never bring ouwhoe issue never get anywhere with it. can you discuss this issue and tell us whether you think president obama is going to get anywhere with this? >> let me say what a relief it is to be here after six months on the road with the republican candidates. [laughter] [applause] on the other hand, you guys look

like a real tea party audience. you know, inequality is not a big seller in american politics. if you look at the polling data, people are more interested in providing opportunity for people who have not had them then providing money and redistributing wealth in america. however, let me just say that the political spectrum during the last 30 years has tilted so far to the right that at this point, we have gone beyond questions of redistribution and inequality to questions of simple justice, where the wealthiest americans are contributing less and less to the society, and the very idea of progressivity which came with the income tax in 1913 is in peril.

i think there is some mileage for the president here as long as he emphasizes things in addition to the redistribution of wealth. like the redistribution of opportunity. >> just change the language. beverly, talk about this issue historically. has it ever work? are there times when inequality is so out of whack, so pronounced that actually has worked initially? >> it is funny, i have been teaching a course at yale. on 1900 to 1945, we think about moments when class and inequality have become big issues. look at the 1930's. that was the right place to look. at the turn-of-the-century, the first 20 years and to look at the radical challenges but also

the sort of language, this moment of the income tax coming into being being the moment that is more in conversation with the sort of things we're looking at today. look at the election of 1912 and most of the major candidates, big famous -- woodrow wilson, he won. he was a democrat. you had theodore roosevelt, running not as a republican. he had already been president. he is running as a progressive challenger to the republican candidate who is william howard taft. this is the only election where a socialist, has played a significant role. what is interesting about that election is that all of the candidates are running a with a cross language and they're having real mobilization around the issue.

the 1930's and being somewhat different. we think abousociety and of bei. we think of roosevelt and running around class language inthe issue is not as much inequality because some many people are poor. i think the interesting parallel because of the political language and because of, to my dismay, we are where we were at the beginning of the 20 a century. -- the beginning of the 20th century. >> at the constitutional convention, john adams caught in an argument with john dickinson of pennsylvania. dickinson said are you never going to understand that people would rather have that chance of getting rich and face the reality of being poor?

>> that is counterintuitive. i covered an election two years ago. it was an initiative on the ballot to just tax the top 1% in the state of washington. bill gates and his father were supporting this initiative. it did not pass. i was astonished it did not pass. is an act counterintuitive? >> that thing that happened is that over time people have come to see "the bigs" -- the government, big labor, as equally impressive. -- aggressivoppressive. there is a fair amount of sentiment out there about

feeding the beast. when people pay their taxes they think of giving money to the poor instead of themselves. >> here is another issue i am confused about. i keep hearing we are a centrist country and that candidates have to give it back to the center because that is where we are. yet you have the republican party that is in no way in the center in terms of their issues. they are clearly out of the main stream on rolling back 70 years of legislation. >> they are running against the progressive era. >> when you read these folks, when you read magazines like national review and listen to them on fox and the radio, they are railing about woodrow wilson, not lyndon johnson. >> what about woodrow wilson?

>> they hate jersey. >> he was the birth of progressivism. i wrote a piece for the times a few years ago. glenn beck was obsessed with woodrow wilson. there is another interesting character percolating, one is william sumner. he was a writer who wrote a defense of the inequality as a great thing. he was a spokesman of social darwinism. >> i am not talking about inequality, i am talking about privatizing social security. if we are a centrist country, i do not think we are, how come when all of these issues come up, it is always 50-50?

it is. >> it is 60-40 on the part of the people who want to keep these things. >> democratic-republican at 50- 50. every poll is down the middle. it is. how come -- why do we keep saying we are a centrist country? >> i think we are a schizophrenic country. personal identification, they say that in terms of -- are more self-described conservatives and liberals in our country. in many of those people who are screaming about socialism want to see medicare stay as it is.

by 80-20. by 70-30, they want to see social security state where it is. by 90-10, they want to see politicians compromise rather than stick with their positions. i go into the country and talk to civilians on road trips. they are all astonished at the power we in the media have given the tea party folks. they say -- we know who those folks are. >> they win elections. >> we know who they are. they show up at the city council and complain about fluoridation. >> they are running congress. >> that is in part because if you give people a choice between nothing and more government, they are going to choose nothing. look at the last two elections. this shows you how fractured our system is. by 80%, americans said they were satisfied with the health care they were receiving.

what does barack obama do? he tries to produce a universal health care plan, originally a republican plan. he is clobbered for this by the republicans. they have a triumphant 2010 election. what do they do? they tried to destroy medicare, which is approved by 80% of the country. or is this coming from? the bases, nancy pelosi and the democrats and from john boehner's republicans. >> and us. >> the media? >> it is the story we go after first. to try to get some friction going. >> you had said they are running against the 1960's. when you said that, we got

diverted. sorry. i am thinking of them bringing up contraception. >> rick santorum talking about woodstock. >> what was that all about? they lost them. they think the country went to hell. sex in the 1960's. that is what they talk about. i do not mean a real people but politicians in states and they believe have a lot of catholics. catholic and voting is not that different but they think they can -- [ringing] >> is that you? [laughter] >> they still talk about those wedges. >> can it work? >> it can.

>> i think they are committing suicide. >> maureen dowd quoted that fellow, don't they understand people like sex? [laughter] >> this is the gripe by how with democrats as they forget about the m part of omb. making sure they get rid of all, useless regulations so they do not pile up in sedimentary layers. romney had a convincing campaign but is the first time i have seen this in 10 campaigns. it is so embarrassing. romney's stump speech got worse as he went along because he was

lured away into talking about things like immigration and contraception. the first time contraception came up in a debate, romney had a great dancer. -- a great answer. he said nobody cares. santorum brought it up. romney gets right into the thick of it. he says santorum voted for planned parenthood. one of the few rational reasons a person would like santorum. [laughter] >> you think obama would walk away with this thing. let's talk for a minute -- >> the republican side changed the rules which gave us a new system and is ripping apart a republican party. they have been running for six months and democrats have not.

>> beverly, citizens united. >> citizens united, we are waiting to see what is going to happen but there are all sorts of structural changes that have been occurring over the past 20 or 30 years around money and politics. i also think around how congress operates and how the two-party is are structured. in many ways, they are not the driving force of the election but explain a lot of the things we have seen in terms of what it is obama is able to do, not able to do, why the discussion in washington is geared toward particular interests. and it does not in the rest of the country. to the degree the tea party is trying to get something that is substantive, it is that sense of disconnection.

>> when i hear citizens united, i think koch brothers. a very small number of people -- i think this is what you're suggesting. >> in the old days, you know, if they did not do well, it did not get money and they were gone. >> case in point, newt gingrich. the loss vegas casino magnate, in a single issue, he was pro- benjamin netanyahu, pro- sediments, anti-iran, and he shoveled $10 million to keep

newt gingrich going. i have been mired his creativity. -- admired his creativity in coming up with ideas from time to time. he is creative about ideas. he is a jerk when it comes to politics. when you have a single payer system like that -- [laughter] -- if we hold their feet to their fire, which we should do more of, there is credibility. -- they lose credibility. >> i want to say that history professors across america are very glad that the newt gingrich is no longer in the race and is no longer the face of our profession. [laughter] >> he did not even get tenure.

did he? >> can we stay on the subject of the wealthy. there is so much money into the campaign, candidates have their own ads, being able to be so vicious with distorted adds, and how this is tilting the campaign in a way we have not seen before. >> it is part of a continuing trend. the last book i wrote was about how the need to get on the air on television created the need to raise money, created this industry of people who told you how to spend the money and television, all of these pollsters and so on. it has been going on for a long time. if you look at wall street over the last 30 years, the financial community has

distorted american and capitalism away from products and toward making deals. the democrats are complicit. people like bob rubin are not poor. the rest of the crew of democratic bankers who put a bill clinton, funded barack obama. >> it is both sides. what about the rest of us? >> it is so skewing and the court has made the decision -- it is not just the money, which is certainly alarming enough and if you look back to 1896. william mckinley's presidency, that is the first moment of a big money in politics.

then you have a century of people pushing back against this. it is not just the money, it is also the lack of transparency. they have a very innocuous- sounding names. you do not know where your money is going. they know, but we do not know what forces are behind it. >> it is not for nothing that the mckinley campaign was karl rove's favorite campaign in american history. >> to you think we will begin to push back against this? >> i think in the system is breaking as we see it because the republican party is not

going to be united on anything. our political rules and regulations are contracts between the parties to preserve each other. when you get to the presidential level, it seems to me that the new guys always win. whether it is karl rove or james carville. there are the only guys that read the rules. it was so clear that the republicans were sure that they did not know what the rules work. we elect a proportional representation. the have a long campaign. >> let's talk about some of the issues out there that will really, seriously, influence the way the election will go.

the first one is the gender gap. how, when you hear there is a 20. and gap with women siding with obama over romney, you think to yourself, well, romney cannot win. is this a that decisive a number? can romney narrow the gap? >> he can narrow it some, but he will not get a majority. >> you think that is it. >> i have been citing poll numbers since we started talking. let me criticize myself. one of the things that we overdue in the press is to try to quantify presidential campaigns. they are essentially unquantifiable. issues like the gender gap can disappear in a heartbeat.

in my experience, again, economists say -- not over big issue. if the gdp is below 3%, than the incumbent gets kicked out. i do not believe any of that. in my experience, presidential campaigns are about to, is sometimes a three guys standing on a stage in october. the general public tunes in at that point. they're not like you guys. they are not political junkies. they're not listening now. they even know who rick santorum used to be. [laughter] you get two candidates. the presidency is the most intimate office we have in this country. the president lives in your house. you see him for the next four years. and people make a gut-level decision about which person is more reassuring and more

comfortable to be with. at that moment, at gender gap issues, all of these other issues -- health care, economy, they all move away. economy, too. >> if osama bin laden had been killed two weeks before the election, he would have won two to one. those things now are more likely to come from abroad. romney has zero knowledge of foreign policy. and the other guy has been the president. he has had no choice. >> there is one exception to that, by the way. i think. first of all, but one of the key insights i have had in to run the's character is his absolute unwillingness to tell the truth about obama's middle east policy. he continually says that barack obama wants to return to the

1967 borders and israel. full stop. the other part of the sentence is with mutually agreed upon land swaps, which is been the position of every american president since richard nixon. he will not say that. if he persists in lying. i cannot think i'm the only journalist who has called him on this. not everybody, sadly, reads "time" magazine. [laughter] romney, who so far, has not shown the evidence of conflict -- of conscious or honor, decides to demagogue china. that is one area that people are concerned about and the president is not willing to demagogue.

>> f romney gets traction on an issue, is it fair to say that obama was not strong enough to come back? why isn't he fighting back? why is that the public listening to him, obama? >> against ron paul? >> against romney. >> you can see that emerging. it seems like obama has been holding back and letting them fight amongst themselves. he is going to step up. this question of the events and events driving elections is really a stunning. it is stunning how much longer, how much more we talk about elections now. it used to be, a 50 or 60 years ago, you would have found out who they are in july or august. ali's those stories that are not news stories. the dog on the car, they change so quickly.

>> my point is that is still the way most americans experience elections. >> right. what things are going to look like in october, of the answer is we will know in october. >> i want to challenge it joe for one second on the idea that it all comes down to the debates and people make their decision when it comes down to debates. what i'm struck by, and maybe it has always been true, that people in the country make up their mind pretty early. they decide, that is my guy. everything the other guy says is stupid or wrong or is going to hurt of the country. everything my guy says is wonderful or right. this perpetuates by the echo chambers. the voter decides who they will listen to.

this is polarization. they are making up their mind now, if they have not already. the number of undecided gets a smaller and smaller. >> in the old days, they did not make up their minds. this got paid. of the fact is that the country is not nearly as polarized as we portray it. it becomes very clear to me -- by the way. when i take these road trips, i will be announcing one on wednesday. i'm going to go to some battleground states. but the viewers and "time" readers make up the itinerary. if you want to talk politics of me, let's do it. these are not focus groups. what i find is that the vast majority of them are somewhere in the middle. the vast majority of them are incredibly frustrated that politicians in washington cannot come to an agreement.

cannot compromise. which is why there will be a backlash against those tea party politicians this year. one guy in arkansas, a furniture dealer, said to me, why don't you guys ever talk about the things that the two presidential candidates agree on? why you always talk about their disagreements? the guy has a point. >> what do they agree on? [laughter] >> the fact is that up until the point, maybe one month ago when mitt romney came up with his supply-side tax cut, they were like this. barack obama and romney were like this on tax plans. and on economic plans. really, they were. >> but they are not now. >> they are not that far apart. >> why is there a gender gap? >> well, i was in paris.

the students would always ask the same question first. that is, how can you tell the difference between a democrat and republicans? these people who go from communist to monarchists. i said, they smell different. republicans a smell better. however, you walk into a room, and you know who is who. our politics have gotten pretty rotten. the rhetoric has been raised. we have had a lot to do with raising the rhetoric, too. the debates are important to us because we are looking for someone to make a mistake. >> the public is the exact opposite reason, by the way. >> here is something that has happened over the last couple of years that is frustrating to me.

that is when you say, we the press. and then the press is a big salad bowl. who is in the press? rush limbaugh is in the press. fox is in the press. msnbc is in the press. all these people who are devoting themselves to little slices of the pie are in with the so-called mainstream media. we are all the same thing to the public. we're not the same thing. >> can i ran for a second against marketing? >> we have been renting the whole time here. please continue. >> we have been ranting. >> the central principle of marketing is that the things that divide us are far more important than the things we have in common, off because those are the things you sell. we do not have three networks like we grew up with. the fierce marketing for audiences on cable has led to an atmosphere.

and now the internet has led to an atmosphere of a press intolerance. it is a media riot that has taken place. the victims are the american public and those who really want to understand the issues. >> where did that start? >> i think that is right. we are now being pushed off by what we listen to to become more extreme. he keeps saying, this is where we started. half are we a country in the middle? or are we no longer a country where the majority of us are in the middle? >> there are structural things about the way the american election is run. on the one hand, the media, which tends to take these items,, particularly now that we have a political media that

is explicitly politicize one way or the other. i would point of this is more of a return to what it was like 100 years ago where everyone had a party affiliation. you've you're reading a socialist newspaper or a democratic paper. this moment of objectivity was something of a historical anomaly. we're seeing something of a return to an earlier era. >> it was a gentler country that point. >> i'm not sure about that, either. >> there were big issues. mccarthy and what not. now, joe said something about things happening so fast. how long this an issue, even an important one, last in this media environment? >> right. that is true.

the media gives us one picture of politics. and then the way our voting system actually works does a different story, which is that the most important thing to understand to me about what elections play out in a particular way that they do and why they say the things they say, is because of the like the electoral college. it does not matter if you mobilize and win by three votes. you get the same number of electoral votes. he did not get the same kind of mobilization. we will start moving -- we're gonna talk about michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, and a florida. this is a not very smart way to set up your democracy. >> i have a proposal them. i would like to combine the

states of north and south dakota, montana and wyoming, into a single state. it less than the population of brooklyn. [laughter] but it will only have two senators instead of eight. will make things a lot easier for us to actually pass legislation in this country. [laughter] [applause] >> absolutely. >> to give them to canada. [laughter] >> north dakota is prosperous. we need their tax money. >> before i invite the audience to come up to the microphones that will be in the aisle, can we talk of the importance of likability, which is my issue. i'm always thinking that one of the great influences in an election is what the public sees and feels in their guts. you talk about this being a factor.

it is about likability. i am so interested right now with what the candidates, particularly obama, what they're doing to make you like them. they do these little television and i guess on the web now, too. these little visual vignettes. and obama, i love this. he is playing out the dog issue. he is talking about dogs. being seen with his dog. any guy is seen with a dog is likable instantly. clinton had his monica lewinsky issue. all of a sudden, clinton had a dog. where did that go? >> checkers. [laughter] >> and now this portuguese water dog has his own blog. so that you will all be remembered that romney's dog was stuck on the top of a car.

[laughter] >> of this is confusing to me, because obama also admitted to eating dogs in indonesia. they had a joke, what is the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? the pit bull is a delicious. [laughter] >> is a people's gut as important as the economy? do you all think that? >> barack obama would be even more likable than he inherently is. people do find him, aside from his job creating, their approval of him as a human being is very high. if you're doing better on the economy he would be even more likable. it becomes a zeitgeist. >> when obama was still at his

candidacy, his wife invited him. it is the first time or the black men were on a platform and the white man were -- i said to the editor of the n.y. times, what do you think? he said, he is too nice to be president. we are finding out, and republicans have not gotten yet, how tough he is. he may be nice. he is nice. my daughter is a speech writer for the president. [laughter] i shouldn't have said at the beginning. his personnel policies, it does not get better than that. [laughter] i lost myself. >> he is tougher than the public

realizes. >> i mean, we are playing hardball all over the world. a lot of it is secret. >> certainly, we are with drones. >> the only time he has hesitated was syria because it was just too much to take on. >> it is not just that it is too much to take on. in syria, you are running the risk of a regional war. you have the iranians in there and the leadership. you can get into trouble by supporting one side or the other. >> so it is smart. >> i think it matters of far more than the economy. the thing that is so

interesting to me about this electoral cycle is that when we have had these really shift from democrats to franklin roosevelt, then you have democratic dominance. and then you have this economic crisis of the 1970's. and then you have this economic cris of the 1970's. that produces this big ship. you have reagan coming in. this conservative moment that last for several decades. and a lot of people bought in -- thought in 2008 that we were on the cusp of this new moment. it seems to me that the election will be both a referendum on whether orot we have had a fundamental shift about how people think about politics.

but also, we will see if that pattern holds or not. it seems like he will probably remember those pictures of obama and fdr in 2008 after he won. why it hasn't happened or if we are actually experiencing it and we just cannot understand it. that will be the biggest question of 2012. >> i like your daughter's employer, but i think they made several mistakes in this area. first of all, if you talk to people in the country and look at the statistics and ask people, what are you concerned about? they say, the economy. they do not care about deficits. obama got captured by a washington conversation about deficit reduction that is a long-term problem, but a short-

term impediment to economic recovery. he lost sight of the public on that one. the other place i think he arguably lost sight on what our country's future should be is he turned away from paul volcker and all those other left-wing radicals who thought he should break up the big banks. do we continue to have this situation of moral hazard in this country where there are six banks that control something like 70% of the assets and are o big to fail. as long as that happens, we are in peril. >> what an irony that he did not break up the banks and yet wall street has turned against him. they're putting all their money into romney. >> let me ask you one final question and then we will have people come up to the microphone. incumbency. how big of a factor has that

been historically? how much of a leg up does is give obama? >> it matters. it really matters. that is the big question in terms of obama. the scary parallel for him is the jimmy carter parallel. will the end up being a jimmy carter who is understood and not able to rise to his moment? fortunately, he is running against mitt romney and not ronald reagan. the incuency is going to serve him. he is very well established. and to some degree, the conventional narrative iright. he was a great campaigner. he has been a so-so president in getting theto work in ways he wants them to work.

the question of 2012 but comes, -- becomes, can you, once again, be a really good candidate, if you the party been a kind of so-so president who has disappointed a lot of your base and does it still work for you? >> a tremendous in the vantage -- advantage because peoplhad seen the man do the job. assuming he has done a better than 50/50 job. it must be very hard to run without any kind of foreign policy record. all the stuff about, i am a businessman.

i don't think anybody cares about that. >> last point. >> one example. while it is ridiculous to look at paul this early in the -- pos this early in the campaign, i would point out to you that in ohio, which is traditionally a conservative state, obama has been running nsistently ahead of romney. there is a basic reason for that. the auto bailouts. chevrolet is running triple shifts building the chevy cruze which gets 40 miles per gallon. honda is doing very well. thauto sports manufacturers throughout the state are doing extremely well. romney opposed the bailout. and he becomes a lot less likable when all he talks about is not giving bailouts and firing people. the president seems more lible when you have a job. >> i am with you on the likability, by the way. >> ok. if anybody has a question,

please go out to the aisle. there is a microphone so everyone can hear the question. please, no speeches. just a quick question. >> one area that you hadn't talked about -- can you hear me? >> there you go. >> one area it you did not talk about is particularly with the states and the republican governors, they started to build obstacles for the public to get access to the polls. do you think that will be a major factor in the election? >> it is a major factor. 41 states are passing or in the process of passing new voter suppression rules. voting by mail, no. voting by the internet, no. all designed -- a thing in nyu

law school spealizes in voter suppression. they think 5 million people will not vote. who are those people? poor people. people who had trouble with the law. young people. >> they have to have govnment identification cards with them. >> we had a cef justice of the united states who started in politics in arizona as a poll watcher. of course, they put uniforms on of these guys. or they were white men with ties. and you could literally see, some poor black guy coming and the seas will look like an fbi agent and walks away. adding the republicans feel they can play that big time.

a 11% of people in the country do not have a government id. >> good question. >> i am curious to know what the impact of the vice president candidacy would be in this election, given the reflecon of the last election that we had, at least for the republicans. >> i think that is a great question. historically, democrats tend to go with a senior statesman as their vice presidents. lyndon johnson, etc. republicans intended to go with junior executive types. richard nixon was 41 when eisenhower named tim. -- him. dan quayle. sarah palin. [laughter] i think romney is a little trapped now. because of all the policies and the flip flopping, he does not want to seem too political and obvious. he does not want to do something too obvious like mamie hispanic -- naming a hispanic

like marco rubio. the best course from is to go back to where he began. do what clinton did which is double down on h strengths. double down on his message. in clinton's case, it was a new democratic party. in romney's case, it is, i am a manager. the obvious risk for him, which means he will not take it, is the senator fromhio who was the director of omb during bush. he is a smart, serious, decent guy. he has an extensive organization in ohio. >> dsn't hurt him that he was the budget director in bush's time? >> off something will always heard a candidate. -- hurt a candidate. you have not had jesus run for public office. [laughter] >> ok. >> woodrow wilson said that the

whole purpose of a democracy is that we take counsel with one another so as to depend not upon the judgment of any one man, but un the common council of all. doesn't that say that you really cannot judge the process in a particular election until it is finished? until all the views are distilled and all of the voters go in the booth and a final decision is made? in the last analysis, it is the total of what was heard -- >> throughout the whole time. >> throughout the whole period. >> i agree. the need about 30 years before u could say anything that matters. >> and joe has to write a column next week. >> how are we going to get rid of minority rule?

we talk about the president doing this and doing that. but 70% of the bills that have been put before the senate in the last two years have been supported by a minority of filibuster and nothing has been able tbe done. how do we get rid of that type of a situation? >> that is my favorite question. >> the democrats will not do it because they expect to be back in power. they want to have that same power. it would take breaking up the two party system as we know it. >> i am not sure about that. there are moments of congressional reform. the last one was in the 1970's where you went from a committee system dominated by old democrats. those reforms have since come around and become corrupt and

their own ways. it tends to be, for better or worse, that those kinds of reforms can take place. i do not know what level of crisis people would consider. i think the other thing that really matters in a big, party animosity sort of way is the fact that we have two illogically defined parties now. -- ideologically defined parties now. for better or worse, into the democratic party. increasingly, parties are in the logically divided. >> someone used to say that

development was the single most compelling argument against listening to historians. all of the historians thought that the system would work better if rather than having coalitions we would have ideologically distinct parties. we got to them and we lost to the people in the middle who lost to the deals. >> i think it now we have this romance of this great moment, and bipartisan cooperation when the democrats and republicans would did together. often they got together around blking civil rights legislation. >> there is a small romantic. about the way washington. -- changed.

their kids went to school together. now they do not know each other. they go home every weekend. >> speaking of technology, when there were three networks, it is not an accident that the country was more to gather, there was a lger center treated everybody watched the same thing. technology is putting us and making us more polarized because we are now able to only listen to what we already agree with. the oil we are in echo chambers more and more and more. technology has done it. >> my daughter is a member of the mtc tribe, my father the

espn tribe, and we do not have a common -- >> you could trace all politics as being driven by technological change. we will not going to that. >> my concern is not technology. i want to know what is to be, of those of us who do not have the money -- become of us who do not have the money. there are those candidates who we might support with $10, $300, which cannot possibly elect those people who are up against the super pacs on the opposite side. what should we do it? >> i think it is a problem of the local level because the presidency everyone is interested in. even to the congressional level.

peop do not know who their congressperson is. when you get down to the city council, and i would want to raise the local school board vote in harlem or the teachers union used its strength to destroy or hinder the charter school movement. those kind of organizations have more power at the state and local level. >> i am wondering what the internet to a is going to do to change this, to change that balance. then people will have more power to directly talk to their constituents without having to go on television, which is so much more expensive. i do not know where it is going to take us. >> we are trying to have a democracy without citizenship in

this country. i named a character in a primary colors after this. machiavelli says he is the greatest enemy of a republic. indolence. machiavelli was concerned about keeping a rare public coherent when does not at war. ever since world war ii, we have not had a threat on the country. we have had prosperity. we have lost the hits of citizenship. we have to figure out how to bring it back. as richard has been saying, blame us. blame the media for the way we have gone about it. >> uh-oh. [laughter] quick. >> my question is about the

house. numerically, what to you think is the effect of redistricting? >> i have not studied it this time but i have to say that gerrymandering, including, and especially racial gerrymandering, has been a disaster for american democracy. >> sure. it is another thing that has deprived us of the metal. >> there has been a conspiracy in the some states between white legislators and black legislators to carve districts that are either conservative or liberal, white or black, and there are no more district for a congressman has to appeal to people of both races. which is a disgrace. >> w follows things like that? >> i have read about a.

>> ron brownstein does it. >> you can google it and i bet you will see a hundred articles. >> thousands upon thousands. >> back to your question about the gender gap in the election. i want to broaden it to little bit. do you think and the subjects, or issues, of government in bedrooms and sexual preference determining who can serve is going to be an issue? >> ido. >> my guess it will be a disaer for republicans. i think this country has moved on from those issues. people are concerned about the amount ofoney government spends. that is a republican issue, one

that they can capitalize on. there are peopleut there who might be fiscal conservatives who also have gay nephews and nieces. you go to a tea party meeting in you see people who are scared because the country has changed underneath them. you go to a meeting in arkansas and they are looking at a country where the south asians from the mini-marts and motels. there are mexican americans all over the place and their grandchildren are married out of their race. the president is not black or white and his middle name is hussain. -the jobs they used to be able to hold without a diploma have disappeared. as a new yorker, the things they are most afraid of are the things i love about this

country. their fear is genuine and it is becoming a minority fear because this country is diversifying so much, which is one of the reasons i love it so much. [applause] to give beverly the last word. >> i wanted to say something about the gender gap. i appreciate the question because when the media tal about it, people tend to turn to issues of sexuality and abortion and family. those are important but the question of employment, what women see the government doing for them in terms of tangible opportunity, him being a secretarof state or workplace protection, those are important parts of the ways in which women relate to politics but tend not to get translated into conversations about the gender gap and where icomes from.

>> i think we have had a brilliant panel. [applause] thank you. joe klein, beverly gage, richard reeves, and all of you for coming. come back. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

thank you for being here tod. middle of the afternoon. a rainy day and you came out to see me. i appreciate the chance to say

hello to some many folks from northeast ohio. what wonderful place thiis. you are lucky to live in such a beautiful state with such wonderful people. [applause] i have had the occasion over my life to get to know our country pretty well. the last couple of years, i have been campaigning but before that, i worked in the private sector and had the occasion of helping organize the olympic winter games in 2002. [applause] that was a real thrill. i came into the olympic games at a time of scandal. there was a report of bribery and the people of utah who normally you look to to help support an event like that were pretty discouraged. there was a call on the part of some people to send the game is back. do not have them. give them back to the international olympic committee.

i took the job because i knew we needed about 25,000 people to volunteer to work of the olympics. and it is 17 saight days. 17ays without pay. and without tickets either. you work for the olympic games and you host the figure skating in the downhill skiing and so forth but you do not get to see them because you are in the parking lot, taking tickets or manning the security booths and so forth. i wondered if the people of america would show up given the scandal. just before the games began, reran and at -- we ran an ad -- no pay, no tickets, no benefits. thein the quick, the positions are going fast. -- sign up quick, the positions

are going faster [apause] [laughter] much our surprise, some 47,000 people signed up. [applause] this is an amazing country of people that will do extraordinary things for their friends and make a fference in their lives. i heard a story -- i will not tell you exactly when but very recently about a small business owner. she had two employees, one of them was her husband and the other was the technician. the business has not been doing very well during the obama economy. she ultimately lost her house. the business shrunk by about 40%. she made sure that her technician did not see a decline in incomes over technicians still lives in her house.

she made a priority of keeping her technician in her house. it is an amazing country. the kind of sentiment we have, the sense of right and wrong. theshave been tough years. these last three and a half, almost four years. for years of tough times. as i've gone across the country, i have heard stories that sometimes break your heart. i was with one couple. they are planning for their retirement. both the that the other 60's. they bought a couple of duplexes -- both in their 60's. they bought a couple of dlexes but the values have collapsed that they now do not know if they can retire. i met a barber in a 70's. i said why haven't you retired? he said because my investments are not worth much anymore and i cannot afford to retire. i met a woman who said she and

her husband had one child and wanted another child but needed to take out a secondortgage on their home. this was in florida. to be able to pay for the expenses of the second child. so they took out the second mortgage. then everything collapsed. the value of their home collapsed and that mortgage, like the first mortgage, became under water with their equity. she wondered how they're going to make things through. i was at a rally in norfolk last week shaking hands with people as i will at the end of this of that and a young woman came up to me and said i have been out of work for a year. can you help me? it touches your heart. i said i will do my very best to help you. in millions of other people who are out of work. this is very different than what we were promised. as the mayor said, at the democratic convention about four years ago, the president spoke

about hope and change and together we can do anything. buddy has not lived up to those expectations. -- but he has not lived up to those exptations. the american people are a good part of people. we hope in this president would be successful. i sure did. and he has not been. i know how many people are struggling. i want to do my very best to help them. i am convinced that my experience will help me get this economy going and people back to work with good jobs, which they need. [applause] the president in his speech said he measures progress in an unusual way. i thought it was kind of a usual way but he said it was different. he measures progress by whher

people can find good jobs, whether they can pay a mortgage. the lasthree and a half years, not enough people have been finding good jobs and a lot of people lost their homes. that is a promise he was not able to keep. he is now very excited about the fact that the unemployment rate has gone from 10% down to about 8.1%. we will not degette the fact that when he was putting in place $787 billion of borrowing in his first few months in office that he said that borrowing -- the borrowing would keep the unemployment rate below 8% to r. it is still not below 8.1%. that number -- you might assume that number me down because of all the jobs that have been created. that assumption would be wrong. the reason that% came down was because of the people that dropped out of the work force.

if you go back to the 10% from october 2009, the percentage of workforce age americans in the work force was 58.5% and today it is slightly less. so it is that the number of people have dropped out of the work force and that is what that percentage has come down. i want to see a low unemployment rate in more people working in good jobs and can afford good mortgages. [applause] in just a moment, because this is a town meeting, you will just -- you will get a chance to ask questions and i will do my best to answer them. a hand is already up back there.

will get there in a moment. this is a good sign. i would just say a couple of things. i will begin by saying this -- president obama is employing policies that have not worked. you know that by virtue of looking at the results. we do not have enough people that have got good jobs. incomes have dropped. the median income in america has dropped by 10% over the last four years. the median household income is down $4,000 theory this is at the same time that costs have gone up. health care is up, gasoline, food prices -- it is harder. the middle class is feeling squeezed, even if they have a job. and obviously most of our citizens have jobs but boy are these tough times during as thgh to a recent college graduate. she has three jobs, all part

time. well beneath the level of skill she was trained for. wondering how she will possibly make ends meet when those college loans start coming due. you ask it obamacare make it easier for small businesses to create new jobs? no. did the financial-services regulations make it easier for small banks, community banks to make loans to people or renegotiate mortgages? no, no, absolutely not. and did the effort to change the deal between labor and management and to put labour -- the labor relations board, that make it more likely for bunesses to say let's hire more people? no. thank you, i appreciate that. did the energy policies of cutting back on the leases on federal lands by about half, saying no to drilling in anwa,

make it those things more likely for americans to work in the energy sector? no. the president's policies have not encouraged amicans to add jobs. they make it harder for small business to do so. we need a president who understands what it takes to get the economy going again, not what policies of the past that in the work. but a vision for the future that would put american people back to work and in good jobs. [applause] the president and i have very different visions of what it will take to get america working again. his visit is to keep spending about $1 trillion more the we take in.

in my view, that is immoral for us to pass those obligations on to the next generation. [applause] his vision is that it is ok for a small business to raise taxes from 35% to 40% of small businesses. i do not want to raise taxes on small businesses, i want to lower them. [applause] his vision is that in order to doubt to the extreme environmentalists, we should not build the pipeline for take advantage of our oil, coal, gas. i like energy that comes from all sourceand i will get that pipeline into our country. [applause]

his vision says it is okay to cut our military. that is okay to cut the budget even as the world is not safe. his vision would reduce the number of ships in our navy. the number of ships in the u.s. navy is smaller tn any time since 1917. our aircraft in our air force, it is smaller than any time since it was founded. do you know how many troops -- he wants to cut the number of armed services personnel. my view is very different. i want to add to shipbuilding, purchases of aircraft. i would more troops in our military and the want to give our veterans the care they deserve. [applause] we will take america in a very different place.

he is taking america on a path towards europe and europe is not working there. it will not work here. europe is in trouble as their debt amounts and people demand more and more from government and the government has to borrow more to satisfy their demands. we believe it until the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams, and courage small businesses to grow and thrive. this is a land of freedom that drives an economy based on freedom. [applause] so i want to think the mayor for his introduction. i want to thank bill. this is his plant. thank you. [applause] i want to thank the auditor for introducing me. i think he is in the back.

and the chairman of the republican county. will he raise his hand? he is around here somewhere. thank you. ofwith that, let's start with this man. i will give you my microphone. >> what is the first issue you n ll check -- tackle o june january 21, 2013? was there are some things that have to be dealt with immediately. there is a cloud hanging over the health-care sector, the employment sector. you have employers wondering what will happeno their capacity to provide insurance for eir employees. this is a huge crowd. so the first thing i will do is to take an action to stop obamacare in its tracks.

[applause] it is classic. health care has some issues. there are some things we ought to do to make sure we saw those issues. people that have been working and develop a sickness, a so- called pre-existg condition and then change jobs. let's say they have been previously insured and now they have changed jobs or move somewhere. the fact they cannot get insurance again uld not make any sense at all. people should not be dropped from insurance becau they get sick. we have to fix that as well. right now we make it hard for individuals who want to buy insurance. if you are an employer of one person yourself, the but getting

an insurance policy that is affordable. we have to make -- good luck getting an insurance policy that is affordable. we have to make it easier. we have to fix those things. the president that i have the answer. let's have government take it over. that is nothe answer we need in the 21st century. we need health care to work more like a consumer market with a kind of -- the kind of provisions that the cost down and quality up. i will do that and get health care to work for the american people. get rid of obacare. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for taking my question. in this age of tough foreign competition,e need to invest smart in america to help our country grow. based on that, i would appreciate your comments on an investing strategy that seems to have resulted in several million dollars of your personal income

taxes being paid to foreign countries instead of hours. i'm referring to page 169 of your 2010 income-tax returns where you took over $1.5 million in foreign tax credit in 10 years. i appreciate your comment. >> i will look at it. [laughter] i did not think i paid to any foreign income taxes but i will be happy to look at it. others? yes, please. what were the most important qualities of leadership that he would say and what is an example of someone you would say wou be a good role model as a leader? >> thank you. the best qualities of leadership -- beijing, of course. capacity to see what other people do not see. the capacity to see change and

make adjustments before the change occurs. you look for leaders that have that kind of insight and capacity. integrity. people will not follow someone who they do not believe follows their own principles. [applause] loyalty. and loyalty to the principle and the nation that follow them. ability to work hard. to lead not just by pointing but by walking forward and running hard and making sure others recognize it in you. you do not does have some of his speech well but who also works well and hard. -- who speaks well but who also works well and hard. my father was undaunted. despite the odds and circumstances, he plowed ahead. leaders do that. when things are tough, they did not get turf -- terrified and

turn in the other direction. they do not blame other people. they acknowledge their own mistakes. [applause] my father did not get a college degree. did not get the time and money together to actually get a degree. when he married my mother, they could not afford a 50 honeymoon. they drove across the country in an old car. my father sold paint out o the car to tell it -- paid for gasoline and hotel bills. he went on to become the head of a car company and became governor of a state where he once sold aluminum paint. determined. undaunted. the qualities of leadership are many. i appreciate the fact that we have been led by good men and women over the years as a nation. from our founders. even through tse days we have around as many great leaders.

i like your governor a lot. i think he is doing a heck of a job. [applause] thank you. i spoke with sarah before the meeting began here and she is seven-years old and a first grader. she raised her hand. tissue really have a question? she does-- does she really have a question? >> how are you going to stop wasting money for my feature? -- future? [laughter] [applause] >> for those who did not hear it, how will you stop wasting money for your future? let me tell you. that is a very good question. what we have right now is politicians promising lots of free stuff, free for me and my generation and maybe for a lot of view but not free for her.

ecause as we spend -- of you could not free for her. because as we spend, we are borrowing money from nations and we have to repay with interest. it is like a credit card. right now by virtue of a series of financial mechanics, they are able to keep the rates low but in the future, the rates are likely to go up and you will have to pay for it. i find that unacceptable. so here is what i will do -- i will take everything that government does, print out a list of programs and say to those programs, is this one so critical that it is worth a borrowing money from china to pay for it? if it does not pass that test, i will get rid of it. [applause] and i will also take a lot of programs that are critical and send them back to thetate

where ey can be run more efficiently and with less fraud. [applause] so my job is to get america on track to have a balanced budget. i wl not cut $1 trillion in the first year. why not? the reason is taking the $1 trillion after -- out of a 15 trillion dlar economy would cause it to shrink and put a lot of people out of work. but i will eliminate programs and solve our long-term problems so we get a balanced budget and america to a position where we can get rid of this extraordinary debt that will strangle future generations. thank you. [applause] >> we have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our constitution. [applause] i want to know -- i do agree, he

should be tried for treason. but i want to know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you will be able to do to restore our constitution in this country. [applause] >> i happen to believe that the constitution was not his billion probably inspired. i believe the same thing about the declaration of independence. [applause] and i believe unlike what the president said about the supreme court where he suggested that it was -- he said it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn a decision by the legislature. actually that is their role and has been since the early 1800's.

i will respect the different branches of government if i am fortunate enough to become president. [applause] one more thing i will mention in that regard. if you have some specifics you want me to address in terms of policy, i am happy to. the wellhead. >-- go ahead. >> some of the executive orders he has made with regards to the secret service and their protection of people and people beinallowed to exercise thr first amendment rights to protest. in the presence of the secret service. and some of those other types of the executive orders he has done just recently. >> i am not familiar wh the orders with regardto the sick service -- secret service but i

will be happy to take a look. we obviously have a right to protest in this country and express our viewpoint. at the same time, we want people being protected and not be in danger. i will see specifically what he has in mind. obviously we have all been disappointed by the number of things that have happened at the government level. but i will look at those executive orders. i would reserve the right as our president to put in place executive orders. one i would put in place is i would have in place an executive order that grants a waiver from obamacare to all 50 states. [applause] i will use the provision in ways i think are appropriate constitutional. and ultimately theongress and supreme cou and i will have the experience of defining exactly what those lines might

be. thank you. let's see. there is a young man there with a microphone. >> i could to medical school at case western reserve university. school at medical case western reserve university. we talk about a vesting our future and borrowing too much. graduates who is expensive and my mother is not able to pick up the $70,000 a year tab. what are your thoughts on education and financing still more individuals like myself who cannot afford it can still often be the future of america? what's the answer is t to say let's have the federal government give unlimited and loans with no interest to everybody that wants them. you are going to hear that in an effort to try and reach college and graduate students to get

involved in the obama campaign. in an effort to get them in case, he will promise giving a lot of free stuff to them and say i will pay for your education or get rid of the loans. i am only guessing but my expectation is he will find promises of free stuff as a way to try to get people to vote for him. we have heard that time and time again. but we cannot promise you -- money we do not have. so what do i do? how do i help? we have to find a way to get higher education to be more competitive and to take advantage of the technology of the day. businesses like this one used technology, software, computer systems to bring down their costs and become more productive. colleges and institutions of higher learning need to take advantage of some of those things. one college is saying that every semester people are supposed to

take one cyber course, one online course to help bring down costs. harvard and mit have a joint program that provides an education to people online. we will have to take advantage of some of these innovations in get education -- get these institutions of higher learning to compete with one another to find ways to provide the same educational experience at a lower cost. it sounds like forever go but there was a time when people by and large could pay for college with their summer job and by working during the school year. i am seeing some people here -- that is not the case anymore. that is $70,000 after-tax dollars. we have to find a way to say why is education -- has education become so expensive and how do we get it to become more cost- effective? writing checks from government is not the right way to get it done.

thank you. question over there. >> i have the microphone. pardon me. mr. romney, when rob portman was campaigning in 2008 in ohio, he addressed the republican club and from the floor i raised this question -- i asked if he could elaborate on this small subcommittee in the house somewhere from about 14 th has been working up a bill to nationalize theetirement plans of everybody in this room. iras and 401ks. he knowledge that has been happening. where is that legislation and what would you do about it? >> never heard of it. i cannot imagine nationalizing the iras or 401ks. if i'm president, i will not nationalize them.

here is a gentleman up here. there is a microphone to your right. there you go. --president rodnmney [applause] i am one of 17 million veterans, not alalive now, from world war ii. [applause] my companions and i all kind of age when you speak about the situations and the one that concerns us is the young people

that we now have in the armed services, regarding their welfare and the foreign situation in the world that seems to require our intervention in every little thing with a loss of american lives. sometimes it seems as if they . but you cannot blame the soldiers, sailors and marines during their jobs. i am wondering what can we do and what are your ideas guarding -- regarding foreign affairs and our entanglement's? >> thank you. that is a big topic.

i happen to believe that in foreign affairs and dealing with nations that have a choice to make -- whether they will be friendly to human-rights, to principles of freedom and democracy or whether they will instead become more entrenched in authoritarianism. it is important for these nations to know exactly where we stand in for us to stand for our principles and for america to be strong. by that i mean this -- our communication with other nations and our ability to help lead them toward prosperity and freedom is enhanced if america is strong morally, economically and militarily. [applause] so i wt to make sure we have a strong military not so that we

can win awards -- wars, but to prevent wars and to help encourage people to move towards an american and eternal principles of freedom and opportunity and human-rights. there are circumstances in the world today which are threatening and of concern. number one on the list is iran becoming nuclear. iran is the world's national supporter of terror. and has as its objective in the words of their president, the elimination of our friend israel. iran with fissile material which they could provide to has the law or other terrorist groups could execute terror here and in other parts of

it is important for us not to allow iran to become a nuclear power and provide material to any entityhat would use against us. i would reserve the right to take whatever tion is necessary to prevent iran from becoming nuclear. [applause] at the same time, there are other nations that are charting the course, developing nations decidi what their future will be. i would like to work with them. i want to increase trade with them and encourage them to move towards modernity, to move toward an economic system that provides for greater freedom for their people. that is something i consider part of the role of the president of the united states and his adnistration. one more point with regards to iran. there is a little sliver of hope with regard to iran and it relates to syria. syria is iran's source of access

to the mediterranean. syria is iran pose the only arab ally. syria has been a source of iran being -- syria isran pose the only arab ally. arab ally.nly the president of the united states should be leading an effort to help encourage syria to make that change, rather than waiting for someone else to do it. [appuse] >> walgren to cleveland, governor romney. ideas wanted you to know -- wanted to know about what your time line is on the xl pipeline, if you were to be elected. ohio is blessed with an abundance of gas and oil. terps -- how does ohioit in your energy policy?

[applause] >> oh, well has natural gas, oil, coal -- ohio has after gas, oil, coal, and those natural resources or in short supply around the world and abundant here and abundant in america. the idea of making it harder and harder to take advantage of those resources makes no sense to me. in my view, the efforts to make it almost impossible to mine coal economically or to use it economically, to suggest that building a new coal powered electric plantould put you bankrupt, that is not the kind of policy that makes sense in a nation that has the kind of coal we have. the efforts to try and stop the fracking for natural gas does not make sense, in my opinion. natural gas is an extraordinary blessing. we have the capacity for natural

gas and coal and oil to make is that extraordinary energy producer and to make energy lower-cost in america. by the way, manufacturing goes to the point where the costs are most competitive. it is not just labor. it is energy, transportation costs, taxation costs, gulatory costs. but energy is a big pie of it. in sombusinesses like this one, my guess is the energy bill here is pretty substantial. look at the size of that press. how many tons press is that? 800 ton press. 3,000 ton press. my guess is when the electric switch is turned on, it draws a little power. the capacity of manufacturing to be in ohio or to be in america is directly related to what the cost is of electricity.

windmilland solar are great and are going to develop them and perhaps tt technology will become economic, but right now is multiples of the cost of natural gas or oil or coal. i want to develop those resources aggressively, and get the pipeline. i cannot tell you the exact date, but as quickly awe can get it. so we can show to manufacturers who are here are thinking about moving here that as they think about making plans to expd in america, that energy costs would be reasonable, the sources of energy will be reliable, therefore they will make those investments, hire people, and we can get more demand. how'd you get higher wages for folks? the answer is, you have so many employers competing to hire people so they have to raise the benefits and the wages to be able to secure you. it is supply and demand. you can try to artificially raise wages, but that collapses

over time. if he artificially raise wages, the employers go elsewhere, to other countries or other states you ha to the competition between employers. i wanto make this a place that manufacturing wants to come again, where jobs come back to america. [applause] energy is a big part of that. i am told i get one more question here. there is a hand right there. here comes the microphone, right behind you. >> there are two things i think are critically important. things that i want you to be passionate about. number one, our country's relationship with israel, and number two, i am very concerned about partial birth abortion. >> thank you.

on the latter, i agree with you, and will do all in my power to prevent partial birth abortion from being legal in this country. number two, i also agree with you with regard to israel, and also with our other friends in the world. israel is in a very dangerous place, so we pay a lot of attention to it. israel is surrounded by a lot of folks who do not like them. some of those nations suggest that hostile intent toward israel and towards its existence. that puts on us a special responsibility to stand by our friends, is probing among our greatest friends on the planet. -- israel being among our greatest friends on the planet. [applause] they are are friends, not just because they are nice to us, but because we share our values. they believe in freedom. they believe in freedom of

speech. i am told if you want to find a place that is critical of israel, just go to the israeli newspapers. it is like our newspapers. this is a wonderf thing in a free economy to have the capacity of people to express their views and to do so publicly. so we will stand with israel. we will show something i think this president has not done well enough, that is the better to be an american friend than an american fold. we will stand by our american friends -- than to be an american fole. whether that is on one side of the world or another, this is a nation that respect those who share those values. we are in a bit of a global competition. this cannot military, except perhaps with regard to the radical, biology hottest it would attack one another and

attack us -- radical pilots violent jihadists. russia, likewise authoritarian and blessed with extraordinary energy resources, is becoming resurgent. it has a very different view than ours with regard to freedom and human rights. and then there is ourselves, or combine economic freedom and political freedom and personal freedom in a way that has changed us and changed the world. we will stand with people who stand for freedom, and help move the others towards freedom as well. [applause] you guys are very kind to be here and spend some time with me. it counts. what we are doing matters.

this is an election where former first lady barbara bush said, this is the most important election in my lifetime. given the fact that she has a husbanand a son who were presidents, that is saying something. you may have gten robocalls in ohio from first ladbarbara bush. she has never done robocalls before. but we asked her to help out, and she said yes, this is important. this is a question about what kind of america we are going to have. this is a question about whether we are going to have an america more and more and more dependent on government, which gets deeper and deeper in debt, or whether we will be a nation that returns to the principles of freedom and free enterprise. [applause] thank you so very much. ♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> president of primary voters go to the polls today. the to our web page to watch the latest video of president obama on the campaign trail. that is c-span.org/campaign2012. but yesterday, the house budget committee approved cuts. here is part of the committee's markup, chaired by wisconsin republican paul ryan.

>> moore plaster present act of 2012. -- we will request a replacement act of 2012. i will hold the record open until that purpose. remember to ask a staff any

technical questions you may have. after voting, we will then debate any motions. there'll be for total amendments and a four votes. on the motions, there'll be a total of 60 minutes of debate. without objection, so ordered.

this is dealing with the other parts of the budget. often, we had resolutions. we have been ignoring the other side. that is why this is important. with that, let mr. with the opening statements. welcome to today's markets. last year, we were coming up on the debt ceiling. then the president insisted that he would not accept a debt

ceiling deal that did not include a large tax increase of american families. this was made much more difficult. nonetheless, the whole party got together to avoid defaulting. we secured a debt limit increase that contained a zero taxes. we cap on discretionary spending. -- week tapped -- we capped on discretionary spending. that is what we're here to talk about today. the committee's negotiations broke down over fundamental differences. in our view, we should not be taking more from hard-working americans. instead, we should be solving the problem to make them strong

and sustainable. we cannot agree on those core principles. so, the sequestration is set to impose on january 2, 2013. despite our differences, we find ourselves in a strong bipartisan agreement that sequestration is not bad. the sequestration would hollow out our defense. those are not my words. that is how the secretary of defense describes it. it would inflict great damage. -- it would inflate great damage on priority. that is why this committee has to pass a responsible budget. that is where we are here today.

to meet our moral obligations to lead. members of both party should be able to support. the legislation before the committee today does five key things. first, it stops fraud by insuring individuals are actually eligible for the taxpayer benefits they receive. for instance, we have proposed to stop fraud and the food stamp program by showing they are eligible for the tax benefits. that should not be a partisan issue. should be common sense. second, we eliminate government funds and stop the bill out spirit we eliminate the dodd frank bill. third, it controls on run away, unchecked spending. it does this mean by re- examining some very unwise spending choices that were made

in the white house and the last congress in passing the stimulus and health care law's. for example, take the health law's co op program. according to the office of management, 50% of these loans will never be repaid. fourth, it restrains spending on government bureaucracies. look, we all believe in a strong federal work force. they serve our country honorably. the workers in the private sector are being asked to share more equitably in the cost of their retirement benefits. we feel that federal workers ought to be able to do the same. especially since taxes pay their salaries. finally, it gets rid of wasteful spending. i'm sure the president will talk about such programs as the social services block grant. what it will not tell you is that from this particular program that was created in 1956 are being duplicated by dozens

of newer and other federal programs. we have an enormous array of overlapping federal government that has gone on notice and unscrupulous. taxpayers deserve better than to see their money wasted on programs that never and because it would take away from some of bureaucracy. these savings will repay is the sequestered cuts. -- replace the sequestered cuts. unless we act, the sequestration will take affect. i do not believe this is in the national interest and i believe the president claims he agrees with that as well. there's no reason we cannot work together to end a sequestration. under the budget act, we cannot amend a reconciliation bill.

i know that most members here have not done this because we do not do it very often. we did last time in the health care bill. cannot amend it. we take bills from the other committees. we package it and send it on. that is why the motion process occurs. first, we should add to the second reconciliation bill. it is my opinion that these two bills ought to be combined said the intent is made extremely clear what this is all about. second, we will need a technical fix to the committee to ensure that we realize the full savings. we do not want to use that to free of spending of government agencies when the whole intent is saving taxpayer dollars. with that, a look for to a fruitful evening about 1 to yield to my friend from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this might sound a little off.

ok. thank you, mr. chairman. hopefully we will not be here late into the night, but obviously we have important work to do and we should do it thoroughly. there is lots, i hear, to discuss. we are gathered here today to talk about important choices. choices that reflect our priorities and our values. once again, it is important to emphasize that the issue is not whether we should implement a plan to reduce the deficit in a steady, credible, and it away -- we should. the question is, how should we do it. it provided a windfall tax breaks to billionaires' and at the same time and did the medicare guarantee for seniors. it slashed investments that

strengthened our economy. it is vital for tens of millions of americans. that's unfair and unbalanced approach focused only on cutting investment services rather than closing tax loopholes. that is the wrong for is for america. in contrast, the democrats offered a budget that preserves the debt medicare guaranteed. it helps create more jobs now. it makes a stronger investments and reduces the deficit in a balanced way through shared responsibility. the reason we are here today is the budget control act which has two essential parts. one part cuts discretionary spending over 10 years by a little over $900 billion. we set those levels in law for discretionary spending. the second part sense of the

mechanism that triggers another $1.20 trillion of across-the- board cuts over 10 years unless congress comes up with an alternative of savings. half the cuts would come from defense programs. the other half are non-defense programs that not expressly exempted by the budget control act. the recent defense cuts comprises 60% -- 50% of the sequester is because republican colleagues refused to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. that is that they refused to agree that part of the $1.20 trillion should come from ending tax breaks to the wealthy. they deliberately chose to cut defense spending on the chopping block rather than close corporate tax loopholes and other revenue measures. in fact, the chairman of the

armed services committee expressed understandable concern about that choice at the time. when he said, "if it came back only had two choices, one was a tax increase and one was a defense cut, i would go to strengthen the defense." he later said, "we are going to have to stop repeating it the logical points to address our budget problems comprehensively through smarter spending and increase revenue." i do not know if the chairman has changed his mind, but he had it exactly right. the proposal we have before us today, the republican package shows that nothing has changed since those earlier negotiations. it shows that our republican colleagues continue to reject that balanced approach to deficit reduction. the plan before us is flawed for

several reasons. first, it is only for one year. even then, it does not totally removed the sequestered. it lifts the sequestered for discretionary spending, but leaves it in place for all mandatory spending except defense. as a result, it keeps the 2% across-the-board cut in medicare, for example. second, it continues the lopsided approach of the republican budget, protecting those special interest tax breaks. some examples, and we will have an opportunity to discuss the more fully as the speeding proceeds, it cuts food and nutrition programs for families who aren't struggling financially to put food on the table. -- who are struggling to put food on the table. it cuts about 2 million people

off food assistance entirely. 75% of the households are families with children. 300,000 children will lose their access to the free lunch program at school. at the same time, it does not cut one penny from direct payment taxpayer subsidies to agricultural businesses. not one penny. the budget control act deliberately shelled the programs for the most bone marrow from the sequestered. -- the most vulnerable from the sequestered. yet, in the name of avoiding the consequences, this plan heads the food and nutrition programs but totally exempt of the agricultural subsidies. another example, the rubber --

the republican plan eliminates the social services block program which of 23 million children and adults receive essential services. this includes support for meals on wheels and a child care for parents returning to work. this particular cut is bizarre for many reasons. first, we had a whole hearing on the importance of trying to help people get back to work. and yet this would cut support for child care assistance for people who want to try to get back to work. second, we keep hearing from our colleagues that we should turn snap and medicaid into a block grant program because that will give the states local jurisdictions greater flexibility. well, it is just that. it provides maximum flexibility to local jurisdictions and get the one cut a program that you say you like -- and yet, the one program you say you like, you eliminate. that is a clue of what will

happen to the other programs if they become block programs. finally, if the sequester were to hit, the such social security block program with 8.5% compared to 100% cut elimination. a final example relates to health coverage for kids, seniors, and other americans. the congressional budget office estimates that it would result in 300,000 kids losing their health care coverage in three years. again, this is one of those trade-offs. again, i would point out that if the sequester went into effect, because on a bipartisan basis, i thought we voted to protect programs for the most vulnerable. none of those children would lose their health insurance. not one of them would lose it if it went into affect.

yet, here we are trying to fix that, and they would be left exposed. apparently, nothing has changed. mr. chairman and colleagues, there is a better way forward. the present's budget and the similar democratic alternative has a simple, balanced approach is -- the president's budget and the similar democratic alternative has a simple, a balanced approach. we need to come together and develop that approach to get it done. unfortunately, we were not able to do that during the biting group discussions. unfortunately, we were not able to do that today. i hope some time before the end of the year we are able to come together and take the same kind of approach that a bipartisan groups have recommended.

and by doing that, we can take it balanced and measured approach. thank you, mr. chairman. >> consulting with the ranking member during the votes, the minority has agreed to reduce the amendments down to amendment number 1 and amendment number two. we'll have 20 minutes on each side. and then will go to amendment number two. that will be the remainder of the amendments.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i just had a proposal. if you except one of the two, we can only have one. i have an amendment at the desk. >> and amendment offered by mr. van holland, taking a fair and balanced approach and requesting -- replacing the sequester. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment goes to the heart of the disagreement that we have in this committee and in this congress brought this. -- throughout this period. we propose to do it in a balanced and fair way rather than take the lopsided approach.

we believe, first of all, that our budget needs to encourage and promote additional economic growth. we have seen the economy improved steadily. when the president was sworn in back in january 2009, the economy was in a total freefall. we were losing over 800,000 jobs per month. we were on a plummeting rate of gross domestic product. trillions of dollars in retirement savings have been lost compared to where they were in the year 2007. the deficit was projected at an all-time high. that is when the president was sworn in. since that time, through extraordinary measures taken by

the president and earlier congresses and with the great resilience and steadfastness of the american people, we have been able to stop the freefall, turn the corner, and began the climb out of that deep hole. we have seen 25 consecutive months of positive private- sector job growth. that is good news but not good enough. we know we have a long way to go. that is what our priority is to sustain and a bruised the very fragile economy and help put people back to work, which is why the budget that we proposed in this house focused on jobs, including the enactment of the president's job plant which sheet submitted to this congress way back in september and is still waiting here for a vote. we were able to pass a piece of that plan. the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans.

after, i might add, some foot- dragging. in any event, we were able to get that done. the remainder of that plan, including investments and -- investments in infrastructure has not come to a vote. we now face unemployment in the construction industry. we have lots of roads and bridges and -- roads and bridges and transit ways that need to get under way. we are discouraged by the fact that we have not had a chance to have a vote on that. the reason that is important for the deficit is the congressional budget office tells us that a full 1/3 of the deficit is a result of the fact that the economy is not at full employment. the faster we put people back to work, the faster we will reduce

that deficit over the near-term. the second thing we have insisted on is that we do it in a balanced way. that we take the essential concept that has been proposed by every bi-partisan group that says the only credible way you can really get there is through a combination of cuts as well as additional revenues. revenues generated by closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. asking folks at the highest and the income ladder to share the same pain during the clinton years when the economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created. that is what this amendment is all about. it says, let's take a balanced approach over the next 10 years. combined cuts with revenues generated by closing a loophole.

let's do it that way because if you do not take a balanced approach, what you do is you end up trying to deal with the budget deficit on the backs of middle income americans and a seniors. it is pretty simple math. if you say you're going to exempt the folks at the highest end of the income ladder from sharing more responsibility for deficit reduction, it means you have to do things that are done in the republican budget. you have to slash medicaid by over $800 billion. you have to slash food and nutrition programs that help kids. you have to take all of those measures were as if you take a balanced approach, you cannot have to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, on the backs of the vulnerable populations. you also can make important

investments that necessary to keep our economy strong. investments in education, in national infrastructure, in science and research. let's be clear. we have close to 100% of the members of this house who signed the pledge by grover norquist that says not one penny generator from closing a tax loophole may go to reducing the deficit. not one penny. can we asked folks at the very high end of the income scale to go for the purpose of deficit reduction? as a result, the republican budget hits everything and everyone else. proposing here to take a balanced approach. we support the idea of getting rid of a sequester. we agree that it is a meat ax approach.

we think we should replace, not just for one year, which is with the reconciliation bill before us does, we propose to replace it for 10 years. and that the uncertainty. we would also fully and the sequester. the republican approach leaves in place the sequester on some things, like on medicare. indeed so, we proposed to replace the entire sequester with a balanced approach. i now yield two minutes to miss shorts. -- schwartz. >> thank you. it really does call for a balanced approach.

we are doing what every nonpartisan commission, economists on right and left said we need to do. that is to cut spending. of course, democrats have agreed to cut spending. with that today, how we do it. make sure we do nothing that harms the economic recovery that we are in. it continues to make the kind of investments that makes our country economically competitive. that is growing the middle class and creating an environment for job growth. for me, and i say this often in the budget committee, the budget has to be about being fiscal responsible and reducing our

deficit. it also has to meet our obligations to our seniors, to our families, and our futures. we have said over and over again. we have offered many times that we are willing to have the conversations were we can get to a place where we can agree on the budget. this is not the way we're going to do it. this rejects a balanced approach. at this rejects the notion that we can raise revenues at all. any kind of closure of the tax loophole is a closure on the other side. they have never offered one. there never said, here is what we would do. they have agreed to some spending cuts. no. we have agreed to some spending cuts. you might not agree to closing every tax loophole, but give us some very a look at some of them. would you agree to some cuts?

all the taxpayers replied -- apply to oil and gas. farm subsidies. yes, but not right now. there is always an excuse. we need to rejected this. i consider it a real failed approach to a balanced deficit reduction. it is really what we are looking at. the amendment is consistent. i have to give that to the republicans. you are consistent in failing to work with us and a balanced approach. the approach you have offered reflects this refusal. it certainly demonstrates your refusal to be willing to tackle any kind of revenue increase.

this democratic amendment takes a fair and a balanced approach. it reduces the deficit, which you want to do. again, it does it in a way that does not hurt the middle class. reducing that deficit while we protect those really important obligations. and to our businesses i am sorry we are not doing this anymore joint way. truly, this is a strong difference of approach in who we are standing up for in america. i stand with the ranking member.

i would look forward to seeing a few on the other side do so as well. >> i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. one of my concerns in this entire budget process is the way we are treating education. it seems to me that we need to be doing more in education and investing more in education from pre-k to post grad. if we are to be competitive in future years, we need a workforce that is fully developed in which every young person is able to get all of the education they are willing to work for. i fear that the approach being taken, which is such an unbalanced approach jeopardizes the educational future for many

talented young people in america today. i was with a group of early childhood educators on saturday. just saying the immense potential of these young people, but until i see in my own young granddaughter and her desire to learn, and investment in head start instead of reducing the commitment is the way to go. we need to work to improve and strengthen the program through some of the other early-start initiatives for our youngest americans. adopting a budget that does not place an emphasis on early learning, we have had testimony right here in this committee from the leader of the federal reserve and other business leaders about how a dollar invested in early education pays off in dividends to the country.

the same is true of public education. our states are making some of the cuts in the public education and arena. our willingness to invest in what should be a race to the top. trying to improve the quality of our public schools. supporting our teachers seems to me to be a place where we need special emphasis. i have more on the ways and means committee on what is called the american opportunity tax credit. i think it needs to be expanded. it allows individuals to decide whether they want to invest in higher education or some other post-high school education. it gives them the means to do that with $2,500 coming directly off of their taxes. we certainly need to invest in the pell grant program rather than cutting it back further.

i see those young people at texas state, at the alamo college, in at trinity, all with great potential to contribute to this country if we will simply give them the education opportunities that they want and need. a budget that says no new revenues, that the people at the top will not survive, that they have to have the tax rates and not what they had with president clinton is an unbalanced budget that does not yield to the needs of our country. i yield back. >> all time expired. is there anyone in opposition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is hard to argue this is a balanced approach when it identifies two ordered $50 billion of tax increases and only $50 billion in actual spending production -- $250

billion in tax increases and only $50 in actual spending reduction. at the same time, the amendment produces a new round of a so- called strategic spending for things like solyndra. the net result of this amendment is what we have come to expect -- higher taxes and more spending. that is not my idea of a balanced approach. i have explained why republicans are so wary. the result of approaches like this in the past have gotten us to where we are now. in the last 10 years with a 33% increase in revenues and a 35% increase in inflation. it has been keeping up, despite the recession and the tax cuts of last year. the problem is our spending has gone up 76% in the same period.

we're taking five steps backward for every one step forward in this amendment. i heard it said we would live for today when we had a balanced approach. we had that in 1982. reagan agreed to cut spending by $3 for every dollar of tax increases. the tax increases took a fact. the spending cuts never did. bush 1 made the same mistake. bush 2 got a huge tax cut with even bigger spending increases and deficits to boot. i hope the minority will understand that we are wary when we hear the democrats want to eliminate duplicative programs. that is a good thing, but we just had a one hour debate or the democrats of vigorously

opposed cutting back the social services of block grant. that is $1.7 billion a year to support 29 categories. god knows how many. the largest spending category is day care. there are 59 federally supported programs being funded, get we are supposed to believe they are serious about eliminating duplicative programs when we just had a debate about resisting eliminating duplicative programs. the reasons the republicans oppose the proposal is not because republicans are against taxes, it is because they damage the economy. obama, when he said in august of two dozen 9 said the last thing you want to do is raise -- of

2007 -- of two dozen 9 said the last thing you want to do is raise taxes -- 2009 said the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. corporations do not pay taxes. corporations do not pay taxes. corporate taxes can only be paid in one of three ways. they are paid by us as consumers in higher prices. they are paid by us as employees through lower wages. or they are paid by us as investors in the lower earnings. does the only way they can be paid. consumers, employees, investors. there is no other way. and by the way, the reason why companies are moving overseas is no mystery. we have the highest corporate

tax in the industrialized world. that compares rather poorly with socialist -- china, the rate is 25%. russia and levies a mere 24%. you cannot complain about corporations fleeing our shores. if you eliminate the ability of u.s. companies from deferring taxes, you will not bring those jobs back to america. we tried that in the 1980's on u.s. shipping companies. they were rapidly transferred. we lost the company's and the management jobs and the taxes those management jobs paid. revenues are important, but there is a healthy way and an unhealthy way of generating them.

the healthy way is to reduce the regulatory burdens on the economy. the economy is buckling under the weight. i think the difference between us is not so much in taking these actions as in what we're going to do with the proceeds. i think there are a lot of potential areas of agreement. we talk about the buffett rule a lot on this committee. the fact is the top 1% of taxpayers earn 17% of all income. they pay 37% of income taxes. so, if you are serious about having the rich pay their fair share, you'd be arguing to reduce their tax rate by half. here is where we agree. there are a lot -- a variety of loopholes that ought to be eliminated for the few who are

paying less than their fair share. what we have proposed in the house budget that the democrats and the committee of vigorously objected to was to use the proceeds to lower the overall rates on those who are paying more than their fair share. common agreement -- getting rid of subsidies is a start. i would say getting rid of direct subsidies to all businesses. let every enterprise, regardless of its nature, compete on its own merits by pleasing its customers. if the agriculture committee voted, i agree with the democratic criticism. in nothing that goes with vast majority of republicans. let's join a common cause and get rid of them. there is no reason the federal government should be in the

flood insurance business. the market rate for flood insurance is the exact measure. we should not be distorting for corrupting that the data. consumers have the right to know the true cost of their risk. we can go on. the bottom line is this. the democrats want the proceeds from these actions. republicans want them returned to those who earned that money so they can spend, save, and invest as they deemed wise. that is the irreconcilable conflict between us and with the altman -- what the american people will need to resolve. with that, i would like to yield four minutes to my friend. >> thank you. here we are again.

she starts of that we refuse a balanced approach. all i can say is not. we have put revenue on the table with our budget with tax reform. but you want to get rid of the loopholes? look at our tax reform plan. we are growing it through economic activity. not through targeting specific groups and reduce economic opportunity for the economy. the next statement is a we're trying to bounce the budget on the middle class and the port. nothing can be further from the truth. we're trying to take the impact from the obama democratic economy off the backs of the ports that have been shoved their because of poor policy. we continue -- these programs continue to enslave people to being hooked on government handouts. the balanced approach we want is

more revenues. let's talk about the buffett tax for a minute. what news came out that president obama was out about the buffett rule. the gsa scandal. you cannot count on unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats to act responsibly with their tax dollars. that is the wrong thing to tell the american people. here is what mr. buffett said this weekend about the buffett rule. it does not cure all revenue problems even remotely. he went on to say that fixing the federal debt was dependent on reining in its expenses. then he goes on to say that in my original article i said we have major problems on the a expenditure side. he goes on to say, it would be nice to see gdp gallop at 4% to 5%. those of the things he said.

that is what we propose in our budget, which is a truly balanced approach. we hear the same attacks on oil and go ahead, tax them. which item of spending money on education. i agree. -- we hear about spending money on education. i agree. if you want to get states to spend more, grow the economy so they have more revenues. these dollars do not have to go through dc. leave them at home so people can spend more. in 2007, california had 144,000 taxpayers that paid over half

the total tax of that state. those millionaires are moving to texas. california is digging themselves into a larger whole. if you want to have less economy for the middle class and the lower class of this country, then keep raising taxes. thank you. >> if the gentleman from texas is going to get personal, the jump from california will reclaim the bounds of his time. [laughter] -- the balance of his time. >> i thank you the settlement from oklahoma for his time. [laughter] they say in this business in order for us to get our message across, we have to say it again until we are so sick of hearing

that we not want to talk about it anymore. my colleagues across the way are as sick of hearing me ask this as much as i am. where is the president on this? he is the leader of the nation and your party. where is the president on the plan to raise -- to erase the sequestered. this looks to be the comprehensive amendment offered by our colleagues across the way to request -- to replace sequestration in its entirety. i think when the controller of the omb was here, and what is so often typical of both parties, in fact, if with a delicate a success from our perspective as conservatives, at least people are saying the right things now. the president has made clear that congress should act to avoid sequestration.

it must be a primary focus of congress. it is their firm belief is not inappropriate measure. ok, what is the plan? we heard, again and again, budget. and then we had a discussion. ochs maybe i should have brought the budget and. all i know is it cannot be this. this cannot do with the president is offering, the current amendment. the current amendment looks to be two pages in large type. which is great. don't get me wrong. i like short amendments. this almost lacks specifics at the rate of making it inappropriate to take up. we talked a lot about higher taxes on all oil companies. the buffett rule. the buffett rule, which is

proposed by the president but not in his budget. proposals that should be considered include -- ok, does that mean it has to be considered? it is a list of ideas and generalities. it would probably be impossible to score this. the ratio here is $1 of spending reductions for every $5 in tax increases. in some definitions, i guess that would be balanced. the president even suggested that one year ago and when he said he was offering $10 of spending reductions for every dollar increase in taxes. we never saw that, expect in a speech. but at least you saying the right thing. -- at least he was saying the right thing.

if there was a specific proposal that really was $10 in reductions for every $1 in increase, that would be an interesting discussion. but it is not here. d amendment, in all fairness to my good friend, it lacks the specifics that we need. -- the amendment, an offense to my good friend, it lacks the specifics that we need. i think we agree that the problem is real. i do not think this amendment actually does it. i hope we rejected later on this evening. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would like to yield to the gentleman from north texas. >> we refer to texas as baja oklahoma.

[applause] -- [laughter] let me make a couple comments. i have a difficult time selling it to raise taxes because government is so efficient and we afford all of our duplication and efficiencies. we cannot find any more efficiencies, so we will have to raise taxes. i find it difficult to say to anyone with a straight face. duplication in government programs. inefficiencies. waste, fraud, and abuse that we all know is there. how can we make us as efficient as we possibly can? with the statements that are in here, i do look forward to wide bipartisan support for the amendments and the passage of the corporations bill. -- the appropriations bill.

maybe the amendments will come out. we will deal with duplication in government. those are issues that we do need to take on in very specific ways. in many ways, this amendment is something that is very vague. i understand it will be that way. when you're trying to replace it, very specific, very detailed, this feels like getting into a vehicle and your gps says it to you, if you want to get your next destination, and go that way, rather than specific turn-by-turn, and how we get there. i look forward to the senate taking up a budget so we can work through the difficult process of specifically naming what do we need to do to get out of this. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i was thought