first the challenge, risktaking. more importantly an incredible lack of capital. the average size, 250 million. the size of our firm. our current fund. the average size fund in michigan is 39 million, and not going to raise another one. they are there and we partnered in a place like silicon valley with small early-stage funds in states like michigan to start companies out of universities like university of michigan. we want them to take it through its first steps. we'll come in as the idea gets formed, get on a plane, spend time counting down ann arbor to grow. having that piece that gap, funded for firms of that size would make a huge difference for all of us in unleashing something we've already invested in as americans. so i applaud that effort. i think that will be well received. >> is it your perception, kate, there is someone there on the sidelines, ready to be invested and it's like a spigot we need to figure how to turn on? >> no.

it was the phrase, risktaking. there is a normal high failure rate of start-up companies. and it's one of the reasons when i go around the country or i go around the world that certain areas succeed at having entrepreneurship flourish in their communities and where it doesn't. in our business, this is venture capital. so seeding and growing these companies through their initial lives before they can stand on their own, go public and move forward, 40% of the companies lose the money we gave them. 40% return capital. you'd be better put are the cash in your mattress, and 20 make the kinds of returns that steve made for his investors when he formed aol. we all have to embrace and understand that. we need to understand that in washington relative to the policies we're putting forward. you can't have opportunity without a certain amount of risk. you need to actually encourage that, you need to encourage a quicker cycle of learning so they move on to their next opportunity. the one that does create the jobs we're looking for. >> interesting in washington. i mean, take solyndra,

ultimate ultimately, we come down, do we have to pay successful risktakers to achoef the things we've achieved in the united states relative to europe and japan. >> how do be oui bring the country together to make people understand the strength and pow power of upward mobility. do you think upward mobility still exists in the united states? >> sure i do. i think -- i don't see why the success of another steve jobs or another successful entrepreneur has any effect on income mobility. now, it's true that, say, coming out of the second world war we educated our population, education has been distributed more efficiently across our population. so is it to a certain extent income equality going to slow down as you distribute education more effectively? yes, it is. but i don't think that's indicative of a problem in america, i think that's indicative of success. >> but wealth sometimes creates benefits for society and at other times creates more wealth. so you have strong faith that markets reward those that contribute the most. one of the lessons of the financial crisis it seems is that th

risktaker should be rewarded. we also believe that it is best -- the free market has never been a license to pay whatever you want. [applause] we have understood that alongside our entrepreneurial spirit, america only prosperous if we meet our obligations to one another in the future generations. we came together in 2008 because our country had strayed from these basic american values. a record surplus was squandered. tax cuts for people who did not need them and were not asking for them. [applause] two wars were being laid on credit cards. wall street speculated huge profits by making bets with other people take that money. manufacturing left our shores. a shrinking number of americans did fantastically well while most people struggled with incomes and rising costs and the slowest job growth in half a century. and, in 2008, that house of cards collapsed. in the most destructive era since the great depression. in the last six months of that year, even as we campaigned, nearly 3 million of our neighbors lost their

from the entrepreneurial risktaking ow hornet are marginal tax rates and taxes in capital gains? would you support the buffett rule for a 30% minimum tax rate on high-income earners. >> i'd be happy to do a quick comment on tax rates for venture capital. you know, what matters most is that there's a differential for long-term investing. i think it's rational to say, how do you define long-term investi investing? is it a year? the capital gains differential is. should it be two or three? that's a ration's conversation. keeping that differential to insent people, it takes a company from genesis to ipo is important. i put that out there as a number one issue. >> karen? ron? >> i would disagree. tax policy shouldn't be used for public policy, and incents. but look, you know -- if we're going to put money into venture capital, let's put it into the budget and let's show it as an expense. let's not use it as a, for tax. in the end, it's not what we'll be able to do with the money. >> well, from the point of view of small businesses there's nothing they like better than a tax break, bec

women are more risk averse than men are george bush is a risktaker, came from the world of sports andied about risk. 97% of the prisoners in america are men. because men are stupid and take stupid risks. >> it may not be about the chrome somal differences. you may end up being the single parent with two kids. i guess even though that comment surprises me as i think about the commercial. there is the mom and she's got the kids at home and aging apparently very rapidly. you think -- you know, you would think she would want her social safety net. surprising to say that's the commercial for let's cut your health care reform and all of that sort of thing. >> i guess it's never a good thing to say you are getting old, you should vote for us. >> maybe that's what it is. >> but if we rook at it, 1992, 1996, 2000, republicans lost the women vote. closest they came was 2004 with george w. bush, and losing again in 2008. one of the things democrats have to do, specifically the obama campaign if we have this discussion around the economy, the first bill he signed is the lilly ledbetter equal pay

i think the risktakers at the white house think it's tough to defeat governor walker and they don't wantate fight. that's really why they are staying away. i think it's hard to say. i don't think he's a difference maker but i think a lot of people on the ground on the left and in the democratic party would like to see him come in and fire up the troops. >> how about the unions? forget mayor barrett for a second. i mean the unions who are supporting mayor barrett, are they seemingly disappointed that the president isn't in there fighting for them? >> i think there was some controversy last career when they wanted the president to speak out a little bit more and now they are kind of reconciled to the fact he's not going to be a big player in this debate. they would love to hear him talk about it between now and tuesday. they know they aren't going to get a visit. >> in terms of the gov new york city jindal, nikki haley, governor chris christie. any state favorite among the republicans do you think? >> who knows. wisconsin governor right now, and the two celebrities with the republican part

principles that could have been followed to get us out of that mess, to avoid encouraging further risktaking and i would commend, mr. speaker, people to mike frank's work, heritage foundation, that clissdess -- disclosed that despite the rhetoric of the president, how he's going after fat cats on wall street, the wall street executives and their immediate family donate -- donated to president obama four to one over mr. mccain, senator mccain. and they've done extremely well under this president. it's almost as if there is a deal, look, i'll call you fat cats, i'll call you all kinds of names, millionaires, billionaires, i'll trash you, but you'll make more money than ever and then i'll put taxes on those that make over $15,000, and then i'll say i'm going after major oil, big oil, and probably nobody will read the bills, i read it. i read the president's own words. he's going after independent oil companies, he's eliminating their deductions, not the major oil, he's not going to hurt major oil from what he's proposed. but he'll put the little ones out of business, the majors will make more m

we stop being risktakers. there are a whole list of arguments for why we are not in space right now. why we are not -- why the space frontier has not continued beyond humans landing on the moon. there is a whole list. i deduce that without exception every item on this list was delusional. [laughter] it doesn't -- include other things. we need to explore science because it is in our dna. because we are americans, and americans are explorers. all of these reasons are given. my reading of history tells me that none of those reasons matter to those who are writing the checks. that is the difference. and so i have to tell people this. if we're going to go to mars them we are here going to motivate people in a way that is either a militaristic and driven, but nobody really wants that to be the jurors in, or economically driven. and so i started exploring in what ways our presence in space can satisfy one or the other or both of those criteria. i was even invited after that article was published, the chapter was publ