tonight on "the communicators" the fcc commissioner clyburn on their municipal ruling, rock band and their program, a. >> what i am proposing we do is overhaul the lifeline program and make it concurrent and in sync with the information age. challenge those providers to give more to their consumers. the prices and opportunities have been more explosive for the rest of us and it should be for lifeline consumers. get those providers out of the certification business. that is the number one problem we have been seeing, it is a vulnerability in the system that we need to plug. >> now a look at some of the possible 2016 presidential candidates who are focusing

their attention on the state of new hampshire. this is 40 minutes. >> joining us from boston is james kendall, thank you for being with us. i want to begin with governor scott walker, he was in new hampshire for two days with nine in events, but only one public event and that gets to a piece you wrote a few years ago that to win the primary you need to go after the activist first. that is what is happening, can you explain. >> we are 11 months away from voting in new hampshire and we are from this period that you know called the invisible primary. there are only three ways of knowing if the candidate is winning, losing or and third or fourth. one of them is money which is easy to quantify, you have $5

million or $2 million. you are either in first place or seventh and that makes some sense there and then third it is hard to get your head around. it is organization and what type of campaign are you putting together. together? in new hampshire, i took a look a couple of weeks ago these super activists that are very important in the process of the new hampshire primary, you gstart to quantify who has the feet on the ground. if you are jeb bush, or scott walker you spend a lot of time one-on-one or in smaller groups with these activists.

it is a very important endorsement to you, and of value to you. this is going to be the 100th year anniversary of the new hampshire primary and they expect to spend a lot of time with these people to size up who will be running for president. host: i want to share with you jonathan martin was in measure of the weekend, he says it is an historical perspective. the headline is new hampshire shaping up as a free-for-all gets early republican attention. a longtime political observer and practitioners believe that new hampshire is is uncertain as any new hampshire republican primary decades, perhaps the the 1964 campaign, when henry cap lodge junior, the american investor to south vietnam one as a write-in candidate.

guest: when mitt romney was thinking about running for president, it could have written out new hampshire entirely. it is almost like hillary clinton running in new hampshire at this time. but right now it is a free-for-all. most internet, it is a must win state -- candidates, it is a must win state. rand paul, chris christie, jeb bush, they all must do well in new hampshire. you can make arguments about others, but new hampshire right now there is no clear indication about who is the front runner and who will remain a front runner. it is a couple of points between jeb bush, rand paul, and scott walker. host: the only public event

recovered live -- we covered live. here is the risk of the republican. >> our clearest risk right now is isis. it is clear what their intent is. it is not to stay in the middle east it is eventually to come back to american soil and to cause harm against americans because they have identified a threat theree. just like a virus in a computer, we need to go to whatever like this were tired to make sure that we eradicate radical islamic terrorism wherever it is that -- it is at.

i do not think we need troops on the ground, but i do not think we need to signal to our enemies how far we will go. they will just wait you out. first and foremost you need to consult with the congress, listen to those who advise you get a real feel for what is going on as well as your intelligence committee. we need to branch out and reaffirm our allies. working with united kingdom germany, with australia, with canada. increasingly, in light of what has happened in the last several months, they are partners in the coalition we can drawn from the air world, because of what has happened to their own citizens and have a true coalition force. and when to take action depending on where appropriately

designed. host: rick perry very critical of the president and his handling of foreign policy. how big of an issue is this? guest: as a political reporter, obviously one thing you were looking at is the candidate. i spend a lot of my time at events like that when watching the crowd, and what fires them up. i might think what fired up this audience is hearing scott walker talk about his tenure as governor, how he took on the unions, made some light jabs at jeb bush, and he really stresses his humble background.

that is not what fired up the crowd. that little clip you showed, was the first time in a 15 minute speech that the crowd got motivation. foreign policy is really emerging as a strong issue among republican primary voters. we are losing the war against isis, they feel like president obama is not a strong lrsf eader. it is a subtle shift. they really want to hear about the economy, they really want to hear about the health care law. this time, the fire in the belly seems to be on for policy. -- f foreign policy.

host: james pindell is a graduate of drake university, and is formerly the political director at the abc affiliate in manchester, and is a columnist with the new hampshire union leader. he is now the political reporter for the boston globe and a contributor to new hampshire magazine. our phone lines are open. join the conversation on our facebook page or on twitter. rick perry was in hampshire late last week and he said he was a little bit arrogant in 2012, as he has learned from that. what is your take on that? guest: the difference is the way he came into the race in august

of 2011, and how he came into the race this time could not be more different. when he came in the race last time, he was the immediate front runner everyone was looking to him to be this alternative to romney, to be the republican nominee. in his first trip to new hampshire, he had hundreds of hundreds of people at the very home of the deputy house speaker. it was a very big event. this time he has been more humble, he is scrapping it out. he says he was a bit arrogant last time. he said he was enjoying the greatest three hours of his life. night you have the 2% or 4% in the polls. even among those who supported him in new hampshire now they

are holding back their endorsement. they like him as a person, they like him as a politician, they like his ideas, but they say that field is a lot bigger this time. a lot of these candidates who come for the second time, they are better candidates, and a build off of what they built. rick perry is starting from scratch and he knows it. host: here is what the former texas governor had to say. >> i think americans are so sick of the gridlock in washington dc, people talking past each other, not getting anything done. walking on the floor of the senate or the house, and then walking away and taking your toys and leaving and that is not acceptable.

one of the reasons that i do think that our nominee and i'm obviously biased about this, but the executive experience of having to get things done -- governors do not have the luxury of giving a speech and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in the state of texas not education reform, not those major budget issues that we have to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democrat chairs, democrat leaders that we had to work with. i think that the next president of the united states, and i'm critical of the president, and the divisiveness we have seen pitting individual against individual, gender against gender, pitting economic groups

against economic groups. we need to be working to bring this country together. to reach across the aisle. host: governor rick perry in new hampshire this past week. joe was on the phone from trusted, south carolina -- charleston, south carolina. caller: i'm calling as an independent, iv constitutionalist. this is one of my favorite subjects, republicans need to be very careful as they move forward. you mentioned scott walker, but you also mentioned next year will be foreign policy. you know scott walker was elected twice, but right in the

middle of that, they voted blue. they voted for obama. i'm talking about simple math. we know that california has 55, we know that new york has 29, florida is always a tossup. but throw in those labor states, look at our economy in the labor states, and consider that, and tell me your opinion if you think scott walker could ever win in the face of that considering his stance on unions? guest: right now he is playing to get the republican nomination. this is something that they are definitely talking about. this is where hillary clinton is very important in this conversation preview except the premise that she is the

democratic nominee, republicans are talking about for who we put up -- what does that mean for who we put up? just lining up democratic states and republican states that are reliable, democrats have an advantage. republicans really need to thread that needle. you talk about what role unions could play, and that can be an important factor. this goes back to hillary clinton. talking about unions or non-unions, or a broader conversation about middle-class anxiety. we are praying that on the trail, that they have these popular tendency. this is a populist movement

against banks, big government and against elites. what scott walker has been trying to do is say that he's is a guy from a small town in wisconsin, does not have a college degree, he is one of you. he is raging against the elites in washington. a couple of weeks ago marco rubio said if you have a problem of this dynamic against wall street against main street, consider hillary clinton that would probably raise more money from wall street than any other candidate ever. that may be true. if it is just few days, we can have a detailed conversation about ohio, certainly michigan, and wisconsin, and iowa, these midwestern labor rich swing states.

when you do have a broader conversation about what is the middle class doing right now then scott walker may be back in the conversation if it is hillary clinton on the other side. host: we're talking the new hampshire primary with james pindell of the austin -- boston globe. caller: during the last several campaign cycles, gas prices were higher, we were in two middle eastern wars. foreign policy and domestic policy were very connected. that was a dominant issue, our energy policy. with regard to your discussion of foreign policy dominance in the republican primary new hampshire, going forward, do you think with us exiting these wars

in the middle east, do you think this will no longer drive the foreign policy conversation? things like iran and russia will take over the conversation? guest: that is a very smart question. i think right now, we have not seen energy play the role it has. this is very early in the process, we are in the first quarter. candidates are just trying to introduce themselves. but to that callers point energy has not been a very big topic of conversation. i think one of the reasons why is because of this explosion of domestic shale oil, and production that has gone up so dramatically that people are becoming more a] - energy independent. when the seedtime time we do not have a national energy plan --

but at the same time we do not have a national energy plan. it really has been focused on russia and putin and iran and nuclear weapons. it has been about israel, and issues around the globe. it has not been specifically about energy policy links to national security. host: we get this question every four years who gives a dam about the new hampshire primary selection? they do not speak for the rest of us. how do you respond to that sentiment? guest: understand that new hampshire is never handed the first of the nation primary. when they first did it back in

1920, it was because other states had backed their primary, and it just happens that way. over time, over the decades they are not representative of the country as that it is not very diverse. what it does is a stop candidates, which is based in money,, and says he is a senator, governor, and you hang out in these elite circles. not a knock on them, that is the way they live their life, but it makes them leave the premises

behind. you actually have to engage with real people before you become the leader of the free world. that is what the activists and voters in new hampshire to start in an extremely serious way. they talk about who should not be in the final swing. new hampshire, and i will not very representative in terms of where people live, but they can because they are small and have a tradition of this, that the candidates -- vet the candidates in terms of character and who should win. just for a moment, they create a small pause. host: this week we covered senator graham and tonight we will cover senator cruz. last week we were governor rick

perry, senator paul, and scott walker. caller: good morning. i have been watching politics and presidential politics, and it still comes down to me as a likability thing. i go back to when obama was running in the primaries and you had that question, oh, hillary you are likable enough. the think i am wondering about is this -- why these candidates don't devote themselves instead of saying, especially my republican candidates, oh, we got problems here, here here. hey, why not go back to the

reagan thing of being the happy warrior. i would like to know instead of favorable and unfavorable ratings, how about likability ratings? host: your final point? caller: well, basically the reporters opinions -- does he have an opinion of which of the republican candidates might be or might come out to be the most likable candidate? host: two i. governor -- thank you. governor scott walker made reference to his sweater which you purchase for one dollar in kohl's. he has made that reference in the past as well. you can get some good deals at kohl's. he is trying to address steve's point, i am just like you. i am not some high tooting saluting governor or senator. i am keyed into how the middle-class lives in their lives and i shop at kohl's. in terms of likability, one thing that really struck me was

i was with jeb bush in iowa last weekend and the new hampshire this weekend and he is different in terms of how he comes across. generally, these candidates when they come to these early states they really fit into dr. different boxes. the over prepared and overeager ambitious type who wants to wow you when they first show up. oh, my goodness. then there is a second type, he wants to charm you learn your kids name, name your dog where'd you vacation? where do you go to church? gain a personal report. third is a candidate who is aloof. going to the paces, maybe john kerry or mitt romney. they are smart but not aware of what is going on. then there is the fourth, they have no idea what they are doing and they wish someone would tell them what to do.

i will not name those names. we will be nice. when i hung out with jeb bush it really did not fit any of the categories where his brother was of the wild type three. his brother and father wanted to charm you. they wanted to create a personal relationship. the best way i can articulate is that jeb bush is very zen and comfortable about what is happening. he understands the issues. he is not in a hurry. he is just the bare. he is jeb bush and he is a fine with that. at a time when he is trying to show that he is not his brother or his father, he is his own man. it is a pretty good part of winning the argument. we cover that health party in dover, new hampshire, --

host: if you haven't seen it, you will want to get a real sense of intimacy at the home of the former chair of the state republican party. he is also writing a book on new hampshire's role in the primary process. this morning, a piece from "the washington post" with the headline -- joining us from london, england your take on all of this from across the pond. caller: oh, hi. i think it is quite strange for the republicans. i am sitting here in london i don't see what the policies are and they seem to be obsessed

with obama. everything he says and does is opposite to what they say. they just say no, they have no policies at all. what is the republican policy and their vision? what are their policies? they don't seem to come up with anything at all. what is their vision for america in the next war years? guest: this is something that jeb bush, the former florida governor and rand paul, have talked a lot about on the trail. they say, look, we cannot be the party of no, we have to be a party of ideas. marco rubio laid out his visions in a book. they say the same thing. as peter points out, the biggest thing they talk about is how they are not obama and they do different things than obama. this is an open seat and they are trying to appeal to republicans.

we have not heard the vision thing yet, largely because it is very, very early. for the most part, it is solid republican principles. lower government, strong national security. this collection comes at a time that is actually really fascinating to watch the republican party. they have lost twice in the rope for the presidential race and they are trying to redefine themselves in a different way. they think in the reagan three leg it still that the republican party stood for. strong and conservative fiscal policy. strong national security. right now, all three of those legs are being questioned. in terms of the social policy, a lot of people are becoming more libertarian. when it comes to gay marriage or abortion, they do not want to talk about it. that is the case for rand paul. when it comes to economic policy, there is a definite split between wall street and main street. something we talked a little bit about earlier. and when it comes to strong national security, look, rand paul is forcing the situation about how integration -- how

interventional should we be as republican party. these core questions will be sorted out in the course of the next year. host: let's do this pretty quickly. the piece this morning and "washington post", yes, no, or maybe question mark does he get in the race? guest: why not is the answer. i don't know a lot how long he will last. mike huckabee, why not? he is making steps. he is been more serious. the dynamic for him is that they are iowa caucus winners in the past so they will have to figure out how that will work in iowa. it could be pretty epic. host: what about governor chris christie? guest: yes. all indications are that he is running. if you were a stock, i would buy him. i do not know how you would go up, but i would buy him right now. host: senator lindsey graham who

was in your state sunday and monday? guest: i don't know. he has been a crowd favorite though. he has to be really happy with some of the responses he received in the earlier states. if he doesn't, that may mean that the south carolina pres guest: i think he is in this race. host: tim spindle of the "boston globe." on the democrat side. good morning. caller: good morning. they want this race on a bunch of lies. you have a republican party and these people that voted for the public -- [indiscernible]

they hate obama so much and i'm not a big fan of obama. i voted for him the first time in up a second time. he has done some good things but you have the bluegrass dog democrats and a bunch of clowns. you got chris christie and this clown down in new orleans. these people have no politics at all. all of their politics are about lies. scott walker -- about these union people. host: as a democrat, do you like hillary clinton or do you want to see another challenger? caller: i would write elizabeth

warren. guest: yeah, i mean look. there is a lot of interest for elizabeth warren to run in this race. she has repeatedly said no, no, and no. that is certainly where the energy in the party is and maybe that is not what she wants to do this time. maybe she wants to stay in the senate and continue in that path, but right now it is hillary clinton space to lose. -- hillary clinton's race to lose. president obama was very unpopular last fall. his approving's are going up, so that was a major factor in some of these key swing states. host: our next collars from long beach, california, james. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two serious questions and please stay with me on this. first of all, i don't think -- i heard scott walker talking about isis. he basically -- for most of

america, that is not our monkey and not our circus or it if they stay over there" here, let the people over there fight. holcomb chinese and russians and everybody else can get after them. why does it have to be our children and our treasure? the second one is -- and this is the elephant in the room -- scott walker has a bald spot. they are going to look at every little thing and the republican party is going to be sitting there wondering how did the guy with a bald spot end up being on their ticket. either he goes bald or he gets that things taken care of. host: thank you for the call. both points? guest: absolutely. first off, bald spot, we may have the first president since harry truman who wears glasses if we are going into characteristics. we have jeb bush wearing glasses all the time. and carson was glasses. elizabeth warren wears glasses a

lot. if we are going off of looks back of the one of the -- i'm just joking. the thing with isis, look. one reason it has been so important is because of this decision on whether or not we have put boots on the ground of their. prices have -- isis has been very stabilizing over there and taking over spaces. scott walker said he would not rule out putting boots on the ground and this will be one of the key questions asked to presidential candidates all year. how far would you go to take out isis and how quickly we work with iranians and work through back channels on how to coordinate how to take a isis. really -- and clearly what that means for israel. host: and governor walker did change his opinion saying, yes. and some call him a flip flopper. guest: that is right. and he said he was on immigration. he said he listened to people and change his mind.

he said this is not a pattern so i think jeb bush people are trying to show it is a pattern for him. that will be one of the key questions with scott walker. he has never really had the national spotlight like this before. certainly he has wanted three elections in the last quarter years, and he has been in the spotlight but not like this. not international sphere. everything he said in the past is going to be put through this test on whether or not he is a flip flopper. we also had this conversation with him when it came to ethanol. did he change his position in 2006 -- or earlier, when he ran for governor and had a radio ad against ethanol subsidies and it now in -- and now in iowa, he is for them. he will be put through a lot of scrutiny and it be how well he goes through that. -- and it will be interesting to see how well he goes through that. host: out k -- ok, scott walker from a one dollar cool sweater to his white tie.

he had a couple of fingers aimed at the president. alex is joining us from manchester. it all begins in your stay, new hampshire. caller: yes sir. i would like to thank you quickly for using the word democrat instead of democratic. scott walker has a blueprint for winning. from our friend across the pond, we need to get off this social contract that we are on right now. small government, lower taxes free market. and james i wanted to clarify something. i thought that i heard you say elizabeth warren was for small government? if you said that -- are you kidding me? guest: no, i don't think i said that. caller: oh, thank you. guest: if i did, i am wrong. i don't want to believe that. host: another caller from new hampshire. good morning.

caller: good morning. this call is basically for another caller from south carolina about the electability of scott walker in the labor states. he feels the need -- he fails to recall that members of the union are calling -- i an independent calling -- i'm a republican calling on the independent line. as a union member in boston, there is a lot of disgruntled union members over the obamacare. as union members, we pay $10,000 a year for insurance. no republican ever ever contemplated letting of 40% tax on union member insurance policies. that is a $4000 hit that this guy took out of our budget. so this caller from south carolina also has got to remember there are a lot of union members who are unhappy that they have to take a 4000 dollar tax for the insurance.

as soon as the insurance goes up or percentage, goes up as well. host: thank you. guest: yeah, the cadillac tax is very controversial. the so-called cadillac tax for premium health care. it is very controversial and some people in the unions do not like at all. we have not really hurt a lot so far on the trail, and that could change in the future. host: harold, you get the last word, joining us from alexandria virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: we are fine, thank you. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i am calling from the perspective of being an attorney for 30 years. i think problems can be solved in america and that is why people live here. i think the biggest problem with politics is money, currently. here is the question, if we have a system in which, according to citizens united, the unlimited

funds committee provided to some of this campaigning, at what point, because campaigns are so constant, do we find a hole in that in order to fix the problem? host: money and politics? guest: look, i don't know where this is going, but this is where we are at. because this is united, you would have a few candidates who had super packs. the campaign apparatus which does have limits on which you can raise -- not how much you can spend, but how much you can raise. and then you have the super pack. an outside organization and typically these organizations cannot talk. right now, candidates have super packs. they do not have campaigns. these professional candidates anyway. chris christie started one this week.

they are no longer this novelty or how is this going to work? it is a must-have if you are running for president. super packs can raise and spend unlimited amount of money then that will be one of the key factors in 2012. what that means is that if the process is starting later and republicans, particular, republican national committee try to shrink the process and faster. if you are a candidate that has super pac like rick santorum last time and one that was to continue to spend a lot of money to keep you in the race. you are in the race, you can lose new hampshire iowa, and not have to worry about what that means more confidence in donors and for you to be able to put tv ads up and later states. to give one person the ability to run super pacs and haven't had, even if you cannot control what the ad says it could be a

game changer and a game changer and elongate the process. where we go in 2020 and 2024, is there going to be some way to eliminate that, i do not know. at some point, you have so many ads that it does not mean anything. host: we will be checking with you often over the next 11 months. joining us from boston and his latest work to win over you can see his peace online at boston globe.com. thank you for being with us. >> william kristol will discuss discretion of -- discussion on involvement. this week's events in ferguson missouri, the 2016 gop presidential contest and other issues. health care reporter kimberly menard of -- kimberly leonard has the latest on cost projections.

and agriculture undersecretary talks about changes in the national school lunch program. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live on c-span. >> on thursday, former governor rick perry delivered remarks in new hampshire at a politics and eggs breakfast in manchester. harry spoke about foreign-policy issues as well as the u.s. economy. the event was cohosted and is over 45 minutes. guest: my son sat next to at the pizza place when you came through the last time. governor perry: oh, the last

time we were here. guest: congratulations. governor perry: what is he doing now? guest: he is in pharmaceuticals and going for engineering. biomedical and process engineering. governor perry: well, each of the host have some extraordinary incubators but there are some really fascinating stuff going on in texas -- we became -- this last year in january of 2014, texas became the number one high-tech exporting state. people have always thought texas is just oil and gas state and we are really proud of our oral and gas -- our oil and gas industry and plays a role but it is pretty -- i'm not going to stay stagnant because that is not the

right word, but it makes somewhere around 40% of our gross state product and the rest of the state is diversified in manufacturing and high-tech, by tech -- biotech and more individuals coming in there every day that any other place in the world. guest: well, i just wanted to say congratulations and we are looking forward to seeing you more. governor perry: tell your son to keep us in mind as he grows and is looking for where to go. guest: i work here as well. governor perry: get our picture here, margaret. what do you do? guest: i do communications. governor perry: oh, ok. you have an important role to play here.

guest: i will be introducing you. governor perry: better you than me. i have some allergies going on too. it is what happens when you fly a lot. thank you. where have you been and what have you been doing? [indiscernible] guest: washington, down there three days a week. governor perry: so you keep a home here and an apartment there? guest: yeah, i have an office there and i can sleep there if i have to. governor perry: i find that one

of our real challenges in this country and governors do not have that luxury. we have to get things done and we have never done anything big. you know the governor? guest: yeah. perry: governor of massachusetts. [indiscernible] perry: not one issue to repass in texas. -- did we pass in texas.

we have to get past talking past each other. i'm critical of the president that he is really -- he has really divided this country by gender race, economic strata, and we just have got to get over that. i grew up on a very rural farm and we were not poor. you know, i grew up in a house that the not have running water until i was seven or eight years old. i never met republican until i was 26 years old or anybody who admitted being one. guest: you are always a republican? mr. perry: no, no, no. i was elected three times as a democrat. reagan made it ok to be republican in texas. jennifer, thank you for being here.

mr. perry: mr. president, it is an honor to be here in this university, and to all of you, good morning. i found that on my numerous visits back to new hampshire over the course of the years that you all appreciate plain talk about as well as any place in this country. and you want to hear some very plain talk about the challenges that we have in this country. and that is the spirit in which i come today, to share with you this vision of mine, and on three points i want to be very very clear. first, our country has entered

a -- and i think a time of testing, a time -- our political leadership is feeling that test. -- failing that test. the american people see a president who is in denial about the threats we face, making grave miscalculations that make the world less safe. isis filled the void of failed policy in iraq and syria. in american tanks, with american weapons, isis began taking cities that just a few years ago had been freed by the blood of american soldiers. in these highly orchestrated

videos, we are seeing broadcast to the world, beheadings. we are seeing a young jordanian pilot burned alive. these people have filled mass graves with muslims and christians alike. they have terrorized women. they have declared a caliphate over an area as large as the united kingdom in that part of the world. and let's be clear about who isis is, what they represent. they are a religious movement that seeks to take the world back to the seventh century. their aims are apocalyptic, to cleanse the world, not just of christians and jews, but of muslims who do not agree with their extreme ideology. and it is their stated vow to kill as many americans as they

can. and it is time the american people heard the truth. the president declared in his state of the union address that the advance of isis had been stopped. that is simply not true. he says isis is not a religious movement. again, he is simply wrong. to deny the fundamental religious nature of the threat and downplay the seriousness of it is naive, it is dangerous and it is misguided. if the leaders of egypt and jordan -- if they recognize we are at war with radical islam, isn't it time that our president admitted the same? the fact is we did not start this war. we do not choose it. but we need to have the will to finish it.

now, let me state another obvious fact about the middle east. it is not in the interest of peace and security in the free world that iran would be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. here is another country where our president is naively miscalculating the intentions of a brutal regime. i believe it is fundamentally dangerous to grant iran's nuclear ambitions diplomatic cover. our discussions with iran should be governed by two nonnegotiable principles. number one, iran should not be allowed to become in possession of a nuclear weapon, period. and, secondly, israel should be allowed to develop -- or excuse me -- they should have the right to exist as a jewish state.

now, put all of that into the more all context. see, watching all of this unfold in front of us is the president of russia. he has been watching, as our president set a redline in syria that was crossed without consequence. and when he canceled plans to deploy the missile system in poland and the czech republic, vladimir putin was watching. and it was against this backdrop of weakness and empty words that will in putin then annexed crimea, he invaded ukraine, and it was in those conditions that allowed him to negotiate a more one-sided cease-fire at minsk with no real consequences.

it from my perspective, it was a sorry sight to see russian -- western leaders rush to minsk to i western leaders rush to minsk to sign a second cease-fire that russia would invalidate just as quickly as they did the first. here is the civil truth about this. our allies doubt us and our enemies, our adversaries are all too willing to test us. and too often today we negotiate treaties and cease-fire agreements from a position of weakness rather than of strength. my point is this -- as a former captain in the united states air force, as a pilot who has flown into many of those regions in the middle east, including saudi arabia, i am not eager to pursue a

military solution, the military action in that part of the world. for 15 years, we have tried a steady diet of military solutions to resolve ancient religious differences in the middle east. and i have seen the impact. i have seen the impact of these policies on our warriors, on their families. for a good seven years of my period of time as governor, from 2003 through 2010, there was hardly a week that went by that i did not write a letter, that did not address to a family, that i do not go to a hospital expressing my appreciation, my regrets for the loss of a life the sacrifices our heroes had

made and their loved ones had to deal with. wars must always be the last resort after all other options are exhausted. but we need to understand the essential lesson of history here. it is the strength and resolve in the face of threats that we face that guarantees peace for our children and for future generations. it's weakness and vacillation and wishful thinking regarding these dictators and totalitarians that endanger the peace of the world and drive global chaos. for the world to be safer, i believe with all my heart

america must be strong. and along that same thought process, if you will, along that same line, for america to be stronger, our border must be secure. drug cartels and transnational gangs are smuggling drugs and weapons and people across a porous holder today. -- border today. they are a clear and present danger to the health and safety of america. any conversation that we have about comprehensive immigration reform must begin with comprehensive border security. and that is exactly why last summer, when i met with president obama, and we

discussed this issue of border security, i told him if he would not secure the border with mexico, texas would, and we did. now, here's the second point that i'm going to be clear about today. the american people know that the united states economy can be vibrant again. ronald reagan knew that weakness at home led to weakness abroad. we have to revitalize the american economy if we are going to reassert america's strength abroad. now, we are told we are in a recovery. yet labor force participation is at its lowest level since 1978. one in 10 american workers are unemployed, underemployed, or have just given up hope of

trying to find a job at all. one of five children live in families that are on food stamps. we need to look them in the face and ask them, is that the best that america can do? the president may be satisfied with 2% economic growth. i am not. the first time in american history, a generation of leaders are on the verge of breaking the social compact, if you will, with the next generation. that is, that we leave a better country for them than what we found for ourselves. fewer of us believe in the american dream now than in the last 20 years for middle-class americans. opportunity and security have been replaced by worry and anxiety. out-of-pocket health costs housing, college tuition, all of them have gone up faster than

wages have. student debt is at an all-time high, and this has to change. it is time to restore hope and opportunity to middle-class america. we can start with our tax cut. we have got the highest corporate tax rate in the western world. and that does not just hurt companies, it also hurts the american worker. economist walter -- tell you that if you cut the corporate tax rate by 10%, it will lift wages for the middle-class worker by between 5% and 10%. that is what we need to be focused on, helping raise those workers wages. we need more than just corporate tax reform to help the workers. we also need to simplify the tax code so that you reduce that tax

burden on all individuals. we also need to tackle the inequities that are caused by this dodd frank regulation. dodd frank didn't eliminate too big to fail. in fact, dodd frank codified "too big to fail." it restricts access to funds for main street. because of legal compliance is no overwhelming our community banks. those of you that come from small communities in no those banks may be the only institution in our rural areas to fund economic development there. they happen to provide half of all the small business loans in

this country. this contributes that perception -- and i would argue the reality -- that the big institutions of big government can take care of their own while main street gets the grounds -- crumbs. we need to stop the excessive regulation that kills jobs. they harm small businesses, cost every american family -- these regulations come almost $15,000 every year. that is the cost of this overregulation. we need to repeal every perverse incentive that keeps the ball -- keeps people from looking to work. one of the many flaws of obamacare is that it causes employers to move people from full-time work two part-time work just to avoid this massive new insurance cost and that needs to be repealed.

the next resident should look at all of the regulations that harm full-time work and end them. that needs to be a straight up work of the next president of the united states. we have an $18 trillion debt. every department, every agency needs to be required to look at every dime they spent and justify that. liberals in washington have spent 30 years criticizing re aganomics while delivering trickle-down liberalism. their view is clear you give , more power and money to the government, let the liberal elites take care of their causes

and leave an ever shrinking high -- pie for middle-class americans. their answer to jobs is spend close to $1 trillion in stimulus and hope a few jobs get created. no wonder that washington is now the richest metropolitan area in america. not because they create wealth but because they redistribute it. redistribution is not a strategy for wealth creation. only economic growth is and that only happens in the private sector. but me tell you where the economic revival is occurring or one of the places it is occurring in an extraordinary way and that is in my home state. instead of expanding the welfare state, we have built the freedom state.

our formula was simple -- control taxes and spending provide smart regulation and , stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. that is it. they will work anywhere. in my 14 years as governor, we helped create nearly one third of all the new private sector jobs created in united states. in the last seven years, from 2007 to 2014, that number would -- we created 1.4 million jobs in that state. minus those jobs from the total jobs created in america, that number would be 250,000 jobs in the red. under my leadership, we had 14 years of balanced budgets, never

skipped a debt payment, never raised taxes and i signed the largest tax cut in texas history. for more than one decade we have , led the nation in international exports. just last january of 2014, texas became a number one high-tech exporting state bypassing california. in 2013, we had the second-highest high school graduation rates in america. we had a 118% increase in hispanic precipitation in our higher education, mr. president. i might add that on that second-highest high school graduation state, in a state with a very large population of english as a second language, a

really challenging group of people to teach, but they're getting the job done. i happen to think it is time to bring that type of economic revival to every state with policies that limit government instead of expanding it. here is the third point. i have never been more certain than i am today that the best years are ahead of us in this country. i'm optimistic about the future because i know that the weakness and incompetence of our government should not the confused with the strength and ingenuity of the american people. our experiment in this republican form of government is too durable to be sidetracked like a confused administration. we survived worse. we survived a civil war, two

world wars, great depression jimmy carter. [laughter] we will survive the obama years as well. there is nothing wrong -- there's nothing wrong with america that cannot be fixed with a change of leadership. i seen america where middle-class workers are can find a job, where wages are on the way up, freedom is on the march, where opportunity is the birthright of all and not just dispensed by a few out of washington dc to select a few of their cronies. america that believes the world, that stands with our allies, where citizens can dream again and an america where the of our -- worthy of our founding fathers ideals and our children's dreams. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

host: the governor has agreed to answer couple of questions. governor perry: what he said was i have agreed to do a couple of questions. please introduce yourselves. [laughter] i'm sorry. host: questions for the governor. maybe i can ask the first question. the lady. thank you. guest i am from new hampshire. : i teach in a committee college. what will you do to change how campaigns are financed and please address how money corrupts and controls our

political system, what you can do to change that. governor perry: i come from a state that has no limits on campaign contributions and we are all about disclosure. i am a big fan of disclosure. i happen to think that you disclose where you get the dollars and you do it almost immediately. in the world we live and with technology available, you can require that where those dollars come from, who those individuals are and i think the american people are smart enough to know whether or not they think that is too much or whether that would corrupt the process. i happen to think the limiting of dollars is not the issue, i think the transparency of the where the dollars come from is the real issue and we need to be substantially involved with making it the a more transparent process.

guest: thank you so much for being with us. host: great presentation. i thank you for your time. bob i am bob, a volunteer. : my question is domestic and it is about medicare. we recently took a survey at aarp and it was of those residents of new hampshire 50 years of age and older. a big point they made was they are concerned about health care and the insurance that hopes to save them from heavy bills but they are particular about medicare. will it be there for the next generations? i bet i know where it is going. governor perry: that is my medicare registration.

i spent an inordinate amount of time on the telephone and got a really nice and capable lady helping me as i worked my way through this. obviously, the challenge that we have as a country is that these entitlement programs in the out years are not sustainable. that we all need to be honest about that and not honest about it for me or you, but honest about the next animation that is -- the next generation that is paying into these programs and for them to have that safety net as they mature and become senior citizens and we need to be honest about how we are going to deal with that and come up with solutions whether it is adding years to when you get that and i think most thoughtful people would say that is one of the

alternatives out there. to really think about this $18 trillion debt we have doesn't take into account these numbers. for us, for the next president and congress not to legitimately touched that and find the solution for that is unacceptable. we need to get commitments from all the candidates -- or, all of the individuals wanting to be candidates and are members of congress to work together to find solutions to these programs. guest: ui. host: don't raise your hands all at once. mr. perry i just happened to : have this in my pocket.

seriously. [laughter] what he gave me was an aarp membership registration. [laughter] president brett: you talk about the next president doing something on entitlement reform regulation. and the financial services. how realistic would it be that if you were elected president he -- that you could work with a divided congress? governor perry: i think americans are so sick of the gridlock in washington dc. people talking past each other not getting anything done. , walking on the floor of the house and walking away and taking your toys and leaving and that is not acceptable. one of the reasons i do think that our nominee -- i am obviously biased about this but i think the executive experience

of having to get things done -- governors don't have the luxury of just having a conversation coming giving a speech, and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in texas, not tort reform, not education reform not those major budget issues we have to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democrat chairs democrat leaders we had to work with. i think the next president of the united states -- and i'm critical of the president and the divisiveness we have seen, pitting gender against gender, individual against individual, economic groups against economic groups, and we need to be working to bring this country together, to reach across the aisle, find those places -- we

pass some of the most sweeping prison reform, judicial reform in america in the state of texas. it was a democrat's idea. we created drug courts in 2001. texas is not known for being soft on crime. [laughter] we were putting kids in jail for long periods of time. because of nonviolent and drug-related events. they broke the law and they did something bad but don't ruin their lives forever, don't throw them in prison where they learn to become first rate criminals. give them some options. give those judges some options and that is what we did. in the early part of the 21st century, we put those into place. giving those judges the flexibility to be able to give shock probation to give , treatment rather than send them to the prison. the result is we shut down three

prisons in texas, saved $2 billion. that is real conservatism in my book. and that is what we need to be looking at in washington dc, to find those serious places. maybe it is medicare reform, maybe it is our other entitlement reforms where we sit down and find like-minded democrats that no we have to -- know we have to deal with this. we used to do that. we saw tip o'neill working with ronald reagan. i am looking for the next ronald reagan and tip o'neill to come forward. they're are out there. you just have to have the will. we can do it. i am abundantly optimistic. i shared with you that the best days of this country are in front of us. economically, foreign policy was -- foreign policy wise, and it

will require men and women to find things that they can work together on. and deliver that for the american people. guest: >> bob from massachusetts. i appreciate what you are saying relative to bipartisanship and working. yesterday, over the weekend, a letter was sent by republican colleagues that was highly criticized by senator -- a secretary kerry when he testified yesterday. my question is hypothetically, and to the point you just relative to the spirit of doing may, business in d.c. these days, if you were a u.s. senator, would you have signed on to that letter, and if not what would a better approach , have been to try to get the

republican senators message across to the president? governor perry: i am not a senator but i signed the letter because i happen to believe that there are some things that are too important not to find -- compromise on. allowing iran to get its hands on a nuclear weapon is nonnegotiable. i think the president is making an error. i think that is a really bad example of finding a place we can mark together because there -- we can work together because there are places out there and things as so important that we cannot compromise our principles. allowing this country that still -- if not the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world, when you see iran funding hamas, , sunnis and shiites, they're

kind of equal opportunity funders. they fund the sunnis and the shiites to wipe israel off the face of the earth. i am sorry but i cannot accept that as a place where i will compromise. you work with fqhc's. i know we are shifting gears here but the point is, that is where we can find places to work together. we have expanded those out care -- health care delivery systems and other private sectors, ways to deliver health care. giving that type of compromise that type of negotiation, i sit at the table and work with people from now on because those are places where democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives can indeed agree. i think it makes sense.

to quit building prisons. i think that is where liberals and conservatives can agree that those are some good things to work together on. we can find those and ways to prioritize our spending. but to use what is going on in iran -- i happen to think those senators and senator cotton in particular could have clipped out of the united states constitution and send it to iran. that is basically what he was saying. he said there is a number of ways we negotiate, we do treaties which require the united states senate and two thirds of them to sign that. we do another level which requires the house and we do just an agreement.

which is what this is with the president. this is between the president of the united states. that is what the letter says. nothing more, nothing less. curacao the united states works. -- here is how the united states works. i support the clear message that the united states is a body and the next president will not be held accountable to this president to sign an agreement i don't think is in the united states best interest. and certainly not in israel's best interest. guest: [inaudible] how would you see education could to beating to the future -- contributing to the each of our nation? governor perry: i am pretty simple of k-12.

i think that needs to be left to the states. i don't think there is much of a role at all for the federal government. i think your governor, your legislature working with your school administrators, teachers, parents, a substantially better place for a curriculum to be developed than a one-size-fits-all out of washington d c. the department of education needs to be a repository of good practices. that might be a good final state for it. i don't think that washington needs to be this one-size-fits-all -- this place where health care, education reform, transportation and infrastructure these to come from. louis brandeis, not a well-known conservative, former member of the supreme court said that the states were laboratories of democracy.

states need to experiment and try different ideas. from time to time, they will foul up. from my perspective, colorado is making an error in legalizing marijuana. it is exactly what louis brandeis said. i don't agree with it but i respect their right to find out they are making a mistake. [laughter] the same is true about education policy. i just think that people closer to the schools, closer to your state, closer to understanding what the people of new hampshire are all about, you come up with the best curriculum. you find the ways to educate your children substantially better than this one-size-fits-all that too often comes out of washington dc. host: we hope you all will come back. governor perry: i will be back.

[applause] governor perry: take care of yourself. i have some water there. thank you. i will be back. guest: we look forward to seeing you again. it was a good message. your personality will play extremely well in this state. it really will. governor perry: i want to come back and spend some time with the kids. from my perspective, it is one of the -- oh, ok. [laughter] is that lindsay? i will get by lindsey. lindsay is my buddy. i am a big lindsey graham fan. i think he is one of the most knowledgeable people we have on

foreign policy and we need to listen to him. he is a very bright united states senator -- he has carved out his niche and it is foreign policy. guest >> we did a poll with : bloomberg on foreign-policy issues and someone can up to me and said lindsey graham is on every single one of these issues. governor perry: i agree. i talked to him the night before last, picking his brain about what is going on in ukraine in particular. putin is a dangerous guy. and this strategy of this strategic patience with him i , don't think it is wise because the theory is with oil prices being in the tank and he has all of these economic problems and we will just outlast him and he

will collapse -- you have to remember the 1990's and how god it -- how bad it got in russia. it is not anywhere near as bad as that now. he has $386 billion of reserves. all of this oil and gas money, he put aside. people think about what was going on in the 1990's, and it is a lot better now. trying to wait him out is not a good strategy. i think you have to fund the lethal weapons to the ukrainian military. you take the swift banking ability away from him. there is a law where you can really go after the oligarchs and the thousand or so people that actually run russia and really squeeze them. and then we could flood europe with liquefied natural gas and that would really bring him to his knees.

guest: when i was in wisconsin i worked with a congressman on my board and we were looking at income contingent student loan payments. it is very simple. the mccain is doing it. instead of paying back student -- the ukraine is doing it. instead of paying back student loans on a fixed time and they say, if you are an investment banker and a teacher, you pay back in a different timeframe with a fix on the amount of interest you will pay. governor perry: i wonder if we can get the federal government out of the student loan business. guest that is the ultimate : objective. get it back to the private sector. governor perry: give it back to the private sector. thank you, sir. ok. great. let me take off my c-span

microphone and know who to give it to. alan, thank you. [indiscernible] >> next, ted cruz speaks at that lincoln reagan dinner in new hampshire. after that "q&a" with the director of farmed out, a pharmaceutical industry project. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> we are covering a hearing today on the impact of inaccurate social security records and how it results in improper payments issued to deceased persons or individuals

being denied benefits who are listed as dead. the senate of homeland security is live at 4:00 p.m. eastern on >> tonight commissioner on the recent net neutrality ruling. municipal broadband and subsidized phone program lifeline. >> what i am proposing we do is overhaul lifeline program may get, making concurrent and in sync with the information age. challenge of those providers to give a more to their consumers. the opportunities to bond out have been more for the rest of us. get to the providers out of the certification of business. that has been the number one problem we have been s