the national press club staff, including our journalism institute staff and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the national press club, go to the website, press.o thank you. we are adjourned. rg. -- press.org. >> a reminder that if you missed any of this event with rick perry, you can see it on our video library c-span.org. we have live coverage coming up in an hour and a half now -- half an hour from now, president obama will be making remarks on the economy at the university of wisconsin at la crosse will have that live on c-span. it starts at 2:30 eastern. the president will talk about the june jobs report released

earlier today showing the unemployment rate fell to 5.3%. you can find a link to that report on our website c-span.org. coming up tonight, conversations with leading executives and regulators in the tech industry at the annual techcrunch disrupt news conference. an insider view of the deal's entrance shaping the internet. -- deals and trends shaping the internet. >> the massive outpouring of public comment -- were you surprised at the amount of comments that came in? this is bigger than most policy debates are. >> there was a day early on we had 100,000-150,000 commenting filed. -- comments being filed. that's why this debate, that's

why this decision was so damaged port in -- dam important. 4 million people -- it was about three quarters pro. the point is, this proved the power of an open internet. it just happened that the issue being decided and the ability to communicate using that technology had to coincide. >> you can see all of the ftc chair test all of what he had to say tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

we will take you to remarks from president obama in wisconsin that 2:30 eastern it right now conversation on same-sex marriage and antidiscrimination laws from this morning's washington journal. host: our next topic gay rights and anti-discrimination laws. kevin is joining from new york. he's the executive director of lambda legal. thank you for being with us this thursday morning. >> happy to be here. host: your reaction to the supreme court ruling and what's next when it comes to gay rights? >> well my reaction it's a wonderful ruling. i was in the courtroom last friday when the court announced the decision, and i am amazed at the breathe of the decision and beautifully written and justice en kennedy really understood what the issues were and what it means to have our relationships recognized and i'm happy to say

that since the decision comes down couples have gotten married in i believe everyone of state so we now have marriage equality nationwide in country. every state and every territory that everywhere that is covered by the united states constitution. host: there were 13 states that restricted guy marriage and some of those states including texas to keep that restriction in place even though they grudgingly accept the supreme court ruling is the law of the land. so discuss the next level challenges that this is going to face. >> well so there are going to be pockets of resistance. we've seen that in a handful of counties in places like texas and louisiana, but if you follow the news on friday there was lot of talk from a lot of states and most of it has collapsed. we are talking about civil

marriage here and we're not talking about religion or church or temples or anything like that. and and the supreme court has the final say and civil marriage meaning the states have to provide marriage licenses the law of the land. will he have to bring some enforcement action to force people to follow the law? we may, but i think that the opposition is continuing to collapse even in the states that made the most noise many, many, many counties are issuing licenses and marriages have been performed. the dust hasn't settled. there will be a little more work to do to make sure the promise is available to everyone in the country. but what we're also going to see over the next couple of months is an ability for groups like lambda legal to retune our

efforts and to put more focus on other work that we've been doing all along, things like employment discrimination which is a huge problem for lbgt people across the country, safety from violence and the ability to organize erb use effecting lesbian and gay elders and h.i.v. and epidemics. and healthcare helped out immensely by the supreme court decision on thursday in the a c. a. case. we'll be extremely spweusbusy as we use this court decision to further our fight. >> i want to talk about some of those issues including other areas of discrimination. one other point, there is some states louisiana where the attorney general says, the court can say when this takes effect.

is it effective immediately and what would you say to states like louisiana and now state's attorney general saying we'll look before we implement the ruling by the court? >> they don't get a long time to look the at this. it is the law of the land when it is declared by the supreme court. now there are a number of lawsuits pending around the country lawsuits put on hold because the supreme court was reviewing the cases out of the 6th circuit. we have already moved forward in a number of those in north dakota we got a ruling, the fifth circuit yesterday issued a ruling so what the attorney general of louisiana wants is another court order from a lower court, i can pretty much guarantee we'll get that order within a matter of days. there isn't going to be anything for louisiana to hide behind

when it comes to providing civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. host: the ruling came down, jordan laurence, senior legal counsel with organization for the alliance for defending freedom, here's what he had to say. >> what i fear as we saw with the very with the very strong reactions to individual business owners who express a view that marriage is only defined as one man and one woman, is laws is used to compel them to dissipate in ceremony that's they don't agree with or force them to make message about marriage and the definition of marriage that they don't agree with. as justice kennedy said just moments ago in the courtroom, constitutional rights are not up for popular vote. so popular laws cannot take away people's right to freedom of

speech speech, freedom of press and assembly and choose their own jobs. we hope this decision will not be use as an excused to ostracize or demon tphaoeuz people. host: kevin, your reaction. >> people absolutely have the right to hold their own views. there is a lot of publicity or the day before about a court clerk in i'm going to say south carolina but i could be off by a state of two. a county clerk who resigned from her job pause her religion doesn't allow to her give marriage licenses. i think that's too bad for her, but that is in fact one of the conditions of the job. if you are going to have a

narrowly held set of beliefs that don't enable to you do a government job then it is not the job of government to discriminate against other people accommodate you. it is your challenge to find a job that you are comfortable with. so i think we'll see some settling out of some of these issues. but what we've seen so far has been extremely smooth that despite a lot of tpwopl people have gotten married and we are not getting reports of real problems or opposition. so the number of states that are still saying no dwindles every day. it will continue to. again, we're talking about civil marriage. we're not talking about religion. we're not talking about clergy members or other religious leaders. this is purely a civil matter.

and, yes, there will be skeurplishes around the edges of what does this mean as society changes some people are quick tore changes some people are quick to embrace it. some people don't choose to. but overall, the law is clear. host: as you know, churches have a tax-exempt status. so if they refuse, you indicated to legally marry in the church gay or lesbian, do think in any way that their legal status would be jeopardized? guest: absolutely not. no, i don't think that is an issue at all. it is very clear that each faith in this country under our constitution has the right to determine its own tenants, its own believes. and there are many religious bodies who have been performing ceremonies for same-sex couples for many years now. there are many who have not. and many of those perhaps never

will. but that does not go to any issue about tax-exempt status or their status as a religious institution. they are completely safe from this. this is, again, i keep repeating myself, but it can't be said enough, this is about civil marriage. this requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and it requires states to recognize the marriages validly performed in other states host:. do gays -- states. host: do gays and lesbians face discrimination in the workplace? guest: absolutely. we do impact litigation on lgbt civil rights issues, and we have help desks and all five of our offices nationwide. there is an 800 number and also e-mail. and consistently, for as many years as i can remember, the

largest number of calls or intakes, e-mails, whichever where the common that we get are about employment discrimination. the majority of states in this country do not have laws that provide specific protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. there is no federal statute that provides these protections. we have been working in the courts to try to create protections under the u.s. constitution and under sex discrimination laws. this has been more successful around gender identity and transgender issues. it is still in its very early stages around lesbian and gay related discrimination. what we need is a big legislative push and a lot of states and federally to add protections. as a lawyer, it would be very

helpful to the work that i and the people at lambda legal due to have stronger laws that make it clear. at the same time, many, many municipalities and counties across the country have amended their local laws to provide protections. these aren't as great as state or federal laws, mainly because they don't have such strong enforcement mechanisms. but they do provide people with the means of redress and they do make it clear what the public policy is. i think over the next years, we are going to see a big push from the lgbt community and our allies to expand these laws and to provide protections for people and more and more places. host: and i want to get the phone calls in just a moment, but let me just follow up on lambda. here is essentially a summary of what that legislation does. a bill that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, with

exemptions for small businesses and religious institutions. and you are not a supporter of this bill, why? guest: well, there are a couple of issues. i should start by saying first of all that i don't think anybody thinks that a bill like this has a realistic chance in congress at this point in time. if you look at the sort of gridlock on the hill and the divisions within and between the two branches of congress, i am just not seeing it happen. i am certainly not saying anything move until after the elections. and then i don't know. it depends on what the elections look like. but there are a couple of concerns. one is that the bill is narrow. and i come and a lot of people, like to see a broader civil rights bill that covers not just housing -- i mean not just

employment, but housing and public accommodations. and on one of the issues is the scope of the religious exclusion within the bill. as i said earlier churches and other religious bodies are exempt from having to provide marriages. they are also exempt from employment discrimination laws when it comes to jobs or work that is ministerial that has to do with the tenants of their religion. the question in our country that we grapple with with these laws is well, what is the scope of what is a religious body kind of job? when we live in a country where a norma's numbers of health care providers, for example, -- a norma's numbers of health care providers, for example, -- or discriminate in the provision of

services. lots of schools, colleges have university -- religious affiliations and they discriminate in hiring, whether it is faculty members or people who work in food services or people who are guards at the front gate. and i think we need to have a very carefully crafted test that makes distinctions -- text that makes distinctions. again, if someone is a priest or a rabbi or a minister absolutely, the religious authorities have a broad right to determine who qualifies for that. but if someone is a groundskeeper or works in food services or teaches a class or is a nurse or a doctor, i don't think that the exemptions should be as big. so it is a pretty technical area of the law. there is a lot of debate about this. we have seen also on state levels, not just in congress, the religious freedom restoration act.

issues in indiana earlier this spring, there is talk in louisiana of the same kind of thing. this is going to be a very hot political issue with a lot of debate and needed in the coming years. host: to our lgbt audience, the line to call in is (202) 748-0003 for. our guest is kevin cathcart, the executive director of lambda legal. we will go to hell and joining us from michigan -- helen joining us from michigan. good morning. caller: i am just calling about the marriage between two of the same sex. i believe in a civil union, but i do not believe in -- marriage. marriage is between a man and a woman and they are going to have to change the dictionary to put

what marriage means. and i don't believe at all it should be called marriage. a civil union, yes. but not marriage. thank you. host: to her comment and this question, kevin cathcart, from another viewer saying, can you assure us that there will not be lawsuits by gay groups against churches for refusing to marry gays? your response. guest: sure. i think i can assure you that we will not see lawsuits against churches for refusing to marry same-sex couples. because, as i have said, we believe at lambda legal, and i think i can speak for all of the legal organizations in our community, we are very clear that what we are talking about is civil marriage. so, i feel like that is a red herring. i know some people have genuine fears about it. i know the right-wing drags it up every time. there has been a lot of stuff floating around on blogs about

the war on christianity and the sort of thing. which of this case has absolutely nothing to do with religion. as to the question about civil unions, i think civil unions were an important step along the way as we work fighting for -- were fighting for same-sex equality, but i don't think that should have been the end of the road. i think the dictionaries actually have changed. it was more than 10 years ago now that same-sex couples started getting married in massachusetts. and places like iowa and california followed fairly quickly. connecticut, vermont, new jersey, new york, washington dc. and so, it is not as if marriage equality is new in the united states. there are hundreds of thousands of married couples.

up until last october, we had marriage equality in 19 states. we went up to 37 states over the course of the last year. the impact of the supreme court decision is felt really in the 13 remaining states because in a great deal of the country marriage equality has been the law for anywhere from six months to ten and a half years. and lots and lots of people have already gotten married. and this has not hurt opposite sex marriage. it has not led to a change in the divorce rates. it is not bad for society. people have been lost in massachusetts for over a decade now -- been watching massachusetts for over a decade now on whether dyer outcomes would have happened, and none of them have. if anything, the institution is strengthened by more people willing to participate in it. host: the key vote in the 5-4

decision, he also weighed in on the decision of religious freedom. here is part of what justice kennedy appointed by ronald reagan, by the way, had the same. -- had to say. let's go to greg, joining us from north carolina. the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, sir. mr. cathcart, can you tell me please, what grade level and what age does your organization go down to to counsel students

as to what their sexual orientation maybe? -- may be? and my second thought is, when you do get to that level, do you consult their parents? guest: well, we do not counsel students about their sexual orientation. we are a legal orientation -- organization and we bring lawsuits and your advocacy and legal issues. so that said, we do work with younger people. often with people in high school who are trying to create gay-straight alliances in their schools, or who are the victims of harassment and violence in their schools. and, yes, one of the challenges in working with younger people is that you need their parents to be on board because people under the age of 18 are unable to actually hire lawyers, make contracts, so that we can only work with them in terms of

lawsuits if the parents are willing to sign and back them up. host: where is the name -- does the name of your organization come from? guest: that is a question that has come up for years and years. in the early days of the gay movement in the united states, right after the stonewall in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when you couldn't put the word gay and lesbian in the title of things because it would scare people away, people were unwilling to get mail from gay and lesbian on the return address. you couldn't necessarily put ads in the newspapers. a lot of organizations in this country picked up the word lam bda, which is a letter in the greek al capone, having to do with signifying change. i am excellent not all that good on understanding greek, so i'm

not 100% clear on how it became the word. but it became a common code word. so there were lots of organizations, democratic clubs book stare club -- bookstore clubs, a lot of organizations that gay people in the know would know if that something was named lambda, it would be a lgbt organization. but when lambda legal was founded in new york state in -- or attempted to be founded in 1972, the state actually denied us nonprofit status. and there was a ruling quickly overturned, but the initial ruling said that the organization served no valid charitable purpose, even though our bylaws are very closely followed by bylaws of other

legal defense and education organizations that have been founded in prior years. so there was a lot of discrimination. it is kind of hard to -- almost hard to comprehend what it was like in the early 1970's compared to today. there is still discrimination, but there is so much more visibility, political power. there are supreme court victories. i am here on television talking about these things. that wasn't the case when lambda became the name and the word to make it possible for people to begin to organize. host: our guest is kevin cathcart and are topic is discrimination battles ahead. billy is joining us from miami, florida on our line for lgbt viewers. good morning, billy. caller: hello, good morning. mr. cathcart, congratulations to you. i read many things -- an e-mail

that you have said or read. i have three really fast questions for you. i lived with a partner for 23 years and we owned a home together, we paid a mortgage, we owned a business together, and we paid all these taxes and social security. he passed away in 1999 after 23 years together. i am wondering is there any movement about me collecting his survivors social security benefits? because i think that is where this country is sustaining itself by all the money it doesn't have to pay gay people. host: billy, hold on the line. we will get a response of an follow-up with you. guest: so, you raise a really important issue, which is what happens now that the law has changed -- what happens to people who do not have the ability to take advantage of this new law. and i can't give you an exact

answer because this is a question that is being litigated right now. lambda legal has a case against the social keep -- security administration and i think we are going to see issues like this, not just with social security, but with other kinds of pensions that have time limits. i will say i'm not optimistic that we are going to get the government to look back more than a decade and try to assess relationships and intent and all of that, but we are -- we are in litigation right now and you can actually follow this on our website www.lambdalegal.org. that is the one that affects the largest number of people in this country. there are issues even for people who get married today because in

order for a spouse to qualify for social security benefits you have to be married for at least nine months. and we have had cases in recent years of people who were together for decades, were finally able to marry and then one of the partners died and they want to married for the requisite nine months. it sounds like a neutral role, and it is in some ways a neutral rule if you have a neutral playing ground and everyone always has the same opportunity to follow that rule, but same-sex couples have not. just as you did not have that opportunity. and so there will be ongoing efforts, both litigation and policy work, to get institutions like social security, like the veterans administration, and other government entities that provide significant benefits to recognize the reality of people's lives and the fact that we were not able to marry ought

not to be held against us. that said, i'm not optimistic about the 1990's. host: and let me quickly follow up and go back to your follow-up, billy. does this also involved private corporations and how they provide benefits to one spouse in same-sex marriages? kevin cathcart? guest: well, yes. i mean, what happens is if private corporations provide benefits on the basis of marital status, then the law of the land is that all marriages are equal. and they should not be making distinctions across different marriages. they don't get to decide, well, we will provide pensions for people where both partners are of the same religion, but not in mixed marriages. they don't get to make those kinds of decisions. so, you know, i don't anticipate real problems in the private

market. there are a lot of businesses in this country who have been ahead of this curve. there was a lot of business support for the lawsuits that one up to the supreme court. there were briefs signed by an amazing array of corporations and law firms and other kinds of businesses in american life. and one of the reasons why -- i will give you two reasons why businesses happens so supportive. first of all, businesses want to hire talent. and they want their policies to enable them to get the best people possible. and secondly, many businesses operate across a lot of different states. they may be national or regional, and it is really helpful for the business climate and for business leaders to have consistent laws so that it doesn't change from state to state. it is really a problem for businesses who operate nationally when they have staff

who are married in one state and then they want to transfer them to another office, but if they move to that state, their marriage is not recognized. so that won't be the case today, since last friday. but that has been a real problem. and so you can't have an effective national presence and national workforce. and that has led to a lot of thinking on the part of businesses, which led to a lot of support for a lawsuit and a lot of briefs were filed and a lot of work has been done. host: let me jump in and go back to billy, who has been on the line for miami. caller: my second -- and by the way, what you said, mr. cathcart, taking our money that not giving it back, that is really self-serving of the government, if you ask me. i think that is why social security has lasted because they have that full of money that they don't have to pay out. kind of like, like i said,

self-service. my second question is -- if we want to married, how can i am meant my partner's death certificate? and also, can you be married because of the law host thomas lee -- posthumously? guest: no, i am site is a you cannot be married posttest muesli -- posthumously. there is paperwork that has to be signed, so there is not a way anywhere in this country to sort of reach back for people who did not, unfortunately, have the opportunity to get married. as to your first question, or your middle question, i can't sort of give legal advice over the camera here because i don't know enough about the situation or the state law, but if you

have specific questions or if anyone has pacific questions who is listening, again, www.lambda legal.rog. from our website, you can get the phone number for the regional office that covers you. we have offices in new york, chicago, los angeles dal president obama:>> you can see the rest of this conversation on www.c-span.org. we go live now to president obama. he's expected to talk about the economy. it is just getting underway. [applause] [applause] president obama: hello

wisconsin! [applause] president obama: i'm thrilled to be back in wisconsin. [applause] president obama: thank you. thank you so much. i am fired up. [applause] president obama: it is good to be back in god's country. [applause] president obama: i appreciate being anyplace that names in eagle after stephen colbert. [laughter] president obama: happy early fourth of july everybody. [applause] president obama: i figured i'd come here to kick off a long weekend. i'm looking for a brat.

[laughter] president obama: it is wonderful to see your outstanding senator here. [applause] president obama: she is doing outstanding work in the senate bid over in the house, you have a congressman who never forgets his -- [applause] president obama: your mayor -- [applause] president obama: the former governor. [applause] president obama: and i want to

thank your chancellor. [applause] president obama: everybody who helped to organize this, i'm so appreciative. i've heard good things about riverfront big we do a pretty good cookout at the white house it we are having a barbecue for the troops on saturday. [applause] president obama: nobody does broats like wisconsin. [applause] president obama: no matter where you live, this is a special time of year to be an american. food fireworks -- if you have chairs, feel free to sit. i will talk for a while. if you don't have chairs, don't sit down, because he will fall. -- you will fall.

love you. [applause] president obama: in addition to the fireworks and the food, this is a chance to celebrate a bedrock principle so deep that generations of americans have been willing to risk everything to declare it. the idea that all of us are created equal. [applause] president obama: that all of us are in doubt with certain inalienable -- endowed with certain inalienable rights. life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. it is each generations obligation to secure those rights for everybody. [applause]

president obama: that's something i spent a lot of time thinking about. it's been a remarkable few weeks in america. [applause] president obama: health care is something everybody can get. [applause] president obama: by the way it's not just a matter of making sure one has access to it. it's also an organization that organizations doing great work to increase quality and to control cost could that was a great affirmation. and the freedom to marry who you love. [applause]

president obama: that's a good thing. [applause] president obama: that is a good thing. [applause] president obama: and then, out of the worst tragedies, this country is responding with the generosity and the self-examination that can lead us to someplace better. some folks think all of this progress comes quickly. the truth is, progress only comes with the persistence dedicated effort of citizens. people who are in their own small ways working hard, committed to the promise that has set this country apart. it doesn't happen because of a

president or a member of congress. happens because ordinary people work hard and do extraordinary things together. the promise that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can shape our own individual dreams, but we still come together as one american family to make sure the next generation has opportunity as well. that is especially true when it comes to our economy. that's what i've come to la crosse to talk about on this fourth of july weekend. america has always done better economically when we are all in it together. when everybody gets a fair shot. [applause] president obama: when everybody gets a fair shot everybody is doing their fair share come everybody's playing by the same set of rules.

when we feel like we have a common stake in our success from the ceo in the corner s uite to the factories on the floor. that's how we build a great american middle class. when you drive through la crosse and see communities throughout wisconsin where kids are thriving and committees are thriving, it's because everybody has a shot. everybody is working hard and pitching in. that's when we are at our best. this morning, we learned that our businesses created another 223,000 jobs last month. [applause] president obama: the unemployment rate is now down to 5.3%. [applause] president obama: when i came into office, it was around 10%. we have seen 64 straight months of private-sector job growth, a

new record. [applause] president obama: 12.8 million new jobs all told. that is good. but we have more work to do. we have to get folks wages and incomes to keep going up. we have to make sure folks feel like their hard work is getting them somewhere. [applause] president obama: let's face it, there are a lot of folks who still feel like the playing field is tilted in ways that make it hard for them to get ahead. the challenge is facing working men and women -- it did not start with this recession. it's been going on for a while now. health care was closed off to too many people and cost too much. our schools were underfunded. we were not preparing our kids for the competition from the rest of the world.

our teachers are underpaid. [applause] president obama: just saying. that is true. [applause] president obama: the hardest job there is the most important job there is an we should honor it as such. other nations have been raising ahead -- raising ahead on clean energy. even as we work to put people back to work in the short run we've been trying to work to change some of these long-term trends to make sure that we are laying the foundation for future success. we worked to rebuild our economy on a stronger foundation for growth.

in slow and steady ways, that work is paying off. we believe we can ship fewer jobs overseas and we retold the american auto industry. we are on track to sell more cars and trucks this year than we have in over a decade. [applause] president obama: we invested in american manufacturing. after a decade of decline thanks to the support of folks like ron kind, we've added manufacturing jobs, growing faster than the rest of the economy. [applause] president obama: we believed we could prepare our kids for a more competitive world and today, our high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high. more americans finish college than ever before.

[applause] president obama: we believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and do a better job of protecting the planet. today, america is number one in the traditional fuels but also number one in wind. we generate more than 20 times as much solar electricity as we did in 2008. [applause] president obama: thanks to lower gas prices and us setting standards to double fuel efficiency on cars, the typical family now pace -- saves $700 at the pump this year. [applause] president obama: we extended tax cuts for 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses. we ask the wealthiest americans

who had been doing better than everybody else, not just relatively, but absolutely, we ask them to pay a little bit more. to help bring down the deficit. [applause] president obama: we put in place the top and wall street reform in history, to protect main street from another crisis. health reform it means the uninsured rate is now the lowest on record. [applause] president obama: i have these big recollections when republicans were saying obamacare would kill jobs, crush freedom and bring about death panels. turns out we are still celebrating the fourth of july. [applause] president obama: the only difference is another 16 million

americans can celebrate it with health care. [applause] president obama: that's worth celebrating. [applause] president obama: the republic survived. [laughter] president obama: what business owners pay out in wages and salaries is now growing faster than what they spent on health care. that's the first time that's happened since the 1990's. not only are more people getting health care, but we've slowed the growth of health care costs, businesses have more money left over to start giving raises to their workers. [applause] president obama: i just want to play back the tapes.

we were told all these measures would destroy jobs and explode the deficit. remember that? remember when they promised to bring unemployment down to 6% by 2017? we have a record streak of private-sector job growth, we cut the deficit by two thirds, the stock market has doubled 401(k)s for millions of families. this is progress. step, america is moving forward. middle class economics works. [applause] it works. [applause] president obama: but, we still have more work to do. as will rogers once had, even if you are on the right track, you will still get run over if you still sit there. you have to keep running. [laughter] president obama: the question we

have to keep asking ourselves is, where do we go from here? we still have choices. will we drift toward an economy were only a few of us do very well and everybody else is still struggling to get by? that's not the right way to do it. or, will we keep working toward an economy where everybody works hard has a chance to succeed? over the next year and a half, you will hear a lot of pitches from a lot of people. they will deny that any progress has been made. you'll hear a lot of folks try to sell you on their vision of where our country should go. they are going to be making a whole bunch of stuff up. [laughter] president obama: when i say a lot of stuff, i mean a lot of stuff. [laughter] [applause]

president obama: we have some healthy competition in the democratic party. i lost count of how many republicans are running. [laughter] president obama: they will have enough for an actual hunger games. [laughter] [applause] president obama: that is an interesting bunch. [laughter] president obama: i have come here today, i figure why should i let them have all the fun? it is a good thing that this time around, you are hearing republicans joining democrats talking about the middle class and working families. that is good. i welcome them knowledge and -- acknowledging that's an important issue. tammy, ron me, we were talking

about it before it was cool. [laughter] [applause] president obama: before it was trending. [applause] president obama: we were talking about it before the polls told you we should be talking about it. they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. their menu doesn't have a lot of options for the middle class. the one thing the bus full of people share is they keep on coming up with the same old trickle-down you are on your own economics that helped bring about the crisis back in 2007 in the first place. i know some of them well, they are good people, but their ideas are bad. [laughter] [applause] president obama: i want to

emphasize that. we are one country, all on one team. we are all one american family. we all go for thanksgiving and uncle harry starts saying something and you say that makes no sense at all. you still love him. he is still a member of your family. right? [laughter] but you have to correct them. you don't want to put him in charge of stuff. [laughter] [applause] president obama: that's all i'm saying. [applause] president obama: by the way, if there is an uncle harry out here , i was not talking about you. just using harry as an example. here are a few of their bad ideas. eliminating taxes that the wealthiest americans pay on their investments while making

you pay taxes on every dime of your paycheck. that's a bad idea. [applause] president obama: that's a bad idea. [applause] president obama: keeping the minimum wage worth less than it was when ronald reagan took office before most of you were born, that's a bad idea. [applause] president obama: to be accurate, at least one of them actually thinks we should have no minimum wage at all. every single one of these candidates serving in congress has supported cutting taxes for folks at the top while flashing investments in -- slashing investments in education. i know that sounds familiar. [applause] president obama: some of those

members in congress voted to do it. every single one of them is still obsessed with repealing the affordable care act, despite the fact that, by every measure it's working. [applause] president obama: you could make an argument against obamacare before it passed. something new, it's untried, you don't know. but now, where it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do and actually costing less than we expected and people are satisfied with the coverage they are getting, it seems a little mean to say that you don't want to provide coverage for 16 million people. you have nothing to replace it with. that is a bad idea. [applause] president obama: i want to be

clear that these are really their ideas. i'm not making it up. you can fact check. i'm not asking you to select from this list to see which one is actually true they are all true. there is nothing new about this. it's a philosophy that believes if we give special breaks to people at the top, prosperity trickles down to the rest of us. we've seen what happens when top-down economics meets the real world. we got proof right here in wisconsin. we had a statewide fair pay law that was repealed. your right to organize and bargain collectively was attacked. education funding was cut. your minimum wage has been stuck in place. corporations and the most fortunate few have been on the receiving end of hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax cuts over the past four years. that's what has been going on here. what happens when we try

middle-class economics? those across the river -- [applause] president obama: a pretty interesting experiment. in minnesota, they asked the top 2% to pay more, they invest in things that help everybody succeed like all-day kindergarten and financial aid for college students. [applause] president obama: they took action to raise the minimum wage and passed the equal pay law. they protected workers rights and expanded medicaid to cover more people. according to the republican theory, all of those steps would have been bad for the economy. minnesota's unemployment rate is lower than wisconsin. minnesota's median income is around $9,000 higher. the la crosse tribune wrote that minnesota is winning this border battle.

[applause] president obama: it is true that , as the tribune pointed out wisconsin does have the packers. even bears fans can respect the packers. [applause] president obama: wisconsin is an extraordinary state filled with extramarital. -- extraordinary people. if you end up adding policies that cut education, help folks at the top, are not expanding opportunity, it's not going to work. we need better policies. top-down economics does not work. middle-class economics works. [applause] president obama: it works. [applause]

president obama: it works. this is also a matter of values. being an american is not about taking as much as you can from your neighbor before they take as much as they can from you. we are not a bunch of individuals out here. we are a community, we are family. we are all in this together. we have to work hard. i was taking some photos before hand with ron and a couple folks who got dairy farms. no one works harder than farmers. they know about hard work. [applause] president obama: farmers know about hard work. they wake up early, go to bed late, worrying all the time about making sure things run.

they also understand about being neighbors. and helping each other out. that is america. we have to make sure that this economy works for everybody who is willing to work. i want to spend the rest of my time talking about what that might mean for the 21st century. number one we got to help working families feel more secure in this world of constant change. that's why health care matters. if you've ever been locked out of the health care market just because you have a pre-existing condition, those days are over. [applause] so you can now change jobs, start a business, you've got affordable insurance if you needed. that's going to protect a lot of