i have been asked to run for office and said i could not afford it. i could not afford the pay or the time away from my daughter. as you here tonight women still face these challenges. there considered to be too emotional and not good candidates for public office. i do not have a problem having a tear in my eye when something affects me. women are too weak. they will not make the tough decisions. take a look at some of the decisions i have made. in a nutshell, women are held to a difference can did, even in 2013. this is not ok. this is what i have been fighting against my career. i know what it is like to be the only woman at the table. it is very difficult. i will admit i would say hesitant to run for office until i decided it was time for a change. when i first was sworn into the senate in 1993, i was only the 16th woman ever elected to the massachusetts senate since 1790.

pretty disgusting. when i was elected president of the senate in 2007, i was the first woman ever to be elected to lead the legislative body in massachusetts. and today, only 25% of our legislature consists of women. and in the senate, the number has grown to 13. this is not just a problem massachusetts. 18% of the 500 seats in congress are made up of women. there is not enough progress. we need to support women who have dreams of running for office. those of us who are female legislators have to set an example to future generations by showing that it can be done. when i was head of equal pay for equal work, i always said, and i

say it today, when you go through the door some of the people here and myself opened pushed open, don't close it behind you. keep it open. the bottom line is, women deserve to be in office. not because of the fact they are women. they are just as qualified and hard-working as men. too many young women do not feel they have enough credentials to run. you heard that tonight. they resign themselves to being content in the background. often behind men. several women who have public office have begun careers later in life, later than they would have liked. many more women will not take the initiative to run unless they are directly asked too many times. consider this, my official request to you, we need you to get involved. work the candidates.

to support a woman candidate. be a woman candidate. run for the school committee. one for mayor. act locally. call your representative. your senator. your congressperson. talk about issues of concern. all issues are women's issues. the time to make this decision is not in a few months, it is now. women make up over 52%. we used to have shirts. women hold up 52% of the sky. because we do. it is our turn to leave the cities and towns. it is our turn to lead the state in the nation. it is your turn to do it now. well behaved women rarely make history. [applause] so get out there and miss behave -- misbehave. thank you and thank you for being here. >> good night.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> alan of the american enterprise institute talks about proposals, calling for changes in the tax code. and then criminal justice reform. and at 9:15, kevin, the author of "lincoln in the world." 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and

conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider and now you can watch us in hd. >> a group of republican governors discussed their party's message for future elections. rick perry of texas, john k-6, and mary fallin talked about some of the policies they have adopted and how they can rezulin -- how they can resonate with voters. this event was part of the annual meeting of republican governors held recently in scottsdale, arizona. >> thank you for being here. if you could come in and take your seats, we will start right away. we will talk about messaging in 2014 and what we have to do to

actually have a more successful 2014 and 2016 than we had last year. i have to tell you it is so great to have governors up here that are actually getting things done in their own state of life, unfortunately, too many washington republicans. i am looking at john kasich right now and i am so glad he is here. he is the reason i got into politics. so you can blame john. i was 28 years old and i was watching john on the house floor. and instead of john just saying we don't like bill clinton's budget, john kasich made his own budget. he worked with tim penny and they went on the floor in the middle of this debate and they talked for about 30 minutes, 45 minutes about their vision of how to balance the budget and how to move this country forward. so when i went out on the

campaign trail, instead of just criticizing bill clinton, when people asked me what would you do? what would you vote for when you got to washington, d.c., i said i would do what john was talking about doing. we didn't like hillary's health plan so we had two or three different republican ideas for health-care plans. newt helped put together the contract with america so we went out and we had a positive on the construct it approach in the campaign. and it made a big difference. you remember earl hutto? you served with him. i ran against a 16-year incumbent, a democrat named earl hutto came from a district that hadn't elected a republican since 1873. and they hung the last republican they sent up to washington, d.c. we had ideas. my dad did not vote for me.

you are laughing because you agree with my dad. you think he had good taste in politicians. but how important is it that, in 2014 and beyond that we, instead of being the party of no, we have a positive path forward like all of you have. >> the story is in 1993, we put this alternative together. the republican conference was very nervous about this. so we had this big conference meeting. i think that they there were 35 speakers here in and 33 of them said there is no way we are presenting an alternative to clinton. this is crazy. we will get attacked. so i went to the back of the room and newt was there. i tell them that there were 33 no and two yes. and he said we thought we were doing better than we were. somehow it got leaked out. ideas give you energy. if you don't have any ideas to

the positive, you don't have any energy. and if you don't have any energy, you are not appealing. there is a tendency to rely on negative and anger and all that stuff. that doesn't create any imagination, any vision, any excitement for anybody if you do things that way. you are having to deal with the crazies like me in 1995 and 1996. >> thank god you were there. >> well, yeah, we blew ourselves up because we were so negative and we so focused on being against the bill clinton. once we got up there, it took us a while to figure it out. >> human in 1995. -- you mean in 1995. one thing that people never understood about the shutdown was that the clinton administration was trying to cook the books. they had phony economic numbers.

they were projecting the economy would grow by 4% or number five percent -- i don't remember the numbers. they were unrealistic. you didn't have to reform the government to get to a balanced budget. that was a fight with having. after having gone through that i had members of the administration come to see me and say, ok, we want to really engage in this again. in that case, the shutdown resulted in something positive and something that could be attained. we ended up doing negotiations the 97 agreement, balanced budget, paid down the largest amount of debt in american history, had a growing economy. in that case, you have to stand and fight but you have to have an achievable objective long haul. >> and a positive message for it. let me ask you, governor perry about a moment during a debate we are talking about being positive. immigration. it is a positive moment for you , i think. it is a positive moment for you. >> that is a pretty short list.

>> this was really positive. you talk about being positive on something like immigration reform. i am not saying that pathway to citizenship or pathway to legalization, but you just talked about the need for our party to be compassionate. we needed to be compassionate and you got absolutely killed for saying that. i will even go a step further. mitt romney decided that he needed to lurch his four-one extremist possible and it ended up killing us. not only at the governor's mansion but also in debate like that? how do we as a party do more of a positive message? >> i think you are right, joe and mary will agree with this as well. historically, republicans have talked with their mind. we like to dump all the

statistics out there. we are the number one state for job creation or the number one this for that. we pitch all of these cold and sterile facts out. what may be a better way to message this is that being the number one job creating state in the nation is about a family that is being able to take care of themselves better. it is about the young hispanic who five years ago didn't have a job or may have had a minimum- wage job that best and today they are driving a truck in south texas because of the energy bill that has occurred in that sector, making over $100,000 a year. and how that young man and his wife and the home they are living in, they are talking about their children being able to go to an institution of higher learning, the first in their family who has ever done that. that is occurring because of the

policies that have been put in place by republican governors in most cases. i want to really get us to focus on talking about how we transition the conversation away from washington as the place where all of the decisions will be made and the solutions -- they will not be found in washington, d.c. they will be found in capitals where governors like john and mary and myself and paul lapage i mean, that is where the solutions that are going to face americans. we don't need to talk negative about the president of the united states. he has taken care of that pretty much on his own with his health care program. but what are the alternatives? i happen to think that the alternatives are not one-size- fits-all, that washington all too often wants to impose upon

us, but allow the innovators in ohio, allow the innovators in oklahoma -- i believe that a blue state governor has got to feel that they can put health care plans in their state together better than some bureaucrat in washington, d.c. talking to people's hearts is that messaging part of it, whether it is dealing with immigration, which i will suggest to you a just as an aside that the immigration debate will change substantially in the next 18 to 24 months especially if mexico is successful in liberalizing their oil and gas exploration policies and allow the private sector to come in and probably contract and then look at the concessions later on -- completely change the immigration discussion. and i would recommend that the discussion will be where will we find enough people to fill all

the jobs that will be created in this country because all those people that came over here illegally will be back home. it is a really fascinating change. because of what i hope occurs in the north american region, canada, the united states, and mexico, to collectively become this very powerful energy- producing region that is independent of other areas of the globe for energy. the message is about the heart rather than the head. and nothing wrong with the head. >> nothing wrong with the head. that really has been our problem. byron was talking about this before. it used to be that we were great at explaining how less government and less regulation actually mattered in people's lives. we have forgotten how to connect

our beliefs and make them relevant like margaret thatcher did. shopkeepers daughter. she knew that what she believed was not just good for a multimillionaire. it was good for working class citizens who wanted to rise. there is a lot of that story in this great new book i just read by joe scarborough. i highly recommend it. >> go, speak, preach. >> the head and heart informed with reason and persuade with emotion. that has always been our dictum. but we have moved beyond marketing. marketing is for selling things that don't work. when you have something that works, you serve. and then you tell people about it. and even in telling them, you are doing a good thing. i think one of the things we ought to remember is our ideas are not old and dusty things on a shelf that are irrelevant to

the world we are in today. as a matter of fact, the world we are in today, a highly connected world where we are not cogs and gears and some industrial factory in washington. we make decisions. we have information. our principles are the best way to tackle problems and to help people live at her lives. -- better lives. if we are going to talk to a new generation of voters and we will be an inviting party, we speak to them about their world. when we say things like free enterprise, it is hard for them to connect. but when we talk about an open economy, a bottom-up economy those are our principles. and the world they live in, open things is better than closed things. bottom-up is better than top- down. they have never been told what to do. to connect in their world --

shares you understand and it works. obamacare didn't fail because hey, they just didn't happen to do this right. it failed because of the same reason that other stuff fail. it is old. it is top-down. it is factory. our principles are always fresh and new ideas if we just speak out them in ways that say, hey, our principles are good for more than just saying no. we have a way to better organize society, solve problems, open school system, where parents get to actually choose the best school for their kids and you go do not get trapped in a failing school. an open health care system. an open economy where you don't have political top-down decisions. those are the kind of things that will work better for you. >> i want you to join in with what we are talking about here and the positive message and the constructive way forward to but

also, if you can, the energy revolution. so many people who are responsible for it are from your state good talk about the energy revolution and what that will mean, not only for working class and the class people in oklahoma but, if we do it right, or millions and millions of americans. >> i think that is where the white house is missing the point, how we can grow america's economy and create not only a better national security for our nation but a better economic security for our nation. oklahoma, texas, pennsylvania, ohio, other states -- certainly alaska and north dakota who have tremendous natural resources where there is oil, gas, wind in oklahoma, certainly a big feature, we are creating economic opportunity, raising our standards of living, creating jobs and there's a

trickle down effect throughout our state and other businesses even unrelated to the energy sector because of the growth of the energy industry itself. but you also have to have the right regulatory environment which is where washington typically gets it wrong. currently, the administration gets it wrong. and our state, we allow private investment. we allow people to take risk. we create the right business climate by keeping our relations fair and being responsive and looking at workers compensation reform or having a highly educated labor sector. all of that drives an economy. the energy sector is one of the major sectors in the united states where people in the past said, well, we really don't have enough fossil fuel supply. but now we know, through technology and innovation, having the good and fair regulations, that we do have that energy supply. so my state of oklahoma, since

2011 when i took office, because of our business-friendly policies education reform we , have done, making government smaller and more efficient, we have seen our economy change. the per capita income has grown by 8% for a family of four. >> it is self-defense. you have a guy who will steal every last job from you if they can. rick perry has been going around -- he is glad they are appearing now. while we are up here talking, he had his people on the phone to ohio and oklahoma stealing their jobs. >> we fish where the fish are. and generally speaking, i am spending a lot more time in california or illinois and new york than i am in oklahoma. we just beat them in football. [laughter] >> you know how to hurt a person, mary.

>> but listen to talk to you about the pro-business environment and see what governor perry has been doing over a decade. there was a great moment when mikael gorbachev was talking to the canadian prime mr. mulroney and gorbachev said don't lecture me on your capitalism and your free enterprise. mulroney said i'm not going to lecture you. do you think i want competition? that sort of competition, you you don't care of california and jerry brown straightened it out. >> i want california to be successful because they are so important to our country, but you're not going to be better, whether you are an athlete or whether you are a private sector business person or a governor and a government unless somebody is pushing you to be better. she makes me get up every morning because of the policies she puts into place. bobby jindal pushes every day on tax policy and regulatory

climate for us to be more competitive. rick scott in florida, i guarantee you that guy is working double overtime to put policies in place that make me uncomfortable. but we understand, although it is uncomfortable, it will make us better. and at the end of the day, it is better for our citizens. i don't go to california to pimp jerry brown. i really don't. i go to pimp the legislature to do the things that are right for their people. unless we're there and talking about, listen, there is an alternative -- i mean, i am standing in laguna beach talking to 30 individuals who were curious about our little at a d campaign and they came to listen to what we were talking about. and the sun is going down, touching the pacific -- laguna beach. we are at the montage hotel. what an incredibly beautiful part of the world. and i said that is exhibit a of

how government could screw it up so bad that you would leave that. that is the type of competition that will make this country stronger. it is the governor's putting tax and regulatory and legal policies into place that will make the state more competitive. i believe that illinois and new york and even california, at some point in time, their people will say, you know what? you just can't continue to tax us. we will leave here. and they will either go bankrupt or they will change their policies. and at that time, don't you think america will be stronger? >> the ohio house today -- it may be happening right now in -- is passing a resolution calling for a constitutional convention for a federally balanced budget. you want to put some strings on the folks in washington and you

want them to get to a position where they will act responsibly and they will start making decisions like we have to make? we can get to up to 32 states doing this. they will move quickly to do something. serving as the budget committee chairman in d.c. and governor of ohio with the largest deficit in our history now balanced with a surplus, we want to get them to focus on doing their job. we all have to get behind this republican governors, democratic governors. we have $17 trillion debt. it is sucking a lot of the life out of our country. we have the chinese using american dollars that they take from us to recycle in places around the world with the influence they have. we've got to balance the budget. it will restrain them. it will lead to greater economic growth. it is time to get back on this again. i think it is one of the most important issues the country faces. it will be interesting to see if

democrats and if liberals recognize the fact at some point they have to be responsible in that town and meet the challenge of these deficits. >> you have been fighting it your entire public life. that is exciting. let me ask you. i have been struck since i'm in here by how many people are concerned that the republican party will repeat the same mistake in washington, d.c. that they made over the last several months. i have yet to have anybody say you know the government shutdown idea was a great idea. you have governors were pulling their hair out. ken cuccinelli will tell you that he lost because the government shutdown. have we learned our lesson? will they make the same mistake again in january? >> no, i don't think they will.

we have heard from leaders of the party that it is simply not going to happen. one story i was talking to representative michele bachmann before the shutdown. she said, can you believe it they shut down the government because of the difference between cbo numbers and omb numbers. isn't obama much more important? they mis-learned the lesson of the 19 -- 1990 part. >> that was an over simple vacation. >> but you have a party, the republican party that, with everybody agreeing about obamacare am available read they -- they all agree they want to get rid of it, they managed to spill an enormous amount of each other's blood fighting over this. i think they have learned some lessons.

certainly the leaders of the party say it will not happen again. but i want to go back to something that alex said something before about the freshness of republican ideas. i don't think the public hears that. if you listen to the presidential debates of 2012 and 2008, other than barack obama, the name that was heard the most was ronald reagan. they couldn't stop talking about ronald reagan. a lot of their ideas were 1980- era reagan ideas. addressing millions of people whose standard of living has gone down in the past decade or two decades, their idea was to cut taxes. if your car breaks down, cut taxes. if your house is on fire, cut taxes. if your lawn needs mowing, cut taxes. that was the only idea that they presented to voters. instead of fresh ideas, voters thought the republican party had a lot of very old ideas. >> they only felt that way because it was true. >> how many years have you seen the same commercial where a guy

stands up and says i am for less taxes, less regulation and more freedom? we've been doing that since 1980 and, yes, we are all for that. but if that is the only message and we don't connect that to working-class voters -- by the way, in 1994 when we took over we owned as a party working- class voters making like 30,000 dollars to $60,000. we dominated that area. >> your point about ronald reagan speaks to that. reagan was a child of goldwater. that is what inspired me to get into politics. the reagan could have echoed goldwater. anti-big government, anti- communism. not bad ideas. but he didn't just do that. again, he fit our conservative principles to his day and he added something to it. economic determinism, american

american determinism economic optimism. we can do anything we want. there is a shining city out there. we have a rendezvous with destiny. what reagan did for his party it is now our time and our job to do for our party. our job is not to go back anywhere. and we have a wonderful argument. and that is that big and dumb and old and slow and top-down government doesn't work if they -- doesn't work. they have served us up the most wonderful example of how dysfunctional -- why? because the information is down at the bottom and they are up at the top get all of the old arguments. we have seen what doesn't work. what does work? what republican governors are doing. solutions closer to the problems. governing bottom up. we have the sincerity. we have the examples. we can make a better case. the point about the balanced

budget amendment, that is a great fight. we can score points. we will win a survey argument. we will rally our base with that. moses did say, hey, i have a great idea. let's go to the desert. it is really hot there and dry. posterity will suffer a little bit, but it will be good. moses said let's go to the promised land. it is better over there. we have to go through this desert thing. we have to balance the budget. but it is for a purpose. we have a better way to attack social problems and organize society and help people with health care. if we have those things and the balanced budget fight, then we can meet -- lead people somewhere. >> you know what though, i don't disagree with that, but if you look at the success of republican governors, it is because jobs are being created. job creation is the moral imperative of people today. if people aren't working, they can lose their dignity. they can lose strength in the

family, whatever the family might look like. there are certain things you have to do to create jobs. commonsense regulation, no income tax. if you think taxes don't matter -- people respond to that. the fact of the matter is that throughout political history it is jobs. jobs that elected roosevelt. the other roosevelt. reagan got elected because we were mired in a deep recession and he said, we can have a better way. it does all get back to jobs. the party that can show people they get you to work, that they can improve your income, those are the ideas we need to promote. so how do you do it? you do it with regulation, with tax cuts, with job training and real education that link people to the jobs that exist today. beyond that, you can't ignore people who live in the shadows.

that is the heart. somebody is mentally ill. you saw that tragedy in west -- virginia yesterday. mental illness, drug addiction working poor you can let people get stuck on the other side of the bridge to prosperity. so we have to build a strong economy with -- we can debate it all day long. let me tell you, my dad, he would tell you today that if the people in washington can't balance the budget, they don't understand commonsense. it is the virtue and the value. when you create strong jobs, you can't ignore people who want to get across the bridge to share in the bounty of america, and sometimes in our party sometimes in both parties there is a forgetfulness of what those people need to get unstuck so they can be successful and have our dreams.

think about the people who have lost their jobs through globalization. think about the people who have lost their jobs because of sickness in the family. they can't be ignored, and i'm not ignoring them in ohio. i think it communicates two messages. through work and a better tomorrow, hope and opportunity. if you get stuck, we will be there to help you in whatever we can. and we will make sure we measure so you get from where you are stuck over the bridge. that is a message that, i think it shows we care. the last thing i will say -- i'm going on here. they did a survey. they asked voters about romney and obama. romney won four things. the fifth one was, who understands our problems better. obama was 81 and romney was 19. why? they never saw his heart. and he is a wonderful man. and i don't know why that

happened. people have to know you care about them, that you understand them. if they are stuck in a ditch you're going to put your shoulder to the car and help push them out. if we can demonstrate that people will say that is a new brand for republicans. create jobs, compassion and care. i think it works. >> i think that in our nation a lot of people worry about the direction our nation is going. they will tell you. america is concerned. i hear it on the street. i hear it with our families. people stop me in a convenience store and say i am really concerned about where our nation is going. what are we going to do to get it back. i think there are great example s with our conservative governors, republican governors who are addressing problems and bringing for solutions. there is an old saying this is that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. we have to do a better job as a party showing people that we

listen , that we understand their problems, that we are going to do something about it. that is the big difference between what our party stands for and what the democrat party stands for. they have done a better job on messaging. making people believe they really care more than republicans. i don't believe that. look at the individual states, things going on, we are focusing on jobs, we are focusing on education. we are focusing on trying to make the health-care system more amenable to the american people versus the big government-run can't even understand it cost too much, too, located, not even working. we all know that. it is about the kitchen table issues. when i sit with my husband, we talk about it at the kitchen table. paying for college, my husband talks about his business and

regulations, we talk about taxes. we talk about our children being able to get a job. are they going to be able to stay in oklahoma? it is about paying the bills and making house payments. it is about taking care of our health. families that have problems with substance abuse, mental illness talking about those things that really impacted family and a business and something people can relate to. >> you talk about americans being nervous. americans being scared. they are. it seems like for a long time democrats love talking about the bush tax cuts. the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. barack obama gets elected the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poor. you can go all the way back to 1973. the average wage for the american male has gone down in real dollars every single

year since 1973. a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are more productive than ever. we have had an i.t. revolution. if you saw some statistic that said american factories are earning the same level production of they were in 1993, 20 million to 30 million more people would be working today. how do we alleviate the worrying and suffering? so many working class and middle-class americans feel like they are being left behind. the rich to keep getting richer. the poor do get poorer. not just in america. in the entire industrialized west. >> the things said are the opposite message than what came from the nominee of the republican party in 2012. there is no doubt about that. there were two problems. the actual substance was wrong.

republicans have not been able to get past a lot of this 1980 cents. in 2016 the election of ronald reagan will be 36 years in the past. they will need to show people they have moved beyond that. in 2012, it was interesting. so many people suffering so much economic anxiety. they chose to focus on entrepreneurs. on business. if you look, if you look at a word cloud, an analysis of the words spoken from the podiums at the republican convention and the democrat convention, democrats use middle-class 5-6 times more than republicans. democrats said it a lot. they used the word "education" more than americans. used the word fair a million times more. the big words republican use business, success, freedom.

all good things, but they did not connect with those anxieties. they sent entirely the wrong -- >> how devastating was that 47% remark? >> he said after the election as well. >> at this very meeting, that news came out. he said on a donor call. he said obama had won by giving gifts to voters. the governors here were appalled. they were distancing themselves from it. they were depressed anyway because it had just been a big defeat for republicans. it ran through this meeting. the news that governor romney said this again. it did send the wrong message. the celebration that governor romney did of entrepreneurs, he -- my friend jimmy john, he started making sandwiches in his garage and now has 1500 restaurants. that is actually very good.

but, if you look at any rally in -- and say, how many people are making a living from a business you started and run, it is not very many. most people work for somebody else and they are worried about their job. they have lost it. they know somebody was lost theirs. they are worried about that. the republicans in so many ways never addressed that. that is the question for republicans in 2016. whether they will have a candidate who can actually address those concerns in a real way. >> governor perry, talking about this, giving hope to americans who are scared, my dad worked a -- worked for lockheed. he got laid off in the early 1970's. he was out of work for 18 months. it made him more of a republican. not less of republican. he believed that by voting republican he had a better chance of the economy growing. republicans understood what it took to get us through a

recession. you sense on the national level that people in my dad's position today may not still believe that. >> i think we see it. wall street is doing pretty good. wall street is doing really good. there is this disconnect between the blue-collar. i am pretty blue-collar. you are pretty blue-collar. my dad, you were asking what political party, he would stay democrat. the key is, it goes back to that messaging of who is going to be able to best put policies in place that allow us to make

decisions best for family. governors in red states, over the next 12 months as we prepare for those elections, these governors that are creating jobs, their grading and environment where people get to keep more of what they work for. i think we have a great opportunity to reset the decisions best for family. governors in red states, over the next 12 months as we prepare for those elections, these governors that are creating jobs, their grading and environment where people get to keep more of what they work for. i think we have a great opportunity to reset the mentality in this country about

what we really is important. what is really important is how do i best take care of my family? what are the policies that are going to be implemented that affect me directly? obviously this health care discussion is really important. i do not know how it is going to finally play out. what we really is important. what is really important is how do i best take care of my family? what are the policies that are going to be implemented that affect me directly? obviously this health care discussion is really important. i do not know how it is going to finally play out. my instinct is that if we thoughtfully have a conversation -- republicans in the legislature to come up with a way to deliver health care, to put personal responsibilities in place to maybe have a health savings account, i don't know. a menu of ideas and concepts for them to pick and choose from. but allow for john and his colleagues in the john and his colleagues in the legislature to define that and put it into place, and for washington, if i am boheehner or harry reid i

would love to get away from those issues. maybe that deal is not such a bad idea. >> let me follow up. i will ask you this question first. then i will ask it specifically, everybody on the panel especially you guys, talk about getting a blue-collar dad. what does rick perry father think of people like rick perry? think about -- hedge -- hedge funds making $1 billion a year. paying 15% tax rate? >> they are working their tail offer round-the-clock. play -- paying may be 35%. what do they think about that, and why do we sit back and continue to allow that to happen when it disconnects? romney, what did romney pay, what was his tax rate? 16%, 17%? barack obama's was not much better. this seems so unfair, whether you are a milkman in ohio -- it seems to me we missed the boat by blindly defending those types of tax breaks. >> i think we have allowed

i think we have allowed ourselves -- i want to get out of here alive, by the way. >> i think rick perry's dad would think we have become -- we have allowed that to happen. in fact, in our hearts we had the very opposite. the more you complicate government, the more rules and regulations, the more power you concentrate in one place, what happens? the guys with the money and lobbyists and lawyers, we know who wins. that has not been the republican party. the republican party has been the bottom-a party where everybody gets equal opportunity not an equal guarantee of results. everybody gets an equal shot. we used to speak that way. we used to advocate policies that were like that. we used to nominate presidential candidates, and i hate to go back to it, but in a place like

eureka. sink about this. think about this, john kasich. think who we nominated, we nominated a guy in 2012 whose dad ran a car company in the state of michigan. we nominated a guy in 2008 whose dad pretty much ran the united states navy during the 1960's. 2000 four and 2000, a guy whose dad was president. in 1992 and 1988, a guy whose father was the east coast establishment. i love all of them, i have great respect for all of them, but are we really sitting here wondering why we are not connecting to farmers and westcott -- texas and milkman in ohio9? >> franklin roosevelt was a very rich man. first of all, i know how i can get applause, end the stupid way we conduct presidential debates. that was the dumbest. >> hell yeah. >> let me tell you, you know

rick called me up one year -- one day and said, what do you think? i haven't heard one thing about taxes. the debates got everybody off track. isn't this a much more attractive way to do this, to just discuss ideas and stop all the back and forth and the attacking and -- one another? number one, the way we were picking people was dumb, and i hope they will figure something else out. secondly, my father's father was a coal miner, he died of black lung. the mother's mother never learned how to speak and wish. we were never told to resent people. we were told, get to be one of them. >> which, by the way, i agree with. my mom and dad would tell me work hard and you will be

successful. you know what? they also agreed in a system -- believed in a system that was fair. none of them the believed guys should be working 16% where i -- well they are working their tail off. >> some people can avoid it. i understand that. when you are paying 15% of everything you earn to the government, that is not great. let me tell you what i believe is the problem with the wage gap. our education system is not giving people the tools to compete and win in the industries with the jobs that exist. our education system k-12 is to mechanical, it is not flexible does not put kids out to where the jobs are and does not feed their great passions. we need to save vocational education. you work in a hvac company

today, you could make up to $100,000, become an entrepreneur. our education system is not giving the tools nor measuring the passions of our students connected to the 21st-century jobs, and it is hurting america. new york times had an article about this. education is creating the great division in our country, and our job training leave so much to be desired in america today. you have to lose your job before basically people will help you instead of training people while get trained. they are working to get the skills in an era of advanced manufacturing and 3-d printing you have to lose your job. that is the way the federal government runs these programs. it makes no sense. we are using casino money to train people. you have to train people, educate them, feed their passions. you must have a flexible system that goes from pre-k to j, and j stands for jobs. it is happening with republican

governors. >> i talked with the energy revolution in oklahoma. the great thing, it is going to mean over the next 20-40 years we are not only going have the most productive workers in the world, we are going to have the lowest energy costs. we are going to see manufacturing jobs coming back. i know you hear this. you have business owners that you have business owners that say we can build the factories. we may not have americans that are going to be pulled to work -- able to work the jobs. we are talking about vocational training. what are you doing oklahoma so when the jobs, we have americans in their -- there qualified to do it? >> two things i want to make a point of. what we can do as republicans to have safe economies and national economies is to create certainty

within our own state. there is so much uncertainty in washington right now when you have shutdowns, sequesters continuing where -- resolutions whatever it might be. i had the opportunity to leave congress. we all got smart enough congress and came back home to do something else. as governors we are getting things done. unlike those in washington, we have to get things done. they will kick us out of office if we don't get things done. >> can you talk about that? i had a lot of people come up to me saying scarborough, i used to be republican. i am not one now. all those people in washington don't let me plan ahead. i can't plan ahead for the next quarter. >> they could plan ahead because there are such uncertainty in washington dc. people quit investing. they start sitting on their money. they do not hire more people. they don't spend more money expanding products and services. banks get leery about loaning money. people get leery about loaning

-- buying houses. -- buying houses. all the industries have told me the same thing. what we have to do in our state is create that certainty. the -- buying houses. all the industries have told me the same thing. what we have to do in our state is create that certainty. the principle that still works today, keeping taxes low limited government, letting people take personal responsibility, which they showed. creating the right work environment. education is the key to poverty and ignorance in our nation. if we can help people get a better education, we can help them get the job they need. so they can become productive citizens in our nation. hopefully keeping substance-

abuse out of our prisons, out of poverty. here is what we are doing in oklahoma. i am trying to do it nationally. i am trying to do it nationally. i have the opportunity to serve as the national chair of the governor's association. we have an initiative we launch. my initiative is putting america back to work. called america works on education and training for tomorrow's jobs. what you find in america is you have companies that move jobs overseas because of the corporate tax rate, because they can't find workers here, or roles and regulation or some other type of policy. we are working towards trying to get those companies. in system and

have to address the needs of our employers. >> before we do that, rick perry, final question? is johnnie men's all going to

win the heisman again? >> i don't have a clue. i play six-man football. [laughter]i don't have any idea. here is what i will project -- i will make a prediction. that i'm very confident in. texas a&m will beat the hell out of lsu this weekend in football. >> all right. any lsu fans out there? >> come on bobby. >> let's open it up for questions. we have a microphone handy? ok, just shouted out -- shout it out. >> that would be a big one. >> that settles that. >> you have the first question.

>> what governor kasich said, not to take anything away glossing over a little the question about fairness. asking about taxes for billionaires with carried interest with hedge fund billionaires. i ran into a member of congress -- >> counting venture capital firms. >> i just say, you have to think about this. it is not simple. economics is complicated. when you work in business, you begin to understand how people make decisions. the question is, let's examine it instead of doing it in a way in which -- ronald reagan, maybe they said he was for the rich. i don't know. >> it was the 70's when he was

elected. >> tell you what, we lowered capital gains in 1997 and we got to a balanced budget because we provided incentives. all the money sitting on the sidelines, you know what they're are doing with it? they are buying in the twitter ipo. i am not tellingi am not telling you, carried interest -- we ought to have a flatter tax with fewer provisions for people to, what they call loopholes or provisions. did the taxes flatter and get the corporate taxes down. that will help us, that will help businesses be more competitive, and frankly a lower, flatter tax for americans is good.

the department of justice is

choking education in louisiana. governor jindal open up the school system there to get, 90% black kids, 100% of them are poor, all of them in failing schools. to open up, so they could choose a better school. they chose the best goal -- school for their kids. why shouldn't all americans have equal opportunity in education? why shouldn't they have the opportunity to choose the best school for their kids. that is a great republican idea that you can take into the inner-city, take into the hispanics, taken to low and middle-class voters. who should republicans favor? everybody. exactly. >> thank you guys so much. we appreciate it. thank you all. for being here today. [applause] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright

nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> he has those numbers problem. after>> he has those numbers problem. after the success at bunker hill. you want boston, i will give you boston. go up -- to regroup, i know that they are coming back to new york. come back to new york city, he knows he can't beat them head- to-head. he has to use espionage, he has to use guerrilla warfare. has to be smarter than that. he needs his ownhe needs his own cia he has this

has been -- -- espionage background. noted guy from the french and indian war. he tells talmage and others and general scott, brigadier general scott, here is what we will need to do.

>> what>> what is that future?

>> what we think is going to be happening is the current political situation we have with a very powerful centralized national government like we have now is not going to be sustainable. it has made commitments he can keep. $17 billion in debt, all kinds of obligations that the government is not going to be able to sustain. we think the arraignment -- arrangements that worked for a couple generations are not going to break down. we think what the positives are that the technology coming along is going to make it are that the technology coming along is going to make it possible to have a much more de-centralized arrangement where a certain number

of people who were wage laborers. after the american revolution and moving in to settle in the midwest, the country was carved up into 160 acre units that were enough for one family farm to be sustained on your it people owned their own capital. they work for themselves. that was the ideal. it was often the reality. as we move to industrial america, you had huge aggregations of capital. that railroads, steel mills

automobile factories. you had businesses that handled information before the computer area where you had huge typing pools and handling paper. he would large enterprises and people were no longer employed by themselves were no longer had much prospect of doing that. there have always been large -- lots of self-employed people. the bulk of the work force was employed by somebody else. i think we are heading into in the future and we are seeing more and more of this now is that we are moving toward a model where more people are self-employed or working in smaller start upscale businesses. there was a study that showed and we cite it in our book -- the biggest source of employment is self-employment. at the same time, almost everything the government does has pushed back and made it harder for people to do that. even in the teeth of government opposition to this trend, it is

an increasingly accelerating trend. i think we will see people doing more and more work either on a contract basis or individual basis and also some of the technology we talk about. if we are right about 3-d printing becoming a dispersed and localized manufacturing. we will have a return to manufacturing in america then we may be expected. it won't be that we will have factories. we will have manufacturing dispersed all around the country. different than what we came up seeing is normal. host: is america 3.0 all about technology? guest: no it is not. one of the things we're trying to address in the book is the concern that many people have -- mostly conservatives, but i suppose people all across the political spectrum -- the sense

that the country is in decline. our best days are over. america used to be great, and it is not so great anymore. while there are certainly reasons to think that, we think that is a misunderstanding of the condition we are in right now. i think we are in a transitional. , not a. of decline -- i think we are in a transitional period, not a period of decline. millions of people left their way of life they had known for generations and moved into the cities. the big cities of america 100 years ago were dirty, dangerous places. it took our great grandparents huge amount of effort, political effort and practical effort, to clean things up and turn the united states into the developed country it became. it is not just the technology. what we think the transition we are going through now is similar. the technology will enable us to

do it a lot of good things. the american culture, the underlying culture, is quite distinct from the rest of the world. i think that that factor is something that is underappreciated and something that we rely on a lot. host: is this a natural transition? guest: i'm not sure what you mean by natural. i think to some degree it is inevitable. if technology advances eponymously to some degree, then yes it is. we see millions of people throughout the economy constantly working to improve things. new technology coming along all the time. as technology changes, it changes the culture, it changes the way people do with each other, the lagging element is always the law and the political situation. it is very difficult to change those things. to a certain degree, this is a natural progression. i will also mention something else. if you're finding yourself

depressed by the political news, it is a good idea to look at the news about changes in medical technology and other types of technology. all caps of thrilling changes really great things seem to be happening. it is a good way to cheer yourself up. host: why? guest: i think we will see, for example in medicine, we see all kinds of breakthroughs and cures for cancer and extending people's lives and having people be healthier for longer. these are great things. if we can make them available and create an economy that will allow masses of people to have access to these things you will have happier, healthier, longer lives. that is coming they will have happier longer lives. that is coming out of the economy. host: can you give us a timeframe, what years are we talking about? >> america 1.0 you could trace

through the founding era and down into a hinge moment would be the civil war. one of the things -- one of the way these things go is there is a lot of overlap. the industrial development of america was under way many years while we were primarily an agricultural economy. america 2.0 was taking off in the late 19th century and peak in the early 20th century. the great moment of industrial america was our military victory in the second world war when the -- when america came the arsenal of the market street to do really big things, the manhattan project, thousands of ships moving men overseas. it is a heroic achievement of industrial america. people had confidence in those institutions forth some decades after that. what we see now is america 2.0

is fading away and 3.0 is developing. the internet is part of a factor of america 3.0 just as the steam engines were the foundation of america 2.0 it took a couple of generations for those to transform society. host: your background is as a lawyer. guest: we talk about anthropology and history. some of it is about law. the people interested in the

legal history of the united states and how it changes to technology, entrepreneur sifts and people interested in the cultural things we are interested in, just because of the weight academics work were not talking to each other. we reached out to various people who wrote books, and we were you decided you to do the or interested, do not read them, so we decided to take the conversation and the resource who have had an combined you and generate this and so far we have had a positive response. my co-author james doesn't it is an entrepreneur and author and writer. he is the person who popularized the term anglo sphere. he is an expert on the unique

relationship of the various english-speaking countries and the role of people in world history. host: why do you spend a good bit of time talking about our english and germanic traditions? guest: ok. one of the factors -- let me back up. when alexis did hope phil wrote his book on democracy in a mecca he made the comment if you want to understand a country you should go back as far as you can't understand the roots of that country and where it came from. he went back to the founding of america by the peerages. we looked at anthropology that has been done by a frenchman named emmanuel todd. mr. todd finds that the family structure in different countries, the whole sure that shaped those countries because

of the way those families organize their affairs has a big impact on the in packed political impact, that lasts for century we found the english speaking world has a particular type of nuclear family that is the most individualistic and freedom. this is minded by survey data to the state. one of the conundrums why didn't america become more socialistic when everybody else did? that has not been aligned with the individualistic enterprising sizing -- siding we do. we do not have extended family networks to fall back on my people do in other countries. he bought from other countries

sometimes come to the usa or english and say they are cold and lonesome and selfish here, and there is a critical way of looking at it and moment of truth writ. we are extraordinarily did at forming voluntary networks of association for business purposes and for us to form sports teams or whatever it might be. much more than other parts of the world. we are want to make sure that we are on the table. host: what potential changes do you see with government or his agents with america 3.0 question mark guest: we think the current centralized federal government will increasingly unable to meet its obligations and increasingly expensive. there will be basic reform at that level. the federal government will

devolve some of its functions to states or cities of the states. in different parts of the country, we have different tolerances for a more intrusive or a more supportive government. new england and the upper midwest were probably favoring of a stronger welfare state whereas texas and parts of the stealth would be much more of a free for all and much more libertarian in their organizations. we think the federal government, because of the burdens of the state, and because the increasing faculty in governing 400 million people by 2050 from the center, from a desk in washington, we think that will break down. one of our concerns is that the reforms are not going to happen for these debts come due, and people need what they were have relied on for the government,

social security, but the money will not be there. we proposed in the book that we have a resolution of this, all these obligations at once, and do payouts to this and change the regimes that way. hopefully he can work out something politically before the stroke crisis where checks are bouncing to people. host: our guest, michael lotus. he is in chicago. the caller is from idaho. caller: hi. what i would like to ask the gentleman, is what he opposes, self employment or small businesses, many of these are going to fail, and you seem to be transferring the risk to the individual while taking away the government safety net and i would like to know how you plan to handle that. i would remind you that in america 1.0 and in the early days of 2.0 there was a lot of

starvation and a lot of hardship , substandard housing, and such things. how do you plan to deal with that? guest: the idea that the small businesses is riskier than a big business may be so, but big businesses have mass layoffs. large institutions can sale. te would've been in bankruptcy if the government had not build it up. detroit has failed. sizes not necessarily security. it is frequently a mirage of security. in the turn of the previous century we had substandard housing and there was a dirty and dangerous country. a lot of technology lagged behind. there's no thinking we will revert to that. as to a safety net, i do not think anybody is talking about abandoning it. the question is where their the expense and the centralization and bureaucracy we have now is

sustainable. the point is to have a safety net that each individual person wants to move to a community where it is the kind of thing they want to live in where there will be regional rather than national in scope, who to staff the strength of the safety net as an expense they can tolerate. what we have now -- it is not a matter of keeping it going, it is not want to be sustainable. the question is not whether we want to have a safety net where people -- four people, of course redo. there are ups and downs in economy, and you do not want to let your fed up citizens go hundred k, but the question is what are we going to work in the future. the model now is not working and exhibit a is the affordable care act. host: a tweet -- guest:

that is a misrepresentation. both of the book and what i have said. there is no particular reason that we will revert to "mad max" violent anarchy. the question is how we will best organize ourselves and is organize our public sector to be productive and to take care of the people who need help. to point to the federal government that we have now and to openly say that it is not able to do what it says it is going to do is not to advocate a return to some imaginary science-fiction scenario of violent anarchy, it is a complete misrepresentation. host: ruby is in richmond, virginia. a democrat. caller: i plan to read your book. my parents worked in the automobile industry and they knew it was not going to last long. they sent me to college. i see what you are talking about. i don't know what my grandchildren are going to do. it is probably going to see

something that i cannot imagine. guest: that is a terrific point. here is the thing. when this big change in the economy, big change in our society -- people cling to what they know. that makes sense. you don't want to walk into a darkened room and not know what is going to happen. when the country was founded, if you told the founders that in 100 years, and 150 years half of the people will not be growing the food anymore, they would say what are they all going to do anymore?

your parents were smart to help you move out of the world you were in. the auto industry had piqued by the time they were working. they were adding lots and lots of new workers. that was something that had already passed its prime as a source of employment. it is an astute comment and i appreciate it. host: mr. lotus got his degree at the university of chicago. guest: i have worked in large law firms and i work in a small law practice now. what you have seen in some of the things i have been talking about have had an impact. technology has reduced the need for some of the less cognitive aspects of the job. you can do things with less people reviewing documents physically and things like that. the law is slow to change, as big as those changes are compared to manufacturing or more technologically-oriented businesses. there you have transformative change. in the law, you have someone with a law license looking at your problem. you can streamline that and facilitate it, the basics cannot change the way manufacturing and health care can change.

host: american hero joe tweets in, it sounds like he is describing usa version three would be broken up into five or six sub nations. guest: that is a good question. it gives me a chance to clarify. we are not advocating breaking up the united states. that would be a terrible idea. the founders knew breaking up the country would be a disaster. that is why they wrote a constitution to make a permanent union of the states. the founders also recognized the different regions of the country are quite different. having a federal government with a lighter hand would permit people in different areas of the country to govern themselves the way they want. if you have a heavy-handed central government, it simply is not going to work.

the core functions of the federal government has to stay the same. national defense of a -- it is inconceivable we would have more than one custodian of our nuclear weapons. having a free-trade zone inside the country. having the federal government and its court system guarantee people's civil rights and civil liberties. as far as retirement programs and regulation of business, we could move that out of washington, regionalize it and do it on that basis. the new england that her ration or the state of california -- if it were made -- the new england nation or the state of california -- if it were made into many states, is a huge country. host: is it one point oh thinking or 2.0 thinking that we are still divided by the -- 1.0

thinking or 2.0 thinking that we are still divided by the geographical boundaries we are divided by? >> it is not so much two point oh thinking as it is ordinary unwillingness to see -- 2.0 thinking as it is ordinary unwillingness to cede things differently. -- see things differently. we have divided rings in the past. massachusetts broke off from virginia -- things in the past. there are quite distinct communities around los angeles and the western part of the state that is -- that are more agricultural. you can turn those into separate government.

host: philip is in tucson on the republican line. caller: hi. my comment is that the gentleman speaking spoke about the fact that technology -- the force of technology -- is moving us forward. a job of a truck running the highways or mcdonald's or farming, i do not know if it requires more people than a few years ago. technology, every day, is eliminating jobs. the bottom line, how are we going to move it forward? people have to take a lot of responsibility for themselves. they cannot rely on the government to pick up the load for everything.

guest: this is a very important point and i am glad you asked. the concern is always that new technology eliminates jobs and what are people going to do? as long as we have had technology, which is back to the stone age, we have had new ways of doing things that reduced existing types of jobs. we have had extremely rapid technological progress and whole ways of life have gone away. people in america mostly worked on family farms and small scale businesses 150 or 200 years ago. most of those jobs went away. there were jobs in railroads and steel mills and automate factoring and manufacturing electronics. you had retailers like seals roebuck -- sears roebuck that employed the enormous amounts of people. people are assets. people are creative.

you need to free them up and lift some of the regulatory and tax burdens on them so that they can find the needs of people and satisfy them with products and services. i will not tell you with absolute clarity that i can tell you what people will be doing in 20 or 30 years. host: adrian tweets in the mud these changes do not happen by chance. economics and politics are guided. guest: i do not agree with adrian particularly. we are all speaking english. the people tweeting and calling in are speaking english. many of our ancestors came here not speaking english, but they adapted to the american style of marriage when you do not have your parents picking your spouse. the american style of inheritance where no one is entitled to any particular thing from their parents.

you cannot rely on your uncles and cousins to protect you and you -- and they cannot expect anything from you. we take that as a given. that is the ocean we swim in. in terms of politics, there are political choices. for example, one of the things we talk about in the book is the loss of privacy and the government's intrusive involvement with our lives. that technology is not going to change. it is up to us to take the political steps to change the laws and protect ourselves. she cannot lump all of those things together. host: gold cup 45 tweets in, i just ordered your book. too many of us have too many -- have no historical context for our beliefs. what is that going to do to manufacturing?

guest: 3-d printing is going to be transformative. for example, think about medication. if you can make medication that is personalized for a person because of their health history and dna and you can 3-d print that medicine in your home and the ingredients are there and through the internet you are getting the direction of what to make, that will be a big break of -- a big break to people. there is one example. as far as manufacturing things for use in the home, things are simply -- there are things we will not have to go to the store for anymore. people will tailor what they may can use for their own needs and wants. how is this going to play out in terms of what people may can sell is tough for me to predict. it will be at least as big as moving from handcraft to manufacturing.

host: from twitter, is there a character named dagbet taggert dagney taggert or john galt in america 2.0? >> this is america. we are much more interested in our neighbors' well-being than ayn rand's characters were. host: kalvin, new york city, independent line. please go ahead -- calvin, new

york city, independent line. please go ahead. caller: i hear you talking about 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. you always talk about these watersheds after a particular war. a lot of these changes are more conscious than you believe. right now, the american economy is falling back into a southern antebellum economy where the wealth is concentrated in a few places and everybody else is spending for themselves. when the investor revolution actually came up, a lot of people of color left that situation and moved up north. not just them, but four times as many caucasians moved up there

with them because the economy in the south was so -- guest: so backwards. i am not sure where you are going with this, but i will respond to it. one of the things that causes that is if you have an economy that has become uncompetitive, the way that people can gain wealth is through access to political power and using access to the law and the tax code to insulate themselves. what we see is the wealthiest counties in the country are the ones right around d.c. the power the federal government has to influence the economy is far out of proportion. that is a big factor in what drives the inequality we are seeing.

as far as and antebellum type a economy, i do not think we are moving to anything like a slave- type economy. i do not see the american people returning to a condition of subjugation that the african- americans lived under back in the day. when the southern economy stagnated, people moved to where the work was. millions of people moved from the south to the factories of the north. they left the life they knew and adapted to new conditions. we are going to adapt to the changes we are facing now. host: 10 minutes left with our guest, michael lotus. bill is in kansas city. hi, bill. caller: happy thanksgiving everyone. i wanted to talk to you about the development of the country. we started with freelance and free labor and it did a lot to

make this -- free land and free labor and it did a lot to make this country wealthy. i am talking about taking the land from the indians. keynes economics made sure all of the citizens had equal rights and corporations did not overrun those rights. the federal government had to step and to ensure those rights for you to compete and for you to grow your business without paying a huge financial giant and to keep them from wiping out your assets. it is the role of the federal government to check individuals financially. also, i do like the fact that you were saying individual merit and efforts in business will play a part in the future.

i do like that heart of it. -- part of it. i want to remind people that you would not have safe airways and roadways. guest: let me cut you off. i think you misunderstand me. if people say the federal government is too powerful, too expensive, and too intrusive they think you mean get rid of it entirely and return to a complete state of anarchy. we have antitrust laws to prevent businesses from colluding with each other to fix prices, the kind of thing you are talking about. we should continue to do that. the federal government does that and should continue to do that. the point you made about freelance -- free land and slave labor and taking land away from the indians, there is a lot about that. the people coming in here were able to see the empty continent for a low cost.

there is no disputing that. the contribution the slave labor force made is a somewhat disputed thing. it is not clear how much surplus was developed. to some extent, it did. remarkable fact about the united states is that even though the slave system was a big part of our economy and many people benefited from it, we ended up fighting a war and losing 6000 american lives and ending slavery in the united states. we are a country that has political and moral principles. from time to time, if there is enough at stake we will act on those things. host: a couple of differing opinions on your book. this is will saying michael lotus represents failed philosophy of greed and selfishness.

larry says we need much less direction from the incompetent boobs in d.c. guest: that is interesting. you have two polar views from those 2 tweets. i am not talking about the philosophy of greed. you can look at data and see which countries have people who are more focused on their own immediate family versus other things. whether you like that about the united states or deplore that, that is how we are by comparison with the rest of the world. as far as the booths in d.c. -- boobs in d.c., the people there are not stupid. many of them are well- intentioned. they are there lobbying for advantages for themselves. it is a mistake to undercut the

people in d.c. as somehow mistaken or foolish. i do not think that is right at all. host: john is in louisiana on our republican line. caller: i went to the indiana university, purdue, just off the road. i am 70 years old, retired. i was raised by parents who came up during the depression. if you cannot afford something do not buy it. do not live the life of the rich and famous until you are rich and famous. accountability and responsibility are 2 big words that have been replaced by me and now. i believe in the constitution as the bulwark of protecting the individual. i will make my own decisions. i will be responsible for them.

i would like to have your comment on that off-line. guest: i basically agree with you that the constitution is a critical factor in the well- being of the country. it is a well-done constitution. our bill of rights is the envy of the world that we should not change. it is interesting that you say people should change their approach to things. they have a different moral orientation. i would not venture to predict when moral transformation of the country might occur. it is hard enough to predict transformation on technology. america had great transformations of religious sentiment. there was a social gospel movement where people got involved in aggressive politics because of their religious beliefs. i do not know what steps people

can take to cause a moral transfer -- transformation to make people feel more responsible to themselves. i do not rule out that unexpected can happen and religious outbreaks happen and societies can be changed by them. you would be full hearty to try to guess when those things are going to happen any -- going to happen. host: what can you say about decline? guest: china is presented as a challenge to the united states. china is a large country that is developing rapidly. i hope they are very successful at that. the chinese have serious problems with lucian in the country might we had 150 years ago, 100 -- problems with pollution in the country like we

had 150 years ago, 100 years ago. if we are right about read the printing and localized many fact during, -- about 3-d printing and lows allies -- localized manufacturing, that is what the chinese to. i do not think we will be displaced either chinese as a world power. we go over and try to impose our culture on other people. these cultural things that make the political and economic systems work are deeply rooted and you cannot change them by military force. we should be hesitant to try to undertake nationbuilding type projects. host: how would the military be affected by america 3.0? guest: the cutting-edge of

technology is driven by military technology. we will see investment in 3-d printing, some of it being led by the military. spare parts by machines could be manufactured on the spot without having a huge inventory. it becomes embedded in everything we use, in our clothing. we will see the military take the lead on that. we will be able to monitor people and know if a guy has been wounded. he can be taken care of on the battlefield. all kinds of things will impact the military. one of the things we hope will happen is that we will reform

the tilt german process, -- reform the procurement process. we have proposals in the book for that. host: next call for michael lotus, b.j. in ohio. go ahead. caller: there have been more laws and legislation that control our people. in time, we will recognize that the legal system is not the moral system. you are on point with a lot of things in how you are talking about how america is growing. growth has been disastrous and will continue to be unless we start to localized. every level of government is passing laws and registration. every law creates a criminal act. thank you for your time. guest: i am in general agreement with you. i do not think we will be choked to death right away.

i do think we are overregulated. we have a word in on business and individuals that is excessive and should be pushed back -- we have a burden on businesses and individuals that is excessive and should be pushed back. we have some things we have to do. we have to have an environmental protection agency or something like it. you need to do a cost-benefit analysis on the things that they do. there are very limited gains in terms of making the country a cleaner, safer place. i agree with the crux of what you said. host: will there he retirement in america 3.0, or will we work until we die? guest: i hope there will be retirement. one of the things we think is going to happen is we think the cost of living and the cost of

the basic things we need could come down very, very sharply. if manufacturing houses using 3- d printing happen and we can disperse ourselves to cheaper places to live, if we have local power generation, which is interesting, if we can get the cost of living down very sharply and it is a lot easier to save some money and live on a small sum when we retire, that should be something easy to do. host: america 3.0. why america's greatest days are yet to come. the authors are james bennett and michael lotus. mr. lotus has been with us from chicago.

>> on the next washington journal, brutal justice reform with mark mauer of the said thing project. 9:15 a.m., author of lincoln in the world the making of a statesman and the dawn of american power. >> i show it -- i thought, that look that he had on his face, i can close my eyes and see him on the stretcher putting his hand up ideas and that his eyes. i can close my eyes and see it. i will never forget that first case, that sort of bringing me to reality of what was going on here. after he got into the tent, there was this initial sort of triaging there.

we see him, and he goes to the tent, everyone starts to work. the other team starts to work. we got pulled in, myself and my colleague that wrote the forward . we both got pulled in, because the other team wanted us to begin right away. they did not want us to be bystanders, they said you guys have to be involved right away. once they did that, and they pulled us in, it was like a jolt, it was like wake up, and now you have to act, you have to be a doctor, you've to be certain we have to be careful writer -- you have to be a care provider can be a care provider area to dismiss the notion to talk that away -- tuck that away and be a care provider. you have the saved this guy's life, stop the bleeding, get them back home to his family paid quick in his book dr.

tetteh talks about his experiences working in afghanistan. >> next, a look at presidential messaging, a joint educational object type c-span, the washington university center george mason university. she shares her insight into presidential rhetoric and the presidency. >> decease and classroom budget will comes students from the washington center, george mason university, and the students at purdue university in indiana. the book is called "managing the president's message: the white house communications operation". joining us for a discussion, is martha kumar.

>> glad to be here. >> if you look at the modern age of the presidency, they have a good message that stands the test of time. the debt way of delivering that message has changed. >> one of the most important continuities is the importance of the substance of the message. you can to -- choose how you deliver it, but first you have to have a good message that resonates and that he repeated time and again, no other whether you are a radio president, a television president, you have to go back to what your central message is. you have to explain it in terms that people can understand. if you look at the important of messages, you can see that with -- whether it was eisenhower who worst really used

television but you go from 1950 to 1960, from nine percent of the households of television to 80-something-percent who have television. they have to use the latest technology for something come and that is explaining what they want to do, and what they have done. a good example would be clinton. clinton was very focused on what his message was be -- would be, and explaining in terms that people could understand. john talked about how he was bringing him a speech, and i had asked why his beaches were not more eloquent. these are that was not the point, they put eloquence in and clinton would take it out because he was a these words

words, words. you have to get people to understand what you're talking about. that is the point. >> you spent a lot of time at the white house, in the briefing room talking to the senior administration officials and reporters. y? >> i think that is the way you really understand how the white house works. the first time i went to the white house, i was working with a coworker port -- co-author for a book that came out in the 80's. nixon was doing a briefing, no, it was the ford administration. my coworker and i were going to do a book on the press secretary, so we came into do a briefing and we came in early and talked to reporters. by the end of that afternoon, we knew there was a more interesting story, because it was pretty clear that the

communications was not really being run out of the press office, there was a more interesting book. we forecast that we focused on the chief of staff on down. what we're going to look at some of the examples that martha written about in her book, but when we first started to my colleague from george mason university for the first round of questions. >> thank you. you kind of answered the question i have always wanted to ask you, which is, what is different in studying this topic the way traditional scholars do by reading things, and what you do by really also being there? you sort of addressed that, so let me add -- >> i can answer, oh, ok. add onto your question, and i

will answer both. >> what are the differences in the way you have been received as you try to collect information from administration to administration, from one party to another, in particular reporters and politicians? >> interestingly i have been received pretty much the same way in all the administrations. they have seen me as somebody who is object if -- objective, and who tries to present information that goes over the course of time. so that really makes sure what i do is useful for both reporters and officials. reporters come into the white house, and they know little about it before hand. i make the -- it clear to anybody that if they want to talk about previous administrations, to talk to them with white house officials. in recent administrations

people have read their -- my work before they had come in, so they have known who i was. i think they find it useful. let's say for example, for both reporters and officials, i put together figures on print properties -- on press conferences, and compare them across time. particularly, i have been focusing on the five most recent administrations. ip gets tells them something about what their predecessors have done, and think about what some of the changes are over time. that is true for both reporters and officials. so i have been doing press conferences, short question and answer sessions, and interviews. with all five residents -- presidents, and how they have differed over the course of time. >> she comes to the table not only as a reporter, but also

a veteran of the clinton white house. i will give her the next question. >> thank you. thank you about martha, for being part of this joint quest. we did not meet when i was in the clinton white house, and i was there for several years. i mostly handled the radio director of speeches, and a lot more on the opportunity agenda. i am curious who do you think gave you the best insights of those people you spoke with in the clinton administration? >> i was there from 1994 -- 1995 on forward. it was this combination of a dash of observing and then talking to people. the secretary would come in, and i had a lot of interview with him. i thought he was particularly

good, both in talking about what it was he did, but he also did a really fine job as a secretary -- press secretary. i thought, knew his work well. he had a sense of where to medications fit into governing. >> i'm going to ask them only stayed, one of my students in the washington center room university of new hampshire to be the first to respond to this first piece of video, and i'm going to ask one of your students at purdue and one of your students at george mason university. what i'm looking for is your reaction to the question from cbs's major garrett, and the answer by the president. an observation, or the thoughts about this. it runs about a minute and a half, from last week at the white house. >> thank you mr. president.

you said while the law was being deleted, -- was being debated, you could give your plan. americans believed you when you said that to them over and over. do not believe, sir, that the american people do not deserve a more transparent view of why you said that over and over, when your own statistics advised you that millions of americans would fall into that gap that you're trying to administratively fixed now. that is my first question. several people in this building work informed two weeks before the launch of the site that it was failing the most basic tests from internal print but the decision was decided to launch the website anyway. were you in charge of that? >> i was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was opposed

to. if i had been informed, i would not be going out saying this is great. i accused of a lot of things, but i do not think i'm stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on amazon, or travelocity a week before the website opened if i thought it was not going to work. clearly, we, and that i -- and i, did not have enough awareness about the what -- the problems. i thought these problems would be fixed with patches as a prose to rot or systemic problems that took much longer to fix, and we are still working on. >> i should we don't at was part of a much longer answer by the president. again, the question whether presidents response, your observation. >> in reaction to the presidents

response, it seemed very deflective considering how much this is important to his administration. you'd think that he would be informed prior to the launch, and that he is saying that i did not know about it, i mean, do you think that is really the honest truth that he is just ignorant to the fact that it was not working properly, or is that just his response to try to deflect the situation? >> hold that thought, let's go to george mason university. >> we have a comment from vicki e. >> i think that the reporters question -- >> hitter mike -- hit your mic. >> can you hear me? >> will come back.

carolyn? >> let's go to lena jones. >> hi. i thought it was interesting that there was lack of communication between those who are supposed to launch the website and obama because he was clearly activating for it the entire time. >> fair enough. it's go back to mickey -- vic kie. >> sorry about that. the reporter's was very interesting the way that he asked it, because it was a two- part question. he was kind of attacking, which was difficult, but it was a valid question to make because of what was rumored to be a lack of communication within the administration. i think he did well, but it was worded in a very attacking way.

>> especially using the word sir. >> major garrett does a very good job of questioning. he shapes his answers very carefully so that the president can't slide out of an answer. he does a lot of research on the questions he asks. i would say generally, if you see him and a briefing, or at a press conference, always watch him. i think his question was very valid. if the president did not know about the website problems, that shows that he certainly could not be an effective manager. >> av talk about presidential messaging, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. it is very easy to understand that. no new taxes i toured herbert walker bush. it is black and white. >> we are going to have it

operating by a certain date. all of those caused people problems because there are so many things that can intervene. i think people trusted him. if you look at the figures, his trustworthiness has let's see there was a cnn poll today, and 40% say the president is an effective manager that is down 12% since june. it is over this particular issue, and their belief that the president was telling it straight. now, about 53% of the americans in the latest poll out that the president was not honest or trustworthy. >> let me put a couple of other examples on the table. this is from 1974, we have in talking to this class about the

watergate scandal, and this was during the height of the investigation into richard nixon shortly before he resigned from office in the summer of 1974. a very brief exchange between the president and cbs and house correspondent dan rather. this event taking place at the national association of broadcaster, but it was an audience in attendance, which was unusual. >> i believe we are going to make progress in the economic and political field. [applause] >> mr. president. peggy mr. president, dan rather, cbs news. [applause] mr. president are you running for something? [laughter] [applause] >> are you?

>> put that into perspective what is going on there? >> you can see the hostility that is going back and forth. cbs was doing a very aggressive coverage of watergate and dan rather was from cbs. you see the hostility and the tension that exists, but in rather's case that was over the line for a reporter. one of the things that you do not want to do it as a reporter was get caught in the store yourself. he allow that to happen. >> let's go to some student questions, we will start with john curio from the washington center, your first up. >> -- you are first up. >> my question is in regard to wrestle secretaries. what makes a good press secretary in regards to a poor

one? >> i think an effective press secretary is one that is able to present information in an accurate and timely basis, in response to reporter's queries. i think a press secretary has to be able to persuade people within the white house to provide him or her with accurate information. because, often, they will try holding back. because they think there is some bad news, and maybe if they just need quiet, it will go away. it does not go away. >> let me put in example on the table. an example of what was going on during the clinton administration, we all know in january 1998, the story broke of the president's