let me just talk about a few reasons why i say that. on the positive side, house prices appear to have stabilized, and some markets are seeing healthy increases, but is important to remember house prices are still down nationally by more than 30%. we lost over seven trillion dollars in housing wealth. we have no where rebuild the lost wealth. in addition, more than 20% of closes of households that are valued more than the housing market itself. that translates to 700 billion of upside-down debt. now, one of the key reasons foreclosures have fallen, and one of the reasons we have to be careful about celebrating the day that too much is foreclosures fell significantly between 2010 and 2011 by about 35%, and that is certainly something to celebrate, but it was not due to the fact that

consumers are more economically able to maintain their homes or that services were processed pastor. this was because of legal impediments to foreclosed upon. now most of the legal challenges are out of the way. as a result, one report i just recently saw house morgan stanley estimating there are 7 million homes in the foreclosure pipeline. when you look at data regarding mortgage purposes now mortgage purchases in particular seem to be on the right path. approximately 7 per cent of those, which are refinances are good for the economy right now, but not sustainable over the long term. purchase mortgages are still pretty significantly below what we would expect in a normal

market, and the same thing for housing construction. still anemic relative to a strong market. a couple of other points, when you are looking at the housing market it is important to understand housing and the economy are linked at the hip. the largest driver of the economy has been employment, underemployment or loss of income. the reality is the economy is still in a very precarious position b one. . europe is closer and closer to sliding into the abyss. we do not need any help from your wrist -- eric to damage the economy, because we are on route doing it ourselves. we're not debating competitive investments to get america back to work. instead, most of the dominant conversation is around the fiscal cliff coming at the beginning of the year, which means the focus of the

conversation is on deficit reduction. that is not to say deficits are not important, but we need to adjust them in a comprehensive program for america, because the best way to balance the budget is to put the back to work, and we're counting the fiscal cliff. i think it is way too premature to say the housing market has bottomed out. we really need to be very diligent and doing everything we can to mitigate foreclosures, and we need to not forget the damage that was done, particularly of the communities of high concentration of foreclosure. we need to address those neighborhoods, rebuilding the community. we need to get the housing homeownership market street in really leveraging the fact -- and really leveraging the fact that we have housing prices down in price and using those of leveraging that as affordable housing opportunities,

particularly low and moderate- income and minority households. i would say the bottom line is we have seen good news, and i think that is good. i think we should except the good news as better than bad news, but we should not run too far with it. >> thank you, jim. family still losing their home at a fast pace, and a third of the population you -- live in rental housing, and that is probably only going to go up as news households are either not able or not stepping in to new homeowners ships. as rents are rising, it is only getting worse. it seems like a key opportunity to reposition policies. what are the prospects for getting it right this time? strong. hope

the perspective i would like to bring to the conversation is enterprise someone working of the national agenda, but also local communities. as i share our perspective today, i think it is really important to look into the local communities and about what is really happening. i think that is right. i think were enterprise stance today and where we promote on a national level is thinking about a balanced housing policy. there is no doubt today where we are in the cycle that there is tremendous opportunities for home ownership, and we think that is vitally important for building wealth and critically important. at the same time, the growing need for rental is there, and many of is an audience read the statistics -- i was just looking at the joint center at harvard, the house and study that comes out each year. i think what we have seen tremendous growth -- housing

study we have seen the demand for rental. the demand has more than doubled. depending on which numbers you look like to listen to, 2010, the deficit between those who need affordable rental end what the supply is, there is a gap of 5.1 million units, which is just enormous. an absence of any major policy intervention, we will see this policy -- this trend build. we know we are in their process of going through not only cash reform and facing a potential fiscal clef. i think we all how to be ardent and thinking about how we will support the rental factor as we look at the homeownership policies. so i guess where we would like to put forward our idea is to say how do we look of the programs that have been

effective and efficient on the ground so that ones that can also help us not only produce affordable housing, but preserve affordable housing out there. one of the programs that enterprise has a long history with, low income tax credit. as we know from a low income tax credit was a product of tax reform back in 1986, and it was at the reagan policy. how do we take a policy like this and make sure the efficiency we seen in that program, which i would be happy to argue has been very effective and has allowed us to create not only 100,000, one of the 20,000 new homes each year that are affordable, but also helps create jobs, which is essential. 120,000 jobs along with that. whether we're talking about housing, economic stimulus, these all go hand in hand. we want to make sure low-income

housing tax credit remains on the agenda and a strong tool. it has lovebird $75 billion all of -- leveraged 75 billion worth of critical capital. in addition, enterprise has been trying to make sure we have additional programs that also help us address issues are around for closure. something like the neighborhood stabilization program has been less than perfect, but we also know it has been vital in communities that have been hard hit to try to restore. what we're trying to do is make sure that as nfp dollars are used it is used efficiently and effectively and get that back to policy makers and make sure the next generation continue to strengthen. i also think we will be in the debate. obviously we talk about of balance housing policy. we will talk about how we restructure home ownership tax

benefits to benefit low and moderate income people. we receive the data out in the past couple of weeks that suggest the housing subsidies that are out there. over 50 percent go to people making over $100,000 or more per year. how do we right size the subsidies that exist to make sure folks that are low and moderate income are benefiting from that? let's be balanced about the approach. we know deficits have to come down. how can we do that in the scope of the reality where we can make progress on the agenda? finally, i am delighted and honored to be here today, and i think the homes for good campaign is about coming together and trying to think about creating a shared message for the issues we care about. i think that is important for us all to think about, how to get beyond the individual silos and centers and come together are brought a message with a specific set of priorities so

that we do make progress going forward. then i think we could see the progress we hope for. >> great. on the third point shifting from rental and looking ahead for how to create a path to sustainable homeownership, there is an enormous amount of work in progress, and probably even more remaining to be done to rebuild the mortgage finance system. the things like you -- regulators do now will change the way home ownership is financed from -- for decades to come. can we end up with a system that is it an inclusive? what do we do? -- that is safe and conc lusive? >> let's set some ground rules. in the opening dialogue and having been the f h a

commissioner and taking enforcement action against hundreds of institutions and starting the dialogue on the servicing settlement, which i left part way in between, it is remarkable as we look back. hindsight is perfect. unregulated, unsustainable homeownership standard, allowing institutions to promote programs that would adjust in two years to people who have terrible credit histories and have already suffered, or are high risk families, putting them into programs that ultimately they will miraculously get bailed out on down the road, these proved completely unsustainable. this will supposedly give access to have more ownership. yet it will depreciate in a rapid way and short amount of time based on previous history.

you could cash out refinance and take home equity lines of credit. all fuelling the fired towards what ultimately created this house of cards could never be recreated again. we call it extraordinary damage. it is the same industry i took enforcement measures against. you hear that message repeated, and it has been repeated multiple times already today. those in force actions will work their way through. the question is, how do we get hope back into the housing system? the more we have discussions where you leave wanting to split your risk after you heard the debate and the dialogue after the downside ahead, i think that does not do what we need from of competence standpoint. at the same time, you do not want to create a rational exuberance towards the future because you do not want people

making decisions based on expectations that are positive as well. i think balance is what we need to think about as we move forward. the first would be balanced in homeowners her verses rental. when i work for sean donovan he talked often about a balanced housing policy. what does that mean? clearly we have too many families promoted into the hope homeownership and it destroyed communities. communities that were propped up because of no finance sold into the private label sector. you can look at las vegas, detroit. two different sets of products were originated and provided to consumers. similar outcomes for different reasons. that balance have to shift. well-qualified borrowers who can prove their ability to pay that

are fully documented, clearly known they will be able to perform in the mortgages is a critical component. we need a balanced rental policy. there will clearly be greater renter demand. what is that doing? we're seeing for the commercial and multifamily institutions, they are having a much better year than they have had in past years. it shows the demand for rental housing. at the same time, how will we deal with the affordable and work force housing. what happens to work force tenants they get this place because rent rates are rising. these are the things we have to think about collectively together. certainly the future of subsidized housing finance, whether it comes from hydrocarbon or elsewhere.

how we create work force housing critic relate in the rental space will be key. the balance has to occur. we can talk about enforcement. i am very concerned about the future of access to home ownership. i am worried and the effort to eliminate -- in the effort to eliminate unfair practices that existed over the past years that we will move too far. so if you think of the pendulum, small swings seem to be the way the economy has function over the years. we'll come from a long swing and are receiving too far the other way. i look their roles that i participated as part of dog- franc. qualified residential mortgage, which has a 20% minimum down payment. we all know down payment is the single biggest barrier to access for first-time home buyers. families without large amounts

of inherited wealth, which disproportionately affects family of color, communities of color, hispanics, african americans. it ultimately affects these communities the most. there is a recent study that talks about fha and i bristled when i saw the study, because for first-time home buyers, it stands for from the hispanic americans. if you have a limited downpayment opportunity in your family because you do not have large amounts of inherited wealth from your parents, and that goes back generations in this country, you will have limited access to home ownership without fha. a fannie mae freddie mac loan with a low down payments and other restrictions on the score have end up costing the bar or more. we have seen if you go back a

decade ago to last year, over 80 percent of all loans for hispanic americans and african- americans were done through conventional mortgages. last year approximately 80% of the same populations of loans for the latino community and african-americans were done either through fha or usda. schiff is really remarkable. when you look at the role makings -- rule makings, the qm program, which could have significant constraints due to cuts defining the ability to repay, we could end up with a very disparate income in terms of access to housing were fha has a very unique what will ultimately look like a potentially a color boundary to it, and the 1% will get low-rate financing, whether it is through the private-label market or fannie mae or freddie mac

because they will have access to the economic fortunes that have been passed on and generated through history in this country, and i am not trying to make this as -- at the should not be an ethnic discussion. it becomes so because of economics and demographics. while we're making certain to enforce all of the mistakes made by institutions, lenders and services of the past, and that will continue, we can talk about the great things happening, the fact of the matter is i am extremely concerned about access to affordable housing access to finance and in the program, depending on what happens in the political arena if we do not seriously take a look at when do we start regarding our attention to the current rule making is in response away that says we will not restrict access to qualify,

sustainable home ownership for a large multitude of participants in the market that create a vibrant and competitive marketplace though consumers get the best options available to them, not ending up with the barbell affect. people on the margin you have fha or pay day lending. people on the bar will not be impacted by these anyway. we have to be really careful about what happens going forward. the enforcement is occurring in a very rapid way. all of the data about foreclosures. it will be a big foreclosure year because of lack of activity last year. it will ultimately take its course. we really need to have a serious debate about those impacted through job loss, credit scores. those who have low down payments in need access to home ownership and should not be delayed because of the down payment

layering requirements. we have to create this huge disparate impact of policy, not lending behavior. >> obviously very rich things to get into. i like to stay with the question you both talked about, the balanced housing policy. just to understand, does this imply america is at a crossroads where we have to either choose to support rental or continue to foster home ownership or is there some way to connect the dots and some holistic way? -- in some holistic way? ." painted a they've really good picture of the balance that has occurred. just one clarification for people who do not really do this

every single day, and that is i think we need to be careful as we engage in a conversation on the balancing of the house inverses rental, and did we go gotoo far? homeownership rates never exceeded 15%. the reason for the exception of foreclosures is not because we went too far in pushing the envelope on affordable, which among housing products, 30-rate low down payment well underwritten loans. that was not the foreclosure crisis. it was exploded subprime loans that were not intended to promote home ownership. when we're talking about this it can get a little bit muddled sounding. samying they were using experimental products to get people in that really did not know. that was not it. he was taking people who have the credit score, income, and

jobs to be good candidates for long-term homeownership and peddling them of 327 subprime blown that was intended to require refinancing within two or three years to trigger fees for the lender that originated the loan. when house prices fought and out, that house of cards fell apart. when you go back to talk about the balance of homeownership, we need to talk about what do we see as the potential home ownership potential using solidly, underwritten well- documented, low-cost fixed rate loan products. since the great depression those loans have been under written largely for non-hispanics white households. the system worked for the home they were intended to own. you would be successful in the

first time because the lender wanted to have a relationship with you to go to the next town. that fell apart with subprime. it became we want to stay with you where we keep taking income from you so you never actually generate any real income for yourself. we just keep stripping the wealth creation from you. one of the things that also amazes me when i hear a lot of economists say we need to rethink homeownership. if you ask them if you are a homeowner, they say yes. what they're really saying is we need to rethink having minorities and lower income households. i think we need to not so focus on this but the right balance. we need to focus on the loans that have historically shown to demonstrate those are the kinds of products that our wealth

building and then look at the populations and how they match up with the type of criteria that are required to build a home ownership market. >> you will hear the debate where people look back historically and say the 30-year fixed rate was not needed. if you look at interest rates, you will hear economists talk about the free put option for the consumer. this is the way they describe it. it is interesting, you are right. from 1980 until now interest rates have went from 19 down to 3.5. a couple of upticks along the way. if you will ever need a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, it will be from here going forward. to your point, that is why a talk by subprime. i would add, so our down-funded assistance rates in the fha

program. half of those will end up in some sort of trouble as a result. a third are in some sort of foreclosures stage. there is a lot of variables in terms of how we determine say, sustainable, well-underwritten loans to make sure you are working on access but not pushing people into homes for reasons that will not be sustainable. >> from our perspective in local communities, i do not think i could say anything different but to echo what we're saying, which is we of a study coming out in the next several weeks looking at access to credit in communities where we work, and these things will all be president. i do not think it is any surprise how we continue to provide access. it is simply not what we. we have a repeat of history that is probably really threatening to come our way.

we know many of the communities we're looking at our minority in low-income communities. we have a recovery in some places and credit flowing, but the majority of the places we're working in our very challenging conditions. >> the sources of financing are no different. the market is virtually nonexistent. if you think about the demand going forward, we need to have capital to make sure we can build plenty of supply of housing, particularly in urban communities in places of work. >> i would also add some of the work we're doing on the ground, what we will continue to see is that over stock of single- family. we need to be thoughtful about

how we articulate what that means to the economy and how we start to transition properties to productive uses, which i know all of us are talking about, but i think there is real opportunity to convert some of the single-family units to protective stock of rental. regardless, there is a huge mismatch between where the homes are and where opportunities are for jobs and opportunities and the way other people choose communities. we need to think about this as we go to the hill to advocate for what we believe in. we have to be front and center on that as well. >> one of the things interesting in the last comment is as we're thinking about the future of home ownership, we need to remember a lot of households that lost their homes

to for closure are good candidates for homeownership. there were before the crisis, before they lost their home, and they still are now. they simply could not pay the subprime loan and could not get a modification in an appropriate way that allowed them to keep their home. at cs oflooking single-family in town homes or whatever, your basic homeowner stock of housing, we need to be careful we do not drift to what are the challenges in converting it for rental? we need to ask ourselves what are the challenges in helping the individuals who lost their homes and help them become a homeowner again. in other words, having the ding on their credit score as a result of a predatory product is adding insult to injury. it is now penalizing them a second time as opposed to taking advantage of the fact that we have incredibly low house prices and asking ourselves, what are

the products that go beyond the standard fixed rate. how do we create a new lease purchase program that is national in scale, overseen by federal authorities so we know it is not a predatory market, and actually get people back into owning homes in which the credit score does not matter because they are leasing it. so i think as we think about the balance between rental and housing, we have to think about what happens between rental and ownership, because recovering from the extraordinary damage that has occurred is essential at ending the foreclosure, and then building the market going forward. there is a residue of millions of homeowners that have lost their homes, and millions are just as prepared to be homeowners as current homeowners are today. >> it is interesting, this is a

really important point. it may not even be due to predatory products. it could've been an auto worker who lost his job in the upper midwest, and through no fault of his own/her own, because of an economic recession has had the credit score impacted. how do we find a pathway to get them back based on the way we're managing credit scores today. this is a really important issue. the comment made in opening comments, that is great. it put its cash in people's hands. it is not as stimulative as a whole purpose. the policy makers found a way to get more refinancing done was to eliminate the barriers to access. i think that is a good lesson. a lesson for sustainability unsafe practices. but the more barriers on the

purchase side, it can have an opposite effect in terms of access. that is where the balancing act has to happen. >> that is a really good point because one of the obstacles from a lot of public policy legislators, their resistance to doing more to mitigate for closure is the perception out there that somehow people are in the trouble they are in financially because of their own doing, they bought more houses than they should. dave makes the point it is not as much in the public find that a lot of people go into foreclosure, probably the vast majority are a victim of circumstance. the economy and collapsing home prices. if we're looking at those as the characteristics driving foreclosure, then the ability of us and the willingness of policy makers to legislate more

aggressive foreclosure immigration should be greater. we have to first remove the perception that people are self- inflected victims of buying too much, and being irresponsible. >> keeping in mind the economic softness was triggered by a bunch of reckless lending. bringing that into focus, and because several of you have addressed this point, are we in danger of losing the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage? you talk about it as something that needs to be protected. it has become the backbone of what building for the middle- class in this country. are there concerns about it, and what should we be encouraging the candidates to think about? it seems almost blasphemous for those that think about this. i grew up in this industry several decades ago it was a much smaller percentage of the marketplace.

we did 30-year fixed rate loans. we held among portfolio. we fully documented every low and locked in the interest-rate the night before closing this marked allows the borrower to buy a home, go under contract, 30-60 days in advance of their settlements and have the confidence and security of knowing any interest rates will not -- one out what done out of home ownership access. at the extreme if you look at some of the most extreme versions that policy makers have exposed, in the absence of a complete elimination of a government-guaranteed market and an over correction on freddie mac and fannie mae important role in the housing market, i think you would see disruptions in the current structure of how 30-year mortgages are being created.

this interaction that is now global in terms of how capital comes into the housing finance system all depends on the flow. to put in the analogy, to move the plumbing under the sink. suddenly the water will flow onto the floor. this is what we have to be most careful of, overcorrection, trying to dampen down some of the more emotional statements that may be made for political campaign purposes and less of a reality in terms of making the system function. >> i would say there is risk to any policy. i do think 30-year fixed is essential policy to retain. i know we see comparisons to global markets that have been fully functional without it, but i think it is really important, and not only in the housing market, but as you look as the credit crisis more generally in globally, whether it is in

housing or in small business finance. it is really important to determine the predictability of the payment. if you want to really get down to affordability and predictability, project relief for low income families, i think it is essential. also to have something long-term and that has the features that we know allow access to a broader range. i think it is critically essential. >> both are essential for renting. to go absolutely. to go i find it to be -- >> i find the whole question to be so real. there is a reason why homeownership is the single most important asset of the typical american household. that is for half a century home ownership was the most secure, most stable, most incredible wealth-generating asset. all of a sudden in 2000 we have

this explosive growth of subprime products. it destroys the housing market. the wreckage of the housing market, we then come back to say how do we repair the damage that was caused, and rather than looking of their products that cause the damage, we say it must be the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that we have to get rid of. the solution is to get rid of subprime and make sure does not happen again. i think somehow we need to get rid of the product that for half a century proved itself to be the envy of the world in terms of building wealth. it is incredible to me. when we start talking about what will replace it, you end up with some conversations that are almost as convoluted in strange and bizarre in the sense of what they lead to of the same kind of product, financial engineering

that could potentially lead to another collapse of the housing market because they're so sophisticated no one can understand it. as opposed to sign on your dotted line. that is what we need. that is what works. no reason to even debate whether it should exist. >> let's look ahead several years. by 2050 the country will be majority minority, if not sooner. hispanics have lost more than 60 percent of their wealth during the crisis, double that of what lies -- what white households have lost. for 74%, and the ship for white households and 74 percent for black and latino. hispanic households are currently accounting for more than half of the home purchases in this country today, and look ahead of the growing diversity of this country, what are the implications for how we design

housing finance for the future? >> the great read is the harvard joint center state of housing. and 53 percent of all purchases in quarter 32011 ford to hispanic households. -- 53%. household formations year after year, there was about 893 million households formed, but it was more than that in the hispanic community. we actually have a net loss. the joint center forecast that if you look of the household formation that will occur over the next decade, the single biggest factor will be the latino community. other communities will be growing, but that community will be going the greatest.

-- growing the greatest. i grew up for we had mom stayed home. steady salary, pensions for retirement. if we think about household formation going forward, we need to think about cultural differences. multiple family members they may decide to live together in any community. self and play in come. these may not fit well, in the definition underwriting standard. we need to make sure we are looking out how to include all, true, verifiable or real income that may not be able to be counted in the traditional sense. it is really an important demographic, because that will drive a lot of u.s. economy. the desire to own a home is extremely high in the new growth communities of this country. >> you talk about the low-down

payment market as well. >> absolutely. these are the important trends to look at been thinking about how we design the next generation of communities to make sure we're paying attention to the cultural differences and products that allow us to look at different differences in communities and household formation. it also has to do with life cycle. we're looking as seniors. there is just a different way we need to think about some of the housing stock. we're seeing a lot of folks today looking at things like senior housing. so that if we want to have seen years or intergenerational housing, how do we think about that in a more compelling way? so we talk about the future communities. i think we need to pay attention to the point you make about the products and how we take into account multiple incomes. people talk about a sensory dwelling units -- a sense read

dwelling units but it is adding more to the stock and financing that in a way that allows families to be together and cover part of the path and is important when you look at the cultural norms, as well as demographics. >> probably the first time the census department showing the country would be no longer a majority hispanic and white was 15 years ago. you can see 2050 is a long way away and do not to worry about it. it got a lot of people's attention when the first report came out to show the majority of babies now born in america are children of color. what that means is we do not have 30 years or 40 years or 20 years. we do not even arguably have 10 years. the large number of majority children -- minority children will have a profound impact on every aspect of the american

economy. the question is, how we integrate those children into the opportunities of america so that in fact they can pay the bills? they will be a larger share of the work force us hispanics are retiring. they will be replaced by kids who cannot even get a job as a cashier. so we need to think about that. it has profound implications for the housing and homeownership market as well, the idea you can have a healthy, robust home ownership market when half of the u.s. population are really not able to gain -- put their foot on the ladder of economic mobility and success. as david pointed out about his father-in-law, how housing became the infrastructure to build well, not just for himself and immediate family, but for his children going forward.

we need to think about how we make that ladder of opportunity work for non-hispanics. , pritchett relief for people of color we need to figure out the puzzle now because the latest data shows we do not have time to wait. the future is today, right now. >> hopefully a path will be found. time now to open the question in up to the audience. i want to make a couple of points. we ask that you give us your name and affiliation, and also, we are here not to comment specifically on the platforms of anyone candidates, but rather to put things forward that could be useful for them and thinking about the housing platform. with that, i will start with man whel.

>> good morning. i am the regional director of homeownership for the latino economic development center. i am here with a senior housing counselor, and i would like to take a brief moment to highlight a story of a real family affected by foreclosure. we help people buy and stay in their homes, we provide micro lending and expand small businesses. we work for a stable housing every day here in the region, and more than 5500 homeowners to buy theirto ledc first home and fight for closure. in the past year we provided

more than 2300 hours of in-depth for closure intervention counseling to over 400 families. these issues that i wanted to highlight with you briefly today to kick out the questions, two issues, one of them is for underwater bar worse, principal reduction is an important tool, and we're glad there is more principal reduction taking place. however, the seemingly similar cases seem to be treated differently from what we've seen in the past couple of months. we started to see some lenders agree to principal reduction, but unclear how they're making those decisions. the recent decisions were very disappointed -- we were very disappointed with the recent decision by fannie mae and freddie mac think it would not allow principal reductions. more than 50 percent of our cases are fannie mac and freddie mae loans. also, foreclosure scams that

continue to target struggling homeowners. we continue to see this as an issue every day as spokes and families come to us needing assistance and are further behind because they tried to seek help from banks first and then fall victim to foreclosures gams. we're working with state agencies and partners like neighbor works america to educate homeowners on how to more needs toyet nea be done. scam artists seem to be changing their tactics frequently to divert free -- vulnerable homeowners of the emergency fund, a college savings fund, so we have responsibility to protect homeowners by reporting these scams as frequently as began. we also find that many homeowners are reluctant to record these scams. -- report these scams.

rather than rush to foreclosures, we believe it is important to ensure that deserving families who threw new -- through no fault of their own have a chance to stay in their home if it makes financial sense for their families. wendy, why don't you come up here and tell everyone a little bit about one of the cases we most recently have been working with. >> thank you for having us here. i am a bilingual housing counselor at ledc. as housing counselors, we see difficult cases every day. i want to share a story with you that just walked into the office last month, late last month. a few years ago there rodriguez

family fell behind in their mortgage when the husband got sick with cancer. by the time they came into our office, he had already passed away. they are bought eight months behind on their mortgage. they have three young daughters, and all under the age of five. mercedes rodriguez, at the white, gets a letter in the mail promising to stop foreclosure and reduce payments as much as 50%. desperate, mercedes calls the business for help to save the house. they asked for 5000 to try to work out a loan modification. time goes by. now she has fallen about a year and a half behind on her mortgage payments.

eventually they tell her the loan modification was denied, but no paper work to back that up. these are the kinds of stories we see on a day-to-day basis. there are certain stories that unfortunately touched the hearts of all of our counselors, and we all try to pitch in. one month later this camera tells her the only option left is to sell -- this scammer tells her the only option left is to sell her house as a short sale. this gammer says they will buy the house in return and return it to her. to do this, they ask for $60,000 to be transferred into their own baking account. mercedes of course wants to save the little bit her husband left her, which is the house. she agrees and makes the money

transfer. the house is put on the market. mercedes tells the story to her psychiatrist who tells her to come to lecd. we tell this story -- we tell her the story is illegal, what they're doing is illegal. there is no way that was fixed, because what they have promised is with the $60,000 they will buy her house and get it back to her, return it back to her. she unfortunately believed it. when she comes in as a normal client would come in and seize one of the counselors, the counselor tells her there is no way they are going to do this for you, it is not legal. the counselor automatically

tells her to go back to this person and try to get her money back. she listens. she goes bac she tries to get her money back. they give her 40,000 out of the 60,000. she comes back to our office. kind of have become a kind of sad because of the she has 40,000. at this point, all of the housing counselors are involved in this case, and we all feel there is no way we can settle with her only getting 40,000 out of the 60,000. we continue forward. unfortunately this client does not want to come forward and report the case. we feel it is our obligation as a housing counselor as any medical doctor would report a case of child abuse, it is our

obligation to report this case. we did so. we reported it to the department -- sorry, the maryland department of licensing. this is for real are right now with the case. fortunately it got to the point where this third person got a little bit threatened, and she ended up giving mercedes back the additional 20,000, so she has her 60,000 back. mercedes did go back to the person's office. unfortunately, office was closed. the good thing that came from its is three other people also that wanted to follow up on their file on their case with this person, they started talking to mercedes, and mercedes told them what they're

doing it's not legal. out of the three people, an additional person did come to lecd it was willing to deposit 45,000 into this person's bank account. it is sad. there is nothing we can do about this. the scammers are busy. they're working. the only thing we can do is come forward to share of the stories so that more people will know and more people go back home with questions, and those people might have friends, and the word does get along. thank you. [applause] >> we debated about asking questions about principal reduction or the foreclosure scam. we decided to focus today on the

park closures caming issue, because so many people come to us when it is too late. if they had come to us earlier, the options would be much different. even though we of highlighted so much, the importance of high lighting scams, it is difficult. she did not allow us to use her name, because she is nervous. we just wanted to highlight the question on what we believe can be done at the federal, state, or local level to protect homeowners, sam, and other foreclosure scams. take up their story -- >> there are two things alive and well, and that is scammers, and the other thing is the strong desire for home ownership and the drive to almost at all costs preserve the roof over the head and home for the family. what can we do? >> this is an issue that the

president identified early in his term in the of fenestration and made statements about it. it was something the secretary has been focused on. i used to travel around the country and visit with hud counselors and spent time in about that and other communities, but the thing i found is there is the shortest -- shortage of public money and is debated every year. whether that housing counseling dollars will go through. everyone knows that. as a result, no matter how good of the work of people like this, the good work being done, just not enough money to deal with the need. if that, -- it is the consumer that is being affected by the scam artist as i have a resource to go to and know where to turn, they will be exposed.

you will hope there is enough support from good organizations like this out there, but at the end of the day, it is a difficult one. look at the department of justice representative here. >> it is illegal. the president has been firm on it. one thing i would add to that is so much of the abuse of consumers and his behavior of consumers can be purged by having good, quality testing and having those testing results turned over to institutions such as the department of justice. i mean calling this scam artist and establishing a case against them and bringing legal action against them, because relying on the consumer is addressing the damage to be done is not a healthy way to do it. i would say the investigations

need to be increased pretty substantially, but the great thing is that if you purge discrimination and the abusive behavior from the market, you have much less federal dollars to compensate for the financial damage that is done or lack of economic activity in households. to fund a greater activity around pursuing scam artists, the actual surveys of them, the testing of them and turning over the results and having federal agencies aggressively pursue them and put them out of business. a lot of this has been done over the past several years, but a lot more could -- a lot more could be done. >> it sounds like you've debated scams vs principal reduction. maybe i will change that agenda a little bit to say it is so important to talk about this and to hear that kind of feedback.

what i would also want to do as a community is to think about what is the back-end process of this? we have millions of homes being transferred to new owners today, whether it is on trading desks, or whether we have sales going on brought up by private equity players. there is so much activity that will be facing individuals that we serve, individuals you touch in your office, as well as communities we serve more holistic play over the next five years. one of the questions -- conversations is to say, as we look at -- we actually established in partnership with national community stabilization trust and mercy housing a facility to start buying of non-performing loans,

because we felt it was really important to have a responsible player that could come in and do principal reduction, being able to look at front-end debts and back-end debt. thinking about bringing the homeowner in before it goes to reo. the point is we need people that are responsible players during the activity. why not take some of the money and deploy it to try -- to buy bomb-performing loans and keep people in their homes and get people the trading or counseling they need to be a productive homeowner? we're doing that in a way where they have equity in their homes, and you can't restructure its in that way. we are also looking at the other end, once we get through and have reo property that is

sitting there vacant -- i was sitting with a large private equity player yesterday who happens to be a very responsible private equity player and has been in the market for the past five years, they are very concerned about the bulk purchases that are getting bought up by hedge funds and others. what happens to the other 20% or s? per cent sign of homeles they will be resold. my point is what we need to think about is what the next generation of issues our communities are going to face, so let's not forget the back end and start to coalesce around some of those solutions, because otherwise we will be facing some of these issues again. good >> i want to take us out of the legal conversation, because probably and who the

best solutions are not waiting for legal at any rate. one thing about the campaign is to mandate mediation. this particular consumer would not be in the processf needing to look for someone to help them if they had not been required to sit down with services and have legal representation, because it would have been gone right there. now they would have good advice. they would have to discuss all the alternatives. if there was not an alternative, the process would be clear to turn the house back to the lender through foreclosure, but in many cases there would be ways to modify the loans and allow the consumer to maintain their homes without having to randomly make phone calls to institutions to whom they have no way of invalidating legitimacy, so i think if we

come back to what can be done for foreclosures such as requiring mediation, requiring they meet the standards of the program, there is a whole list of those recommendations within the campaign brochure. if we follow those, a lot of skimming will never have an opportunity to ochre. >> if you read the proposed standards without a few days ago, it has two obligated touch points but have to be met. the first is a mandatory letter, but there is a requirement to have a contact with the homeowner. that happens very early on, so that intervention that came as auto -- came out of the settlement, it is those kinds of provisions that can require everyone to be paved the same

way in the marketplace. >> we have time for a few more audience questions. i believe i saw one. thank you. >> i am with the national association of hispanic real estate professionals. you mention one solution, mediation. you also made reference to the principal reduction and also refinancing. there is a lot of talk about pushing principal reduction, including equity, and massive refinancing and and not a historic low interest rates available today -- and a historic low interest rate available today. >> i think reduction should be done by fannie mae and freddie mac. it is not clear why the finance and administration is opposed to it. initially the argument was it was not cost-effective, but

according to their own analysis it still is not done. it needs to be done. it is not clear why it is not done, but there are other things that can be done but we are not talking about. bankruptcy protection for principal residences in -- this is something recommended four or five years ago and estimated 35% of foreclosure crises could be dealt with in that way. you could get the bankruptcy protection on your luxury yacht, your second home, your rental property, but when it comes to the family home, it is off limits. in this crisis period, it makes no public policy cents. that should be put in place. they have indicated more service standards. when they talk about refinance, i think they are talking about a proposal recently floated on

capitol hill. one problem with that, if you see how long it takes to get a rule created, the idea that you are going to create a new financial structure for buying mortgages probably would be in place in 2015, and i think we cannot afford to wait. i do not think there is a need to wait when we have mediation that could happen immediately, when we have all these things that could be done enforcing the rules in hand, so there are real consequences for not following the rules. these things could be done right now, and we could be mitigated hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, but we are not doing them. i think it is a nice idea, but i think there are things we should do right now. >> you heard my idea on principal reduction, and i think we have seen cases where it works very well. we have seen studies about the

cost of foreclosure and why this makes sense from an economic standpoint. i do not need to restate that, so i will echo those comments to say principal reduction is an option we should -- i believe we need to clear the housing stock in a way to get the economy and recovery going in a stronger direction, so there is no doubt principal reduction could be an important tool. >> aside from shouting out a good job for everything you do, but as far as relates to the recent finance proposals, this would extend the heart of program to allow more consumer access and hopefully speed up the process. i think that is one advantage.

there are issues to it, but there are opportunities, and the feinstein both, which proposes -- feinstein bill is very close to the program we rolled out with the administration, so there are things in play, and those could happen fairly quickly if the kinks were worked out of them. we know you have got to take it all or nothing, so getting this right to the point it could potentially move forward is one option. this is having an extraordinary impact. it is not a permanent solution, but it is clearly improving the cash flow for millions of americans, and its three mines with freddie mac and fannie mae. >> they're offering to bring you

each a card to sign off, so members of the audience do not forget the panel to share as well. >> i thought you were referring to this one that creates a new trust. i think realistically it would take a couple years to put something like that in place, and in addition to that i think it could distract the focus of doing things now. >> any other of last burning questions. may get a quick one, -- make it a quick one, because we are running out of time. don't >> i am the executive director for the counseling agency in columbus, ohio. my question relates to credit issues. there are a lot of folks who

have been damaged by foreclosures. they declare bankruptcy. my question is will these people be able to access the market again in the way they will not be perpetually punished for things that happened to them. good we see folks every day in this situation, and it may take an innovative program, but i am curious about what your thoughts are, and is anything possible? >> what i said earlier, i think we need to look at credit scores and how they are being used for practically everything these days and how weekend find the damage from an exploitive products.

we have enough challenges that have been pursued by the department of justice, the settlement but clearly there was a lot of illegal behavior happening in the market. the second point goes back to innovative products. if you are working on a lease purchase, credits or does not matter in terms of ownership common -- credit scored does not matter in terms of ownership, because if you perform well on adaptec it -- that it should be designed to coordinate with the mortgage. >> that raises the question of having a viable and quality place to live in the meantime as well. that would also be part of a concern. >> absolutely, and i think there needs to be products but will help people rebuild credit

history that are designed to be credited builder products. there needs to be policies that allow people to excuse certain things that are well beyond and i thinkontrol commo, one thing we do is think about innovation and product year ago it is there a way to think about -- innovation and product. is there what away to think about a non-traditional funding that allows us to do some demonstrations for non specific needs. good 5 how do we set ourselves up? it is not as if we look for a marketplace that tries to find a way to have rental housing in the most sustainable way. >> i think the question is key to an important dialogue we hope to have going forward.

i spent some time in virginia. people have lost their jobs, and their credit is being impacted, and their ability to buy a new home, and they have regained employment, but they go through credit impairment. did you can talk about the predatory practices, simple job loss. credit impairment is a big barrier. the thing we will be debating is what should the down payment be, and how do we deal with credit scores and being able to isolate periods of bad credit creation and distinguish between diet and someone who took advantage of the market, speculated, walk away from everything? we have to find ways to distinguish those because we have derived behavior going

forward, and that is an important debate for us to talk about as we move forward. good >> i am looking forward to the debate as it goes forward. it has been a fantastic debate. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and about 20 minutes the president and first lady will seek in davenport, iowa, wrapping up a bus tour region will speak in davenport, iowa, wrapping up a bus tour of the event. later tonight at 8 eastern, sandra day o'connor on the role of civics education in the u.s. >> we have learned that our american students when tested on math and science are not doing

as well as students of an equivalent age from any other country, and and i think that our -- netmrs. ito's distresses because our country has been pretty advanced, and we do not want to see them lag behind, and that has resulted in the dropping of civics course thoss. there are only so many hours of the day and, and schools need to concentrate on doing more math and science and less civics. i would encourage them to teach civics as they go through. the brain is formed, and they are receptive, and they can get

it and it is not too early to start. i think it is important that students want to know how their city works. they want to be part of its and the program teaches with games where young people play a role. it is theory of effective. >> you can see all of justice o'connor's remarks at 8:00 a.m. eastern -- at 8:00 p.m. eastern. john boehner pushing back against criticism from those who warn that paul ryan's plans for medicare will hurt candidates. we looked at his proposals on "washington journal," and we will watch this until our live

coverage of the president reagan -- of the president. >> there has been plenty of debate about paul ryan's proposals when it comes to medicare and medicaid and whether those would slow the rise of health care spending and shift more cost soon retirees. -- to retirees. >> what he would do is have a proposal for private health insurance plans and traditional insurance plans. one would be picked to represent how much they would give you as a beneficiary, so that would be

the second lowest price private plan or fee-for-service if you buy once -- fee-for-service. the thought is this will interject more cost into medicare, possibly lower cost. >> a lot of information, and we will be taking your questions. if you want to ask a question, give us a call to. we will show you some of the parts of the rise in medicare plan now the reagan -- new medicare plan now. how would it work?

it would be in a couple months increments. >> you raise it gradually, so by 2020 for eligibility would to 65. it means people would need to wait longer to get health insurance. his plan would also repeal the 2010 health law favored by president obama and many democrats, so the theory is if a health law is repealed, you may have people waiting longer to get coverage. >> you talk about the repeal effort. the office of management and budget has studied this proposal. what is their assessment of how much they will save versus what retirees have to pay?

>> there are two different proposals. thryan plan would reduce federal spending in the ballpark of 42% lower, but that means the federal government's share of what they contribute would decrease by that amount. the thought is if it is not drop significantly, and this is not an option. if a beneficiary costs were to increase it would pay an additional $6,400 for their coverage, so that cause a lot of political issues for paul ryan and four republicans and -- for

republicans to. >> is this privatize medicare? >> this is a program for elderly and disabled americans. 43 million people are in there. if you are in fee-for-service, that is three-quarters of beneficiaries. the government will pay the amount of money it takes for these services with this premium model. it goes from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and that is a major shift of inccaug some concern. >> there would be no change if people wanted to keep their current plan? >> there would be no plan. anyone who wants to keep theirs has to have the actual equivalence. that would give some flexibility as well as the amount that is comparable spirit of >> we will continue to pick

apart pieces of the ryan plan, but we are talking about the plan originally proposed by him last year. >> once in 2011 and once in 2012. good >> there are several headlines already about democrats gearing up for the medicare fight. take us back to the first two times and how it was received. are we seeing a rehash of the same argument? >> democrats look at paul ryan as a political gift. it allows them to elevate the romney plan and the changes it would make to medicare. it makes it a major issue, and we know republicans have gone after president obama and democrats for changes that would take hundreds of billions out of medicare. democrats have a rallying point to fight back against that. changes in medicare have not been politically popular, so it is a volatile issue. >> the third rail of american

politics. here is an article. the headline, gop split over medicare reform. in selecting paul ryan, and this could -- this put republicans on the hot seat. -- let's go back through some of the pieces of the ryan plan. talk about besides eligibility other changes people would see in this plan. >> one thing is the changes to medicaid. >> explain the difference between medicare and medicaid. >> medicaid is a shared state

program for low-income and disabled individuals. goit has 16 million enrollees. enrollment has grown. the federal government pays 67 cents a dollar for every dollar spent on medicaid. what paul ryan would do is make it a set amount, give it to the d that listings they would be more of fission, but advocates are concerned about what this will do for medicaid coverage you are talking about -- medicaid coverage. you are talking about a third of what is spent on medicaid, so the concern is states will have to pick up the slack, and states are suffering, so they may have to reduce benefits, and ask

beneficiaries to pay more. the concern is between 13 million 17 million would lose coverage if this were put into law. >> would his program gives states a total control over the medicaid program? >> it is all in the details. the specifics have not been but that seems to be the trend. he wants to lift the shackles of the federal government, so any requirement would be significantly reduced. >> going back to medicare, there are differences between right and and what romney has proposed -- between ryan and what romney has proposed.

can you give us a side by side on those? >> ann romney has said they are generally on the same page in wanting to limit the region mitt romney has said they are generally on the same page in wanting to limit the government. as we know, the health care plan cuts $700 billion in payments to different providers. paul ryans plan would take those same cuts, keep them. good call ryan says, i will put them in a federal program. it -- all rights and says, i will put them in a federal program. good region -- paul ryan says, i will put them in a federal program. is a major difference. >> we will start with the republican line from michigan.

good morning. caller: thank you for your presence this morning. it is refreshing to see a non- partisan d.o. -- view on this terrible bill obama has put out their. -- there. during the process of his being passed during the night and not behind closed doors, knowing there are companies that are granted waivers but are not even responsible for this, it is refreshing to see that paul ryan is out there, and to me he is a clear critical thinker, so thank

you for your time this morning, and have a great day. >> we will go to jon from florida. caller: i believe the basic issue is being aborted by both parties, and that is in order to bring solvency to the medicare system, we need to set up a reasonable regime, to take into account the amount paid in by beneficiaries over their lifetime and give them a reasonable rate of return based on the assumption if there was no medicare they would have taken that money, the employer contribution, and it would provide the funds to pay for health care.

an example is a guy like dick cheney with an adjusted gross income of $20 million. taxpayers paid for his heart transplant. in theory that is a good thing, but on the other hand, about $500,000 probably represents a tiny fraction of what he had available for himself to pay for it. second, the medicaid program is largely of middle-class support program, although people think of medicaid as providing medical aid for poor people, the reality is in florida a specially, the lion's share of medicaid goes to -- especially, the lion's share of medicaid goes to pay

for middle-class t-bond and rich pete -- middle-class people can reach the bond -- and rich people and facilities, so if we were honest in our debate, we would acknowledge if not for the existence of medicaid, millions of people who now have second homes because they are freed of of the responsibility of taking care of their parents would be paying $50,000 a year of discretionary income to support their parents when they get into their late 70's, 80's, and in florida, hundreds of thousands into their 90's. >> lots to talk about, but i wanted to give you a chance to jump in. guest: the caller pointed out an

actual point that is an agreement. they think the premium, the amount of money a beneficiary has to pay on income if you are high income -- it is already there. in both president obama's proposals and paul reiser and its proposals -- paul ryan's proposals and a proposal with a democratic senator from oregon, the idea is the richer you are common the more payment you would receive if you are wealthy, and they may want to take a further look at this. >> talk about this. why did ryan plan isn't? is that a bipartisan proposal?

>> last december, john y., -- ron white about a proposal that was not debated in congress -- put out a proposal that was not debated in congress, but he wanted to start a discussion about how much premiums should be limited, how much they should grow, but projections should be there, and they came to this starting point for discussions, but after that in april the house to pass the second version. it included a lot of things ron white did not like. he does not agree with that on medicaid. this is a demonstration that in some areas they can have our agreement.

>> one thing that i think was a difference, the plan to cap spending increases at half a percentage point higher than g.d.p., explain what that means, and is but one of the differences? guest: it is a difference. what paul ryan would do is the contribution would grow every year at a rate of gross domestic product at half a percentage point. the plan he had was the growth of the economy plus a full percentage point, and i also think they had inflationary consideration in there as well. it would mean less cost shifting to a beneficiary. >> let's go to new york. sue is waiting on the democratic line. good morning.

5 i think americans are not getting the full story of the $17 billion cut from medicare. it is my understanding that was a subsidy given to encourage insurance to sign on with the coverage. if the changes go through to a voucher program, imagine the windfall to the private and howe industry'ies they must be celebrating to the idea of the government now can only pay a certain amount, but they can increase to what eveevr they want. i will add another thing. medicaid is also a subsidy to large corporations like wal-mart who do not pay health insurance benefits, so we taxpayers are

paying what wal-mart is really responsible for. thank you for taking my call. >> one thing i would like to touch upon, a lot of people do , butnderstand this commo beneficiaries have to meet certain requirements. there has been concerned about people shifting them to children to avoid responsibility for medicaid, and there are certain look backs to check when that happened and how that happened, so they are trying to crack down on fraud. now let's talk a little bit about the reductions in medicare spending. these are reductions that will be made to hospitals.

these are private insurance companies. gladwell the payment would still grow, they will not grow as quickly as they have in the past -- while the payment would still grow, they will not grow as quickly as they have in the path. data has shown medicare advantage has cost more per beneficiary than fee-for- service, so that is the rationale behind the cuts in the health-care law. >> i want to go through pieces of the paul reiser and medicare overhaul plan a lot on the campaign trial, somto give you n idea of it. it allows the purchase of private health plans for someone to enter into a medicare exchange. all plans, including a bid for

how much they would charge to cover beneficiary costs, and there is a process for selecting which endebid. take us through the because it is complicated. wax they will tell you that operating currently there are certain constraints that will be lifted on the medicare exchange. the idea is to say insurers provide the actual benefit on what is provided. private insurers can enter in, and they can design packages to meet that monetary amount. they can do it differently. there is some concern that healthier folks will go into the private plan. if the government's contribution

does not rise quickly enough, is the voucher does not grow fast enough, medicare fee-for-service may not remain an affordable option for people. >> in terms of the government giving money back to its folks as they choose the cheaper option and this smorgasbord, talk about how this works. >> i do not think it has been spelled out. they would not go to individuals, and the government would use that money to reduce social and should -- social security premium. maybe they would simply send a check. it is unclear. to twitter.go when you comment on kaiser's position on the affordable --

can you comment on kaiser's position on the affordable care act? >> it is confusing, but we are part of the kaiser foundation uncommon on which is a non part of -- kaiser foundation, which is a nonpartisan organization. they do not take a position on the health law, and neither do we. >> what did you do before you work for kaiser? >> my last job was working on a fantastic health-care product, and i also covered congress for dow jones news wire, and i worked on newspapers in connecticut and pennsylvania. host: let's go to washington, d.c. caller: i have read part of the

social security act, which medicare and medicaid were included, so they follow the same basic framework, and i understand a floor mt. -- a slow a lot of money is taken out to be saved, -- oslo amount of money is taken out to be saved, but you get some of that back. my question is for people like me and are 20's, why are we going to give in money and not get the money back? why can private individuals say i liked the idea but i will do it in my own egg account reading my own bank account, but i will do it with my own process? they said this is unemployment compensation, so it is people with low income to no income to get these benefits, so we are

compensating people who do not work. and my question with the right and budget is why are we talking about federal government -- with the right and budget is why are we talking about federal government? when we slowly cut from the federal that is something for the states to pick up. guest: and we all do pay for that, and that money will be used to finance the program when you retire and when you needed. he had a couple of ideas that are interesting. i have heard people say i pay more into medicare than i received. i have not read every study, but i see a lot of data that implies the opposite. many people receive more benefits than they paid in for medicare.

it may be more. it may be less. it all depends on what happens when you retire. he talked about setting up private accounts. this has been advanced before by conservatives, but it has never gotten an attraction, and medicare as it is currently administered in many ways is terayon -- very profitable with the public. it has never gone anywhere, and republicans have said if we simply set up an exchange, we are relying on competition. this will lower prices. it will make medicare stronger for this gentleman and future beneficiaries. >> he talked about young people's reaction to these proposed changes. talk about what reaction you have seen on the campaign trail

as well as folks who lobby for gun people. a -- young people. guest: this is what they call invincibles. they came up with a program that would have a high deductible but is tailored to be less expensive for young people, so this is a group you need in the risk pool. you need young healthy people to buy health insurance to balance the risk for older folks. host: a question from twitter. will doctors be forced to accept medicare or medicaid? what good will it do if no one can get treated? >> congress every year has to confront something called

medicare restriction, and this is a scheduled reduction for medicare payments. position say if you cut my pay that much i will not take medicare. it is based on a program that calls for greater cuts, but congress has never been able to find compromise for the formula, so while medicare physician soon -- while physicians do not have to accept medicare patients, many of them do. you will hear a lot of complaints about medicare for positions and also medicaid. a lot of physicians do not think now it compensates them on/off -- enough. host: is there acliff they are facing? >> we are climbing, and now we are up 30%. this is a difficult thing for congress to try to resolve. it is close to $300 billion --

to fill the hole in the next decade. and >> are their options, or have we even gotten this far? >> there are some concerns. some people have advanced legislation saying we should advances to fill about whole, but finding the revenue is difficult. >> carol is on the independent line. >> good morning. my concern is about the parallels between the flaws of medicare part d and the proposal under the ryan plan and the need to control drug costs so they will not just be shifted onto retirees. >> what she is talking about,

medicare is currently the voluntary program for beneficiaries. part d, all of that coverage would be part of the medicare plan. i think it would be inc., so it gets back to this concern that if the contribution is not high enough, there would be a cost shift. i would seniors have to pay more for hospital care? we know how many are on fixed incomes and having a difficult time, meeting their current requirements, so this cost shift is a concern that has been advanced for the plan. >> this person writes about doctors not accepting medicare

or medicaid. doctors need an m.d. to practice. make its depended on accepting medicare when medicaid patients. is alive in place? >> i do not know about abouthat. caller: if nothing else, obama has made people more aware of the issues. i have two questions if you will take the road i was on facebook, and i was -- if you will take them. i was on facebook. there was something called

handicapped and loving it. most of them want to support the republican side. i know i am not even middle- class. i make a little under 70,000 a year. i know i am poor. where is the line? where are the poor people having to pay -- >> you can see all of this on c- span.org. going live to davenport, iowa, president obama is wrapping up his tour of the state. let us know what you think about the president and his speech. [applause] [cheers and applause]

>> four more years! [applause] >> i decided to bring someone out with me. you may know this guy. i want to start by taking amanda -- thanking amanda for that introduction. we are so proud of her am so grateful for her service, so let's give her a round of applause, and thank you for getting the president to eat some fruit this morning. this looks amazing. you all sound really fired up. you definitely sound ready to go, and let me tell you i am

glad to hear it, because with your help! let me share this. i shared this with folks earlier today, but being back in the great state of iowa -- yes, i ndeed -- where it all began for us. i have to say i am pretty fired up and ready to go myself. our family has so many great memories of our time here in iowa. as i mentioned earlier, i remember when an entire neighborhood sang happy birthday to malia on the fourth of to live. good in was so sweet. i remember at the big day of the jefferson -- the fourth of july .

it was so sweet. i remember the day and with the marching band, we have had them back at the white house since. that was exciting, and our girls still talk about the visit to the state fair. i think that was the first stage for we went to a. we did everything. we slid down this week's slide in -- this big slide. i mentioned how barack almost dropped sasha. that is where we experienced our first fried twinkie on a stick. it was here, and it was funny because he was a senator at the time, and he had a lot of press, and they were everywhere, and the cameras were flashing, so when it was time to leave, he left early.

the girls turned to me and said, i am so glad daddy is gone. now we can really have some fun, so we essentially shut as they turned down. we have a great time, and i am jealous -- we essentially it shut the state fair down. we have a great time, and i am sad to say he got to go without me this year. >> it was good. >> i want to start by saying thank you. i want to thank everybody in the state for the generosity and love you all have shown to our family, regardless of what party you are from, regardless of how you felt about us. you have shown us so much love. you do not understand how important that was for me

because i what is my first experience with the national campaign, -- iowa is my first experience with the national campaign, and our girls still think campaigning is fun. more importantly, because of you, barack and i will always remember what this process can be like at its best. every election, you all remind us what democracy is about. it is about this does -- discussing the issues and upting to know your family'ies close and personal, and i will never forget my first visit here in 2007, and i remember it well because we were in the backyard of someone's home. i was nervous because i have not

done much campaigning. people barely knew who barack was, let alone who i was, so i did not know how it would be, but the folks in the backyard welcome to me like an old iiend, and within mainutes was so comfortable that i kicked off my high heels, and i was standing in the grass, laughing at people's stories, and that is when i learned that is what campaigning is about, hearing what is going on in people's lives, about the jobs they are juggling and the businesses they are hoping to stay afloat, about how they are trying to send their kids to college, and the more we talked, the more i felt at home because in their story i saw my story. i saw barack's story. you know my story.

my father worked of the city water plant his entire life. that was pretty much the only job he had, and neither of my parents have the chance to get a college degree, and i tell people what i appreciated about my parents is that they saved and sacrifice and poured everything they had been to me and my brother so we could have the kind of educational opportunities they could only dream of, and pretty much all of our college tuition came from student loans and grants. we can relate to how a lot of folks go to college, but my dad still had to pay a small portion of the tuition himself, and let me tell you every semester my father was determined to pay his little portion on time, because he was proud to play a small part in sending his kids to

college. he could not bear tournai and who is a deadline because his head jeff was late new -- could not bear to miss a deadline because his check was late. if you work hard in america you can build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids. that is why we are here, and whether it is equal pay for women or health care for our families, whether it is supporting our veterans or saving our auto industry, that is what my husband has been fighting for every single day as president. let me just share something with you, because over the last three and a half years as first lady, i have had the chance to see up close and personal what being

president is really like, and i have seen how the issues that come across the president's desk are always the hard ones. the problems with no clear solutions, the judgment calls were the stakes are so high and there is no margin for error, and i have seen that as president you are going to get all kinds of advice and guidance from all kinds of people, but at the end of today, when it is time to make the decision all you have to guide you are your values and vision and life experience, and i have learned in the end it all boils down to who you are and what you stand for, and we all know who my husband is, don't we? we all know what he stands for, and i remind people, your president is the son of a single mother who struggled to put

yourself through school and pay the bills. he is the grandson of a woman who woke up before dawn every day to catch a bus to her job at a bank, and even though his mother was good at her job and work hard to support her family, like so many women, she hit that glass ceiling and watched men and she actually trained climb that ladder ahead of her, so i remind you barack knows what it means when a family struggles and he knows what it means to want something better for your kids and grandkids, and that is why i love him, and that is why i will have his back forever. that is also what i think about when i kiss our girls could night. i think about the world i want to leave for them and all our

sons and daughters. i talk about how we all want to give our kids a foundation for their dreams and a foundation were the for their progress, -- worthy for their progress. we want to let them know that here in america there is always something better out there if they are willing to work for it, so i know we cannot turn back now. good we have come so far, but we have so much more to do, and if we keep moving forward, we need to work our hearts out for this man i have the pleasure of introducing here today. my husband and our president, president barack obama. [applause]

>> hello, davenport. it is good to be back in the quad. i see a lot of familiar faces. first, let me say that i can not be more proud of a man the irish, -- amanda irish. she wants to go back to medical school. she is going to be a great doctor and held a lot of people. give her a round of applause. your mayor and a great friend of mine for a long time is here. [applause]

there is another friend of mine who is here who is not going to come on stage, but i want to him. special mention of the he is from across the river in illinois, but this is a guy who served his country, look after veterans, was a fighter for working families, and was the first guy outside chicago to endorse me and support me when i run for the united states senate back in 2004, and if it had not been for his support, i would not be standing here today.

he has shown even more courage and isling parkinson's someone i will always think of when i think about public service, so i want to ask for a round of applause for a great friend of mine. [applause] and finally, let me say something about my wife. i do not usually like to follow her speech. because, let's face it, on the charisma rankings in my household you've got her, the

girls, beau, and then my mother- in-law and then me. actually, my mother-in-law is before beau, obviously. [laughter] i love my mother-in-law, too. that is where michelle about her looks from. when other obamas are participating, i tend not to shine quite as much. i have called for the rock of our family. -- called her the rock of our family. that may sell it short. i do not know anyone that is more on this, who is stronger, who knows what she is, knows what is important, remembers what she came from, is the best mom in the world, it keeps me in line.

keeps me straight, it keeps me humble, and she is cute. [cheers] i told people in 2008 i will not be a perfect president. i am not a perfect man. but we do have a perfect first lady. please, give it up for michelle obama. [cheers and applause) as michelle mentioned, this is our third day in iowa. we started out in council bluffs and we drove here west to east. we have stopped all across the state everywhere we have gone. we have had fun. it is true, i have eaten a lot. [laughter] at the state fair, i had a poor job and a beer -- a pork chop

and of the year. -- a porkchop and a beer. it was very good. we talked with farmers about the importance of getting together with congress and passing a farm bill. that is not an issue that has been partisan in the past. there is no reason it should be now, especially when farmers and ranchers are hurting. we have folks who have helped iowa become a leader in wind energy. and talked about how we need to keep investing in clean, renewable energy. this morning i had a meeting with the number of veterans and listened to their stories about the pride they took in serving their country. there were also very honest about some of the difficulties they experienced when they came

home. as commander in chief, i promise we will serve our veterans as well as they served us. [applause] and everywhere i went i was reminded because i'd seen folks i had not seen in a few years and i was reminded of how this movement for change was started in folks backyards and school gymnasiums and vfw halls and diners across the state. that journey that we started in 2008, it is not finished. we have more work to do. we have the unfinished business to attend to.

i'm asking you to help me finish the job. i'm asking you to help me finish what we started that will bring about the change that will help america live up to its promise and not just for this generation, but for generations to come. that is why i'm running for a second term as president. [cheers and applause] less than three months from now -- not that i am counting -- you will face a choice. the choice could not be bigger. it is not just about two candidates or political parties. it is the choice between two fundamentally different visions of where to take america. and the direction i you choose

when you walked into that voting booths will not just have a direct impact on your life, but on your children and grandchildren. when we came together in 2007 and in 2008, democrats and independent voters, and yes, some republicans, we came together over a simple idea that michelle talked about. here in this country, if you work hard, you can get ahead. if you take responsibility and you put in the effort, you should be able to find a job and support your family. you should be able to find a home you can call your own. you should not be able to -- you should not go bankrupt when you get sick. you should be able to retire. and most of all, you should be able to give your kids the opportunity that allows them to dream even bigger and better than we ever did. [applause]

that is the basic american promise, and that promise was being broken. we have seen a decade where jobs were being shipped overseas and where wages and incomes were going down, except for a few at the very top, even while it caused everything -- while the cost of everything from health care to college education were skyrocketing. we knew that restoring the basic american idea that if you work hard you can get ahead, that it would not be easy. it would take more than one year, or one term, or even one president. and that was before we saw how badly the financial crisis hammered the middle-class. folks losing their homes and losing their jobs, losing their savings, all pushing that american dream a little further out of reach.

four years ago i said not to look for quick fixes. we did not get into this overnight and we will not solve this overnight. but what i said, and is still true, is that we've got all the ingredients, we've got the capacity to meet our challenges. we've still got the best workers in the world. [applause] we've got the best farmers in the world. we've got the best small- business people in the world. a we got the best scientists and researchers and colleges and universities in the world. [applause] we are a young nation. and we've got the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity. people want to come here from every corner of the globe. no matter what the naysayers may say, there is not another country on earth that would not trade places with the united states of america. people all around the world understand that this is still a place that no matter what you look like or where you come from

or what your last name is, you can make it. [applause] that is what this campaign is about. that is what the last 3.5 years have been about. every day, i have woken up thinking about you. that is what we thought about when we put in place the recovery act, to help make sure that everybody who needed it got a tax cut, to make sure that teachers could stay on the job, and firefighters and copps. that is what i s thinking about. as we say in the auto industry -- that is why we saved the auto industry that was about to go under. long way to go. we've got more work to do. we know that. and the big challenge we have right now is not a lack of big

ideas. it is not a lack of solutions. our problem is politics in washington. we've got folks on the other side who think compromise is a dirty word. and basically, have only two ideas to grow the economy. one is, to get rid of regulations that we put in place to make sure that we do not have another taxpayer funded bailout when banks do not make good decisions, or to make sure that polluters are not polluting, or to make sure that insurance companies are not taking advantage of you. they want to strip away those regulations. and the other big idea they have is the same kind of top-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place. governor romney's thank you ibm

-- big idea is a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the bush tax cut, a lot of which would be going to the wealthiest americans who have already been doing very well. [boos] and here is the kicker. he is expecting you to pay for it. because $5 trillion is a lot of money. that is 10 times our defense budget. that would be the equivalent of our defense budget in tax cuts every single -- every single year. and his idea is that middle- class families with children would see their tax bills go up on average, $2,000. this is not my analysis. this was done by independent economists. and they are asking you to pay more in your taxes, not to reduce the deficit or to grow

jobs or education, but to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making $3 million per year or more. [boos] his allies in congress have the same view. you heard he announced congressman ryan as his running mate. i know him. he is a good man. he is a family man. but he is the ideological leader of this republican congress. he is a very articulate spokesperson from rahm a's vision, but the problem is, the vision -- for governor romney's vision, but the problem is the vision is wrong. we do not agree with it. [applause] they have tried to sell us this top-down, trickle-down economics before. we just tried it right before i took office, and guess what, i did not work. it will not -- it did not work

then and it will not work now. it will not be a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit. it will not move our economy forward. secretly, they understand their economic plan is not very popular. because they have started making up all kinds of stuff about my plans. i will give you an example. lately, they've been talking about medicare. keep in mind, this is both governor romney and senator reihan in the past have said that they want a voucher system. -- that they want to cut the medicare system. [boos] here is what i have done. i have strengthened medicare. we are closing the downhaul. [applause] i have proposed reforms by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health-care system, reforms that will not touch your

medicare benefits. and governor romney and his running mate want to turn medicare into a voucher system. that means the seniors would no longer have a guarantee of medicare, but would have to get a voucher. if it does not keep up with seniors costs, then that is the seniors' problem. the original plan would force seniors to pay an extra $6,400 per year. my plan would extend medicare by nearly a decade. their plan extends minute -- their plan eliminates medicare as we know it. their plan has tax cuts for folks who do not need it. that is an example of the difference between our two philosophies.

that is why i am running for president for a second term. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "for more years"] >> if anybody tells you that democrats are big spenders, you tell them, my taxes are lower than before president obama took office, by about $3,600 for a typical family. [applause] i want to keep taxes where they are for the first $250,000 a of a person's income. if your family makes under $250,000, like 90% of americans, and 90% of small businesses, you

will not see your taxes increase by a single dime next year. [applause] if you are fortunate enough to be in the other 2%, you will still keep your tax cut on the first $250 -- $250,000 that you make, but if you make more than that, we are going to ask you to pay a little bit more to help pay down the deficit and help invest in things that will help the economy grow. [applause] that will not solve the whole deficit problem. we still got to make some smart cuts. i've all -- i've got to cut -- i already cut $1 trillion of spending. we can do more. but we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle-class families, not does on the backs of the port. i know folks like me are in a position to do a little bit more.

go back to the rates that we paid under bill clinton, a time when we paid -- we created 23 million new jobs. we had a budget surplus instead of a deficit. and guess what, millionaires did good, too. businesses and corporations did well, too. and here is the reason. when a teacher or a firefighter or a receptionist or a construction worker, when you've got a little more money in your pockets, what do you do? you spend it, because times are tough. maybe you have not bought a new car in 10 years. maybe you've got an old appliance that does not work. maybe you want to make sure that your kid is going to college and you want to make sure they have a computer for their studies. when businesses have more customers, they make more

profit. when they make more profit, they hire more workers. and then those workers have a little more money and they go out and spend some more. when you look at the history of this country, we did not grow through top-down economics. we grew from bottom up economics. everybody got a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules. that is the choice in this election, and that is why i am running for a second term. [applause] on almost every issue, you are going to have a choice. when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, governor romney said, let detroit go bankrupt. i said, i believe in american workers, and three years later,

the american auto industry has become -- has come roaring back. [applause] now i want to make sure that manufacturing is taking root here. let's change this? " once and for all. stop giving tax breaks to those shipping jobs overseas. let's give the tax breaks to those creating jobs here in america. [applause] governor romney wants to keep those tax breaks. he likes to talk about his private sector experience, but a lot of it was investing in companies that were called the pioneers of outsourcing. we do not need more outsourcing. but we need more insourcing. that is the choice in this election. i want to make sure we have the best education system in the world. [applause] i want to make sure that local school districts can hire more teachers. especially in math and science.

i want to make sure that 2 million more people can go to committee colleges so they can get the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now. and i want to keep pushing on colleges and universities to lower tuition so that every young person can afford to get a higher education. that is the choice in this election. [applause] governor romney wants to end the tax credits for energy. wind energy creates 7000 jobs in iowa. 7000 jobs. governor romney said these new sources of energy are imaginary. congressman ryan said they were a fad. those 7000 jobs are not a fad. they are our future. we should stop giving $4,000 a year in taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies that are already making money and help

create homegrown sources of energy is that put americans back to work and help free ourselves from dependence on oil. that is the choice in this election. [applause] in 2008, i said i would end the war in iraq and i did. [applause] i said we would refocus attention on al qaeda and bin laden, and we did. [applause] we set a time line to end the war in afghanistan. all of this was possible because of incredible men and women in uniform [applause] now we have an obligation to make sure that all our services are doing what they need to do for our veterans when they are coming home. but part of that is also taking

part of the savings after a decade of war and use them to do some nation-building back here at home. let's build some roads and bridges. let's create veteran's job corps, so they can get jobs as firefighters and cops in communities that need them. that is the america i want to build. that is the choice in this election. [applause] and let me just tell you one more choice. governor romney says one of the first thing he's going to do -- on day one, he is going to kill obamacare. [boos] i've got to say, i've grown kind of fond of the term obamacare, because i do care. i care about all of the families in iowa and illinois across the country who i've met with pre-

existing conditions and who now will be able to get health care coverage. [cheers] i care about the 6.5 million young people who can now stay on their parents' plans because of obamacare. [applause] i care about the seniors who are getting discounts on their prescription drugs because of obamacare. [applause] maybe governor romney wants to add another three years of argument about health care. i want to move forward. the supreme court has spoken. we are implementing it and it is helping families all across this nation. we are moving forward, not backward. that is the difference in this election. [applause] on all of these issues, whether it is health care, security, making sure medicaid is there for future generations, making

sure we are rebuilding america, making sure our kids are getting the best education possible, these are all ingredients of what we need -- what we know to be a middle- class life. it is what michelle talked about. it is what helped michelle and meet have the opportunity to do things that our parents could not have imagined. and now we want to make sure that the next generation has them. and i know you feel the same way because you have the same story. your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, the struggles they went to to give us a shot. -- they went through to give us a shot. we want to make sure our children have the same opportunity. that is what this election is about. that is what we are fighting for. [applause] over the next three months, the other side will spend more money than we have ever seen. on at, telling you one thing, that the economy is not so good

and that is obama's fault. their economic theory does not sell. so that is going to be their message. and it may be a plan to win the election, but it will not be a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit or grow the economy. they may not have a plan to revive the middle class, but i do. we have come too far to turn back now. [applause] we've got too many jobs we have to create. we've got too many teachers we have to hire. we have too many students who need to be able to afford to go to college. we have energy we need to generate. we got troops we need to bring home. we have more doors to opportunity that we've got to open to everybody who is willing to work hard to walk through them. if you are willing to work with me one more time and stand with

me one more time and knock on some doors one more time and make some phone calls one more time, if you are willing to vote for me this november, we will win davenport, we will win iowa. and we will win this election. and we will finish what we started, and we will remind this world why united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

>> the middle east might have become a powder keg and our allies held hostage. we destroyed the threat, free eight people, and blocked a tyrant in the prison of his own country. [applause] >> tonight, 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of millions more work harder for a lower pay. the incumbent president says unemployment always goes up a little before a recovery begins. but unemployment only has to will go of by one more person before a real recovery can begin. [applause] >> c-span has aired every major party conventions since 1984. this year, they start life on monday, august 27. >> and later tonight, former supreme court justice sandra day

o'connor on the role of civic education in the u.s. this morning's "washington journal" with the wall street perspective on the presidential ticket. host: we turn to wall street's perspective on campaign 2012 with larry kudlow. glad to have you on "washington journal." we want to get your thoughts on paul ryan joining the republican ticket. guest: of course, you are talking to a big fan of paul ryan. he is a friend of mine going back over 20 years when we were with jack kemp. he is from the free market supply-side school of economic growth and economic incentives. so i my. i am an old reagan guy. i was pleased to see ryan put on the ticket. he has put energy into it.

he will help the discourse on the key issues. i am very happy with it. >> -- host: what do you like best about this? what does he bring the most to romney? caller: -- guest: his knowledge base is spectacular. we are going bankrupt in terms of entitlements. for me, the single biggest thing that i like about paul ryan is his longtime emphasis on economic growth. the country is in sad shape. the recovery right now is anemic. the fact of the matter is, for the past 10 or 12 years, going

back several administrations, we have not hardly grown in this country. the growth rate is just over 1%. that is not acceptable. we should be growing at 3.5%. we have to make it possible for entrepreneurs. we have to have a corporate tax code that is more competitive. paul ryan gets that. he is a growth die. we have got to get this country moving again. host: you named paul ryan the conservative men of the year at the end of 2011. you describe him as having an old-fashioned american vision. what did you mean by that? guest: paul believes in the american idea. he believes in american exceptionalism. he wants us to advance to our fullest potential. what you are seeing here is a different model than the one we have in washington.

there will be a big choice. ryan and romney want free enterprise and sprinkle -- entrepreneurship. president obama is a big government man. he is a redistribution guy. he seems to have -- there is a real contrast. paul ryan is old fashioned. he is basically saying he should keep more of what you were in. -- of what you earn. you should invent. you should innovate. most of all, america has just got to be number one. we are an exceptional country. i happen to subscribe to those views and i think ryan is dead right. host: we are talking with larry kudlow.

if you want to ask a question, give us a call on the republican line at 202-737-0002. the democratic line 202-737- 0001 for independents -- 202-628- 0205. staying on paul ryan, and the concerns about him on the ticket? what is your biggest fear when it comes to paul ryan's views in the campaign? guest: i do not have any fears. i think he is first rate. he has already reenergize. he has reenergize mitt romney. host: this him being on the ticket but medicare at the forefront of this race? we have seen that attempt by democrats. guest: democrats will try to

scare everyone with medicare. we need an honest discussion of the financial problems and the health problems and all the medical service delivery services. those tactics will not stop an intelligent discussion. i think ryan and romney together will have plenty of time to keep their eye on the ball. they will work on making the economy better. there is going to be a big battle over medicare. there will be bricks thrown on each side. i am fine with that. let us hash it out. let us have a discussion on how to make our whole health care system more efficient, let us examine the people already in the system -- let us give the younger cohorts some choice. let us get some competition and have insurance plans that are

competing with each other. competition and free markets and every other aspect of american industry have been the most competitive, the lowest cost, and the best quality. why can we not apply a free market competition model to health care? let us have that debate. it is time. host: i want to get your reaction to a piece in "the new york times." one of the graphs says mr. ryan bucks of the wisdom on how to deal with the debt ceiling. host: your take on whether wall street thinks this is the right way to deal with the looming

fiscal cliff? guest: i personally did not agree with his position on that. there are other republican leaders who took that the way and i do not pretend to speak for wall street, although i used to work there and i have covered that place for many years. i do not -- losing our credit rating was not a good thing. i would like to see that not happen again. defering obligations for a couple of days was not something i favored. i expressed my disapproval on that very subject. host: let us get some calls in here. patrick is on the independent line from florida. patrick, you are on with larry kudlow. caller: larry kudlow is a typical gas on c-span. you say he is an economic expert. he had a political appointee job for a president who raised

taxes, triple the national debt. he talks about \ big government. fdic has gone to $250,000. he talks about medical reform. we elected a governor down here that -- his company backed out -- his company got bankrupted by the government because it was charging $1.5 billion fines for ripping off the medicaid system. all of these other republicans love to talk about waste and fraud. host: i will give you a chance to respond. you make no bones about your political viewpoints. guest: i am not sure what the question was. was there a question? i am not going to speak to governor scott. i think he has been a very good governor. about the fdic guarantees being raised under sheila baier.

i thought that was inappropriate move to increase the deposit. -- an appropriate move to increase the deposit. i do not like bailout. when you are in the middle of a financial crisis, i think small favors and large favors -- we needed to patch up the financial system. i do not see what the big problem is. ronald reagan lowered marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%. he watched one of the greatest economic booms in american history. bill clinton -- i have always felt he was a pretty good economic president. he bumped up the income tax, but bumped down the capital gains tax. i am not sure what the caller is talking about. he sounds very grouchy. nothing is perfect. i will defend most of that stuff.

i cannot speak to governor scott. host: you talk about reagan. i want you to explain your recent column about the reagan in romney and where you say you believe that romney is the most candidates like reagan. -- the candidate most like reagan. guest: yes. i think he is the most fiscally conservative republican since ronald reagan. romney's position on a 20% supply-side tax cut across the board on targeting government of gdp to 20%, which could mean several trillion dollars lower spending. his growth estimate of 04% is exactly right. we should have had that this whole time. the idea of creating 300,000 new jobs a month was an excellent target. it might come to something like

12 million jobs in four years. unleashing our energy resources and going towards a more free- market choice when it comes to healthcare -- i think romney is very conservative. that is why i was not surprised when he picked paul ryan because he has many of the same views. when i look back, meaning no disrespect, but some candidates and presidents -- i find romney's platform to be the most conservative since ronald reagan. he wants to restore economic incentives for growth and he wants to limit the size of government. he wants to use market forces rather than government command. he wants to limit the size of government. that is very much to my liking. host: ron the republican line this morning.

caller: yeah. i did not necessarily agree with everything the republicans are doing. i feel he is pushing us towards being a part of a one-world government. he wants us to be a part of the one-world government. this artificial cliff -- to push us so will become a part of the one-world government. guest: well, what i gather from that -- i'm not sure i understand one-world government. i've had some foreign policy experience through the years. i think the united states must act in its own national security interests. we are important players in the united nations. we should not be held back. we must act where we see fit to act.

if that is what the man means by one world government, i suppose i might agree. we are involved in the imf and the world bank and the world court. we must always act in our self interest based on our constitutional principles. host: barbara this morning from missouri. caller: can he explain how the republicans seem to not be concerned about the cuban side -- the human side of our government? it is all about the money. how can ryan, having been in the congress now, be the one who is going to bring us out of it? let us be honest. this government is not just about a budget.

why do we go 12 years ago from being great/ -- to now being in the tank? guest: those are good and tough questions. ryan rose to the head of the budget committee just a few years ago. i did not think he deserves credit or blame for what happened going back 10 years. he has been a house member for 14 years. i think he has put together a very strong budget and very strong budget restraints. he is trying to hold back spending and deficits. he is absolutely on the right track. it may not be perfect. i think he is on the right track for limited government. the debt bomb is out there and we have to deal with the debt bomb.

i give ryan a lot of credit. what the caller was saying, i think people in washington do understand the human cost. the human cost has to be measured in different ways. if you want prosperity and if you want to in million rate -- to ameliorate poverty, if you want to help those who are not rich or not well off, what is the best way to do it? is it to flood the country with more government spending? to create more food stamps and welfare? and to take the work requirement off of welfare, which is one of the great achievements, which is unfortunately being unwound? is that the way we want to do it?

do we want a government and welfare-dependent country? or do we want to create opportunities for people to act with responsibility in their own independent ways and some now become entrepreneurs and go out and get jobs? we have competing visions here. the government has to cut back and maybe trim their entitlements. that doesn't mean the policymakers do not care about people. is the big government experiment working? i submit it is not working. i believe this from my heart. the reagan years and the clinton years or a perfect example of -- were a perfect example of how, to use clinton's phrase, the era of big government is over.

the era of entrepreneurship, it has taken hold. we created almost 50 million new jobs. and we eventually whittled down the budget deficit. that was a good time. i didn't like the government dependency that is happening now. host: who is to blame for it? guest: i hate to come up and assign blame. it is no secret that i did not agree with president obama. i had dinner with him when the first came in at george will's house. he is a wonderful man, a family man. it is not personal. i do not agree with his policies. it is my own view. he is more intent on creating greater and greater government dependency with more government transfer payments. i think mr. obama has created a poor psychology.

he is taking whacks at businesses and wants to spend more money on these payments. he represents a change from president clinton. i think obama is moving his party to the left. i think it will cost him financially and politically. host: is there any blame to be assigned for the eight bush years? when you talk about the change in the deficit and that sort of thing. guest: i think bush makes the mistake. he had good and bad. i have said this to him personally, and in interviews. mr. bush is a friend. i basically loved the guy even when i disagreed with him. i didn't like the drug into ottomans. -- of the entitlements.

it wasn't paid for. i thought he spent too much money on education and put too much federal authority into education. i did like is lower marginal tax rates in 2003. i think they helped launch a boom. he inherited a recession, a tech bubble, 9/11. those were difficult things. he tried to revamp freddie mac and fannie mae. i give him credit for that. they were not able to do so. it is a very complicated matter. i do not blame bush for that. he did put together the rescue package for the banks. that was done in 2008 while bush was still president. president obama built on that for better or worse. bush is very much a mixed bag.

the deficit was about 1.5% of gdp and the unemployment rate was 5%. unfortunately, the financial collapse blew that out of the water. george bush has a mixed record and i'm the first guy to limit that. host: a question from maverick on twitter. do you feel mitt romney should provide additional tax returns? why or why not? guest: well, i have no trouble with governor romney provided additional tax returns. i say let it all hang out. the remarks by harry reid that romney has not paid taxes in 10 years or without fact. -- are without fact. i think it is another slur. he has no sources and it is stupid. that is the lowest form of politics. regarding these candidates and what they should or should not reveal,i would probably err on this side of more transparency.

>> tomorrow on "washington journal", the co-founder of no labels talks about his campaign to help whoever wins office be a more effective leader. that is followed by steve gundersen, president of the association of for-profit colleges and universities. later, a discussion on issues facing the self-employed in today's economy we will hear from the president of the national association for the self-employed. "washington journal" live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in 12 days, watch gavel-to- gavel coverage of the republican and democratic conventions live on c-span. we will be showing every minute -- we have shown every minute of every party conventionce