tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 19, 2015 2:00pm-3:01pm EDT
they could be destroyed. when our business is destroyed, it could destroy a whole community. just a quick note, our forests are clearly overstocked. they are not healthy right now. that is why we have a bug epidemic. there are a lot of reasons that people look to. with those dead trees, the fires. my next challenge that strikes me currently is the exchange rate. the currency exchange rate between us and canada, canada on thened close to $.30 dollar in the last 18 months. guess what? lumber prices have toppled in the direct relationship with direct imports from canada.
trade, but ifree believe in fair trade. it cannot they -- cannot be a one-way street. isrd biggest issue i have getting a good quality education. find good educators. trying to find good educators and students to come to work for us has been a tough challenge. to find the students that want to move to a small community is really a challenge. -- managementan and really good electricians and high-tech. we are computers that cut around the curve of a tree comes so almost all of the equipment is high-tech. i'm on the board of trustees and i have constantly for 12 years
.ry to influence the university this generation is the smartest generation ever. this generation system once to push them in a different direction. i have confidence they will come up with the right decision. wyoming,is represents university of wyoming, steamboat . the institute here which is --i would like to see this represented here but i'm proud to be part of the steamboat institute and speak to you. god bless. [applause] you have all of -- opened the door.
i went to talk about the tax code and regulation and the number of other questions from the audience. first, yout with you and jim come from more long-term families. are more recent entrepreneurs and entered into the building -- business. the key to the american dream that so many of us cherish and have asked.'s. many think it is threatened right now. with a yes or a note, do you think entrepreneurship the opportunity to enter into the start your on business and live the american dream, is it getting easy -- easier or more difficult than it has historically been to whether you answer yes or no, tell me for --
briefly why you came to that answer. >> combination of yes and no. this room are competitors of me to come any orft brewers out there? two three in steve's post. blossomed in the past 10 or 15 years from nothing to relative ease of entry. they are not held to the same standards we are. clearly an opportunity to get in our kind of business. they have more talent in the regulatory reach of not only the
feds but state and local government will impact. two that story, maybe we have a retailer in boulder, from the got a letter local health department yet to -- food handling license in order to back ice. he called them up and asked what it into -- in tail. there is a fee renewable every year. offset 13 employees now him. probably have to let another go if i do this. he says by the way, who reads these things? he says we have -- people who file them. he said, i had 20 employees, i now have seven, and i probably have to let one go with this. he said, who reads these things? bureaucracy. even at the local 11, this bureaucracy is making it more more difficult for small businesses. i guess there is a combination
of opportunity and real challenge to succeed as entrepreneurs. mr. beauprez: a mixed bag. mr. coors: a mixed bag. mr. dietzel: i think the greatest challenge for other technology standpoint -- from the technologies standpoint is the government does not understand innovation. the government does not understand jobs. the government does not have any money to create jobs, it is our money. i think the government spends more time tried to regulate, and they spend less time trying to figure out how to open the door and create opportunity for new companies. i think people agree, it is all right to open the door and create more competition, but don't come out of the other side of your mouth, make it harder once you do succeed, and are becoming the american dream. then it is like, what i rather go out and succeed, or would i
rather punch the clock, fit in, not be out of the ordinary, not try to innovate, or worse, stay-at-home and punch the remote? mr. beauprez: heidi, you are certainly an entrepreneur. tell us what you have been through. ms. ganahl: it goes back to my earlier, about how easy it could be to start a phone, but then they have to go through all the red tape and crazy stuff that happens around starting a business. it could be so simple and easy to get so many more people into owning their own business, and flourishing, and they could do that very easily with the technology that is out there, but then you hit the wall of government overreach to the point where, i don't know if you know this, but in colorado, the department of agriculture tells us how many people we need to have in the dog play yard to monitor the dogs. we have to me a ratio of one to 15.
that is almost as strict as childcare. in other present the country, it is 1-25. it cuts profitability for our colorado franchisees. that is a lot less franchisees that will enter because of her regulation. i have sat with the department agriculture and said, how did you come up with this rule? she said, we just have a feeling. [laughter] i said, would he mean you have a feeling, i will show you this data that will prove it that we can do it 1-25. she said, that is not your job, go run your business, and we will tell you how to operate. i will remember that conversation. mr. beauprez: i bet you will.
in your business, what is the problem? mr. neiman: we are getting it -- ms. ganahl: we are getting it from all angles. they're going after mcdonald's first, but what they're trying to do is tie the franchise door to the franchisee. they are saying that we are now responsible for the 3500 employees, and if one person makes a bad hiring decision, often in another state, all of the franchisees have to pay for that mistake. what they're try to do is unionize the restaurant industry. they have not been able to do it because it is so heavy in the franchise. they are independently owned and operated businesses.
we do not control the employee at the franchise unit. it is a terrible day for franchises yesterday, as it is today. that decision was made by five unelected bureaucrats that obama elected, three of which are his buds. mr. beauprez: jen, the entrepreneurial opportunities, good, bad, a little bit of both? mr. neiman: if someone came to me, and said they want to get into the sawmill business today, looking back over the 80 years that got us here to where we are today, i would first talk to them -- i have some pride in the manufacturing side. if you look of this country, we are founded on the manufacturing side. it is new money. i have a certain pride in creating new money. i would try to encourage him. i would not do this, but, if he
asked, are there other opportunities? i would say, go to canada. they will give you all the timber you want, they will give it to you for free, almost, they will subsidize the labor, give you loans, and put you in business. and they would say, don't you do it down here, no, it is a different concept. i was try to think of what regulations, when you're dealing with forest services -- doug is an franchise, i think we do with everything, immigration, to some of the ones i mentioned from forest services, epa. i have people dealing with regulations day in and day out, even on the export side.
mr. beauprez: paul? mr. dietzel: i was thinking about this, if there is more opportunity to date than in the past. in thinking about it, i think there is more opportunity in america now than any other time in history because technology has opened the door for that. the problem why at the same time it is not the case is because the government has placed itself between the innovators and opportunity. mr. coors: when my grandfather got in the farming business, he became a farmer. it became a lot more complicated than when i showed up. ms. ganahl: it throttled financing. the small community banks are disappearing. those are what fund franchises and create jobs.
mr. beauprez: every politician, democratic and republican, wherever they come from on the political spectrum will say, i'm for small business, for progrowth economic policy, but the burden of government seems to keep getting heavier and heavier, and capital seems to be more difficult to access. job creation seems to be a little bit out there. today, we have a smaller percentage of our workforce eligible population actually working or looking for work that we have had in a generation. focus first on the tax code, then i want to ask you specifically even more about the regulation problem. is the tax code -- again, politicians will profess, we want to incentivize capital investment, economic growth, and job creation -- is the tax code friend or foe? thinking i might know the answer, tommy's cynically what
you would like to see changed in the tax code. they talk about in washington every election cycle, but if you could tell congress and the president what to do about the tax code, what would it be? let me start with paul this time. mr. dietzel: the real answer is not whether or not congress knows what to do, it is whether or not congress will act on it. they have all of these different invisible players out there that incentivize them to not act on it. you hear about it on tv every night. they talk about lowering the tax rates, broadening the base, getting rid of loopholes. you know all of the words that they use on tv. they all do it. both parties. they know that historically that is what works and deregulation works. that is what they tell us, then they go back with their buddies and d.c., and don't do anything. i don't think it is necessarily whether or not they know what to
do, i think it is they are comfortable with how it is. mr. beauprez: what would you tell them to fix? mr. dietzel: specifically, there's a handful of different things. i would simplify. i like to simplify and make things easy. as you know, from using our software, we like to make things easy for people. i would lower rates all across the board, and get rid of a handful of them. it baffles me, maybe because i'm 29 and don't understand such complex subjects, but the death tax boggles my mind. i don't understand how it works for people. mr. beauprez: it is criminal. mr. dietzel: it is. it goes back to the previous question, at the end of the day, it is about money, about control. that is what it is about. they can say they are for the middle-class, jobs, but at the end of the day, the government is about control.
how do you get control? you breed dependence on the system. mr. beauprez: you look like you are ready to go. mr. coors: pardon me. when i was campaigning, i had a conversation about the death tax. a bunch of contractors in the room, ken got up and said, we are talking about maybe $5 million per person as an exemption. and he said, certainly everybody in the room would go along with $10 million. i got up and said, how many of you in this room between you and your wife have $10 million? just a few hands went up. i said, how many would like to? i got the whole crowd. [applause]
i used to say, look, if you get rid of the death tax, one of two things will happen. either the kids will spend it, in which placed the money gets back in the marketplace, or they will be invested and bill jobs and the economy. there's nothing bad that can happen. mr. beauprez: heidi, friend or foe? ms. ganahl: i love to talk about capitalism, and how capitalism is not a curse word. if you look at the last 200 years of history, there are fewer people in poverty, fewer people that are hungry, all around the world, not just in the u.s.. there has never been more innovation than in the last 200 years. what happened? america, free markets, industry. if we are a lot of potential, it is not just about making money, it is about solving all of the world's worse problems. if we can let loose
entrepreneurs and innovation. if we can get rid of the irs. i like a fair tax. [applause] i sold camp bow wow to vca. i'm still executive director for little while. i said bye to 50%. i want to start another company right now? no. i have all of these him and opportunities, but will him and go work on my nonprofit and try to make a change that way. it's terrible. mr. beauprez: it is a major disincentive. something we have not talked about, the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
it does baffle me because i have sat in the halls of congress and heard these proclaims -- proclamations that we are incentivizing capital formation, business investment, those risktakers. are we incentivizing them or is the tax code holding us back? mr. neiman: the tax code definitely is holding us back. we have to find a way to simplify it. if we could abolish the irs, that would be good. i know we won't. i spend, in my company, a few hundred thousand dollars just to accountants. it would simplify and reduce my cost there just to figure out what our taxes are. a simple tax code would be good across the country. i'm like pete -- why are we utilizing the rich -- penalizing the rich?
let's stop the fight and let everybody get the chance to get there, like those who have $10 million. the death tax, i helped start an organization 15 years ago working on the death tax. that is double taxation, triple if you are a corporation. you have already paid at the corporate level, the personal level, and then you lose your father and mother, and paid again. from my end, there should be no death tax. it should be abolished altogether. i do care how wealthy you are. i know i won't get elected either if i take that tone forward, but that is my view. mr. beauprez: it is certainly a
big piece of how government regulates our every move. i have had economist say that if we were in a position -- a big if -- and business people were making their business decisions on what made business sense, instead of what the tax code told him to do, we would probably immediately add $2 trillion of economic activity to our gdp. simple fine, flattening, or making fair the tax code makes a lot of sense. let me move on to regulation. to put it in context, by the government own calculation, coming out of the business of administration, the cost of regulation on an annual business, just federal regular should, not state and local, is about $2 trillion per year. about $2 trillion. that exceeds a factor of 8-10 to one the cost of paying all of these taxes that we already said is a big disincentive. it baffles my mind when we have
all kinds of people, people in the business world, like a. , as well as major economists that say that certain pieces of legislation, an 800 plus trillion dollar package, obamacare, dodd frank, and on and on -- we impose anti-job, anti-capital investment regulation that compounds the problem. and not surprisingly, job creation and getting the economy moving again -- i will be the light -- has been a little sluggish. i would like to hear from each of you, and you have artie said that regulation is a problem, and that regulation is a problem, some civics. what regulations specific to
your business are most problematic? if you could, if you were in a witness chair in front of congress, and they said, what should we do? what one or two things should we do to fix the problem? what would have a big macro affect to get the economy moving, not to percent, or so, but 4.5%-5%? what would you tell congress? let me start with heidi this time. ms. ganahl: i have a lot to say about this, so i will try to keep it brief. i'm a firm believer in vote with your dollar. i think society would be a much better place if people had the choice to decide which companies to give their dollars to. as far as, if i was sitting in front of congress and asked them to do one thing, i keep thinking about when you were campaigning, your first day in office, and going through all the regulations in colorado, and
saying, no, no, no. someone has to swipe the slate clean. i don't think that will happen, but we need someone to go in to office with that attitude. mr. beauprez: count me in. jim? mr. neiman: i will go back to one of my first comments on epa. it takes the forest service about 5-10 years to complete a timber sale, and 2-3 years. the forest services hands are tied. guess what happens. they file a suit, and find one deal wrong, and the government reimburses the environmental
community for their fees, in some cases $700 per hour for the legal fees. that is incriminating. there are some bills to help that regulation be diminished and untie the hands of the forest service. mr. beauprez: in your business specifically, litigation has become a weapon of the war. mr. neiman: it has, yeah. mr. coors: how many filthy rich liberals are there in the room? [laughter] look, all those filthy rich liberals will be worried that someone will get hurt.
i think dr. carson hit it right on the head. by reducing the size of the government, we are generating 60,000 pages of new regulations each year. who writes those regulations? little underlings they get government jobs that pay nicely, and they can retire when they are 40 years old. if we can reduce the size of government, we will reduce the size of regulation, and eventually we can begin to repeal some of the stuff. as long as we have regulators, having the opportunity to keep writing regulations, they will keep writing regulations because it is job security. it is true of the federal level, the state level, and the local level. mr. beauprez: with some hesitancy, i will challenge my friend, pete. it is more like 80,000 pages out of the federal government and
another 20,000 out of our state government. 100,000 pages of rules propagated every year to control, as dr. carson said, everything we do. mr. coors: dodd frank is a great example. we put community banks out of business. we have not started a new community bank -- mr. beauprez: since the recession started, i think there has been one charter in colorado. mr. coors: and we have lost a whole lot of them. mr. beauprez: the imagination is working well. paul, i want to ask you, maybe even more specifically, since you volunteered that you are still under 30. [laughter] is it amazing what he has accomplished? [applause]
you are inspiring, my friend. your generation, sometimes i see some polling data, and pete charged on it, one that heidi mentioned in the last campaign, i kept talking about regulation. some statistics i have seen more recently, just in the last month or so, suggested especially among young adults, they have a very different attitude. they think they really need government to control those nasty big corporate executives that are out there preying on them, and government will somehow save them from themselves. if that is prevalent among the younger adult age group, and i think it probably is, how did that happen, and what we do about it to go i think it is anti-capitalism, anti-america, anti-free market.
mr. dietzel: i think it goes to the point that government has done a good job of one thing, making people dependen on it. there was a debate on letting young people stay on their parents' plans. who in the world would rather stay on their parents' plan, staying in their parents' house, or go out and have a good paying job, where they can go out and feel good about themselves, afford to go on dates -- it's a no-brainer. [applause] i think the reason you see that statistic is not that it is the optimal thought of young people, but what government has spread. you look at dodd frank -- it is also a lack of information being
given to the young people. i went and spoke to a group of about 100 students at a university, while i was running for congress. i said, how many of you have heard about obamacare? everything oh percent raise their hand. i said, how many of you have a debit card, financial loan, something financial, everyone raise their hand. i said, how we people know about dodd frank? to people. it was a misguided attempt to fix corruption in the financial market. i do you really think 20,000 pages of documents will fix corruption? know, all it did was make it more complicated, make it harder to find. that is what their intent is. they can say this all, "we the people," helping innovation, and all that, but it comes back to control.
they want to keep their dominion of their adc, and keep us back here, where we belong. i think, if you look at the numbers, talking about jobs, millennial's have the lowest employment in the history of our country. if you look at the age bracket, it hovers around 14%. in the african-american community, that number is 40%. that is unacceptable. it is because night after night, our government, and the people in congress, and not all people there are good people. for the people watching on c-span, there are good people in congress, just not all of them are good. [laughter] we live in a society that no
longer, as my grandfather's generation and parents generation, no longer rewards success and hard work, and no longer rewards you to be loyal. what happened to loyalty in our country and company? people would stay with companies for 30-40 years. one of my business partners was actually working for a company 50 years ago, and he created the small little thing that actually saved his company hundreds of millions of dollars. he started at the very bottom, and worked his way all the way to the top after 40 years, and was ford's best manage company -- forbes' best managed company in the 1990's. he knew his hard work would be rewarded.
today, going back to the initial question, young people do not see the hard work is rewarded. mr. beauprez: it is just not fair that someone is successful. mr. dietzel: right. mr. beauprez: i have time for one more question and then the audience? we will do that. i want to talk about the workforce and workforce readiness specifically. jim, i will open with you. you have the experience as the university of wyoming board of trustees, and set in your opening comments that education is an important issue to you. colorado springs in particular, i was talking with an official of the economic development council, and he pointed out a
paradox. i specifically went there because there unemployment rate at that point in time was among the highest in colorado. i asked how many people were unemployed -- i forget the exact number, but here is what i do remember -- he said we have postings that outnumber the number of unemployed by 2-1. more jobs available to people who are unemployed. and him and i said, that seems to be a paradox, what is the problem? he said, the job skills of those unemployed do not match the need, the skills needed for the job. i looked at a study, are they ready to work? this was an opening quote in the executive summary, "the u.s. workforce is woefully ill-prepared for the demands of today and tomorrow's workplace."
ceo's like the four of you had input into the study and said, yes, we need basic knowledge, academic skills, but what is more necessary in today's workforce is applied skills -- professionalism, work ethic, collaborativism, problem solving. here is the question after the publication. -- pontification. [laughter] can you find the workforce that you need? if you could not, what do we need to do to fix it? mr. neiman: first, i have such a strong passion for education, trying to help and have an influence on the education system from a business perspective. to me times, we tried to force our kids on college because that is the right thing to do, what
maybe a trade school, or something when be a better option for them. i was ever a little bit, if you do not mind, bob. i want to share with the crowd and experience that i had at montrose. almost three years ago, september 1, about a third of our workforce -- we did a study, and none of them used unemployment, none of them used the medical services, and they were all qualified. under the social security administration, we cannot look any deeper than that piece of paper that they gave us. it is illegal, we will get penalized. we used e-verify.
we found out that 30 of the employees were illegal. i said, wow, some of them had been there 10-14 years, some of them had children graduating from high school in the community. we have to make the tough choice. i hired a really good legal firm out of denver to consult us. the specialist said, this a administration hates you, they will not hurt the employees, those immigrants that are not legal, they are after us, that this guy. the fine would have been $16,000. i had to let 30 people go. that is one of the toughest situations i have ever been in. it was painful to see those good workers -- and they had skills. guess what we had to do? i just spent $8 million plus
automating what you had a chance to look at. that was my alternative because i could not find skilled workers to fill in their. i have a passion for the hard-working ethics that come from mexico to part of colorado. they have some of the passions that i see in my dad and granddad, the work ethic and strong faith-based family values that i had to let go. that really hurt. mr. beauprez: i do think they need to enforce the employer laws, but give you a system that is absolute, quick, and accurate, that you can live within the law. mr. neiman: i followed the law, but this is showing 20-30 years of broken laws, letting people come over the border, and not
having a proper system. mr. beauprez: pete, you have an enormous workforce. retaining workers, how tough are easy is it? mr. coors: it is a mixed bag. we have people who have been there 30-40 years. the younger employees tend to be more mobile -- the best word i can use. i talked to a banker friend in colorado springs, about one year or so ago, and he said, i'm having a hard time keeping my cashiers. i said, that is a nice entry level job, probably high school education required, minimal amount of skills -- be able to count, have 10 fingers.
they cannot make as much money at my wage rate, as they can if they go on unemployment. i don't know what the actual number is, but it is well in excess of $50,000 of income. you have to pay taxes before you compete with being on the government dole. went dr. carson was talking -- when dr. carson was talking about the hammock versus the safety net, we have way too many people in the hammock. if they were going to offer you that money, wouldn't you take it? the work ethic is something that is not being developed in our young people. we are saying this with our young people. we have to replace particularly technical people. it is very difficult to get people who want to take the time
and be apprentices, learned the trade, and have a lifetime career. truckers, they are offering $90,000 to truck drivers. we cannot find enough truck haulers to take our beer into the marketplace. i can be home and collect a check, why should i be in a truck, and be away from my family? these are the issues that we have to deal with. again, shrinking dependency on the government will go a long way towards developing talent. my great-grandfather came here, and your grandfather, and all of our ancestors came here. there was no safety net. there was no osha. there was no epa. there was no disability, no unemployment, none of this stuff.
they do not have a choice. now there is too much choice. [applause] mr. beauprez: you have outlined a very well. a follow-up question, can we get from here to there? mr. coors: people go to work out of necessity, they have to eat. if you take away their subsistence, they ought to be able to go get a job. all those jobs in colorado springs, they ought to figure out how to do those jobs. [applause] mr. beauprez: paul, you are in the high-tech is this. i suspect you need skilled people. can you find them, and on a broader scale, how about the work was in america?
and people entering the workforce, your age. mr. dietzel: a lot of it boils down to education. talking to a point that pete was talking about, the work ethic that was instilled in previous generations has not been intrinsically instilled in my generation. i think that is partially because the government got too big, and thought it could tell parents how to raise their kids. you are looking over your shoulder, and if you rebuke your child, think you might get thrown in jail for it. whatever, i don't have kids, i'm not married. in terms of the high-tech workforce, it is definitely a challenge to find people. there is a challenge, especially in the engineering type field. you see, every day, it has bred this transient shift of employees.
that is why you see news of lawsuits between google, facebook, and these others because they are stealing employees. that stems back to the fact -- going back to what jim was saying -- the government is pushing people to go to college, graduate school, in the name of an equality, we are seeing that everybody needs to go get the same kind of degree. the problem was that is when they graduate, and go to find a job, there's only so many of that type of job. quite frankly, they're more jobs these days that you can get without having a college degree. most of my employees, or maybe half, had no background in what we do prior to coming to us.
we train them. mr. beauprez: they have basic skills, and then you train them. mr. dietzel: exactly. we will teach them the rest. my cto has almost become my educator in chief, helping employees develop and grow their skills. i think you see that across all industries. i do not think there is a job shortage. i think there is a worker shortage. i do not think there is a people shortage. i think that there is a worker shortage. but i don't think there is a people shortage, if that makes sense. mr. neiman: we could spend a lot of time -- mr. beauprez: we could spend a lot of time on this. ms. ganahl: i think the key is education reform. like ibm is doing. things like that where you get employers telling the education system what skills they need and
offering apprenticeships and internships. i think it is switzerland or sweden, one of them has a graduation rate of 97.4%. that is because at the beginning of their sophomore year, they are partnered with a company so they graduate with wonderful skills and great jobs. mr. beauprez: excellent point. a resurgence of what they are calling now career technical education. but actually teaching job ready skills to vast numbers of young people that maybe they can, after they get that degree -- and >> a really good example with -- mr. beauprez: yes. >> if you get a chance, take a look. the success rate coming out of their is outstanding. mr. beauprez: and one day a week, they are doing just what heidi talked about. ms. ganahl: and they get to pick who they want to work with, so they get to pick their passion.
mr. beauprez: excellent. mr. dietzel: education is really like technology in many ways. in the technology industry, if you don't innovate, you get left behind. we are educating the future for the 1960's. we've got to start educating the future for the future. [laughter] mr. beauprez: very well said. very well said. >> [applause] mr. beauprez: we've got a microphone over here, and gary has won over here. so, who do we -- kevin has a question. kevin, you've got a big enough booming voice could just let 'er rip. >> [indiscernible] i want c-span to hear this. no, i'm kidding. [laughter] i'm kidding. i have kind of a loaded question for you. i think education in america sucks. i think that -- it is a racket by the government to get people
to go, you know, they keep raising the rates and you put scholarship money and and it has become a farce. here's is my comment and kind of a question. i believe that a lot of the affirmative action and diversity programs that are being regulated you know essentially forced on businesses is what is in him ruining your businesses. you talked about bringing people into the -- [indiscernible] there are people -- i will say it, black people, we don't want to come to towns and the in for a street. -- in forestry. you are dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. pardon my french. [laughter] so here is my question. you've got companies like the retailers, jcpenney and what have you, that have been forced to hire three-foot tall
guatemalan women because they fit some profile. and they are all in triage going out of business. and then you got places like google and some of the high-tech people you're talking about that they say, hey, we will hire anybody. which i think is the american way. let's bring the best. you bring me the best, i will hire them. i don't care if they are eight-foot, purple, from somalia. if they can code, i can hire them. from an hr perspective, do you feel like i feel that government social engineering of business is really what is the downfall of business? because when americans say bring us the best and brightest, that is what we want. we don't care about what your religion or creed or color is. do you feel that way? i will put you on the spot if you don't want to answer on public tv. mr. beauprez: who wants a shot at that? mr. neiman: boy, what a great question.
i want to cheer you on. i have documents about this stick a have to monitor every month. thank you god the head of my construction visit, his daughter married someone from louisiana. you have to monitor what percentage in your area -- and that one person got us up to speed, otherwise i would have been find. [laughter] >> [indiscernible] mr. neiman: [laughter] and he is still a great person and a great worker. and he is about four and half foot tall. [laughter] mr. beauprez: you've got some experience with this. mr. coors: i agree with you. our k-12 education system is really in trouble, and it is shameful. it is really shameful. and we are trying to deal with this and colorado and jefferson county now.
i have a recall election because they are doing things right and the teachers union doesn't like that. teachers unions are all about -- about the union, and not at all about the kids. >> [applause] mr. coors: i think there is places and reasons to have unions, what our kids need to get educated and they need to get educated well. when colorado succeeds -- i have an executive assistant who sisters daughter goes to the school that has a "d" rating. when she found out, she said, well, why do you want your daughter to go to this school? so, we love the teacher. so parents have to get on top of this. those who have parents that care.
but, you know, we are -- i don't think that -- you know -- minority hiring and all the stuff has been the cause of any real significant issues. in fact, i think it has helped us. our problem at higher management levels is finding -- we like diversity. the problem is getting young people who are willing to work to start. and i give talks to employees and say, look, you have to start somewhere. everybody wants to be president. you've got to start. when we talk to college kids, they say, well, i have this fancy education. i say, why don't you go be an apprentice and learn the business and pretty soon you will be the supervisor. and if you are a good supervisor, you will be the manager. and then you will be the depot guy. and that is how the system works. young people want instant gratification, and we have taught them that and they get it
on their iphones with facebook. it is like a candy store. they don't understand. you have to start somewhere. that, timmy, is the key. i don't care what your race, religion, or anything else is. you've got to get started. can we get one more -- mr. beauprez: can we get one more question and? where? >> [indiscernible] i say that we -- thank you. we pay a lot of taxes for the public schools. of course, i used to go to public school. so i say that that -- that we pay money for a terrible purpose. number one, the teachers don't andnumber one, the teachers don't really -- they are, like, every lesson that i almost had in a public schools was probably a review lesson from kindergarten.
number two, the kids were just -- the teachers never really cared what anyone did. so it was just -- and we are paying money so that they can get paid for doing absolutely nothing helpful in a kid upon education -- kid's education. so, i just -- just what can we do to fix that? >> [laughter] [applause] >> what is your name? one of the things we will do to fix that is the next time you put a panel together like this, jack, you will be a peer. [laughter] mr. dietzel: thank you for the question. how many people were prepared for the job by the department of education? seeing there are none, we will move on.
anybody in the tent? no, they are not because the department of education does not educate people. over the past 20 years, you have seen an increase in the amount of administrators that has doubled. it has double the rate of teachers and researchers, which has increased at a higher rate than students. what is happening as we are increasing all the bureaucrats, and that is raising our costs. the costs of education are going up -- down, while the costs are going up. in no other world would that work except for education because the government has so deeply rooted its hands into our education. i think that is one of the first things we have to do is get rid of the department of education. >> [applause] mr. dietzel: we could each take a department and get rid of it. to talk about the money side, taxes -- so, education in
america is not underfunded. it is not. $600 billion annually, and i don't know the exact number. somewhere around $600 billion a year. and, you know, you think about that -- we pay all these taxes. why do we pay all these taxes? because the government is doing way more than it was ever intended to do. the biggest thing is to shrink the size of the government. i am not advocating for the government to give a $600 billion, but i do think we would probably run it better than the federal government. i think it is all about shrinking the government. it is about reducing the bureaucrats and getting back to rewarding educators because the more you increase the costs of the administrators and the bureaucrats and all these people, you are also having less money to pay the actual people that are educating our kids. if you have less money to pay the people that are educating our kids, then the next generation is going to say i can
get a job better doing something else or i can just said at home. so they are not going to be educators. my mom was a teacher. and the education system that we had prior to the department of education, which wasn't all that long ago, with so much better than when the the common of education came in and said, oh, listen, we need to take your of it. that fits directly into your question. we've got to continue the discussion and continue electing people that will reduce the size of government because the more that we increase government, the further the quality of education will go down. mr. neiman: i just want to answer jack on one thing. that is partly what is missing in america today. i have real issues with the education system, but we have lost the family value in so many
kids. so many kids are raised by a single-parent. the american family household has to get back together and figure out and raise the standards themselves. and they go in and help the in standards of those teachers back up, like what used to happen when i was a kid. and happen when i was a kid. thank your parents for me and what they do. i want to give them a hand. >> [applause] mr. beauprez: do we have time for one more, jennifer? >> i am told we have time for one more question. mr. beauprez: here we go. >> can you hear me? it is really a statement. as an entrepreneur, i feel all the pain that you feel. i have had the exact same experience. but there is hope because from central illinois, we started a little class. 40 business people went together to pay for it. that was eight years ago.
and we take high school seniors and each child has to start a real business. and the things that come out of that class are amazing. an example would be if i make any money, i'm going to give it all away because they think it is evil if you make a lot of money. but that class has grown. we are now in four states. it takes about a year to put the class together to start it. we are not going to be in 45 communities. and i am hopeful after the meeting yesterday we will have one in steamboat. this will be our first one in colorado. and it is transformational what those kids are learning. they understand what it takes to start a business. and a 17-year-old said to me, i don't have to pay taxes, i am only 17. so they don't have a clue. but there is hope. i identified with everything you said. education is everything. thank you.
>> [applause] mr. beauprez: panelists, thank you very much. this was better than i even expected. and i had high expectations. [applause] mr. beauprez: thank you, panelists. thank you very much. >> enjoyed it. announcer: the senate judiciary committee meeting. that chair of the committee, chuck grassley, the ranking member, patrick leahy of for mott. -- of vermont.