1.9 million jobs. do they have a plan that would have a similar impact? if they do, i would be happy to hear it. i have not heard them offer alternatives that would have the same kind of impact. that is what we need right now. a lot of the problems that this economy is facing our problems that predate the financial the financial crisis. incomes are last. -- flat. folks have been struggling not just for the last three years. they have been struggling for over a decade. and at a time when so many people are having such a hard time, we have to have an approach, we have to take action

that is big enough to meet the moment. what i have heard from republicans is, well, you are agreeing to do these statements. i am in favor of these statements and they are passing, but that is not going to do enough to deal with the huge problems we have right now with respect to unemployment. i am thrilled we were able to get republicans and democrats to work together. that is a long-term issue for our economic competitiveness. it is not putting americans to work right now. the bottom line is this. if next week the senators have additional ideas that will put people back to work right now and meet the challenges of the current economy, we are happy to consider them. every idea we put forward, or

the ones that -- are the ones that have been traditionally supported by democrats and republicans alike. i believe it is very hard to argue against them. if mr. mcconnell chooses to vote against it or if members of his caucus vote against it, i promise you, we are going to keep on going, and we will put forth -- maybe piece by piece -- each component. and each time they are going to have to explain why they would be opposed to putting teachers back in the classroom or rebuilding our schools or giving tax breaks to middle-class folks or tax cuts to small businesses. >> [unintelligible] >> i think if we do not take action, we could end up with more significant problems than we have right now. some of it is simple math. the payroll tax we just passed will be set to expire.

the jobs plan -- if that is not extended, and that is over $1,000 out of the pockets of the american family at a time when they're dealing a severe pinch, that means they're going to be spending less. that is going to have an adverse effects on the economy. thank you, mr. president. -- >> thank you, mr. president. we assume you are ok with the change on the surtax, the 5.6% surtax. >> we have always said we would be open to a variety of ways to pay for it. we've put forward what we thought was a solid approach to paying for the jobs bill itself. keep in mind though, not only do

we have to pay for the jobs bill, but we have to spend more to reduce the debt and the deficit. the approach that the senate is taking, i am comfortable with in order to deal with the jobs bill. we still have to reform the tax code to make sure we are closing loopholes, closing special interest tax breaks, making sure that the buffett rule -- which is millionaires and billionaires are not paying a lower tax rate than ordinary families. so, there's going to be more work to do to make the tax system fair and just and promote growth, but in terms of the immediate reaction, this is the approach they are taking. >> you asked for a members of

the public to approach members of congress and switchboards got jammed. you are not hearing about phones being jammed. one member of congress told me, there is disillusionment he is concerned about with the public that maybe they just do not believe anything can get done anyway. are you worried about your own powers of persuasion? >> what we have seen is the american people are looking at the specific provisions of the jobs bill. the american people are frustrated. we do not get a sense -- they do not get a sense that the sign in this town are looking out for the reasons -- for their interest.

people are feeling cynical and frustrated about the prospects of action in this city -- absolutely. you know, i can go out there and make speeches, but until they actually see action, some of that cynicism is going to be there. in the debt ceiling debate -- you know, a majority, may be higher than 70% agreed with the proposal that i talked about. what the american people saw was congress did not care. not only what i thought, but what the american people thought. they had their own agenda. that cynicism is not going to be reduced until congress actually

proves their cynicism on. by doing something that will actually help the american people. this is a great opportunity to do it. this is a great opportunity to do it. keep in mind -- if the american jobs bill passes, we are still going to have challenges. we're still going to have to make sure we have the best education system in the world, because that is going to be critical for creating good, solid middle-class jobs. we are still going to have to create research and science and make sure we do even more on infrastructure. the american jobs does not cover all the roads and bridges infrastructure around the country. it is not as if that is going to solve all our problems, but it is an important start that we know would end up growing the economy and putting hundreds of

thousands, millions of people back to work at a time when they needed the most. and is paid for. the one persuasive argument republicans have made previously against a bill like that is we cannot afford it. well, we can afford it if we are willing to ask people like me to do a little bit more on taxes. we can afford it. without affecting our deficit. our proposal is paid for. so, that cannot be the excuse. so, yes. until they see congress actually putting country ahead of party politics and partisanship, there is going to be skepticism, and this is not a reflection of the lack of faith in american jobs bill. they have not seen congress able to come together on action.

this is an opportunity. will be have seen as, they agreed -- what we have seen is they agree with what we have put forward. here is what i will also said. based on the debt ceiling vote, what they have seen is the republicans in congress, even in the american people agree with them, often times will vote against something i am proposing. there maybe skepticism that i personally can persuade republicans to take action. that is why i need the american people to put pressure on them. justifiably what they have seen oftentimes, it even ideas that used to be supported by republicans, they have decided they arrogance that.

>> thank you, mr. president. as you traveled the country, you talked about the dodd-frank law. they clearly do not think you are republicans are part of the solution. your part of the problem. are you following this movement? >> obviously, i have seen it on television. i think it expresses the frustrations of the american people. that we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression. huge collateral damage all across the country, all across main street. and yet, you're still seeing some of these same folks who

were responsible trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place. so, yes, i think folks are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a broad based frustration about how our financial system works. keep in mind i have said before and i will continue to repeat we have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order to grow. i used a lot of political capital, and i had things and bruises to prove it, in order to prevent the financial meltdown. and that was the right thing to do. because i've seen a financial

collapse, the damage to the american economy would have been even worse. for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions to compete, but not on the basis up hidden fees, deceptive practices, or derivative cocktails that no one understands that expose the entire economy to an enormous risks. it was designed to make sure we did not have the necessity of taxpayer bailouts. we said we would be able to control these situations. we can isolate them, quarantine them. let them fail.

haveys that we're going to a consumer watchdog on the job all the time who is going to make sure dealing with customers -- we're dealing with customers on a fair way. we will have to make sure that we will be straight with people on what they're purchasing. what we have seen over the last year is not only is there the financial sector with the republican party in congress fighting every and to the way, but now you have these same folks suggesting we should roll back all this reform and go back to the way it was before the crisis. today, my understanding is we have a hearing on richard cordray, who is my nominee to head up the consumer financial

protection bureau. he would be the cheap consumer watchdog for financial products. this is a guy who is well regarded in his home state of ohio. he has been the treasurer of ohio, the treasurer general of ohio. republicans in ohio say he is a serious person who looks after consumers. he has a good reputation. republicans are poised not to confirm him, not because of anything he has done, but because it would roll back the entire notion of having a consumer watchdog. you of presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposal is wanting to get rid of the financial reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that got us into this mess in the first place. it will be frustrating for the american people until they get the sense that everybody is

playing by the same set of rules, and you are rewarded for responsibility and doing the right thing as opposed to gaming the system. i am going to be planning every inch of the way here in washington to make sure we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abuses by the financial sector. i will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions to are doing the right thing by their customers. we need them to be lending. we need them to help to what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing businesses and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. the american people -- until the american people see that happening, yes, they're going to express frustration about what they see as two sets of rules. >> [inaudible]

>> what i think is that the american people understand that not everybody has been following the rules. wall street is an example of that. folks who were working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to the company, but that used to be the essence of the american dream. bedside you got ahead, the old- fashioned way. these days, a lot of people who were not doing the right thing are not rewarded. that is going to express itself in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again you're getting back to some old- fashioned american values, which, if you are a banker, then you're making your money by

making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefiting everybody. jay tapper? >> thank you, mr. president. one of the reasons why so many people of the occupied wall street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on wall street did not follow the rules. but your administration has never really been aggressive in prosecuting -- in fact, i cannot think any wall street executive has gone to jail as a result of their malfeasance. i wonder if you can comment on that? i am wondering if how this

controversy is playing out gives you any pause on your administration? many democrats were concerned about the department of energy, many e-mails going on with the attorney general. are you worried at all halyard ministration as running backs >> first on the issue of -- are you worried at all about how your administration is running backs >> first on the issue of protests, the collapse of lehmans, the whole subprime and the fiasco, a lot of the stuff was not necessarily illegal or inappropriate or reckless. that is exactly why we needed to

pass dodd-frank. the financial sector is very creative. they're always looking for ways to make money. if there are loopholes and rules that can be bent and arbitrage to be had, they will bend them. i am not going to comment on particular prosecution's. that is not my job. that is the attorney general's job. a lot of practices that should not have been allowed necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. that is why it was important to put in place financial rules that protect the american people from reckless decision making. with respect to fast and furious and solyndra, i have been very

clear. i have complete confidence in attorney general holder in how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in going after cash transactions in these cartels in mexico. we have a lot of cooperation with mexico on this front. he was not aware of what was happening with fast and furious. both he and i would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested guns were allowed that could have been prevented by the united states of america. we've assigned the inspector general to look into how exactly this has happened. i have complete confidence in him and the process to figure out who in fact was responsible

for that decision and how it got made. solyndra, this is a loan guarantee program that predates me, that historically has had support from democrats and republicans as well. at the idea is pretty straightforward. if we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we have got to dominate cutting edge technologies. we have to dominate cutting edge manufacturers. clean energy as part of that package of the technology of the future that has to be -- at least here in united states. now, the loan program is designed to meet that particular need in the marketplace, which is a lot of these small start- ups, they can get individual investors, they can get several million dollars to get a company going.

but it is very hard for them to scale up. particularly with cutting edge technologies. is hard for them to find private investors. part of what is happening is china and europe are putting enormous subsidies into these companies and giving them incentives to move offshore, even if the technology is developed in the united states. they go to china because the chinese government says, we're going to up to get started, we're going to help you scale up, we will give you loans. we will do what ever it takes for you to get started here. that is part of the reason why technologies are developed here. we are the leader in solar energy, wind energy. i want to close that gap and say, let's see if we can help these folks locate jobs in united states.

knew from the start with the loan guarantee program -- we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program would involve some risk. if it was a risk free proposition, then we would not have to worry about. the old portfolio has allowed companies to start manufacturing here in united states. in has helped create jobs -- it has helped create jobs. the process by which this decision was made was straightforward, and of course there will be debates internally when you're dealing with something as complicated as this. but i have confidence that the decisions were made based on what would be good for the american economy and american people and putting people back to work. and by the way, one last point.

and her there was a republican member of congress who is engaged in oversight, and despite the fact that they all passed support of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know, we cannot compete against china when it comes to solar energy. you know what? i do not buy that. i am not going to surrender to other countries a technological leap that could determine whether we build a strong middle class are not. so, we are going to have to keep on pushing hard to make sure that manufacturing is located here and new technologies are developed, and there'll be times it does not work out. in not going to given to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all of these industries. >> [inaudible] a lot of it is legal, but a lot

of it is not. >> the president cannot go around saying "prosecute somebody." as a general principle, if someone is engaged in fraudulent actions, the need to be prosecuted. there are laws on the books. they need to be prosecuted. that is the attorney general's job. i know attorney general holder, u.s. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously. >> thank you, mr. president. you just spoke about the need for banks to start lending. you talked about how creative the can be. yet earlier in the week, he said "banks do not have an inherent right to get, you know, some

amount of profit." do you think that your government has a right to say how much profits american companies can make? >> i absolutely do not think that. i was trying to make a broader point. which is that people of been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more. basically the argument they have made is, you know what? this hidden feet was prohibited, and so we will find another eight to make up for it. -- another fee to make up for. they have that right, but it is not a good process. it is not necessarily fair to consumers. my main goal is to make sure we have a consumer watchdog in place who is letting consumers now what their practices are,

making sure transactions are transparent, making sure that banks have to compete for customers based on the quality of their service. the frustrating thing we have right now is we have folks over in congress, republicans, who say they see their role as eliminating any prohibitions on any regulations for financial companies. i think that is part of the frustration the american people feel. they have gone through a period of rate hikes they did not know about, fine print they did not understand. that is true for credit cards, mortgages. contributed to overall weakness in the economy. and yes, i think is entirely

appropriate for the government to have some oversight role to make sure consumers are protected. so, banks and any business in america can process their business anyway they want. as long as there is accountability and consumers understand what they are getting and there are going to be instances where a policy is made that, you know what? there are certain factors were that is unfair. always the market's operate. >> [unintelligible] >> i think what the consumer finance protection bureau can do is make sure that consumers understand exactly what they were getting, exactly what was happening. i think that congress can make determinations with respect to whether or not a certain

practice was there or not. dated -- david nakamura. >> thank you, mr. president. just following up on solyndra. giving out $80 billion of guaranteed loans and promising to save jobs in green energy and clean energy. direct and reports that only 3500 new jobs have been created in that industry. why has that industry been so slow to respond to the investment your administration has provided, and what you see going forward for how we move on? >> i think what has been true historic plea is that -- historic plea is that businesses that rely on new technologies,

oftentimes is going to take a while before they take off. lot of up-front investment to be made in research and capital and so forth. barriers for companies trying to break in. keep in mind, clean energy companies are competing against traditional energy companies. and traditional energy is still cheaper. in a lot of ways. the problem is, it is running out. it is polluting. if we do not get a handle on it now, we're going to be facing china and india putting a billion new drivers on the road. the price of oil and coal going up.

the impact on the planet increasing. we're not going to be able to just start once all heck is breaking loose and say, boy, we have got to find some new energy sources. what is also a problem, as i have said, is that other countries subsidizing these industries much more aggressively than we are. hundreds of millions of dollars the chinese government is pouring into the clean energy sector, partly because they are projecting what is going to happen 10-20 years from now. so, look. i have confidence in american businesses, american technology, american scientists and under parures being able to win a competition. we're not going to be duplicating the kind of system they have in china where they are basically state-run banks giving money to state run companies, ignoring losses,

ignoring bad management, but there is a role to play for us to make sure that these companies can at least have a fighting shot, and it does mean that there are going to be some that are not successful. it is going to be an uphill climb for some, and obviously, it is very difficult for all companies to find out how to succeed when the economy is as soft and as weak as it is. [inaudible]o >> even for the projects under the loan guarantee program that had ended up being successful, there have always been those in the marketplace who have been doubtful. there will always be a debate as

to whether this particular approach to this particular technology will be successful or not. all i can say is that the department of energy made these decisions based on their best judgment about what would make sense. the nature of these programs are going to be ones in which, for every success, there may be one that does not work out as well. but that is exactly what the loan guarantee program was designed by congress to do, was to take bets on these areas where we need to make sure that we are maintaining our lead. bill. >> thank you. anybody on capitol hill will say that there is no chance of the american jobs act in its current state passing in either house. you have been out on the

campaign trail banging away at them, saying pass this bill. >> right. >> it begins to sort of look like you are campaigning and following the harry truman model against the do nothing congress instead of negotiating. will you negotiate? >> i am always open to abuse stations. what is also true is they need -- i am always open to negotiations. what is also true is that they need to do something. if members of congress come in and say all right, we want to build infrastructures. here is the way we think we can do it. we want to put construction workers back to work. we have got some ideas. i am ready, eager to work with them. and they say, we have a great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom that is a

little different than what you proposed in the jobs bill. i'm ready and eager to work with them. but that is not what we're hearing. we're hearing is that they're big ideas, the ones that make sense, are ones we're already doing. they have given me a list of republican job creation ideas. let's pass free trade agreements. it's great that we are passing free trade agreements. we have put them forward. i expect bipartisan support. i think it is going to be good for the american economy. but it is not going to meet the challenge of 9% unemployment or an economy that is currently weakening. it is not enough. tax reform. very important for our long-term competitiveness. there is no be out there who actually thinks that that is going to immediately fill the needs of people who are out of work or strengthen the economy right now.

when i have tried to do is say, here a the best ideas i have heard, not just from partisans, but from independent economists. these are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now and that is with the american people are looking for. and the response from republicans has been no. although the have not given a good reason -- they have not given a good reason why they're opposed to putting construction workers back on the job or teachers back in classrooms. if you ask them, well, ok, if you're not for that, what are you for? trade has are even done. reform. what else? they say, well we're going to roll back all of these obama regulations. so they're big economic plan to

put people back to work right now is to roll back financial protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs? or alternatively, they have said we will roll back regulations that make sure we have clean air and clean water. eliminate the epa. does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of the global economy that is weakening with all of these forces coming into play? here is a good question. here is the homework assignment for folks. go ask republicans what their jobs plan is if they are opposed to the american jobs act, and have it assessed by the same independent economists that assessed our jobs plan. these independent economists say

that we could grow the economy as much as 2% and as many as 1.9 million workers would be back on the job. i think it would be interesting to have them do a similar assessment, same people. some of these folks, by the way, traditionally have worked for republicans, not just democrats. have them evaluate what over the next two years to republican jobs plan would do. i would be interested in the answer. i think everybody here -- i see some sparks and the audience, because you know that -- smirks in the audience because you know that it is not going to be real robust. the answer to the question is, will congress do something? if congress does something, i cannot run against a do nothing congress. if congress does nothing, i do not think it is a matter of me running against them.

i think the american people will run them out of town because they are frustrated and they know we need to do something big and something bold. now, the american people are also concerned about making sure that we have a garment that lives within its means, which is why i put forward -- a government that lives within its means, which is why i put forward a plan that would reduce our deficit and debt in a more aggressive way than what the special committee has been charged with. folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. i have already said, i am happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform. i am happy to engage with them to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate the special interest carve outs, and potentially raise more revenue. i am happy to work with them on

a whole host of issues, but right now we have an emergency. the american people are living that emergency out every day, and they have been for a long time. they're working really hard, and if they are not on the job, they're working really hard to find a job, and they're losing their homes, and their kids are having to drop out of school because the cannot afford student loans, and they're putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their jobs they lost their health insurance. they are struggling. and as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling, even those of us who are well- off. the irony is, the same folks the republicans claim to be protecting, the well-off, the millionaires and billionaires, maybe doing better, making more money, if ordinary americans had some money in their pockets and more out there feeling more confident about the economy. that has been a lesson of our history. when folks in the middle and at

the bottom are doing well, folks at the top do even better. >> is that the only leverage you have certification? >> we have a democracy. right now, john bair is the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell is the rate -- john boehner is the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell is the republican leader. all i can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the american people so that they respond. so far, they have not been responsive to not just me, but to public opinion. we saw that during the debt ceiling debate. we're going to keep on making the case. is, and iaying bill said this when i made my speech at the joint session, the election is 13-14 months away. i would love nothing more than to not have to be out there

campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in congress. that is my goal. that is what i am looking for. but i am also dealing with a republican majority leader who said that his number one goal was to beat me, not put americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. and he has been saying that now for a couple of years. so, you know, i have to go out and listen to the american people to see if maybe he will listen to them if he is not listening to me. >> one question on the economy and one on foreign policy. the senate is taking a today a bill aimed at pressuring china to let its currency rise. what is your position on that

the bill -- on that bill? on the foreign-policy front, do you agree with the accusation by admiral mollen that pakistan has used al-qaeda as a virtual arme? >> obviously, we have been seeing a remarkable transformation of china over the last two decades. it has helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in china. we have stabilized our relationship with china in a healthy way. but what is also true is that china has been very aggressive in gaining the trading system to its evanish end to the disadvantage of other countries,

particularly the united states. i have said that publicly, but i have also said it privately to chinese leaders. currency manipulation is one example, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. that makes their exports cheaper, and it makes our exports to the more expensive. so, we have seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year, but it is not enough. it is not just currency though. we have also seen, for example,, intellectual property, technologies created by u.s. companies with a lot of

investment and a lot of up-front capital, taken and not protected properly by chinese firms. we have pushed china on that as well. ultimately, i think we can have a win-win trading relationship with china. i'm very glad we are potentially going to get a trade deal with south korea. but i believe what i think most americans believe, which is that trade is great as long as everyone is playing by the same rules. about the legislation that is being presented in congress. it is an effort to get at that. and my main concern, and i have expressed this to senator schumer, is that whatever tools be put in place, let's make sure these are tools that can actually work, that they're consistent with our international treaties and obligations. i do not want a situation where

we are just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're not going to be upheld by the world trade organization, for example, and suddenly u.s. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions. i think we have a strong case to make. we just have to make sure we do it in a way that is going to be effective. the last point is beckett -- the last point is that my administration has brought a very aggressive enforcement actions against china for violations. it has been upheld by the wto that they were engaging in unfair trade practices. michael -- my goal is i believe u.s. companies and workers can compete with anyone in the world. i think we make the best products, and a huge part of us

winning the future, a huge part of us rebuilding the economy on a firm basis that is not as reliant on max out credit cards, a housing bubble and financial speculation, is dependent on as making things and selling things -- thus making things and selling things. confident that we can win that competition, but we have to make sure the we're aggressive in looking out for the interests of american workers and american businesses, that everybody is playing by the same rules and we're not getting cheated in the process. it is the job of the treasury secretary to make those decisions. but it is indisputable that they

intervened heavily in the currency markets and that their currency is lower than it probably would be if they were not making all of those purchases. with respect to pakistan, i have said that my number one goal is to make sure that al-qaeda cannot attack the u.s., and and cannot affect u.s. interests around the world. we have done an outstanding job, i think, in going directly after al qaeda in this border region between afghanistan and pakistan. we could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the

pakistan government. so, on a whole range of issues, they have been an effective partner with us. what is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind, one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic, on that pakistan has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. i think that they have hedged their bets in terms of what afghanistan would look like. part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in afghanistan after coalition forces have left.

what we have tried to persuade pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent afghanistan. we tried to get conversations between of canon -- afghans and pakistanis going more effectively than they have in the past. there is more work to do. there is no doubt that some of the >> -- some of the connections pakistan intelligence has with certain individuals are troubling. i have said that publicly and privately to pakastani officials as well. they see their security interests threatened by an independent afghanistan, in part because they think it will ally

itself to india, and pakistan still considers india their mortal enemy. part of what we want to do is action get pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach toward india would be in everybody's interests, and would help pakistan actually develop. one of the biggest problems we have in pakistan and now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, a civil institutions that are not strong enough to deliver for the pakastani people. in that environment, you have seen extremism grow. you have seen militancy growth that does not just threaten our efforts in afghanistan, but also threatens the pakastani government and the pakastani people as well. trying to get the reorientation is something we will continue to work on. it is not easy. >> [inaudible]

>> we will constantly evaluate our relationship with pakistan. based on, is, overall, this helping to protect americans and our interests? we have a great desire to help the pakastani people strengthen their own society and their own government, and so, i would be hesitant to punish heat for flood victims in pakistan -- for flood victims in pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence service. but there is no doubt that we are not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with pakistan if we do not think they are mindful of our interests as

well. i will make this the last question. >> thank you. what should european leaders do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward, and second, how you view the situation of the u.s. economy, and finally, do you feel that european leaders have been negligent in pushing austerity too soon? >> those are good been questions. the biggest headwind the american economy is facing now is uncertainty about europe. it is affecting global markets. the slowdown that we are seeing is not just happening here in the united states. it is happening everywhere, even

in emerging markets like china. you're seeing greater caution, less investment, deep concern. in some ways, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the united states after the lehmans collapse, the aggressive action that -- actions that were taken right after lehman's did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that europe did not fully go through. uncertainty around greece and their ability to pay their debts, the debts these other

countries are facing, portugal, ireland as well, all of that has put severe strain on the world financial markets. i speak frequently with angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy. they are mindful of these challenges. i think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. i think they're very committed to the european project, but their politics are tough. essentially, they have got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments, they have got to get agreement with 20 parliaments or 24 parliaments or 27 parliaments. engineering that kind of coordinated action is very

difficult, but what i have been seeing of the last month is a recognition by european leaders of the urgency of the situation. no one will be affected more than they will be if the situation there stands out of control. i am confident that they want to get this done. i think there are some technical issues they're working on in terms of how they get a big enough -- how did they get enough firepower to let the markets know that they're going to be standing behind euro members whose -- who may be in a weaker position, but they have got to act fast. we have the g-20 meeting coming up in november. my strong hope is that by the time of the g-20 meeting, that they have a very clear,

concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. it will have an effect. it has already had an effect here in the united states. it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it never has been before. that is one of the biggest challenges that we have post- 2008, after this financial crisis, is that america has always been, over the last 20 years, has been the engine for world economic growth. we were the purchasers of last resort. we were the importers of last resort. we would stimulate our economy and our american consumers would buy stuff around the world. if they got into trouble, they could always say, well, we're going to sell to the u.s. we are now going through a

situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts. businesses are more cautious. and the u.s. government, obviously, has its own fiscal challenges. we have to make sure we're living within our means, although we have to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect the fragile economy. so, what that means is that europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. they are going to have to fix that problem, and part of the goal that i have been trying to promote for the last two years and i will repeat at the g-20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. we have to get into a posture where the u.s., which is always going to be a big market, and we welcome goods from around the world, but we also have to be selling goods around the world. it cannot just be running up our debt in order to help other

folks economies. our families, our businesses and our government have to be sure we are being frugal and producing here in the united states, and by the way, that is what is going to create strong middle class jobs here in the united states. i think part if what is the part of what is going on in the country generally is that a lot of that debt that was built up before 2008, that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy were not as strong as they needed to be. that is why not only do we need to put americans back to work now, we need to keep on reforming our education system so that we are producing the highest skilled graduates in the world. we have to keep on investing in basic research and science. we have to rebuild our infrastructure, have a smarter energy policy.

that is a huge source of us having to import from other countries instead of being able to export to other countries. all of the singer going to be important, and all the things are going to be challenging. -- all of those things are going to be important and all of those things are going to be challenging. they're going to be hard. but right now, we need to put people back to work. that is why congress needs to pass this jobs bill. the last point i will make. if bill is right and everybody on capitol hill is cynical and saying there is no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep going at them. i want everybody to be clear. my intention is to insist that each part of this, i want an explanation as to why we should not be doing it. each component part. putting people back to work, rebuilding our roads, putting

teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses and middle-class families, tax breaks for our veterans. we will just keep going at it and hammering away until something gets done. i would love nothing more than to see congress act so aggressively that i cannot campaign against them as they do nothing congress. thank you very much everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule here on c-span network. starting at 8:00 p.m., another chance to see president obama as news conference, challenging congress to pass his jobs plan. on c-span-2, treasury secretary timothy geithner testifies on the u.s. economy and financial

stability. on c-span-3, a house homeland security subcommittee looks at security issues in the cloud computing phenomenon and the ability to share government affirmation. all of this tonight and the c- span tv networks. tomorrow on "washington journal," former senate budget chairman -- budget committee chairman judd gregg. then a representative of patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength discusses taxing the wealthy and why his organization once those making over $1 million a year to return to the tax rates of 2001. after that, the educational performances of american students. "washington journal," live friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

next, republican presidential candidate ron paul on campaign 2012 and washington politics. he also announced he has raised $8 million in the last three months, with his campaign having more than 100,000 donors. from the national press club, this is an hour. >> for more information about

the national press club, i would invite you to visit our web site. there. find information i would like to welcome our speaker today as well as those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. i've always remind you that if you hear applause in the audience, members of the general public are attending so it is not necessarily a lack of objectivity. i would also like to welcome c- span. you can follow the action on twitter. after our guest speech concludes, we will have q&a and ask as many questions as time permits. please note that a journalist

present at the head table does not imply an endorsement of the speaker. i would ask each person to stand as your name is announced. the communications director for the institute of public accuracy. diana is a reporter for reuters. jonathan is a reporter for bloomberg news and also one of our former presidents hear the national press club. holly johnson is scheduler for the congressman and a guest of the speaker. todd is a bureau chief of the dallas morning news. chief of staff for the congressman's congressional office. we will skip over the podium for just a moment. melissa is with news hook media. she is the fabulous chair of our speakers committee. without her, we would have no speakers this year and we're in her debt. our speaker for a moment. danny is the member who organize

today's event. thank you. gary is the national press secretary for the congressman's presidential campaign and a guest of the speaker. mike is vice president of communications at the heritage foundation. we have the communications director with the house ag committee. welcome and thank you. and the end of the table, mark is the editorial page editor of the washington examiner and a longtime club member. now please give them a warm round of applause. [applause] our guest speaker today is a member of the u.s. house of representatives representing texas's 11th congressional district who announced his run to become the gop nominee of the president of the united states this past july. he is known by many as the intellectual godfather of the tea party movement.

he wants to abolish most federal agencies including the irs and the federal reserve and return our monetary system to something akin to a gold standard. he has proposed a constitutional amendment that would abolish personal income being used for state give taxes. he was among six republicans who voted against giving president george w. bush authority to use military force in iraq. he said the resolution was unconstitutional because it transferred the right to declare war from congress to the executive branch. he has remained consistent critic of military intervention in foreign lands. he and massachusetts democrat barney frank campaign for cuts to the defense budget. he takes a dim view of the international monetary fund, the

world trade organization, and the united nations. he has said that he believes marriages the union of one man and one woman. he voted in 2004 and 2006 against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage saying everyone is an individual and ought to be treated equally. he also back repeal in late 2010 on the statutory ban of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. he opposes abortion. our guest also ran for president in 2008. he decided this time around to put all of his energy into the 2012 race, vowing that he would not seek a 12th term in congress. originally from pittsburgh, he graduated from gettysburg college and the duke university school of medicine. he is a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. in1970's, he won a seat

congress. in 1984, he returned to his medical practice. returning to congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of texas, he serves on the house financial services committee and the subcommittee on monetary policy and technology. he is the author of several books including, "the revolution," "manifesto," "the case for gold," "and a republican if you can keep it." we welcome having him here to speak at the national press club. please give a warm national press club welcome to congressman ron paul. [applause] >> thank you very much for that nice introduction and a nice reception.

i am honored that i received an invitation to speak here today so i am very pleased to be here and look forward to visiting with you. you know, before i get into my remarks, i did want to make my one announcement about the campaign. i'm not very good about remembering the details of campaigning because i get very involved in economic policy and foreign policy, and i do not talk a lot about the intricacies of the campaign. we did just and a quarter for fund-raising and the reports will be out on the 15th. we do have a pretty sound numbers that we have on the amount of money we collected, and i have been told by the staff that we have collected over $8 million and also that's the number of donors to the campaign now is over 100,000. we're very pleased with that and believe that will give us the energy to keep the campaign moving right along since right now there is a lot of energy

with our volunteers and with our organization. we have a lot of energy associated with our young people on college campuses, so that will continue. i do want to spend some time today to get started in the discussion on economic policy, because in the campaign, economic policy right now is the big issue, the issue of jobs and why we're in a recession and what exactly is going on. four years ago this subject came up. even in 2007, i was talking about being in a recession and this was sort of club off. things have changed a whole lot. my concern is about the unemployment rate, the financial bubble's we were experiencing early on. they have all come about where the average person on the street knows there is something very seriously wrong.

this is not like another recession. we have had 17 setbacks, recessions, some more is -- some more severe than others, since we have had the federal reserve system. this whole idea that the federal reserve is a major economic system that gives a stable prices and full employment, i would say the evidence is out there that they have not done a very good job. even though they might give you statistics and say yes, prices are not going up that much. actually, we would like them to go a little faster. it is a fiction and i think most people know it. if you look to the free-market economists, you will find the prices are going up better rate of about 9%. for some people, it goes up even faster. everybody's inflation rate is not all the same. you know, if you are a very

wealthy person, you do not really care about the price of gasoline and other things, but if you are living on the margin or you are retired person, it is a very serious matter. right now, retirees are suffering a whole lot because the last two go-arounds they did not get a cost-of-living increase, claiming that there is no price inflation to worry about. my challenge over the many years, and my motivation to get involved in politics in 1970 had to do with economic policy in relationship to the principle of personal liberty. i deal with -- if somebody asked me what my main goal is, that is to restore individual liberty to everybody in this country equally. then you have a special way of looking at all civil liberties. you have a special idea about what kind of foreign policy we should have. it would certainly tell us what kind of economic policy we should have. i believe in the free market.

i believe the free market is the only humane system that can provide the maximum amount of things to the maximum number of people. i reject central economic planning. my whole problem in a political sense is that we are now witnessing the failure of an economic system that has been with us especially since the 1930's because basically, we as a people, in our universities, have been taught keynesian economics, and that is planned economies, and the federal reserve has become the big, central economic planner. the results right now, arts demonstrations on the street not only around the world, but right here in the united states. a lot of people are pretty upset. they know there is something wrong and they want something different. the whole theory behind free- market economics is that the federal reserve is the key

instrument for the business cycle. their job is to monkey around and thinks interest rates, the price of money. most people in this country, most economists, conservative or liberal, are no longer pushing wage and price controls. that does not mean they may not try that later on, because price controls are coming in medicine, and that is one of the problems we have already and it will get much worse. but nobody is saying that wage and price controls is something that is beneficial. but when it comes to fixing the price of money come affixing interest rates, nobody asked any questions. they just assume that the federal reserve knows how much money they year should be and what the interest rates should be. but in free-market economics, prices are key. the price of the product tells the consumer what to do. if the price is too high, the consumer doesn't buy.

every businessman knows what to do. without that, socialism is destined to fail. a free-market economist in 1912 predicted this. he predicted the fall of the communist system before was actually at its best level. it was yet to come. socialism was explained to never work, and it did not work and we have seen the failure of it. the only question now is whether interventionism, which is what we have today, how long it will last. money is one half of every single transaction, and yet we do not question the fact that a couple of individuals, secretly, 12 people get together and say i wonder what the money supply should be this week. let's double the money supply. let's create 15 trillion dollars worth of bailout. who gets a bailout?

people who are too big to fail. people who are too little to worry about it lose their jobs and lose their houses. the federal reserve is bigger and spend more money than the congress does. it has no oversight. this is one of the reasons i have for years and years argued for oversight. back in the 1970's, the chairman of the federal banking committee wanted to do it. another democratic chairman tried to get it done. it has not been done, but we are making inroads due to the lawsuits that have come up and do to a partial audit the we had last summer. we are getting some information. the information is not good. the fed was involved in probably about $15 trillion worth of actions. when the american people hear this, and no wonder they are up on wall street raising cain because they know that the system is biased against the average person.

i think this is an issue there really questions the whole idea of the intervention a system -- interventionist system. when i said in my opening remarks is that a free market is a humane system, and humanitarian system. we you argue for limited the government and free markets, people are saying you guys do not care. the result is the system we have today, whether it is the recession or the result of a financial bubble -- think of the housing programs. we had easy money, easy credit, lower interest rates. everyone was to have a house. not only did the fed make the money available, but the affirmative action program told banks they had to make bad loans. it seemed to work. people were buying houses. it was fantastic. the price of the house went up and people are more against it.

i do not know how anyone could miss the there was a bubble out there. then the bubble burst. it was predictable by free market economics. what happens? yelling and screaming and scaring people, there is going to be a depression, there is going to be a depression if you do not bail out the rich, bill at the corporations, bailout the banks. they did not get the depression. they got the bailout. they have $1 trillion of securities, these derivative types of securities. why did not sell them? they are worthless. instead of liquidating debt which is necessary in a bubble in order to get back to growth again, we just transferred the penalty from the wealthy, the wall streeters, over to the people. what happened to all of this wonderful idea of giving the people a house? they lost their jobs. they cannot pay their mortgage. now they're losing their houses. and there is no end in sight.

the basic flaw in this is the prevention of politicians from allowing the markets to correct because politicians cannot act with hands off. they have to do something. were to the 1930's, there recessions and depressions, and usually became because of a distortion of money and credit and pyramiding debt, and the correction had to come, that that time, there is not this keynesian obsession with bailing out people, so the depression would last a short time. in 1921, the recession lasted for a year. we do not even study it in history books. but in the 1930's, that is when the keynesian interventionists had come and go -- envelope and you had to do something. they gave us a depression into 1947.

the idea that warranted the depression is a terrible idea that is still floated around. it gets rid of unemployment, but where are they employed, getting shot and killed. millions of troops came home. the military budget was slashed in more than half. taxes were down 30%. we went back to work again. we are doing the same thing that the japanese have been doing for a couple of decades, propping up bad debts. that is the most difficult thing that we have to deal with, allowing these mistakes to be corrected. these ideas have floated around a long time and they're connected to the ideas of personal liberty. we should see people as individuals and not in groups. it was mentioned in the introduction about who can and who cannot serve in the

military. i see that as those problems that we have had in the past is too often we see people, well, in the very long past, people were mistreated because they belong to certain groups, which was very evil. but now, we still see people trying to gain advantage. i belong to this group or this group. a person that understands personal liberty sees everybody as an individual and it has nothing to do with the group you belong to. it is a system of thought that is very tolerant. in many ways, it is the way we look at our first amendment. we are very tolerant about our first amendment in many ways because what we do is we say, you can say things. the first amendment is there to protect you to say controversial things and we do not question the fact that you can say very, very vicious philosophies. just think of how many hundreds

of millions of people were killed by communists in the 20th-century, but we do not outlaw that. i often people are annoyed when i talk about personal liberty. they get annoyed, well, somebody might use their personal liberty to practice and have it i cannot endorse. freedom of choice, as long as it does not hurt other people, is not an endorsement. if we could allow individuals to pick and choose their intellectual lives and their spiritual lives, why is it we got to the point where we are obsessed with regulating people's personal habits and dependent on the government that we tend to complain about too much that the government will always take care of us? we have now are accepted the notion that governments can protect us from ourselves, and it is very, very dangerous. it is a careless attitude the civil liberties. -- about civil liberties.

i've talked a little bit about the federal reserve and the importance of sound money. another reason you need sound money, if you happen to be opposed to the massive expansion of government, whether it is the entitlement system or the perpetual wars that we are in, you cannot be opposed to a gold standard because that is the way they have done it. that is the way they have financed a for years. it is not just printing money. we just use a computer. it cannot be financed. these wars would have never started if we had had to tax the american people. the founders did their very best to try to put the control of us going to war in the hands of the people through the congress, never in the hands of the executive branch of a king or a president. yet today, congress has graciously given up that prerogative. the people do not seem to care. they listen to war propaganda. listen to the war propaganda

going on currently. we are on the verge of going to war against the iranians and the pakastani. we of 700,000 from missiles stationed around the world. we assume we can drop those any place we want any time we won. guess what? that is how innocent people die. sometimes those innocent people when they die have families. sometimes they get very annoyed by that. the real irony of this stationing of drones around the world, both the cia as well as the 911 commission and acknowledged the fact that a significant event that helped prompt the 911 attack was the fact that we had military bases, was considered holy land in saudi arabia. immediately after 911, we took the military base out. the cia has talked about about for a long time. -- about blow back for a long time. guess what, we are loading up the uranium into the arabian

peninsula with these trends? do you think that will go unnoticed? no. there are more suicide attacks in one month around the world than occurred in the entire time prior to 9-11. we are under direct threat. it is very dangerous. it is going to get worse. accepting the fact that the president needs more resources to pursue a war against any place in the world, with the president needs is more authority. he can now assassinate people without due process. american citizens, and people cheer it. what is going on with this country? if it would make us perfectly safe and richer we had to sacrifice our liberties, it would be pretty tough. exactly the opposite is happening. we are less free and we are certainly broke. these wars have cost us $4

trillion. that is a major contributing factor to our national debt. this is not new. this is what has happened throughout history. empire's get too big. they spread themselves too thinly around the world and they self-destruct. this is what the soviet system did. there is no more chance of us having people think we have a victory in afghanistan than a man in a move. it did man in the moon. there is no chance. many veterans came back from iraq and afghanistan supporting my candidacy. one area where i am very pleased to announce also, that if you add up all the donations to all the other republican candidates from military active- duty people, i get twice as much because they are sick and tired of these wars and they know they are not working out.

one man came the other day. he was practically in tears and talking about all his buddies that he lost in afghanistan. now it is something nobody cares about. it is hardly written about. his buddy committed suicide because of the long-term consequences. what about the 8500 who died, the 40,000 severely injured, hundreds of thousands begging and pleading for help of the veterans administration and we want to go and start more wars? what did gates say when he left the defense department? he said anybody who wants to start another war in these conditions needs their head examined. we need our heads opened up. we need our brains opened up. we need to pay little attention to what is going on. that is where we really need. that is with the demonstrations are all about on the streets. one of these days, people are going to wake up and connect the

excessive spending in these wars overseas and our economic decline in this country. i believe very sincerely that we are in an a crisis right now that is going to be a do-or-die situation. we are at a point where i think we have essentially, hopefully i am wrong, essentially have crossed the rubicon. we have crossed that barrier from republic to dictatorship, to tierney, to empire. we have our empire. we're in 150 countries. we of 900 bases around the world and people are begging for more war. we do have the empire. but what about the financing? what happens in a dictatorship? they have nominal control of the creation of -- monetary control of the creation of money and

credit, and they have that. also is the loss of civil liberties. weather is the war on drugs, the irs, the war and terror, what privacy do we have? today they are talking about institutionalizing -- the government can call up all cell phones because there is a trillion dollars of debt for students that cannot ever pay them. they can i get jobs. so what we're going to do >> we have an announced program of assassinating american citizens. we are on in a war. we have lost our republic. this has to be reversed rather quickly. without a strict adherence to the rule of law, things go downhill.

i believe that is the case. my advocacy is for the cause of liberty, because for what america stood for at one time, because for sound money and free markets. to help people get their courage back. the government gave houses and free education to everyone and now they are in a dilemma. they have to follow up on the consequences now. there is a better understanding now of the free market economy and sound money than ever before. we cannot solve the problems of the world. we cannot go into nation- building. these fights have been going on for thousands of years. we have to be forced to make changes. there is no reason why we cannot make positive changes. we can get out of this.

we cannot do it with the same economic and foreign policy we have now. that is a figment of the imagination. we do not have a budget crisis. we have a crisis in what the government possible should be. what should the role of government be? take care of us from cradle to grave and tell us what to do with our personal lives? or is it to protect our liberties? there is a big difference. it is that part that made our country great. we are seeing that this appeared before our eyes. the young people know it. they are awakening. pitino they need something new and different. they are listening and studying foreign policy. they are sick and tired of what

they are inheriting. there is every reason for me to be very optimistic for the changes that have come about here in the last several years. i will continue to do that and campaign. i believe the campaign is going very well. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have a number of questions that were sent in through the internet as well as from the audience. first, we will try to translate what he said in a speech to what you do as the president of the united states. it is one thing to campaign for the office, but it is another to actually occupy the seat on to the white house.

the american people seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the lack to enforce policy in washington. if you are the president of the united states, what are the steps that you would take that parallel the campaign speech that you just gave with were to attack some of these larger problems? >> in order to get the economy growing, it you have to liquidate the debt. liquidate the debt by quit bailing out these agencies. the to the bills were congress tries to bail out special interest, as well as a cartel but the fed can do. -- as well as curtail what the fed can do. there has to be a lot of spending cuts. i am going to be proposing in detail a cut and spending of one

trillion dollars. all this talk about cutting in the future, it means nothing and the american people know it. we need cops. eban guarantee that we cannot be abusing the civil liberties of individuals -- i can guarantee that we would not be abusing the civil liberties of individuals. there is a lot that the president can do. but also, working with congress is key. we should bring people together, not by two sites sacrificing their beliefs. -- not to buy two sides sacrificing their beliefs.

at the same time, bring people together and realizing that we do have to cut spending. it is a major task. no doubt. i believe that i have a better chance of solving our problems. >> a couple of follow-up questions. why can you outlined what the spending cuts are today? and if you are going to bring the soldiers home, we have 14 million people unemployed and to be as right now. where would they find jobs? >> first, if you bring them home. they would spend the money here at home. if you want to look at a good example is starkly and economically, look at world war ii.

fiver 6 billion people got out of the liberty -- five or 6 million people got out of the military and went back to work. i would not be frightened by that. it's been to understand the market, there is nothing to be concerned about. and talk in broad categories, but i want to design a program that you could understand it. when we talk about the defense budget, i do not want to cut defense. i went to cut the military. eisenhower tried to teach us about building weapons that we do not use. we should not fight on to was that we have no business in. we have less defense because about.

our coast guard is over in the persian gulf. where are they when we want to use them for rescue operations when natural disasters happen? they are over in afghanistan. you can cut programs that have no constitutional authority. where is the authorities to have a department of energy or education or commerce? will they not exist if we have free markets and some money? we have to understand how the markets work. we need to have confidence in the markets. the cuts can be there. copley in due time, the specifics will be there. you can look at every item. you can slash the budget by about 75% by anything that is not directly constitutional.

it is a lack of respect for the constitution by going to war are real institutionalizing prohibition without a constitutional amendment. we have gone so far from what was really intended by the founders of this country. >> just to follow up, when would you have specific ideas about where to cut? >> a couple of weeks, i believe. i am more specific than others. i want to get rid of the department of education, commerce, agriculture, and cut the military budget by half. that is a pretty good start and pretty specific. [laughter] [applause] >> you can stay up here. you talked quite a bit about the protest occurring on wall street.

what to do you see are your areas of agreement with these people? as president, what would do to ameliorate their concerns? did he seem to be upset with big business and the banks. -- they seem to be upset with big business and the banks. >> i can argue the case for their right to express their frustration for what is going on. some are liberals and some are conservatives and some are libertarians. if you reid it carefully, a lot of what i have written on economic policy, i talked a lot about this. essentially, we will go bankrupt. we will undermine our productivity because we have had no new jobs in the past 10 years. and we have had an increase in our population. essentially our jaws will go

overseas and the pie will shrink. -- essentially our jobs will go overseas and the pie will shrink. it is up to the states to deal with it. i think civil disobedience, it is a legitimate effort. it has been done in this country permitting grievances. some people end up going to deal for this. to speak for a special group and say i like what they are doing or not the doing, what i want to do is sort it out and tell people why they are struggling. if this was a predictable event, the solution is getting the economy back. you cannot get a healthy economy and we get things done that i was talking about earlier. >> this is a question from the audience. it retained a solid block of

republican votes in the polls. what do need to do to get into the top tier? >> a plan to do exactly what i've been doing for the past 35 years. talking about that philosophies of liberty. i will continue to do that. and will continue to run a very well campaign. we are raising enough money. we are going to continue to do the same. the only difference is the primaries. >> are you focusing attention on the early process? >> yes. i spend more time in ohio -- iowa and new hampshire. >> one of the things about your campaign that seems unique, the

yearning for some to jump into the campaign. the headlines of the past 24 hours have focused on chris christie. peopleou feel about the yearning for someone else to jump in? >> i think it represents the failure of the system. the candidates that i am up against represented very much the status quo. it does not answer the question. it does not even asked the right questions about what liberty is all about. what about the federal reserve? changing the foreign policies? those questions are not being asked.

they keep looking for others, but quite frankly, i have an uphill battle. i imagine that everyone in this room knows who won the straw vote in florida. i went to see a hand up it and you did not know who won it. does anyone know who won the straw vote in california? one person. yours truly, i won the straw vote in florida. i have an up -- in california. we were able to turn around the exclusion of me being tied for

president place became an issue. i think we did it quite well. i do not lie awake at night worrying about this. that is part of how the system works. it explains why if there is somebody out there offering something different and something the american people like, we have to compensate for our ability to get the message out. i feel good by going to university campuses and getting fit in hundred young people out the message. they know what is going on and they use the internet. they were giving be a lot of encouragement. >> so you did not have a problem with the way the news media is treating your campaign? >> no, i'd just accept it. that is the way it has always been. look at the jon stewart.

he demonstrated rather dramatically. it was what was going on. it makes a big difference, yes. if we are worth our salt and we can raise the money and we can communicate, i would say for the most part, i get a pretty fair shake. i am not in the best person to ask why these things happen because i had no idea. i did not know why some things are news and why some things aren't. >> you have raised more money than many other republican candidates. you have legions of small supporters. why has that not translated into a better boost into the polls? >> this is a different world compared to four years ago.

fund-raising is easier. the support is much greater. the organization is much more organized and professional. our polls did not to discourage us both in new hampshire and iowa. you have to finally do well in the polls and overcome all obstacles of getting the message out and raising the money. as far as progress is concerned, i am pretty satisfied. >> you brought up the issue of fund raising in your speech. i know you are dealing good about it. what kind of boost the think governor carey will get about raising $17 billion for the campaign? -- governor perry will get about raising 17 billion for the

campaign? >> that is a lot different than getting money from special interest. i do not get that type of money. i have been on financial- services for all these years. bankers do not give me any money. i wonder why. they know where i stand. i think it is much different. all donors are not equal. i will take my smaller donation with the enthusiasm of the people who send me the money. >> since you raise the issue of raising money and obviously he relied on that, how do you feel about the way the system works now work on raising is an important part of that? the supreme court -- does that make it more difficult for a

candidate like you who is not working through the system that other candidates might? >> probably. i do not know how important it is. president obama says he will raise $1 billion. there is a limit. there has been some very wealthy individuals who are self- financed and they may win, but they may not get elected. money is not the only issue. i think the funds are very important, but i do not think this is an invitation to say that we have to limit. i believe in freedom of people to extend -- spend their money. the power on to the government to control our lives and pass out favors, that is not dead.

-- that is not good. i do not think -- money is pretty important, but i do not think it is the final answer. of course, we have to prove ourselves. >> we have a system from the university of tampa who asked, why is it that you receive more donations from military members than any other candidates? is that true? >> that is true. i did mention it. i got so far twice as much from active military duty than all the other republican candidates put together. that should be a message.

also, more than obama got. it tells me one thing, the young people and the military people, they are sick and tired of the war. they want to come home. that is the message i am competing every single day. the war is fruitless. it can be looked at this as a moral issue, monitor issue, and a constitutional issue, we would not have lost one soldier over there. it is endless. it is because we break the rules. if we were more restrained, in fact, before we went to iraq, i said, if anyone to the war, but for it. the up front. -- be up front.

that is an example of the loss of the republic. president obama can go to war this week. look at where we have been. i was in the military for five years during the 1960's. that war was not declared. korea was not declared. now president obama is starting a war in libya. he does not even mention it to us. what is so discouraging is the lack of attitude for the people. but that is what i am hoping to change. i think we are changing that quite frankly. the polls show that a definite majority of americans are saying, enough is enough. >> you reid along those lines. you suggested that the killing of a suspected terrorist could

be an impeachable offense. if that is indeed the case, the american people should have the courage -- >> they have not follow the constitution. it is a practical matter. there is not going to be an endorsement. nothing is going to happen. it is an impeachable offense. just ignoring the fifth amendment and assassinating american citizens without the processing and without telling us the rules? he is a threat? can you imagine being put on a list because you are a threat? what if the need becomes a threat? or a professor becomes a threat?

sunday that could well happen. -- some day that could well happen. it is slipping and sliding, let me tell you. we should not ignore this. we should pay attention. >> if you believe that is the case, when not go ahead and press charges? >> i do not think it will accomplish anything because the sentiment is not there. it is more important that we educate the people to understand how offensive is. if there is a consensus, and that will come along. many people now are having second thoughts about that assassination. this was an announced policy in february of 2010 by dennis

blair and he used the word assassination. he said that is now our policy. think of the list that we already have at the airport. you are a potential terrorist going to the airports. they can violate all of your civil liberties. they can put you on this list. how do you get your name off the list if you are considered a threat? thousands of people are on these lists. we are not safer for it. we are broke and we are in greater danger. robert tate is the expert on suicide-terrorism. he says that the number one

reason but every terrorist attack he has studied is occupation. we go into various countries and invade them, people get killed, then they should back and they are terrorists. there for we have to expand our war to go after those who were trying to kill us because we are occupying their land. i do not know why i cannot think of a foreign-policy of good will. the golden rule could apply to treat people how you want to be treated. but if in the next 10 years we get poorer and china gets richer?

we cannot allow that to happen. this is what is going on today. there is a transition away from protecting civil liberties. i want to protect these liberties. i did not want restraints on you as an individual. this censorship of the media, we respected that. but we should do that for all individuals rather than say he is a threat or terrorists, but we did not need to tell you why he was put on the terrorist list. if he is a terrorist, have a trial. all the nazi criminals were tried. they were taken to court and then executed.

they're quite a few examples like that. the reason why we do this is because we want to protect the rule of law for ourselves. you protect first amendment rights to protect the rights to say controversial things, not to talk about the weather. that is why you have to protect the courts. not because they are the bad people, we are protecting it so that it does not to get out of hand. it is the crucial matter. >> when you talk about the cause of terrorism being the occupation of other lands, how does that fit into what happened on 9/11? >> reid michael short and robert tape. -- read michael short and robert tate. the reason for hitting us on

9/11, it was the constant bombing of killing in iraq which was challenged on national tv. probably 5000 died, but she said that is the price you have to pay. that is the reason they gave. it is very real. another good example of this is when the occupation stops, the terrorist attack stops. libbin on is a -- lebanon is a perfect example. we receive as occupiers. we were attacked. we had marines killed by a suicide-bomb terrorist.

once we left, there were no more suicide-bomb terrorist. it just stopped. reagan said he would never turned tail and run, but he did because he did not realize that the rationality of the politics in that region. he had been more neutral the pof neutrality. that took a lot of courage and it mid the shortcomings. >> we're almost out of time. the couple of housekeeping matters you like to take care of. on october 13, raymond lahood to the department of transportation. natalie cole will talk about the foundation and for public health initiatives. 4.rvey will be here october 2

herman cain will join us following november 3. before we do get to the last question, we would like to present you with our small think you get. that is the traditional coffee mug. here is our last question. >> is a son is the u.s. and a share. how is this different or better than you are? >> it reminds me of a little story. when we were sworn in, we were on the same television program. it had the feel that your son is in the senate. i said i've already told him if he does a real good job that he might be able to get a seats >>

thank you for coming. thank you. thank you for organizing the event. if you like to get a copy you can check it out at www.pressclub.org. thank you. we are adjourned. >[captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> watch more video. see what political reporters are saying. it is easy to use and helps you navigate the political thing. plus links to the media partners in primary and caucus states. >> >> president obama held a news conference today at the white house to challenge congress to support his jobs plan. he also announced to support a new proposal by senate democrats to tax billionaires. see it tonight at 8:00 p.m.

eastern. >> before the election of 1916, here is a lawyer and professor. though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on political history remains. and he is one of the 40 men featured in the new weekly series the contenders. it is live in washington, d.c.. >> now remarks from the former pakistani president's. he also talked about troop withdrawal from afghanistan and strategic policy shifts since president obama came to power. held earlier today this is 20

minutes. >> how're you doing? >> good morning. i was struck as i began to do background reading. he is 10 years older than ibm. the volume of what he has worked until his years surpasses by 58 years. this is for years between the great partition. some of the earliest memories were being on the night train. they lived with 18 people. the family moved to turkey where the president learned turkish. he was not a model citizen.

small-time bombs during hess career. he is chief of the arms staff. he became ceo and president of pakistan. there have been six assassination attempts. it is a fantastic run. >> let me gamut that bloodless coup. you were overseas. >> i was. i was in austria lanka. i returned from there. i wish traveling in normal commercial flights.

many of them are school students. as we approached it, and we came down to about 8,000 feet, they called me to the cockpit. it was important. the tell me that they're not being allowed to land. i presume that this might involve me. why else would the second order of the past? the order was from 31,000 feet. can either go to an airfield in

golf 4 in india. that could be an imaginable for me to end. >> we rose to 21,000 feet. i said tell the people that i'm not in contact with anyone on the ground. they should allow was to land there. he was taking about five vs minutes. they were passing messages. then they were getting it back. this was taking a lot of time. in they said there were contenders on the runway for you .annot land perri

he said we do not have fuel. he allowed us to go to a recovery airfield. as we were going toward it, actions took place on grounds. the army -- i was not in contact at all. the pilot got a message from the air traffic controller. the pilot said we have just enough fuel with the you want to take a back. when we landed only have about eight minutes of a fuel. i was in charge of pakistan. cracks >> how many of us have

had bad flights? let's roll forward a little bit. in 2004 there was a poll taken. he is the most popular president in world. we saw relations strong. did you were publicly supportive of president bush and the united states. we were spending $2 billion mom in security. the united states is viewed as the no. 1 external threat to the country. there is a very big concern about the way pakistan is going. it seems the best thing we could understand is what went wrong. when you were president, did you

already see the relation slipping away between the united states and pakistan? >> there is no doubt in my mind we had a degree of trust and confidence. i believe the relation for states have a lot to do. may i proudly say that i have a relationship of preston bench -- president bush. we could talk directly to each other. these are the issues. and wonder if that exists now, that mutual confidence. there is a total breakdown of trust and confidence.

that is what is harming their relationship. >> what you say to one who says the 90 states despite pakistan not trust us. >> what do we not understand about why they are upset? >> i do not like to go into too much detail. it has a history. they are independent. we are using the united states to fight. in 1989, there are the 5000. there are policies.

this was seem extreme and negatively by the people pakistan. we have been used and the trade. it is the feeling of the people. >> are their feelings like that today? >> ps. -- are their feelings like that today? >> yes. they came up and in 1996. then comes 9/11. he is on the scene again. now the people asking how are you sure where not bingo traded again. this has a historical past. it has led to a mistrust against the united states.

i told you what happened beyond 1989. now we're planning to leave in 2014, that is the impact on the people again. i am not speaking on behalf of government. there must be some analysis going on. i will be returning to the situation in 1989 when afghanistan was ravaged. or i will be returning to 1996 where there is the northern alliance. it was a big target. one of these situations will definitely be there.

we have to be conscious of this pa. we re;y ply on this. >> i think it is hard for americans to understand the frame through which you review this relationship. let me do this over. the significance of this, what is the concern that pakistan has? do you think we do not understand that? >> yes. i would imagine you do not understand. we fought wars.

i am a strong believer that we have to resolved this and have peace. i have been called a man of war. i have called two wars. i am a soldier. i am a man of war but a man for peace. my son is named after my best friend who got killed in action. i understand how much to suffer in war. having said that, it is unfortunate. it is different between the intelligence organizations.

this is been happening all over. this must go. we must resolve this dispute. it is trying to create some and be pakistan and afghanistan. >> what is his ambition? >> it must be to weaken pakistan and to have a week pakistan -- a weak pakistan. >> it is not a military concern. it is a preeminent trade. thinktoday's world i

dominating a country and movie a against a country does not mean we want to takeover. i do not think that can happen. we had bangladesh get independence. it implies dominating the foreign-policy. there is the trade and commerce. that is how you control this. >> where does this problem ranked no. your concern? is the largest concern you have? >> it is not such a great concern if we do not have this problem to afghanistan. they are diplomats.

security people all go to india. i have offered them training. not one man has come to pakistan for training. they go to india. we have been achieved -- achieved this. it must stop. the united states must understand their concern. i would say the united states needs to understand their sensitivities. there is a lack of concern for pakistan. >> let me tell you to issues we do not understand care the first one is where ben lavin was found.

if he was there for five years, he would have been there during your presidency. explain why you do not believe the army knew this location. >> it has to be clarified. i do not believe that there was the issue of complexity. that was the issue. i say it was negligent. why do i say that decks file is to get some rationale our reasoning, you could go. whether anyone believes it not,

i did not know. i'm 500% sure that i did not do. therey in that area and neknew were pictures of osama on site. not one of them said they have been used. you are banking on human intelligence. it is hard to mess. a lot of people think think it to such a huge house. i'm sorry to say.

you do not have a bit. i do not see on television that this is anything unusual. i do not see it to be anything unusual. i do not see anything unusual. there would have been some security a round. i would not use it as a bargaining chip. i think people misread this. it is about 500,000.

people go and stay there. all militaries are mixed. their training centers are open. it is open. it is not complicity. it must be explained by pakistan. it lies with pakistan. why was there such serious negligence? we must not believe this. it to be very serious.

time,ause they're out of let me explain that there under an arrest warrant >> thank you for coming. [applause] >> president obama held a news conference today at the white house to challenge congress to support his his jobs plan. he also announced he would support any proposal by senate democrats to tax millionaires and pay for the legislation. did see the event tonight at 8:00 a.m. eastern for j 8:00

p.m. eastern. >> an exit discussion on the role of the federal reserve and president obama's jobs plan. from "washington journal" this . "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: kevinray, thank you for being here. you heard about -- kevin brady, thank you for being here. you heard us tk about steven jobs. what lessons do we have from america's success in the technology world to apply to job creation? guest: there is no substitute for the drive of an american entrepreneur.

i did nothing to governme could have created the ipad, the ipod, transformed music and entertainment. he had country in the tax code that encourage investment. he had an opportunity in this country to be able to market and go against the big boys and be able to transform an industry without necessarily asking for government handouts along the way. and i think it is ironic on the day we lose such an iconic genius, on to burn or that washington proposes a surtax on successful people like him. so of a success tax on those who have been worked and generated so many jobs. to me this seems to be a disconnect on that issue.

host: his public held more than 300 patents -- his company held more than 300 patents. access to capital is challenging in this economy. guest: no question about that. and our patent process needs to be reformed. it is easier and quicker and less litigious to do with it other countries. i am hopeful that it will help some in that area. it goes at the heart of -- i did not think anyone should be discouraged by this process. there is no question that we can do would and streamlined much better. host: i want to open the phone

lines and the twitter account and e-mailed lines if you like to engage in conversation with representative kevin brady. our topic is jobs in the economic. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. 0205.endents, 202-628- the chairman of the federal reserve was on capitol hill. the talk about the role of the fed in job cation. you spoke about that and said this is something you like to change. explain why. guest: the fed plays an important role in our economy. they should be focused on keeping the prices stable. avoiding inflation or deflation. that's what they can do over time and probably one of the

strongest foundations of economic growth, changing the money supply. .hat does not spur job growth i think the fed is trying to do too much. most of the embers in the economy are on the fiscal side. regulation is not balanced. these are the factors the hold our economy back. i like to keep the prices stable. that is what most of the world has moved to. that is the role the fed should apply. host: one of your colleagues on the cmittee aed chairman bernke about this role. re is his response. >> this is a complicated question. i would say that we do have some ability to improve the situation

and i think the dual mandate has worked pretty well over time. central banks that have inflation as the primary or the only mandate to pay attention to economic conditions. inflation -- that affects inflation expectations. i thi the dual mandate is workable. the only thing the fed can control is inflation. so my bottom line is i think we can make the dual mandate work. i think it has worked pretty well. it is up to congress. we'll do what you asgn us to do. host: reaction. guest: listen to the last part of his testimony. it is workable. keep inflation low.

in other words, i'll do what congress tells me to do. in the long run, keeping prices low is what we do. the fed is going to do -- follow the mandates congress lays out. we of employment and -- they create conflicts. interest rates would be a good example. inflation is growing. this slows the economy down. it also -- you can drive inflation u at the time you're trying to increase jobs, which is what e case is today. lower the interest rates to nearly zero in hopes of spurring the economy. another drag on the economy.

at times you have two important mandates that are exactly in policy in conflict to which appeared our global competitors have learned that price stability will use the primary or t so-called central banks and a think they are right. host: the senate is debating the chinese currency. i'm wondering given the trade imbalance, the number of jobs have been exploited -- exported to china. what you think about the united states having a voice in the chinese currency valuation. guest: trade deficits and the imbalance o u.s. and china is a real issue. the currency is a real issue. they made a mistake by looking at china only through the prism of currency. it is key to a segment of the economy. the broader range of american

companies trying to compete over there. intellectual prproperty rights, capital account that is controlled to that manipulation of the raw export materials. all those are barriers that have a much greater impact on our trade deficit. my concern is this will be counterproductive and it will not be productive and will make it harderto tear down the broader range of trade barriers. i am pleased that speaker boehner made the point that we need to look at china in a broader relationship. he is exactly right. host: potomac, maryland, this is -- tell me your name please? potomac? caller: mary.

i was going to make a comment about the congressman said about taxing the entrepreneurs. that is not what -- host: you still there? finish your thought. caller: i am calling to say that mr. obama is not asking to taxi entrepreneurs, who are creatin jobs. but individuals who are making easy money on wall street, by influence and people like hedge fund managers. there are lots who are making over $1 million who are not creating any jobs. they are making personal gains and wondering whetr to buy a bigger boat or a small boat, and

those people to flee need to be taxed -- and those people definitely need to be taxed. their mandate guest: republicans are very willing to work with the president on real jobs issues. right now we are moving three very important in trade and sales agreements that can create 250,000 new jobs where we can sell $13 billion in new sales to new customers in three countries. when the president creates jobs bills that we believe improved tre and private-sector jobs, we are eager to work with the president.

i am glad that the we are continuing to fight the notion that government determines what value that you have in society. we have one of the most progressive tax codes in the world. our top 1% of wage earners has shouldered almost 40% of the burden of federal income taxes. so they are paying their fair share and more. the higher income earners are paying effective tax rates three times greater than the middle class. that is exactly the opposite. the president is giving that information in that area. we spoke about people in pro- broke tax bracket paying 50% on capital gains. 63% of the income from those in the higher tax brackets are from salaries like you and i ha.

it is a huge mistake to create another success tax on the pro- growth workers and businesses in america like steve jobs. it'll not make a dent in the deficit. we see the issumuch differently. host: the twitter comment connects our earlier discussion and it's from russell. guest: thankfully, we had a tax code that encouraged investment in people like steve jobs. that's one of the reasons capital gains is taxed at a lower rate while we encouraged entrepreneurship. the president has proposed much higher taxes on capital gains investment and dividends. that would be a terrible mistake. the other thing that has happened in the 1980's and 90

90's was government shrank over those 20 years. regenerated of 37 million new jobs. government has grown and we are 2.5 million jobs short. the other part of that is that encourages the size of private- sector growth. host: you are on the air. caller: i wonder if there has been independent study done of e impact that nationalized health care would have on job growth or job production. we have 80% gross national product related to health care. it's only 5% in peru. 10% in canada. even though i agree with almost

everything the republican party stands for, i started to change my mind about healthcare. are there any independent studies done that could help us get more understandin of where the jobs, will be created in the future? guest: great question. the congressional budget office independent has estimated the president's new health care law will lose 800,000 american jobs by the end of the decade because of the costs that it imposes and shifts that it imposes. with small businesses, as they ponder the cost of the new health-care law, they don't want to go above 50 workers that would trigger them into the new health care law. this bill does not focus on the cost of health care and controlling that, making it more affordable. a number of businesses right now, especially those with 250

workers or above, are looking seriously at droing their health care plans, paying the fine and moving them into the exchanges, which means you and die as taxpayers will be payin more and more for other people's health care. at the end of the day that will drag on the economy. host: next call is from atlanta. margaret, independent. caller: i have a couple questions. pass president obama's jobs bill? just paying for the jobs bill to is what the taxes are for. the last night i did watch the thing you spoke about before the trade. i have been unemployed since november 2010. i have been looking every day. i am signed up with 10 temporary agencies. i am administrator. what you are passing is good

for farmers and manufacturers, but it will not get me a job. i am 50 years old. i have worked every day in my life since i was 14. host: how are you supporting yourself? >> my husband, who should be retiring, cannot. we only have one in, in this house. my son and i are both laid off. host: banks and good luck. guest: 45 million americans don't have a job. the unemployment figure is closer to 16%. we have diffuse numbers of workers in the workforce than in quarter-century. --- we have the fewest numbers of workers. they can create 250,000 of jobs in america because we are

finding customers for our companies. the companies we hope it will hire you are in manufacturing, technology, services. it's important we find those customers to support jobs. the other thing we can do is that to believe almost a million american jobs on the table by not letting car american engy companies or fully in the gulf of mexico. did not letting -- by not letting our american energy companies operate fully and in the gulf. host: last night the democratic senate leader unveiled their proposal which is to make people over $1 million pay for the president's tax bill. people making over million dollars. guest: probably the whole business is good politics for

next november. it is terrible economics. the it's not a serio debt proposal. from an economic standpoint, a success tax on people who often time to take risks and fail and go in debt to do it, work long hours to create that success, is a mistake. at creates almost no revenue to speak of. so i think it's more a political gambit than a serious issue. my guess is that a dead on arrival in the senate. it certainly is in the house, because it is not a serious economic proposal. host: it does provide enough over 10 years to offset the president's jobs plan. guest: the president came through with 1.5 trillion in taxes, three times what his jobs plan proposed. at the end of the day i am not convinced that his jobs plan will really create jobs. we will raise taxes.

i guess i'm a little discouraged that we continue to raise taxes or seek to raise taxes on jobs we never get from the stimuluses, they never occur. host: this comment from twitter goes back to the interest-rate discussion. guest: i agree. if we had a 5% savings rate in america, we would not have a trade deficit with china or any other country. low-interest rates. -- low-interest rates masked the cost of the true depths of america. -- debts. we would really be between a half trillion and $1 trillion per year actually. i am concerned about keeping the

interest rates so low for so long in fears that it will create another bubble down the road. caller: gordon, a democrat. -- in florida, a democrat. caller: good morning. i was a rescue worker at the world trade center. i have quite a few illnesses from down there. i don't believe in your health care plan. if i got a $6,000 voucher to go to the doctor, you health care plan would only pay for one visit to the doctor for me. i was watching the tea party. they had a rally and they had the president of picture just like a witch doctor. i. appel was really funny, but there's no racism there. that's all i have to say. --i thought that was really

funny. guest: i need to thank you for your service at the world trade center and ground zero. that will never be forgotten. second, i do disagree with the premise deputy party is somehow -- that the tea party is somehow racist. there are elements in every party that are extreme. the tea party people are just average people or about how big the government is and how deep the ducks are. -- debts are. they want their kids to have rights and freedoms, not like the past we are on now. they are just average people trying to get involved. i think that is very healthy. caller: fred on the internet

says you have a primary talent from someone representing the party in your district. you are not conservative enough, some say. guest: in texas there's always someone who thinks you're not conservative enough. one of the major conservatives in the major conservative delegations in texas, 100% pro- life voting record, lifetime conservative record. there's no room on the right to run into. this is a common theme. we had a primary opponents last time around that's exactly the same thing. we have a proven track record as conservatives. they are part of that in the fight we are putting up today against bigger government, higher taxes, and a growing government intervention. we think it exactly matches our constituents in our district. caller: let me follow with a

comment from twitter. guest: i would disagree. if you talk with small businesses today, taxes are a major part of what they pay and does enter into those decisions. moreover, higher taxes make it very hard for american companies to manufacture and stay in the u.s. intel is a major manufacturer from america but has made the decision to build manufacturing in the u.s. near their innovation. they pay almost $1 billion premium for locating that plant in america, hiring american workers, because of our tax code. i would disagree. our tax code is very discouraging of american job creation. in other countries they are taken a page from our playbook, low taxes, balanced regulation,

a skilled workforce, and are beating us a global marketplace. that's why we need to change our tax code and that will allow us to be far more competitive than we are today if and would encourage companies, whether they if are starting out mid- size or major companies, to locate those jobs and plants in the u.s. host: freda's on our republican line in maryland. caller: good morning. mr. brady, i have a comment for you. i am a foreigner. i've been in this country 15 years. pour the past 10 years i have been republican and i have been faithful. but i am really disappointed in what you guys are doing, because it appears that you oy care about your job. if you find yourself in a situation where you don't have a job, you know it's very important to support the president's proposal. everything he has proposed, these are things, republicans

like to do. 95% of its proposals are helpful to small businesses. the problems we have in this country is not because of taxation. the problem is jobs. the cost of production especially the cost of labor, and average factory worker in america is $45,0. in china it is 15 and thousand dolls. that is why companies take their jobs there. if you need to stop talking about taxation. we need to increase revenue in this country. we are not going to solve this problem only by cutting funding. when you cut funding, you are cutting jobs. until you find yourself in that situation where you don't have a job, then you will not know what it means. if you don't know when you wake up in the morning whether you will have breakfast or dinner.

you need to work with the president. guest: are you still on the line? tell me about the president's job proposal and a provision that would help create jobs for small businesses? host: he is no longer on the line. guest: we are searching for that within his proposal. one point you made that needs to be expanded, some countries have a definite assuaged advantage over america, but we have remarkable productivity advantage over many countries because of technology, because of a skilled workforce and our manufacturing productivity has grown dramatically faster than the companies tt compete with. an example is a plant that builds with its in 1955 might have 1000 workers to build those widgets. because of technology, that's 184 workers in america that it takes to do the exact same job.

technology has advanced as dramatically. a lot of companies now are looking at a very punishing tax code that makes it hard to keep these jobs in america. we have got away from having the best business climate in the world for new jobs. until we restore that, we are not going to see the jobs on main street that people are hungry for. host: the president will have a press conference at 11:00 a.m. eastern and we will cover that. this is a comment on twitter. guest: if you look from the 1980's through the 1990's, you saw a time where the government at the federal level reduced

itself in size, almost four percentage points. it started with president all e way throughentative president clinton. we created 37 million new jobs in that time. when the government began to grow more in 2001, the attacks of 9/11 and through the current president we actually lost 2.5 llion jobs. the tax code is critical to encouraging job production. a government that lives within its means and is itstoo largest disciple growth is important to job creation -- and is not too large to stifle growth is portant to job creation. i have yet to find someone to

say let's discourage adopt building activity, especially among tax brackets who happen to be some of our best consumers. in thee spent six years texas house before coming to the u.s. house and is a graduate of the university of south data. a couple more minutes left with him. now to houston, kathy, a democrat. caer: iish we had a free- market. my son join the military, not to fight for cars nine. jobs are sent to china. wall street got my pension. my goverent does not want to pay its bills. we have $1 trillion in student loans. and we are not educated. nobody in congress works for america. they have given my job to china, india, or mexico, while my s

[unintelligible] cnn istill worried about casey anthony, somebody ought to send a grievance counselor to cnn. guest: what i do here is people are worried about the economy, at least back home. our folks are worried about the economy and about the debt. they see a country that cannot get its financial hoe in order and they are concerned about what that will do for their family and what kind of burden their kids and grandkids will carryround a in the future. those are legitimate concerns that washington really is not addressing. host: economists are predicting the report tomorrow will stay

steady at 9.1% for unemployment. what can people expect a year from now? guest: consensus for tomorrow is about 60,000 net gain, non-farm payroll. that is a very weak number. that would be different if it was two months and we are actually more than two years into the economic recovery. every blue-chip indicator and the fed have lowered their economic indicators going for. it looks like it's going to be a tough fall. one thing that worries me is that nearly half of all countries that go through a financial crisis like we did go into a double-dip recession within the first three years. but often in an unrelated issue. is flyingeconomiy very low and slow.

we could go down into a double- dip recession. an argument republicans have made from day one is we need to have a very strong economic recovery so we are not week at a point where if other countries often times down into a dble- dip recession. so that we are not weak. i think we ought to take the steps that we can to strengthen the u.s. economy in case europe >> tomorrow recent congressional proposals for deficit reduction. been paycheck millionaires for fiscal strain discusses taxing the wealthy and why his organization what does it make over $1 million a year to return to the tax rates before 2001. afr