i will have a clear agenda as your next governor. i want to kickstart the economy so there are more jobs for hard-working arizona's attorney into hard-working careers. i want to restore the educational system to the level of excellence we expect to better serve teachers, students and parents. i want to take charge in the direction of the state. i want to be an independent voice and am proud to announce tonight to endorse the democratic state legislator -- that i have been endorsed by the state democratic agenda. i have reached out to catherine. she has joined the campaign. i am running to be governor of the people. >> final statement, we turn to barry hess. >> as you can artie tells, i can tell you what is going to happen. the democrat telling you he knows how to spend your money, raise and educate your children

and control your personal life that are then you can. the republican will be a little different. he will tell you he knows how to raise your children and spend your money. i am a libertarian and have to tell you, i believe these are things only you can do. i do not agree that we have to continue funding an excessively bloated education program. we are not getting our money's worth and more money is not the answer. otherwise washington would not be a willing us out of last place in the state. i think you will see all whole lot of differences that mindful always be focused on the rights of the individual and protecting you. that is why i want to be your governor. >> let's get the discussion started. how are you going to balance the budget you don't court say you have to pay for them. how will you pay for them? >> the supreme court has ruled

and said the voters were quite clear that we needed to pray -- pay back the money. the first place to start is the rainy day fund. so we need to use the rainy day fund to begin the process of a multiyear commitment. then we need to go through a variety of other steps to make sure we can make state government more efficient. i think it offers many possibilities that much is -- must establish the priorities. my absolute prayer theory -- priority is no more cuts. we see the largest class sizes. record levels of teacher flight from our state and these are all a result of the sustained cutting of education and balancing the budget on the backs of education. that has to stop. >> 300 million every year. >> the first thing we wanted to do is make sure we're spending the money in the proper places. i want to see the dollars go to

teachers in the classrooms. i wanted to go to funding what works and want to focus on literacy that can make the biggest difference in the state of arizona. 1.7 billion dollars cash today at 454 in a reserve account earning interest. i am going to balance the budget one fiscal year at a time. let's make sure we are properly spending the dollar so we're best serving our children, teachers and the parents. like that money will have to be accounted for somehow. how will you balance the budget that so >> we will look at everything going on in the budget. i am a business person. i want to go through the budget line and dollar by dollar. we have 27% of the states work force outside of education that is eligible for retirement in the next four years. you do not have to let one person go but through disciplined hiring and the use of technology you can find

savings and efficiencies, and that is what i will do as governor. >> we are not talking about three point one million in back pavement's how will you balance the budget? >> i believe with the industry kit and it is all detailed in the book that i have. i detail how we can take the state trust fund or trust land and break it down with taxable property. these industries have been knocking on our door for at least 25 years. we need to bring them in. we need to allow the taxable property to be taxed. >> what do you think? >> i think if we have a surplus, we can just pay it off now. my plan calls for using the rainy day fund and reclaiming some of the lands the feds have taken it and selling it for the purpose of education. most importantly what i will

strive for is asking the voters to repeal the mandatory spending. it is not about money. we have artie seen that. we had to cut the spending because the education budget absorbs almost 50% of the budget. >> can i go back to this. i want to talk about the two ideas doug has put on the table. the notion we can capture hundreds of billions in reorganization of the state government. this was the effort to do just that. we lost children detective services in the process. sometimes the agency stand independently say you have accountability. secondly, the notion we are not going to fill state positions as they come open is a foolish risk. are we not going to replace dps officers on the border? are we not going to replace corrections officers when they retire? that is a very dangerous idea. >> the notion he would not put

public safety first is a distortion of what i am talking about. 80 separate agencies representing a billion in annual spending. anyone who thinks they cannot tighten the belt for bits and cannot do better in the bloated bureaucracies. i think we need to look at the core functions. that is why i talk about the education system, moving arizona in the right direction. we can do a whole lot better than we are doing today. >> the push for a temporary sales tax hike and she thought it was necessary in the voters said it was ok one time. would you push for a temporary tax hike of any kind if the education funding became a burden? >> i will not raise taxes. we will fund k-12 education. we can do this. i am looking at this for the next fiscal year. we have to kickstart the

economy. there is only one candidate at the table that has been endorsed by the arizona chamber of commerce and the national federation of independent businesses. these are business and job creators origin small. the way to grow the economy is to reform the tax code and simplify it too late in regulation and make burdens less. >> i think you have to be on her -- honest with voters about the choices. this is 40% of the budget. it means cut. medicaid is voter protected. if you want to see income tax, you will cut education. >> i have been candidate. i center like to improve the tax code. i think we should simplify our tax code, flatten it. my opinion is it is the viewers money.

they have earned it and i want them to keep more of it. we can go in a better direction with the tax code but it will take time. it will take a growing economy and a more effective government. you proposed $4 billion in additional spending. you said you won't raise taxes. >> that is a ridiculous notion. what i am saying is we have -- we should enforce the voters decision that we pay back the schools for the cuts we took. you want to appeal it and defy the order. >> looking forever a opportunity. -- for an opportunity. you opposed it. >> i am not for tax increases. >> every opportunity you have had, you have been on the other side. >> i have sat on the board for teach for america, the school board at arizona state

university. i want to spend the dollars responsibly and get them to the classroom. not just blow more money. >> enough. quit it. >> a spirited debate. what we have to talk about is redefining education in arizona. the nation is down there in the world. we used to be number one. i think a lot of it is they have gotten us away from the competitive schools. that is the hallway innovation comes into play. i am sure we will talk about common core at some point. it is really not about the money. it is about restructuring. we sought tuition in the college going up incredibly. how did that translate to the students cap geoeye think a more ubiquitous education is a lot smarter. m.i.t. started it.

the distance learning. showing you can get a far better education than brick-and-mortar counterparts without the spreading of disease, bad behavior come logistics of security and the other stuff that comes with government schools. >> the idea. you better have a lot of connections to make up for hundreds of millions of dollars every year. >> actually, i do. i believe this will take people with the dream of a business, the dream of growing the existing business and put them into the five-year plan where they can go public if they would like to and retire. my plan is that solid and that's good. as far as the industries, the hemp industry, we need to legalize hemp. it is a product that replace everything from rubber to fiber class. that is huge. that is an industry well into the trillions of dollars.

lex you think the idea of putting a tax on marijuana sells? >> legalizing cannabis. we should do that as well. >> the arizona property rate higher than the national average and the poverty graft -- poverty cap is growing. our job recovery is not what the national average is. what is going on out there? this should weigh on all of us. we want to point out who these people are. these are seniors, single mothers and children and unacceptable. my commitment is to serve all so that we can have a better future. the away -- way to do this is to have an economy where it is growing. and hanging out help wanted signs and where companies look to arizona as the perfect place for which to do business. i am tired of politicians talking about job creators

rhetorically. i want to go to california and bring businesses here. people are leaving chicago. businesses are going to indiana, florida, and texas. let's bring them to arizona. >> what do you think is the reason the poverty rate is higher than the national average and job recovery rate is lower? >> the poverty rates are going down in the rest of the country and going up and arizona. that is why i started by saying we're headed in the wrong direction. increasingly what i hear from businesses looking to relocate if they look at the tax rate and think verizon has made a lot of progress. they look at the regulatory environment and say arizona is not bad. then they get to the core question, will the employees have the talent i need to be successful? will the employees and might employees children have good schools to go to cope we have to

be able to answer that question and show a commitment to our school. these cuts that have resulted in 500 classrooms. the largest classrooms in the united states. we're not making the assurances that business needs to see from us. >> you have talked about tax cuts repeatedly. the growth is zero. they have a budget deficit about as high as it is in the nation. schools closing and classes closing. is that what we want? >> let's talk about texas, florida, comparative states where people are already moving to. we know how to educate a child. three of the top 10 high schools in the country. no other state has that bragging right. standing 10 billion dollars to educate just over one million schoolchildren. in many places we know how to do

it well, but for the past decade there has been a decreasing percentage of resources going to the classroom to support our teachers. that is going in the wrong direction. i want to see every available dollar supporting teachers teaching and student learning. that is where you make the difference. >> can you compare arizona with texas or florida or kansas when it comes to low or zero income taxes? >> my plan calls for eliminating on the moral basis. even if they come with a gun and say it is for the children. so how do we raise the money cap coke i have moved it to a transaction tax. combined with a single tax on businesses. 4% on the gross. no deductions. that will create the environment to bring the jobs here and money here.

we cannot have politicians picking and choosing who they will visit. we have to create an atmosphere where we are business friendly and open and honest. along with that, we have to fund education. i think we have gone overboard trying to teach all of our students everything about every job when in fact we should narrow the focus to be able to learn the school -- skills so they can master that and allow the corporations to come in and then further the education for what they specific we need. it makes better sense to pinpoint the education at that point than trying to teach everyone everything in a government school. >> you have the property tax that is different as well. can you compare or mers honor to texas and florida? kansas sitting out there like a sore thumb. >> i do not think any of them compare. they'll have different states

and have different geographical differences. states do not compare. students do not compare. the tax code cannot compare because they have different needs and wants. i can tell very clearly how we can take anyone at the table who wants to create their own job, cold stone, id telling exactly where it comes from. the water company? yes. detail exactly where the money will come from. take you to be in a global company if you want. >> i think it is more important to get government out of the way. we saw in california with a repealed one law and created 1000 businesses in three days. that is how government creates businesses, by getting out of it the way.

>> i think kansas is a warning sign to avoid race to the bottom and the complete collapse in the bond market. getting new ratings, this investing in schools. employers are concerned they will not have the workforce they need. schools have taken massive cuts. we want to stop the cuts and get back to investing in our children's future. >> the big spenders want to take one year and become an alarmist. nine states have a better, more preferable tax code. not only are we comparable to places like wyoming and new hampshire, we are competitive. states compete and governors compete. these companies are leaving and have -- and looking for a place to go. a great place to live, work, play, retire and visit and in many places, get an education. we have to stop the blame arizona first mentality. i will talk to leaders and

influencers and we will drive the economy in the right direction. >> i hear what you're saying and keep hearing how the cornea is the double on the west coast. they are always at the top of job creation. always at the top of wages. companies are moving to california to benefit from a variety of things that seems like an arizona we're still debating on. things like education and such. >> california is driving people and producers out. this is not a well-run state. the largest growth has been met migration from california and illinois. it is a beautiful state and has been incredible innovation but they are doing everything they can to kill the golden goose. for the next decade until they straighten that direction out, the governor should take full advantage. i visited a company last week

that had moved here from california. they could not take the tax burden or quality of life. >> how do you explain the fact california still leads in job creation and the other metrics? >> they have an innovation-based economy. the gifts that keep going because they are going after 21st century innovation. silicon valley and i.t., etc.. that is the connection we need to it -- need to commit. the idea we can be texas or nevada -- they simply capture the revenue someplace else. i do not know whether doug is proposing a property tax or a sales tax. if you're going to repeal, you will cut k-12 education or you will raise taxes someplace else. >> that is a distortion of my record.

we know the model state is california. my model state is texas. rick perry retires in november 2014. texas has led the nation in economic development, business relocation. i want to be the next governor. i believe arizona can leave the way. >> i did not say we should follow california. what i said is investing and each -- investing in education has worked across the country. time for us to make sure our children have the skills to succeed in life. your proposal to cut education. >> i am saying i would settle the lawsuit that i want to see the dollars go into the classroom. i have no power to settle a lawsuit. >> you would be all right if the lawsuit was settled? >> i would much rather pay teachers the moyers.

that base suit is important. i want to make sure we can be responsible going forward. this is a hypothetical. i would like to settle this and put the appropriate amount of money into education. any cheap executive when asked, where are the money's being spent and had we best serve teachers and children? >> i would settle the lawsuit. i want to negotiate the baseline. the baseline is important. i would sit down. i am open-minded to the settlement. i want to see us have a smaller baseline to protect the budget going forward. you have $4 billion. >> if that is the math, at least

at my house that delivers a buck or two under my sons pillows. at your house lately than i owe you. it will not be money left with the amount of spending you have in front. >> may stroke lost his tooth last week and i assure you he got his money. >> we have to be look -- careful looking for job creation. the jobs are very short term. they get a lot of them because of legislation. they are not long-term high-paying jobs. >> the circus is going round. as opposed to standing outside waiting to get a ticket. >> it requires higher taxes and higher education. is that an option? >> not with me. if we are picking states, i am picking arizona. i believe it would be successful if we did not have party politics getting in the way.

someone with a good idea should not need to drive -- bribe someone to get a vote to make something good happen for our state. for the past two years that is all we have had. >> john is right. we have seen the border issue. since 1980 the border issue has been exactly the same. the same is true of education. we have to really step back and take an intelligent look at reshaping our government and how it interacts with the people. i think it is critical. >> with the way everyone is talking, i am amazed anyone lives in arizona. it seems like 70 or 80% of the hands go up. people are moving here. we need to maximize the population growth to economic development, job creation, and win more companies coming here.

it is very doable. the chief executive for this can make it happen. >> we hear a lot about this, getting government out of the way. cutting income taxes come of corporate taxes. republicans have been in power for quite a while now. when are we going to get the arizona turnaround? >> when you get the governor who will break the tie and take sensible action based on the ideas, not the party. i am literally the only one who can walk the aisle without fear of political repercussions. i have brought all the groups last year together in a historic moment over 35 years and 35 tries in putting forward a citizens referendum on some of the most egregious flaws that had ever been devised trying to steal the election.

we turned it back and make them eat it. it took everyone from the super liberals and super conservative and was the only one who could bring it together. >> i am the other guy. the one who has no ties and does not care about a political life. i am the guy that has the plans written down. let's just say i am not elect it. will everyone agree to at least hear me out on this plan, because it is the only thing that will save arizona right now. legalizing hemp would be a great plus. >> people badmouthing arizona, negative image of arizona. what is arizona's image around the country? we are the but of joke on some programs but people keep moving here. >> i love arizona. i love eric -- every part.

we have opportunity to remind the rest of the country how innovative we are, how much we are a startup economy and what their grades economy this is to start businesses and grow. we have to answer the questions if we're going to get the job growth we have had in the past and want in the future. xd you think verizon has an image of intolerance? >> i do not. i think we have real issues but i think whenever you have a state where so many people have moved here from all across the country, you place that is warm and welcoming and optimistic were good things can happen. there have been folks that have communicated issues that i would do differently. that is what i talk about when i say i want to take charge in the direction of the state. arizona one candidate who is known and loved around the country. i think of arizona in many ways as a blank slate.

i want to communicate this out. >> you think there is no reason to attempt to repair the image that so >> i think we have to go forward. we were here in 1995 when they were here. i would say it was worse. it is not that we did not get the super bowl, the nfl took it away. we will have it in january where the eyes of the world will be focused on the state. nothing like a new governor to set a new tone and new direction. >> i think 10-50 two did do damage to the reputation. -- 10-62 did do damage to the reputation. they are bad for describing who we are. we are a tolerant place. we need to celebrate our diversity and grow with the diversity and make sure we are communicating place where talent can succeed. >> when you -- would you look at it again echoplex i said i would

be told that. i said with any issue i will bring people to the table. i said this is democrats sitting state legislator catherine aranda has joined my campaign. i am reaching across the isle to show i will do what is in the best interest. my campaign is about opportunity for all. you can tell a lot by how someone will govern either campaign. that is something you want to continue to broaden. this is just like i have been listening to parents and teachers across the state. >> my coalition includes hundreds of republicans. it included 20 some republican elected officials with whom i worked. democratic governor with republican legislature. we did the groundwater coat.

some of the greatest i partisan achievements, we were growing and succeeding in a bipartisan collaborative way. i have carried that through my life. i am a problem solve or and can demonstrate my capacity to create collaboration. >> i can see a problem with that in saying bipartisan. there are more than two. the air against is pervasive. when you were talking about the reputation of arizona, i think most people separate the more colorful personalities from arizona it self a cousin to hear from all of us it is a great place. we have great weather. business is not so much. we have to get kids who can learn. that is why i said let's go to a competency test. that would make more sense. we do not care for once make sure you are educated.

so you can work on them without the whole blanket idea. i think we have to bring them here with the idea we will do something bold, different and enjoyed seeing arizonans. you bring your own dam schools here and teach the kids what they need to know to work for >> your investment ideas, can they work if arizona does not have a strong enough image that attracts businesses? >> yes, because they are to be based on arizonans becoming the people they want to be. not all of arizona wants to sit around on minimum wage or welfare, whatever it might be. there are millions that one to get to work, create the jobs. we have frank now, who is blocking anyone from investing in the business.

we need to get beyond that and work above and be crossed -- and across. >> going to immigration ideas. the governor says no drivers license for those with a deferred status. undocumented. the rule of law has to be applied at some point. is that valid? >> i think this is a mistake. 48 states allow them to drive. i think we should join with the rest of the nation. these dreamers have been raised here, successful here and have erved in the military. they are going to school. it is in our interest that they be all they can be. that they contribute to our economy. that they be as successful as they can be. it will be the first thing i do as governor, to repeal the prohibition. it is important for public safety reasons. it's important that they be insured and foreign everybody's safety. this has been a divisive way of treating members of our community, it's bad policy, and i will change it. >> i think we need to step back and look at how we got here. the discussions around border

security and immigration is not just one party's fault. there is enough lame to go around. this is the federal government that has not paid attention to the first duty to arizona. i have agreed with the governor's decision because i am going to have respect and compassion for everyone. i do not think anyone gets the privileges and benefits of hard-working arizona families that are paid for by a hard-working arizona taxpayers. we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of loss. >> critics say it is a mean-spirited move and counterproductive. how do you respond? >> i say to the federal government, what are you doing on our southern border? we have a state that has a wide open and unprotected border, and this has been going on for years. in the tucson sector. e have agents by the thousands

that are in this state but not inside the border counties. i would like to see us be able to work not only with county sheriff's and law enforcement agents, so we can address the very real issues that are happening in these states and then we can deal with some of the other issues around immigration. >> so not mean-spirited, not counterproductive. >> i want to start with border security. and then talk about immigration. >> it is counterproductive in and mean-spirited. it is bad economic policy. we want to make sure these dreamers can fully contribute to economic growth in the success. they are part of our community, they're going to be part of our community and it's important that we give them the tools to succeed. >> do you think they should be deported? >> i have never said that. i said i am for opportunity for all, and that is the type of governor i want to be but i have talked about the priority for how i would like to see this issue unfold. >> the rule of law at some point, no deportation.

>> i said let's start with border security. >> i have had the opportunity to travel. you can get insurance for crying out loud. people are still going to drive but they will drive uninsured. that is a big issue these days. not just the dreamers ither. anyone should be able to come here on a visitors pass. if they want to work, find and -- fine, and we can tag them with a 5% tax for non-nationals working here to go to a fund to take care of education, medical care and whatever they want. let them do that for access to our markets. that is where the distinctions have to be made. government, unfortunately, it does not run like a business. it runs the opposite as a business, and that's what becomes very scary. you have to know how to spend money. with a business, you have to

know how to make money. >> do you want to see government run like a business? >> government needs to be run like a business, but you have to protect the businesses. you cannot run it like a business because there is no profit. we need to break even. we are not doing that because we need businesses to exist to pay in the taxes. the property taxes for the businesses on property that is not normally taxed, millions of acres. >> the idea of running government like a business, does that sound palatable to you? something government should look harder at? >> there are elements that apply to government but a different function. government is in the business of public safety and creating a climate for private-sector opportunity. but there's no question that you want to bring accountability metrics to county government. i've propose an entirely new funding system. moved to a productivity-based model, holding them more accountable for outputs for graduation.

these are applicable to us. to state agencies. >> i asked the question because businesses nhra the business of making a profit. government is in the, quote/unquote, service. can you really run a government like a business? >> government is not a business. businesses are intended to grow and make a profit. what you can do with a government is there are business principles, like paying the proper attention to the people in which it serves, our hard-working taxpayers, on being accountable and actually living within your means. when you are in a business setting, a budget means something. in government often times it doesn't. the business principles -- meaning what you say, saying what you mean, paying attention and serving, in this case, not the customer, but the taxpayers, i think are the best principles of government that you can add from the business community. >> let's go to dark money. do arizona voters deserve to know who's paying for the ads

attacking you and attacking you? do we deserve to know that? >> yes. i wish there was full disclosure. i issued a dark money challenge to all the candidates, please join me in calling out the funding. we will conduct the campaign through the candidates' voices, not the dark money. no one took me up on the offer. this has become very corrosive to our ability to have an exchange of ideas of the candidates. it's been taken over by nameless and faceless folks hat do not even live here. >> how do you find out the names and faces? >> they should be disclosed. we should have state and federal laws that require the disclosure. they are not going away under the current supreme court decisions. so let them be disclosed and get them part of the process. >> i would like to see more transparency.

i think it is interesting that fred says that. fred, you are the money man for the democrat governor's association. the same organization that is running these ads. you're the person that collected the money to buy these ads in your past career. i am curious as to your position now. >> doug, you've had millions of llars spent by the governors association, millions of dollars. before that you did that with christine jones. you have been succeeding in the process by tearing down the opponents. i think you should stop it. this is about creating an affirmative agenda. >> i want people to judge me out of what's coming out of my campaign. it's been a positive, optimistic, pro job creation method. fred, we're both playing by the same rules. i'm new to politics. people know what i've done with my career. i have been selling ice cream, you have been peddling influence. you've been a lawyer and a lobbyist and you've been a democratic bag man for these

ads in the past. >> doug, you know my background. it is completely open. you sold the business and it is a closed file. you know that it is. so i have a question for you. what happened in that arbitration? i think the voters deserve to know whether or not you were accused of material misrepresentation. were you accused of material misrepresentation? >> what was there was the people that purchased coldstone creamery said there was complete satisfaction, that i built a great company, and i would build a great brand. >> fred, what you have not done is -- you're calling for transparency. >> would you disclose your list of clients as a lobbyist? >> sure. >> ok, can you tell us what your list of clients were? >> doug, there's on your tv ads. you've done full opposition research, they're ail on our tv ads and i'd like to know what happened in the arbitration. were you acued for withholding material information? you didn't answer the question. >> yes, i did, complete

atisfaction. >> come on now. when we talk about dark money, talking about money that is not supposed to be correlated with campaigns. i would think there would be a great penalty if any of the groups, if they did coordinate it would disqualify the candidate and make it something serious. ven more so, there is dark money out there in front of god and everybody. and there's two debates that doug and i were excluded on, on channel 10 and channel 12. that is in-kind advertising for republicans and democrats. that is all it is. that is as dark as it gets. the rest of the money is shameless. >> when it comes to the advertisements that are attacking these gentlemen -- shouldn't we be able to know who is behind the ads? >> we know who is behind them. democrats and republicans. >> a little deeper. a little deeper in the onion than that. >> we could probably find out the individual.

they are tied to parties. that is where the trouble comes from. that is where it will stay. >> that's move on. -- let's move on. access. expansion/restoration. did arizona do the right thing? >> the governor and the legislature have done what they have done. i have spoken out aggressively against obamacare. and i'm no fan of it. i think it's a rolling disaster nd a monumental failure. as our governor, i want to focus on the budget situation so we're spending the proper dollars to rest store education and move the economy in the right direction. i am not a fan of any expansion of government. what we have is a three year guarantee from the federal government. this is something that our next gopher will have to look for ways to improve and reform. my ideas are more price transparency and health savings account. >> so if the legislature passed

a repeal, what would you do? hypothetically, what would you do? >> it is a hypothetical. if you look at the budget, my first job will be protecting arizona taxpayers. because we have the guarantee from the federal government, i think we would not want to do that. >> so you would not repeal it. at least not for the next three years. >> i think the opportunity i would like to dive in on this is for reform. to have a better program. everyone wants to have access to a superior health care system. i want to sew that as well. i just do not think the federal government has done a good job in delivering it. >> you said the government did what they did. >> yes. >> is what they did a good thing? >> i said i am running on the issues of the future. i'm not a huge fan of the expansion of government. i would have wanted to tinker. some of these have gone for block grants. for waivers. they are innovative and inventive. but our governor was not

delivered. it was a very difficult decision. she was the leader. i have said what i said. >> this is certainly coming. how to handle the repeal. a legislature that is certainly coming. the next governor will have to make a decision whether to repeal or not. doug was for it and then against it. now what's done is done. so it's a little unclear. i have had one position. i helped build access in the 1980's with the governor. it is a national best practice. extremely proud of the bipartisan coalition. we negotiated this out and took it to the reagan white house and received the first waiver of the kind that enabled us to do this very successful model. the restoration was the right idea and the team that put it together were correct in doing so to repeal it, will devastate a health care rule in arizona and knock hundreds of thousands of arizonaans out of their health care.

it would be a very harmful thing to do. >> we have an access program here second to none. everyone wants to get in access, and unfortunately they are. it becomes a real burden to the taxpayers. i would like to see the taxpayers absorbing the risk of being alive like we used to. i think that would be smart. when you do have to scale back access, it is not a plus to say it is growing and expanding. like a welfare program. oh, gee, now we have 50,000 new people on it. this is an abysmal failure. we do not want people on the government dole or depending on government, because like we saw with welfare cards, we shut down for a week and then it drove people into a panic. in maryland. now people were totally dependent on government. i want to see in arizona where we get back to the s

telve responsibility. and ke care of ourselves encourage others to do that, so when the power goes out we have a battery pack that we do not go out. i want to be innovative, not just hold on to the past and see what we've got now. >> john? >> we can do better. access has its problems right now. my wife has cancer. certain treatments cut off right towards the end. that is where we're sitting. we cannot deal with that type of the system. we can do better. i have a detailed plan in my book that explains how we can get the best insurance for very arizonian, plus some. >> it is not insurance or health care. >> i think it should be health care. i saw the arguments which to left give everyone insurance.

i want to revitalize the county hospital program so people are not dying in the street. it is not government first on -- government's responsibility to cover them on insurance, for crying out loud. >> more people are uninsured right now. uncompensated care at hospitals is getting to be an untenable position. is that a bad thing for arizona? >> whenever we have more people that are protected, i think that is a good thing. my concern is what happens over the course of time. that is why i talk about a health-care system putting the patient in charge of the doctor relationship. rather than the employer and the insurance company. i think there is a lot of opportunity for improvement in american health care. i think we have the best system in the world but not the best distribution system. what we have seen is a redistribution of insurance benefits. i think we can do better. there are many doctors refusing to take access. why do we want to put more people on an insurance program that doctors do not want to

accept? we can do better, that's the point. >> is this a penny wise, pound-foolish type of thing? >> i think the circuit breaker is a good idea. i have worked with governors across the states and i'm confident that the federal government will not walk away from its commitment. the reimbursement rate is very high. if they do, we have the circuit breaker. we have a 90% reimbursement ate. this is money from the taxpayers that will go to other states that have taken the opportunity to do restoration and would be foolish to repeal it. >> did fred just say he is very confident the federal government will not walk away from its commitment? >> i believe we need to move forward and not repeal it. >> i still think the federal government, they are here to help us.

>> no, i don't think they're here to help us. i believe that the circuit breaker is the right tool and we should not use the fear around this issue to not take advantage of this opportunity to stabilize our economy, to assure health care opportunities and to do it at this kind of reimbursement level. >> talking about tools, it makes more sense to get government completely out of people's health care because the estimates are running between 60% and 80% drop in all aspects of health care. 60% to 80% are the different things -- and these are from people who do the hipaa compliance and all those things. but we'd be able to handle our own health care out of our hip pockets. that makes more sense than devising these convoluted nsurance programs. >> we are running out of time. how is arizona supposed to work with things like immigration for example and other aspects in which a relationship is mportant if we have an

an tagism toward the federal government? >> i want to make the case for what we want to do here in this state, and i'm willing to work with anyone. the endorsements that i announced tonight shows that i'll reach across the aisle. but i want to be the gofrpble that brings the most innovative ideas. i want to get our dollars back in this state so we can be in charge of many of these programs. i will work with the federal government but i'd like to be the governor of the state and take charge, not have it run out of washington, d.c. >> in working with the federal government, how do you become -- some folks believe it's federal intrusion. how do you avoid that federal intrusion when you're trying to work with something like the federal government? how do you stand up to your own? >> you have to speak for arizonians. frequently washington, d.c. is out of touch. doesn't understand the west. doesn't understand arizona. and arizona's governor has an important role to play in

making sure that what is unique to arizona, that we -- that they respect what is unique about arizona, that we can chart our own destiny. it's who we are. we are pioneers, innovators. we have to have our own voice and have faungsal relationship with the federal government to make it work. >> each candidate will give a one-minute closing statement and going in the reverse order of the opening remarks, we start with barry hess. >> well i just want to say i hope everyone has seen the debate and understand the whole idea of growing government by both the republicans and the democrats is a poison cake. it might taste good now, but it's going to come back to haunt all of us. i want to ask everyone to please go up to hessforgovernor.com and see complete issues, where we've put them up there for people and it's pretty serious. when we're talking -- since we have a little bit of a minute here -- on common core, it's an

idea that wants to homogenize all of education. that is what destroys education. what made us great was our innovation and our competition. when i was a kid we said my school's better than your school and we can back it up. with common core the kids say my school's just like yours. please, don't let the future of arizona rest on sameness and a lack of innovation. i ask for your vote. >> thank you very much. doug ducey now with his closing remarks. >> my name is doug ducey and i do want to be your next governor. it's been great joining you tonight for this debate. i'm running on the real-world experience as a businessman and a job creator. i've spent the last nearly four years managing $12.5 billion of your assets that by any measurement are in better condition and growing faster than they were just a short time ago. i've built the broadest coalition of any candidate. and i'll continue to reach out. you can tell a lot about how someone will govern by how they will campaign. i'm proud to have katherine

miranda on my team and proud in a very spirited primary to have every one of my republican opponents endorsing this campaign, unifying the party and moving forward. i want to be an independent voice to kick-start our economy so the arizonians that have been displaced can find a job and a fulfilling career. i want to restore the greatness of our k-12 education system and take charge of the direction of our state. dougducey.com, doug ducey on facebook if you want more information. thanks for having me tonight. >> thank you. for our next closing statement, we turn to john mealer. > hi, i'm john mealer, jlmealer if.com if you want to check out the website. i believe arizona needs to run arizona. i don't believe the parties are acting in our best interests. they are all located in d.c., or at least the outlying areas. that's where the money is coming from, this dark money we keep hearing about. i don't think there's really a

debate. is the money paying for the candidates or for the elected official later? it will be paying definitely fort elected official. we've been in statehood for 102 years. it hasn't changed. d's play for d's, r's play for r's, and they leave us out. arizona is left out in the middle. we need someone that can create jobs, that has a plan already on the table, someone that's willing to do what needs to be done and doesn't have a political future to worry about. thanks. >> all right, thank you very much. and fred duval now with his closing statement. >> thank you, ted. we have a lot of work to do to move arizona forward, but we are filled with opportunities to do that. but it all starts with our children. it all starts with making sure that all of our children have the tools to succeed, and we need to stop the cuts to our education system in order to provide that kind of future. so my vision is in arizona, where test scores are going up.

where cost sizes are coming down. where our teachers are paid a livable wage so they stay in the classroom and give our students the kind of skills that they need to succeed. where we transform our education system in a way that provides the skilled workforce of the future. when we do that, new businesses will come, new technologies will come. they are hungry for an educated work force for the future and that's the kind of arizona that we want. it means jobs, it means opportunities, it means a new day for arizona. thank you. >> all right, thank you, candidates. and that is it for now. i'm ted simons. thank you so much for joining us. you have a great evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tonight, coverage from campaign 2014, as north carolina incumbent republican renee elmers faces democrat clay aiken in a debate for the second congressional district. hosted by the north carolina bankers on,. we'll be showing the debate tonight at 8:00 eastern time.

>> tonight on "the communicators," jerami grant who promotes internet security talks about ways to increase data protection with alternatives to passwords and basic security. >> the government is not looking to endorse any particular solution, but rather to describe at a high level the attributes of what these solutions should look like, that they have to be secure, easy to use and interoperable and let that be a guidepost for the industry to start developing solutions around it. so just looking at the pilots we have, we have some that are looking at smartphone-based apps which will basically be used in lieu of a password to log into different sites. others are at the timing on different types of biometrics, fingerprint, face, voice regular in addition. not to say that every one will be the solution or even the solution for everybody, but they're the kind of things that we're testing out. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on

"the communicators" on c-span2. >> tomorrow on "washington talks " -- chris chocola about fiscally conservative candidates in congress. then ben wickler of moveon.org discusses his group's goal to help the senate remain under democratic control after the midterm elections. and after that, our c-span bus big ten college tour is at the university of maryland, where president wallace loh looks at higher education. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal"'s live tuesday and every day at 7:00 .m. eastern on c-span. last week c-span's campaign 2014 coverage brought you an oklahoma governor debate between incumbent mir yay fallin and joe dorman. it was the first and only

debate between the two candidates, and here's a portion of it now. >> in light of recent natural disasters and school shootings, how do each of you plan on updating emergency plans for oklahoma's public school system? >> bailey, that's a great question. we certainly want to make sure that all facilities in the state of oklahoma, especially public buildings and public schools, are safe. i've just recently this week received the n.r.a. endorsement which i'm very proud of. i'm a big supporter of the second amendment of the state of oklahoma and certainly we want to make sure that we do everything we can to create safe facilities at our school. that's why i propose allowing local school districts to look at their local needs to be able to decide if they immediate to enhance their school safety facilities in their schools and be able to make those decisions and decide how much they can afford, what they need to do in the schools and that's something that's very, very

important. i work with our patrol and hls that keep the public aware of any potential threats. we had a tragic episode that happened in the state of oklahoma this week that shook us down to our very foundation and we want to do everything that we can to make sure that oklahoma is aware that whenever there is a threat that we address those concerns very quickly and that we keep our public informed. but i guess to get back to say that we're doing everything we can to make sure we have an emergency plan in place and we certainly have initiated that many times. i was actually lieutenant governor when we had the federal miura building that was bombed back many, many years ago. i was there during a difficult time in oklahoma's history and we're going to do everything that we can to make sure we're safe as citizens and protect our second amendment rights. >> thank you very much. representative dorman, you have 90 seconds. >> thank you very much. sometimes talk is cheap on this, and we need real

leadership. we need action that will respond to this. four years ago, when janet barrise took over and the state department of education, one of the programs that she eliminated right off the bat was the emergency hotline to call in for issues that might be facing your school. we saw when the council met just a couple of years ago that was one the first suggestions to re-institute. now the board that my opponent appointed has backed up all of these policies that we've seen go through the school policies that have hurt our schools. we must see real action and real leadership that will set down. i championed that a couple of years ago. we had a meeting at my hometown and i invited school superintendents, school professionals, teachers and parents from all over the state to discuss what we could do better, in bartlessville we almost saw a tragedy similar to what we saw in sandy hook. but that was averted because students acted the right way.

they reported a situation. we must encourage these students to look for these situations. and work with their school administrators. partnership between the municipalities and the school districts to have that mentor position, that law enforcement officer in the schools, to help provide that safety and security. we must work to make sure the teachers have the right resources. we cannot continue these cuts. >> recent polling has the oklahoma governor race listed as solid republican. see the entire debate and dozens of others online at our website, c-span.org. >> earlier today louisiana governor bobby jindal discussed his policy plan and called for military spending to be 4% of g.d.p. from the american enterprise institute, this is an hour. . .

. . >> thank you for joining us here today. i'm danielle, the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies here at the american enterprise institute. we are very pleased and honored to welcome governor bobby jindal to the american enterprise scoot to give a talk on rebuilding american defense. governor jindal has ang enormously impressive bio, soim pressive that i'm not going to go through all of it with you here today. quickly, he's in his second term as governor of louisiana. he represented louisiana's first district in the house of representatives with his freshman class president in the

house. and the rest of his biois available on our website, as will be the text of his talk here today. after the governor speaks, he'll sit down for a chat with the co-director of the maryland center for security studies, tom donley, and take questions from the audience. now, you all may ask, why is the governor of louisiana giving a talk on defense here at a.e.i.? setting aside the american servicemen and women who are based in or are from louisiana, i want to point to a larger reason. the world is falling apart, just in case you hadn't noticed, from hong kong to crimea, to the south china sea, libya, sear yarks iraq, yemen, iran, mali, somalia, liberia. i could go on here. this maelstrom of war, terror, death and disease has

implications for every american, not just for white house political strategists. as we at a.e.i. have been sounding the alarm on this issue for sometime now, i'm delighted that this is an issue that more americans are beginning to think about, because the fallout from these crises, if they continue unmanaged, if we fail to lead, if we cannot afford to lead, will affect every one of us. over to you, governor. [applause] >> thank you all very much. thank you for the generous introduction. i want to thank owe hosts at a.e.i. and for the work you do. not only on the issue we'll talk about today but several other topics as well. i want to recognize the senator, who co-authored with me today to pay for "america next" that goes into greater detail. jim, thank you for your

friendship and leadership on these very important issues. as we draw to the close of the politically relevant portion of the obama presidency, the years in which the president had the power to get anything done and the interest in doing it, we're at a point where we can assess the nation and the world that president obama is leaving us. much of the recent media coverage of the obama presidency has focused on the frustrations of the president with the political process. time and again he turns to the third person to explain the in effectness of his leadership. it is always "they" who stand against his noble ails, they who botched obamacare, they who underestimated the threats of isis. for this president there's always somebody else to blame. for all that's been written about president obama's negative impact on american businesses, i'll give him this -- no president has done so much for the strawman industry.

[laughter] every day he sets one on fire. whatever you want to say about his golf game, this guy knows how to use a flamethrower. but i would argue that this blaming of the third person is actually wrong, because for the most part we actually live in the america that president obama wanted to create. we live in the country and the world that progress has wanted. where we are didn't happen by accident. it didn't happen because president obama was frustrated by the political process. it happened because, as richard weaver told us, ideas have consequences, and what is an america governed under those ideas look like? on the domestic front we are a nation faltering through a lackluster recovery, one that has been marked by profits gathered by the profitable and well connected and staggering wages and dim prospects for those of us who are not. it is a fation with effectively a cradle to grave welfare state

with a federal government that bribes the states with taxpayer dollars, barred from china that our -- borrowed from china that our kids will have to repay, they are trapped in a lifetime of disincentives for success. a nation marked by exhaustion and discouragement and fear, where wealth and power are centralized in an immense and out-of-control federal government. a nation where people feel they no longer have a voice, where the massive administrative state seeks to control almost every aspect of our lives. it is a nation of back-room deals, where regulators run the show and those who play ball get bailouts. on the international front things are arguably even worse. here president obama's ideas have had even less restriction, so the consequences are clearer. i'm hardly the first conservative to criticize president obama president obama for his lack of commitment to the idea of american conceptualism. but it is a real critique and

i'm going to explain what it means. when president obama rejects american exceptionalism, what he's doing is embracing the idea long held by progressives going back a century, that we are simply members of a global village. all of us sharing principles and cultures of equal merit. no country has principles that are better than in others. there is no nation, no system of government or understanding of rights that is exceptional. i wish president obama had watched" incredibles," because then he'd know that when everybody is special, actually, nobody is. the danger of this idea is that it ignores the unique and distinct role that the united states is called to play in the world, because of her strength, her resources, and her historical commitment to freedom and human dignity. ideas do have consequences. it is only when you conclude that we are all just citizens

of the world, with ideas that are just as valuable as anybody else's, that you would come to the conclusion that the united states should lead from behind, which really means, of course, not leading at all. it would take too much of your valuable time for me to list a bill of particulars of all the consequences of president obama's failure on the international stage. today we see a world in which the obama administration has neglected or abandoned america's long-standing eye lies. our special relationship with britain is gone. nato is drifting. eastern europe is disaffected and israel has been purposely alienated from the united states. consider the consequences of just the past year. it has brought us the rise of isis and the capture of mo sull. russia's expansion, and new heights of crisis in the middle east in israel, more chinese

aggression and conflict in the south china sea, more bombing in libya, more saber rattling from north korea, a dangerous trend of anti-semitism and a refugee crisis in our own borders. for anyone with a degree of introspection, this would be a time to consider whether the ramification of your ideas were leading the world to experience more chaos and less clarity. but that is not what president obama has done. he has not reconsidered whether his approach to leadership is perhaps a part of the reason that the world seems to be spinning off of its axis. instead, he once again views himself as a noble, deliberative thinker, who takes his time and gets it right. peter baker recently wrote an interesting piece in "the new york times" about a series of off-the-record dinners president obama has held with foreign policy thinkers. of course, as it always is in washington, not even the president can really go off the record.

the attendees recalled the president sarcastically imitating his adversaries, saying, "it's a shame when you have a diffident president with no foreign policy other than don't do stupid things." i do not make apologies for being careful in these areas, even if it doesn't make for good theater. now, i don't get invited much to this white house. i wasn't at that dinner. if i had been, i can tell you way would have said when he rolled out that strawmen incentive. respectfully, mr. president, this isn't good good theater, this is about life and death. this is about freedom and despotism, order and chaos. this is about the role of the united states of america as the leader of the free world.

this is about nothing less than whether we will squander america's ability to continue in that role or whether we will pass on to our children a nice that is secure, well armed and confident in its ability to sustain a just peace in the world. as walter russell meade wrote, "the real criticism of the president isn't that his foreign policy is too deliberative, it's that his deliberations don't seem to end with policies that, well, work." the truth is that none of us would care how long president obama takes to make a decision if it were the right decision. as the great military strategist, colonel john boyd once said, decisions without actions are pointless. actions without decisions are reckless. time and again this president has managed to do both. the problem with a smart

diplomacy that was supposed to make everything better isn't that it doesn't make for good theater, it's that it isn't very smart. this isn't about disliking how long it takes him to come up with an idea. it bee the ideas and what follows from them. e russian reset, iraq, afghanistan, israel, egypt, iran, libya, europe, china and the list goes on. in each of these areas it's not just that the president took too long to come up with an answer, it's that the answer was wrong. if only he had had the help of a wise, steady hand, a policy expert in dealing with foreign affairs. he would have come up with better answers. but instead he just had hillary clinton. how did we get to this point? just ask the people who can be honest about what happened.

ask former defense secretary leon opinion net da, who says that he and others advised the president to establish a forces agreement with iraq that could have forestalled the rise of isis but says the white house refused to lead. as former ambassador to iraq, christopher hill says he was abandoned and ignored by secretary clinton. or ask the outgoing chief of the i am tell generals agency, michael flynn, who says the world today is more chaotic than any time since the 1930's. today we are living in the consequence of the bobby-clinton ideas when it comes to foreign, domestic and defense policy and those ideas have set america on a path that will create more chaos, more conflict and more wars. secretary rumsfeld, ambassador bolden and others understand that weakness is provocative. what we see time and again from this president is a projection

of weakness. peace through strength costs infinitely less and american blood and treasure than does war precipitated by weakness. president obama has misused the tools of soft power. he had to be dragged into imposing sanctions on iran for its nuclear program and has yet to use the full sanctions against russia. when the crowds were applauding him overseas at the beginning of his administration, he never effectively used america's moral authority to challenge the human rights records of our adversaries. now he's no longer summoned with the global stature to do so. worse still, he leaves the next president tools of a hard power that have fallen into disrepair. military strength should not be the primary means by which the united states executes its foreign policy, but it is the indispensable element that underpins the other tools. of all the mistakes president

obama has made, this strikes me as the most dangerous. the same progressive motivations that led to foolish legals of disarmament in the 1930's are now once again leading us down the road toward a military that cannot do what we need it to do when we need to do it. it is all the more frustrating that we're pursuing this course at a time of multiplying threats, when the technology of asymmetric weaponry is spreading and the ability of non-state actors to inflict terrible destruction on innocent citizens is only increasing. since the cold war we have seen the decay of our defense capabilities and our growing gap between mission and resources. in the wake of the humanitarian efforts in smaller conflicts of the 1990's, president george w. bush understood the need to modernize the armed forces. he and others anticipateed that in the absence of the examplety tension threat of the soviet union could we leap ahead in

technologies, with a smaller and more lethal force. but the skep 11 attacks -- september 11 attacks brought that to a halt. we found ourselves in wars which our planners had assumed would never occur again. conflicts with large number of boots on the ground for long periods of time. the defense budget was incriesed substantially. but it's important to understand what that money didn't do. it did not rebuild the military as was needed. instead, it was eaten up by the cost of the wars, by the greater maintenance needs of an aging inventory, higher operating costs and higher personnel costs. it is an illusion to think that after the war spending increases that we have seen over the past decade and more that we as a nation are better positioned when it comes to our national defense. in fact, the reverse is true. by the time that president obama had taken office the american military was in

increasingly fragile condition. the navy had fewer ships than at any time since before world war i. the air force inventory was smaller and older than at any time since the inception of the service. and while the size of the army and the marine corps was increased in 2007 to support the surge in iraq, over most of the war both services lacked the personnel they needed, forcing far too many units to serve multiple tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan and increasing the human costs borne by our war fighters. in 2009 secretary gates identified $400 billion in cost reductions beginning in 2009 and an additional $78 billion if realized beginning in fiscal year 2012. to cancel the remaining modernization programs, including the c-17 transport and the f-2 fighter, which will harm our military's capabilities for years to come. the bipartisan national defense panel created by congress that same year issued a unanimous

report in the spring of 2010 in which it recommended heading in the opposite direction. they supported substantial additional funding for the military primarily to increase the size of the navy. they warned this -- the aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the navy, the escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is coming in areas of personnel, acquisition and force structure." in the spring of 2011 secretary gates responded to these recommendations by offering a 10-year proposed budget with modest increases in funding. now, they didn't go as far as the panel had recommended, but it was a step in their direction. but two months later, president obama threw it all out. he announced his intention to reduce the gates proposed

budget, his own administration's defense budget, by approximately $40 billion per year. the president essentially junked his own defense budget in a speech, pulled a new number for defense spending out of thin air. there wasn't even an analysis of the impact of the new funding levels on the armed forces or american national security. the president's proposal was codified in the 2011 budget control act. that was followed by the sequestration law, which had the effect of cutting another half a trillion dollars from the defense budget over the next 10 years. now, think about how ridiculous this is as an approach to governments. in the course of a year, the budget priorities produced by an analytical process proposed by a highly respected secretary of defense was completely jettisoned in favor of an ad hoc, an entirely politically driven budget reduction process.

the consequences of this foolish trillion dollar cut over the coming decade are unacceptable. under these cuts america will not have a global navy anymore. we'll be almost 100 ships smaller than the chinese navy. the army and the air force will shrink dramatically. we have just seen the release of a second bipartisan panel report which further documents the declining condition of the military. so to recap, in the past five years congress created two national defense panels to review the condition of the armed forces. both panels were bipartisan. both panel reports are unanimous in making the case for restoring the strength of our national defense. and yet, the president has gone in the opposite direction. you've all seen the footage of the tomahawk missiles our navy is firing. they are supposed to be phased out under president obama's plan even without a replacement

ready. we're supposed to buy just 100 next year and zero the year after that. investors business daily did the math. they found out that in just one night president obama used up 47% of next year's planned purses. if we had to sustain that, we could only fire at that level for 85 days before we were out of missiles. we must take steps to rebuild america's military. at the very least, as we argue in the paper, that "america next" is releasing today, we must return to the 2011 budget proposed by secretary gates. the last time there was any real analysis or threat assessment undertaken to determine what ought to be spent. we must also take steps to shorten the design and build cycle for procurement and we must engage in immediate reforms to support our force's readiness. as experts here at a.e.i. and elsewhere have suggested, i share the belief which is set

as a guideline spending approximately 4% of america's g.d.p. on defense. the reality is is that there is less need to use the military when it is feared and respected. the best approach to reducing a level of global risk would be to move decisively to rebuild the tools of military power. this force should be used carefully, not to nation-build overseas, not as a police force or a jobs program, but as a deterrent to our adversaries and as a tool to eradicate threats to american lives and interests. by allowing global threats to fester in a leadership vacuum, by allowing our material to rust and decay, it only delays the day of reckoning when the united states will have to address these threats and increases the costs in both time and treasure of doing so. inaction in this regard will put america at increasingly weaker position, put our fighting men and women at greater risk and decrease our

ability to respond to the very real and increased threats that president obama is leaving behind. now, i'm a fiscal conservative. as calvin coolidge said, i want the people of america to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. but within the arena of national defense, the need now is for more funding, not less. that funding must be smarter, not motivated by domestic political priorities, but by what real threats america faces around the world. the same problems which cause wasteful domestic spending behavior can only motivate wasteful defense spending, the worst kind of waste, as it leaves our forces unprepared and ill-equipped for the missions we give them. that's why i support the bipartisan efforts of senators tom coburn, joe mansion and others. the demands of the pentagon provide what every other department and agency already

does -- an audit of its books. originally. bureaucrats were supposed to be ready for an audit this year. now they say they'll be ready in 2017. if we're going to spend more taxpayer dollars on defense, we must also demand that these taxpayer dollars be spent wisely, that we know where the money goes and what it does and we should know that now, not later. the defense of our country is too important to tolerate waste and irresponsible spending in this arena. but we should not think that waste means that overall cuts are justified. on the contrary, it means that we must spend what is needed based on the threats we face even as we fix our procurement process. to do any less would stretch us even more thin in the years to come. i know politicians like to talk about waste and fraud. but waste and fraud alone will not make up the funding gap which prevents us from having the modernized force we need. so because i am a fiscal conservative, i believe that we

need to shrink the costs of our government in other ways. and the debate of how to deal with ever-expanding entitlements, some of my fellow conservatives have pushed for plans with costly subsidies as a method for replacing obamacare. i believe that we need a reform focused on the cost burden for the consumer and the taxpayer, so my health care plan would rely on reforms which lower costs and save taxpayers billions, while fixing existing inecht tee in the tax code. as we seek to bolster our military force, we also need to be willing to use the economic weapons at our disposable. while we all understand the disincentive of losing the ability to trade with us, we have another powerful weapon at our disposable now, one which the rest of the world wants and needs, our energy supply. the energy resources america has unleashed ve norm must benefits for our economy and job creation. but they also represent a tool

in our arsenal to help offset the ability of russia and other nations to effectively blackmail our allies. as i've laid out my energy plan, the more that government removes the barriers to a thriving energy sector, the more we'll be able to balance against our adversaries without ever firing a shot. it is no accident that the threats to america are now growing. they are growing because the obama administration has repudiated all the operating principles of an effective global strategy by leading from behind, by abandoning our longtime allies, by failing to effectively use the tools of soft power and by cutting the size and capabilities of our armed forces. they are growing, because ideas have consequences, and we must e prepared to face them. without a strong defense, our

allies will not trust our promises and our adversaries will not believe our threats. the most important task of our government is to defend our homeland from attack, to defend the freedom of access to the common areas of the world for our people to travel and trade, to preserve the stability and peace with a watchful eye on those who would do us harm. all nations have vital interests. the difference between the united states and other great powers throughout history is that america defines her vital interests in a defensive and benign way. all america seeks is to live in peace, secure in our homeland, enjoying rights common to all nations, in a world where, to the extent feasible, relations between nations are determined less by power and coercion than by agreed-upon rules and a commitment to resolve disputes eacefully.

an author wrote, what is the object of defense? to preserve. to preserve is easier than to acquire. preserving peace is difficult. the founders understood that peace is not an entitlement, it is not automatically bequeathed to future generations. it has to be one in its own way in -- won in its own way in each generation and we must be willing to pay the price for peace. we must undo the president's harmful spending cuts and ensure that our fighting men and women always have the tools they need to succeed. just as important, we would also send a powerful message to both our allies and our enemies overseas that america will not shirk her leadership role in the world and will remain actively engaged in promoting and defending her vital national interests.

in his epistle to the corinthians, st. paul asked a question aapplicable to our country today, for the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? for far too long our country has given that uncertain sound, hoping to avoid conflict, only to find that america's enemies sensing weakness have taken the battle directly to us. it is time for politicians once again to embrace the post-war consensus of the need for a strong national defense. having learned the lesson, the best way to avoid battle is to prepare for it. thank you all very much for allowing me to come speak today. [applause]

>> thanks. >> i like your socks. [laughter] >> i'm noted for my hosiery. >> there are worse things to be noted for. [laughter] >> governor, i would like to exercise the prerogative to ask a couple of follow-on questions before we open it up to everybody else. that was an extraordinarily strong and stark speech. i would like to pick our way through a couple of the issues, if i may. first of all to talk about american leadership.

second of all to think about what a rebuilding of the american military would look like. then we have to talk a little bit about the politics of the issue. i would like to do this by casting our minds ahead a couple of years from now. you give a chilling assessment of where we are today. things are likely to be worse in the international arena with the budget cuts and the withdrawal of our forces from various regions and then in the context of a hardfought election campaign.

what it we start with the question of leadership. imagine where we will be in two years and ask ourselves what the path for a president might be in january 2017. it could be a steeper uphill climb than the one you described in your speech. >> we have two more years of this president's dangerous policy, we will have two more years of disengagement from the world, two more years of america leading from behind. i think for the next administration, the first task will be to rebuild a bipartisan cold war consensus. this should not be only a republican imperative. this is an american imperative. we must rebuild the strategic consensus that america cannot lead from behind. america cannot disengage from the world. we need to restore the belief in american exceptionalism. this is the first president that i can remember that does not believe in american exceptionalism.

even before the budget changes and the defense buildup, with their needs to be a change in our strategic positioning, visavis our allies and enemies. and a strategy without the investment a new strategy without the investment of the military will ring hollow. we need to increase the investments in military for things like the modernization. as a guideline, we should get to 4% of gdp. it needs to be informed by threat analysis. we don't simply give the pentagon a blank check, but we can start by going back to the baseline the last time there was a comprehensive and consistent threat analysis done with a realistic number to undergird the military establishment.

we owe our men and women the tools and readiness and training. one of the growing realizations is our oceans don't keep us safe. we face asymmetrical threats. we face threats from transnational terrorist groups. we face cyber warfare and biological warfare. we are going to have to have the commitment over the longterm to deter these threats. i do think the world is hungry for american leadership. our allies are hungry for that leadership. i think a new administration supported by a bipartisan congress can take some decisive steps fairly quickly to begin rebuilding that role. no other country can fill the vacuum we have left on the world stage. >> the vacuum is really enormous in scope. a couple of years ago, nobody could imagine a piece of europe

being at risk. we talk about people underestimating isis' capability. we consistently underestimated chinese ambitions and capabilities. then to return to the middle east, which is not been a happy place, it is pretty easy to see that it is worse than it was in 2009. the war with isis is not heading in a positive direction. is it even possible to prioritize? >> i do think we need to take a comprehensive approach. i would identify three challenges.

short-term, we are in a war with isis. whether he wants to call it that are not, that is a fighting conflict. we need to win that. we need to exterminate isis. it is about hunting them down and killing them. we have got to complete that effort. one of the things i say in my longer paper is that americans must prepare our defense forces not just to win wars, but decisively win wars to act as a deterrent against future conflict. the thing that concerns me the most, the greatest concern on the shortterm, the mediumterm horizon is the lessons that iran must be taking from america's failure to lead over the last few years. the world cannot accept a nuclear iran. that is a threat to the united states. almost a year ago now, the

united states announced a this reprieve with iran. we have seen no meaningful action since that time. they are only hastening the day until they become a nuclear power. our time for decisive action is running out. the second concern is what lessons iran has taken away from america's lack of decisiveness. the third, i think the president's pivot toward asia was right to announce intentions. it was not followed up by the resources to do anything about it you look at the growing strength of china and that is the rising threat in the mediumterm. you have china, who wants to exercise more influence. you have allies like south korea and japan looking at their leadership.

you have countries that were not aligned. you have countries like vietnam who are looking to american leadership and are willing to join with america, under america's leadership. the president did a great job giving a speech about pivoting attention and putting more resources there. but without investment in the resources, it is going to ring hollow in those countries are not going to follow unless we follow through. when you look at russia, those are the three in terms of prioritizing. i do think this is a situation where if america is serious about backing up our rhetoric, you will see a safer world. the more we withdraw from the world, the more chaos there is going to be all over the world. europe, it is hard to believe for quickly europe has gone from where it was in the cold war to

where it is today. it is no coincidence that putin is in crimea and threatening ukraine. he looked at the unilateral lateral withdrawal of interceptors. he looked at our treatment of georgia. -- jordan. he looked at nato. he took note of the president's weakness. we could still secure europe, we could still deter russia, if we were willing to put brigades and allied countries, if we were willing to work within the framework. if we don't have the manpower and forces to deter russian aggression, europe becomes less stable. the chaos we are seeing is not inevitable. it is predictable due to the

disengagement. >> you mentioned the gap between strategic needs and the resources available. that is another hole we have dug that has not bottomed out. you mentioned cutting the c-17 and the f-22 but that is the tip of the iceberg. there are few modernization programs left to invest in. the photon torpedoes have not made it into laboratory. can you imagine another sort of reagan like buildup being necessary in the next administration? >> absolutely. we are not calling for 4% of gdp overnight.

i don't think the pentagon is capable of spending $80 million well if we were to give it to them today. we will call process. develop and deploy technology in a window. it has taken us so long to develop and deploy technology that by the time it is deployed, it is obsolete. we need to talk about changing the procurement process. we need more accountability. i'm calling for multisourcing

components of programs and speeding up the delivery and holding folks accountable for delivering ontime, on budget. there is waste and abuse and we have to root it out. that waste and abuse is leaving our forces unprepared and without the equipment they need. waste and abuse is not enough. that should not be an excuse for disinvestment in the pentagon. yes, let's weed it out. yes, let's shorten the procurement cycles and acquisition process, but that is not an excuse for not investing in the military and leaving our men and women without the training and resources they need. we have to increase the investment. we point to the reagan buildup as a successful example of buildup and military hardware and buildup and forces and deploying the soft power tools available to it administration.

they did support the democracy, the freedom movements in eastern europe. you saw great things happen for world stability and peace. we won the cold war without firing a shot, as maggie thatcher said. we are getting a hollowed out military thanks to this administration's neglect and disinvestment. >> my last question. since you are a practicing politician, we have been told for the past six or seven years that we as a nation are weary of war, that under any circumstances we would never deploy ground forces. i was struck by an nbc poll, not exactly take it for what it was

in that poll, if recommended by the military, would you agree to the deployment of ground forces in the war against isis? 45% said yes. 63% of republicans said yes. 66% of people who identified as tea party members said yes. 32% of democrats said yes. do you think within the conservative universe, the politics of these issues are shifting? >> three things. i do think there is any american that ever wants to go to war as a first choice. i don't think there is an american that wants to use ground troops as a first choice or military as a first choice. ironically enough, a stronger military, that is where you

avoid wars. have a stronger defense, have the tools. peace through strength is better than war through weakness. our president universally announces what we are not going to do. he tells people what we won't do instead of what we will do. i thought it was foolish. he does this again and again. nobody is arguing that we needed to lead with ground troops. it seems to me to be a very foolish way to deter our enemies. the third point, i think the american people have shown time and time again, decade after decade, through the cold war, through two world wars, challenge after challenge, the american people are willing and want to rise to the challenge when they trust their leadership, when they feel like there is effective leadership

that is leading us to protect our nation's vital interests. i think there was overwhelming bipartisan support to defend our nation's vital interests. i think you will see that whether it is against isis or any other threat we face as a country. i am a conservative republican, but this is a bipartisan consensus. it was a bipartisan consensus throughout the cold war and it should be so again. there should be a bipartisan consensus. my hope is that the responsible leaders in both parties that will stand up and say, this is vital to protecting america's interests here and abroad. our federal government is doing many things are founding fathers never intended. the first and most important responsibility of our federal government is to secure the homeland, to secure the nation. it is in the constitution. the one thing the federal

government's ordered to do, the one thing congress is told it is must do is to secure the country. we are now living in a time where the government is spending a record share of our economy. at the same time, we are spending a record low amount actually defending our country. we are spending more of our economy on the government at the same time we are spending less to defend our country. the federal government has got its priorities backward. whatever you think about the roles. the first and most important responsibility of government is to defend our country. it is more effective and better for us to do so ahead of time, not only in terms of blood, but in terms of the danger and

threats to our country, than to try to lead from behind and lead from weakness. >> we have about 10 minutes for questions. i'm going to begin. rules. observe the >> the elephant in the room when you talk about spending more on defense and it was not something i had to face in the early 2000's. the sequester. leon panetta complains that when he argued against the sequester, he had no one to back them up. presumably if there is a change in a couple years, we will fight

to get rid of the sequester. do you see any possibility of doing that before the next two years are up? >> obviously, a lot will depend on the november elections. i absolutely agree. sequestration when it comes to defense cuts were an absolute mistake. added on top of president obama's own reductions then you add the impact of sequestration and you have a trillion dollar reduction to what the last responsible assessment of the pentagon actually needed. i would argue that secretary gates did not go far enough in his proposal. it is remarkable to me that in the space of a speech, the president would throw out his own secretary's words and pick an arbitrary political number and on top of that number would -- congress would impose

arbitrary reductions. i think it was a mistake for republicans to except sequestration cuts in defense. we do need to allow the cuts in the other portions of the federal budget. when it comes to defense, the sequestration cuts were a mistake. if they were honest, the administration would admit that they played a bad trick of chicken with the nation's defense and we all lost. i think it is irresponsible. the men and women in uniform will suffer first and the most and they will be tasked to missions without the resources and that is simply irresponsible to send them without the tools they need to successfully complete their missions. we absolutely need to undo the sequestration impact. >> i'm going to identify the young woman. >> thank you for your terrific,

targeted speech. elizabeth sinclair. regular citizen. millions of americans believe president obama is effectively waging soft war against the united states itself. should we be lucky enough to survive two more years of these clear and daily dangers, what type of arsenal tools do americans have? >> i would encourage everybody that is concerned to know that we cannot wait two years. i will say this. i have been a vocal and persistent critic of this administration in a number of areas.

i have called for a repeal of obamacare. i'm suing over common core is a breach of the constitution. i called for eric holder to be removed from office. i could go on. the point is, i'm not a fan of this administration. [laughter] i will say this. i have been very specific in my concerns. i believe those to be true. i'm still an optimist about the future of our country. i still believe in my bones that this is the greatest country in the history of the world and despite the challenges we have seen, i think it is still within our reach for this generation to renew those principles of freedom. i don't think it is inevitable that america remains the greatest country. i don't think it is etched in our dna. i don't think there is something magical. that does not make us inevitable. i think the founding fathers got it right when they stressed freedom in the founding

documents. i think our 40th president was right. every generation has to choose to renew the principles. i think it is up to us. i am frustrated. to your litany of reasons, there is not one point in the world you can point to and say that it has become safer or better since this administration took office. we were supposed to reset relations in the world was going to love us with this administration. instead, the world has become much more chaotic and much more dangerous. but i don't want the american people to become so frustrated that they think, our best days are behind us. i don't think that is true. i think it is still within our grasp to renew the principles of freedom. i think we have work to do on the world stage and at home.

we need to remind folks through our policies and rhetoric that the american dream is not about government and redistribution and taking from others, it is about equality of opportunity. i think one of the most dangerous things is -- the good news is that the american dream is still possible. we have work to do to ensure that it remains possible. >> going to the back of the room. >> is it imaginable that we will have the resources to reach and maintain investment in defense without some pretty uncomfortable reforms of entitlements?

>> we absolutely have the resources because we have to fund defense first. the guideline is 4%. it is based on a strategic analysis. that does not mean it is automatic. it needs to be guided. we need to put aside those resources first. that is the federal government's first responsibility. our first and most important obligation is to defend our country. to the second half of your question, i think we should reform our entitlement program separate and apart from defense. the entitlement programs are not sustainable on their current trajectory. the president added another entitlement program to the ones we already had. to maintain the promise of our entitlement programs, specifically medicare, medicaid,

social security, for future generations, to keep the promise we have to strengthen. we shared a program on health care reform. absolutely, we need to reform the entitlement programs. that is separate and above and beyond what we have in defense. we need to make sure we strengthen and improve future generations. that is simple. the nonpartisan actuaries those programs will tell you have run out of resources before we finish paying for the healthcare benefits of the baby boomers. absolutely we need to reform the entitlement program. that was key back in the 1990's. there was a bipartisan proposal

including groups like the dlc and the wall street journal and the ama behind a concept of premium support. it is possible to reform them in a bipartisan way to strengthen them for future generations. yes, we need to reform those programs, but that is true regardless of whether people agree with me or not about the need to invest in defense. >> oh, my goodness, all the time is gone. i'm very sorry about that. this was a very important conversation, governor. i think it will be our job to try to get you into the white house, so that you can give the commander in chief some advice. >> well it ain't that hard to get in now. [laughter] >> only if you are carrying a weapon, i think. failing that, our doors are always open.

thanks, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> c-span stringham competition is underway. 115 competition will award prizes totaling $100,000. create a documentary. videos and need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20. go to student cam.org. grab a camera and get started today. >> first of monday in october and the supreme court making news. they open same-sex marriage in

several states. writing -- -- -- the justices action without comment by the court this morning appears to clear the way for same-sex marriages in at least five states and short order and the six states could also see the practice quickly legalized under appeals court's rulings handed down. the justices turned down petitions that overturned ine-sex marriage bans indiana, oklahoma, virginia, and wisconsin. that's reporting from politico. we will hear more about the new supreme court term that began today in a little over an hour forum with the national review.