>> today-- "face the nation," from pennsylvania, we're on the campaign trail with mitt romney. with the polls closer than many expectedly at this point, mitt romney is riding high and getting awarm welcome in places like pennsylvania, once obama territory. >> we're going to do it here in pennsylvania with your help. >> schieffer: when he took a break to talk to us-- >> hey, bob, how you doing? >> schieffer: i'm good. he had strong words for the president's new plans to stop deporting the children of illegal aliens. >> if he really wanted to make a solution that dealt with these kids or illegal immigration in america, then this is something he would have taken up in his first three and a half years, not in the last few months. >> schieffer: so he did it with politics? >> that's certainly a big part of the equation. >> schieffer: he vowed to stop

the president's health care plan no matter what the supreme court rules. >> regardless of their decision, if i'm president, gearing to stop obamacare in its tracks. >> schieffer: and he saw little the united states can do to help the financial crisis in europe. >> well, we're not going to send checks to europe. we're not going to bail out the european banks. >> schieffer: later on his campaign bus, he remembered his dad on this father's day weekend. >> he spoke the truth, suffered for it politically from time to time. but he didn't care about the politics of truth. he said what he believed and moved on. >> schieffer: and he told us about the romney family. on page two we'll hear from the former chairman of the democratic national committee, dean. republican senator lindy graham, and for analysis, "time" magazine's richard lowry, noon of the "wall street journal," and our or jan crawford and john dickerson. it's all ahead because this is

"face the nation." >> schieffer: good morning, again. mitt romney got on a bus this weekend and began a tour of six battleground states. he's traveling mostly on the back roads. he is visiting new hampshire, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, and iowa. we caught up with him in lebanon, pennsylvania governor, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks, bob. >> schieffer: we really appreciate it. i think we ought to just get right to the news. >> all right. >> schieffer: the president said friday the government will no longer seek to deport 800,000 illegal immigrants brought into this country by their parents. i think you said this is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. but would you repeal this order if you became president? >> well, let's step back and look at the issue. first of all, we have to secure the border. we need have an employment verification system to make sure

that those that are working here in this country are here legally. and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. this is something congress has been working on, and i thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by senator marco rubio and democrat senators, but the president jumped in and said i'm going to take this action. he called is a stopgap measure. i don't know why he feels stopgap measures are the way to go. >> schieffer: what would do you about if? >> as you know, he was president for the last three and a half years he did nothing on immigration. what i would do is i'd make sure that by coming into office, i would work with congress to nut place a long-term solution for the children of those that have come here illegally-- >> schieffer: would you-- >> and i've said, for instance, those who serve in the military, i would give permanent residence. >> schieffer: but would you repeal this? >> well, it would be overtaken by eventes, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a

long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals, such that they know what their setting is going to be-- >> schieffer: but would-- >> not just for the term of the president but on a permanent basis. >> schieffer: i won't keep on about this but just to make sure i understand, would you leave this in place while you worked out a long-term solution or would you just repeal it? >> we'll look at that as we reach that. but my anticipation is, i'd come into office and say we need to get this done on a long-term basis, not this kind of a stopgap measure. what the president did, he should have worked on this years ago if he felt seriously about this. he should have taken action when he had a democrat house and senate, but he didn't. he saves these sort of things until four and a half months before the general election. >> schieffer: why do you think he did that? >> well, i think the timing is pretty clear. if he really wanted to make a solution that dealt with these kids or with illegal immigration in america, then this is something he would have taken up in his first three and a half years, not in his last few

months. >> schieffer: so he did it for politics. >> well, that's certainly a big part of the equation. >> schieffer: let's talk about health care. the supreme court is going to hand down its decision, maybe as early as monday, on what to do about the president's health care law. if the court throws it out, what will you do? >> well, i will continue to describe the plan that i would provide, which is, number one, to make sure that people don't have to worry about losing their insurance if they have a preexisting condition, and change jobs. number two, to let individuals buy insurance on their own, if i want fthey want to, on the same tax-advantage basis companies do today. and number three with regards to those that are poor or uninsured, i'd bring that responsibility back to where it's been the last couple of hundred years, to the states, and provide states the funding they need to help with this issue by granting medicaid payments on a block basis to each of our states. >> schieffer: when the massachusetts health care law was put in, the obama people

delight in telling us that they based their plan on your plan in massachusetts. it had a mandate. do you think a mandate is unfair? >> well, i think federally it's unconstitutional. but of course what i think is going to be a-- a-- surpassed by what the supreme court thinks, ultimately. but states have, under their constitution, the right to require people to either go to school or get auto insurance or in this case, to get health insurance. we created a solution. republicans and teams, business and labor in our state. we worked collaboratively. the president instead, on a very partisan basis, jammed through a bill, didn't get a single republican vote, didn't really try and work for a republican vote. i mean the people of massachusetts, the most democrat state in the nation, voted for a republican senator to stop obamacare. he went ahead anyway and put this bill upon the american people. they don't want it. the hope the supreme court believes as i do that it's not

constitutional. but regardless of their decision,@ftimepresident we're going to stop obamacare in the track and follow the tension amendment allowing states to take care of the issue as they think best. >> schieffer: yesterday, the british government said it would be injecting billions of dollars in cash into their banks to protect the economy there this light of what some are calling the most dangerous point sn the financial crisis in over two years in europe. if the your pee european people. if the european economy falls apart, the american economy is going to be in big trouble. what should we be doing right now? >> i wish over the last three and a half years the president would have taken action to rebuild our economy, get it on such a strong footing that the challenges in europe, if they cwouldn't have a significant impact as they might otherwise. right now, we're dealing with 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed. homes are still bumping along

the bottom, foreclosure at very high level. the president, frankly, has made it harder for our economy to reboot. i'd strengthen the basis of america's economic might, hopefully-- >> schieffer: how would do you that? >> a number of things. the top three, for instance, one is to take advantage of our energy resources. we have an extraordinary gift, which is massive natural gas reserves, as well as coal-- >> schieffer: but i mean, would that work right now? i mean, that's going to take a while to get that going. i mean, i'm talking about what-- what if this whole thing falls in, in europe? what should we be doing here? should we become involved? what do we do? >> well, we're not going to send checks to europe. we're not going to bail out european banks. we're going to be poised here to support our economy, but i'm very much in favor of the fundamental things one does to strengthen the economic footings of a nation. and as to what's going to happen in europe and what kind of impact that will have here, time will tell. but our banks are on a much stronger basis than they were at

the time of the last economic crisis, and they built up capital base and equity base and worked through a lot of their toxic assets, their toxic loans, and i hope that, regardless of what happens in europe, that our banking sector is able to weather the storm. >> schieffer: the federal reserve, as i understand, is going to meet this week to weigh the possibility of a new economic stimulus for our economy. now, you didn't think much of the last stimulus. what do you think they should do now? is it time for another? >> well, the q.e.2, as it's called, a monetary stimulus, did not have the desired effect. it was not extraordinarily harmful, but it does put in question the future value of the dollar, and will, obviously, encourage some inflation down the road. a q.e.3 would do the same thing. i know how it is-- politicians in office want to do everything they can just before an election to try to temporarily boost something but the potential threat down the road in inflation is something we have to be aware of, and the last

q.e.2, the last monetary stimulus, did not put americans back to work, did not raise our home valuees, did not bring jobs back to this country or encourage small businesses to open their doors. what's wrong with our economy is that our government has been warring against small, middle, and large businesses. and people in the business world are afraid to make investments and to hire people. i want to make it very clear that in my administration, government will see itself as the friend of enterprise and job creators, and we'll start building jobs again. >> schieffer: but are you saying here that when this trouble that's going on in europe right now, that we-- there's not much we can can do but just sort of watch and see what happens? >> we can certainly offer our counsel and look nation by nation and talk about the kind of things we think are appropriate for them to do, which actions we think are too challenging for them to deal with, which action would have the best chance of shoring up their banking sector. but i surely don't believe that we should expose our national

balance sheet to the vagaries of what's going to be happening in europe. europe is capable of dealing with their banking crisis if they choose to do so. this is going to depend enormously on germany. but they and others will have to make that decision. but we don't want to go in and start providing funding to european banks. >> schieffer: you were one of the vast majority of republicans to signed the pledge circulated by the leading antitax advocate grover norquist, no new taxes under any circumstances. and i remember once back during one of the primaryes, you were asked if you would agree to $1 in taxes if you could get $10 cut in spending cuts, and you said at that time, no, i wouldn't even accept that. do you still feel that way? >> well, we all felt that way. and the reason is that government, at all levels today, consumers about 37% of our economy. >> schieffer: but do you still feel-- >> let me go on and explain. the answer is i do feel that

way. government is big and getting larger, and there are those who think the answer is just to take a little more from the american people, just give us a little more. and there are places that have gone that way-- california, for instance, keeps raising taxes more and more and more. and funny thing, the more they raise in taxes, deficits get larger and larger. the only solution to taming an out-of-control spending government is to cut spending and my policies reduce the rate of spending, bring government expenses from 25%-- federal expenses from 25% of the economy down to 20%, and ignite growth of our economy. that's the way that we're going to balance our budget is getting people back to work with rising incomes again. so we're going to get bigger tax revenues as a result of that good news. >> schieffer: we know, governor, you've told us-- you haven't been bashful about telling us-- where you want to cut taxes. when are you going to tell us where you're going to get the revenue. which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? which of the tax credits-- when are you going to be able to tell

us that? >> well, we'll go through that process with congress as to which of all the different deductions and exempt yoons. >> schieffer: do you have any idea now, the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, various ones? >> well, sim son-bowles went through a process of how they would be able to reach a set ago actually, under their proposal even more revenue for the government with lower rates. so mathematically it's been proved to be possible. we can have lower rates, as i propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptiones, but my view the right way to do that is limit them for high-income individuals because i want to keep the progressivity of the code. one of the absolutely requirementes of any tax reform i have in mind is people who are at the high end-- whether you call them the 1% or 2% or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they're paying now. i'm not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. i'm looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate

growth by doing so and jobs. for me, this is all about creating good jobs. >> schieffer: but people at the top would be paying the sa same-- basically the same-- >> share. >> schieffer: the same share. >> year, i'd be looking for-- i think it's important to say, look, i'm not looking to reduce the burden paid by the wealthiest. i'm looking to keep the burden paid by the wealthiest the same share as it is today. >> schieffer: let me turn to foreign policy. bill crystal writing in the "weekly standard" this week said we are reaching the time of consequence in dealing with iran on nuclear weapons. he says it is time for the president to go to the congress and say, "i want you to authorize me to be able to use military force, if that becomes necessary." and he says if the president is not willing to do that, then the congress can should do it themselves. what's your take on that? >> well, i-- i can understand the reason for his-- his recommendation and his concern. i think he's recognized that

this president has communicated in some respects that, well, he might even be more worry about israel taking direct military action than he is about iran becoming nuclear. that's the opinion of some who watch this. he wants the president to take action that shows that a military-- nuclear, that a nuclear iran is unacceptable. and i believe it's important for us to communicate that. i can assure you if i'm president the iranians will have no question but i would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. i don't believe at this stage, therefore, if i'm president, that we need to have a war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. the president has that capacity now. i understand that some in the neat, for instance, have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. we cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear iran, and we must be willing to take any and all

action. they must-- all those actions must be on the table. >> schieffer: what have you learned out here on the campaign trail? you say you've been talking to regular folks. what are they telling you? >> well, it's fun going across the country. this has been a great and thrilling experience. i come away impressed with how patriotic people are, how much they love this country, how much they respect the principles that made us a unique nation. i come away impressed with the entrepreneurialism of the american people in tough times. a lot of people have found ways to make do. and make better. people are, however, tired of being tired. these have been long years, three and a half years of a very difficult economy, and in a lot of cases, a lot of disappointment, disappointment with the president and with his policies. i hear from small business people day in and day out why is it that my government seems to think i'm their enemy? they feel they're under attack by their own government. we've got to change the attitude in this country. we've got to recognize we're all in this together. let's not divide americans.

let's come together and say to business creators, job creators, we want you to succeed. we want you to hire more people. how can we help? government has to be the friend of the american people. >> schieffer: governor, i'm running out of time here, but it just prompts me to ask you this question-- the country is deeply divide. the congress is deeply divided. what is it that you think you can bring to it to bring the two sides together because they're a long way apart right now? >> are you right. and perhaps part of what i would be able to do, of flows from the fact that i'm really not a guy that's going to for the next step in my political career. bob, i don't have a political career. i served as governor for four years. i spent my life in the private sector. the private sector is where i've made my mark. i am in this race because i want to get america back on the right track. i don't care about reelections. i don't care about the partisanship that goes on. i want to get america right. we're at a critical crossroads in this country, and if we keep

going down the path we're on we're going to become like europe with chronic high unemployment with wages that are stagnating with fiscal crisis down the road. that's where we're heading. we have to take an entirely new course to this country and it has to be adapted to our current times but i know what it takes to get america going again and america is poised. we're on the cusp of an extraordinary economic resurgence in this country but it's going to take a different president with a different vision. >> schieffer: so you're not saying you intend to serve one term. >> i'm going to do whatever i think is right to get america right. >> schieffer: for me this is not about politics. this is not about did i win this? did they win this? this is about what can we do to get america right? and there are good democrats and good republicans who care about the country more than anything else who know that we're getting very close to a dangerous cliff and we have got to pull back and we've got to work together. heck, i was in a state where my legislature was 87% democrat. and we faced some tough times. we worked together. i didn't get everything i

wanted. they didn't get everything they wanted. they got most of what they wanted. ( laughs prospect ( but we worked together. and that's got to happen in washington with. we have to have people willing to put aside the partisanship, stop worrying about the next elections, and saying, you know what? we have to fix the country fast. >> schieffer: when we come back, more with mitt romney from his campaign bus.

>> schieffer: let's talk a little politics. why the bus tour? what's this about? >> well, it's really a chance to get across the country, not just do the fund raisers, which are part of every day otherwise. but to see people across america, particularly in some of the small towns that don't typically get presidential politics. >> schieffer: why these six states? these are six states that barack obama won last time out, right? >> these are-- these are all states they look forward to winning in the general election. and so i'm-- i'm making sure i

plant the flag, if you will. >> schieffer: you know, this is father's day weekend. i know you were very close to your father. >> yeah. >> schieffer: what does father's day mean to you? >> well, every time i think of my dad, it tugs at my heart strings. i mean, my dad was such an extraordinary person, born poor, raised poor, never graduated from college. never worried about the past, always looked forward, had such confidence in america that he went on to achieve great things in business and in government. i mean, i look at my dad as one of a kind. spoke the truth, suffered for it politically from time to time, but didn't care about the politics of truth. he said what he believed and moved on. >> schieffer: you know, somebody told me that during those primary debates when you would often write things down, they said, "you'll never guess what he wrote down."

share that with me. what did you write down? >> of course different notes in different circumstances but each time i wrote "dad" at the top of my payment, reminding myself of the sacrifice that he made in his life for his family, for us, and of his passion for america. so, yeah, "dad" was just-- just three letters at the top of the page. >> schieffer: so i hear you've got an olympic athlete in the family. >> isn't that something. it's not me. it's my wife. it's not her personally but she along with two other people have purchased a horse and trained it up and has done so well that the trainer and that horse are going on torement the united states in the olympics in london. so she's quite thrilled and i'm sure she'll be watching. i have a campaign to attend to so i won't be able to see it perform but i'm very pleased for her. >> this is dressage. >> it's the sport of dressage, something not many people are familiar with and something he e

has a passion and frankly, getting back on a force after being diagnosed with m.s. was able she is convinced helped her to renew the vigor and cares deeply about this sport and horses. she's a real-- i joke that i'm going to have to send her to betty ford for addiction to horses. >> schieffer: how is she doing with the m.s.? we heard she had a little flare-up around super tuesday. >> and she didn't tell me about that. >> schieffer: really? >> she knew if i heard a thing about it i would have shut her down and said you have to go home and take some rest and see the people who give you care and get you tuned back up again but she knew it was important for her to keep working so she kept it from me and kept on working. but she has been almost symptom free since almost 2002, so almost 10 years. and she has great-- a great doctor, and others who help her stay strong. >> schieffer: good for her,. >> including the horses.

>> schieffer: thank you very much. >> thanks, bob. ñi

>> the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. >> i have decided to fight for and win the republican nomination. >> he struck a theme that would sound familiar to romney supporters. he said the problem was an incumbent president-- lyndon johnson in these days-- who made too many promises he couldn't keep. >> big promises and little performance that barely scratched the surface, raising the hopes of people and then letting them be dashed. >> schieffer: sound familiar? well, like his son, george

romney also campaigned by bus and delivered a message that sounded a lot like what his son is saying today. >> we've got to get this country straightened out and deal with this financial mess and inflation and crime and get it straightened out. >> schieffer: now, of course, voters sometimes had other ideas of what the campaign should be about. >> i'm here to humbly beg you to stop the killing of does and fawn in michigan, and you are the only one that can same our michigan deer herd. >> schieffer: romney's dad did not get the nomination. nixon did. and as far as we know, there are still deer in michigan. but it just goes show, no matter who is run, campaigns usually wind up being about most of the same things it's important and the unemployment-- and in the end, the economy. one other thing-- happy father's day to all of you dads out there. çó

beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. wbut proven technologiesion, allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today.

in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution, in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards, from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ [ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices.

developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering.

videotape, if you'veinoid, we have traveled by time machine from pennsylvania, where we taped the talk of today's show yesterday, and now we're back to the here and now, back in washington, with former vermont governor howard dean, and republican senator lindsey graham, who is with us this morning. from south carolina.çó governor, dean, cha is your take? >> it's pretty much the same old-same old. they're asking the american people to elect mitt romney withouttalg the people what he's going to do. this is a man who says he wants to be president. he doesn't say why. i think he's a nice man. i don't think he's going to be

ad any president because i don't think he's going to be elected president. >> schieffer: he seems to agree in principle, at least with the president on the action he took on immigration, about trying to do something for these children who were brought into the country. >> this is a brilliant move on the president's part because the president governor romney is on record as saying he would veto the dream act. president obama put in what he could of the dream act by executive order since congress refused to pass it and romney is left holding the bag. if he says anything in favor of what the president did he will alienate the right wing, which has been his problem all along, and if he denies what the president has said he digaise deeper hole with latinos. i think this is the end of the road for governor romney on the latino front. me can't win that. unless he puts somebody on the ticket who is a latino. i think he's going to lose that by a lot, and i think that's a bad thing. most people believe if you can't get 40% of the latino vote and you're a republican you can't win. here's he's not going to get anywhere close to that.

>> schieffer: senator graham, what's your take on that, what the president did last week, and now the response we get from governor romney, who seems to say, yes, this is a problem. we've got to do something about it. but what the president did was just done for political reasons. >> well, i think it's pretty clear that there are 10 million illegal immigrants not affected by this. what about them? i don't think it's a brilliant move when the president of the united states tells a federal agency stop enforcing the law. i can't ever remember that happening, and that's what they're doing. they're stopping enforth the law. you're going to have 800,000 work permits issued by the stroke of a pen. you're going around congress and the american people, and you're doing nothing about a broken immigration system. what about employer verification? what about border security? what about visa reform? so we can get the workers we need into high-tech and agricultural community. the real moving parts of immigration were left unaddressed. he promised immigration reform

in his first year, 2008. he had 60 democratic senators, a big majority in the house, and he did nothing, and the reason he's doing this is because he's got a big speech next week. so i think president obama's decision here is political, hasn't fixed immigration, is breath takingly getting around the law, and i think we'll see by most hispanics as too little, too late. he had a chance to do something on immigration, and he's doing it right before the election in a very transparent, political fashion which is consistent with who he is as a politician. >> schieffer: senator, just from the standpoint of straight, old, politics, did the president help his party and hurt yours? did governor romney, take the stance he has, help or hurt the republican party? >> i don't think you're helping your party when you're hurting the country. he had a chance to help the country. he made a promise to the country and to the hispanic community he would solve immigration

completely and comprehensively in his first year. he had a huge democratic majority in both houses. he did nothing. i don't think you're helping the hispanic community that has high unemployment, higher than any other group in the country, quite frankly, by doing something here a few months before the election that doesn't really solve the problem. immigration is not fixed because of this. this is a policy change that's disiepped to help his reelection, not disiepped to fix a broken immigration system. and i do believe it is breathtaking that a president of the united states would say stop enforce the law. >> what's breath taking is a republican senator who had a hand in killing all the immigration legislation is now complaining want president couldn't get immigration reform through. i think people like to see what the president did. first of all, these are children we're talking about. this has a 90% approval rating in the hispanic community, doing what the president did. so these are kids. these are not people who snuck across the border. these are people who were dragged across the border, went to american high schools, served in american-- in many cases-- in

the american armed forces. secondly, the glad a president who is faced with an obstructionist congress, where republicans won't let judges or any other people come before and have a fair state up-and-down vote, the idea that he's going to stand up to an obstructionist congress-- which has about a 9% favorability rating-- people want to see that. they want strong leadership. they got strong leadership this week and they're going to get strong leadership in the future. the president is not going to turn up to obstructionist governor. >> schieffer: are you talking about this senator? >> no, i like this senator. this senator is an exception to the rule. but the fact is, the other 44 republican senators -- >> you're killing me, howard, you're killing me. >> probably not going to help you in south carolina in any way, lindsey, right? >> schieffer: senator graham, since he brought up grover norquist, let me ask buthat. what about this idea? governor romney you heard him say he would not accept even one dollar in increased revenue for

$10 in spending cuts, if that could be found. i know both you and jeb bush said this week that maybe republicans ought to kind of be thinking about this idea of this pledge of no new taxes under any circumstances. what about that? >> well, good question. what governor romney said is he would look at simpson-bowles as. simpson-bowles, the gang of six, the super committee-- even though it failed-- there's a formula that i think will take hold eventually. nobody wants to raise tax rates. not one person who has looked at this problem we have as a nation suggested raising tax rates. but tom coburn, pat toomey, the gang of six, simpson-bowles commission-- all said let's flatten and broaden the tax base. let's eliminate deduction, and when you ask him how many deductions? i think we should eliminate all deductions except interest on your home and charitable giving with a cap, take that money back into the treasure-- it's a trillion a year we give away in

deductions-- and use most of it to pay down tax rates and about one-fourth of it to pay down the debt. that's what simpson-bowles, the gang of six, the super committee tried to do. and i'm confident that's what governor romney would embrace. >> schieffer: you know-- >> and here's the bottom-- here's the bottom line, bob. we're not going to get entitlement reform from democrats unless we put revenue on the table as republicans. and i'm not going to put revenue on the table as i describe without entitlement reform. we know what to do. we should do it. and we're not going to do it without presidential leadership. so i hope governor romney and president obama will do something before the election to show this leadership. >> i agree with that. you know, i think senator graham and i were in the room, we'd probably come to an agreement fairly quickly. he's right. we do have to have entitlement reform. i do not agree one-quarter of the tax savings-- i agree on exactly the deductions that should be kept, too. what i don't agree with him on, i believe three-quarters ought to go towards paying down the deficit, not one-quarter because

the deficit say huge problem. i didn't think that was a particularly unreasonable suggestion that he just made. >> schieffer: all right. gentlemen, i want to thank both of you. we'll be back in one minute with our roundtable for some analysis.

>> schieffer: back with peggy noonan of the "wall street journal," richard lowry is the editor of the "national review," a "time" magazine columnist and also a fox news contributor. what do you do in your spare time? and our own john dickerson and our-- who is our political director, and jan crawford, our chief political correspondent who also looks after the supreme court for us. john, let me go to you first. this whole thing, what exactly did mitt romney say here on immigration? >> well you tried to pin him down four times and he wouldn't say it. he basically ducked. he believes, it appears, on what the president did on the merits.

he just doesn't like the way he did it. we saw in his answers kind of the romney approach, which is to basically point out what the president has done wrong, stay pretty nonspecific about what he would do. in the primaries he talked about his position on immigration was pretty hard line. he talked about self-deportation, the idea of enforcing the immigrations law so strictly, the illegal immigrants would leave the country. he also said provision like this might create a magnet that brought in more illegal immigrants. but he's not talking about that kind of thing now. he, obviously, has admitted privately he has a problem with hispanics on other instances he said he sought executive order. he was political as the president was million in putting things forward. >> schieffer: what is your take, peggy? >> i think what john said is true. i think there are a bunch of ironies here. one is in the bush era and in the obama era, both administrations kept their immigration bills as big,

comprehensive, 14 million moving pieces. that's why nothing has moved forward. nobody wants the whole bill that either side has. in a way, it is good that one part of a bill has been put forward discreetly. do we think that, that the young children of those who came here illegally might be treated in a different manner that makes their lives easier? i think a lot of people would say yes. however, it was so obama-esque in that he did it in a way that was craftily political. and it's also unclear on whether or not it's wholly legally justified and legally doable. so it's a bit of a mess, and a bit of a step forward at the same time. >> schieffer: you know, we have a sound bite here from marco rubio-- norah o'donnell interviewed him this week and it plays so much to what you just said, peggy, i want you to

listen to this. >> being away from them during the week. i think a lot of people in american politics have benefitted, unfortunately, from the heated rhetoric of immigration on both sides of the equation. because while there are voices on the right that have said things they shouldn't have said, there are plenty of voices on the left that have used this issue as a divisive point. there's a very strong case to be made for the idea that there are some in the democratic party that don't want to solve immigration because for them, having it unsolved is more valuable on the campaign trail. >> schieffer: well, there you have it, jan. >> well, i thought what was interesting on this, looking at romney's answers, one of the things i think he didn't do pretty well is as john said and you pressed him four or five times on this. he didn't give an explicit answer but he also didn't pivot back to the economy. hispanics care about the economy just as much as all americans do. i think he has to be much clearer about his economic plan and how he's going to change it. the president doesn't want to talk about the economy today. romney's challenge is to keep

the focus on today's economy. just like bill clinton did very well back in 1992. >> obviously, romney has not stuck on an answer on this yet. i suspect he'll have to say he will repeal this executive action but he'll endorse basically the rubio plan which does it legislatively. i do think there's a danger here of this move by the president seeming overly political, just like his move on gay marriage, because he is on the record in detail saying he does not possess these powers as president of the united states, and all of a sudden his view of that apparently changed because he has to win colorado. and the constitution says the president has to take care that the laws are faithfully executed exactly so the president doesn't pick and choose. now, there's some discretion there. but not enough discretion to say in a wholesale manner we are not going to apply the law to an entire category of people. >> my thought is-- if this were

mark so widely popular with the american people, why would he do this on a friday afternoon? on washington, that's when you dump documents. that's when you try to bury the news you really don't want people to know about on a friday afternoon. it seems to me he's trying to get his base to turn out, just like george w. bush did in 2004, try to play it both ways. >> schieffer: let's talk a little bit about this whole economic situation because if i understood governor romney here, he doesn't see much that the united states can do. we basically just stand here and hope that everything comes out right? >> you mean with regard to europe? >> schieffer: to europe and the crisis going on there. is he right about that, peggy? >> well, i don't know what's right but if you are going for the american presidency right now, and europe itself is trying to get its house in order, you probably don't say, "don't worry, uranium. you can always look at us." you know what i mean? you probably have to say, "good luck, europe.

we're awfully glad you're discussing this." i think it's probably right he not get involved. >> schieffer: but there's a whole lot of american companies that are going to be in some bad trouble if this whole thing falls in over there. >> you can't be in favor of a bailout in his party, for sure. i thought it was interesting when you brought up how are you going to pay for these budget promises you make? and he essentially said, "we'll work it out with congress." in the last couple of presidential cycles we've had candidates who said i'll tackle the deficits and make hard choice when you ask the hard choices they're going to make they say "well..." and they change the subject. businessman romney would never go in for a business deal as vague as the one he's offering. and what he is essentially saying is, "truff me on where i'm going to find these loophole closures." he's not alone in that. everybody is doing that. the president does that, too, but the loophole closures he's talking about is a big deal. these are tax deductions people cared about.

he mentionedly the simpson-bowles plan and said see, it's not that hard to do. he signed a tax pledge that would make the loophole close nuzz the simpson-bowles plan not available to him grover norquist said the simpson-bowles plan is all tax hikes so governor romney couldn't be for that. it's like saying i'm going to get married and figured who i will marry when i reach the altar. there's a lot left unsaid here. >> schieffer: rich, that takes me back to what he did-- the way he-- he will not say where it is he thinks he's going to get this money. i mean, isn't he going to have to at some point? >> well, he has a great allergy to specifics and details. and he actually said in an interview a little while ago that he thinks one of the things that hurt him in his 1994 race against ted kennedy was he was too specific so it creates targetes for the other side. i do give him credit. he has laid out a clear direction. we know what direction he's

going in. he's endorsedly the version of the ryan plan. he's endorsed tax reform, lower rates, less loopholes. he wants to enter market forces more into the education and healtsystems but it is extremely vague. >> i'm going to disagree with this just a little bit because i think one of the things in terms of communicating to the american people that romney is going to have to do a much better job on, is not so much the specifics -- which i agree is true-- but moving it to a more simple economic plan. what is his plan? how is he going to help the american people directly, not just some rising tides lift all boats kind of thing. herman cain had a 9-9-9 plan. it wasn't the right plan but people got it and responded to it. romney is going to have to figure a way to boil it down and explain it simply so people can get their hands around it. >> schieffer: isn't jan saying, peggy, like what some people like scott walker in wisconsin is saying, and the

governor of indiana, mitch daniels, is saying. he's got to go bold here. we have to see something bold here. >> he's got to go meaningful and graspable. i agree with you, so that people understand what it is, maybe not specifically, but in general, he wants to do, what his priorities are. there is a tendenciy when you are running for office to want to do constant, quick, bright, applause lines, and there's been a lot of that going on. but a series of applause lines is not a serious statement about this is the trouble we're in, and this is the direction we want to go in. to be fair, mr. obama gave a 54-minute stem winder this week in which he, too, without the applause lines, had real trouble making the case for the reelection of barack obama. pretty unclear on that-- >> romney would say, look, i

have a 50-something-point economic plan. it's on my web site. go look at it. but you have to get-- >> a 49-point plan is almost not a plan. do you know what i mean? a speech about everything is a speech about nothing. boil it down. >> this is a key thing. i think democrats are beginning to clue into this. it's one of the reasons you're beginning to see a little panic over the president's reelection prospects and i have an essay about this in "time" this week. these a couple of binds on the economy. he can't say it's woefully inadequate without seeing to pass a negative judgment on his own time in office. he can't say it's terrific without seeming out of touch. so it's difficult what to say. and his solution ultimately always comes back to more deficit spending. and he can't really be full throated about that, either. that's why you get 54-minute speeches that are a little bit mealy-mouthed. >> schieffer: one of the reasons i didn't ask him who he is going to put on the ticket with him because all of his aides assured me, you can ask him until tomorrow and he's not going to tell you. he's not going to give youa hint. where do you think he is on

that, jan, and who do you-- what's the kind of person he's look for? >> well, look, in a close race, which this is a close, neck-and-neck race, you don't go risky. you don't do game change. you go with the safe choice, and that fits very uniquely with romney's methodical, careful, personality. by all accounts i'm hearing from the campaign it will be a safe choice. we have all heard senator rob port man, should be who will come in, be president and not make a mistake. even bobby jindal, who is exciting but also a safe choice. >> schieffer: john? >> i think safe means competent. i talked to governor benstead of iowa and gave a short line for the romney campaign which is, "he knows how to fix things am of bring in a second person who says, "this is the team to fix stuff." and that's why the folks who say don't get too detailed, just keep it on the idea that you have a career in life in which you fix things, bring on somebody who has the same kind of executive experience, and you can say here's the teem to fix

this engine. >> my understanding is he tells people privately how his campaign has exhaustively analyzed all the v.p. picks the last 50 years, and a typical kind of romney data-dump style and concluded only one says a v.p. helped, l.b.j., win the election and you have to make a governing choice. a lot of people are excited about marco rubio, the most electrifying fig nut party right now i think. but does he automatically pass that "is he ready?" test. i'm not so sure of that. portman has the inside track and pawlenty has been a workhorse and has executive experience. >> i think they're not going wide but they're drilling deep. >> schieffer: we'll be beanpot. [ male announcer ] are you paying more

and more and more for cable -- and enjoying it less? upgrade to verizon fios internet, tv and phone for just $99.99 a month, guaranteed for a year with no annual contract. or choose a two-year contract and get $200 back and a two-year price guarantee. fios is a 100% fiber-optic network that delivers america's fastest, most consistent, most reliable internet. and now, it's faster than ever. you get speed you can count on... even when everyone at home is online at the same time. plus, the best tv picture quality. tired of cable's inflated bills? get fios for just $99.99 a month for a year with no annual contract. or choose a two-year contract and get $200 back, plus a two-year price guarantee. call 1.866.685.fios.

that's 1.866.685.3467. fios. a network ahead. contact the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 800-974-6006 tty/v. >> schieffer: john dickerson hosted our google hangout this week. john, what you can tell us? >> it was about young voters and campaign 2012. and participants, they were from both parties, and they had a lot to say. >> about 46 million eligible

young voters who can can cast a ballot this fall. that means that they're nearly a quarter of the entire elocateerate. as of the beginning of this year only about half of them were registered. >> i tell young people if you're not at the table you're on the menu. you look at some of the statistics impacting young people, such as 38% unemployment rate, and you see young people on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. >> i think we've got an incredible opportunity here because in 2008, i think republicans weren't trying to speak directly to young voters. it's important i think for us not to concede the ground, not to give up on the youth vote but to make sure we're at the table and having a conversation with these voter >> the president has shown a commitment to young people, not just during the 2008 campaign, but also over the course of the last four years. we've rarely seen a white house or an administration that has chosen to make young people such a central part of that. >> the numbers don't lie, and the numbers we have are barack obama's performance record, and if you look at that record, and you look at those statistics,

it's heart breaking for younger voters. >> 1961, j.f.k. went to congress and said, "we're going to go to the moon." eight years later, we were on the moon. what's our narrative for our generation? i think it's important for president obama or mitt romney in their campaigns to dream big and explain to us what they're going to do that's going to change the problems we're facing in our country. >> schieffer: what they are saying out there. john dickerson, thank you for the google hangout. we'll be basement. laces? really?

slip-on's the way to go. more people do that, security would be like -- there's no charge for the bag. thanks. i know a quiet little place where we can get some work done. there's a three-prong plug. i have club passes. [ male announcer ] get the mileage card with special perks on united, like a free checked bag, united club passes, and priority boarding. thanks. ♪ okay. what's your secret? [ male announcer ] the united mileageplus explorer card. get it and you're in. but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today.

>> schieffer: well, that's it for us today. we hope you'll join us here next week. we'll be right back at the same time and the same place on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ,,,,,,,,