our economy really needs a jolt right now. this is not a game, this is not the time for the usual political gridlock. the problems europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it's already fragile. but this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn in the situation in europe gets any worse. it will boost economic growth, it will put people back to work. and by the way this is not just my belief, this is what independent economists have said, not politicians, not just people in my administration, independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant affect for our economy and for middle class families all across america. what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act the opposite will be

true. there will be fewer jobs. there will be weaker growth. so as we look towards next week any senator out there who is thinking about voting against this jobs bill, when it comes up for a vote, needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses. congressional republicans say one of the most important things we can do is cut taxes. then they should love this plan. this jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. if you're a small business owner that hires someone or raises wages you would get another tax cut. if you hire a veteran you get a tax cut. right now there is a small business in ohio that does high-tech manufacturing and they've been expanding for the past two years, they are

considering hiring more and this tax break would encourage them to do it. hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. this jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. it has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their job. i had a chance to meet a young man named robert barrels, he's an english teach tpher boston who came to the white house a few weeks ago. he's got two decades of teaching experience, a master's degree, he's got an outstanding track record of helping his students make huge gains in reading and writing. and the last few years he's received three pink slips because of budget cuts. why wouldn't we want to pass a bill that puts somebody like robert back in the classroom teaching our kids? some of you were with we when we

visited a bridge between ohio and kentucky that's been classified as functionally obsolete. that's a fancy say of saying it's old and breaking down. we've heard about bridges in both states that are falling apart, and that's true all across the country. in maine there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were literally falling off the other day. and meanwhile we've got millions of laid off construction workers who could right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. this jobs bill gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding america. why wouldn't we want that to happen? why would you vote against that? the proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make work jobs, they are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts. if we want to be able to compete

with other countries for jobs that restore a sense of security to middle class families. and to do that we've got to have the most educated workers, the best transportation and communications networks, we have to support innovative small businesses. we have to support innovative manufacturers. what is true is we've also got to reign in our deficits and live within our means, which is why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. some see this as class warfare, i see it as a simple choice. we can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billion heirs, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job. we can fight to protect tax cuts for folks who don't need them and weren't asking for them, or

we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. but we can't afford to do both. that's the choice that is going to be before the senate. there are too many people hurting in this country for us to do nothing. and the economy is just too fragile for us to let politics get in the way of action. we've got a responsibility to the people who sent us here. so i hope every senator things long and hard about what is at stake when they cast their vote next week. with that i will take your questions and i will start with ben of the associated press. >> thank you very much mr. president. i'd like to ask you about two economic matters. federal rekefr chairman ben bernanke warned congress this week that the economy recovery is close to faltering. do you agree, and secondly, on our jobs bill the american people are sick of games, and you mentioned games in your comments, they want results.

won't it be more productive to work with republicans on a plan that you know could pass congress as opposed to going around the country talking about your bill and singling out and calling out republicans by name? >> well, first of all, with respect to the state of the economy, there is no doubt that growth has slowed. i think people were much more optimistic at the beginning of this year. but the combination of a japanese tsunami, the arab spring which drove up gas prices, and most prominently europe i think has got even businesses and consumers very nervous. and we did not help here in washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place, a abo bit of game playing that was completely unnecessary and unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities here in washing tonight. you combine all that, ther washington. you combine all that there is no

doubt that the economy is weaker than it was at the beginning of the year. every independent economist who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession it is important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting money into their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and that it makes sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done. that is exactly what this jobs bill does. now, with respect to working with congress, i think it's fair to say that i have gone out of my way in every instance, sometimes at my own political peril, and to the frustration of democrats to work with republicans to find common ground, to move this country forward. in every instance, whether it was during the lame-duck session, when we were able to get an agreement on making sure

that the payroll tax was cut in the first place and making sure that unemployment insurance was extended, to my constant efforts during the debt ceiling to try to get what has been called the grand bargain in which we had a balanced approach to actually bringing down our deficit and debt in a way that wouldn't hurt our recovery. each time what we've seen is games playing, a preference to try to score political points rather than actually get something done on the part of the other side, and that has been true not just over the last six months, that's been true over the last two and a half years. now, the bottom line is this. our doors are open, and what i've done over the last several weeks is to take the case to the american people so that they understand what is at stake. it is now up to all the senators and hopefully all the members of the house to explain to their

constituencies, why they would be opposed to common-sense ideas that historically have been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. why would you be opposed to tax cuts for small businesses and tax cuts for american workers? my understanding is that for the last decade they've been saying we ned to lower taxes for folks. why wouldn't he we want t we want to do that through this jobs bill? we know we have roads and bridges and schools that need to be rebuilt. and historically republicans haven't been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. why would you be opposed now? we know that the biggest problem that we've had in terms of unemployment over the last several months has not been in the private sector, it's actually been layoffs of teachers and cops and firefighters. we created over 2 million jobs

in the private sector, a million jobs this year alone in the private sector, but in the public sector we keep on saying these layoffs having an adverse effect on economies in states all across the country. why wouldn't we want to make sure that those teachers are in the classroom teaching our kids? here is the bottom line. my expectation and hope is that everybody will vote for this jobs bill because it reflects those ideas that traditionally have been supported by both democrats and republicans. if it turns out that there are republicans who are opposed to this bill they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the american people why they are opposed and what would they do. we know that this jobs bill, based on independent analysis, could grow the economy almost an additional 2%. that could mean an additional 1.9 million jobs.

do they have a plan that would have a similar impact? because if they do i'm happy to hear it. but i haven't heard them offer alternatives that would have that same kind of impact, and that's what we need right now. a lot of the problems that this economy is facing are problems that predate the financial crisis. middle class families seeing their wages and incomes flat despite rising costs for everything from healthcare to a college education. and so folks have been struggling, not just for the last three years, they've been struggling for over a decade n now, and at a time when so many people are having such a hard time we have to have an approach, we have to take action that is big enough to meet the

moment. and what i've heard from republicans is well, we are agreeing to do these trade bills. that's great. i'm in favor of those trade bills and i'm glad they are passing. but that is not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment. we passed patent legislation that, was bi-partisan work. i'm thrilled that i was -- we were able to get republicans and democrats to work together on that. but that is a long term issue for our economic competitiveness. it's not putting americans to work right now. the bottom line is this. ben, if next week senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now and meet the challenges of the current economy we are happy to consider them. but every idea that we put forward are ones that have tra tkeulg traditionally been

supported by republicans and democrats a like. i think it's important to have a vote on those idea because i believe it's very hard to argue against them. if mr. mcconnell chooses to vote against it or members of his caucus choose to vote against it i promise you we will keep on going and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill and each time they will have to explain why it is that they would be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools, or giving tax cuts to middle class folks, and giving tax cuts to small businesses. [inaudible] >> i think if we don't take action then we could end up having more significant problems than we have right now. and some of it is just simple math. the payroll tax cut that we passed is set to expire. the jobs plan includes an extension of the payroll tax

cut. if that is not extended, then that is over a thousand dollars out of the pockets of the average american family at a time when they are already feeling a severe pinch. that means they are going to be spending less, that means businesses are going to have less customers, and that's going to have an adverse effect on an economy that is already weaker than it should be. okay. chuck. >> thank you mr. president. before i get to my question. do we assume by how you're talking about the bill in the senate that you are okay with the change in how to pay for the, the surtax, the 5.6% surtax on millionaires? >> we've also said we would be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. we put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. keep in mind, though, that what i've always said is that not only do we have to pay for the

jobs bill but we also still have to do more in order to reduce the debt and the deficit. so the approach that the senate is taking i'm comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. we're still going to need to reform this tax code to make sure that we're closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the very simple principle, what we call the buffet rule, that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying lower tax rates than ordinary families, there is going to be more work to do to making our tax system fair and just and promoting growth. but in terms of the immediate action of getting this jobs bill passed i'm fine with the approach they are taking. >> during the debt ceiling debate you asked for the american public to call members of congress and switch boards got jammed. you have done a similar thing going around the country doing

this, talking to members of congress, there is not the same reaction. you're not seeing -- hearing about phones being jammed, talking to one member of congress he told me there is a dissolutionment he's concerned about with the public that maybe they just don't believe anything can get done any way. are you worried about your own powers of persuasion and maybe that the american public is not listening to you any more? >> well, no, you know, what we've seen is the american people respond very enthusiastically to the specific provisions of the jobs bill. they are very skeptical about congress' ability to act right now. and that's understandable. the american people are very frustrated. they've one frustrated for a longtime. they don't get a sense that folks in this town are looking out for their interests. they get a sense that folks in this town are thinking about their own jobs, their own careers, their own advancement, their party interests.

and so if the question is, chuck, are people feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospect of positive action in this city? absolutely. i can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action some of that cynicism is going to be there. as you said during the debt ceiling debate, you know, a very solid majority. i think maybe even higher than 70% agreed with the approach that i talked about, which was reshould have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. and what the american people saw is that the congress didn't care, not just what i thought, they didn't care about what the american people thought, they had their own agenda. so if they see that over and over again, that cynicism is not going to be reduced until congress actually proves their

cynicism wrong by doing something that would actually help the american people. this is a great opportunity to do it. this is a great opportunity to do it. and keep in mind, if the american jobs bill passes we are still going to have challenges. we are still going to have to make sure that we've got the best education system in the world, because that is going to be critical for our long-term competitiveness and creating good, solid middle class jobs. we're still going to have to keep investing in basic research and science. we'll have to make sure that we do even more on infrastructure. what is contained in the american jobs bill doesn't cover all the roads and bridges and infrastructure that needs to be improved around the country. it's not as if that is going to solve all our problems, but it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of thousands, millions of people

back to work at a time when they need it the most, and it's paid for. the one persuasive argument that the republicans previously had made against a bill like this, you know, the deficit is growing, we can't afford it. well we can afford it if we are willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more in taxes. we can afford it without affecting our deficit. our proposal is paid for. so that can't be the excuse. and so, yes, until they see congress actually putting country ahead of party politics, and partisanship they are going to be skeptical and it doesn't matter how many times i preach to them, this is not a reflection of their lack of faith in the american jobs bill, they haven't seen congress able to come together and act. this is a good opportunity, though. what we've seen is that they

agree with what we've put forward. now, here is what i'll also say is that based on the debt ceiling vote, what they've seen is that the republicans in congress, even when the american people agree with me, oftentimes will vote against something i'm proposing. so there may be some skepticism that i personally can persuade republicans to take actions in the interest of the american people, but that's exactly why i need the american people to try to put some pressure on them because, i think justifiably what they've seen is that oftentimes even ideas that used to be supported by republicans, if i'm proposing them suddenly republicans forget it and they decide they are against it. jackie. >> thank you mr. president.

as you travel the country you also take credit for tightening regulations on wall street through the dodd frank law and your efforts to combat income and equality. they clearly don't think that you or republicans have done enough, that you're in fact part of the problem. are you following this movement and what would you say to it's people that are attracted to it? >> obviously i've heard of it. i've seen it on television. i think it expresses the frustrations that the american people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across main street, and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying

to fight efforts to crackdown on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place. so, yes, i think people are frustrated and, you know, the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. now keep in mind i have said before and i will continue to repeat, we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow. and i used up a lot of political capital and i've got the dings and bruises to prove it in order to make sure that we prevented a financial meltdown, and that banks stayed afloat. and that was the right thing to do. because had we seen a financial collapse then the damage to the american economy would have been even worse.

but what i've also said is that for us to have a healthy financial system that requires that banks and other financial institutions compete on the basis of the best service and the best products and the best price, and it can't be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices, or today derivative cocktails that nobody understands and expose the entire economy to enormous risk. that's what dodd frank was designed to do. it was designed to make sure that we didn't have the necessity of taxpayer bail outs, that we said, you know what, we'll be able to control these situations so that if these guys get into trouble we can isolate them, quarantine them, and let them fail. it says that we are going to have a consumer watchdog on the

job all the time who is going to make sure that they are dealing with customers in a fairway, and we're eliminating hidden fees on credit cards. mortgage brokers are going to have to -- actually have to be straight with people about what they are purchasing. and what we've seen over the last year is not only the financial sector with the republican party and congress fight us every inch of the way, but now you've got these same folks suggesting that we should rollback all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis. today my understanding is we're going to have a hearing on richard cordroy, who is my nominee to head up the consumer financial protection bureau. he would be america's chief consumer watchdog when it comes to financial products.

this is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of ohio, has been the treasurer of ohio, the attorney general of ohio. republicans and democrats in ohio all say he is a serious person who looks out for consumers. he has a good reputation. and republicans have threatened not to confirm him, not because of anything he's done, but because they want to rollback the whole notion of having a consumer watchdog. you've got republican presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposals is we'll get rid of the financial reforms that are designed to pr prevent the abuses that got us into this mess in the first place. that does not make sense to the american people, they are frustrated by it. and they will continue to be frustrated by it until they get a sense that everybody is playing by the same set of rules and that uri warded for

responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaining the system. so i'm going to be fighting every inch of the way here in washington to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector. i will be hugely supportive of, you know, banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers. we need them to be lending. we need them to be lending more to small businesses. we need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing businesses and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. but until the american people see that happening, yes they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules. [inaudible] >> you know, what i think is

that the american people understand that not everybody has been following the rules, that wall street is an example of that, that folks who are working hard a every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that used to be the essence of the american dream. that's how you got ahead the old fashioned way. these days a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded. that is going to express itself into 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we are getting back to some old fashioned american vues in which -- if you're a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to

build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefitting everybody. jake. >> thank you, mr. president. to follow up on jackie's question, one of the reasons why so many of the people at the occupied wall street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on wall street did not follow the rules. but your administration hasn't really been very aggressive in prosecuting, in fact, i don't think any wall street executives have gone to jail despite the rampant corruption and malfeasance that did take place, so i was wondering if you could comment on that. and just as a separate question, as you're watching the solyndra and fast and furious controversies play out, i'm wondering if it gives you any pause about any of the decision making going on in your

administration, some of the e-mails the democrats put out indicating that people at the office of management and budget were concerned about the department of energy, some of the e-mails going on with the attorney general saying he didn't know about the details of fast and furious. are you worried at all about how this is, how your administration is running? >> well, first on the issue of, on the issue of prosecutions on wall street. um, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. that's exactly why we needed to pass dodd-frank, to prohibit some of these practices. you know, the financial sector

is very creative. and they are always looking for ways to make money. that's their job. and if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will take advantage of it. um, so, you know, without commenting on particular prosecutions, obviously, that's not my job, that's the attorney general's job. you know, i think part of people's frustrations, part of my frustration was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren't necessarily against the law. but they had a huge destructive impact. and that's why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the american people from reckless decision making and irresponsible behavior. now, with respect to solyndra and fast and furious, you know, i think, you know, i've been very clear that, um, i have, i

have complete confidence in attorney general holder, in how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in going after gun running and cash transactions that are going to these transnational drug cartels in mexico. there's been a lot of cooperation between the united states and mexico on this front. he's indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in fast and furious, certainly i was not, and i think both he and i would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the united states of america. he's assigned an inspector general to look into how exactly this happened, and i have complete confidence in him, and i've got complete confidence in the process to figure out who, in fact, was responsible for that decision and how it got made.

solyndra, this is a loan guarantee program that predates me, that historically has had support from democrats and republicans as well. and the idea is pretty straightforward. if we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we've got to dominate cutting edge technologies, we've got to dominate cutting edge manufacturing. clean energy is part of that package of technologies of the future that has to be based here in the united states if we're going to be able to succeed. now, the loan guarantee program is designed to meet a particular need in the marketplace which is a lot of these small start-ups, they can get angel investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going, but it's very hard for them to then scale up.

particularly if these are new cutting edge technologies. it's hard for them to find private investors. and part of what's happening is china and europe, other countries are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore even if technology was developed here in the united states, they end up going to china because the chinese government is saying we're going to help you get started, we'll help you scale up, we'll give you low-interest loans or no-interest loans, we will give you siting, we will do whatever it takes for you to get started here. and that's part of the reason why a lot of technologies that developed here we've now lost the lead in; solar energy, wind energy. and so what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to close that gap and say let's see if we can help some of those folks locate here and create jobs here in the united states. now, we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was going to entail some risk, by

definition. if it was a risk-free proposition, then we wouldn't have to worry about it. but the overall portfolio has been successful, it has allowed us to help companies, for example, start advanced battery manufacturing here in the united states, it's helped to create jobs. there were going to be some companies that did not work out, solyndra was one of them. but the process by which the decision was made was on the merits, it was straightforward, and of course there were going to be debates internally, you know, when you're dealing with something as complicated as this. but i have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the american economy and the american people and putting people back to work. and by the way, let me make one last point about this. you know, i heard there was a republican member of congress who's engaging in oversight on

this, and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? we can't compete against china when it comes to solar energy. well, you know what? i don't buy that. i'm not going to surrender to other countries' technological leads that could end up determining whether or not we're building a strong middle class in this country. and so, you know, we're going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing's located here, new businesses are located here and new technologies are developed here. and there are going to be times where it doesn't work out, but i'm not going to cave to the competition. when they are heavily subsidizing all these industries. >> [inaudible] your administration has been -- [inaudible] i know a lot of it was legal, a lot of -- >> right. and, well, let me say this.

the president can't go around saying prosecute somebody. but as a general principle, if somebody has engaged in fraudulent actions, they need to be prosecuted. if they've violated laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. anthat's the attorney general's job, and i know that attorney general holder, u.s. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. okay? >> thank you, mr. president. you just spoke of the need for banks to start lending, you talked earlier about how creative they can be in chasing profit, and yet earlier in the week you said that banks, quote, don't have some inherent right to just, you know, get a certain amount of profit. you also said in that interview that you can stop them. how do you plan on stopping them from charging this $5 fee or

whatever the fee is, and do you think that your government has a right to deck -- dictate how much profit american companies make? >> i absolutely do not think that. i was trying to make a broader point, which is that people have been using financial regulation as an excuse to chrnlg consumers more -- charge consumers more, right? i mean, basically, the argument they've made is, well, you know what? this hidden fee was prohibited, and so we'll find another fee to make up for it. now, they have that right, but it's not a good practice. it's not necessarily fair to consumers. and my main goal is to make sure that we've got a consumer watchdog in place who is letting consumers know what fair practices are, making sure that transactions are transparent and

making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service and good prices. now, you know, the frustrating thing that we have right now is that you've got folks over in congress, republicans, who have said that they see their role as eliminating any prohicks on any -- prohibitions on any practices for financial companies. and i think that's part of the frustration the american people feel, because they have just gone through a period of where they were seeing a bunch of hidden fees, rate hikes that they doesn't know about, fine print that they could not understand. that's true for credit cards, that's true for mortgages. it contributed to overall weakness in the economy. and, yes, i think it is entirely appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure that consumers are protected.

so banks and any business in america can price their products any way they want. that's how the free market works. as long as there's transparency and accountability and consumers understand what they're getting, and there are going to be instances where a policy judgment is made that, you know what? there's certain practices that just aren't fair. and, you know, that's, that's how the market's always operated. >> [inaudible] >> i, i think that what the consumer finance protection bureau could do is to make sure that consumers understood exactly what they were getting, exactly what was happening, and i think that congress could make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain practice was fair or not. okay?

david nakomura. >> thank you, mr. president. just following up on jake's question about solyndra, the guaranteed loan program that you talked about was giving out $38 billion in guaranteed loans and promised to save or create 65,000 jobs, green jobs in clean energy. and there's been reports that, actually, only 3500 new jobs have been created in that industry. why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment that your administration has provided, and what do you see going forward as to how it will respond? >> well, you know, i think that, um, what has been true historically is that businesses that rely on new technologies a lot of times it's going to take a while before they get takeoff.

and there are a lot, lot of up-front investments that have to be made in research and capital and so forth, a lot of barriers for companies that are trying to break in. keep in mind that clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies, and, you know, traditional energy is still cheaper in a lot of ways. the problem is it's running out, it's polluting, and we know that demand is going to keep on increasing so that if we don't prepare now, if we don't invest now, if we don't get on top of technologies now, we're going to be facing 20 years from now a china and india having a billion new drivers on the road, the trend lines in terms of oil prices, coal, etc., going up, the impact on the planet increasing, and we're not just going to be able to start when all heck is breaking loose and

say, boy, we'd better find some new energy sources. so in the meantime, we've got to make these investments, but that makes it more difficult for a lot of these companies to succeed. what's also a problem, as i said, is that other countries are subsidizing these industries much more adepress i havely -- aggressively than we are. hundreds of billions of dollars, the chinese government is pouring into the clean energy sector. partly because they're projecting what's going to happen ten or twenty years from now. so, look, i have confidence in american businesses and american technology and american scientists and entrepreneurs being able to win that competition. we are not going to be duplicating the kind of system that they have in china where they are, bically, state-run banks giving money to state-run companies and ignoring losses and ignoreing, you know, bad

management. but there is a role to play for us to make sure that these companies can at least have a fighting shot. and it does mean that there are going to be some that aren't successful, and it's going to be an uphill climb for some. and, obviously, it's very difficult for all companies right now to succeed when the economy's as soft and as weak as it is. >> [inaudible] investors -- [inaudible] might not be a wise use of taxpayer money. in retrospect, do you think you were so eager to go in there and succeed that -- [inaudible] >> i will tell you that even for those prompts under this -- project that have ended up being successful, there have been those in the marketplace who have been doubtful. so there's always going to be a debate on whether this particular approach to this

particular technology is going to be successful. um, and, you know, all i can say is that the department of energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. um, and, you know, the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which, you know, for every success there may be one that does not work out as well. but that's exactly what the loan guarantee program was designed by congress to do. it was to take bets on these areas where we need to make sure that we're maintaining our lead. okay? bill plantment -- plant. >> thank you, mr. president. anybody on capitol hill will say that there's no chance that the american jobs act in its current state passes either house. and you've been out on the campaign trail banging away at

them saying pass this bill. >> right. >> and it begins, sir, to look like you're campaigning and like you're following the harry truman model against the do-nothing congress. instead of negotiating. are you negotiating? will you? >> i am always open to negotiations. what is also true is they need to do something. i mean, i'm not -- look, bill, i think it is very clear that if members of congress come in and say, all right, we want to build infrastructure, here's the way we think we can do it, we want to put construction workers back to work, we've got some ideas, i am ready, eager to work with them. they say, you know, we've got this great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom. it's a little different than what you've proposed in the jobs bill. i'm ready, eager to work with them. but that's not what we're

hearing right now. what we're hearing is that their big ideas, e ones that make sense, are ones we're already doing. you know, they've given me a list of, well, here's the republican job creation ideas. let's pass free trade agreements. it's great that we're passing these free trade agreements. we've put them forward, i expect bipartisan support. i think it's going to be good for the american economy. but it's not going to meet the challenge of 9% unemployment or an economy that is currently weakening. it's not enough. patent reform, very important for our long-term competitiveness. there's nobody out there who actually thinks that that's going to immediately feel the needs of people who are out of work. or strengthen the economy right now. so what i've tried to do is say here are the best ideas i've

heard not just from partisans, but from independent economists. these are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now. and that's what the american people are looking for. and the response from republicans has been, no. although they haven't given good reason why they're opposed to putting construction workers back on the job or teachers back in in the classroom. and if you ask them, well, okay, if you're not for that, what are you for? trade's already been done, patent reform's been done, what else? the answer we're getting right now is, well, we're going to roll back all these obama regulations. so their big economic plan to put people back to work right now is to roll back financial

protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs? or, alternatively, they've said we'll roll back regulations that make sure we've got clean air and clean water. eliminate the epa. does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy that are, that is weakening? with all these forces coming into play? i mean, here's a good question, here's a little homework assignment for folks. go ask the republicans what their jobs plan is if they're opposed to the american jobs act and have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economist that has assessed our jobs plan. these independent economists say that we could grow the economy

as much as 2% and as many as 1.9 million workers would be back on the job. i think it'd be interesting to have them do a similar assessment. same people. some of these folks, by the way, traditionally have worked for republicans, not just democrats. have those economists evaluate what over the next two years the republicans' job plan would do. i'll be interested in the answer. i think everybody here, you know, i see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's not going to be real robust. and so, bill, the answer -- the question then is, will congress do something? if congress does something, then i can't run against a do-nothing congress. if congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them, i think the american people will run them out of town. because they are frustrated. and they know we need to do

something big. and something bold. now, the american people are also concerned about making sure that we have a government that lives within its means which is why i put forward a plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt. in a more aggressive way than what the special committee's been charged with. you know, folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. i've already said, i'm happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform. i'm happy to engage with them working to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate these special interest carveouts and potentially lower rates in the process while raising more revenue. i am happy to negotiate with them on a whole host of issues, but right now we've got an emergency. and the american people are living that emergency out every single day.

and they have been for a long time. you know, they are working really hard, and if they're not on the job, then they're working really hard to find a job. and they're losing their homes, and their kids are having to drop out of school because they can't afford student loans, and they're putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their job, they lost their health insurance. they are struggling. and as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling, even those who are well off. the irony is the same folks that the republicans claim to be protecting, the well off, the millionaires and the billionaires, they'd be doing better, they'd be making more money if ordinary americans had some money in their pockets and were out there feeling more confident about the economy. that's been the he is son of our history -- lesson of our history. when folks at the middle and at the bottom are doing well, the

folks at the top do even better. >> public pressure's the only leverage you have, sir? >> look, the -- i, we have a democracy, and right now john boehner's the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell's the republican leader. and, you know, all i can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the american people so that they're responsive. so far they haven't been responsive to not just me, but public opinion. we saw that during the debt ceiling -- [inaudible] but we're just going to keep on manging the case -- making the case. but i guess what i'm saying though here, bill, and i said this when i made my speech at the joint session, the election is 13, 14 months away. i would love nothing more than to not have to be out there

campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in congress. that's my goal. that's what i'm looking for. but i'm also dealing with a republican majority leader who said that his number one goal was to beat me. not put americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. and he's been saying that now for a couple of years. so, yeah, i've got to go out and enlist the american people to see if maybe he'll listen to them if he's not listening to me. matt spitole. where's matt? >> thank you, mr. president. [inaudible] one on foreign policy. first of all, the senate has taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring china to let its currency rise. what's your position on that bill? would you veto or sign it should it hit your desk?

on the foreign policy front, do you agree with admiral mullen's accusation that pakistan's intelligence agency, um, has used the haqqani network as a virtual arm, and what, if any, consequences up to and including a cutoff of aid would you be willing to consider? >> obviously, we've been seeing a remarkable transformation of china over the last two decades. and it's helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in china. we have stabilized our relationship with china in a healthy way. but what is also true is that china has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the united states.

and i have said that publicly, but i've also said it privately to chinese leaders. and currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. and that makes their exports cheaper, and that makes our exports to them more expensive. so we've seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year. but it's not enough. it's not just currency though. we've also seen, for example, intellectual property -- technologies that were created by companies with a lot of investment, a lot of up-front capital -- taken, not protected

properly by chinese firms. and we've pushed china on that issue as well. ultimately, i think that you can have a win/win trading relationship with china. i'm very pleased that we're going to be able to potentially get a trade deal with south korea. but i believe what i think most americans believe, which is trade is great as long as everybody's playing by the same rules. now, the legislation that is being presented in congress is an effort to get at that. my main concern, and i've expressed this to senator schumer, is whatever tools we put in place, let's make sure these are tools that can actually work, that they're consistent with our international treaties and obligations. i don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that their

probably not going to be upheld by the world trade organization, for example, and then suddenly u.s. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanks. we've got -- sanctions. we've got, i think we've got a strong case to make, but we've got to make sure we do it in a way that's going to be effective. last point is my administration's actually been more aggressive than any in recent years in going after some of these practices. we've brought very aggressive enforcement actions against china for violations in the tire case, for example, where it's been upheld by the world trade organization that they were engaging in unfair trading practices, and that's given companies here in the united states a lot of relief. so my overall goal is i believe u.s. companies, u.s. workers, we can compete with anybody in the world. i think we can make the best products, and a huge part of us winning the future, a huge part of rebuilding this economy on a

firm basis that's not just reliant on, you know, maxed-out credit cards and a housing bubble and financial speculation , but is dependent on us making things and selling things. i'm absolutely confident that we can win that competition. but in order to do it we've got to make sure that we're aggressive in looking out for the interests of american workers and american businesses. and that everybody playing by the same rules and that we're not getting, getting cheated in the process. that is a term of art, so, you know, the treasury secretary, i've got to be careful here. you know, t his job to -- it's his job to make those decisions. there's concern but it's indisputable that they intervene

heavily in the currency markets and that the rnb, their currency, is lower than it probably would be if they weren't making all those purchases. in the currency markets to keep, keep the rnb lore. with respect to pakistan, um, i have said that my number one goal is to make sure that al-qaeda cannot attack the u.s. homeland and cannot effect u.s. interests around the world. and we have done an outstanding job, i think, in going after directly al-qaeda in in this border region between pakistan and afghanistan. we could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the pakistan government. and so on a whole range of

issues, they have been an effective partner with us. what is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind, one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic, that pakistan, i think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. and, you know, i think that they have hedged their bets in terms of what afghanistan would look like. and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in afghanistan after coalition forces have left. what we've tried to persuade

pakistan of is that it is in their interests to have a stable afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent afghanistan. we've tried to get conversations between afghans and pakistan more effectively than they have been in the past, but we've still got more work to do. there's no doubt that there's some connections that the pakistani military officials have with certain individuals that we find troubling. and i've said that publicly,nd i've said it privately to pakistani officials as well. they see their, their security interests threatened by an independent afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to india, and pakistan still considers india their

mortal enemy. part of what we want to do is actually get pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards india would be in everybody's interests and would help pakistan actually develop was -- because one of the biggest problems we have in pakistan right now is poverty, ill literacy, a lack of development, you know, civil institutions that aren't strong enough to deliver for the pakistani people. and in that environment you've seen extremism grow, you've seen militancy grow that doesn't just threaten our efforts in afghanistan, but also threatens the pakistani government and the pakistani people as well. so trying to get that reorientation is something we're continuing to work on, it's not easy. >> [inaudible] >> you know, we will constantly

evaluate our relationship with pakistan based on is overall this helping to protect americans and our interests? we have a great desire to help the pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. and so i'd be hesitant to punish, you know, aid for flood victims in pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. but there's no doubt that, you know, we're not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with pakistan if we don't think that they're mindful of our interests as well. i'll make this last question, amir.

>> thank you, mr. president. um, -- >> caught you by surprise, huh? >> you did. [laughter] what should european leaders to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? and second, how risky is this continued situation to the u.s. economy? um, and finally, do you feel that the european leaders are negligent in pushing austerity too soon? >> those are good questions. um, the big headwind the american economy is facing right now is uncertainty about europe because it's affecting global markets. the slowdown that we're seeing is not just happening here in the united states, it's happening everywhere. even in some of the emerging markets like china you're seeing

greater caution, less investment, deep concern. in some ways, you know, um, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the united states after the lehman's collapse, the aggressive actions that were taken right after lehman's did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that europe did not fully go through. um, and, you know, uncertainty around greece and their ability to pay their debts runs on, in the capital markets on, you know, the debt that many of these southern european countries have been facing as well as ireland and portugal. all that's put severe strain on

the world financial system. i speak frequently with chancellor merkle and president sarkozy. they are mindful of these challenges. i think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. i think they're very committed to the european project. but their politics is tough. because, herbally -- essentially, they've got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments, they've got to get agreement with 20 parliaments or 24 parliaments or 27 parliaments. and engineering that kind of coordinated action is very difficult. you know, but what i've been

seeing over the last month is a recognition by european leaders of the urgency of the situation. and nobody's, obviously, going to be affected more than they will be. if situation there spins out of control. so i'm confident that they want to get this done. i think there are some technical issues that they're working on in terms of how they get a big enough, how do they get enough firepower to let thearkets know that they're going to be standing behind euro members who is, you know, who may be in a weaker position. but they've got to act fast. and we've got a g20 meeting coming up in november. my strong hope is that by the time of that g20 meeting that they have a very clear, concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task.

um, it will have an effect, it's already having an effect here in the united states, it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it's never been before. and that's one of the biggest challenges that we have post-2008 after this financial crisis. america has always been, well, over the last 20 years has been the engine for world economic growth. we were the purchasers of last resort, we were the importers of last resort, we would stimulate our economies and our american consumers would buy stuff around the world. and so if they got into trouble, they could always say, well, we're going to sell to the u.s. well, we're now going through a situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts, you know,

businesses are more cautious, and the u.s. government, obviously, is, has its own fiscal challenges. i mean, we've got to make sure that we're living within our means although we've got to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately effect a fragile economy. so what that means is europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. they're going to have to fix that problem. and part of the goal that i've been trying to promote for the last two years and i'll repeat at the g20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. we've got to get into a posture where the u.s. is always going to be a big market, and we're going to welcome goods from all around the world, but we've also got to be selling goods around the world. we can't just be, you know, running up our debt in order to help other folks' economies. we've got to have as not only

families, our businesses and our governments, we've got to make sure that we're being prudent and we're producing here in the united states. and by the way, that's what's going to create strong middle class jobs here in the united states. i think part of what's going on for the country generally is this sense of what a lot of that are debt that had been built up prior to 2008 that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy weren't as strong as they needed to be. and that's why not only do we have to put americans back to work now, but we've also got to keep on reforming our education system so it's producing the highest-skilled graduates in the world, that's why we've got to keep on investing in basic research and science, that's why we've got to make sure that we're rebuilding our infrastructure, that's why we've got to have a smarter energy policy, because that's a huge source of us having to import

from other countries instead of being able to export to other countries. all those things are going to be important, and all of those things are going to be challenging, they're going to be hard. but right now we've got, you know, the problem of putting people back to work. that's why congress needs to pads this jobs bill -- pass this jobs bill. and last point i'll make. if, if bill's right and everybody on capitol hill is cynical and saying this is no way -- there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. i want everybody to be clear. you know, my intention is to insist that each part of this i want an explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it. each component part. putting people back to work, rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom,

tax cuts for small businesses and middle class families, tax breaks for our veterans. we will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. and i would love nothing more than to see congress act so aggressively that i can't campaign against them as a do-nothing congress. all right? thank you very much, everybody. jenna: the president of the united states speaking just over an hour and ten minutes starting with the jobs bill and ending with the jobs bill. the economy being the focus that the president wanted to stay on for the majority of that time, talking about the economy. he says there's no doubt that the economy is weaker now than at the beginning of the year. he went on to talk about the jobs bill, getting it passed and also, of course, referred to the republicans' role in doing that as well. a whole host of other topics also covered the wall street

protests, solyndra, china, pakistan, a whole host of topics. bret baier is coming up after the break, he's going to work through some of this with us. we'll be right back with more "happening now." [ male announcer ] drinking a smoothie with no vegetable nutrition? ♪ [ gong ] strawberry banana! [ male announcer ] for a smoothie with real fruit plus veggie nutrition new v8 v-fusion smoothie. could've had a v8. your nutritional needs can go up

when you're on the road to recovery. proper nutrition can help you get back on your feet. three out of four doctors recommend the ensure brand for extra nutrition. ensure clinical strength has revigor and thirteen grams of protein to protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. and immune balance to help support your immune system. ensure clinical strength... helping you to bounce back. ensure! nutrition in charge! her morng begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon to begins with more pain and more pills. thevening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

jon: so for an hour and 12 minutes or so the president held forth hoping that folks would tune in to his jobs plan. reporters had some other ideas, and you heard some of the questions there. let's talk about it with bret baier, he is the anchor of "special report," of course, 6 p.m. eastern time on this network. bret, what's the white house trying to do? these news conferences don't happen in a vacuum, we just found out this morning that the president was going to hold occupy. what was the overriding purpose? is. >> well, clearly they're trying to sway some senators. we are just getting word from senator mcconnell's office that senator reid has agreed to vote, have a vote today on the president's jobs plan, what republicans call his second stimulus package. so that will be a vote today

tied to the china currency manipulation bill, so there'll be a vote, and you'll see whos going to vote for or against it. the question is, really, not about the republican opposition, but about the democrats. jon: right. >> something that the president didn't talk about it. you know, senators mccaskill and tester and nelson and manchin and lieberman. and there are other democrats who have had questions about this piece of legislation, and so, obviously, the president wanted to affect that before that vote. jon: right. and the president tries to frame it as an argument of himself or the white house versus the repuicans, the intransigent republicans on capitol hill. let me play you a sample and get your action. >> if mr. mcconnell chooses to vote existence it or if -- against it or if members of this caucus choose to vote against it, i promise you, we're going to keep on going, and we will put forward maybe piece by piece each component of the bill. and each time they're going to have to explain why it is that

they'd be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools or giving tax cuts to middle class folks and giving tax cuts to small businesses. jon: yeah. i guess it's, you know, as american as apple pie to vote for this bill, but as you point out, there are many democrats who don't much like the particulars here. >> sure. and i could keep going. senator jim webb of virginia, others who have questions about it. what i found interesting was that he said "that" twice, that if this bill doesn't pass, we're going to take it piece by piece. i think he's setting the groundwork for failure on this vote, that they don't have the votes to get it through, and that they're going to keep coming back at it. also what was interesting is that he said he was comfortable with the 5.6% surtax on millionaires that senator reid is now pitching to pay for so-called pay for this jobs bill. that is different than president obama said in 2009, don't raise

taxes ever in the middle of a recession or in a downturn in an economy. so he spent the first time, first part of this news conference saying how the country has stalled, the economy has stalled, and it risks going backwards into a double dip recession, essentially, if this jobs bill isn't passed. and then endorsed the method to pay for it which is the 5.6% surtax on millionaires. jon: bret baier, the anchor of "special report." we'll see you tonight, 6 p.m. eastern. i'm sure the news conference gives you plenty of fodder to talk about with the panel. thanks. jenna: fox news alert out in california where police have shot and killed the gunman suspect inside those shootings in sunnyvail that we were reporting on yesterday. we're going to have the latest from california right after a quick break. being your average brs... we know how to tighten our purse strings.

that's why i buy new charmin basic. it's very reasonably priced. plus, it's two times stronger when wet versus the leading competitive brand.

new charmin basic works for my bottom line. and my bottom. new charmin basic.

jenna: welcome back, everyone, to this fox business alert. a huge headline today. 0 and 15-year fixed rate mortgages now at historic low. that means a 30-year fixed mortgage is now below 4% for the very first time ever. president and economist at the university of pennsylvania's warren school of business. sam, why now? why are we see these record low mortgage rates now? >> it largely reflected, jenna, that confidence in the economic outlook is fairly weak and that investors are concerned about what's happening in europe with the sovereign debt crisis, they're worried about the possibility of a relapse into recession here in the united states. and so they're buying treasuries. we see that treasuries are extraordinarily low, and the, you know, the gse bonds that are driving mortgage rates are tracking those treasuries to

levels that are, you know, as low as we've ever seen. jenna: and low rates sometimes encourage people to get into the market because you can borrow money cheaply. what do you think this low mortgage rate really means for the housing recovery overall? >> regrettably, jenna, i don't think it means a lot. if we look at the last couple of years, what's very clear is that mortgage rates have been if not at their historic lows, they've certainly been in the range of their historic lows. but credit standards remain tight which on one hand means that although the financing is very affordable, if you can qualify for the mortgage to actually be able to meet the qualification criteria can be difficult, particularly for younger households which are a dreier driver of new demand, making the transition from renting o ownership. the other thing i think we see is while very low mortgage rates may help people who are well positioned in terms of the stability of their income stream, in terms of the security

of their job, it helps them refinance. that's not the crux of the housing crisis. what we have is a situation where there aren't a lot of people who will make the move into housing and who can drive new demand, but that is, ultimately, a function of the job market. if we aren't focused on generating jobs in this economy, low mortgage rates mean very, very little for outcomes for housing. jenna: i was just going to ask you a little bit more about a broader view of if low rates won't encourage a review, what will? you're saying it comes down to jobs which is what we heard the president talk about today, but there's also been criticism about this administration not addressing the housing crisis more directly, perhaps with another refinancing plan or something like that. what are your thoughts on both of those and prioritizing that? >> i think, yeah, the priority really does need to be on jobs. and, you know, that's a result of who benefits from, um, plans that make refinancing more affordable. when we look at the vast majority of homeowners in the

united states who will qualify for the lowest mortgage rates and who will then take advantage of those programs to refinance, when we've seen a boom in refinancing over the last couple years when it's largely tapered off, again, it's been families who have certainly benefited from those low mortgage rates, but those aren't necessarily the families that are at risk of losing their homes. when we look at where, on the margins, where will new demand from housing come from? how is it that we're going to absorb the excess inventory that we built over the course of the housing boom? the ways in which we get people to make that transition from reasonable certaintying into home -- into renting into home ownership, you know, we get people to move out on their own for the first time maybe after they've graduated from college, um, is to drive that job growth to rebuild confidence, ultimately, then in the trajectory of house prices. so, you know, people are going to be concerned about a couple of things. one the is that, you know, they're going to be concerned about whether house prices might

fall a little bit further. and not undermining any sense of energy about wanting to become a homeowner and slowing the pace of recovery in the housing market. but, ultimately, even to get an improvement there what we need to see is that the basic underpinks for command -- underpinnings for housing in the united states, and that really is jobs, needs to be much, much stronger than what we've seen over this recovery. short of reducing the supply or available stock of housing, you know, by tearing some of those homes down, and it's going to be really difficult otherwise to see demand improving. jenna: getting rid of some of the inventory, getting new people into the market as well, getting new homes built, perhaps, if that's what's needed, but it still remains a little bit of a quandary here about how to get us out of this place that we're in housing and the job market overall. i know you have students waiting. we appreciate it always. thank you for joining us. >> thanks, jenna. jon: a fox news alert, and 24 hours ago we were talking extensively about the search for a gunman in california who

opened fire at a company and car jacked a woman. well, the search for that gunman has now come to an end. rick folbaum has the update for us. >> reporter: that's right. the manhunt in have you beenny vail, san jose, california, area is over. police surrounding the area where he was thought to have been hiding out. shots were fired. a local sheriff now confirming that someone has been shot and killed, but officials are waiting on a positive id of the body before saying conclusively that they have killed sharif. he matches the description of a man involved in that shooting at a quarry yesterday morning, and there is definitely video of a victim lying in front of the garage door in front of that house. locals heard gunshots, as you said, more than 24 hours afterralman opened fire at the quarry where he worked killing three of his coworkers. he was also alleged to have shot

a woman whose car he was trying to steal after the shooting at the quarry. again, this is a man -- the community there is in shock because by all accounts allman was a leader in his community, a single father who raised money for victims of hurricane katrina, reportedly upset with being move today the night shift at the car i ri -- quarry. again, we're waiting on a positive identification and confirmation as we take a look at neighbors in the area. s.w.a.t. teams have been going door to door armed looking for allman, but now it seems as though they found him. and after some sort of an encounter with the police, he appears to be dead. as we get more information, jon, we'll pass it along.

[ male announcer ] attention medicare beneficiaries. the annual enrollment period to switch your current medicare coverage is earlier this year. it begins october 15th and ends december 7th; so now is the best time to review your options. here's a plan that could give you the benefits and stability you're looking for, an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare. what makes it complete? this plan combines medicare parts a and b which is your hospital and doctor coverage, with part d prescription drug coverage, and more, all in one simple plan starting at a zero dollar monthly premium beyond what you pay for medicare part b. this plan offers you benefits like an annual physical, preventive screenings and immunizations

for a $0 copay. you'll also have the flexibility to change doctors from a network of providers dedicated to helping you stay healthy. there's more. when you enroll in an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare, your benefits could also include vision and hearing coverage, and prescription drug coverage that's accepted at pharmacies nationwide. the pharmacy saver program makes prescriptions available for as little as $2 at thousands of pharmacies. unitedhealthcare has worked with these pharmacies to get low costs for our members. enroll today. and enjoy advantages like these for as low as a zero dollar monthly premium, beyond what you pay for medicare part b. now is the time to look at your options. start getting the benefits of an aarp medicarecomplete plan insured through unitedhealthcare. remember, the annual enrollment period begins and ends earlier this year.

call unitedhealthcare today about an aarp medicarecomplete plan. you can even enroll right over the phone. or visit us on the web. don't wait. call now.

jenna: we are merge's election headquarters. to four recent polls, former godfather's pizza ceo, herman cain is surging. poles by quinnipiac and fox news, cbs showed cain in the top tier in the battle for the republican presidential nomination. making him the new frontrunner. the question is can he get the nomination? professor larry sabato joins us from charlottesville with his crystal ball that comes out every week. director of the poll sill

center of university of virginia. you say cain nomination would be aberration of historic proportions. >> it would be aberration. just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. look, herman cain has never been elected to public office. historically presidents who have never been elected to public office have only been generals, generals of the army like dwight eisenhower or even george washington, if you don't count his election to the virginia house of burgesses. probably the best parallel with herman cain is wendell will can i, the republican nomination for president in 1940. ran against franklin roosevelt's in roosevelt's successful attempt to win a third team. it is tough to convince people that your initial office should be the office of president unless you've been a successful war-time leader. jenna: do you think what is happening right now in our

history at this moment actually turns that on its head? it gives an opening for something like this to happen? someone with doesn't have political experience to go to the highest office in the land? >> i'm always open to unprecedented ideas and realities maybe but i'm simply saying from a historical perspective the odds are clearly against it. i think you could interpret cain's percentage, first of all as an endorsement of him. people really like him but he might be a placeholder of sorts. we've had a lot of comings and goings, mainly goings in the republican side recently and some people who maybe wanted to support chris christie or wanted to support sarah palin or wanted to support one of the other candidates who didn't end up running might go with cain for the time-being. we'll see what the eventual choice is once we get to iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina. jenna: let me ask you the historical perspective on that. you cite in your crystal ball, right, that 10 different individuals have

led at least one national republican primary poll this year. how typical is it to see, well, such a game of musical chairs, if you will? >> it's unusual to have that many. it is actually usual as long as an incumbent isn't in the race, to have multiple people lead polls at some point. it just makes sense. people don't know all these candidates. they're getting to know them. they like some aspects of candidates x and they other aspects of candidate y. i have loads of correspondence write me take this piece of herman cain and this piece of rick perry and this piece of mitt romney together and have a perfect candidate. you will have to wait for genetics to advance that further. jenna: we'll have to wait for reality. we continue to gaze in the crystal ball you give is every week, larry. always nice to have you. >> thanks a lot, jenna, there is a brand new study

showing a big jump in traumatic brain injury among teenagers and children. why? senior national correspondent john roberts is live in atlanta. tell us about it, john. >> reporter: good afternoon to you, jon. this came out 40 minutes ago. this study any parent with an active child will want to look at. it found in the past decade there has been 60% increase, 60% percent increase in traumatic brain injury among children and adolescents. take a look at the numbers. in 2001 there were a little over 150,000 brain injuries reported in the country. look at that number jumps in 2009 to nearly 250,000 brain injuries. look at number one through five activities are. number one is bicycling. number two is football. a. playground activity. basketball and soccer in there. not surprisingly 71% of the hospitalizations for traumatic brain injury were

among boys. why the increase? here is a little piece of good news we have for you, jon. because more parents brought their children to the emergency room. there has been a greater awareness of tbi. parents thought, my child hit their head pretty hard. better take them to the "er" which is very good thing. jon: that is a good thing. parents have to be concerned about this? >> they do. in some ways, a young brain, even though more plastic and resilient than an adult brain is more vulnerable to a brain injury and can lead to lifelong impairment in areas like memory and cognitive ability. you have to remember, a helmet, whether a bicycle helmet or football helmet only offers so much profession. a child could easily have a con suggestion -- concussion. repeated research shown repeated small hits in a game like football, where mine men coming together, those small hits over time can do more injury than one of the big hits we see so often in the nfl.

a word to parents. keep a close eye on your chilen. remember a helmet doesn't protect again everything. if they hit their heads, probably a good idea to have them examined by a doctor. jon: john roberts live from atlanta. thank you, john. >> reporter: you bet. jon: a "fox news alert" the testimony in the trial of trial of joshua komisarjevsky has come to an end. the defense rested. court will be back in session on tuesday and we will proceed toward a jury verdict in this case that has so mortified the nation. komisarjevsky and his previously convicted associate, steven hayes, komisarjevsky accused of breaking into the home of dr. william petit, killing his wife and their two young daughters, as well as raping the 11-year-old. komisarjevsky did not take the stand. it had been speculated that he might but he did not do so. the defense has rested. it will be onto the jury sometime next week. court will be back in session on tuesday.

we'll keep you updated on we'll keep you updated on this horrible case. ♪ that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm [ male announcer ] for half the calories -- plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8.

your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have 6 grams of sugars. with 15 grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight.

[ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. i'm ready. let's do this! i'm so ready. [ female announcer ] when you're prepared for your check-up, you just know you're going to ace it. ready for your check-up? i'm so ready. [ female announcer ] crest pro-health invigorating clean rinse. its invigorating action lets you know it's working to fight plaque and gingivitis. and provides all these other benefits. crest pro-health

invigorating clean rinse. clean, protect and invigorate your way to better dental check-ups. [ laughter ] >> right now some new information on stories we're watching across the u.s. and around the world from inside our control room. new zealand struggling to contain a growing oil spill off its coast. a 775-foot tanker hitting a reef there yesterday. the ship was hauling 17,000 tons of crude oil. officials say some wildlife has been killed already. prince harry heads to california. the prince attending a u.s. training program for british helicopter crews near san diego. the u.s. officials say the prince will be treated like any other junior officer. bad news for friendly's. the restaurant chain that is pretty big in the northeast filing for bankruptcy protection. the company will close dozens of locations and eventually plans to sell the business. jenna: we have a surprising

discovery from nasa to tell you about. a discovery rick, something called the super earth. is that right? >> i will explain what that is. i had to look it up myself. three new plan etc. actually. i think that is pretty cool. nasa's kepler spacecraft launched in 2009 for the sole purpose of discovering either-like planets near what they call the habitable zone. that is exactly what it has done. a team researchers using a spacecraft to find a so-called super earth and two other neptune-sized plan etc.. the term super earth, let me explain what that means. it refers only to the mass of the planet. it does not imply the surface conditions or inhabitability of that planet. researchers were not sure it was a actual planet. running through list of 700 other possibilities they arrived at conclusion, yes this is a planet. the spacecraft continues its mission, jenna which is

pretty cheap by nasa standards. into the that expensive. i don't know about you guys looking like other earth-like plan etc. sounds like a good idea. jenna: super earth make you superhuman if you're on it? >> i think it makes you super smart. i could take a trip there right now. could use one. jenna: us together. thank you, rick, appreciate it. jon: a fox news alert. fugitive libyan leader muammar qaddafi is apparently still alive. he has released an audiotape broadcast on syrian-based tv, that has become sort of his mouthpiece since the facilities in his own home country of libya are not open to him now. he is claiming that that national transitional council, which has assumed leadership in the absence of him and his sons, he says that organization has no legitimatecy. so another, at least a broadcast radio pronouncement from muammar

qaddafi. he is one of the most hunted men in the world right now. so far, no sign of him. we'll be back more with more "happening now"

>> hey, everyone, i'm megyn kelly. pressure amounts on attorney general eric holder to clarify his conflicting statements about operation fast and furious, the botched federal gun running sting. president obama moments ago, backing mr. holder. was that a risky move? we'll have a fair and balanced debate. plus 10-month-old baby lisa irwin was snatched out of her crib in the middle of the night on monday according to her parents. those parents are here live with me today with a desperate plea. president obama takes a shot at the gop candidates in his press conference this morning, including jon huntsman. governor huntsman responds here live.

busy show. see you top of the 1:00. jenna: america's asking today all kind of questions as we head into the 2012 campaign and joining us now well, for some answers to your questions, republican presidential candidate rick santorum joining us from d.c. today. nice to see you again, mr. santorum. >> thank you. jenna: i want to start real quick here as viewers get questions in at foxnews.com/happeningnow. a report came out on the air i was curious to get your thoughts on. apparently you told split co-is -- "politico" is bullying states to tailor their election calendar in his favor. why are you accusing romney out of this? >> there are reports out of nevada that governor romney and his camp are trying to get states to move their primary dates up. i'm responding to to reports made by people out there in the states and it certainly seems to me that someone is trying to shorten the, you know, the reduce the clock,

trying to run this clock down and governors romney and perry certainly would be the ones as the folks at top of the polls would be ones who would be most logical to have the shortest amount of time between now and the primaries to benefit from that. so i'm saying we should look into this and find out what is the truth and if governor romney is doing this i think he owes an apology to the people. we'll have caucuses now at christmastime, the day after christmas is being suggested. now is when the iowa caucus will be held. this is travesty. this is very serious election and to have this election be muddled as a result of something also, actually even more important celebrating the christmas season i think is a travesty to this process and it is being done by somebody who is trying to move this thing forward for some political gain because it makes no sense for these states to be moving this quickly and to push this up into the

christmas season. jenna: all right. we wanted to have that response. we'll look forward to a response from mitt romney on that accusation and those reports that you mentioned. i want to get so some of our viewers questions as well because there are great ones about a whole host of different topics. randy wants to know, how would you fix the housing market? >> well that is probably the most intractable problem we have right now. way back when i was in the senate on the banking committee i was one of those trying to blow the whistle on freddie and fannie and the huge portfolio they were having and risks that they were taking and what they were doing to underwrite a market that simply was unsustainable. what i've said, what i said at the time back in 2008 when the, when all of this started to unravel is that the government should not be bailing out banks. the government should allow this housing market to find its level, to allow the banks to suffer their losses, and let this market work it out. and i would say the same has to be true. we have continual situation where banks are holding on,

not, not allowing the market to flesh out -- flush out, take the losses have foreclosures occur and find the bottom to begin to recover. we're dragging this out into a slowly death process for real estate and it is simply the wrong approach. jenna: we see mortgage rates falling below 4%, 30-year fixed. there is reports of a massive financing plan potentially the government is working on to encourage banks to allow homeowners to refinance at that very low amount. would you be for something like that. >> again the problem is a lot of the homes are underwater. it is not a matter of refinancing it. you have folks that owe more than the house is worth. and they're probably not particularly interested in refinancing, a lot of them. that is the problem here. the market, let the market work itself out. let the private sector do what it does. we have constructive capitalism which grows and economy. we have destructive

capitalism when there is excess and people suffer the pains and consequences of it. nobody likes it. but for those who took the risk and moral hazard they have to suffer the consequence. >> kaley has a interesting question about deregulation and in general and getting the government out of business right now of the how exactly would you do it? what would be the first step to deregulation and getting the government out of markets like the housing market? >> one of the things i promised to do, every regulation president obama has adopted and underway of adopting when i come in the as president of the united states that costs over $100 million to the private sector, i will repeal it, and if necessary replace it. i will repeal all of them. some should be repealed and not replaced. others we can repeal and go you there the process of replacing them because we may need regulation in that area but this president has decided he will take the approach to regulating almost every economic activity that we have in this country and beyond that,

to schools and the like. this is, this is an overkill. it is crushing the economy and i want to let businesses know and people know when we come into office we'll remove these crushing burdens. we'll recraft the regulations that are necessary in a way that government is not on your back but at your side working with you to make sure that certainly we do things right and according to the law but we're not oppressing you and crushing you from being profitable. jenna: i have only 30 seconds here but how are you feeling? how are you feeling about your chances and now being on the campaign trail for weeks and months now? how are your spirits overall? >> oh i feel great. the last few weeks have been the best few weeks of the campaign. we've gotten a lot more attention. the crowds are great. the response is very positive. people are telling me we like, first time we've really seen you out there. you're getting a few more questions at the debates. you're coming on tv we're seeing awe little bit more on some of the stations. again, we've been a slow and steady wins the race kind of campaign. we're going to continue to

focus on that. we're doing well. feel good about our chances in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina. jenna: see to your point, slow and steady, that is why the calendar comes into focus when we look at the primaries. >> yeah. jenna: rick santorum, always nice to have you. we appreciate the time. >> thank you. jon: a fox news alert and the jury is selected now. the strange case of umar abdulmutallab is about to begin. the testimony will begin tuesday in the case of well-educated affluent, 24-year-old from niger what who is accused of trying to blow up a detroit-bound northwestern airlines flight christmas a while back. jury is selected and testimony begins on tuesday.

every time a local business opens its doors or creates another laptop bag or hires another employee, it's not just good for business. it's good for the entire community. at bank of america, we know the impact that local businesses

have on communities. that's why we extended $7.8 billion to small businesses across the country so far this year. because the more we help them, the more we help make opportunity possible. with advanced power, the 4g network makes everything faster-- smartphones, laptops, tablets, mobile hotspots. but not all 4g is created equal. among the major carriers, only verizon's 4g network is 100% lte,

the gold standard of wireless technology. and while other carriers may have limited lte coverage, verizon is the largest lte network in america and ever-growing. with verizon 4g lte, stream shows and movies without buffering, and play multi-player games with no lag. watch live nfl games on thursday, sunday, and monday nights. video chat with no delay. download songs on rhapsody in just 4 seconds. and access thousands of apps. plus, come to any verizon store and choose from the largest selection of 4g lte devices anywhere. the most 4g lte coverage and access to the hottest content and thousands of apps. verizon is the nation's fastest and most reliable 4g network. verizon. built so you can rule the air. jon: it's been great spending this thursday with you, thanks for joining us. jenna: "america live" starts right now. megyn: fox news alert, a combative president obama making an aggressive new