how old original was this i did to john kennedy? guest: it was not original to john kennedy.tiful lie. it is a very powerful, inspiring vision, the idea that americans will pay any price, bear any burden for the survival and success of liberty. that idea that americans will stand for people struggling for freedom around the world, that america envisions a radically better world is an important visit to uphold. franklin roosevelt of hilda that in the atlantic charter during the second world war, the universal declaration of human rights at the beginning of the cold war. if it is critically important that in some ways it is a fantasy. america is not going to pay any price or bear any burden, as we found in vietnam. oftentimes -- sometimes when we think we are fighting for liberty as in vietnam, we were not really fighting for liberty. we delude ourselves into believing it was a great moral mission. in fact we were fighting for a corrupt and authoritarian government in south vietnam, an artificial country. the american people were not willing to pay any price to bear any burden

how old original was this i did to john kennedy? guest: it was not original to john kennedy. you see echoes of this in early american presidents, in particular woodrow wilson and his vision of america exporting democracy to the ". kennedy's inaugural statement was one of the classic statements of the beautiful lie. it is a very powerful, inspiring vision, the idea that americans will pay any price, bear any burden for the survival and success of liberty. that idea that americans will stand for people struggling for freedom around the world, that america envisions a radically better world is an important visit to uphold. franklin roosevelt of hilda that in the atlantic charter during the second world war, the universal declaration of human rights at the beginning of the cold war. if it is critically important that in some ways it is a fantasy. america is not going to pay any price or beaany burd, as we found in vietnam. oftentimes -- sometimes when we think we are fighting for liberty as in vietnam, we were not really fighting for liberty. we delude ourselves into believing it

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

how did this happen at america's hallowed ground, where the eternal flame burns in memory of john f. kennedy? staff cuts, lack of money, and an antiquated system for keeping track of the graves, said the contract former boss. >> i accept full responsibility for my actions and the action of my team. i want to express my regrets to any family who this may have caused pain. >> the failure of cemetery officials to call for help once they realize the skill of the problem is desperate to senators. >> i assume you went to the appropriations commission, omb, and the army chiefs of staff and said, "we are in crisis, and we have to get on this because it could be in every section of the cemetery?" >> i did not do that. >> arlington's dignified public image is at odds with the picture raised in today's hearing. senators estimate as many as 6600 graves here have been affected. the challenge now is to put that right so that families coming to pay tribute to their loved ones know it is the right gravesite. laura trevelyan, bbc news, virginia. >> still ahead, the ugly side of the beautiful game. tempers fl

john kennedy had a famous run-in with the head of u.s. steel. >> rose: roger blou. >> jimmy carter had his problem with the business community. a lot of democratic presidents do-- >> rose: franklin roosevelt. >> it's not unusual for democratic presidents to have problems with the business community and republican presidents have some problems, too. the president has an opportunity i think, though, to reach out to the business community. the administration is very accessible, and the business community will come in. ening the-- >> rose: but they say he's not doing that as you know and they say there's no member of the business community in a significant position, and the-- in the administration. people would say i was in the private sector for a long time and things like that. >> in most administrations you do have some people who have either serve served as the c.e.o. of a major company or entrepreneurs or somebody who has been a professional investor. you don't see as much of that in this administration, there's no doubt about it, and be

speaker, if you look at the treasury secretaries of john f. kennedy, secretary douglas incidental who pursued a progrowth economic policy, you would not find him critical of president john f. kennedy's economic policy. if you look at treasury secretary james baker, who had been an opponent of ronald reagan's vision of putting into place progrowth economic policies during the 1980's or actually when he was running his friend george h.w. bush's campaign, he called it voodoo economics, but if you talked to jim baker today he is a huge proponent of those policies. having seen the impircal evidence of their success. and so, as we look at secretary douglas dylan, as we look at secretary james baker, and look at secretary henry morgenthau it's very clear what it is that works. and so that's why while democrats and republicans alike, mr. speaker, talk enthusiastically about getting the economy back on track, getting jobs created, because we all know how the american people are suffering. in part of the area i represent, mr. speaker, i have a 14.4% unemploymen

using again the model of john f. kennedy and the model of ronald reagan. when john f. kennedy's economic growth plan was put into place in 1961, marginal rate reduction, growth-oriented -- growth-oriented tax cuts -- i was just talking to my friend from vermont, mr. welch, if we had growth-oriented tax cuts we could do, i would hope what john f. kennedy was doing in the 1960's. he saw a 60% increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. economic growth generated more revenues. we know that we need to increase revenues. we desperately need to increase revenues to deal with the spending that has taken place and to try and pay down this $13 trillion debt. in the 1980's, the cash flow was 90% when the ronald reagan tax plan was put into place. that's a bipartisan approach, exactly what mr. heller said. mr. speaker, let's use that as our model, which will be substantially better than what is being put before us today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florid

without people karl rove was george bush's people can o'donnell who worked for john of kid he was john f. kennedy's people he grew up with these people he you know because of this upbringing he became a technocrat he became somebody who is more oriented with the details and not with bold kind of leadership with consensus he was no drama obama he was born that way as a child and you're seeing that now and with the departure of somebody like david plouffe you all we have these kind of technocrats in charge that don't see the big picture but he is working with these drama queen with rahm emanuel who he took over here from chicago with a mission that guy at least have some mastery and help him out i think it's a little bit there's a lot more to it than that we're bears a little brains you know when we all encounter the world we see a new thing and if that thing isn't in context you put it into a context for president obama the context is intellectually he puzzles it out. wrong. manual is is a is a is a battle in the house and the senate he doesn't provide the context these events have happened without

you could bring john mccain and ted kennedy into this and even though john mccain was not at all of the meetings when president bush was doing closed- door negotiations on -- i forget which year it was, he was still supportive and now we have no one. democrats aresay resisting as well, but you have a lot more democrats working on it than you do republicans. >> them so, if a bill were to come up, when -- so, as a bill were to come up, when the resources say it might come up? >> we are only a couple of months away from an election which is expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from the speaker and majority leader in the senate -- and the majority leader in the house to get this bill together and get a compromise, i just do not see the willingness from democratic leaders to put an emigration bill even in the set where they said it would go first. -- an immigration bill. it just as not seem like it's going to happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the elections first. i don't think anybody is putting their eggs in that basket yet. t

1963, but in 1965, with the immigration act, everything changed, and because of that, because of john f. kennedy and "a nation of immigrants," i wanted to participate fully, and i was very concerned about the war. my children were born in this country, and i wanted to be fully part of the united states. this has been a wonderful, generous, and magnificent country for me, and i wanted to be part of it. >> those who do not speak spanish and who do not watch univision -- lately, you have been appearing on other networks. where do they see you every night? >> i am on at 6:30 nationwide, and it goes not only to the united states but also 13 latin- american countries, and then on sunday morning, i have a political talk show, so they can see me sundays or every night at 6:30, competing with the networks, but what is interesting, when i first arrived in the united states in 1983, there were only about 15 million latinos in this country, and right now, there are 50 million latinos. the census has confirmed this. right now, in many cities, like miami and los angeles and new york, chicago, our newscasts in

it's amazing to hear how much they love john f. kennedy because of tax cuts. it's important for the american people to know we aren't against tax cuts. if tax cuts to the middle classes would stimulate, we will do it and have done it. we didn't get their support when we did do it, but the fact is this is another distortion that our colleagues are just absolutely committed to telling the american people, the democrats don't like tax cuts. we are fine with tax cuts but we want fair tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy. here's an economic lesson for you. if you want to stimulate the economy, do you do a tax cut for the people who need the money and who will take it and then buy things with it and then at the store where they bought them from, there will be business at that store and at that store, the people who work there will see revenue coming into the store and the owner of the store will continue people on the payroll or do you give the money to someone who doesn't need it, who is wealthy by all definitions and can let that money sit there or by a lu

from john kennedy to george bush and found that jobs grew more slowly for each republican than for any democrat. a princeton political scientist growth andhe eco administrations from harry truman to george w. bush and he found "when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents and generate higher income gains for all income groups." in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question -- i think it is a compelling comparison --"imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under a democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fared?" you make your choice in your head right now. you are not surprised at the conclusion. under republican and ministrations, your $10,000 invested exclusively in republican administrations, if you include the hoover administration, would have netted you $11,733. but that's probably not fair. so let's take out the hoover administration, which was arguably the worst. let's take this out in all fairn

who could have thought that when john f. kennedy wrote this book nati of immigrants it was 1958. i was born that year and with those wonderful ideas and of course, he was killed 1963 but in 1965 with the immigration act of 1965, everything changes and because of that and him and the nation of immigrants, i am in this country. i wanted to participate fully. very concerned about the war and my kids. i have a 24 and nicholas is 12. i wanted to be fully part of the united states. that is a wonderful magnificent country for me. >> those that don't speak spanish and don't watch yuan vision. lately you have a period on other english speaking networks. where do they see you night after night? >> i do news cast at 6:30 every night nation wide. going to not tonal united states but also 13 latino american programs and sunday mornings i have the political talk show so sundays are every night. what's interesting is when i first arrived in the united states in 1983. there were only about 15 million latinos in this country. right there are 15 million. and right now. in many cities like miami an

i got -- i've had all the john f. kennedy newspapers. actually my wife was crying this morning because there were a lot of sentimental things down there. >> reporter: fortunately drier weather is in the forecast for the next several days both here in illinois and iowa, but for many here, it comes too late. sharyn. >> thanks, eric. -he anwest acf1 i wi heauch of today and yesterday record highs were set in more than a dozen cities. marysol castro is outside in the oven that is new york this morning. good morning. >> good morning, sharyn. here in new york city, 15 days of 90-degree temperatures or better. just for the month of july, that's more than double what we and the way things are going that's more than double what we and the way things are going here the east coast, we are summer another heat wave roasted the east coast and midwest. >> it feels like every pore in you is just sweating. >> reporter: with temperatures dangerously above normal. >> i'm baking in this town. turn the thermometer down. >> reporter: on saturday more than 20

from princeton university and from john f. kennedy school of government. all rrect? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and other members of the committe thank you for the opportunity to be here today. it's a privilege to take part in these proceedings. my nye name is pete hegseth, an organization of iraq and afghanistan veterans dedicated to supporting our war fighters and their mission on the battlefield. i received my commission fom princeton univsity in 2003 and has since served two tours in the army. the first in guantanamo bay, cuba and the second in iraq with the 101st airborne division. the infantry captain with the massachusetts army national guard and a graduate student at harvard university. i'm as a citizen and a veteran and do not speak at all on behalf ofhe military, but i'm going to start with the bottom line up front as we do in the army. we're a nation at war. a nation at war with a vicious enemy on multiple fronts. i've seen this enemy first hand. as have precious few from my generation. the enemy w

speaker, the reason i say it is that if we were to take the bipartisan john f. kennedy, ronald reagan model and utilize that for economic growth, we could have an unemployment rate which would be significantly less than we are facing today. and we could have a g.d.p. growth rate which would be significantly higher. now, what is that model? that model, the one that worked, that actually doubled the flow of revenues to the federal treasury during the 1960's and 1980's, is one which is designed to bring about marginal tax rate reduction to encourage savings and productivity. now, mr. speaker, that's the kind of thing that we should be doing to avoid where we are today facing this continued extension of unemployment benefits. the notion that somehow those of us who want to put into place pro-growth economic policies are concerned about those who are today in need of unemployment benefits is a preposterous argument. because we believe very passionately that the level, the level of compassion of a government should be based on -- not on the number of people who have to draw u

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

an economist studied the administration's from john kennedy to george bush, and jobs grew more slowlyr each of the republicans than any of the democrats. a princeton political scientist studied income growth from the administrations from harry truman to george w. bush, and he found that "when a republican president is in power, people at the top income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups." and 2008, "the new york times" asked this question, i think this is such a compelling comparison -- imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have a fair? -- have fared? you make the choice in your head right now. you are probably not surprised by what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your $10,000 invested exclusively in republican administrations, include a herbert hoover administration, would have netted year to date set -- $11,733 -- would have netted you today

john kennedy said he wanted to take the cia and break them into 1000 pieces and scatter them into theind. a number of high officials have come out for the abolition of the agency. i think history is absolutely reprehensible. guest: you are talking about in the area of activity called covert action. every president since harry truman has wanted to have the capacity to carry out covert actions, the ability to carry out actions that influence overseas arguably without the hand of the united states shall win. although it is frequently revealed after. and the other operation that you referred to did occur. there is a lot of history to all of them. in any case, the cia carried out acts like that, only when there is a binding document that the president has to sign while one can cite all kinds of history like that, it is also possible to argue about the pros and cons, consequences of operations like that. you would also have to list some of the other ones which are more recent, less storied, to include the covert operations that the cia carried out in afghanistan when the soviets invaded, wh

market analyst larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that "jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats." princeton political scientist larry bartell studied income growth from truman to george w. bush. he found that when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question. this is a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fair? you make your choice in your head right now. -- how would have dared fare predict fa -- inred would you have fared? >> $10,000 invested in republican administrations would have netted you today $11.737. that is probably not fair. let's take out the hoover administration. that is arguably the worst. let's take that out in fairness. if we'r

market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations. how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would

no democrat, even lyndon johnson, got as high as percentage of catholics as john f. kennedy did. that quickly slid below 60%. at some point, black voters may make decisions based on other issues and it will be less 90% /10%. hispanics are different along crosscurrents. asians -- new jersey -- edison township, about 100,000 people, not a trivial jurisdiction, which has the highest population of people going in india -- the once solidly for gov. christie -- and they went solidly for gov. christie. maybe that is just a one-off result. i think it is interesting. i am concerned about that -- i would be concerned about that if i was a democratic leader, and i would be interested in learning more if i was a republican. >> there were about 62% and 67% democrat hispanics. there was a sharp fall-off in hispanics and asians. >> bush carried the hispanics in florida. i'm not talking just about hispanics. the republican party -- part of it in 2006 was thacident -- you are talking about south- asians. they leaned toward republican for a long time. republican small business owners. you would th

john f. kennedy said, quote, the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of god. supreme court justice douglas remarked, quote, we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being. james madison said in november of 1825, the belief in a god, all-powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and man that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacity to be impressed with it. our history is so full, such incredible quotes. but those words that are carved into the jefferson memorial, so powerful are these, quote, fwod who gave us life -- quote, god who gave us life, gave us liberty. can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed from their only firm basis a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of god? that they are not to be violated, but with his wrath? indeed, i tremble fo

many years ago john f. kennedy lowered tax rates across the board, for corporations and individuals, for businesses and individuals. that was a democrat. you've got some outstanding democrats in congress. in other words, we have the capabilities of pulling us back with strong growth policies. i don't like all of this negative psychology. i don't know what the heck to do about it except promote my own point of view and credo and tried to explain to people why we can do this better. i have nothing personal against president obama. lord knows i was in the group -- george will hosted a dinner right before he was inaugurated with the so-called conservative pundits, i'd like president obama, i just don't like his policies. i think they have taken a left turn. and i think the elections will probably straight in and out. my point is this -- american comeback. america can come back. i think that has to be more optimistic thinking. it is easy for me to say, but that is my view. we can get back these lost jobs in five years i

they have been moving forward since the assassination of john f. kennedy. host: in "politico," abbie phillips writes that "for many liberals this is the summer of their discontent. they are now contemplating a slowing economic recovery and a good chance that republican gains in november could make it even more difficult to enact the obama agenda. two recent essays framed the debate raging within the progressive community over why obama has not lived up to their expectations and have liberals should proceed. journalist eric alderman called the obama presidency a big disappointment for progressives and blames a broken system that he says allows a minority party to rule with impunity and the special interests and big money to dictate legislative policy." we want to remind you that in about half of an hour we will be talking with susan ferrechio about the summer agenda for congress. she is the chief congressional correspondent with "the washington examiner," she will be here at 7:45. delaware, democratic line, go ahead. hello? may? may is not there. let's take

many years ago john f. kennedy lowered tax rates across the board, for corporations and individuals, for businesses and individuals. that was a democrat. you've got some outstanding democrats in congress. in other words, we have the capabilities of pulling us back with strong growth policies. i don't like all of this negative psychology. i don't know what the heck to do about it except promote my own point of view and credo and tried to explain to people why we can do this better. i have nothing personal against president obama. lord knows i was in the group -- george will hosted a dinner right before he was inaugurated with the so-called conservative pundits, i'd like president obama, i just don't like his policies. i think they have taken a left turn. and i think the elections will probably straight in and out. my point is this -- american comeback. america can come back. i think that has to be more optimistic thinking. it is easy for me to say, but that is my view. we can get back these lost jobs in five years i

he also knew what john f. kennedyx revenue, just reduced the marginal tax rates. that's why i took thepledge yesterday, maybe the day before yesterday. i signed the pledge to permanently repeal the death tax. [applause] ronald reagan also said to us the governnt is not a solution, they are the problem. we the people are the solution. we know that he ran that ad and we are going to provide the simple solutions. we know what it's going to take to do the things that need to be done. we all heard what's wrong ith our country and congressman from minnesota told us last night in a very moving speech just exactly what's gone wrong in the last 18 months and we know what those solutions are. they are simple. first, pnac, second, cut back and third, take back. payback, payback on the deficit and debt. payback that $2.5 trillion that has been rated and pillaged out of the social security fund. pay it back. we have senior citizens counting on us to fulfill our agreement. now you all know that there's not too many gentleman left i

fromprinceton university and from john f. kennedy school of government. all correct? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. please go ahead. >> chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here day. it's a privilege to take partn these proceedings. my nye name is pete hegseth, an organization of iraq and afghanistan veterans dedicated to supporting our war fighters and their mission on the battlefield. i received my commission from printon university in 2003 and has since served two tours in the army. the first in guantanamo bay, cuba and the second in iraq with the 101st airborne division. the infantry captain with the massachusetts army national ard and a graduate student at harvard university. i'm as a citizen and a veteran and do not speak at all on behalf of the military, but i'm going to start with the bottom line up front as we do in the army. we're a nation at war. a nation at war with vicious enemy on multiple fronts. i've seen this enemy first hand. as have ecious few from my generation. the enemy we fac

guest: you could bring john mccain and kennedy together, and even though he was not at all the meetings when president bush was doing some closed-door negotiations on immigration, john mccain was still supportive. now we have no one. even lindsey graham has walked away from it. that is not to say that democrats are not resisting as well, but you have many more democrats working on it than republicans. >>, if the bill were to come up, what are your sources say about when it might? >> this is an election year, so we are only four months away from an election expected to be extremely difficult for democrats. the willingness from speaker nancy pelosi, harry reid, steny hoyer to get the bill together and get a compromise -- i don't see the willingness from democratic leaders. even in the senate for the said it would go first. it does not seem like it will happen. >> what about a lame duck session? >> you have to get through the election first, so i don't think anyone is putting their eggs in that basket. there's talk about a piecemeal approach. some parts with support that could give a legal

is -- give me -- give me -- >> -- like aisha just said, who do you reach out to, john mccain who was on the mccain/kennedymmigration bill -- >> when george bush was president, he said his top cabinet members, secretary chertoff, to negotiate directly with the democratic leadership. >> larry: i'm going to take a break. when i come back, i'm going to ask the panel to give me their law. what would they say should be the law? we'll also talk about president obama make history on "the view" and we've got a clip coming up. don't go away. > >>>. >> larry: ben, give me a con size law. >> close the borders. spend real money on border patrol and enforcement. allow a guest worker program. like farmers and ranchers and meat packers. and do not discriminate in an unfa unfair, unconstitutional way. >> larry: stephanie, a law? >> every time i come here, wasn't to marry ben stein. what he said. yes, comprehensive immigration reform. close the boarders. but there has to be a path to citizenship. i'm not as crazy a liberal as ronald reagan. i wouldn't talk about that kind of amnesty. the last time we didn't pass anything,

john mccain, who was on the mccain-kennedy immigration bill who dpunts want anything to do with an immigrationill? >> when george bush was president, he said his top cabinet members, secretary gutierrez to negotiate directly with the democratic leadership. that is presidential leadership. >> larry: i'm going to take a break. when we get back i'm going to ask the panel to give me their law. what would they say should be the law? we'll also talk about president obama making history on "the view." and we've got a clip coming up. don't go away. hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a safe driver? yes. discount! do you own a home? yes. discount! are you going to buy online? yes! discount! isn't getting discounts great? yes! there's no discount for agreeing with me. yeah, i got carried away. happens to me all the time. helping you save money -- now, that's progressive. call or click today. ♪ [ male announcer ] like summer, it's here, but not forever. the lexus golden opportunity sales event. see your lexus dealer. it doesn't

arizona, because the feds would not act, because john was writing that amnesty bill with ted kennedy when i was there, arizona had to act. senate bill 1070 says that president obama wants to ignore existing law and john mccain sought to erase existing law. >> we are going to stay with border security and talking about immigration. senator, you get the next question. do you believe that there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform and what should it include? >> that is an excellent question. obviously, it is a situation where we have 12 million people in this country illegally. jim deakin is right. in the 1980's, we gave amnesty for 2.5 million people and that promise was that we secure the border. the american people do not believe us. that is why we have to secure the borders first. we can do it without the expenditure of too much money, especially compared with the cost and the human suffering of these people that are being serviced -- smuggled across and the drugs and being brought into our country and the brutality that exists. we have to secure the border first. according t

john f. kennedy high schl performed just its second spring musical in 30 years. talk about austerity, in april. due to the cuts, it could be another 30 years. i'm not exaggerating. these are the numbers. you can't make this stuff up. before this crisis, a 2007 study found that more than 75,000 students in new jersey attend school every day with no arts education. if we want to encourage arts in education then we can't fork out the both sides of our mouth. so it's nice to recognize them a week, a month or year as arts year. that's fine, that's great. if we fire all the arts teachers what would that be like? it seems that the senate has decided to strip the $10 billion that the house voted for to keep our teachers in their classroom. i don't know what's happening at the other end of the building. by failing to provide our children with opportunities to supplement their classes, we are rubbing them, robbing them of a complete education. we must consider the arts which enrich our lives, the lives of our youth, spark a life-long love andassion for crtivity, not as a s

was a senator, we forged a coalition in favor of reform under the leadership of senator kennedy and senator john mccain. we worked across the aisle to help pass the bill through the senate. that effort he au eventually ca apart. many of the 11 narts has now backed away from the end of the report. states like arizona have decided to take matters into their own hand. it is also ill conceived. the argument is framed in moral terms. why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living. i recognize the sense of compassion that drive this is argument. but i believe such an approach would be unwise and unfair. it would suggest to those thinking of coming here illeg illegally that this is a wise decision. it would also ignore the millions of people waiting in line to come here legally. ultimately, our nation, like all nations, have the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residence den si and citizenship. no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. the majority of americans are supportive and

john, you mentioned amnesty by name in may of 2003. you co-sponsored a bill with ted kennedy. $2.6 trillion in incentives. why would we provide incentives? i sponsored the enforcement first act. there's a big difference. >> time it up. senator mccain. >> in 2001 congressman hayworth proposed an immigration reform bill. the point is, we must get our borders secure, my friends. this is an existential threat to the government of mexico. which means if the drug cartels take over, the violence on our border will escalate more. the human smuggling and drug cartels coming across our border have caused arizona to be the second biggest murder capital of the world. we can stop this crossing our borders. i know we can. thank you very much. >> you made the statement that mr. mccain's comprensive prorm plan will constitutional $2.6 trillion. how much would your immigration plan cost? >> millions, admittedly, but far cheaper than the $2.6 trillion on retirement benefits alone to illegals. it is bad enough that john mccain voted to extend social security to illegals, but now he wants to ens

john mccain on amnesty. you mentioned amnesty in the article of may, 2003. co-sponsored a bill -- you call up -- you co-sponsored a bill with ted kennedy. $2.60 trillion in retirement benefits -- medicare and social security -- to illegals who would be granted amnesty. you're changing that again. why on earth would we provide incentives to lawbreakers? i sponsored the enforcement first act. >> time is up. senator mccain. >> in 2001, congressman hayworth proposed an immigration reform bill. the point is that we must get our borders secure. this is a threat -- and existential threat to the government of mexico. if the drug cartels take over, the violence will escalate. the human smuggling, the drug cartels -- the media have called arizona the second murder capital of the world -- this has got to stop. we can secure our borders. i know we can. >> thank you very much. next question is for mr. hayworth. you have made the claim not'senator mccains, has -- the claim that senator mccain's plan would cost $2.60 trillion in benefits. how much would your plan cost? what would it entail? >> it would be far cheaper than the $2.60 trillion on retirement benefits alone to illegal