tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 5, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EST
overseas. perversion, but under the tax code it is called an inversion. we will make you pay for that with a new exit tax. and if a company like nabisco outsources and ships jobs overseas, we will make you give back the tax breaks you received here in america. if you're not going to invest in us, why should taxpayers invest let's take that money and put it to work in the communities that are being left behind. let's enact policies that promote long-term investments, like capital gains taxes that only scale downward for truly multiyear investments, but are higher for short-term. let's promote inshore innovation and investment with new tax credits that make it profitable to take the high road rather than the low road.
like michigan ladder company, which has been operating for over a century. they have stopped buying fiberglass ladders from suppliers in china, and started making them here in michigan. i know it made more financial sense. we have got to help other companies discover what they can do as well. i am not asking corporations to be charitable, although that is important. i am asking corporations to realize that when americans prosper, they prosper as well. the idea of corporate patriotism might sound -- the smart thing to do as well. that leaves to the second part of the new bargain, companies will have to start treating workers like assets to be invested in, not cost to be cut. [applause] look at what is happening, these
days are biggest companies return eight or nine out of every $10 they earn directly back to shareholders. either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. they are also -- many of them sitting on huge cash reserves. often stashed in foreign tax havens. that is money they are not using to train their workers, or give them a raise. even worse, the link between rising productivity and rising pay has snapped. productivity goes up still, profits go up, executive pay goes up, stock prices go up, but workers are being left behind. in an economy that is 70% consumption, that is a big problem.
it is not have to be that way. in the 1990's, when we had another democratic president that i think did a good job. [applause] in the 1990's -- when productivity rose, the typical family income also rose by $10,000. some of you remember that. in fact african-american family income went up as a higher percentage because there were so many jobs and people really making progress. it is good for everyone when workers's incomes go up. america grows with your paycheck rose. -- when your paycheck grows. mostly just helps wealthy
people. for many in the hands of working people helps everyone, including businesses. that is why we should raise the federal minimum wage. [applause] and fight for even higher minimum wages in places where that make sense. -- makes sense. it is why we should provide incentives for companies that invest in training for employees, which can lead to higher paying jobs. we should create a tax credit for employers that share profits with their workers. automakers here in detroit know the value of transparent profit-sharing plans that come on top of it wages. -- a good way to. -- good wages. we have to take on a good reason why paychecks have not moved and good jobs are scarce. that is the diminishing power of labor unions.
[applause] as you know well, unions helped to bring back the auto industry. [applause] no one gave more to detroit and michigan during these past few years. union members build the city's, -- build the cities, keep the lights on, and care for our children. the relentless assault on labor, and the erosion of worker bargaining power has not only affected worker pay, it is also a key reason why overtime rules have not been updated in decades. and why family-friendly policies like paid leave, earned sick days, and fair scheduling have not been widely embraced. [applause] inequality has been widened by the declines of unions as well. we did stand up to republicans
in washington and the house is like here in michigan, who do everything they can. [applause] to reduce union power. we need to stand up for workers. when unions are stand -- strong, families are wrong and america's wrong -- and america is strong. [applause] the third part of the new bargain is government stepping up too. too often washington only works for the wealthy and the well-connected. you know it, i know it, everyone knows it. like what republicans in congress that when they cut off unemployment benefits are people laid off in the great recession who were still working, -- looking work. -- looking for work. darwin candidate thomas trillions of dollars in tax cuts to go mostly to the rich. this needs to change.
american interest have to come before special interest. american workers and jobs have to come first. one area where we have got me balance wrong over the years is trade. the good news is, america's exports are up 40% under president obama. [applause] i was proud to work with him on that when i was precarious -- i was proud to work with him on that when i was secretary of state. there are real benefits. looking back over the last decade, as globalization picked up steam, there is no doubt that the benefits of trade have not been as widely enjoyed as many predicted. especially when the bush administration failed to enforce our trade laws or stand up to
china. corporations may have one got -- won, but many workers lost. they lost jobs, their sense of purpose. cheaper goods are no substitute. america has to do better. there are people in both parties who think we can somehow shut ourselves off nor -- off from the world. even if the united states never signed another trade deal, globalization is not going away. our challenge is to establish and enforce fair rules so our workers compete on a level playing field, and countries do not race to the bottom on labor, the environment, and so much else. the way we enforce trade rules right now is completely backwards. we put the burden of initiating trade cases on workers and unions. we do not take action until after the damage is done.
which often means, after workers are laid off. that is ridiculous. the government should be enforcing the law from the beginning so workers can focus on doing their jobs. [applause] and enforcing trade laws, means dealing with one country above all, china. when it comes to trade china is by far the worst rule breaker in the world. it dumps cheap products in the market. subsidizes state owned enterprises who undersell and the global market to hurt our companies. it discriminates against american companies. now that china's economy is slowing down, we can expect even more bad acts from them. it will look to dump products
overseas to make up for lost demand at home. we have to stop that right now. we have to prevent, not just china, but other countries from manipulating their currencies to gain an unfair price it vantage. i will do this -- price advantage. i will do this, i will expand the wage we respond -- the way we respond to currency manipulation to include duties and tariffs. i know something about china. i have sat across a lot of tables from chinese leaders, discussing and negotiating, and arguing about the toughest issues -- nuclear weapons, cyber warfare, human rights, currency, climate change, and more. i know firsthand that the relationship between our countries is the most complex and confidential in the world -- consequential in the world. the next president will need the next president will need to judgment and expressed to steer that relationship in the right
direction, on trade in everything else. -- and every thing else. when it comes to trade deals, here is my standard. i will not support any agreement unless it helps create good jobs and higher wages for american workers and protects our national security. [applause] i need to be able to look into the eyes of any hard-working american, anywhere in our country and say this deal will help readers your income -- raise your income. that is why i voted against the last trade deal called have to -- called have to. it is why i don't support the transpacific trade deal. our policies cannot just be about stopping trade abuses and outsourcing, they also have to be about creating jobs, and higher wages here at home. i agree with my esteemed opponent, senator sanders, we need major new investments in
infrastructure. i have put forth a $275 billion plan that would put millions of americans to work. modernizing our word -- roads, bridges, railways, airports. finish the job of come -- connecting all american homes to high-speed internet. [applause] and we will also rebuild our crumbling water systems in flint and around the country. [applause] i also want to create a national infrastructure bank to put private capital to work alongside taxpayer dollars. we have so much work to be done in this country. we need everybody contributed. -- country beating -- contributing. the longer we wait to deal with climate change, the more expensive it gets.
[applause] but if we start today, we can create good paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. we can become the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. and we can protect our kids health and futures in the bargain. so far so good, but that is not enough. we need to invest in dynamic sources of growth like small businesses, manufacturing, and technology. i am the only candidate on either side in this race who is actually -- has actually put forward a plan to endorse entrepreneurs and remove the barriers that stand in their way. [applause] you know you see the power of small businesses right here in michigan with companies like detroit bikes and mcclurg pickles.
they create jobs, they make the city a dynamic, attractive place. the sad truth is, more dreams die in the parking lot the banks than anywhere else in america. people come with a good idea, and they get turned away. we have to increase access to start up capital. get more help to community banks so more entrepreneurs can get their dreams off the ground, and compete for your business. one important tool to support both small and big business is the export, import bank which helps businesses reach new markets and compete for new customers. unfortunately republican in congress, along with senator sanders have tried to kill it repeatedly. he also stood with republicans against another important job creating tool, the new market tax credit. that has helped steer investments into neglected communities. that does not make sense to me.
we should never let ideological -- ideology get in the way of americans fighting good jobs they need and deserve. [applause] so i think your next president has to offer a serious proposal to jumpstart manufacturing. with the right policies and investments we can ensure america continues to have the world's most competitive auto and auto parts industry. this is not a new fight for me. in the senate, where i represented new york, i also represented some great manufacturing towns like rochester and buffalo. i worked closely with like-minded senators like debbie stevan a. we reached across the aisle to start bipartisan manufacturing caucus. this is a priority for me. to help our manufacturers use all of the latest science to forge stronger steel and we've tougher -- weave tougher fabric.
i remember how hard i had to work to protect jobs against china. we had to battle the chinese against intellectual property and fair competition. we had to battle the bush administration directly go to bat for a blue-chip american company, but it was with her -- it was worth it. companies like corning show how trend -- technology can transfer the economy for the better. that creates entirely new industry. it is a powerful force for prosperity and improved quality of life. the next 20 years are poised to be even more transformative than the last. i think it is exciting. you can see that oliver michigan. -- all over michigan.
in ann arbor and other places. you cannot have a candid conversation about the jobs of the future without also talking about the challenges posed by technology, automation, and mechanization. we have -- this technology is a force for good, for all of us. as we lady foundation for a brighter future, we have to look yield with the legacy of the past -- we have to deal with the legacy of the past. there are too many economic barriers that disproportionately hold back communities of color. segregation in school, a huge opportunity gap. we need a conference of commitment to invest in all communities, anywhere that have two long been neglected -- too long been neglected. let's work to replace the school to prison pipeline with a cradle to college pipeline. [applause] let's help the millions of people coming home from prison every year find new jobs, not closed doors.
[applause] i want to work across our country. not only in urban communities, but in cold country -- coal country, indian country, i want to do everything i can to help immigrants who are forced to live in the shadows. here's the bottom line -- creating good paying jobs have to be a top priority. we have to build on the progress we have made the president obama -- made with president obama. as we learned this morning, more than 242,000 jobs just last month. [applause] but you know what, i am not taking that for granted. we have to make sure we have much more in the pipeline so that every american has a chance to get ahead and stay ahead. don't let anyone tell you we cannot do this. as i said in the 90's, we made incomes rise for everyone. we have seen the auto industry
pull together and recover from the brink of collapse to record sales. we have done this before. i will tell you, when i hear people running for president who spend all of their time badmouthing america, it really upsets me. you know what, we have work to do. instead of complaining, let's join hands, lift ourselves up. let's make a difference. let's build tomorrow. let's make sure every american has the same chance to live up to his or her dog given potential. -- god-given potential. thank you so much. [applause]
the idea came from my editor. idean't offended by the but i do not want to do it because i didn't think anybody would care. in journalism, you want the story that people will care about. it seemed silly. he kept insisting and we needed .o fillso i was like, find then he said, it would only be one time, a satirical common. people just went nuts for it. some people hated it. caring and crazier
at the bottom -- i put, hey, you have a question about mexicans? i'm the next 10 and up and my personal e-mails of people called me on my blog -- >> announcer: on american history tv -- >> john and his partner go up to san francisco which is where a lot of german immigrants are perhaps actually able to -- i find a very shocking -- able to convince 50 people of whom nobody was a farmer and only one person had to background in winemaking give up their businesses income to anaheim. in their first action was known as the los angeles vineyard society was to hire hansen to be there superintendent his job was to bring irrigation here, laying out the site, and plant actually
hundreds of thousands of grape vines of families would come down here -- >> watch the c-span cities torment c-span2's book tv. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates across the country. interview with ryan's sean hannity question him about the presidential nomination process. the parties preparations for the general election and the possibility of a brokered convention. this is 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, julie
>> how are you doing? i gave out when thousands of balls last night. welcome to chairman of the rnc. >> thank you. so good to see you all. there is the liberal media. the new york times, you have to leave. welcome, everybody. what did you think of the debate last night? i will say this, at the end of this process -- if you are here at my speech yesterday, you know that i ask people to stand, and at the end of the process i say, if your guy does not win, we support the nominee? i think it is important if we want to save the country from another obama term, which would be hillary, that we have to unite.
let me turn to your m -- to view and ask, talk about the rnc role. >> whoever the nominee is from our party will get the full backing of the republican party. we set out a process. it is simple. we set out a process, republicans are voting a lot of the states. they bind delegates to the convention, and then at the convention, obviously it takes the majority of the delegates to become the nominee, and that person joins the republican party. i know i have tried to make this case, and it takes longer than you have on a 32nd response on television, but i went to calibrate every one in remind you what is going on. we have candidates competing to
be the nominee of the republican party, who want to join the republican party. at our convention in cleveland. when they join the republican party, obviously, they take in what we have been able to build the rnc. we do not take sides, regardless of what you may think or read. there is no side that we take at the republican party. we build a lot of the things that you might think are boring like data, engagement, turnout, absentee ballot programs so that i know everything you buy, don't buy, what car you drive, how much money you make. what beer you drink. sean: what do i drink? reince priebus if i had to guess coors light? sean: coors light. if you have a headache this morning from drinking too much last night, if you have a headache, it is not your fault.
it is bush's fault. reince priebus: there is nothing controversial about a party that has their act together. we were embarrassed in 2012. we bragged about -- we were reading about everyone bragging about what barack obama did on the ground. we have to do the same thing. the candidates right now are not worried about buying data licenses and building user -- user interfaces. my question is who is doing? the answer is, the republican party. they have to get what we built in order to win. if you are for ted cruz, marco rubio, donald trump, they need to have a national party that has its act together. that is what we are all about.
this is important. -- sean: this is important. if you look at the turnout this year, it is almost identical in terms of the enthusiasm that barack obama had in 2008 and the democrats were down 33% in the primary. that would tell me enthusiasm is on our side. right track, wrong track, a vast majority of americans and we are on the wrong track. that would be a good indicator this could be a great year for the republicans. reince priebus: you are seeing historical turnout across this country that we have never seen before. we have 17 million people watching the foxnews debate. sean hannity: you have the ratings already? reince priebus: the point is, there is drama. reince: the point is, there is some drama. we know that. there is some intrigue. with that comes an incredible amount of enthusiasm. we called a program called republican leadership initiative. we have some people out there that are a part of it. we have over 10,000 people that have signed up for six weeks of
training to be ready to go in all of the targeted turks that we have identified. sean: this is going to be new this presidential election. that is you have basically adopted what the democrats very wisely had adopted for barack obama, and that is targeting every voter in every county in every state, that when it comes election day, they will be getting calls and reminded to go out and vote, how important this election is. reince: exactly right, but we have to admit something. we are a midterm party that doesn't lose but we have a hard time electing presidents. we have to figure out how to win, but we had to win a cultural vote in this country. that is a different process. it requires total immersion, complete saturation in communities, in many cases that we do not represent in congress or state legislature. if we do not put 10 people every
10 blocks and target the states -- we are not just talking about fracking and clean coal. you have to talk about the issues that matter in communities. we also have to do things like have pizza parties, get to know people, and cash in -- sean: maybe they would be happier with coors light. i have a serious question here. you heard mitt romney's speech yesterday. you all heard it? i voted for mitt romney, i thought he would have been a great president, and i was not happy with the speech yesterday. when he is suggesting is more important, and what the audience want to hear from you -- what he is suggesting is that people in ohio vote for john kasich and the people in florida vote for rubio. in other words, there seems to be a strategy to target one candidate and force a brokered
convention, which i would argue probably is not good for you or the republican party. i think the people ought to decide. [applause] reince: the people are going to decide, that is the point. there is no way that the delegates are not going to decide. hang on a second. if you were at the convention, you would be bound on the first vote, and the majority of you would choose the nominee. whoever the majority chooses will be the nominee of our party. so that is our pledge to you. the other thing i would say is this. a lot of this is early talk. just so you understand, there are 1237 delegates needed to be the nominee of our party. there are 1744 delegates left to be distributed. we are a long way to go.
in fact, everyone is talking about ohio and florida, but between now and that day, there are 14.5% of delegates yet to be distributed. we have four states going this saturday, another four on sunday, puerto rico. the odds of a contested convention are very small. i have been saying that for a long time. sean: could i give you a hypothetical? i'm not putting you on the spot. let's say we go to the convention and rather than getting people worked up, let's say candidate a is leading by a significant amount does not -- but does not get to 1237. we go the first round of voting he does not get the 1237. it is now the second round and the delegates are freed up, they can go anywhere they want. let's say the candidate has the most delegates but did not get the nomination on the first
vote, ends up losing the nomination. don't you think the people that are with a guy they got the most votes are going to be angry at their guy is not win? reince: the last time we have been through this -- first of all, you should all become delegates to the convention. the last time we have been through this if it did happen, which i think is highly unlikely and i said -- sean: what are the odds it will not happen? reince: i don't know. 85%-90%? i think people want to know just in case. just in case, we will play that game, i think what would happen would be going back to 1976. one round, reagan challenged for the convention and ford won. in the second round you still have the same rules that apply.
the majority of states to be nominated. sean: every delegate can switch. reince: in most cases. and some they are bound for two votes or three votes. some cases they are not bound at all even on the first vote. delegate allocation rules were not something we started with many years ago. it used to be our party would have a convention and at the convention the people on the floor would choose our nominee. you would all compete in the states to be the delegate. maybe you are heading up one of the republican groups and you became a delegate from wisconsin or whatever and you would show up and vote. at some point some people said i have an idea. why don't we tie a primary or a caucus to the actions of a delegate so we can get more people involved?
that is how all these rules came into play. suddenly you have delegates going to the convention that are now tied to the outcomes of caucuses and primaries. if that were to happen, we are sort in territory our party has not seen. again, highly, highly unlikely. sean: i've tried to explain both on radio and tv and i don't know if this is confusing. it's confusing to me. we have in some states proportional distribution of delegates. we have ohio, florida, winner take all states. why would it be better, and i'm thinking out loud, to maybe have a universal system for every state where perhaps when he the congressional district will be the determining factor of whether or not you get the
delegates were not in that district? reince: there are states rights. sean: i am not against states rights. i am a right-winger here. everybody loves uniformity and clarity. you admit it is confusing? reince: at the same time i would bet this crowd, the last thing they would want is a republican national committee dictating to all the states and territories exactly how they will operate. [applause] we have a system to take a national candidate. sean: i get that. reince: those are debates we have constantly. a lot of these folks have been delegates or at conventions in every four years we debate. should we start with iowa and new hampshire and south carolina? why not another state. the winner take all in the proportional calendar. people are debating that right now. is the process too fast or too slow? those are debates we have. as of now we have proportionality through march
14. on the 15th state can go winner take all if they want to. sean: why can't they prior to march? reince: we put in a rule years ago to add the entire month of march to be proportionate. remember in 2012 the entire month of proportional. the rules committee, which a lot of people here hated in tampa, they think they cut proportionality in half. they actually added two weeks of proportionality. as a convention to removed proportionality. they took the five states and made it an eight state majority. we added in two weeks of proportionality said he would not have a national primary in the first two weeks of march. sean: it is sort of related. in any way as the chairman of the rnc doesn't bother you that there seems to be an effort to
get to the brokered convention, which you say is not going to happen, but it seems to be a locust rated, planned out campaign outline the governor romney yesterday to get her brokered convention. reince: at some point -- this is interesting. sean: you don't think it matters that they spend money? reince: they can do with they want to do but eventually the voters are going to vote and they will decide. and are getting to vote or not getting to vote. sean: they are trying to influence the process and await it would be disruptive, right? reince: it is a strategy that people can use. look, i would suggest it's better to win races and acutely delegates. sean: i want to get a feeling from the crowd. the fact that there are people we don't even really know who they are have designed a plan to
create chaos to me. reince: i would prefer reagan's 11th commandment. sean: did you watch the debate last night? reince: fox news, right. fair and balanced. sean: i think what the most important thing and you have been very -- you have told every campaign you are neutral. you have told every campaign at the end of this process only have a candidate you will support. what does that mean for the candidate? you talked about targeting voters. what does this mean when the rnc gets behind -- reince: when i walked in the door at the rnc we were $26 million in debt. credit cards suspended for nonpayment. sean: he sounded a democrat. reince: we had about 80 employees. we have moved on to thousands of employees. we are covering district across
this country in ways we never have before. we invested over $100 million in data. we are twice as big as the dnc. [applause] sean: how is your money going into -- reince: it goes directly into funding the mechanics, the ground game, the data operation. we have far more. if anybody wants to look this up and check the rnc versus dnc fundraising, it is not even close. unfortunately the dnc is not our competition. our competition is hillary clinton, that machine, and they built their program differently. they built it around a candidate. barack obama built his data operation in chicago around barack obama. we built hours around republican national committee that one of the candidates plugs into. there is no option. there is no entity going to find a ground operation. that someone is going to plug into. the candidates are not funding a national ground operation right now. they are worried about what is
going to happen. who was doing the work? the republican national committee. we need to be successful. [applause] sean: i can predict with certainty everything, and you know what the game plan of the democrats -- you know what hillary is going to do. whoever the nominee is, is a racist and there is a war on women. i see more women in here than men. [applause] there is a war on women. republicans are homophobes. they want dirty air and water. that came out of obama's mouth. they want the young people in the old people to fend for themselves. your friends like paul ryan will be pushing every grandmother in the country out of her wheelchair. are you prepared on that front to deal with that, whoever the candidate is? and i would ask how ready are you? i read this week the democrats are ready for whoever the nominee is.
how much research have you guys done? reince: we have a full-time department at the republican national committee. we've been preparing a book on hillary clinton for years. obviously there is more to do. sean: how many millions of pages? reince: you might also want to talk to the fbi and the doj. for what they have in store for hillary clinton. i assure you when they hand out immunity agreements around your employees, is not for something that is not real. sean: the you think hillary looks good in orange? reince: we might have to find out. hillary clinton might not even be eligible to run by the time we get to november. [cheers] sean: are you prepared for that? reince: on the other front, even in the house and the things paul ryan is talking about having an agenda. we did not have an agenda for years ago. you harped on that on your show
continuously, but having the five things you believe in. what you going to do next quarter and go through those five things. let's talk about the next five things you did. having a legislative agenda. we also have to have a person on the ballot that people believe in that has a vision and people want to have a beer with. we also have to have an operation that can identify voters that are unique to presidential years and we can turn that into a better job in 2012 so we can win once and for all, say the supreme court for the next generation, and make sure we get our debt bomb under control and get our country back. sean: let me ask you the last question. i know it is on the minds of many of the people here. if you look in the state polls, the exit polls of every state, there is anywhere between 55% and 65% of republicans that feel betrayed.
i think the republican governors have done a great job. they really have. reince: you have two different situations. [applause] sean: we have 900 plus or legislative seats, more senate seats, more house seats. the rnc has gotten elected but on the issue of repealing or replacing obamacare and the issue and promise of 2014 to stop executive amnesty, there is a feeling that republicans did not fight. they were too timid, afraid of getting blamed for a government shutdown. reince: if i could single-handedly repeal obamacare and if i could tear up executive amnesty i would do it right here. sean: but they have the power of the purse. reince: they do, but they have a constitution that provides for veto authority that the president has. that is constitutional as well. i am for you. i don't think you can promise things you cannot deliver. that is clearly something you can't do. sean: let's give the chairman -- no. are you saying you don't believe
they could abuse the power of the purse on obamacare? reince: they can. and i wish the legislature would. as the chairman of the rnc i don't have the authority to walk across the street and pass the bill single-handedly. we get people elected. that is what primaries are for. that is what the choice is on the ballot. sean: you are not in congress but i think what this crowd wants to see you talk about his paul ryan laying out a positive agenda. i think they want to make sure if they get the house, the senate, the presidency that these things are done. [applause] reince: you need to have a person in the white house to sign those bills. sean: did you guys have a good time? reince: thank you everybody. sean: chairman of the rnc. reince: if you look down here, we are one of your main sponsors because we want you to know we care about you and we want you to be proud of our party.
[applause] >> good afternoon. you know, the president of united states last addressed this gathering eight years ago. do the math. it was a different president then. as he sat in the oval office preparing for that speech he came across a phrase that confused him. he asked, what is this movement you keep talking about in this speech? the speechwriter, stunned, responded "the conservative movement." the one started back in the 1960's when the conservatives first took root. that apparently did not sit well with the president. let me tell you something.
i whooped gary bauer's ass. there is no movement. i wish i had known that story eight years before this presidency, rather than eight years after. is it any doubt we started to doubt the republican party. a man claiming to be conservative. he did not govern as a conservative. [applause] he oversaw the largest spending increase since lyndon johnson's great society. and when big banks got in trouble, his solution was to force congress to hand over $700 billion we do not have. an worse, he laid the groundwork for barack obama who in one month of taking office called president bush's $700 billion bailout and raise it by $87
billion again with borrowed money. it was seven years ago last week in response to that $787 billion so-called stimulus package that had worked its way through congress that the modern tea party movement was born. we are just regular people, nothing special. we do share something in common. we love our country. we love what makes our country special. the constitution and the rights it protects. [applause] jenny: the rights that come from our creator and not from government. our freedom. we are fighting to defend it against liberals who want to fundamentally transform it. many of us are angry and upset at our government because we see washington insiders making deals
that grow the government and increase the national debt with no regard to how their deals impact our lives. we want to make a difference. i bet that motivates a lot of you. when rick ran against the stimulus bill on the floor of the chicago mercantile exchange, we were ready. the day after that, two dozen strangers got on conference call that talk about will be could do to take of action based on rick santelli's call to have a party like our founding fathers. within a week we held protests in cities all across this country and by april 15 we had organized more than 850 of them. engaging americans who are fed up with our government. we have not looked back since. let me ask you a question. how many of you here today are angry and upset with the federal government? [applause] jenny: i am upset.
those in washington never seem to hear us. i helped organize the march in washington dc in 2009. i kept saying washington, can you hear us now? business as usual continued. it's like they are tone deaf to us, who they are supposed to be representing. i'm upset that when we organized ourselves into a tea party movement and we worked in 2010 to remove from office all those liberals who voted for obama care we gave republicans control of the house. the republicans made corrupt deals that increased the debt. i am upset because when we began working with others who are just as angry as we were, the protests in the bailouts, and to express ourselves about our government, the government turned into targeted us with the
most feared agency at its disposal, the irs. they tried to take our free speech from us and silenced much of our effort. frankly we still feel the effects of that today. i am upset that even after they revealed the irs had deliberally targeted american citizens just for using our first amendment rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, she has not been held accountable. no one has held her accountable. it was almost three years ago. i am upset and angry. i know i am not the only one who feels that way. do you feel this way? [applause] let me give you some good news. to paraphrase mark twain, the rumors of the tea party's death are greatly exaggerated. [applause] stop and think about the top three contenders for the republican nomination for
president. all of them to varying degrees are running as tea party candidates. you have marco rubio who ran for the senate in 2010 explicitly on tea party values. unfortunately once he got the washington he allowed himself to be used by the other side on an issue of great importance to us. he has been trying to make up for that ever sense. ted cruz ran for the senate in 2012. [cheers] explicitly as a tea party candidate. our people helped elect him. once he was in office ted cruz champion the tea party values. [applause] he saw the establishment and he stayed true to his principles and true to our principles and his promises. and donald trump, he decided to run for president and he said himself, self, this tea party
movement is good for me. so he took on one of the biggest issues that drives the tea party today and he did his best to make it his own. and since then i have heard him say over and over again, "i love the tea party." he has done his best to cloak himself in the garb of our establishment. think about that for just a moment. seven years ago the tea party movement did not exist. today republican candidates running for president know if they want to win the nomination, they have to appear at the very least to be tea party. in seven years time that is not bad. not bad at all. not dead yet. [applause] >> we need to start truth this morning because one of these candidates i just talked about is. t party at all.
party but thata is not what it takes to be tea party. if you want to be tea party -- [applause] you have to love the country and the constitution and you have to be willing to fight for them above euro interests and you have to put -- your own interests and you have to it freedom above your own interests. donald trump recently said if he up president he would "open the libel laws" to make it easier to suze newspapers
without fear of reprisal. that is a shrine in our constitution. that is what makes america different from every other country. we can speak of mines, we can criticize our government and even criticize our political leaders without fear of reprisal. we are protected by her has addition to do so. when i hear a candidate say you want to mess with our rights to free speech, i fear for our constitution and our country, becausee that is not tea party. the tea party fought tooth and nail to keep our free speech. that is not the only reason i know donald trump is not what he says he is. look at his history and his background with a very serious question. donald trump stole a line from ronald reagan.
he says he wants to make america great again. i will borrow a line from ronald reagan. trust, but verify. [applause] -- many what i verify of his critics say he was for universal health care before he was against it. you want support of the biggest tax increase if you look at his motivation for taking those positions, you will see in fact it was a remarkable consistency. a consistency of severing his own interests. [applause]
you can always count on this -- on any given issue, at any given time, donald trump will take a position that serves his interests and he receives it at that time. are you still not sure? listen up. when in little old lady, a widow , refused to sell their property so she can knock down her house next to his casinos, donald trump dry to use the government to take her property away from her. they can userights it on your property as you see fit is one of the essential elements of limited government. anyone who does not understand and offends the property rights has no business serving in elected office, let alone the presidency. government, using the government to forge a property
owner to give up her property that she does not want to sell, that is not tea party. 2013, when so many of us were fighting to stop the amnesty bill, down cap issued a statement saying he is for the amnesty. he has been say he is against it but therethe bill -- is something entirely different. we don't know. it is off the record and he will not release the tape. he said he is softening his position on immigration. he does not know where he stands. that is not tea party. [applause] at theaters back. e*trade's reputation as a real estate tycoon and made money by marketing it. he opened up what he called the university bearing his name and
apparently a lot of people for a lot of money. so much so that he is now defending not one, not to come up but three separate lawsuits on the matter. names. scamming, not tea party. , donaldof those cases trump was serving his own interests and he perceived them at the time. donald trump is about love of himself. [applause] the tea party is about the country and the love of our constitution. [applause] i know you are angry and i know you're upset too. i know that donald trump is tapping into the anger. it is a smart campaign strategy be is a mixing like he shares our frustrations and he is
fighting on our behalf. when he says he wants to make america great again, we all believe that america is great. we appreciate what sounds like love of country on his part. it is a subjective pitch. i have friends and colleagues who support him even as i speak. here is what i think -- donald trump loves himself first, last and everywhere in between. [applause] he loves himself more than our country. he loves himself more than the constitution. love you or me coming does not love the tea party, donald trump as no business thinking he is the party. who trulyparty person loves the constitution should take that into account when casting their vote.
why should you vote for donald trump anyway? if you are tea party, you have a much better candidate to support. ted cruz. know, i know and i work for ted cruz ever since he came to the senate and i know him as a man of his word -- a man of honor, integrity, in man who keeps his promises. when let me tell you, in washington, that makes him a rare manr. a very, very, very rare man. when it was time to fight obamacare, increasing the debt ceiling or work to block the nfc for illegal immigrants, ted cruz led the charge on issue after issue, ted cruz five strong for our constitution. he has kept his promises and he will not back down. cruzproud to endorse ted
today. it is not just about the man it is about the principles. our candidate really is the constitution. and heort ted cruz reveres and defends the constitution. time weud to know any are in a battle against washington insiders i can always count on ted cruz the right side to be led by our side. we have a historic opportunity we have the most conservative candidate since ronald reagan. i don't even vote for candidates conservative. he has demonstrated his campaign, in his campaign coming can beat donald trump and and even with the general election against hillary content.
-- hillary clinton. he needs our help and that means i need your help. please, go to our website at tycitizens fund.com. we are about to move into the winner take all state and that is where the nomination will be decided. if you are looking to make a difference, volunteered to help a true conservative and somebody who loves the constitution, join us. our country is great because of her people and because of her constitution. ted cruz, we have a man who understands that, who respects that, who will lead us into the future guided by the time-tested principles established in our founding's. most of our lay, he understands our rights from our creator, not our government.
he understands that the government is meant to be a service of the people, not the other way around. ted cruz is not going to back down from standing for our freedom, neither will i. i hope neither will you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> now more from yesterday's session of cpac. including the role of local government and land-use and civil asset forfeiture. this is one half hour.
>> it is sobering but important, property rights. i would like to frame the issue a little bit. is deeplyights committed to. in fact, as james madison put it, ask us a power prevails and property of no sort is duly respected. no man is safe in his opinion, his person or faculties or his possessions. view property rights as natural rights that were indistinguishable from and fundamental to our other freedoms like speech, expression and religion.
the ability to own property, to own your labor and to enjoy the fruits of that labor were seen as the basis of a free society and so therefore it is natural to conclude one of the most functions of government is the protection of property rights. two centuries later, we say many threats, many over the horizon. i am excited to engage in a discussion about this issue and the challenges faces in property owners. i will stop or introducing the are. today there
-- for thertwheeling institute of justice. we of the commissioner of the federal trade commission. dolan, thegory professor of the medicine of law the university baltimore. >> this is going to be 30 years. they can seize property in a crime without charging anybody were convicting anybody. it is the property not the individual. it has been a huge problem in our country. lots of people had the property seized. two things exacerbate this.
number one, when the law enforcement officials see that property they keep the property in the police department and they can spend that money. it is unappropriated. you don't know how they spend it or how much it is. the other problem is equitable sharing. if they focus on the property -- if the local government gives it to the fed and there is a federal crime, double kick back a percent so the law enforcement agencies. revenue.me under this how did this get started? in the 1980's, we were fighting crime, guns.
against the drug dealers, the criminals. we did it and we thought it was a good idea. we never used it never came up. it was not a big problem. years and we30 would hear about these situations where people would lose our property and make decisions where owners could not -- they cannot put their rights in the proceedings and things started getting out of whack. we had to do something about this and and up being the chief staffer on the judiciary committee and one of the republicans in the house. e-work -- thank you.
it was a long-haul we hope we can keep it. i was hanging around just as a lobbyist and trying to help on this because we felt very bad. we felt somewhat responsible for putting this in place. there is the key to the whole thing. i testified. the aclu testified. anddrug policy testified the rio grande foundation. madepeaker of the house the motion to pass the bill which passed unanimously. i knew at that point, we were in good shape. senate and the result another hearing and they consented. we got out unanimously. we do not think we had a chance when it started but everybody
had a chance to give it a try. the governor had 20 days decided bill. everybody weighed in on it for the governor and on the last morning she signed the bill. we were peeled it in mexico. at least that property will be safe and to mexico. meate follow-up, because passed my time is up, we are not done. i will let you think about it and think about what we have done or what needs to be done until the questioning. thank you. >> thank you, clark. america is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world are non-, not because we it is because the
founders of our country got something right right from the beginning and that is the sanctity of property rights. it is woven into the constitution and that the government cannot take from you what you lawfully learn -- burn without good reason. that is in the constitution, not how policy is today. civil forfeiture is an example of the wholesale abandonment of the sanctity of property rights reflected in the constitution. constitution, the it is no accident that about one third of the 10 commitments i did with property rights in one form or another. talking about not feeling and not coveting what is not yours. what about the government today. you they steal what is not blind to us, does the government not cut us? absolutely. civil war forfeiture is one of the most grotesque examples of the part of government that i am familiar with that i have encountered in my 16 year to the public interest lawyer.
i will sit humor for you and tell you that in my judgment, civil overture was the most corrupt and corrupting policy america today. it enables law enforcement to take from honest law-abiding people, property that they have earned money than they have been using to run the business or but other timber for the children, and to take it without so much as charging you with a crime, let alone secure a conviction. they are able to take that property from innocent, law-abiding americans on the basis of nothing more than probable cause which is has come to me as nothing was than a hunch and then good luck trying to get it back there you would your defenders of civil overture telling you oh, you need to worry about civil forfeiture because there is a process that they can use to get it back weird there is. that process is the tax code making it look like a children's nursery right.
how do i know? because i litigate and i have tangled with the government and i'm happy to say we have gone the property tax every time that is not because we are good, it is because the policies of lately abused and not even the government can defend it. that usually does not happen because the usual hard-working american does not have a lawyer on speed dial and it would not be represented in court on the government comes in take their stuff. --ortantly, civil forfeiture there are other ways they can take your property. i want to touch on one other example for those were familiar with the terms of eminent domain. in 2005 thatase we litigated. the issue was and i am not making this up -- was either the public use provision of the fifth amendment that the government can only take your
property for eminent domain for a public use like a roadway school -- whether that provision permits the government to take homes and businesses in a working-class neighborhood, bulldozed the entire neighborhood and can be that property to a predatory corporation, pfizer, to build it. margin, the u.s. supreme court said that is fine. fortunately, a tremendous backlash against the people here it is the most widely reviled case in the history of united states and that is a further example how they did that. [applause] that will bepeople destitute, not having a house, not having a car and do fantastic jobs. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here to
discuss the critically important issues are property rights. it is no exaggeration that property rights are the cornerstone of liberty are found in callers recognize the truth that is valid today as it was then. anybody johnny depp proposition would see the regime around the world and such countries have no recourse against the property whether by the government are politically favored neighbors. in america, we work for what is ours and the law protects ownership rights accordingly. even property rights are not immune. and there is punitive taxes. make manyrights forms. civil forfeiture can be problematic and so are owners against improper taking of the government.
i wish to address a different but equally important topic in property law that is the role of patents and the property in driving u.s. innovation. all the bands far removed from ownership rights, the principles are remarkably similar. the overriding belief is that owners should have the ultimate say in how their property is used. the like thomas edison, inventors foil try to get new insight and company spend billions of dollars in research. when society rewards and ,nnovator for a novel use others should not be able to use that information for you charge. just like your neighbor cannot take your house or your competitor cannot take your technology. not only is it right to protect ownership interest, doing so is
critical for u.s. innovation policy. the u.s. economy is and has long been the most innovative in the world. and that is the laxative. it reflects a long-standing constitution recognized need for intellectual property rights. that system today faces an unprecedented threat, especially from the left your some economist, academics and policy makers have all to the abolition of the packaging. others want to diluted to make sure it is effectively enforcing the rights. that is probably. it is on a program heard of, it is critical to protecting u.s. innovation. the current claims from the left is conservatives support the system blindly without regard to evidence. i'm here to tell you that is not true.
evidence forrful .harp intellectual property i studied the large economic literature between pens between private firms and economic growth. my article will be published in the journal of law and technology. there is abundant support for robot production. there is an overwhelming .vidence they protect their inventors and a half strong economies. map companies that spend more on innovation.
it is a critical area like pharmaceuticals. of course, the intellectual property is not perfect. there is some evidence that patent trademark sometimes makes mistakes, awarding patents and should not. limitedeme court has the caused by weak patents and that is the right approach. deserving inventors warrant full production for those with claims with obvious ideas do not so to conclude, the anti-patent cloud -- crowd is wrong. honor property rights in all forms whether it be the house, your car or your invention. thank you for your attention and i look forward to this discussion. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much for having me.
i will begin with a personal story. i grew up in a former soviet union and i came here when i was 13. my dad was an engineer in the soviet union like today. why they loses the cold war? is it the soviet engineers were governed? they were not. i doubt was an engineer there and now. is it because people do not understand the technology. no. it is because people do not have private property rights. there is no place for them to innovate. got no rewards other than .ome rubles it didn't matter. the award was the same.
things are different here. he was an american high school student and took them all around , including to the high party officials fear he said even back then. he was done. there were five different telephones. why not one telephone would find buttons for each line? they did not have the technology because nobody was not there.
sometimes it should because it is on a rampage and i have to say that republicans and democrats have been bamboozled by antiestablishment people. they have been bamboozled but they will think that is a problem. but a fact that only we can do it. maybe yes, we will. they've been considering bills we can weaken and that must stop or we're going to trade. it will help our kids. it will help our kids have better lives and from various diseases and that will be appropriate.
there are bad actors. people use it properly but if use guns, we should not. people use our or cars improperly, people who drive drunk, we don't ban cars and same thing should be for guns. simply because there are bad actors. it is not a reason to abandon, slaughter the very good that is happening in last 200 years. collects a would like to begin a discussion with a question for all of you paired we are the midst of the political cycle we have seen issue of property rights in some unusual ways to one candidate believes in a strong eminent domain power since the government can seize property for pearly property development and on the other hand, someone else is critiquing
the system and calling for a lincoln property rights for everybody in the name of so-called economic justice. both of these candidates have one broad support in the electorate. does that suggest that americans are losing interest in private property in the defense of ?roperty >> i would hope not. people are being misled. you draw big numbers and then it looks a problem. does on actually cost the economy $20 billion and then supported by studies and people start to suspect that it is a problem. it is not that private property is that they are being misled by fms were not doing a good job and being misled by people who are promising them all the goodies of cheap drugs without telling cost of later on he will say what?
i think most of us take it for granted? we have a bill of rights completely for granted. it is there for 300 years or something similar at least. i think people -- and not many people are subjected to have in your car pulled over. we are trying to make the system work and justifiably i think we are taking it for granted. >> look, when donald trump tried to take a home belonging to a widow in atlantic city. it was on the people of new jersey who did that, it was a leading the city council. powersser eminent domain
to take his woman out and they said yes, absolutely. it was the judiciary that force them to back it up. who areher people interested in filing h others property rights. it is the government that is manipulated second, we need independent judiciary to say no to do so.olicies say >> the issue of property rights is intertwined with the idea of city market in the u.s. that is the foundation of the u.s.. the reason you have your property rights and the free market working together so well is the owner gets to decide the market entering and at what price and i think
those two things are so important. they have to be reconnected because fundamentally that is the point of the economic system. .nd the political system this liberty approach. >> you alluded to this in your remarks but the great work you guys did in new mexico in civil forfeiture -- that was not the end of the story. would you like to give us the rundown? >> thank you for that question because it is not over. something set,. traversing that came up was the city about the curvy decided they were not part of state law in they would continue to bought aars and they whole new facility for the cars. .hey were forfeiting so many thank goodness for the institute of justice who came into albuquerque and the democrats and republicans to try to stop that. that is number one.
the local government and we had provisions that are typical. two, you can see it come up against. there will be civil asset forfeiture. they needed a message for the governor to get back critical legislation which it did not get. thank you, governor. i expect we will see that . finally, after it went into effect, several law enforcement agencies started taking the property be forfeited and company for the state treasurer steps, saying we don't take the money in the morning. the state treasurer dealt with it so what did he do?
he went to the legislature and asked for the increase to have more money to do with the forfeited assets. you have to watch out for that. the battle is not over. we have more work to do and i hope everyone of you and everyone of the states will seat waiting about this because clark said, this is easily the most violation of civil rights i have seen for the average citizen. thatu mentioned forfeitures of not the only way the government can take property that eminent domain is also there as well. constitution, you can make an argument for it, but where do you draw the line between a legitimate use of that power and illegitimate use? >> to be clear, the fifth amendment in the constitution provides that private property shall not be use without compensation. it is a power the government means. you cannot build a highway
zigzagging through someone's property but you have to draw the line in a place that protects the institution of private property rights so that as justice o'connor warns in her dissenting opinion that if you rule the way the supreme court does, there was on a church, a home or a small business in america that could not make more money as a symbol or a giant corporation. you draw the line in a place that makes it impossible for these businesses and people who have property rights to take what does not belong to them for a nonpublic use, for something that is not a hospital, not a school. the lawn drying -- the line drawing is not that big. you have pfizer lobbying the city council for it entire neighborhood for homes, executives -- i'm sorry, that is not a hard case. we worry about the line drawn later. >> we have all heard of some of
the same cases that it was something like a rectangular phone with rounded edges, something like that. that 80 of his unnecessarily mean -- do you think it is too easy to get a patent today? i don't necessarily think it is too easy to get a patent overall. i think there are instances where patents have been granted in approach -- inappropriately. the question is what is a poster that? kinds, make intellectual property law not right? i think there are processes to make sure that patents are appropriate and they are steps in the law to do that. i'm afraid that arguments that some patents are two broad or two easy to get are being used to undermine a patent. >> i agree with that.
of course, there are mistakes made. these are government employees. yes, they make mistakes just like you do in other areas. like all government employees. >> thank you. >> there are processes, judges, litigation. nobody says it should be doubted forever. by all means, bring the challenge to the court. prove your case. it is not going to be against anyone else, but you cannot just proves -- havet some standard. it cannot be easy. they poured their life savings, efforts. it is a problem. that will prevent innovation at the end of the day. >> i would like to take the remainder of our time to ask you a question. get out the particular area you have been talking about.
looking ahead -- five or 10 years -- what is the biggest challenge will be? >> i think one of the biggest challenges, something i have already seen. part of my job -- i have gone to china six times in the past two years. valuee were doing is property rights here is echoing around the world. other countries are looking at things -- we would like assets of u.s. technology or like to see the copycat but we are doing what we are doing in the u.s. whatever we do year will have ramifications around the world. >> uh -- >> i think the biggest problem we have is property rights are enshrined in our constitution but not by in large enforce our judiciary. for the last 40 or so years, we have a judiciary that is render property rights with a called on fundamental, meaningless. we are in a turning point -- either we will have a supreme court that respects property
rights like the constitution or about his record like yes women and men that just does whatever the government does. that is the breaking what for us. [applause] >> i will echo what clark says. property rights is our government. we need to make sure we elect the right people and make sure you get the right judges in place. >> that does it for the panel. thank you for our panelists.
>> we will have more coverage of the conservative political action conference today with presidential candidate marco rubio. we had more white house coverage at 11 a.m. eastern time on c-span. ♪ year student can competition was one of the biggest yet and students competed for over $100,000 in prizes. student produced documentaries using argue -- road to the white house team and the question of what you one of the candidates to discuss during the 20 15th president to getting. the students talked about economy, equality, education and immigration. be sure to tune in this was a morning at 8:00 eastern during washington journal and we will announce the grand prize winner, first place winners and the fan favorites selected by the public. watch live on c-span and see c-span.org. presidential candidate john
kasich discussed his record as governor of a wild and as a member of congress. following his remarks come at governor kasich sits them for interview with sean hannity. this is 35 minutes. >> thank you. it is great to be here. i came as a senator many years ago. it is great to be here today. a little different situation. while we get to it? i want to tell you that a lot of young people here -- i want to make sure i have a few words for all of you because you were
sitting out here and wondering this guy is on the stage and someday it could be me. is young man or woman that here today -- of course, you can. you have big hopes and dreams. i have been very lucky my life. in 1976, there was almost a broken convention and it was at that time that i got to meet ronald reagan. i knocked of peoples doors -- midnight, 1:00 in the morning and they are asking why? i'm in to get ronald reagan on the ballot. the fact is we got him on the ballot and i was at the convention with governor reagan in charge ofyself five states for governor reagan. he lost the convention but i was there when he told people at the end -- i may have lost the battle but i have not lost the war and he came back four years
the door he kicks down because you need to understand something about ronald reagan -- the establishment never liked him. they never liked him, new grenades or may. why? we want to bring change. [applause] we don't take orders from lobbyist or special interests or people who live on k street. we are here to serve the country. reagan was an incredible man because he had a strong ideology -- conservative for possibly -- philosophy. honed and that at a very young man. in 1982, iran for congress. i was 30 years of age and i ran on the reagan philosophy. lower taxes, balanced budget, -- 1982, nobody wanted to be with ronald reagan. that meant i got to spend more
time with ronald reagan. in 1982, running on reagan cuts and lesstax spending and rest regulation individual power come of the strength of the individual in 1982, i was the only republican in america to defeat an incumbent democrat running on a conservative message. [applause] shared ronald reagan's philosophy on building a strong defense. i want you to know when i'm president, if i sit across the chair or the table from vladimir putin when he looks into my eyes , all the way to my soul, you know what he will see? a freedom fighter. [applause] i want to congress and dissipated in military buildup
but i also had to tell you that i found waste and abuse inside the department of defense. i thought it. we cannot squander resources. we have to make sure the resources get to our men and women in uniform on the front lines and nothing gets blogger by bureaucrats or defense contractors that are not playing fair. years, six years into my term as a congressman, i got into the budget committee. there were people that, you know, managing the budget, looking at the republican budget, democrat budget. i do not think either of them were worth the paper they were printed on. i was at home filling up my gas tank and complaining -- a guy walked around the corner and said if you don't like what's one on in washington, what are you going to do about it? want to washington, got a meeting with my staff and i say we will write it for the united
states of america. there are 100 people at the white house, 100 people on capitol hill or writing budgets and we only have six people. i said i know we are overstaffed so we will stay at of each other's way to get it done. [applause] my first budget was voted on. there was a bush budget, democrat budget, black caucus budget and a casing budget and the boat on the john kasich budget was 405 note and 30 yes. some people thought we got killed. i said we got 29 other people that they we can run america. let's keep going. year after year after year, i fought the establishment. i fall the establishment because they wanted the status quo. my third budget, i got more votes than the president got for his and i was building a team of people. in 1993, when bill clinton wanted to propose a tax increase i said we should have an
alternative. the republicans said no, let's criticize. i did not come to washington to criticize. i came to build something. we had a meeting with 36 people who spoke of the republican conference, 34 we should not have a alternative and to that said we should. i walked to the back of the room with newt and he said we are doing better than we thought. we offered the budget and joe scarborough said repeatedly on his show it was the fighting that was going on to balance the federal budget without political consideration they got him involved in politics. weise about the victory in 1994 and we took control for the first time in four years in 1995 with a conservative agenda. [applause] through the ups and downs through the clinton administration.
bill clinton never wanted to balance the budget. he was the kind of guy if the result mobbed, he would get in front of it and call it a parade. [laughter] we fought like crazy. i like numbers? are you kidding me?> balancing budgets and cutting regulations or reducing taxes are about economic opportunity and job creation. in that budget agreement that we made with the clinton administration when we force them and they were for nothing real and for higher taxes, we cut the capital gains tax, provided a family tax credit and we achieved the first balanced budget since man walked on the moon. we pay down half $1 trillion of the national debt and guess what? america's economy was booming. people had jobs, wages were growing and it was time for me to leave this place. glad we are not in d.c. because every time i go there, i break into a cold sweat. andfact is the formula work
i stepped out of politics thinking i would never go back. my state was in so much trouble. we have lost 350,000 jobs, our credit was about to be downgraded, 20% of our operative budget was in the whole and iran on a campaign saying not only will be badgett -- balance the budget but we will cut taxes people said it cannot be done. you see, if you know what you whodoing, 80 worry about was yapping at you or criticizing or complaining, it is amazing what you can get done. guess where we are today? instead of being a billion dollars in the whole, we are $2 billion in the black, incident being 250,000 jobs, we're up for a thousand jobs. ourpensions are safe, credit is good in our wages are growing faster than the national average and people have hope in ohio! [no audio] [applause] [applause] let me tell you something else.
kasich a construe conservative? i only cut taxes, promoted more school choice with charter schools and the voucher program, more than about anybody. reforming welfare again, the city of ohio unemployment to the lowest in state government for 30 years. get over it. get over it. [applause] let me tell you this -- i come from the reagan and kim school. when our economy to doing better, we have an obligation to reach out to the people who live in the shadows, to give them an opportunity to achieve their god-given potential and that means the mentally ill, they should not be sleeping under a bridge or living in our prisons. they have a right to be treated to get on their feet and assume their god-given purpose. [applause]
the drug addicted can be we have.in our state, an 80% success rate injury people in the prisons and putting them into the community were begin them response ability -- response ability to get her feet and the working poor in is a type we-- it reward them for working hard getting a pay raise rather than having to turn them down losing more benefits than they gain. let's get back to what makes sense to give everybody a chance to rise. [applause] we want our developmentally disabled to be fully integrated. levitate one of thing. our friends in the minority community -- we want them to develop entrepreneurship. we want them to believe there is a part of america just like anyone else --i ran for reelection ohio, when the toughest places the wind.
the african vote, 20% of women in 51% of you would households and i won by 30 points in ohio. bringing people together works. [applause] message to the -- it is a message for everyone but particularly to the young people today. [applause] here is what it is. you should all know this is my present to you. you are all made special. no one has ever been made like you. and no one ever will. i believe the lord makes us special for a special purpose. do you understand that come again leading? -- understand that, young lady? no one is quite like you because you are made special and your job is to find those gifts and
to live a life bigger than yourself and changed the world in which you live. you see, the lord does not care whether you are running for president or whether you are helping somebody who is in a hospital with a family who is depressed or making sure someone no one to bullied or making sure you are listening to what your friends you may be having a hard time. the lord does not measure us against the other. the other one is little, they are all equal. you are made special to come together as a generation -- like part of a giant mosaic -- when you lose that fight, or when you never find it, the mosaic remains and complete. decide that society we can use those polls -- let me tell you, the strength of our
country in the spirit of our country does not rest in washington. oh, yeah, they listen. i can get the budget balanced, i get the wages going. i can get the border fixed, i can do those things. i know how to do them. but you see, it is a two-part issue. it is not what happens of year, it is the strength of our country, the vitality of our country, the spirit of our country rests in our families, our neighborhoods and our communities and our states. do not wait for somebody to show up if it's the problem before you, fix them yourself. [applause] you.ounting on think wereason, we have to wait for somebody in the government to come in on a big white charger to solve our problems. it will not happen. i will give you your power.
education, welfare, infrastructure, health care for the poor, job training, all back to where we live. you will have more power, you will cut taxes because to run america from the bottom-up up, that is what we have to do. that is what works. you know, the greatness of her country is not waiting for another government program, some of them are important. you know how we really fix things in america? on toou put her shoulders making the schools better. you willdoing that obscure your purpose. you had to fight against poverty and your community and give businesses and up to work with people on train so they can your work. we need to encourage young people, join a mentoring program , get kids to see their future. do not leave them behind. these things do not take
government, they take us believing in ourselves and in the little town where i came from. -- [applause] the little town where i came from we did not wait for the president, we didn't wait for anybody. we were neighbors and took care of each other. we would do it again. the programs getting fixed that the federal people need to. with good conservative principles but when that power -- tell me break these problems, i will give you a call. if you need me, i will come running to your neighborhood. we will rebuild america and its spirit and make it the best it has ever been. we can do it and we will do it. thank you all. [applause]
thank you. [applause] i have a friend that will come out here and he will help me -- oh, here's my buddy. [laughter] hello! [applause] >> he makes me the left. this is the first time i have been on the left my whole life. our you, governor? >> could not be better. so much energy. the young people here -- sean, goals and not becoming cynical and not becoming some political hack, and believing the world
can be just what you think it can be -- it's fantastic. >> isn't it great to see all these young people -- this is why the election is so important. it's about their future. >> absolutely correct. >> you had the big debate last night. i have a few process questions. you are one of the only states -- the only one on the stage who did not get a nickname from donald trump. are you ok with that? gov. kasich: i'm fine. who knows what nickname he would give me, you know? john hannity: i think it's on the minds of many of us here -- we had a speech by mitt romney yesterday. how many people in this room supported mitt romney? everybody. i was a little disappointed because what it sounded like was a strategy to me -- i thought he would have been a great president. sounded like a strategy.