mr. forbes discusses his book, "freedom manifesto," a follow-up to his book "how capitalism will save us." >> now joining us on booktv is magazine publisher, politician and frequent author, steve forbes, whose newest book is coming out in august of 2012 and it's called "freedom manifesto: why free markets are moral and big government isn't." we are at freedom fest in las vegas, where mr. forbes is speaking. mr. forbes, why is that free markets are moreover, but that government isn't. with an example of that? >> remake the emphasis of big government. going back to it james madison defined. but in terms of big government not being moral, it is the opposite of what it purports to do and creates an environment we have less ability to get ahead increased dependency and not a sense of independence. it plessis crony capitalism, which hurts oil entrepreneurship and creativity. all the things the government says it does hopes the poor to make sure the markets: the right direction. they do the opposite. their short-term oriented, writes to the next election. they have their own agenda. they don't r

mr. forbes mentioned mr. obama's spending being higher than the bush years. that is not true.he deficit which increases our debt grew so much under obama because he put both wars into the budget. george bush kept him out of the budget -- them out of the budget. was not paying for them, so things looked good. in the first few years of the obama administration, he created more jobs than george bush did in eight years. was theush's, at surpluses are for spending. -- comment was the surpluses are for spending. the put us in massive debt, left it on obama. -- he put us in massive debt, left it on obama. these people sit here and watch these idiots on tv say these things are not true. and then they go and push based on what they're hearing instead of looking into the fact of the matter. host: mr. forbes? guest: i did make mention that spending did increased dramatically under george bush. no matter how you account for the wars, domestic spending under president obama increased very substantially to the point that it is the highest it has been without a world war. theses why we're ge

mr. forbes mentioned mr. obama's spending being higher than the bush years. that is not true. the deficit which increases our debt grew so much under obama because he put both wars into the budget. george bush kept them out of the budget, was not paying for them, so things looked good. in the first few years of the obama administration, he created more jobs than george bush did in eight years. george bush's comment was the surpluses are for spending. he put us in massive debt, left it on obama. these people sit here and watch these idiots on tv say these things are not true. and then they go and push based on what they're hearing instead of looking into the fact of the matter. host: mr. forbes? guest: i did make mention that spending did increase dramatically under george bush. no matter how you account for the wars, domestic spending under president obama increased very substantially to the point that it is the highest it has been without a world war. that is why we're getting these massive deficits today. we have never had anything like this without a major war. you can righ

mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset today you mentioned it was the last hearing we would this year you and the ranking member gracious and thanks the member of the committee and our witnesses for the great job they do. but we want to thank both of you for your hard work and also maintaining this still as the probably the most bipartisan committee i think in congress. we appreciate your efforts to -- toward that. i have a question, and i don't -- i support what you do. i don't want you to misinterpret my question. it's a question have to ask. as we you know we had cut to national defense and the department of defense, some would argue it's more like $800 billion over the last few years. we have to a half trillion dollars we're looking at in sequestration. when you look at the dollars we're spend with the drc can you give us a ballpark what kind of resource dollars the department of defense is spending there. secondly, are the dollars adequate, and third, how would you prioritize that in terms of the other c

mr. steve forbes, ceo and chairman of forbes media joins us straight ahead to discuss his plan. liz: prolonged drought? still going on in certain places. look at the screen. pictures that may force the mississippi river to shut down, commerce, billions worth of cargo at risk, not shipping right now, grains you eat to oil and coal you use. we'll take you there live. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] this is amy. amy lik invest in the market. s also likes to ride her bike. she knows the potential for making or losing money can pop up anytime. that's why she trades with the leader in mobileradi. so she's always ready to ke action, matter how wily.. oweird... or wonderfully the market's behaving... which isn't roct sciee. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. you know how painful heartburn can b for fast, long lasting relief, use doctor recommended gaviscon®. only gaviscon® forms protective barrierhat helps block stomach acid from splashing u relieving the pain quickly. try fast, long lasting gaviscon®. maybe you want toincorporate a busiss. orrotect your family with aill or living trust

mr. forbes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker. first, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the staff of the armed services committee for the great job that they have done in bringing this bill to the floor. this bill takes several steps to ensure our military readiness, including the restoration of funding to retain at least three guided missiles cruisers that the navy proposed to retire before the end of their expected service life. the conference added an additional 3 tactical airlift aircraft that are essential of meeting the direct support airlift missions. these changes are essential to ensuring our military meets commission requirements. the bill also refuses to authorize another round of bracc, which i believe was first downed on a flabbed premise that assume the administration's proposal that it is correct. i refuse to accept the din minished department of defense and believe that force structure is needed to support our combatant commanders. i would be remiss if i did not expre

mr. forbes was saying, if the president does nothing, yes, the taxes go back up to those previous rates andlso, defense gets cuts. forget about, we're not talking see questions station much, b -- sequestration? >> did you see what's happening in california, maybe that should be a barometer. tax increases in the state of california and raise revenue and look at the revenues have not gone up. >> a lot of republicans see california and americans, many democrats see california as a cautionary tale. what california has done and interesting and got then them ooh into a pickle. they have the battle initiatives where voters can go in themselves and vote for what they want and these all cost money. >> it all costs money. >> yeah, this is a mistake of california, right? since the late 70's, when these ballot provisions started going through, yes, you had a number of them. i was out there when was unfoldi unfolding, a number passed and californias voted to increase their own sales tax to pay for things, finally. >> yes, by the way, they also then voted to tax the highest wage earners more.and what end

forbes. >> that's a lot of dough. >> can you calibrate how important mr.o republicans now that we're watching the implosion of gop stalwarts like karl rove and freedom works, both of which you have reported on. >> extremely important to the republican party, as are ee emerging class of mega donors. who were spurred into giving large amounts of money, which led to the super pacs. you look no further than the week after the presidentiamç election, the governor's association was in town, in las vegas, and as we reported, three governors who are contemplating their own runs in 2016 made a trip from the wynn casino and hotel, a strong rival of sheldon adelson's sands corporation, over to the venetian, adelson's flagship, to meet with sheldon adelson. we don't know what they talked about, but bobby engine dal, john casic, and really high up on the short list of procespecte 2016ers. after the meeting we heard sheldon adelson expressed to confidantes he was favoring for 2016, a candidate with executive experience. all those guys fit the bill. incidentally, they we

approaching $8 billion, according to forbes magazine, and despite being an obama donor and serving on the president's council of advisors on science and technology, mr. schmidt is one of those liberals that falls into the category of do as i say, not as i do. here's why. in recent days his company, google, has made headlines for, well, not exactly paying their fair share. ity turns out that schmidt at te helm of the company when according to a report by bloomberg news, coul google avod about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting 9.8 billion dollars in revenues into a bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before according to filings. now, while the report notes that the money was moved around legally, this seems like a direct contradiction to president obama's non-stop lectures about corporate greed and paying your fair share. mr. schmidt has since responded to the controversy saying he's, quote, proud of his tax moves. even more interesting, mr. schmidt wants rumored to bet the top of the president's cabinet recruiting class for a second term. although s he preemptively declined such an offer, some positi

mr. putin of russia. bill gates, pope benedict, ben bernanke, saudi king. more on how the list was assembled and other details, forbesedia ceo, mike, thanks for being with us. >> this is important to us because nothing personifies what we do at forbes like our power list. we're about success and the impact of people who achieve success have. we have ten editors who get together. we draw on a huge bank -- >> they always agree on everything. don't they? >> exactly. there is some subjectivity, i must admit. they talk about the number of people that someone influences. the amount of financial resources that they have. how many spheres they operate in, are they just financial or are tle political or philanthropic. the fourth criteria is do they act on their power, do they use their power. and if you look at -- >> that's the reason why bill gates would rank so high here is how he has used some of his financial power in the philanthropic sphere. it was interesting to me, "forbes" magazine, leading business magazine, most storied one maybe of all -- >> i have no argument with that. >> and yet, no businessman in the top ten.