tv Dr. Ben Carson at the National Press Club CSPAN November 29, 2015 4:00pm-5:01pm EST
>> next up, dr. ben carson, former neurosurgeon and current run presidential candidate recalls portions of the life and weighs in on current social and political issues. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome. my name is john hughes. i'm an editor for bloomberg news' first word, their breaking news desk here in washington, and i am president of the national press club.
thank you. thank you. [applause] >> our guest today is republican presidential candidate and neurosurgeon, dr. ben carson. he'll discuss this newest book, one he wrote with his wife, candy, titled "a more perfect union: what we the people can do to reclaim our constitutional liberties." but first, i would like to introduce our distinguished head table. this head table includes club members and also guests of the speaker. from the audience's right, joseph morton, a washington correspondent for the ohama world herald. and he is the membership secretary of the national press club. alfarouk, reporter for the gray sheet. jennifer, president of respectability u.s.a. bengie sarlin.
political reporter for msnbc. candy carson, the wife of our speaker. [applause] >> thomas burr, the washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune and the vice president of the national press club. myron bellkin, a george washington university professor and former president of the national press club. kevin, the manager editor of the "washington post". gabe biehl debenedetti. the national political correspondent for politico. jasmine, the correspondent for the kuwait news agency. aaron, director of strategic communications for the data quality campaign. [applause]
>> i also want to welcome our other guests in the room today, and our c-span and public radio audiences. i want to welcome our audiences watching the live stream on our web site, press.org. and you can also follow the action on twitter. use the hash tag, npc live. that's hash tag npc live. our speaker today has never served in congress or as the governor of a state or in any elected office of any kind. he did tell me he was elect -- that gets applause. he did tell me he was elected to the yale board. so there's an elect office but that's as close as it comes to being elected to any kind of public office. and this is one of the reasons dr. ben carson's supporters say they want him to be the next president.
he is not part of the washington establishment that so many fault for gridlock and ineffectiveness. so far on the campaign trail he has separated himself from better funded candidates, with the political experience, that he lacks. recent polling has dr. carson running second nationally for the g.o.p. nomination, behind donald trump, and ahead of carly fiorina. in campaigning he has shown his sharp opposition to obamacare, his support of the second amendment, his concern about the federal debt, and his goal to stop abortion. he also says, all options must be on the table when confronting russia's vladimir putin. his life story has become familiar to many. he grew up poor in detroit, with a single mother, and excelled in school. he rows to become the director of pediatric neurosurgery at
johns hopkins, for 29 years. he became the first person to successfully separate siamese twins, joint at the back of -- joined at the back of the head. he won the presidential medal of freedom in 2008, and he has published several books, including his autobiography, "gifted hands." during various media appearances, he has made a lot of headlines on issues such as mass shooting in oregon, the debt limit, and whether he could vote for a muslim for president. but we all know the best place to make news is in this room, and at this podium. so let's be about it. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm national press club welcome to dr. ben carson. [applause] >> thank you.
thank you very much. candy and i are delighted to be here. i'll get right into it. we want to leave time to answer some questions. why did i write this book? and america is such a great place, and i am so glad that i was born here. i have traveled to 57 different countries, gotten 0 know lots of people in a lot of other ways of life, but this remains the place that is the land of dreams, and i know a lot of people like to criticize our nation and demonize it and say it's responsible for a lot of horrible things and yet i see a lot of people trying to get in here, not a lot of people trying to get out. i'm not sure that is all that legitimate to be honest with you
but growing up in poverty, with a lot of disadvantages, the thing that was really great is i was still able to focus on my dream of becoming a doctor. it was the only thing i ever wanted to do. i skipped right by policeman and fireman and i went straight to doctor. i loved anything that had to do with medicine. i even liked going to the doctor's office. i would gladly sacrifice a shot just to be able to smell chose alcohol swabs. so cool. and on through the whole process, were there a lot of hurdles? absolutely. tremendous hurdles along the way. but nevertheless, it was still possible to realize that dream. and i want to make sure that continues to be the case. one of the reasons that is was possible is because we have a
system that did everything possible to create fairness. even when there were people in the system who did not want to be fair. and that's why it is so important that we must preserve our constitution, virtually all americans know that we have a constitution. how many people actually know what's in and it how many people actually know what is behind it? and of course, it is the mechanism that guarantees our liberties and that provides the guidelines for the restraint of government. because our founders recognized that it was the natural tendency of government to grow, and to invade every aspect of your life, and to try to control your life. that's what people do.
and that's what they wanted to avoid by doing this, and that's why it's so important that we understand it. in 1831 when de tocqueville came to america to study our great country, but a the europeans were 0 flabber -- flabber gast evidence this nation was competing with them. one thing that really impressed him was how ed -- educated the people are. anyone finishing the second grade was completely literate. he could find a mountain man on the outskirts of society, and the guy could read the newspaper. and could tell him how our government works. and nowday, we don't seem to emphasize civics and things like that in school anymore.
i'm sure some of you have seen some of those man on the street interview situations. they go out and ask just really basic questions, and people have no clue what you're talking about. and they think they -- who is the first president? they say, reagan? they have no idea. and it's funny but it's so sad, because our founders, and particularly franklin and jefferson, emphasized education, and they emphasized being informed, and they said, our system of government and our freedom are dependent on a well-informed and educateed populace, nice recognize if the people were not well-informed, they would be easy to manipulate. and all it would take for dishonest politicians politiciaa
complicit news media, and off you would go into another direction very, very quickly. now, i'll tell you right off the bat, before i go any further, i'm not politically correct. i will not be politically correct. and that's one of the reasons a lot of people in the press don't like me, but it's okay. what i really love is this country. i don't necessarily care whether the press likes me or not. and, therefore, i'm not going to conform to all their little requirements. people ask me all the time, why don't you just do this and this and then they won't say bad things about you. because this is america is why i'm not going to do that and never will do that. i want to touch on some of the aspects of america that i touched on in the book. like the balance of power, the checks checks and balance system.
the separation of power. i believe this is so vitally important, and the touch of genius by our founders, because they recognized that each branch, executive, judicial, legislative, would want to maintain their power, and, therefore, they would push back against excesses in the other branches. and that works extraordinarily well, in a government like we have, when they all are exercising their power appropriately. unfortunately, we have a legislative branch that really acts more like peanut gallery. they sit there and watch what the others do, sometimes complain about it, but really don't offer any resistance because they're afraid somebody might blame them.
news flash. they're going to get blamed anyway. so what they really ought to be thinking about is how do they get involved and be more pro-active. case in point. i think about the recent decision by the supreme court on gay marriage. now, first of all, let me just say, i have nothing against gay people whatsoever. i know a lot of people don't believe that because we live in a society now where if you don't accept their entire agenda, you're a homophobe. i permanently believe any two people, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else, have the right to associate together. i they want to have a legal contract drawn up, which allows them to share property, have hospital visitation rights do whatever they want, absolutely. i don't have any problem with
that. that's the kind of country that this was designed to be. live and let live. not impose your values on everybody else. and is the problem. but what the supreme court ruling that changes essentially the definition of marriage. it doesn't take into consideration the implication of that. if you change it for one group, why won't you change it for the next? what defense do you have against the next groom group say we can only change it this one time, never going to change it again? that wouldn't be fair. so why change it in the first place? it's been working very well for thousands of years. and that's what happens when people go in and start tinkering with things without thinking about the implications of it. and the legislative branch,
however, i would have thought would have been already prepared with legislation in case the supreme court came down with that decision, to make sure we preserve the right -- the religious right of everybody. not everybody agrees with their new definition of marriage, and it's their conviction and a religious conviction, and they need to make sure that they protect people's religious rights. the johnny come latelies but i call upon congress to do that now because there are people who are losing their jobs, their livelihood, and it's not fair. that's not what america was supposed to be. but unless all the branches of government are functioning the right way, these are the kinds of things that happen, because there will be overreach by any
of the branches, because they're composed people, and people are not perfect. that's why we have the counterbalance in order to be able to rectify the situation, because one group may not take into consideration the ramifications of what they're doing. also, the constitution indicates that civil issues really should be dealt with at the local level, at the said level. there's a reason for that. it was because the legislators and the judiciary, at the local level, are subject to the will of the people. the people vote them in. the people vote them out. and our founders felt that the people should be the ones who determine how things work and standards by which they live. when you take those issues and
you bump them up to a level where the people making the decision have no obligation whatsoever to the people, then you wind up with an oligarchy type government. that's not what the fathers intended for america. so, we are somehow going to have to look into ways to rebalance that, because if we continue down that pathway, you can see how virtually everything that they intended will be upset. we don't want that to happen. the preamble to the constitution talks about the role of the government in terms of promoting the general welfare. that doesn't mean that we want to put everybody on welfare. that not what the general welfare is. it means that when we do things, we want to do them in a way that they benefit the entire society.
and it is very important that we take care of -- that we make sure that everybody is taken care of in an appropriate way. when i say we, that does nose necessarily mean the federal government. i get criticized sometimes, inappropriately, by the way, by people who say, carson grew up very poor, he must have benefited from some government programs, and now he wants to withdraw all the safety net. this is nothing but a blatant lie. by people who need to characterize me as heartless. they love to do that. they love to say carson is insensitive and heartless and hates people, but a they need that narrative. that the only way that it can be acceptable, because i don't fit into their general description. black person, who is a
conservative? that can't quite -- they can't quite deal with that. who talks about self-reliance, and that you're not dependent on them? how could you possibly say such heresy. so it's necessary to demonize individuals like that, and i understand that. i'm actually willing to fight with them. i will continue to fight with them. but i'm fighting for something even greater, and that is i'm fighting for the people of the united states, because you see, we have very, very smart and very, very capable people in our nation who would be extremely good leaders, but they say, why would i get into that cesspool and be attacked and have my family attacked and have people going through every aspect of my life and trying to demonize me, and people don't want to do
that. well, i'm going to fight that fight for them. and if i'm successful, i expect that maybe a lot more of the anymore our country, who are not professional politicians, will say, you know what? he did it. i'm going to do it, too, and i think we'll be much better have as a country when he understand that this country is for everybody and not a specific political class. [applause] >> but as far as the whole safety net argument is concerned, my mother worked extraordinarily hard. three jobs at a time. leaving the house before 5:00 in the morning, getting back after midnight. because she didn't want to be dependent, and she occasionally
accepted some aid, but for most part was able to stay off of it. and she refused to be a victim. and she refused to let us be victims. and it wasn't that she didn't recognize that there were problems out there. she chose to focus on other things. she would say to us, if you walk into an auditorium full of bigoted, racist people, she says you don't have a problem. they have a problem. because when you walk in there they're all going to cringe and wonder if you're going to sit next to them, whereas you can sit anywhere you want, and that's kind of the way that i have chosen to lead my life. have there been obstacles? of course. have there been racist people around? of course there have. but i said, that's their problem.
i've got some very important things that i need to do. so i can get wrapped up in their problems or do the important things. not everybody chooses to lead their life that way, and that's fine, but that's the way that i chose to lead mine, and it works pretty well, if die say so myself. have -- itch i do say so miss. having said that, i'm very concerned about the drown trodden people in our society -- the downtrod 'people in our society, and i do believe we have a responsibility to take care of them. but when i say "we" i'm talking about, we, the people. i'm talking about the private sector. i'm not talking about the government. the government has been taking this on really since woodrow wilson, but it kept increasing. by the time we got to lyndon johnson, and the war on poverty, it was, hey, we're the savior,
we'll take care of you guys and solve all these problems. well, here we are, all these years later, $19 trillion later. did we solve the problem? eh we have ten times more people pop food stamps, anymore poverty, welfare, broken homes out of wedlock births, crime, incarceration, everything that was suppose told be better is not only worse, it's much worse. so, i'm not going to sit here and demonize the government for doing that, but i'm saying, isn't it time to wake up and start thinking about another way to do things? rather than driving ourselves into debt without solving the problem? and that is a tremendous responsibility of the government as well. to remain solvent.
because you are the guardians of the future. how can we enjoy the liberties and have our prosperity, enjoy the liberty, if they are overloaded with debt. 18-1/2 trillion dollars? the national debt. think about that. pay that back at 10 million daz day, it would take you over 5,000 years. that's absurd. we're putting that on the backs of our young people, and now here we are, sitting here saying, well, let's increase the debt some more. let's rates the debt ceiling some more. did it ever maybe occur to us that there's another way? there are 4.1 million federal employees.
i would offer that's too many. and there are 645 federal agencies and subagencies. all of whom have budgets. this is absurd. and we have people saying, if you cut the budget by one penny it will be a disaster. nancy pelosi. this is absolutely absurd. okay? and -- but we must think about the children, and that really is the main reason i've gotten into this fray here, as a pediatric neurosuper, my whole professional career centered on the children. and on the future of the children. what we had to do to improve the quality of life for these children. how can we in good conscious continue this charade of
responsibility knowing what we are doing to their future. if i had time i would really get into the fiscal gap and all the implications of that and what the implications of the debt is on the fed and how they're irresponsibly printing money and how the low interest rates are hurting the poor and the middle class because putting money into a savings account or buying bonds, the only people who can really make money are people who can have a risk tolerance which allows hem to go into the stock market, and i would talk about the regulations and how every single regulation costs money in terms of goods and services, and how those are the things that are really impacting the middleless and the poor people. it doesn't matter for wealthy people if a bar of soap goes up ten cents but matters a lot to the middle class and poor people.
you think about that regulatory burden and who it is really hurting. it goes on and on and on. we're promoting the general welfare. those are the kinds of things we have to be thinking about and we have to be thinking about mechanisms for allowing the downtrodden to escape from dependency and move into the fabric of success in our country, and we have to understand we only have 330 million people. sounds like a lot, but china has over a billion. india has over a billion. we need to get the bang for the buck out of all of our people. we need to be thinking about policies that allow all of our people to rise, and stop all this silly class warfare stuff. we can get immediate, immediate savings by thinking about the over $2 trillion that exists overseas right now. we need to bring that money back.
i can remember many an afternoon sitting around the board table at kellogg or costco, talking about the money overseas and what we were going to do with and it how we would love to bring it back in order to build another factory or do something else, but the corporate tax rates were too high. well, what if we had a six-month hiatus on the corporate taxes overseas and let that money by repatriated. i've been talking about this for several months. and we wouldn't -- it wouldn't cost them anything to repatriate it. we would only request or require that 10% of it be used in enterprise zones set up in our major cities or to provide employment for people who are unemployed or on welfare. you want to talk about an incredible stimulus that didn't cost the taxpayers one penny? that would be the biggest stimulus, probably, since fdr's
new deal. that's low-hanging fruit. [applause] >> that's low-hanging fruit. and that's what we have to do. the other thing is it gets business and industry once again thinking about how do we invest in the people around us? this is what we used to do before the government started taking over everything, because americans are very centerrist people. you think about the early america, you had communities all over the place, and many cases separated by hundreds of miles. how did they survive and thrive? because at harvest time, if a farmer was up in the apple tree, picking apples and fell and broke his leg, everybody else pitched in and harvests his crops. if somebody got killed, everybody else pitched in and took care of their family. that's who we are. when there's disaster in the world, who is always on the front line? it's us.
so let's utilize that and recognize that we are our brother's keeper and it is our duty do take care of the indin gent and not -- indigent and not the duty of the government. another important aspect of our government is to provide for the common defense. i could talk about is in for a long time. but simply to allow or military too deteriorate the way it has to fail to take care of our veterans at the point where we have 22, 23 suicides every day. it makes absolutely no sense. to leave our electric grid unprotected. it needs to be hardened. we need to have several lair of alternative energy. this is criminal what we are doing because we are so vulnerable, and we need to
really beef up our cyber capables, and i tell you, under a carson administration, if another country attacks us with a cyber attack, they're going to get hit so hard it's going to take them a long time to recover. we can't sit around and let people do stuff and just say, you're bad. i don't like you. we can't do that. and we have to understand -- [applause] >> we also need to re-invigorate our spates -- space program. i think it's a crime we have moved away from that. think about all the inventions and innovation that came out of that. your cell phone so many things. and the important thing is, in the future, he who controls space controls the earth. we cannot be party to that when there are others who are working very hard in order to conquer that area.
and then -- [applause] >> then the last area i just wanted to mention briefly, and i could really go on for quite a while on this one. but there is only one business in america that is protected by the constitution and that is the press. and there was a reason for that. it was because the press was supposed to be an ally of the people, and they were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. when they become partisan, which they are, they distort the system as it was supposed to work, and they allow the side they pick to get away with all kinds of things, and i think
there's still hope for the country i think it is possible that some of them will recognize that it's almost a sacred obligation that they have to the people to be honest, and not -- [applause] >> now, just in the last week, my own case, they take something that i said about the shootings in oregon, and don't put the part in where i was answering the question. don't put the question in. just give the response, and say, see, he is being critical of the people. i mean, the good thing is that a lot of the people in america are on to them, and understand what they're trying to do and that's one of the reasons we're doing well, and it seems like the more they attack me, the better we
do. because people expect that, you know? and last week, i'm leaving a press conference, getting ready to get on a bus, and the reporter says: can you tell me what you're going to do about the hurricane? i said, goodbye. i don't know. the next day, carson wants to about, has no idea what to do about hurricanes. this is the level of insincerity that we see, and it really is kind of embarrassing to see that. and it happens on the other side, too. it's not just on one side. i was doing an interview with wolf blitzer yesterday, and he asking about renewal of the voting rights act, and of course i want renewal of the voting rights act, or at least the aspect that protects all americans' right to vote. but it's a much longer
conversation about what needs to be done to it before it is renewed. it was something based on conditions 50 or 60 years ago, a lot of things have changed since that time. we certainly don't want to empower the department of justice to do some of the things the justice department did based on the bill. so everything need foes looked at in its context, and when news media pick one word or one phrase and they run with it, and they try to characterize people like that, i got to tell you guys, that's why people don't trust you anymore. you're down there with used car salesmen, and we should -- [applause] >> what is it going to take to save our country? courage. it's going to take courage by
all of us, including the press. and we have to begin to think about those who come behind us, because what would have happened to us if those who preceded us were little chicken livers. what if they weren't willing to take risks? what if on d-day, our soldiers invading the beaches of normandy , had seen they're colleagues being cut down, 100 bodies laying in the sand, a thousand bodies laying in the sand, what if they had been frightened and turned back? guarantee you they were frightened. but they didn't turn back. they stepped over the bodies of their colleagues, knowing in many cases they would never see
their homeland or their loved ones again. and they took that beach. why did they do that? didn't do it for themselves. they did it for you. and they did it for me. and now it's our turn. and what are we willing to do for our children? and for our grandchildren? are we willing to stand up? are we afraid somebody is going to call us a nasty name? or that we're going to get an irs audit? or that somebody is going to mess with our job? we have a lot less to lose than they did, and the people who are always telling me, hang in there don't let them get to you, believe me, do not worry about us because the stakes are much
too high. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dr. carson, have many questions, including questions about foreign policy. we have president putin intervaccining -- intervaccining in syria supporting the say sad regime, and this morning we learn that the president of the united states is ending the program for training the antiassad rebels. how would you as president approach the syrian situation,
what actions would you take? >> i think it's a very serious situation and we cannot simply be passive. when the russian generals tell us we don't want you flying in this area, my response to him would be, go take a flying leap. we'll fly anywhere we want to. we ought to be establishing our own no-fly zone in conjunction with turkey. and i think we need to recognize that why is he really there? he said he was coming there to fight isis. has he really been fighting isis? or al nusra? and everybody who in fact is opposing assad. that the real thing. and you'll look and see that assad is also getting a lot of help from ali khomeini.
the prime minister- -- the supreme leader of iran. these situationed are complexion and people were surprised when i indicated that putin and ali actually have a long-time relationship as does abbas. abbas and khomeini were in the same class, and at university in moscow, graduating encloses -- class of '68, and they were already quite familiar with a young vladimir putin at that time. and i believe that putin is verdes separate right now because oil prices are very low. that's what has been precluding his expansionist activities and not us, believe me. it's the economic situation.
now, he can gate foothold in syria and then begin to spread this influence throughout that region, and if he gained control of significant energy reserves, he might then be able to have a much more -- much more control on energy prices throughout the world, and that would then embolden him because he will be strengthened to do what he needs to do. but we need fight him everywhere. we need to be re-establishing the missile defense system, i think, in eastern europe. we need to be supplies arms to the ukraine. we said we were going to protect them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. they gave them up. did we protect them? of course not. we turned our back on israel. i don't think the rest of the world is idly sitting by and not notices we renege on our responsibilities. so we need to oppose him at
every step. we also need to take advantage of his economic weakness by using our economic strength and very wisely. >> the house is looking for a new speaker and there's a report that mitt romney called call ryan and urged him to run for speaker. is paul ryan the guy? should he run for speaker? and as president, how would you work with congress to end the gridlock that has defined washington so often. >> paul ryan is a fine person. i like him. i like a lot of people in congress. i hope the process plays out. i hope that a number of people will present their philosophy for leadership, and that there's an opportunity for the members of congress to see who they want to work with as their leader. and what i would do is i would have a policy of talking.
the current administration doesn't talk a lot to the people in congress, not even to their own party. how can you come to resolution without talking? what happens before people get a divorce? they stop talking. the next thing you know their dispose the devil incarnate. we also basically want the united states to succeed. we have different philosophies about how that is going to be done. but i think if we're willing to sitdown and talk about it, then we find that we're not nearly as far apart as we think we are. we do have to keep the instigators out and the people who try to irritate and agitate. good example of that is a few weeks ago, when i was on "meet the press," and i said, i think anybody from any religion or any background, who is willing to embrace our values and is
willing to put our constitution above their belief system, is acceptable to me. i don't know why that is a difficult subject for people to understand. but anyone whose belief system does not conform to our constitution and who is not willing to put that under our discussion, why why would that person be the leader of this country? that doesn't make any sense. [applause] >> in your first three months in office, what be different and how will the people know it? >> well, first of all, i would call for a joint session of congress, and i would want them to know that under a carson administration, we recognize that the people are at the pinnacle and that we work for them, and they don't work for
us, and we have to begin to also understand that we are americans first, and democrats and republicans second. or maybe even third. we have to stop fighting each other, because one of the things that i think thens to destroy our nation is the extreme divisiveness, and we have gotten to the point where we believe that if somebody disagrees with you, then you willed in to try to destroy them, destroy their family and their livelihood. where did that come from? i guarantee you it did not come from our judeo-christian values and roots. as president who. >> as president whoa would you want as chairman of the federal reserve and what kind of quality do you want in that person? >> honesty and common sense would be a good start.
that's not to say that we haven't had such people. i like janet yellin, i served on a board with her. she is a very decent person. i think she is trying very hard but you have to realize we have put the fed in a very difficult position right now. because of the amount of debt that we have accumulated. very hard for the fed to allow interest rates to rise to a reasonable level with an 18-plus trillion dollar national debt. the debt service with an interest ray suppressed almost to zero is still $250 billion a year. can you imagine what it would be if we allow the interest rate to rise to their normal levels? so, we need to be working on driving that debt down, and i have some ideas about how that could be done, and that can have a very ameliorating effect and
freedom for the fed. the other thing is i would like to see somebody who understands that we can't just print money based on the good name and faith and credit of the united states of america. we decoupled in 1971 -- 1933 and 1971 from the gold standard, doesn't have to be gold there are other things that it can be coupled to but we need to have some responsible underlying to what we do. and i think it will make a big difference. >> you mentioned your comment ons "meet the press" and i've gotten several questions from the audience about related to that. one questioner says: muslims serving in the u.s. there are muslims serving the united states military, police forces and our courts, school boards, city councils, so on and so forth. so how is it okay for a muslim
to serve and die in the military to defendant our values for a young uphold the constitution, even though the faith of those individual are incompatable with the constitution they are sworn to protect and uphold? long question, but you get where it's going. >> again, a good understanding of the constitution answers that question for you. because when you look at the article 2, and we're talking about requirement for the president, and they have to be a natural born citizen, and why is that the case? i'm sure if you had gone to the founders and said, but what about this person? they may not be a natural born citizen but they've been in america for most of their lives, and they're fine upstanding
citizen. served in the military. came back. on the police force. can't they be the president? and they would have said, no. they said, we don't even want to take the slight chance that we would put someone in that position who had different loyalties. that's the answer to the question. [applause] >> question about your opposition to obamacare. the question along he lines of: you're a doctor and obviously all the parts of medical care are important to you, preventive care, many of the things that obamacare provides. the questioner is wondering how your values as a doctor and the importance of people getting health care squares with your opposition to this program that has given so many access to health care? >> chomping at the bit for that
one. first of all, the reason i don't like the so-called affordable care act, not because it doesn't work, and not because it's not affordable, but the real reason is because it flies in the face of the very principles of the establishment of this country. this country was supposed to be of, for, and by the people, with the government there to facilitate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. with that act the government comes along and says, i don't care what you people think. this it what we're doing. we're cramming it down your throat and if you don't like it, too bad. that is antithetical to the whole concept of the people being at the pinnacle and the government there is to serve it. it basically flips the relationship and puts the government in the driver's seat with us at its beck and cal and if they can do that with the most important thing you have, your health and your health
care, it's not long before they can do it with every aspect of your life, and it begins the fundamental changing of america, and that's why i want to stop it in its tracks and turn it around. most people did not recognize what was happening. we have to once again restore the people to the pinnacle. having said that, i do want everybody to have good care. it is consistent with who i am. and i've talked about a healthcare system, but let me just talk about the part for the indigent. how do we derrick of the indigent and we have medicate. 400 billion to $500 billion a year. how many people par kiss pate? a quarter of the population, which is way too many and we can address that by how do we get the economy rolling again. but if 80 american into 400 billion goes 5,000 times 5. thousand, every man, woman and child on medicate.
most concierge cost between 2,000 and $3,000 a year. still have a couple thousand dollars left over for their catastrophic insurance, which is much cheaper because there's something else that we have done with that i don't have time to explain. but i'm not saying that we do that but i'm saying we have enough money to do that, and what is the result of that? now when mr. jones has the diabetic foot ulcer, he isn't going to the emergency room. his going to go to the clinic he gets the same treatment but instead of patching him up and sending hem out they'll say, let's get your diabetes under control. a whole nuther level of savings not being recognized right now, and we're teaching him personal responsibility rather than dependency. those are the kind of things we ooh be doing. that will cost us a lot less
money, and everybody will be of equal value. you won't have people, i don't want to see them, they have go to the emergency room. it will cost less money. that's the kind of thing we should be doing and we can be doing when we take something so important as medicine out of the political arena and start taking care of the people. [applause] >> i've received several questions about guns and your comments about the holocaust and if jews had been able to protect themselves, much of it could have been prevent. and also, the whole approach to these mass shootings, is having more people armed the kind of thing that can stop more of these mass shootings, do you think? >> well, you know, the holocaust issue, that's just the left wing press again trying to stir up
controversy, and i expected. that's what they do. but basically what i said is that when tyranny occurs traditionally around the world, they try to disarm the people first, and that's exactly what happened in germany. and they -- mid to late '30s, started a program of disarming the people, and by the mid-'40s, look at what happened, and it's happened in a number of other countries as well. daniel webster said, tyranny would never occur in america because the people are armed. there's a reason we have the second amendment, and it doesn't mean that i'm not happy to look at ways to keep these tragedies from occurring as long as they don't interfere with the second amendment. that what we have to keep in mind, and what was the other part of the question? by having -- well, with the mass shootings, one of the things many people have noticed they tend to go to places that are
gun-free zones. so, even though they may be memory disturb -- mentally disturbed they're not so disturbed as to not realize if you go someplace where people can shoot you, probably going to get shot. what i'm saying is that it's probably a good idea to make sure that there are people in the areas where we have vulnerable people, who can oppose these people. not with just words but who are trained. they can be retired policemen, retired military, some teachers might have the ability to do that. but i would feel much safer if my kid or grandchild was in a school where i knew there were people who could protect them if somebody like that came in. to me what i'm talking about is common sense, to some of the people out there, there is no such thing as common sense. [applause]
>> we are almost out of time. before i ask the final question, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide, to learn more about the club, visit our web site, press.org, and to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. i also want to remind you about some upcoming events. on thursday, october 15th, the club will hold its annual fourth estate award gala. this year we will honor the monitor and manage egg yet for of the pbs news hour. on wednesday, october 21st, we will reprise a press club event from 100 years ago when senator tim cain and other maybes of congress face off against members of the news media in the politicians versus the press spelling bee. and on friday, october 23rd,
oscar winning director and actor, kevin costner, will be here to discuss his new book. i'd now like to present our speaker with the honorary national press club mug. you have been here before so you're developing a collection. >> thank you. >> so a couple of final questions. if the situation was right, down the campaign trail, circumstances change, would you consider being donald trump's running mate? >> the press will have a field day with this one. by the way, with answer that question -- before i answer that question, i want to mention, many in the press will say that i'm sensitive and that i should
not be thinking about running for office because i get offended by what they do. of course they'll say that. but the reason that i expose the press is because i want the people of america to understand what they're doing. so, it's not because i'm sensitive. i will continue to expose them every time they do something, but bus as more people understand who they are and what they're doing, it will make a bigger effect, and until they have the kind of transformation that is necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they're doing. now in terms of -- what were trump? how could i forget. okay. i believe that donald trump has been very useful because he has brought in a lot of people,
brought in a lot of curiosity, and enthusiasm, and whoever the eventual nominee is will benefit from that, even if it's him, and that's the good thing. so, that's one of the reason is don't talk about him. don't talk about anybody else. but in terms of a vice president, i would obviously want somebody who is comp patible with me. i would not necessarily be looking for somebody who can bring in this demographic or that demographic because the things that have to be done are very, very serious things, quite frankly. this can't be tampering around the edges. we have to go through the heart of the matter and i don't think we have a whole lot of time to do that. it would have to be somebody who is very compatible, who understands the urgency of what we're doing, who is willing to suffer the slings and arrows to get it done. that's what it would take. >> ladies and gentlemen, please gave round of applause to our
speaker. [applause] >> i would also like to thank staff members of the national press club and the journalism institute in their work for preparing for today's event. for a coach today's program or learn more about the national press club go to that web site, press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. >> this is booktv on c-span2. television for serious readers. here's our primetime lineup: tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, npr correspondent tom looks at the impact othe 1965 immigration and nationality act. and then mariry norris discusses grammar. at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv's autho