tv Road to the White House CSPAN October 31, 2011 12:30am-2:00am EDT
attitude of the opposition to this policy. what we had with a new education secretary who said shadow education secretary said he would support preschools but he had to drop that altogether. he wants to know what the policy is now. he said what i said is we oppose the policy but some of them are going to be really good schools. run by really good people. we mustn't put ourselves in a position as a labor party of opposing the schools so they oppose the policy but support the schools. what a complete bunch of hypocrites! >> the prime minister explain why his secretary of health was able to make liberal democrats in the health field towing but was unable to recognize the need for changes that was debated here?
it is more about these deals instead of doing what is right? >> we are doing what is right for the and h s and y average waiting times for patients are down and for outpatients are down. hospital inspections at the lowest level ever. we got mixed set down 91% under this government. the number of managers is down and a number of doctors is up. if you want to see further improvements to the health bill there arelenty of opportunities. >> the young people involved in the ris had special educational needs. does the prime minister agree these underlying needs of complex solutions for education or underachievement? >> as i said we have to look behind the statistics and ask ourselves how so much could go wrong in our society and education and special education needs to play a role in that but
it is important and the public want to see swift justice and punishment handed out when people break the law. >> you can see british prime -- you can see prime minister's questions an hour later than the usual time this week on c-span2. tomorrow on "washington journal," a look at tax policies of republican candidates with grover norquist. after that, new york times reporters eric schmitt and thom shanker on their new book about the u.s. campaign against al qaeda. later, albert teich of the american association for the advancement of science on funding for research and development. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> every weekend, let the c-span
networks be your source for public affairs and history appeared on c-span, it is politics and public affairs of this. c-span2 has book tv with the latest nonfiction books and authors. and with american history tv on c-span3, shaping events of our country. they are all available all the time that the c-span video library. >> recently the des moines register published a poll with john huntsman garnering just 1% of the poll. herman cain was with that which it was in the lead with 23%, narrowly beating mitt romney with 22%. next, remarks from john husband from a town hall meeting on sunday. this is from new hampshire, the first campaign stop of his four- day trip through the state. this is about an hour. >> how is everybody here?
i am john. good to see you. good to see you. it is a pleasure. thank you. pleasure to see you. good to see you. this is truly the intrepid few. doing that could to see you. -- are you doing? good to see you. thank you very much. my goodness. an intrepid few. i did not think there of the anyone here when i arrived. >> of the dakota manchester? do we stop by to save their any
notes? he got early notice. of course we need to be here. thank you. i am delighted to be with you. i do not know -- the subject around a table? >> sure. they have introduced the candidates. >> committee is not in the position. i have to support this. because of the experience. he says what he means. in new hampshire, which made
the decision. not the media perrin that is run the great things. thank you very much. >> let me start out by saying i feel that there are some changes in new hampshire. this is a process of them by the people. we have done 80 events around the stage. we will do a whole lot more. the meetings are getting larger and larger. the weather allows people to come out. i feel a real connection with people in the state. i believe they are ready for an honest conversation about where were and what needs to be done. i am not going to bluster and bs people. i am not going ot signledges. i will tell you what needs to be done. i am an underdog. i understand that new hampshire
embraces underdogs. the run them through the system. in some cases, they do ok in the end. the change the political landscape. is this process important from a national sampling? absolutely. it is the windowhrough which not only people in new hampshire but the route the country get to meet the candidates, understand who they are, without a way of artificiality. it is candidates in people. it is imrtant. unlike a lot of the oer big states that are driven by purchased media, a lot of the artificiality of politics -- there is no such thing here. it is mad for where we are. i like the feel.
i like where we are. i sat with him a few minutes ago. he said here in 1996. it was about three the% -- 3%. he said to be yourself. they will hear you out. they will make a decision based on what is you have to say. to not pay any attention to the numbers. we will hear from all of you. i've tried to represent the 99% and the 1%. it is time to pull everybody together. it saddens me that we are divided. it is unnatural.
it is unhealthy. it is an american - un american to be as divided. what is driving its? driving the divide is the hgh level of joblessness. we have 40 million of our citizens without work. millions more beyond of them. they're part of the official tally who are so dispirited. they have given up trying. we're left with mothers and fathers that are shipwrecked. we can do better. we also tend to under play the impact that joblessness has in neighborhoods and towns and state. it is very real. when you have a conversation shareomebody like a
of the says his deputies are now sending foreclosure notice, all these indicators are upside down. a lot is driven by joblessns. let's get smart. let's get real. the first step needs to consist of pushing f stronger economic programs. getting us back on our feet. we had a greatconomy. we created jobs. he had to be very sensitive to that environment. it is either creative or it is thought. it is either competitive or it is not. we put forward an economic program. i like to take a look at it. we have copies you can take with you. the wall street journal has endorsed it as the best in the
bunch. a tax form proposals calling for a clean sweep of the loopholes and deductions. there simplifying the individual signs. on the corporate side, i say we need to and corporate welfare. we need to phase out subsidies. we cannot afford them anymore. to be on that, we can do a lot in terms of cleaning up the influence. there's nothing to lobby for in terms of corporate loopholes and welfare. what is there to do? it should take an important step in cleaning up capitol hill. that is our tax program. it is real. it is doable. it looks at the existing code. it sweeps it clean. it would leave the country with a level pling field, small and medium. it wld be a major contribution to our competitiveness nother we are the second decade into the
21st century. we have not looked at the reforms as 1986. it is time we do so. reg'lar tory -- regulatory reform is needed. this is doable. a want to have a simple focus on about three things that can get done in the first two years. they must have some sort of connection with our overall competitiveness. if they do not make a contribution in expanding our economic base, it is a waste of time as far as i'm concerned. the first time president out before word of that which will fire our inventors of growth. i think it is critically needed. beyond economics, i want a foreign policy that is inappropriate for where we are,
the second decade into the 21st century. we still have a bit of overhang from the cold war. circa 1946. 50,000 troops in germany, the russians are not coming anymore, folks. within 10 years of the war on terror, we have given it our all. families have paid an enormous sacrifice. we offer a salute. e offer aeep sense of gratitude and thanks. we do not need to add nation- building in afghanistan with 100,00 troops one we have a nation to build here at home. when our core is deteriorating, we are no value to the rest of the world. we did not project those values of goodness, democracy, liberty. today we are weak. but got to focus first and foremost on strengthening our core more than anything else.
i want reform policy focused on two things. they're the most salient aspects of our nation's interest. one is a form policy driven by economics. when are we going to get with the program about free trade? a lot of other countries do this. it used to break my heart when sitting in beijing. usair hundred thousand sharein afghanistan. we have to leave with economics. as far as the eye can see into the 21st century, we have an asymmetric threat of terrorism. whether it is in the philippines, weave cities in terrorhat we have to deal with realistically.
we need to make se we have a national security put prem and the defense department that is a poorly focused on the real threat. it is not a land war. it is an asymmetric threat. that means more in the way of intelligence gathering. more and the way of training with those who share the same interests with the united states so that we can do it together. chances are you'll have israel stand up and say economics, counter terror, we get that. we can move forward with you as a friend and ally. chances are you have people like india who will stand up and say economics we can relate to that as well. we have an opportunity to look at the map. in my speech in a moment in our nation's history given the
salience of economics and counter-terrorism. it could shore up some new alliances. in conclusion, we have a unique moment in history to rebuild our manufacturing muscle in this country. let us about tax and regulatory reform, what is that focused on? wire even thinking about doing that? -- why are we even thinking about doing that? we have a chance to build our manufacturing muscle. when i was born, 25% of our gdp manufacturing. now it is 9%. we need to manufacture more. this has since been made bereft of activity in productivity with
energy and vitality. this totally doable. this is l changing. china will now be looki at for%, pfizer, and sixth term. this means that in -- 4%, 5%, 6%. this means that we need to look at a nation to become the alternative market place. it is the underlying structural problems that we need to address. these are all temporary fixes. we need long-term fixes. we can do is. we can begin rebuilding our
manufacturing muscle. it is doable. we need leadership. we need a plan. we need to get real about our competitive environments. i look to the united states as i did 10,000 miles away. i have looked overseas four times. i've been an investor for my country three times. are you are people who are in a deep funk. it is so unnatural and un- american. this is where we are. we need to get out of the whole. what is the we've got going for us? how eat is it to have stability? we have the rule of law.
we have private property rights. the greatest universities and colleges anywhere in the world. people so flocked here from every corner of the world. we have the most creative entrepreneurial class of people on earth. to get a pretty brave and creative armed forces to we should be proud of them. we have everything we need to succeed. we do not have leadership. we do not have a plan. we did not have a president willing to step out from behind the teleprompter and they get on the bus where moving out. they're not looking back. mistakes have been made. our people need to look to the future in their real about what this country needs to survive. it is completely doable. we're bringing a background to the table.
and is what this nation needs. i'm honored and delighted to be able to do this. i will put this assumption to the test. this is where people to end. this is where a message can be heard. this is where the early evaluation is done. thank you for taking the time to be here on a snowy night when i did not think anybody would show up. you are among the most intrepid. thank you very much. it we will just throw it for any comments or questions that you have. >> what are some in the biggest mistake barack obama has made it that's what would you do better? >> i would have to say in simple
terms there has been no leadership. they think a poi has been made for every american to see that you can run on a mantra called hope. you can get elected. that is not mean that when a nation needs leadership they get it. we need leadership. i alsoelieve that from policy- making sampling the most fundamental error occurred in the first two years. it to give confidence to our investor class. what has happened at? what do you have to show for it? it to the confidence out of the marketplace. it infused a high degree of uncertainty. they're not investing today.
if we are not the safe haven, something else will be safe haven. i do not want to simplify it too much. the opportunity on the economic side was a mess. then the door closes after two years. it is not matter whether you go to ohio or california. everybody has turned out. there are cerin cycles of politics. you g an opening after you are elected to years longer. thank you. >> i had your experience.
my friends want to come visit me. they cannot get a visa. making good and mexico. acting go to a border in mexico. we have also unnatural resources. how can you change this? >> don't get me started on the visa policy. that is a subsection of our overall relations with the rest of the world that needs to be addressed. we're 10 years after the war on
terrorism started. iraq and afghanistan has a shifted alliances and friendships that we have an opportunity here. we are at any moment. we are drawing down for their. they had a different dynamic. there are based on reality interest. economics and counter-terrorism. let's take a look at the map. who wants to proceed with the shared interest in mind. some of them will be our traditional ones. to have a president who knows what it means to be a friend and ally of the united stas and what that assumes.
i love to take a look at the map. based on those compelling reality is, who iwith the stocks can we want to strengthen /iesith ta we have a new opening an opportunity to reshape our international affairs. and which countries around the world are likely to share those build weakebillion who we can this with. it is a little bit post war on terror.
we're gonna have to remain vigilant. a hundred thousand boots on the ground, no. this is the most transcendent pocy challenge. let's get real. more in the way of a shifting focus. this is also or the emerging military threat happen to be. when i say 50,000 troops in germany, the russians are not coming any more. but focus on the decade. we can get it done. because of fatue, it was
waiting on a new open. it is based on getting our economy is back on their feet, stabizing ourselves and continuing in a new kind of focused way. >> when were you in poland? >> 1991. is very interesting and exciting. us unofficially there from 1989. >> and made a visit there in 1989. -- i made a visit there in 1989. they took power. to decide freely elected government. it is an interesting note about a time. >> we had a loss.
>> will showed up on this later. >> thank you very much. >> we have a considerable amount of troops in japan. the would you see this further? they're talking about picking up troops in guam. what you'dndering see in terms of the military role. >> here's what we have done. we to recognize this and move forward. we have this in 2004. the route about the taliban. we dismantled the taliban we do need the responses only
find the folks are pretending to do is harm. this will need all corners of the world to be quite honest. adobe less lambastes. -- it will be less land base. adobe more and a surgical like fashion. and the asia pacific region, and the need to keep the sea lanes open, the seventh fleet's have always played a critical role in keeping this open. it has been vital.
when you look at the major economies and military powers. japan frankly will have to be looked at in terms of issues like the futima marine base. it has now become a local political issue to the point that those running for mayor are running out against the 10,000 marines. when this becomes a political issue, the problem of too to addresit or is going to have a long-term set on our overall relationship with japan. are there opportunities to expand? absolutely. are there opportunities in the places like philippines where we were booted out? we had a very large front there. i think we requested that
decision. we have a new opening. do we have no openings in southeast asia? maybe even vietnam? house a real would it be, we have already had the uss the vietnam -- uss john mccain, the vietnamese a concerned. whenever you have disput land at the core of foreign policy, they can get hot. we have to stay vigilant in that part of the world. it is about shoring up the relationships in the asia- pacific region, all run through india where we need to be doing work. it is getting better with each passing year. how secure the strength in the indian ocean. those are all going to be important.
at china as a navy is able to penetrate. -- as china oppose the navy is able to penetrate. it is inevitable. they spend more on ships and submarines. let's face reality. from the economic standpoint, the asia-pacific region is going to be large. thank you. >> on your web site, you said one of the things you want to do is repeal obamacare. i wonder how realistic that is. now that 26-year-old are staying on the parent insurance. nook au pair -- no cpayopay, mammograms are free. i wonder how realistic it is to repeal obamacare at the cost of reelection to people in office. how willing will they be to do that?
>> i'm not into pitical provide. if you want to repeal obamacare, what we going to do? i cannot stand it when politicians say -- what does that mean? i think we would be better served by calling together the governors of the country. if we were able to repeal obamacare. if the senate reconstitutes itself with more republicans, you have that opportunity. it is driven by the reality that you have one trillion dollars in costs over the next 10 years. you have an unconstitutional mandate. you have unfund mandates to states on the medicaid side that are likely unsustainable over time. you have this great element called unctainty that is infused into the marketplace to the point where a lot of small businesses say i cannot invest or higher. >> and a lot of small businesses -- is our biggest expense other than payroll is our health care.
i am getting ready to renew. it is scary, when you see the trend of upwards premiums. we had to pass on a big increase to our employees as well as a huge deductible just t keep it affordable. this year, it is going the same way. we have a huge dedtible and it is going up again. we can only absorber so must of the cost -- absorber so must -- so much of the cost. we have to pass it on. there is nothing more we can do. unfortunately, that makes it less affordable. let us anticipation makes the premium itven higher. it is a vicious cycle. >> how about a client
contribution plan as opposed to a benefit plan? that is where the future lies. it is incentivizing through a broadened market place with affordable insurance policies. that is the problem. we do not have enough affordable insurance policies. driving costs? if it is a double digit cost increase in terms of the medical flation, what are the drivers? is it a service? is it litigation? is it the fda mended trials -- mandated trials? there are a lot of cost drivers. we have to recognize that it is terribly complicated, this whole health care thing. $3 trillion in size. that is the size of the gdp of france. that is just our health care sector. any expert will tell you that half of that is needless
spending. we are blowing through money that is nonsense. it does come down to have you get more transparent so the patient know what their needs are, they know what procedures cost, they can take those they need bas upon having to cover them. it is going to be more reliant on affordable insurance policies. we are going to have to rely on things like harmonizing medical records. the doctors can pull up a medical record as opposed to guessing what is right. pulling up the medical record shows what has been the best treatment for you and the prescriptions that best serve you, as opposed to randomly giving out stock. it drives up costs. it is going to have to be a personal responsibility. 75% of health-care spending -- you have diabetes, you have cancer, you have cardiovascular,
you have obesity. 75% of health-care spending. there is a lot that individuals can do, if you match them with insurance policies that are affordable, there is a lot more we can do. i have to tell you, the insurance sector is still trapped. you cannot buy policies across state borders. if there was an affordable policy, like we triedo create in utah, you can access it from here. it would be great if you could access affordable policies in other parts of the country. i imagine what that would do in terms of driving costs. >> what is preventing that? >> regulation. here is what washington should do. this is large, this is complicated, but it is important we get this done. we did a little bit in our state, then things that advanced the ball. they all learn something
different from it. let's take the next few years, we are all invested in finding the right fixes on health care reform. let's come back and see what we have learned and where we are. i would say, instead of $1 scullion, one size fits all package that the drop on the country, let's say, let's start with the insurance sector. let's drop the barriers so people can access affordable policies. that would be a huge deal. if you could harmonize medical records across the board, that would take a lot of the cost. simple steps towards with transparency would help as well. those are the things that would come out of turning to the it.rnor's, let's go at let's see what you learned. we cannot rush it. the last thing you can do is to rush something that people
do not understand. that is what happened. yep. the folks who should be standing behind obamacare and defending it are not there. they are running for cover. i do not think anyone understood what this would mean in terms of the real world. here we are. you can only say, what do we do? we have to look forward instead of finger-pointing. let's move forward and find some solutions. that is where we go ultimately. yes, sir. >> we are more divided and more angry in the last three years than in the last 40 years. my question to you, you mentioned about subsidies, we get so much in subsidies in
companies, will buy companies, pharmaceutical companies, we still pay top dolla for these products. if we give money to these companies, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, how would you control -- begich you all this money, you are still charging us top dollar. you have to give the money back at an interest rates, like a loan, or you have to put a cap on that product. comment on that. >> i do not know how the arithmetic would work. i think what you are saying is right. i believe the best course for our economic future on corporate subsidies is to phase them out quickly. why? we cannot afford this.
first and foremost, second of all, they have a ge disporting affects within the marketplace to read a subsidy for ethanol -- a huge disporting affect within the marketplace. a subsidy for ethanol, what it does in terms of the distorted affect downstream, our commodities shipped overseas, it should not be that way. i believe we can take steps in this regard. it is going to be tough. we have, the last i looked, i am still trying to get the number, i added up $90 billion that each country has in subsidies. in the agricultural sector, $15 billion a loan -- alone. how do we make progress on a global free trade?
we want to open marketplaces and export more and create jobs in this country. we prop up the agricultural sector. france tops of the egg or cultural sector. the farmers in japan, but the agricultural sector. -- the farmers in japan prop up the edgar gluck will sector. -- the agricultural sector. we will see gains longer-term by taking the subsidies, moving them out. i think it would be steps towards greater market reform in other developed countries of the world. we are not going to do it so long as ware there. we are the world leader. we still provide the rhythm for the global economy in this country. i believe the time has come for us to say, no more of the subsidies. i know that is painful.
i know you can find that everybody benefits. it is artificial. >> these companies are working on a product they believe they are going to make a lot of money on. they are going to keep going. they will find the money on their own. somebody will give them a loan. why are we paying? we are giving this money and paying so much. health care, $3,000 on a pill. >> is that the generator you are talking about? it is for real. [laughter] for example, let's get real about the big picture on subsidies. i also think we have a banking system that is too big to fail. what are we doing? it take a look at the top six banks in the country that have
reserves or access that is equal to 65% of our nation's gdp. they are propped up. they have an implied guarantee by the tpayer. if they fail, because they are too big to fail, everybody would close out if they went south, they get a bailout. capitalism without failure is not capitalism. if you are proppingp banks where they are too big to fail, something is wrong with that notion. that is not fair for the taxpayers. i am not sure goldman sachs with two hundred dollars billion in assets in 1998 to 2008, valued at $1.1 trillion, what has it done for the american people? are we better off or we do we assume more risk?
i say we are assuming a lot of risk by an implied subsidy. when you start having this discussion, you have to remember it plays out in ways we might not imagine. all the way through to the banking system. if we are going to get back on our feet, we have to take the structural issues like taxes and regulation to help care, let's take a look athe banking sector. you have the prospect of bank failures and massive bailout because if they were to go down, that would take way too ma people. institutions have to be able to fail. yes. >> the length of the politicking season and the drain on people such as yourself. i lived in england for 17 years. they have an lectionary. and dollar limit.
-- an electionary period and dollar limits. it seemingly never ends. recent court decisions have raised more money. i was wondering if there was any way to limit the season or the amount or are we whistling in the wind? >> the may be some hope. let me mention a couple of things. when i ran as governor, i ran on these things too. they were not to be. i feel strongly about them. one is term limits. some people do not like the idea that somebody would advocate for term limits. i think there is this thing called incumbency in this country that becomes so powerful and allows people be so entrenched that it is harmful to the system.
you need turnover. you need freshening up. you need new thinking and energy into the system. i think that would do it. when i ran for governor in 2004, i was advocating term-limits. i tried to get it through the legislature and was shot down. campaign finance reform. i think we need it. a lot of people might disagree with that as well. i am not sure it is going to happen during my lifetime. i would like tsee it. we have a serious problem. how do you bring it so it is closer to the people of the finance side? hovey bring it closer to the grassroots level as opposed to the people who can get involved at the highest levels? that is where we are today. it is wide open.
you can say that transparency is enough. i think it is very good. we need more transparency. at some point, we need to take a good look at campaign finance reform. it has been tried in the past. i do not need to review the history with the. we need to stick with it. shortening the season, why don't we go to the networks and say give people time, not in these debates, but give a candidate a chance to sit on the stage for an hour and a grilled them. it to the heart and soul of the candidate, what they believe cannot read and these records lines which is a waste of everybody's time what they believe. not these rehearsed lines which is a waste of everybody's time. what we doing in the uk? -- what were you doing in the
uk? >> i work for the defense department as a teacher. >> terrific. yes, sir. >> i go to a community college right down the street. i want to ask you what your take is on the occupy wall street movement. you said you want to represent the 99% and the 1%, i want to hear your take. >> i do not know. yeah no, -- you know, i don't like the anti-capital capitalism messages. people can speak out. that is what is beautiful about our company. when you live -- our country. when you live in a place like china, people organized as they well, -- will, i think it is a
manifestation of our democracy. i may not agree with it. i do not agree with a lot of what they say. it's a legitimate part of our system. i agree on the claims of dollars we are going through that everybody is upset on the trillions of dollars we are going through that everybody is upset about -- i agree on the print of dollars we are going through that everybody is upset about. do i agree that we will never bail out banks again? yes. do i agree that anks are too big to fail? i agree with that too. to be sure, eve generation has compelling issues that bring people out. when i was younger, the anti-war demonstration. there was a time when the white house was encircled. so was the defense department.
they were concerned, they had machine guns on the front steps. i have seen similar kinds of protests, the anti-globalization of relish. the anti-wto rallies. every generation will have their issues. i would rather have that than the opposite. we will take one more. i want to make a tour you get home tonight. -- want to make sure you get home tonight. >> it is well known, most people i speak to understand the lobbyists in the congress and the way they have a tremendous impact on the country. many people have told me that they do not think anybody we have ever voted for- that
there is the subset of people that are below the radar. what are you doing on behalf of the country? had it known to the general public. how the field but lobbyists in the congress? -- how would do you feel about a lobbyist in the congress? i think we had of legislation to limit their interest. what is your stand on that? >> i think they wield considerable power, may be indinately so -- maybe inordinately so. they have a right to love it. it gets back to who is raising money for you? what interest they represent?
i am not sure what can be done other than what i put forward on the tax reform side. clean house on corporate welfare clean house on subsidies. realistically, you can talk about measures oneight take. this would go farther than anything else. if you do not have while there to lobby for, welfare to lobby for, what are you going to loy for? -- welfare to lobby r, what are you going to lobby for? there is an inordinate amount of power and influence. that step alone would go a long way. i really do. i remember writg a note to my successor, governor of utah, the now governor, i put it on his desk, i said, we have a few people who have lobbyists on capitol hill, you of the
lobbyistor everybody else. the hill that wisely. -- handle that wisely. i would take that with me. there are a lot of people who do not have lobbyists, they cannot afford them. you have to have a leader who is going to embody and capsulate the aspirations of all people. i think that is what i would bring. >> the values of the common people. grew up with and try to live with have been diluted deliberately -- a lot of people in power. as a human being first, an
american second, you have a track record, y created jobs, you have tremendous experience. i think to have you speak more on some of these other areas of the world, how it impacts where we will go. it is extremely important. people do not understand the scope and depth of what you bring to the office. i think it is critical that people in this room get that out. >> thank you very much. let me end by saying this. we have to ask, does it add to the founding greed -- creed? is it making us a clear society? -- a freer society?
you cannot have pursuit of happiness without a job. if we are trying to do -- adding to that found in moscow, life, liberty, -- or taking away, that is what we need to be asking ourselves. we are unique in the world in terms of being a nation founded on that promise of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. we have to remain vigilant in terms of maintaining that. thank you all for being here. i am honored that with the uncertainty of getting home tonight in the snow you came out tonight to shake my hand. thank you very much. [applause] >> a pleasure to meet you. >> thank you, a real honor. thank you. that was the job. thank you. >> you have got my vote. >> honored to have you here.
i appreciate that. thank you for givi me a little bit of your time. nice to see you. >> good seeing you again. >> i appreciate that. he is terrific. >> good luck. >> thank you. yes indeed. it is a pleasure to see you again. it is terrific. >> i was going to ask you about the repatriation of american money overseas. >> that is part of our tax plan. you ha$1.20 trillion. >> that is a lot of money. >> how you get it back? you incentivize it. we did it once in 2004. -- 2006, where the tax rate was
>> next we talk with and they all reporter about the presidential campaign in that state. -- with an iowa reporter about the presidential campaign in that state. lead the republican pact. ron paul is third. the survey out jennifer jacobs is following this and joins us live on the phone. good morning, thanks for being with us.
caller: good morning. host: any surprises in the survey? we saw romney had shown strength and herman cain who won a straw poll yesterday in south carolina among those surveyed statistically just about even. cain at 23% and romney 22%. caller: i think some of the surprises were that michelle bachmann who won our straw poll has taken a dive. that was fairly surprising. as well as rick perry. his campaign has invested quite a bit of attention a iowa and his introduction has been a total bust. those are big surprises. but i think that the most obvious position people have taken is they say the two candidates that didn't spend very much time here are in the led. on the surface the message seems to be to the candidates the less
you are here the more we like you. but we drilled down deeper into the results and i think there is more there. and they want somebody who will fix the economy. so, it seems to make sense to them they picked romney and cain because those two portrayed themselves as the most business sense. our poll found, and this was striking and surprising, we asked do you believe that experience in business is more important or experience in elected office more important. and 71% said business experience is what they want to see on the candidate's resume. only 22% time in elected office is more critical. so they are going for the candidates who have expressed that business sense. let me go through some other numbers. michelle pwbachmann fourth, ron paul third. rick perry and newt gingrich 7%
and rick san form 5%. john huntsman at 1%. i mention the numbers because there is a story inside the washington examiner the cain train hopes to follow the obama path in iowa indicating that barack obama was able to begin to resonate in november and december in iowa and beat hillary clinton four years ago 10 weeks before the iowa caucuses. is this a similar strategy that would work for herman cain? >> i think it definitely could. these voters are not decided yet. 59% said they are willing to pick a different first choice. and quite a few, 15%, have no first choice at this point. so, the argument could be made that the support for herman kraeufpb is pretty -- cain is pretty soft but iowans think if a candidate comes to the state and lets them ask questions they
tend to be willing to look them over and get behind them. for cain to pull to of that obama-like strategy he would have to invest time here. think that people are willing to look at herman cain, but they are not locked in behind him yet. he would really have to be here for them to rally behind him in a concrete way. host: we are talking with jennifer jacobs who we've been check becoing with. she writes for t"the des moines register." another headline i want you to react to from the "washington post." a resurgent gingrich saying it s is stretching it to say he is making a compaq from the time when most of his operatives abandoned him but after a tough summer he is now beginning to make some strong showings. are you seeing that in iowa? >> he has been getting a lot of
applause for his speeches. when he talks to iowans they rave about him. efficient seen that in several forums. we had one last week before a christian conservative and they absolutely adore newt gingrich when he speaks. they like the details that he offers. he is very believable. they have a lot of confidence in him. but this is definitely not a surge for him. we polled in june and he was at 7% and he remains at 7%. host: jennifer jacobs, the headline herman cain and mitt romney leading there. ron paul is third. the poll is >> next a discussion with buddy roemer, a guest on today's "washington journal." this is 25 minutes.
2012 republican presidential candidate buddy roemer. another debate next week this one sponsored by cnbc in detroit focus on the economynd corporations. you are not part of the debate. you have not been part of any of these debates. why? guest:he only common thread on all nine debates so far is my absence. i don't know. at first the rules were -- and the rules are set by ch debate sponsor. and they change over time. the first three debates you had to be a formally announced candidate. i was n so i understood my lack of inclusion. the next they debates you had to have -- the next three debates you had to have 1% in five national polls. i had just announced, i had been out of politics 16 years and i was not well known. i didn'take the 1% cut. in the last that debates, or the next two, you had to be at 2%.
i hit 1% and you had to be at 2%. now that i'm at 2% the last debate had a new rule. here it is. you had to have raised $500,000 in the last 90 days. i had raised half at. i don't take big checks. money. take pac money is my somewhat. d that ruleprung up at the last second and i was excluded again. look, the debates can be a character tour. they are convoluted. sometimes they are t very good. but when you are running with small contributions and you are trying to get known in america, these debates are critical to a candidate like me. to be excluded time after time when you are the only person who has been a congressman and governor, when you chaenge corruption in your home state and helped clean it up, which is the same problem in washingn
now, i'm very frustrated by it. host: we will get to calls quickly and you can send us an e-mail or joins online at twitter.com/c-sp twitter.com/cspanwj. if you are on the stage with herman cain or rick perry or mitt romney, what is the biggest issue that divides you and the other candidates who are in the to they -- three positions? guest: money and politics. having ban - havin been a former congressman and governor it can't be done if the political leadership is owned by specl interests. and my question and the reason i got in this race is the fact that i will not accept the special interest checks. i think that they own washinon, d.c. four years ago in the presidential election, lobbyists and pacs in washington, d.c.
gave more money to the two presidential candidates than 32 states combined. no matter what issue you look at, steve, in america -- jobs, tprpl policy -- farm policy, addiction to oil, lack of energy independence -- you can look at the connection 2010 special interest money and lack of action in washington. so, if i were on the stage i ask, where do you get your money? what are your limits? and do you fully disclose everything you receive? they don't want to hear that question. host: let me ask you to react to two things. george wl a conservative writes it has come to this. in romney replicans have a michael dukakis. guest: you are a dangerous man. george always has a good
opinion. well, i'm different. i would stand u to china. i think unfair trade is killing us. if jobs are in a big bucket and we need 10 million more, how are we going to do that if there is a hole in the bucket and china is stealing the jobs? mitt romney, i want to defend him, me than all t other candidates at least talks about trying to do something. it is not enough and he is weak and he is late. he seems like a decen guy but i don't think that is the best candidate. we cano better. host: why is he not the best candidat guest: two reasons. one, he is hooked on the money. he's had two super pacs formed on his behalf run by former chief of staff or people that worked for him or were partners in his business. he has received checks of up to $1 million undisclosed. we need a leader free to lead.
we need somebody to stand up for the working pple of this country. we need somebody who understands small business. i have seen no evidence tha the candidates do that in any specificity. you need to be specific on where you get your money. it is my belief that the next president has a tremendously daunting task to rebuild america, not afghanistan, america. and that the way you do it is with several million small donations from plain and decent people. theodore roosevelt said it 100 years ago this month. party d the republican ar you going to he party of privilege and wall street, or the party of plain people? and today that measurement is the contributions. these guys, all of them, get
thei money from super pac's and special interests and big checks. i say no. host: how many people have contributed to your campaign thus far? guest: thousands. we have raised about a quarter million dollars from across america. all 50 states. louisiana is my best state. that is where i'm known. california is second, texas third, florida fourth. i'm in new hampshire now and that is building nicely. $100 is my limit. no pacs. i fully disclose all of my contributio contributions. for 50 years, since i was in politics as a young man, for 50 years the debate on contributions has been between th left and right. the left wanted limits. the right -- and i'm a conservative on the right -- the right wanted full disclosure. that has been the battle. we now live in a country where there are neither. there are neither limits nor
full disclosure. we have the worst of both worlds. if you look at banking reform, health care reform, jobs formation, they are owned by the large special interests and coorations. barack oba's jobs advisor is the president of g.e. who give $4.3 million to the democrats and republicans last time. he doesn't want fair trade. pay no taxes on $14 billion. ho: shelly joins us from minnesota on the line for republicans. go ahead, please. caller: thank you for c-span. i agree with you, buddy. however, to be realistic, a respectable and honorable what you are doing for campaigning it is an impossibility to win the presidency without that -- in the current way it is now.
look at president obama, expected to raise a billion dollars. cannot run a successful campaign ainst a billion dollars. guest: let me respond. that is a good point. host: and jody has this point, the biggest thing that separates buddy is the truth. he i willing to tellhe truth. that is why he doesn't have a chance. answer both of thos money and the truth. i'm not this cynical. i love america. but i'm afraid. we have permanent unemployment. we don't have fair trade. we let the big boys run the country. i'm asking a different question. i'm asking decent middle class americans and working people to stand up for your country. there is a head lane in the "new york times" that says middle class in india stand up to
corruption. we need no do the same thing. we are a nation in trouble and it will take bold action and a to lead.ee can i win this way? you t. in the primary i need a million people to give me $100 each. not 1,000, not 10,000, not a pac. $100. i need them to invest like they take a family of four to a movie with a meal. if i get that, that is $100 million inhe primary. we will win new hampshire and tear it up from there. number two, against president obama, who is raising a billion and more from special interests, i phaoemean who regular litted banks -- who regulated the banks? glass stegall is still dead. the size of the bank doesn't increase tir capital needs? what did he do, he goes to wall
street, has a fund-raiser, $35,000 a ticket and is hosted by goldman sachs. we are a nation in troue. we need to be free. we need to treat people fairly, but we need to get the country moving again. i cannot win with $100 million in the primary. that is more than mitt romney john mccain spent four years ago. it can be done. when i turn to face president obama, i will challenge himo give debates across america and we will have them that hours a time. we will have them in different regions of the country and we will talk about jobs and energy independence and we will talk about many segregation and we will talk -- we will talk about immigration and turng the around. most of all we will ask if he has a commitment to campaign reform. that is my number one issue. can i win like that? i need five million americans against president obama.
giving $100. he will have a billion, i will have a half billion and we can win. onlast story. i ran for governor of louisiana. i had no chance. i was one of six or seven people running. i was a lonely congressman. they laughed at me. i wouldn't take the big money, didn't take big oil money, didn'take big chemical money. i reported everything that i got. i took no pac money. and edwards used to laugh at me in the debate. he would point his finger at me and say that roemer is smart, he went to harvard when he was 16 and studied economics. but he can't win. we beat him. 16 million and we raised $1 billion and we beat him. it can be done. it is not about me. it can be do. if middle class america says enough already. let's stand up. host:arah joins us from sterling, illinois. independent line.
call: good morning. hi, mr. roemer. i was wondering what are your views on occupy wall street? and i also wonder why is congress not listening to the majority of the people just as in occupy wall street or all the polls they take it is like they will say 80% of the people want to increase taxes on the rich. but nothing is getting done. why a they not listening to everybody and all the people that are calling in? it is like we are being ignored. est: they don't haveime to listen. how can you listen if you have a fund-raiser every night? how can you listen if the b boys run the show? did you see health care reform? it was about insurance companies. it was about tort lawyers. it was about pharmaceutical companies. and they were all protected. there were no patients in the
ro room. there wereo nurses in t room. there were no doctors in the room. you can't buy medical insurance across the estate lien. pharmaceical companies are protect interested giving praise discounts. in fact, they are protected from legitimate, fair competition from canada. this is all about money and power. and that is why occupy wall street is so interesting to me. plus, i'm an old guy, i'm 68, i lived through the civil rights marches in the deep south where i grew up in louisiana and i'm proud of what young people did. we changed america. i remember the vietnam marches when i was in colge and i'm proud of what young people did. we got out of that war. we lost 59,000 bve m and thank god we didn't lose another 4000 young americans.
so, when young americans gather on wall street, they are a scruffy looking group. i don't agree with all of the agenda and don't endorse anything about them except this. i like their spirit. and they smell something, they see something, they know something that the average american who is working for a li and afraid -- working for a living and afraid of his job doesn't have time to think about. but occupy wall street is calling it to our attention. they are saying something is wrong in america. and it could being the bankers on wall street who gave themselves millions of bonuses and got bailed out by the taxpayer not one of them went to jail. maybe it is washington, d.c., where the politicians are lined with their lands out including the president of the united states to take their slick ill-gotten money in big
checks. it is not right. i went to occupy wall street. i didn't give a speech. i spent they -- three hours and 15 minutes listening, walking, shaking hands, encouraging them to be involved. i was here yesterday at the meeting on the mall. it was raining and snowing, but i spoke for just a few minutes. i' trying to get america to stand up. it doesn't have to be about me. my accent might be wrong. i'm a republican. maybe you don't like republicans. i actually have experience as a congressman and governor, and maybe you don't like that. maybe you want somebody that has never held office before. i don't know. what i am asking is that you get involv involved. i'm asking that away change america. i'm asking that we have a constitutional approach to reform. and the only way for that to
happen is for the president of the united states to lead. and our current president is doing nothing but talking about it. host: a comment from one viewer and then to jeff in boca raton, florida. jeff on the phone from boca raton, florida with governor buddy roemer. caller: thank you for taking my cull and if you could bear with me for just a moment, mr. roemer led with a quote from teddy roosevelt. let me lead if m, mr. roemer. teddy roosevelt said the measure government is how well the government treats its poor, now how well it treats its reach. and he was a republican in the days when republicans could hold their head up high whene had javits replicans and hugh scott republics and dirksen
reblicans. i will quote to you one other quote and that was mr. rockefeller when he ran for theubernatorial race in election against goldberg and he was being criticized because he was paying f ads 24 hours a day, 24-7, and he was questioned at the ti he saeid time, well, television is now the village green and if i correct i think it washe times said i think mr. rockefeller cop r confuses the village green for the rock term green. the condition is republicans have for many years had more money than the democrats and raised -- i can remember mr. bush in the campaign for president when he was doing badly in new york and called upon his texas pioneers for $25
million in a day. what i'm concerned about, sir, is the fact that these republicans who belong tohat i understand is a program called the family, they decide with impunity what our policies are going to be on some sort of deo-christian ethose and they have filibustered more bills. you just talked about mitt romney. he is quoted and it has been on the tv shows when asked about foreclosure in nevada where performance are losing homes, i think 14.5% of them are losing homes to foreclosure mr. romney says let the free market do its siness. host: i will stop through because we are short on time and give him a chance to respond. guest: as a conservative i
always laugh when people talk about the free market. youuoted mr. romney. let the free mart work. where was mitt romney when fannie and freddie was taking directions from the united states congress about making loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back? this country is up side down. i'm of a conservative and i like market principles. i think the market works best when you let it work. it does need broad regulation. you have a speed limit on a highway. it is there to save lives. i'm a smalltown main street banker. my bank that i built with the help of a lot of friends and business assoctes is about two-thirds of a bilon dollars. is successful. it didn't take any bailout money t. is profitable. and we restructured our loans without coming down hard on
customers. that is what the market allows you to do. but the reason these others don't d it is they are not market people. they are government sponsored enterprises. i mean t wall street banks, what are they? they are an ol gone my, a handful of people who take moral hazard. they attack risks with their loans. you know why? the government has guaranteed them a bailout. think about it. if you were guaranteed a living no matter what you di you migh do wild and crazy things because there would be no consequence. that is what our banks are doing on walstreet. they are wild and crazy and taking risks. ey are wanng to be as big as they can so their salary will go om a modest $200,000 each to each.llion that is what size means to the
bank. size hurts the rest of america. new to the point on what we can do in terms of the republican part i'm produced -- i'm proud to be a republican. i'm the only governor in america that changed from conservative democrat to republican. i like what the republicans have stood f for years in terms of a strong military defense. i like what they stand for in small business andrying to derelate them. these are important things. but our party has become a lot like the democrats. money, money, money, money, money, money, money. and there is no room for plain people and small pwebusiness. follow me, jeff. it can change. host: jim has this point on the twitter page.