to kick it off, i want to get your take on the primary landscape. you said before no republican has every won the white house without winning ohio, so my question is would a bit of a hometown and home field advantage, what is your plan to become the nominee? >> the situation is a brilliant way in america to pick a president. you start over in iowa with the caucus that is different. and it is unpredictable what happens over here. after ohio we have new hampshire which is 1.2 million people. that is like running for congress. there you show up and very much like iowa you do a lot of these to town halls. i have done 18 of them. they poke you, and smell you,

and look at you in the eye and try to figure out who you are. and see most importantly if you understand their challenges and problems. we see a lot of national polls but we don't have a national primary. iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, you move right along and there is no surprise that we consider new hampshire to be important but not the exclusion of all other places so we are building out our infrastructure. and in the business of the primary and national poll and all of that what is most important, and i run a lot of political campaigns, if you build a stage with no scaffolding the stage can collapse. we have seen that. as you build the stage, you have

to build the scaffolding so you have a solid foundation. that is how i have done it. i am having a great time. i show up and you are like thank you for coming. why wouldn't have? someone is like you will do this and that and i said i don't care what you do. let's just have fun. >> in the republican primary there seems to be establishment candidates like yourself and out sider candidates like fiorina and carson. these outsiders have proven to be worthy opponents. how would you as an establishment figure and some say career politician, how do you find support when many americans appear to be looking

for someone that will disrupt the political norm in washington, d.c.? >> it is sort of funny. where was sitting with bob walker, trent lock, and we were sitting in the trailer out in california. and lock looks at walker and says when did he become rhinos and why question is when did where become establishment? they belly laughed at me being establishment. from the time i got into politics all the way through where i am today there is no one i can think of who has consistently shaken up the status quo more than i have. do you know what it like to be it a republican on the defense committee and start trig to limit the production of a weapon system or perfect procurement? do you know what it is like to be a member of the house and

offer budgets against your own president? do you know what it is like to fight against your own appropriation committee? do you know what it is like to go to ohio and face the problems we had and say we are not raising taxes and in the first year be the most unpopular governor in america because you are a change agent. but i know how to get it done. i not only want -- people stand on the street corner shouting from a change but if you don't get it done what is the point. i was with a congressman in virginia yesterday who was blaming the sentate from a not passing the balanced budget and i said is it the failure of the senate or the failure of the house to not convince the senate to do it? i spent my life battling and achieving so establishment from

the standpoint of i know how to move the system but you would have a lot of people laughing if you called me a member of the establishment. if you can operate in both worlds it makes you effective. >> i have seen your willingness to step up. >> one time i had a build a change corporate welfare. i said if we are going to reform welfare for poor people we ought to do it for rich people. so a business round table invited me and i got up to speak because they didn't like what i was doing and i said you know what is great is if i didn't have this provision i would be serving the dinner not eating it. >> you have spent 17 years in congress and been credited as one of the architects of

balancing the budget in 1997. i believe you are proud of it and should be. so you probably have a unique insight on this issue. but right now for every one dollar the united states spends on children we spend about three dollars on seniors. and according to the committee for a responsible budget, because of the aging population, we know a bit about that, if we continue on this path in about ten years we will be spending something closer to $4.50 on seniors for every $1.00 we spend on a child. clearly the path is going to require difficult decisions moving forward. my question is if you become president how will you work to make sure the government is making smart, long-term investments like prioritizing

kids while not bankrupting the rest of us? >> that is why you have to have knowledge. the situation is you don't want to pull the rug out from under seniors who become very dependented on benefits. on the other hand, you have to think about what you are going to do stabilize the system. back in 1999, i offered a proposal on social security that would protect our seniors and started the baby boomers at a slight lower rate in a way which you calculate the benefits. it would trickle down and give our young people a private account of 2% that it would take and pay from from the $5 trillion surplus we had when i left congress.

that thing sat there for 16 years. when you go to the doctor and the doctor says you have a problem i would assume you would say let's deal with it now. in this town, you have a problem, you just bury your heard in the sand and blame somebody else because there is no leadership to get it fixed. when we look at social security now the problem is more severe. the consequences of delaying are going to be bigger. what i said is simple and would have fixed the program for many decades. we are looking at, and we will have things to say, there are many social security plans, we have to figure out which brings the greatest equity to the seniors and young people. that will come a little later.

soon i will talk about medicaid and medicare. medicare is a critical program that is running out of money. we will have things to say about this in the next couple weeks. but no body balanced more budgets or proposed more. i have written 18 of them so i am just starting to get good. in terms of young people like in your state we have a medicare issue. i expanded medicare because i want to help the mentally ill and the drug addicted get on their feet. but at the same time, we believe in early childhood education. it is a question of balance. we invested a ton of money in k-12 education. you cannot ignore your seed corn. you cannot ignore your young. we believe in mentoring programs in the schools.

we believe early childhood education is so critical because it allows the brain to develop when kids are young. it is all about balance. isn't life all about balance? how do you help this and not oliterate that. economic growth is the most important thing for everybody in the country. if you don't have economic growth, it is amazing how much more you can do to help people. >> let me chat about medicaid and health care. as governor of ohio you chose to expand medicaid contrary to what republican leaders in your state wished for. >> that is not really true. let me explain the process. >> are you calling me a liar? >> no, i am not that guy. let me tell you the story.

our head of mental health and drug rehab was in my office, and i looked at her because we had to make a decision about expanding medicaid. she is a lady. she is on the help line. she knows the problems people have. and shine my office and she said tracy, what do you think i am going to do with medicaid, do you think i will expand it? she said every night i pray you will do it because there are many in need. and i said guess what? your prayers are answered because i am expanding medicare. she broke down askand cried tea of joy. our medicare went from 10% growth to 2.5% growth in the second budget without cutting one benefit or taking anybody off the rolls. this is the program states have the hardest time controlling. i have great people working in the medicare area.

secondly, the mentally ill, do they belong in prison if they are bipolar or schizophrenic? i don't think so. if i can get them on their medication, we can have the community to work with them to not have them in jail and save $22,500 and let them get a job and become tax paying citizens and realizing their purpose. or someone addicted to drugs, if we don't rehab them we see them in and out and maybe into homes. the recidivism rate is less than 20% and nationally it is almost 50%. when we do that and they become productive, or if you are the working poor and spend all of your time in the emergency room,

we pay anyway because you go when you are sicker and more costly. so we believe it is a smart issue of arithmetic but there is another issue. how about morality and being a country that can embrace people to get on their feet. that may not make a headline or maybe people happy but i am not in the business to have a headline. i am mt business to make sure everybody has a chance to be lifted. it has worked in our state. people don't want to expand medicaid and that is okay with me. but my question is what are you going to do about the mentally ill? the drug addicted? the first time this bill went through legislature they didn't want to vote on it to avoid primaries but the leadership of the legislature made sure it happened. this time the house and senate approved expansion and we have a

very conservative legislature so maybe we are starting to win the order of the day. it is a long answer but important to hear. >> it is important and i appreciate the compassionate approach. >> the other side is we have drug courts. we don't fool around with that. this is not a matter of give, give, give. you have to accept personal responsibility where you have. my mother said it was a sin to not help people who need help but it is a sin to help people that need to learn to help th themselv themselves. we have a large element of personal responsibility in there. >> great answer. thank you. let me ask a little bit about your private sector experience. on wall street specifically, while some candidates boast about their private sector experience, and other candidates boast about the public sector experience, you are someone who has both.

in 2011 i believe after 18 years in congress you joined leeman brothers as managing director and worked there until the collapse in 2008 which many would say started and was the catalyst of the financial crisis. your opponent in the 2010 race, strickland didn't hold back on attacking you because of the experience on wall street. i think one of the attacks said you, i quote, got rich while ohio seniors lost millions. what would you say to voters who might be wondering if you were to become to president would you have their best interest at heart? >> the guy attacking me lost the election for the for the first time in 36 year. i operated a two-man office in

columbus, ohio and my job was to travel around and help countries get stronger to make jobs better. and i said if i could bankrupt leeman brothers from my position i should be pope. it was a great experience because i got to understand how job creators, business leaders, and board of directors make decisions. i spent time in the silicone valley at google. you thinked i learned about innovation and how america is going to move forward. i worked in financial service and understand the problems small, medium and large banks have. and i learned about the steel companies and the challenge as they have in terms of bringing heavy industry back to america. this was fantastic. that is not all i did.

i was on some boards and i taught, but one of the things you need to know is i also worked at fox news where i was a giant television star, javier. if you don't remember, i have tapes in the car. my father carried mail on his back. his father was a coal minor. my mother's mother could barely speak english which says spng about my views on immigration. if we didn't have immigration, i will probably be running for president of croatia. i understand when the wind blows the wrong way people find themselves out of work. i lived with. i was back in my home town with nbc. my daughters call it dad's disappearing childhood. all of the buildings i went to

were knocked down. it is a blue coller place. when you grow up like that it is in your dna. it is good to see all levels of society to get a real understanding of how lots of things work. >> let's talk about immigration. our association for starters use immigration reform as an economic imperative that we believe could unleash innovation, create businesses, attract the world's best talent to our shores. i sense you and i probably see eye to eye on that. however, where i don't think you and i see eye to eye and correct me if i am wrong, is in this building of a wall. and using that as a solution for fixing a broken immigration system. we know the border is about 200 miles long and "the national

journal" estimated building a wall that long would cost $6.4 billion and what we have seen is people will find a way to get around it, under it, above it, and through it. and half of the nations colt undocumented immigrants are here by way of overstaying visas and not through legal entry. so the question is with all of that said, how do you propose we fix the broken immigration system and harness what is good about the immigrant community and particularly immigrant trips. >> where do you live? >> dallas, texas and here in washington as well. >> do you lock your doors at night? >> i do. >> really? >> don-- really? don't you think a country needs

to lock their doors. i voted for the '86 reagan proposal. we never locked the doors. a country that can not control its borders is a country with a lot of chaos. the six billion figure? they leave that much on the floor on capitol hill every night. we say secure the border, build a wall, whatever. the are technologies that can be just as effective as a physical wall with the ability to have censors and drones. i think it is imperative we control our border. with that being said, i believe we ought to have an affective guest worker program. people will come in, try to sneak in, and sneak back and forth.

and organized labor isn't like an unexpanded program. i have friends in organized labor and on this issue i think we should expand it so people are comfortable. secondly, once we have things in place we don't want people coming over. if they come over and they have an excuse but they have to go back. for those here, that have been law-abiding, god bless them, they are a critical part of society from doctors, engineers, to lawyers -- i don't know if we need more of them -- but we have teachers or whatever. and i think they should have a path to legalization. i think that can pass. when you talk about the visa issue and all of that that is something that has to be dealt with. we don't want people overstaying their visas. it looks like the whole immigration has to be done in a way in which address the elements. the fundamentals are protect the

border, guest worker people here who are law-abiding get stay. i think the american people -- the american people politicians say long they are speaking for the american people, my sense of being involved in the government is the people would accept this. the idea of picking up these people and shipping them away is unthought of. what are we going to do ride around neighbors and say come out, we are going to the border. it would send panic to families. there are families here that live in fear of being divided. could you imagine being a six or seven year old kid and being told they are going to ship your dad out? that is not acceptable in

america. in terms of the immigration issue, we need to broaden it. we need to clean up the visa but at the end of the day people are here, let them stay, so that is in sharp contrast to your party's frontrunner. >> i was telling you about building the stage with the scaffolding. if you don't have the scaffolding the stage collapses. i am not worried about any of that. when all is said and done, people are going to pick somebody they think is a reformer, can get the job done, can land the airplane. and someone that understand their problems. i don't think about frontrunner now. i don't think that means much right now unless we were having the national primary tomorrow which we are not. >> okay. guest worker program, build a wall, don't worry about the

noise. >> no, if you are a leader you cannot be -- people scream loud, okay, i hear you. let me think about what you are saying. if what you are saying makes sense, okay. i will consider that. but if it doesn't just because you scream loud how are we supposed to run a country like that? you run this chamber. does anybody squawk inside the chamber or your members. what do you do? cave into them all of the time? >> no. >> you don't? >> i am asking the question. i ask the questions. this is your second question. stop that. >> i am very experienced in asking in questions especially with my daughters who have a 15 and a half. here is the thing. we are a country of immigrants. many of us. what does the hispanic community do for us? fantastic, hard working part of

our group and who we are as americans. i don't care who is going to yell. when i go to town halls and they can yell at me all they want i don't have a problem here. part of the difficulty we have in this town is we don't have leaders who are willing to lead instead of reacting to who yells the loudest or worst yet fearing on fear. look at medicare expansion. i go into the events where people yell at me. you know what i tell them? and god bless them, but i say there is a book with a new and old part, they put it together. it is a remarkable book if you don't have one i will buy you one. it talks about how to treat the poor. sometimes you to lead. it is like fighting isis. we don't stop isis then this becomes a some point a direct

threat to the united states. it doesn't mean you don't listen. but you cannot let the yelling and the screaming determine your decision making. >> point well made. >> i want to ask yet another follow-up because i have not had enough of you yet. when you were -- during the last rga conference you expressed the willingness to create a path to citizenship -- >> i said it is not off the table. when you negotiate you have to be careful about putting in absolutes. but i don't favor that. and the reason why is i don't believe in jumping the line. i don't believe you ought to be rewarded for jumping in front of somebody else who is waiting. my wife and i had a friend who

had to go back to nicuraga and she is not happy that people jumped the line before her. i don't think you want to reward people that do the jump. the path to legalization to me is appropriate. i just want you to know you have to be careful. we have a people here, candidates or people, slamming their first on the table, this is the way it is going to be -- fist -- newt gingrich told me one time when i was arging with somebody, he said john, maybe you should use your skills to unlock them. knocking all of the pieces off the chess game doesn't help you win. you have to be careful with what you do and say.

>> point well made. let's talk a little bit on birth right citizenship. >> if you are born here you are a citizen, period, end of story. i am not going to change the 14th amendment. i cannot get a balanced budget through but i will when i become president. >> i want to talk more generally about the hispanic electorate. president obama got a huge percentage of the hispanic vote. >> why is that? >> i think it is because he paid attention. there you go asking another question. let me finish the question. the point i made was never before did the spanish

electorate played such a big role. today in america, every 30 seconds a hispanic turns 18 and becomes an eligible voter. that is a potential 58,000 voters every month and that is the case for the next 28 years in a row. i know hispanics comprise 3% of ohio's population so i understand not having a track record with the hispanic community. but with that said, as a presidential campaign what will you do to attract and eletrify the voters vote? >> we have a hispanic that i asked to serve on a

subsiacquaint university board. we have one of the state department of edgeication -- education that is beginning it serve there. you have to be inclusive. i not only feel this way about hispanics but about african-american also. you know, i spent a lot of efforts in ohio to make sure everybody feels like they have an opportunity to rise. and it is a natural for me. i also don't kind of think about this from the standpoint of segments like there is that and this segment. i think in term of americans, all of whom all have the same hopes and dreams. every mother has big hopes dreams for the baby. i think part of the problem is there are a lot of people that don't feel like they are included. as the president, of course i want to be able to be in this position where everybody has an opportunity to hold major post

and major positions. and to me it is not even about -- we had to get the vote, what is that? that is boring to me. well i am going to appoint you because i can get a vote. let's appoint people we are excited to appoint so they can rise. that doesn't mean you don't look for certain opportunities to make sure you have a society where everybody feels included. you make efforts along those lines. but it is not because i want to have a vote. it is because it is the right thing to do. you know what, i don't know if you notice this or not, but none of us are getting out of this place alive. remember what the pope said when he was here? that incredible, wonderful visit from the holy father, there will be an accounting for what we did while we had an opportunity on this earth. i firmly believe that.

if we are offering opportunity for everyone that is grail. that is why we do it. not because we will get something out of it but because it is the right thing to do. >> point well made, sir. as a bit of a follow-up, i think we all know words matter and you made a comment about tipping the hotel maid when talking about the hispanic community that some say feeds into stereotypes. in fact hillary clinton was quick to sweet, and i quote >> because she is terrified she will run against me in november. i have to get through the primary to do it. >> and i quote, another product of the party of trump. john kasich talking about latinos doesn't just mean talking about tips. two questions -- and >> i used to like her. >> i went on the record when

asked and i said while i believe it was a lit bit awkward i thought you were a decent man your comment was well intentioned. what is your take on this and can you clarify the role you think hispanics play in the american economy of the fiche snr >> this is why you cannot take this business of running for president too seriously. let me tell you what happensment i am in my hotel room, and this lady writes me a beautiful note. -- happens. -- and the note says i really care about your stay in this hotel. what a nice thing for someone to write. and then drew a picture with little flowers on the tree. when you 41 president, or when you are governor or when you are, you know, quote in one of these big positions, your life

can move at hundred miles per hour and mine sometimes does. i am grateful for the fact that for whatever reason, i am not telling you i have it figured out, but it is laid on me that everyone is important and everyone matters. so that is really what i was commenting on. i was in new hampshire not long ago where i saw a woman who was russian, by the way, doing unbelievable housekeeping chores and i said you are wonderful. what do i think about the role of hispanics? i think they can do everything and anything in this society. so people want to take things and they want to drive divisions. but if that is really -- i don't understand that. don't you have better things to do? things i have said about the community have been very, very

inclusive, very respectful, so i think hispanics from top to bottom play enormous rolls in society. you know what? -- roles -- i am glad i slowed down to notice that. brother lawrence, he was a theologian and when he washed dishes he prayed. when i get to heaven, i suspect i will see brother lawrence and we will have one of the biggest crowns on his head because the lord doesn't look at us for what our positions are but looks at us for what is in our hearts and rewards us that way. >> so all work is good. >> all work is noble. all work is dignity. >> many would assume ohio's largest industry is manufacturing, but according to the ohio farm bureau and

contrary to belief it appears agriculture is ohio's top industry. as i understand it, agriculture contributes something like $105-$108 billion to the state's economy and there are literally 75,000 farms in your state. i am an american. i was born in this country. but growing up i was a migrant farm worker. i know what it is like to work in the sun all day long, no coffee break, no child labor laws, you are working from sun up to sun down, no holiday day, if you wanted shade, you would put on a hat. there were no bathrooms, no running water, and if i wanted to drink of water i had to pay a nickel for a ladle of water. >> what do you think i think about that? >> i am going to get to that. so, i know firsthand the abuses

that are suffered by our country's agriculture workers. with that said, i bring this up because in april of this year, the columbus dispatch cited a report ranking ohio dead last for having policies that support the health and well-being of agriculture workers, many who are immigrants, who i believe can be found right now contributing to ohio's largest industry. now governor, you have been pegged as a compassionate conservative and i believe you are. i respect you don't shy away from admitting your views are evolving over time. as president, what do you say to what is going on in ohio? and how would you insure that all of america's working poor

are treated fairly and decently as the president of the united states? >> what you told me is news to me. i have to find out what it means. a lot of times things come out and when you get under the hood you find out they are not true. but i can promise you i will have an understanding of what the situation here is in ohio. look, my father would carry mail on his back and go house to house. he would be there in all of the weather conditions. he never made a lot of money. his father was a coal minor who died of black lung and lost a lot of vision in his eye. my uncles when the time game, my uncle george told me, when the time came for them to get their pensions, the plant shutdown. these injustice are not appropriate. and i will find out exactly what the situation is. but in no way, shape or form do

i think people ought to be abused or there shouldn't be child labor laws or people shouldn't be treated with respect. i am someone not at war with organized labor. i had my problems with them but i made it clear look as long as we work together we will be fine. i will find out what is going on in that front and we will dwell it. we don't let things like that stand. sometimes things are a little bit more complicated than they appear on the surface. but we will dig into it. >> let's take about marriage equality. >> and let me tell you ohio is no longer just agriculture and manufacturing. we are it, medical devices, financial services, logistics. ohio is a different state because we have diversified the state. >> i completely agree. on to marriage equality.

during the first year of the debate, where was watching and i think you did an amazing job, you were applauded on how you would explain your opposition to same-sex marriage while talking about god's unconditional love and that should be applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, you stated when it comes to gay marriage and i quote the court has ruled and we will accept it. i want more clarity on will accept it. a recent pew report shows 56% of americans today support same-sex marriage. is it your view that the gop should be more aware of the views of mainstream america, perhaps more accepting of that, and not fight the supreme court ruling? >> well, i am not fighting it. we actually had an amendment in ohio but you know it is decided. so s we moved on from that.

i don't support gay marriage. all of my friends, a number are gay, understand that but you know it is okay. we move on. one of the guys that used to work for me who is friend of mine i went to his wedding. i said to my wife what do you think and she said i am there whether you go or not. and it was good. let me just just say something, there was an incredible article in the review section of the paper about the growing drift of the west toward a secular society. and how people are also trying to purdue happiness and wealth and comfort and what we are finding is that this aggressive search for a secular society isn't working.

because you know what? embedded in all of us is a sense of meaning. now i mentioned god and faith and all of that several times. i think the pope did it best when he said we should focus on the dos and thought the don't and that is why people got excited about the potential of religion. but when the west is a fully secularized society how are we supposed to operate in a free society when everyone wants to pursue things their own way? with two guys walking across a bridge who is knocked off? what is the appropriate way to guide ourselves with an absence of laws? if we become a secular society without a sense that there is a set of expectations, morals that are set on high, that should

guide us, then who is right and who is wrong becomes completely subjective. i don't happen to think that is how we would have the best society. i don't think hispanics would believe that because i think they believe and i think that most americans, there is a change going on in america. all i am suggesting to you is this. if we become secularist, when we face a radical islam, that is the furtherest thing from secularist. when we cannot unite with friends in the jewish and muslim community to espouse a set of values that is the true way for human beings to conduct and live their lives we will get a very severe crisis point. so i don't want anybody to try to read -- well they will. but i am just saying to you that

this is something the west should continue to pay attention to and not drive toward a secular society. it is dangerous for the culture and our children. >> point very well made. let's talk about the economy a bit. i think this is an issue that all americans, thes is not a hispanic issue specifically, but an issue that all americans care about; jobs in this country and care about the continued wellbeing of our economy. we are proud to stand for a strong, freemarket economy where entrepreneurs can pursue their version of the american deems with limited government intervention. hispanic businesses are now at about 4.1 billion and contributing $661 billion to the

economy i think are at the forefront of american growth starting businesses at a rate of 3-1 with the general market. with all of this said, as president, how would yspur the growth of all businesses but specifically hispanic businesses. >> i want all hispanic businesses to move to ohio. and the reason is in your sa sate -- our state we have no business income tax basically. if you don't have economic growth, then it stunts your ability to reach out to people who do live in the shadows and do creative things. it is just a fact. if mom is dad are in a financial bind kids will not do as well. when mom and dad do well, kids

do better. same with a country. what do we need to do? ea we have a nightmare of regulations. we need a people's court where people who are normal folks can go and say why is government so dumb? why are you killing my ability to create jobs? on the regulatory side it a huge deal. if you are a hispanic trying to get a loan where is it easier to get one from? citi bank or the local bank that knows you? these rules are choking us.

you have to have a tax code that encourages this bringing back and they will invest in europe so workers have higher productivity. and we would like to bring the rates down and make it simpler and we are working on things we will be talking about soon. in addition to that, we need to goat on the road to the balanced budget. when we balance the budget and cut the capital gains tax and add a family tax cred on the deal i was the architect the economy because going gang busters. now guess what is happening? we are up 347,000 private sector jobs. ohio is reborn. we have to get back to the basics. it is not that difficult. we will have to dwell

entitlement and the balanced budget. we have to have the tax reform and change the regulatory environment. all of this can happen. you have about 120 days. i think individual tax reform will be difficult but corporate tax reform can happen. you cannot delay. you cannot walk around trying to look at the pictures in the white house and wonder how the plans are coming. you have to go in there knowing what you will do because this town will fight you every single inch of the way. it doesn't give people hope and jobs and all of the things we

need. >> i have to say in transparency and fairness we work with all of the large banks and small banks. >> it would be better if we didn't strangle the little banks, right? . it the delaware county bank where they say we know you. that is like trying to run education from washington as opposed to the local school board. the more local it, the more customized and the better it is. that is why i am republican because i am for bottom up not top down. >> and they do an amazing job.

>> women's wages stand behind men with women earning about 77 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the same thing. and hispanic women it is 60 cents on the dollar. so according to the university of women and the census bureau, median income in ohio is was 47, 300 compared to women's earnings of 36, 500. so doing a little better but women in ohio are getting paid roughly 24% less than men for

doing the same job. first has a father, how would you explain that to your daughters? and second as the president what would you do to address this despadi despa despadi disparity. >> we don't want a woman made less than a man for the same job. how would i explain that to my daughters? i would say we have to work on this. i have two daughters who are going to be on the workforce. i want them to be treated and have the same opportunities as a man. there are 50 studies according to this. we want to make sure in the places and the workforce the people are treated and not discrimina discriminated against and are in a position where they can do

better. in terms of the wage gap, some people think we can fix the income inequality by taking from the top and redistribute wealth. i don't think that works. i said dad, what do you think about the rich and he said we don't hate the rich. we want to be the rich. i firmly believe it is all tied up in skills. do you get the good education? or do you not have the skills to be able to compete? i have to suggest to all of us here that i don't think our k-12 system is working as well as it should be. in my state now, we have passed the law saying if a school is failing three years in a row we can have a board to pick a ceo that will pay it and keep in place teacher salary and benefits but everything else can be changed. we started that in cleveland.

now, if we have failed -- the city of youngstown, one percent of the graduates are college ready. we have to make sure the schools are performing. in massachusetts where they enacted high standards and took grief, they are performing better. we cannot live where we think the kids are doing great and 40% of the graduates are taking remedial courses. no one cares if you are an it expert. no one cares who you are. they just want your talent and they will pay for it. it is a big education issue and life long education and training.

you cannot sit there think the world is standing still. >> the programs ought to be shifted to the state, not run out of washington. john kasich did not say woman are less skilled than men? >> no, i didn't say that. my chief of staff, look, it was the first time a governor brought a woman in to be the new chief of staff and she is running my campaign. the lady i mentioned earlier, running mental health and drug addiction, she is doing a fantastic job. the head of the welfare reform. i believe having women in the room, having a big voice makes you better. if you have an exclusion of them, you are not as effective. but i am saying for all people, all people, skills matter. >> let's talk about trade a bit. a big issue the uahec has worked on of late has been a trade and

specifically the transpacific partnership. ttp. considering 98% of u.s. businesses that do export are small business that accounted for nearly 2/3rds of new jobs we think more access to jobs is beneficial. so my question is with a state that has been hurt by poor trade deals i would like to hear your thoughts on ttp and future deals under president kasich. ...

they go into do we are going to study at ben which means a couple of years later they finally make the decision and if you are right that's great and the people who were affected are out of work. we need an expedited process to blow the whistle and stopped for example the ability of countries to dump their products in our country or to steal our intellectual property. part of the reason i think we don't act aggressively might he for geopolitical considerations but look, you are a steelworker in the rain ohio or something you aren't that caring that much

about geopolitical considerations. your geopolitical considerations or the mouse you have the deed at home so while i think the trade is good we have to have a way to blow the whistle when we are getting ripped off and i think for a while america is a little bit arrogant. i don't think we should take it and i also think that we have got to be careful in these negotiations. i don't know what this thing is going to look like. the senate will look at it. they should and i'm going to work like the dickens to make sure that we have an expedited process that can respond to countries when they are ripping us off. >> fair enough. national security. as president, you would be the nation's commander-in-chief and as a global power the u.s. is

constantly facing threats, both here and abroad. we are currently seeing this regime that's being aided by russian forces with the refugee crisis that nations throughout the world are trying to grapple with and the continued spread of isis through the middle east just to name a few things off the top of our heads. my question is. >> i was going to say ukraine come he left them out great. >> it is in your view what are the biggest national security threats that our nation faces today and how would you prioritize the financial resources? >> first of all you can chew gum and walk at the same time we in you are in america. our problem has been the voice we have created around the world and our inability to assert ourselves and i think the president spokesman said at the dust and the finding their strategy which is javier you lead from behind. you have never led from behind nor have i. when the lead from behind it just doesn't work so i don't

know where you want to start. syria? i propose we create no-fly zones and sanctuaries for people to be able to be saved great if somebody violates the no-fly zone they are going to face the consequences of violating the no-fly zone. secondly we have to have a coalition of people both in the middle east and our european allies to destroy isis as soon as possible and then come home. nation-building is not something that i'm keen on. the i ran deal i think should never have been negotiations should never have been conducted there's a minimum i ran would have recognized israel's right to exist. some candidates say i would rip it up. you were going to rip it up first of all 18 months before you are elected them and what do we do? my feeling is it's better to be able to work with your partners to show any violations that occur so if we slap sanctions back on what can be effective. that's what brought iran to the table to begin with, need to be

applied. if we know they are developing a nuclear weapon we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. there's appropriate action you would take. you know where it is and you have the capability to deal with it. by the way i served on the armed services committee for 18 years for some of the finest defense mines with les aspin and sam nunn and barry goldwater and john tower. i've lived with those people for a lot of years from the standpoint of working through things. israel that prime minister wants to come here, i will have a cup to -- a cup of coffee with him their night. ukraine, give them defensive weapons they need. how can america look the other way when ukraine is under this kind of pressure. putin is a bully. do you know how you deal with bullies? do you ever have a fully javier? how do you with some? you pop them one and the fact is that putin is a bully and he's

going to push as far as he can until we say enough. repositioning equipment equipment in use which we are beginning to do, making it clear that an attack on the balkans as an attack on us. south china sea we should he sending a carrier through the air. the problem we have is the chinese think they own the south china sea and they do not. this is all about america asserting itself more in the world and i think if we do it as a group as a coalition then we don't have to be policeman of the world. we should intervene directly when our direct national interests are at risk but there's a possibility of us being able to help people who share our goals and visions and we can help them so we have to rebuild the military. i saw they have to withdraw the carrier from over tibet and it's a real problem because we don't have one to put on station so we have to rebuild a military but the problem there is the pentagon has become so bureaucratic with almost 900,000 people involved in all of this bureaucracy we start throwing

good money after bad, it has to be reformed at the same time we are rebuilding the military. why did i want to run for this job? but these are very tricky things. the president of the united states has to look over at the pentagon, get it right. the present of the united states can't have a secretary of defense go from procurement reform trim the bureaucracy and fix a thing and by the way you are on your own. it takes presidential leadership to get this done. we are going to have to spend a fortune rebuilding the military but javier we don't want to spend a fortune on things we don't need or have read top -- red tape in being the order today and you can't go for an pound people because they will not move and you can't go over there and up as there will be no change. it's like porridge, has to be made of the right president -- temperature of the present mustang gates. >> sewing shortly from the front.

>> kim but what you have is a clear vision and other allies matter. when they shot and murdered all those people over in paris they had big million people wouldn't send anybody. i don't even understand that. how do you just ignore that? our relations have deteriorated greater friends don't know if they can trust us and our enemies arm bolton. dallas had a reason to panic? no, we are america. we don't panic. >> you remind me of an old adage in terms of leading from the front rated something my grandfather used to use and than he used to say unless you are the lead dog the lead never changes. you strike me as the lead dog. any final thoughts? >> well this was unbelievable. this was great. i enjoyed it. we covered a lot of issues. [applause]

it was great and let's do it again. >> all right ladies and gentlemen governor john kasich. [applause] [inaudible conversations] b we will take a couple of questions. a question from laurie kellum from the "associated press." glory how are you? >> you? >> i am well, thank you. thank you for coming today. i wanted to ask you about guns. we quoted you yesterday in your speech from richmond referring to yourself as a troublemaker so here's your chance on this issue. republican presidential candidates mostly are calling

for more attention to mental health issues with regard to gun violence. we have not heard any specifics. i'm wondering what is your specific plan or do you believe that government has no role in preventing or cutting down on gun violence? >> well you know i was talking about the issue of mental illness in regards to guns now for months. this is not something that i just discovered today. if you read "the new york times" today the story about this young man and the problems the mother was having, we have got to think of a way and i think there was a question asked in the last debate that we have to think about and that is when somebody clearly is unstable how are you able to be in a position to where they cannot get a gun because nobody i know would want them to have access to it. but i don't think that gun control would solve this

problem. here's what i think part of the problem is. the deeper issue. the deeper issue is alienation. the deeper issue is loneliness. the deeper issue is no attention to an individual who is really struggling. i was in iowa at this place called the house of hope the other day and it's a nondenominational note government meant money house for women who are really on the edge of a break down. so i said why is this house here and you know what they told me? families are not connected. we don't know who our neighbors are so this lady was actually waging a lonely battle by herself. so we can talk about the guns but there is a much deeper issue which is who are these people?

why are they so alienated? why are they so alone and when we begin to deal with that i think then we began to get at the root of the problem. so the idea that if we just start first of all we are not going to take everybody's guns away comments not practical in if you did people who want to commit violence are still going to do it. so i think we need to look deeper and they'll talk about mental illness. i'm open to anything on mental illness. there are supposed to be away that you should have automatic access to a gun dealer to understand if somebody has an issue with mental illness. we should do that. if it's not strong enough we need to do it. there should be no loophole on that but the bigger issue is something we all have to think about and what is our responsibility? what is society's responsibility to end this drift into isolation >> does government have a role

in preventing gun violence? >> is part of the reason i expanded medicaid so people could get help so that the mentally ill can get some help at the community level. i think it's very important for all of us to think about the things we can do to try to attach ourselves more to building the community from the bottom up but there is another element of this. and i want to tell you when i talk about secularism i think to some degree, not completely because you can be a humanist and want to change the world. god bless you but when we don't understand that we have a responsibility to our neighbor, it all breaks down. so we try to run programs in ohio on mentoring in the schools, on fighting drug addiction. i expanded medicaid so we could have -- get mental health

treatment at the community level. we have expanded the number of beds that are available for people in a crisis situation specifically are the problem where creigh deeds was stabbed by his son. there are things we can do and to have that database very effective but i think we need to recognize the deeper issue here and it takes a lot more complicated and comprehensive answer than just a simple law. >> ladies and gentlemen i have to give the governor rolling. >> on guns do you think more lives would be saved if there were more people aren't in colleges and schools and armed students and armed guards and armed students? >> even in ohio they are absolutely school districts that

have submitted state he plans, security plans that are inadequate so what i think people need to understand is it can happen anywhere. i have talked to the turns of bull at my daughter's school about the nature of how they have hardened the school. everybody can do it in their own way and whatever they feel the most comfortable with but you can't just sit there and assume that is never going to come into your neighborhood. >> senator marco rubio talks about the economy. then, general john campbell does device about the u.s. airstrike that hit the doctors without borders clinic. that is followed by a town hall u.s.john kasich at the hispanic chamber of commerce.

the house agriculture committee hears from agriculture secretary secretary tomorrow on the new nutrition guidelines the administration is developing. tomorrowrrow -- watch on c-span3. close before the folks like an card emissions and house and energy subcommittee. c-span3.e on >> they on c-span's new series in 1830 dredes" scott was enslaved. emerson was assigned to duties in several free states. when the doctor died, scott

tried to buy his families freedom, but she refused and he sued. follow the case of scott versus sanford. historic support in court exploring 12 historic supreme court decisions by refilling the life and times of the people for the justices, lawyers, and plaintiffs. life on c-span.nac $8.95,k is available for plus shipping. republican senator and presidential candidate marco rubio spoke about the economy that demands companies like uber. he spoke to a group of technology innovators in new york city. long.s about 50 minutes

for those of how have never been here before, civic hall is a community center and event space focused on civic innovation and a collaborative workspace for people who believe technology can make the world a better place. it's with great pleasure today that we're able to host this event and so without further ado, i would like to present to you the junior senator from florida and presidential candidate 2016, senator marco rubio. [applause] mr. rubio: thank you, i appreciate that very much. i want to thank you all for participating in this -- a little loud. is that better? so i'm here today not to just tell you my ideas, but to listen to yours. i think that the big part of what a campaign should be all about is the listening part. no one understands the needs of the on-demand economy as well as those of who you are building it.

coming into the discussion, here's something i can state to you with absolute confidence. if there's one thing that matters in the 21st century, it's innovation. in order to be the leading economy on earth, america must be the most innovative economy on earth. it's that simple. whenever we talk about innovation, what we're talking about is problem solving. we're talking about finding ways to do things more efficiently, more affordably and more conveniently than ever before. i want to begin by telling you about a problem that i had earlier this year that american innovators, including many of you in this room, are attempting to solve. and then i want to tell you something you already know. which is that the government is often getting in the way of solving it. so my problem was this. a few months ago my refrigerator at my home broke. it just stopped working. it died out. with four growing kids home for summer break in florida, you can imagine i was facing some pressure to get it fixed.

so i googled appliance repair companies in miami and i made some calls. first of all, it was frustratingly difficult to get anyone to take me off hold or even to call me back. when i finally got in touch with a real person they said, no problem, we can have someone out to your house in three or four days to look at it. that just can't be how our economy works in the year 2015. other things that took three days in the old economy now take three minutes or three seconds. what struck me in that moment was the following realization. inevitably, somewhere not far away from me, there was someone who was capable of repairing appliances, someone who is just as eager to make extra money that day as i was eager to have a functional refrigerator. the only problem was this person and i had no way of finding each other or connecting. this is a problem that will not exist within a year or two. at least not if american

innovators have their way. the reason is because of the on-demand economy. this is a revolution that's happening right before our eyes. also known as the sharing economy or the gig economy. the on-demand economy is allowing millions of professionals across multiple industries to connect directly with consumers. the most obvious examples, folks, are companies like uber and airbnb. last week it was announced that amazon and google would be entering the on-demand market. right behind these giants are thousands of small innovative startups and if you haven't heard about them yet, just wait. the on-demand platform is one example of an important truth facing us in this election. which is that the american economy, as the global one, is fundamentally being transformed. uber didn't even exist when our current president was sworn into office. and today it is worth over $51 billion. and it's not just the fact that

the economy is changing. the fact is that the economy is changing faster than it has ever changed. for example, it took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. it took candy crush one year to reach 100 million users. [laughter] and yet while our economy is changing and changing fast, our government and its policies are not. quite frankly, both parties are to blame. never before, at least in my lifetime, has the political establishment in this country been more out of touch with the american people than it is today. the result is a worsening friction between our 20th century government and our rapidly changing 21st century economy. and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in the on-demand economy. here you have innovative companies who are running up against an antiquated tax code, burdensome regulation and numerous, numerous outdated politicians. that's not all. the companies are also victims of a coordinated attack from

established businesses which influence the political process to pass new regulations that block competition. we've seen this play out with taxi companies lobbying to stop uber and here in new york the government is spending millions to try and stop airbnb from threatening hotel chains. i want to give you another example today. i want to tell but a growing company based right here in new york that, like all businesses in the on-demand economy, is facing unnecessary challenges. as a result of the outdated government. it's a company called handy. and its c.e.o. is here today. handy is a online platform that allows consumers to connect directly with home cleaners, handymen, plumbers and other home service professionals. it's quickly growing, it's now operating in 37 cities with over 11,000 professional as registered to use the platform. handy is grown breaking for consumers for obvious reasons.

it provides simple booking at the tap of a finger, a rating and review process that helps people find the best contractor for their needs, and an easy online payment system that eliminates haggling over prices. but it isn't just great for consumers. one of the things i love most about the on-demand economy is the way it promotes upward mobility for the professionals who use it. through handy, workers without the resources to start their own cleaning business, they can now have all the independence of self-employment and the customer base of a large established business. professionals who use handy can earn an average of $18 an hour, which is more than the typical worker in the field. best of all, they set their own hours. checking into the app whenever they have time to take on a job and signing out when they have other obligations. many workers use this flexibility to pursue higher education, which is central to upward mobility in this new century.

others use it to spend more time with their children or work other jobs. innovations like handy are part of the reason why i'm so optimistic, not only about saving the american dream in this century, but actually about expanding it. to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. in the last century, my mother worked as a maid in hotels. she had no control over her schedule. no influence over how much she earned. and few opportunities to set herself apart. and yet she achieved the american dream. just think what she could have achieved cleaning homes through a company like handy. she would have had total control over her own financial life. the on-demand economy is a miracle that only american free enterprise could produce. that's why it's so shameful shat -- that the biggest obstacles to the growth of this platform is our very own government. in fact, think about this.

i met the c.e.o. of an on-demand startup a few weeks ago and he asked me not to mention his business today out of fear, out of fear that he would attract attention from legislators, from lawyers and from competitors. what does this say? do we want america to be a place where honest, innovative businesses have to hide their success? of course we do not. we need to be the most business friendly economy on earth. but right now with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and a regulatory structure that's directly hostile to innovation, that's quite nearly impossible. here are some of the obstacles that handy and companies like it face every day. first, an outdated tax code. companies like handy have only two options for how to classify their professionals who utilize their services. they can either be classified as full w-2 employees or they can be classified as 1099 independent contractors.

but neither one of these makes perfect sense. if handy's c.e.o. classifies the workers as w-2 employees, then much of the flexibility that makes working with handy so appealing would disappear. he'd have to regulate the workers' hours and he'd have to comply with a litany of expensive regulations that would stunt the growth of the company. so instead the c.e.o. makes sure that the relationship complies with the 1099 independent contractor requirements. but this causes other complications. for example, the company can't provide training to its contractors. they can't even make recommendation as to them based on customer feedback. they can't even ask them to wear a shirt or uniform with a handy logo on it. the c.e.o. is also prevented from providing the perks and benefits that would allow them to attract more high quality professionals to the platform. think about how ironic that is. our outdated politicians bash the on-demand economy for not taking better care of workers yet our outdated government is the exact force preventing it from doing so.

that's why i've proposed a comprehensive tax reform plan that is both pro-growth and pro-family and today i'd like to discuss with all of a you some additional ways to make the tax code more welcoming to on-demand companies. some ideas i've had are to maintain the physical presence standard for taxation a, for online purchases. to stop discriminatory taxation of digital goods and services like app downloads and to ensure that the internet remains tax-free. but on-demand companies aren't the only ones hurt by our tax code. they also face the uncertainty of a volatile regulatory environment. just last week, last friday actually, the chairwoman of the federal trade commission said that the on-demand economy would require, quote, targeted regulatory measures, unquote. we have to realize that all the best innovation in our economy is happening in the unregulated space. yet washington has imposed

60,000 pages of new federal regulations just this year, costing our private economy almost -- over or almost $70 billion in total compliance costs. as president i will put an end to this. i will place a cap on the amount of regulations -- on the amount regulations can cost our economy each year. i will also require federal agencies to include an analysis of exactly how much proposed regulations would impact competition and ovation. i believe the more america regulates, the more we create an opening for other countries to deregulate and draw jobs away from our shores. other nations are already scrambling to cater to the on-demand economy. germany, for example, has created a middle ground between full time employees and independent contractors. this classification is called independent contractors. -- dependent contractors.

it allows professionals to work for a sickle company, receive benefits and protections and yet retain control over their own work. whether this model is the best option for america or not is something we should figure out. but here's what i know for sure. we have to change the way the political establishment in this country thinks about the new economy. right now they recognize that the new economy doesn't fit our current tax code and our current way of doing things, so they ask themselves, how can we force the new economy to adopt to our pole, old policies rather than asking, how can we change our old policies to adapt to the new economy? that has always been the american way. we are a unique nation in all the world's history. a nation founded on the idea that government doesn't get to choose what our economy looks like. the american people and the private sector get to choose. and guess what? the american people have chosen. they have chosen a convenient, fast, tech-driven economy, one with direct lane of access to the product and the services they want and need.

the american people have chosen an economy in which the most valuable retailer in america, amazon, doesn't own a single store. they have chosen where the largest transportation company, uber, doesn't own a single vehicle. and where the largest accommodation provider, airbnb, does not own a single hotel. free enterprise has brought us these developments and free enterprise will bring us even more developments in the years ahead. in fact, i believe free enterprise will work better in this century than it did in the last century. because the new economy is all about innovation, creativity and productivity and we americans are the most innovative, creative and productive people on the earth. i believe the 21st century not only can be the american century, i believe it will be the american century. it will be as long as everyone in this room keeps doing what they're doing and as long as we can get washington to stop doing

what its doing and start looking for a better way. with that i'd like to hear your ideas and answer your questions. i thank you for the opportunity to talk about that today. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to do a little bit of a question and answer session. i'll start. if you have a question you'd like to ask, in about 15 minutes, there are two microphones in the aisles. we're going to do it based on alternating between, so i'll give you a signal when we're about to take questions. senator, thank you very much for coming to civic hall and for talking about this issue.

there's been lots of cases where incumbent market forces who have political influence have reacted to the competition that the sharing economy companies are giving them. they're using their political connections to try and stop these innovative companies. this is all eventually tied to money and politics. it's great, and i hear you when you say that government is targeting, but if you follow the money, it goes back to the incumbent market. how do you break that cycle? mr. rubio: that's exactly right. i think part of it is to explain to people, we're not experiencing an economic down turn. we are experiencing a mass of economic restructuring. it's like the industrial revolution happening every five years. so our policies need to reflect that. and in reflecting that, that's why it's so important for us not to ascribe to the new economy attributes of the old economy. so that's why i believe a limited government is the best

approach for the 21st century. the larger the government, the more powerful the government is, the more influence the government has over the economy, the more the people or the companies that can influence the government win at the expense of everybody else. so you have massive -- that's why, for example, regulatory budget is so important. the favorite way of established industries to block an innovative competitor is to create a regulatory impediment to that competitor, to enter the space. i always use this example, it may not be perfect, but imagine a blockbuster who, if you're looking around this room, some of you probably don't know what that is, a blockbuster video had convinced federal government to pass a regulation saying, in order to rent movies you must come into a physical store and show your i.d. because we want to prevent underage kids from renting rated r movie, they'd still be in business and we

wouldn't have downloading. that's the mentality that exists in established industries. they find some sort of argument and they use it to create a road block that the innovator can't meet. >> the reason they're able to do that and create that is because mr. rubio: part of it is electing people who won't fall for that and understand that that's an impediment to economic growth. that's why the regulatory budget is one of the proposal as i have. >> yesterday a new report came out from the freelancers union that states that 54 million american, almost 1/3 of the work force, is doing freelance work. it's not just in urban areas, it's in rural areas, throughout the country. 86% of the nation's freelancers are likely to vote in 2016. 62% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports freelancers' interests. some of these people are not necessarily working for handy or for uber or any of the sharing companies, they're just working on their own but they care about things like retirement savings, health care, legal support for nonpayment because somebody's not paying them. and other issues unique to this group.

whatever a worker really wants is flexible work but also stable work. what would you do as president -- mr. rubio: you raise a couple of interesting points. our 21st century health care is on the worker model. we work for somebody, those people offer you an insurance plan, that's how you get your health insurance. in the 2169 century, that cannot be the corner stone of our system. we have to have a portable system of health insurance, which is why i believe every american should be allowed to control their own pretax health care money, whether it's an employer that gives it to you, whether it's your own money or a tax a credit. depending on how much money you make, and you can use it to buy your own health insurance from any company that will sell it to you. that's an important issue. i've argued we should open up the congressional retirement plan. the congress, as a member of congress you're allowed to contribute to the federal 2015 savings plan. that's only available to federal government employees and members of congress and it's a plan that actually performs well. i've argued we should open up that plan to anyone who doesn't have a retirement plan offered to them by an employer.

so they too can pay into and have access to congressional retirement plan as a contributor to that program. i think we need to figure out ways to provide that sort of stability, that once came from a traditional employer. in the 21st century we're going to have to account for the fact that a growing number of americans won't be that traditionally employed. >> you came out against the federal minimum wage. in the sharing economy, what's to keep from us having a race to the bottom? the person who is willing to deliver food for $4 is beaten out by the person willing to do it for $3 an hour. mr. rubio: i'm not in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage completely. i've argued against increasing it for two reasons. one, i don't want to make people more expensive than machines. the second point, it is clear that there are businesses, especially those who cannot pass through the cost, that will adjust to a higher minimum wage by either hiring less people, cutting hours, cutting benefits. and i don't want people harmed

by that. that i just don't think it's the best way to raise wages. i think the better way to raise wages is a combination of creating an economy that creates jobs that pay more but also making it easier and cheaper for people to acquire the advanced education they need to qualify for the best paying jobs of the 21st century. so, for example, i've argued about opening space for competency-based learning. in a bipartisan bill, with mike bennett of colorado and myself have offered an alternative accrediting model that will allow people to get the equivalent of a college education but do it by a means that allow you to package learning from a variety of sources, including getting credit for life and work weeks. insist. we should open up pell grant and student financial aid to high school students who dual enroll. so they will graduate certified to work as a plumber or a machinist or welder. i also think we'll have traditional four-year education. but i've argued that students deserve to know how much they're going to make when they graduate from that school with that degree before they borrow money to pay for it. so i have a bipartisan bill

called right to know before you go with ron white of oregon that requires that before you take out a loan, you are told how much people make when they graduate from that school. so you can make informed decisions. that's a better way to raise wages. is to both create the policies that allow america to be the easiest and best place in the world to create better paying jobs and make it easier, faster and cheaper for people to acquire the skills they need for those better paying jobs. >> you mentioned that you want to limit regulation but in some cases these innovative companies have fantastic services but there are collateral effects. for example, airbnb, which many people love, both the users on both sides of the transaction love, but in some cases low income people are using airbnb to subsidize their incomes. their landlords are finding out, they're getting evicted. the landlord takes that apartment to market rent. low income housing drops. there's a collateral effect. you can probably follow a lot of these companies' path and start seeing a wake of collateral

effect which may not necessarily be so great, so if you have no regulation, how do you prevent collateral effects from coming back and biting us? mr. rubio: i want the water we drink to not be poisoned. i fly on planes, i'm glad they're regulated. someone is checking to make sure the landing gear works, and that is in order. -- that is important. i'm arguing there comes a point when regulations go too far and they become an impediment to innovation. in the case of a private property owner, if i'm a private property owner, i own my own property, i can place restrictions on how tenants can use property. people do that all the time. that's different from a government policy that places that restriction artificially, as opposed to a contractual restriction. that's a situation you're facing. structural change in the economy has always been disruptive. the industrial revolution was deeply disruptive. we had to work through issues of child labor and safety issues at factories that we never had before as a society. we're going to have disruptions we have to work through.

that doesn't mean you walk away from this. this is the future. we're not going back to the 20th century. the only choice before us is do we embrace the future, harness its promise or allow it to leave us behind. that's the only choice before us. this argument that we're going to be able to go back to the good old days or the way things once were is not going to happen. if we do we're going to be left behind by the fewer. >> sharing economy has become a buzz term. but doesn't fully explain the changing nature of work in america. companies like airbnb and lift and uber are examples, and even handy, are middlemen in effect between someone who is willing to provide a service and someone who is willing to pay for it. wouldn't we be better off just building cooperatives where the people can find each other without having to pay a middleman to do the transaction? because once you build that platform -- mr. rubio: who's going to build that platform? the government? >> citizens could do it and a make it more open so the share hold, -- mr. rubio: i don't think you're going to get innovation that way. the way you come up with great ideas is someone says, i have a good idea and i think i can make

money on, it i'm going to do it. every major innovation in the world has been driven that way. particularly when it comes to providing certains to individuals. you may believe in your idea, but the fact is that the reason why it's created is because there's a profit motive. somebody has made a decision, i think i can do this for a living and so they found these ideas. i think if you're counting on the collective to come up with it on its own, the not an effective way to move innovation. free enterprise has proven that. the great company of the year 2025 doesn't exist yet. someone is probably 14 years old playing mine craft right now and they're going to figure out -- they shouldn't be playing right now. [laughter] but they're going to figure out how to put this thing together in eight or nine years. but they're only going to do it because they think they can make money doing it. there's nothing wrong with that. there's nothing wrong with the profit motive involved in driving these. >> some people argue there are new monopolies being created by new tech companies now that are will prevent innovation.

mr. rubio: you can very much be a creature of the new economy and once you are established decide you're an incumbent industry. every established industry was once an innovator. i'm not arguing that new economy creatures are going to not behave in the same fashion eventually. that's why we have a system that doesn't allow that to happen. what we should have is a free enterprise system that says this no matter how great your idea, is you can be out of business in two years if someone comes up with a better service, a better idea and can deliver it at a better price. >> what if a company like uber, for example, decides to cut its prices because it can afford to and prevent others in company that may want to create car sharing in a different way, like car pooling, from even being able to enter the market? there's no one to protect them because the first mover made a huge advantage and got a huge amount of money and now they're burning money in order to protect -- mr. rubio: the truth about the new economy is the competitor to uber may not offer a direct exact model. it won't be just a cheaper version of uber. it will be a new system or way of using sharing that is totally

different from the model uber is using. we have examples of this all the time. five years ago, three years ago, whatever it may be, the cutting edge industry or the cutting edge company or firm has very much been replaced by a new one that came in and did kind of what they were doing but an even better and more creative way. i don't think that government interference in that realm is going to lead to the sort of innovation. what it's going to end up doing is setting and concrete and drying the existing innovation that's already in place. >> you mentioned we have a 20th century government but one of the challenges is that this technology continues to evolve and change and seems like some of the regulators are reacting as opposed to staying ahead. if you're president, what would you do to make sure that the government, where it does need to regulate, for example, airlines, making sure they're safe, stays ahead of the technology? planes right now, for example, aren't connected 24/7, we still chase after black boxing when they crash.

there is a role for government to stay ahead of technology. besides just cutting the regulators' budget and limiting the amount of regulation, how do we keep the government on a 21st century path. mr. rubio: the government still has a vested interest in public safety. if you're an uber -- i keep going back to the same companies, i don't want to pick on anybody. but those usual cars are regulated. before that car is on the road it's been inspected, gone through the testing that the federal government requires for motor vehicles. it has regulations locally about how fast you can drive, what the safety features need to be, rules of the road, all those things are still in place. we're not saying uber drivers don't have to observe traffic signals. they still have to follow all of those rules. that's not the issue. the issue is the industry in particular. it's a business model not being regulated. here's the bottom line. there is no way that the federal government could ever keep up with innovation on a regulatory front. it can't move fast enough. >> i'm a little concerned when you say that we're going to limit the amount of regulation when volkswagen is able to play

with their software and basically lie to the world about the efficiency of their cars. somebody has to have the budget to be able to investigate to make sure they don't do that. if you cut regulation, it isn't just going allow for innovative companies, it may create damage to our economy. mr. rubio: a regulatory budget is not just about cutting regulations. a regulatory budget is designed to force prioritization. through a cost-benefit analysis. all it says is that a cumulative impact of federal regulations cannot exceed a certain amount of money. these agencies must decide which regulations are worthy. if we only can have x number of regulations, which are the ones we really need and which are the ones that aren't justified. that's what it's designed to do. >> on a cost-benefit analysis, some people with a say get rid of gas emissions because it's cheaper to make cars that don't

save air pollution. a huge cost to the environment. mr. rubio: then those people that make that decision will be accountable to their electorate. what we have now is a system where you can keep adding new regulations without removing existing ones. it's a system of perpetual regulatory growth. without any cost-benefit analysis. many regulations are being put in place because of the theoretical value of the regulation or because someone hired the right person to influence the government to move in that direction. >> we'll start taking some questions. i just have one more. the white house recently launched a program called the u.s. digital service. which is to bring the nation's top engineers to work inside government, to fix problems. for example, like the v.a. backlog. and save money. in fact, save hundreds of millions of dollars on old antiquated systems that the government currently spends. if you're president, would you

continue that program and would you expand it? mr. rubio: we want to see how it works first. it's been offered as a pilot initially. a very small amount. $0 million. but i think if it proves to be something that's effective, where we can attract some of the brightest minds in the country to dedicate themselves to public service for x number of years, to create solutions to how government provides services, that's something we should definitely be open to. >> i want to ask everybody to please have your questions remain on the topic of today's talk, if you could. questioner: thank you so much for being here today. i very much enjoy your discussion today. especially you mentioned the american dream. i'm a daca recipient. deferred action for childhood arrival. i have a question that's relevant to the topic. i am in the tech industry. you've said our immigration system is broken because it's based on whether you have a relative here rather than married. as president, what will you do to fix the lottery system to attract and keep the best and brightest talent in america,

especially for tech? mr. rubio: first of all, do i believe we need reforms to. that especially because some of it is being abused by existing companies and the other part of it is sometimes the visa, is within three days all the slots are gone. countries like canada are deliberately targeting to steal away some of the best talent graduating from our universities by bragging that you can get the work force to live in canada but not in the u.s. i have a particular piece of legislation that expands the program but also creates rules and regulations so it can't be abused and used against the american worker. but the bigger issue is on the -- we admit a million people a year to the united states permanently. my argument is, if you're in the best -- if you're one of the best people at what you do, i don't want you temporarily here, i want you here permanently. i want to you become an american. i want you to live in this country and become ingrained in our society and a culture. what i've argued is that the

permanent legal immigration system needs to become more merit-based. we start admitting people to this nation permanently, primarily a on the basis what have they can contribute economically, not simply on whether or not you have a relative living here that serves as the magnet that brings you in. that's why i've argued for a merit-based system. it reflects the 21st century much more accurately. questioner: hi, i'm danielle thompson. i have a question for you regarding open government. and government as platform. open government believes that citizens should have access to all the data, laws and other information regarding government. and government as platform, an idea that believes government should make it easy for citizens to plug and play into their governments in order to govern themselves better. as president, how would you promote initiatives such as open government, which, coming from a conservative upbringing, who

believes that people should govern themselves locally, how will you support initiatives of open government and government as platform? mr. rubio: one of the platforms out there is about the online budgeting initiatives or other ideas to make more transparent the way government operates, particularly spending money. by providing that on an easy to use platform where the american people can access the mysterious federal government and understand where it's spending money, how the money's being spent, what the salaries of federal employees are, what the spending priorities are. so i would be open to leveraging technology to provide more transparency so that on an a ongoing basis individual americans would be able to have access to the way government operates and the way government spends money and the size of different programs, agencies, etc. i think technology has easy solutions for that if we're willing to implement it. questioner: thanks for being here. craig aaron from free press. very interested, i appreciate you being in this dialogue, we talked a lot about companies, users and individuals. i think there's been this incredible upswing in internet activism in the last few years, uniting people across party

lines, around issues of personal control. they don't want the government to be in charge of their online experience. but they don't want to handful of big corporations either. i'm curious as president what you would do to protect privacy, people's information and leave them in control of their own online experience. mr. rubio: that's important. part of it is we have a system that's largely -- you have to opt out, for example, the way your information is used as opposed to the presumption being the other way. there's this debate between the private sector which says, if we can't sell consumer information, then we can't offer all these services. the flip side of it is that many american users, people even around the world are not aware that their information, unless they opt out, is being used and sold as a marketable good. that tension is very real. at the end of the day, if we're forced to choose between both, i'd still err on the side of privacy rights of individual americans to opt in to the way their information is used. that meets enormous resistance, especially from banks, who find their consumer spending habits

of their clients very valuable. but given a choice between these two, i think we always are on the side of individuals and the ability of individuals to have their private information protected, from being used in ways they're not even aware of. >> on that topic in particular, i don't know if you knew this, but in bankruptcy the creditors have no obligation to maintain the terms of service that was originally signed even if people opted out when they signed on. mr. rubio: meaning if you have a loan or bank account and you opted out of the information, once someone buying your debt, they don't have any -- >> yeah, any of these services. the companies collected all that data and if for some reason that company goes bankrupt, they have no obligation to that privacy. mr. rubio: this is a 21st century issue that we'll have to confront. and would lend itself to some federal intervention because it involves interstate commerce.

questioner: it seems like a lot of these regulatory battles that companies fight happen to be local in nature. airbnb in san francisco or uber in florida. how does the federal government get in there while preserving some of these local -- mr. rubio: it doesn't on the local issues. you're right. a lot of these are being fought at multiple levels of government. obviously there's nothing the federal government can do to tell a city, you have to allow uber to operate. where we have a role is in the tax treatment and employment issues that i pointed out about how do you treat an independent contractor -- that doesn't mean there's a federal solution to all of this, but we have to ensure that our policies are conducive to innovation at the federal level. in addition to creating categories that allow us to account for the new employment, most american businesses, especially smaller ones, today you pay your tax rate on, that on your personal rate, not on the corporate rate, so that's where you find a large

established industry might be paying very few taxes. compared to a much smaller company. i've argued that all a business income, no matter how you're structured, all business income should be taxed at one flat rate of 25% for everyone. that includes the money you're making in a subchapter s, your business income would only be taxed at 25%. not at 39.5% or 35% or whatever your personal rate might be. that's a huge advantage for a smaller business. i would allow businesses to immediately expense anything they invest. again, a large cooperation can afford to take that deduction on a scheduled depreciation. a small business that may not be around in four years they can't expense capital investments up front right away. these are examples of things we can do at the federal level to create a more even playing field for new operators and startups. questioner: greg waltman. i have a queen energy alternative analytical company do innovations in social economy, professional sports as

well. mr. rubio: that's a pretty broad portfolio. questioner: going back to access. i was wondering, multibillion dollar wire fraud, there was a big loss in london. >> let's stay on topic. questioner: journalists sit on the wire all day for a company like time warner inc., contributing absolutely nothing to the economy and target people blocking sales and business -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to you respect -- if you don't mind. i would really like -- questioner: \[inaudible] wire fraud with no accountability. how do you plan to deal with fraud? the answer is you can't. you cheated on your wife in florida and -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. questioner: i think you should drop out of the race. your polling numbers are too low to win. >> you're not welcome here.

i apologize. mr. rubio: actually kind of weird anyway. [laughter] >> back to our regularly scheduled programming. please. questioner: i was enjoying this until this last speaker. i'm happy to be here and happy to listen to this discussion. being one of the thousands of independent taxi owners in new york city, i do not have the means to have a research and development component to my business. but i am able to adapt. i am able to adapt. should uber or any other company who has taxi technology, who hasn't bought taxi rights, be able to have those rights that i had to pay for without paying? mr. rubio: i think they're in a totally different business model. their business model is not the same as a taxi cab. it connects the user on a

different platform and a different way to the service that they're trying to acquire. and that's just the result of an economic transformation. it happens, it's unfortunate to some people, because it is disruptive. but every time we've had economic restructuring in this country, it has displaced some people. and our obligation is to ensure that the people that have been displaced can quickly access the benefits of the new economy or the new innovation. so, for example, the invention of the car was very disruptive to the horse drawn carriage industry, yet we had to figure a way to get those people online, either in a factory building cars or other industry that was created, that allowed them to once again restart their lives and get going and moving forward. but we can't stand in the way of these innovations. they're going to happen. they're going to happen in america or somewhere else in the world. our job is to do the best we can to help people that are caught in that disruption, to either acquire new skills or add to their existing skills so they have access to the benefits of that new innovative economy. i think any effort to stand in the way of innovation, not only

is fruitless, it's counterproductive. >> getting workers retrained brings up the question of education. and our education system being built on the 20th century model rather than the 21st. there doesn't seem to be enough federal money for teacher training or -- mr. rubio: part of it is, if you're a nontraditional student, you're like this gentleman or somebody wholes has to work full time and raise a family, you can't drop everything and sit in a classroom for two years and be retrained in a gnaw profession or acquire a new skill. competency-based learning would allow you to do a number of things. number one, if you had an alternative accrediting model to the existing six big accreditors they would accredit innovative programs. if you have 20 years of work experience, that's worth something.

that should be given college equivalent credit for. and then whatever you're missing you should be allowed to package from a variety of different sources. whether it's community college course work, free online courses, paid online courses, additional work experience. so that people can package together the equivalent of a college degree or the equivalent of a certificate award and use that. >> that's at the high level. mr. rubio: no, the entire economy. you can use that to retrain people to become paralegals or receptionists, to become a paralegal at a law office. you can create that as an opportunity to allow people to get credit for military service and other work experience to become a welder or someone that works in factory. >> what about our public schools, particularly in urban areas, where they're underfunded and under-resourced and there aren't teachers to train science and math? mr. rubio: the k-12 educational system is a primary obligation of the local and state government. where the federal government gets involved on occasion is helping key segments of our population through funding mechanisms, through the title 1 programs, through head start and so forth. my argument is not to cut those programs.

my argument is that money should follow the child, not the child have to follow the money. i would allow people to use that money to access innovative programs. that's one of the reasons i talked about opening up pell grant to dual enrollment. at the front end i believe that pre-k through 12 education should remain in the control of local jurisdictions. >> what could you do as president to ensure there's more funding for science and math? mr. rubio: i believe that k-12 education belongs at the state and local level. both in its responsibility and its funding. it's never been a federal obligation. you don't want the federal government dictating the local communities. because that money will always come with strings. and i want the -- you're not going to get educational innovation from the federal level. you're only going to get the creation of new programs and approaches at the state and local level. that's where k-12edcation primarily belongs. questioner: can i respond?

>> we want to get as many people as possible. questioner: we have a lot of people losing their jobs. there's a limit to reeducating these people. especially if they're older. using the -- do you think the government has the responsibility to care for these people and create a safety net? mr. rubio: yes. i believe in a safety net. i don't think free enterprise works without a safety net. free enterprise requires you to take a risk in many instances. if it fails, the consequences can't be that you're destitute. i don't think the safety net should be a life staple or way of life. i believe we should take our -- number two, i think our safety net is failing it. doesn't cure poverty. the purpose of our anti-poverty program should be to cure property, not to treat its symptoms. that's what our safety net programs have become. a better approach is the one i've argued which is we should take our federal poverty money and allow them to be spent at the state and local level so they can design innovative programs that work in those communities that specifically target the causes or the leading causes of that poverty in that community.

the only requirement that i would have, unless someone is permanently disabled and legitimately disabled, the only requirement i would have is that anyone who is receiving public assistance should be working or going to school and so any solution to poverty involves the following. it has to involve -- not just paying their bills in the short term, it also has to involve the acquisition of the skills you need to become employed and find a job that pays more. i've also argued for a wage enhancement credit. which would allow an individual that only makes $8 an hour to receive an extra $4 an hour because at least they're working. they're not home unemployed. now that becomes a stigma on your resume when you get hired years later. the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to get re-employed again. we've offered a num number of innovative solutions to deal with. that the government's obligation ultimately is to create systems where individuals will fall on hard times, can get back up and

try again. we don't want -- what cannot become is what it is now which is in some cases a lifestyle and in other cases a system that traps you. it makes you comfortable in your poverty but it does nothing to , cure it. we need to cure poverty. we're not doing that right now. questioner: thank you for your emphasis on innovation. i am a technology education entrepreneur and i can tell you firsthand that sometimes startups have trouble finding the right talent to fill positions. our local universities do a pretty decent job training a lot of foreign-born students. some of whom are undocumented, like i have been since the first grade. so as president, what would you do to help foreign-born students and dreamers like me who want to stay in this country, who want to work in this country? mr. rubio: i believe we need to pass immigration reform. i just don't believe we can do it in one massive piece of legislation. the reason why i know that is because i tried.

we don't have the bows. we don't have the political support. the only way forward is to tell the american people that we have 11 million or 12 million people here illegally. from this point forward, this will not happen again. prove thats to be to we have illegal immigration moving forward under control. we have to modernize our legal immigration system so it reflects the 21st century. thoseould be helpful to who are acquiring skills in school. after we have done those things, i believe the american people will be reasonable. someone who is not a criminal, if they are a criminal, they cannot stay. if they are not a criminal, what do you do with them in that circumstance? i have outlined that. depending on your circumstances, you have to come forward, pass the background