NO LABELS EVENT 10AM / HD
INT BROLL OF THE "NO LABELS" EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FEATURING SEVERAL OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES /
Today, eight presidential candidates are attending the No Labels Problem Solver Convention hosted by Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman with the goal of bringing New Hampshire's famed independent voters together. It's one of the only presidential forums where we will see both Republicans and Democratic candidates together. Martin O'Malley is kicking it off at 8:30AM <x-apple-data-detectors://0>, Lindsey Graham is at 9:45AM <x-apple-data-detectors://1>, Donald Trump is at 11AM <x-apple-data-detectors://2>followed by Chris Christie at 1:15pm <x-apple-data-detectors://3>. Bernie Sanders will address the event via livestream at 2pm <x-apple-data-detectors://4> followed by George Pataki at 3PM <x-apple-data-detectors://5>. Jim Webb isat 3:30 <x-apple-data-detectors://6>, also via livestream and John Kasich rounds out the day at 5:15PM <x-apple-data-detectors://7>.
/
LINDSEY GRAHAM SPEECH:
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH P2
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH
10:05:55
GRAHAM: Out of respect for people, I won't dance.
(LAUGHTER)
When I first announced for the Senate I took Senator Thurmond's place. Anybody heard of Senator Thurmond? Yes, we change senators every 50 years whether we need to or not.
(LAUGHTER)
So Bob Dole was my National Chairman. Strom Thurmond, and James Brown was the entertainment.
(LAUGHTER)
What's the moral of the story? No one knew I was there.
(LAUGHTER)
And seeing Bob Dole trying to keep time was...
(LAUGHTER)
... sort of worth it all. Speaking trying to keep time. I want to take some questions I've enjoyed -- thank God for New Hampshire. It's the last place...
(APPLAUSE)
... it's the last place on earth where you can meet 20 people running for president if you're lucky.
(LAUGHTER)
10:06:56
So keep South Carolina in your prayers; it's been a tough year. The Charleston shooting, I would like to just note the people in the Mother Emanuel Church did a better job of representing my state and mankind than I could have ever hoped to have done, so.
(APPLAUSE)
If you're looking for a model to follow go to that church. It is really been tough; 18 inches of rain in 18 hours down in Charleston; I hope these dams hold, but our Governor and her whole team's doing a great job.
So let's talk about our country a little bit. Do you agree that America's worth fighting for?
(APPLAUSE)
10:07:47
Yes?
You think it's worth dying for?
(APPLAUSE)
Is it worth compromising for?
(APPLAUSE)
In many ways it is easier to go to Afghanistan than it is Washington.
(LAUGHTER)
At least you know who the enemy is.
So I want to talk to you a little bit about trade-offs. Anybody married?
(LAUGHTER)
I think you know what I'm talking about. Life, at its best, is a series of trade-offs.
Hey, Paul.
So the bottom line here's what the next president needs to do, whoever who he or she may be. They need to get us in a room in Washington, come to the White House, have a drink, maybe more than one.
(LAUGHTER)
10:08:38
Get everybody liquored up and solve problems.
(LAUGHTER)
So this is what Reagan and O'Neill did: campaign finance reform. You want to get money out of politics?
(APPLAUSE)
Yes. Join my campaign.
(LAUGHTER)
We -- we've accomplished that.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Citizens United has to be revisited because it's going to be pretty hard to solve any problem with unlimited giving by unknown people.
(APPLAUSE)
10:09:26
So it will probably take a Constitutional Amendment, but I think there's a way to get there, and that would be a priority to me because if you don't get this fixed I think the days of problem solving are behind us when you got 158 families financing half -- giving half the money, and one, I want to know who they are, by the way; call them up.
(LAUGHTER)
Something's broken there. Debt. Do you all agree that debt is a no-label problem?
(APPLAUSE)
10:10:05
The debt that we're about to pass on future generations could care less if you're a Republican family or a Democratic family. Now what drives the debt? Spending, well, that's pretty clever. What drives the debt over time? Spending on what? Entitlement reform. How many of you think Social Security is worth saving?
(APPLAUSE)
Me too.
10:10:30
Social Security and Medicare are programs that people depend on for a quality of life when they retire. They're jeopardy of being overwhelmed because 80 million baby boomers, of which I'm one, are going to retire in the next 20 years, 25 years. Anybody born from '46 to '64?
(APPLAUSE)
Yes.
Anybody born after '64?
(APPLAUSE)
Good luck.
(LAUGHTER)
You're going to need it.
So have you heard of Simpson-Bowles? All right.
10:11:10
Here's what I would do if I were president, I would dust it off and I'd use it as a template, because there's no way you can tax your way out of this problem. 80 million people are going to retire in mass, we're going to be down to two workers for every retiree in the next 20 years. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree, in 20 years it's going to be two. Now Strom Thurmond had four kids after he was 67; if you're willing to do that we may can turn this around.
(LAUGHTER)
If you think you can do that you probably have a high opinion of yourself.
(LAUGHTER)
So, and I'm not betting on you can deliver, so I'm going to Plan B.
(LAUGHTER)
10:12:01
So what do you do? You got a lot of people wanting their Social Security checks and their Medicare bills paid, and you got two people paying FICA taxes and Social -- and Medicare taxes. Simpson-Bowles is a great trade-off; here's what Republicans have to do: we have to eliminate deductions in the tax code that many of us enjoy. 1.2 trillion a year given away in deductions, we're going to have to bring some of that money back into the Treasury and we're going to have to put it on debt, and we're going to have to violate pledges that all of us have signed.
Have you heard of the Grover Norquist Pledge? Now, I like Grover, and here's what Grover says, "If you eliminated deduction, let's say second home interest deduction, something that would be hard but if you eliminated that, under the pledge you'd have to take all the money to buy down tax rates." The problem with that is no Democrat's going to get in the room to adjust the age or retirement or means to it as benefits.
10:12:59
So what Simpson-Bowles requires is for Republican to eliminate a deduction, take some of the revenue to pay down debt, and what do our Democratic friends have to do in return? We have to adjust the age of retirement because we're all living so much longer and we have to ask people in my income level, I make $175 thousand a year, I'm not saying I'm worth it, but that's what we pay ourselves.
(LAUGHTER)
We're going to ask upper-income Americans to take smaller benefits, not draconian-cuts, but some, smaller COLAs to get the baby boomers through retirement in dignity without whipping out the country.
(APPLAUSE)
Now that's Simpson-Bowles.
(APPLAUSE)
10:13:43
So when you hear a -- when you hear a Republican say, "I won't do revenue." That means that you're not going to help the country. When you hear a Democrat say, "We don't need to deal or mess with Social Security Medicare." That means you got your head in the sand.
We're $70 dollars short of the money we need over the next 75 years to pay the Medicare Social Security Bills. If you took the entire wealth of the one percent, including their dogs...
(LAUGHTER)
... everything, you're $30 trillion, you're half of what you need, you're not going to grow the economy enough to close the gap, and if you eliminate the Defense Department, which is 20 percent of one third of the budget, you don't even move the needle.
So we know what to do, let's just do it.
(APPLAUSE)
10:14:35
Immigration. I had six primary opponents over this one topic. I've been working on this for a decade, I'm called Lindsey Grahamnesty and Lindsey Gomez.
(LAUGHTER)
To all the Gomez's other there, I'll try to honor the family name.
(LAUGHTER)
My big sin was I would sit down with Democrats and try to find the way forward to deal with a very difficult issue.
(APPLAUSE)
And I tell you what the -- the trade-offs are simple; on the Republican side, once we secure the border, which we all want, once we increase legal immigration, which most of us believe we need, crush her (ph) down to two workers unless you have a bunch of kids after you're 67, you better be looking around for workers. Most all of us want to control who gets a job from the National E-Verify system, but we break down at the 11 million. Here's the problem on my side of the isle; we cannot seem to embrace a rational solution to the 11 million.
10:15:37
Anytime you touch this it's amnesty this and amnesty that. The one thing I'm here to tell you is that you can talk about immigration reform, you can vote for immigration reform in the reddest or red states and you can still win because I am still here.
(APPLAUSE)
So we had -- I had six opponents from mildly disturbed to completely insane.
(LAUGHTER)
The insane guy's the one I worry the most about. I won by 41 points, and here's what I told people in South Carolina, "Tell me how you deport 11 million people, physically do it. Tell me how you fix immigration without one Democratic vote." To my Democratic friends, if you will meet me in the middle I will meet you in the middle, and we have done it time and time again, so...
(APPLAUSE)
10:16:45
If I am president of the United States we're not going to quit until we get this right. And my friends in the House, we have sent you three bills that got over 65 votes dealing with immigration comprehensively, it is time for you to up your game.
(APPLAUSE)
Once you secure your border, once you control who gets a job, once you increase legal immigration, no one wants a felon as to the 11 million who are non-felons. You stay on our terms, you have to learn our language; I don't speak it well, but look how far I've come.
(LAUGHTER)
10:17:26
You have to pay a fine, you have to pay taxes, you have to get in the back of the line and you have to wait 10 years for a green card, but here's what I will never agree to: I hate the European model of second-class citizens. If we're going to let you stay here all of your life we're going to let you be part of the country.
(APPLAUSE)
How many of you here believe climate change is real?
(APPLAUSE)
I do too.
(APPLAUSE)
10:18:07
So here's the trade-off; for those of you who believe climate change is real you're going to have to deal with a guy like me who will push a lower carbon economy over time in a business friendly way. The great trade-off is energy producers and environmentalists in a room trying to find over a 50 year period a way to go to a lower carbon economy in the mean time, responsibly exploring for fossil fuels that we own and trying to create alternative energy in every sector of the economy.
10:18:43
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
GRAHAM: It is to me, folks, a problem needs to be solved, not a religion. So our -- so my friends on the left who making this a religion, you're making a mistake. To my friends on the right who deny the science, tell me why.
I'm not a scientist, I made a D science. You know why? Because she'd never given an F.
(LAUGHTER)
10:19:03
So. But I've been to the Antarctic, I've been to Greenland, I've been to Alaska and I've heard from people who live in these regions how the climate is changing. And when 90 percent of Climatologists tell you it's real, who am I to tell them they don't know what they're talking about. So the...
(APPLAUSE)
... the trade-off is Joe Lee Rimming, John Kerry and Lindsey Graham got closed (ph) and we had the whole spill in the Gulf. More nuclear power because it's a good job creating method of energy, it's non-emitting. Exploring for all in gas in a reasonable way. Pushing low carbon technologies, having the government involved until we can get a foot hold on a lower carbon alternative energy economy in setting carbon targets that would give America clean water and clean air. Those are the trade-offs.
10:19:58
Finally, and I'll take questions, there's no foreign policy element to no labels. Should there be? Let me tell you about a group who buys into no labels. Radical Islam is very much into no labels; they look out into this audience and they don't see anything different, and if you spent two minutes you'd see a lot of things different in this audience in terms Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Libertarian, Vegetarian.
(LAUGHTER)
Baptist, Jew, you name it we got it. They see us all the same; we're Americans, we buy into the idea of worshipping God the individual way, not the group way or maybe not at all. We buy into electing our leaders, not having them thrust upon us. We buy into the idea that young women have value.
(APPLAUSE)
10:20:57
So here's the thought, if we can't agree that Radical Islamic terrorists, who crucify children, who sell women into slavery in the name of God, who slaughter everybody in the faith that disagrees with them, who throws gay couples off roofs. If we can't come together and say that we stand united against you, we're making a mistake.
(APPLAUSE)
10:21:30
So I will tell you ladies and gentlemen how to solve this problem with terrorism is a bit complicated. Uniting against it should be as easy as wanting to solve the other problems I just described. Let me just say this in ending; three thousand of us died on 9/11 for one reason: they couldn't kill more of us. If they would they could. I've never been more worried about another 9/11 then I am right now. The enemies of mankind, not just this nation, are getting stronger and getting more lethal by the day.
10:22:16
I hope that no labels could find some accommodate for foreign policy plank that says the following, "America should lead, we should be involved, we should help others deal with the problem, common to mankind and it is more than dropping a bomb." I am the chairman of the Foreign Operations Sub-Committee, in charge of all the foreign aid in the federal budget. I believe that the PEPFAR Program that Bush created in Africa is making a safer and is making us better.
10:22:53
I believe that foreign assistance will do more damage to radical Islam over the arc of time than a bomb. I believe that educating a young, poor girl in a remote region in the Mid-East is the ultimate antidote to terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
I believe that America, at her best, is the hope of mankind. Let us be at our best. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
10:23:39
QUESTION: Senator, welcome to New Hampshire. Representative of Balus Herald (ph). My question to you is -- is a veterans issue, and I know you're a veteran, you've been up there many years. You all passed a Veterans Accountability Act, and a lot of people bragged about it and used veterans as political pawns and not one person was fired. There's a bill of 10-82 on the Veterans Accountability Act where only a few senators have signed on board. My question is why have you and none of the Republicans and Democrats come together, it's been up there for years, to fix the V.A. system where we got veterans dying?
(APPLAUSE)
10:24:21
GRAHAM: One, thank you for your service. The reform that we did pass, with Senator McCain's leadership, allows veterans a choice card if they live over 40 miles from a facility, they can go to a local doctor or a hospital. If you wait over 30 days you can access a local doctor or hospital. In New Hampshire your local provider's in Vermont. So that was a pretty big deal for people in New Hampshire, but your point is well taken.
We're fighting a bureaucracy that's not going to give up without a fight. How about this idea? If you've served your country and you're eligible for health care, give you a card where you can go anywhere you want to go anytime you want to go.
(APPLAUSE)
10:25:08
Now that costs money, but money well spent. But you can't do that unless you deal with entitlements. By 2040 all the money you spend in taxes or -- send in taxes goes to pay Medicare Social Security and interests on the debt. Do you get where I'm coming from? There'll be no money left for the Department of Defense, no money left for the Department of Education, no money left for the V.A.. If you don't turn it around the tsunami of entitlement spending by age taxing, means testing and flattening out the tax code to generate revenue, it is all talk. So count me in for helping the veteran, count me in for helping the Alzheimer's patient, count me in for helping people overseas who need our help to reconstruct their lives so they can push back against radical Islam.
Count me in for all this, but let me tell you, none of it's going to happen if the next president of the United States can't get us in a room and do something like Simpson-Bowles.
(APPLAUSE)
10:26:10
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
GRAHAM: Can't hear you.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
GRAHAM: The crowd's turning on you.
(LAUGHTER)
10:26:22
QUESTION: As far as I know, the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. Last time Congress declared war, to my knowledge, in December of '41. We've been in a lot of wars and we haven't won very many since then. So would you require a congressional deceleration of war before we go, and then if you declare war, go to win it?
10:26:48
GRAHAM: All right. I think we've declared war five times in the history of the Nation. The one thing you can't have is 535 commander and chiefs; that's not a way to conduct military operations. So the bottom line is would I seek congressional authorization to use force to destroy ISIL in Syria? Yes, I would, but I don't think I'm required to do so because I think ISIL is a direct threat to our homeland.
How many of you believe that ISIL wants to hit us if they could?
(APPLAUSE)
How many of you believe that the number one job of the president of the United States is to be commander and chief and protect the homeland?
(APPLAUSE)
10:27:35
So let me tell you what I would do to destroy ISIL.
You're not going to do it from the air; you got to have a ground component. We have 3,500 Americans on the ground in Iraq, General Kane (ph), who's the architect of the surge, says we need about 10 thousand. The good news is that's a fraction of what we've had in the past; a couple Army aviation battalions with American helicopters flown by American pilots to take the fight to ISIL and Ramadi and Mosul more affectively. Special forces on the ground; if they've picked up the phone, they got in the car, we'd be on top of them to disrupt their operations. Forward air controllers to drop bombs on the right people, 70 percent of the air craft come back with the bombs on the racks. Trainers at the battalion level so the Iraqis won't cut and run. That's what I would do, and I want you to know that before you vote, that if you vote for me, whatever it takes as long as it takes till we destroy these bastards is my view of ISIL.
(APPLAUSE)
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH P2
10:28:29
Now as to Syria. I don't know if there's anybody left to train, but a no fly zone would be a great relief to the Syrian people.
(APPLAUSE)
Establishing a place for them to go without being barrel-bombed would be a great step. A safe-haven enclave to start training people without fear of being killed, having the region buy into what we're doing. The good news is that every Arab country and Turkey is against Assad being in power because he's a puppet of Iran. And the real good news is the Syrian people are not radical Islamists, to say they are is a slander to them; I have been there a lot and they're not going to accept Assad as their leader because he's massacred their families.
10:29:13
So what would I do? I'd ask for a regional force, create an enclave, train the free Syrian army for affectively and support them from a regional point of view, and I would ask Congress to help me and I would go in with a goal of winning, and when you bring them down you better stay because if you leave too soon it repeats itself again; this is a generational struggle. Syria has been raped and decimated, the amount of money to reconstruct Syria is going to be enormous, but it should come from the entire world, not just us. The Arabs should pay for this war, we've paid for the last two.
(APPLAUSE)
10:29:51
None of that's possible unless you rebuild your military; we're on track to have the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915, we'll be spending half of what we normally spend on defense, 2.3 percent in terms of GDP by 2021, given the threats that's insane. And it's just not the defense budget that's being cut, the NIH budget's being cut, the CDC's budgets been cut. So let's replace these defense cuts, non-defense cute, across the board with more rational ways of getting out of debt, and that goes to entitlement reform and tax cut reforms. So the answer to me -- to your question is that I would seek Congress' blessing, but I would not let a dysfunctional Congress keep me from defending America against an enemy that is surely coming here.
(APPLAUSE)
And I am fighting to win; winning is my goal, destroying these bastards is my goal.
10:30:45
QUESTION: All right, thank you Senator Graham for being here. My name is...
GRAHAM: Strong letter to follow.
QUESTION: ... my name is Kyle Oasting (ph), I'm the No Labels College Chapter Leader at Indiana University.
(APPLAUSE)
I just want to say...
GRAHAM: Do you know anybody in New Hampshire?
QUESTION: Do I know anybody in New Hampshire?
GRAHAM: Yes, because Indiana's way down the road.
10:31:08
QUESTION: I know, right?
(LAUGHTER)
I just want to say as a Republican as well, thank you for running for president and for being a voice of reason in this race, it's much appreciated.
(APPLAUSE)
A few years ago Wall Street crashed and they got a bail out while the middle class still crashed and they haven't gotten a bail out. Today Wall Street is doing greater than ever. What is -- what is your plan, specifically, to make sure than Main Street gets their bail out? Because it's long overdue.
Thank you.
10:31:35
GRAHAM: OK, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Rather than the government bailing out Main Street, how about creating jobs on Main Street?
(APPLAUSE)
If you think the government is the salvation of the middle class don't vote for me. If you think jobs are the salvation for the middle class vote for me.
(APPLAUSE)
A little about me. I grew up in the back of a liquor store, this is why I would be a good president for you.
(LAUGHTER)
My mom and my dad, neither one of them finished high school, they owned a liquor store, a bar and a pool room. We lived in one room until I was in high school. I was well loved, they worked six days a week; it's a hard way to make a living. When I was -- I went to college for the first time of anyone in my family in 1975 after coming back from my first vacation to Disney World, which was like going to Mars...
(LAUGHTER)
10:32:39
... my mom was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. By June of '76 she had passed. We got wiped out because we were under insured. 15 months later my dad dies, I'm 22 my sister's 13. If it had not been for Social Security Survivor Benefits we would not have made it, so when I talk about Social Security I know what I am talking about. I would give up some benefits today; I'm 60, I'm not married, I don't have any kids, I've got a 401(k) plan, I've got a congressional retirement, I got a military retirement, I would gladly give up some COLA and shave my benefits to save a system worth saving so it's there for other people who need for than I do.
(APPLAUSE)
10:33:19
To -- to those who worry about the economy, a $15 minimum wage is going to displace people, not grow the middle class. The middle class is somebody who has to not go on vacation when the child's sick. You make too much to be on government assistance, but you still live paycheck to paycheck. Let me end on this note; competition for labor is the best hope of the middle class. When a bunch of people wanting to hire you, not a few people.
10:33:46
So why did Boeing come to South Carolina? They could have gone anywhere in the friggin' world. Why did Valvo come to South Carolina? Why did BMW come to South Carolina? Because we wanted them to come to South Carolina. We would take your work force needs, go to the technical colleges and train a work force superior to second to none, ready to go, helping you help yourself; we would get permits done in times that you never even envisioned, still being environmentally sensitive. We had a tax structure that welcomed you; there's a reason they came to South Carolina, and let me tell you what happened to the middle class in South Carolina. Everybody who has a manufacturing business had to pay more because if you didn't your employee was going to go to Boeing. The best thing I can do for waitresses in this country and waiters is to train an environment somebody will open up a restaurant across the street and hire you away.
10:34:46
I want to take what we did in South Carolina to Washington. I want to unleash the greatest economy in the world; people are more screwed up then we are. We're this far away from energy independence, manufacturing with the right kind of tax code can bloom, we can take this money partner (ph) overseas, bring it back in and One Time Good Deal and the Highway Trust Fund, we can build roads and we can build bridges, and these technologies you have in your pocket may be made in China, but they were invented here.
10:35:16
Our best days are ahead. We're going to lean into our enemies, we're going to hold each other and we're going to solve problems for the good of us all.
Thank you very, very much.
(APPLAUSE)
END
MARTIN OMALLEY SPEECH:
NY INTERPLAY SLUG:
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH
09:03:20
O'MALLEY: Thanks, very, very much. OK, thank you. Governor Engler, thanks very, very much. One little correction by way of problem solving, as you can see from the backdrop behind me. I am not yet in Las Vegas. But I will be going out to Las Vegas. I am talking to you from Baltimore, Maryland. Land of the free and home of the brave, and it's a great honor to be able to talk with all of you, at least in this way.
And I'm looking forward to the Democratic party finally joining this game, and having a debate about how we solve our nation's problems. It's a wonderful idea, isn't it? Both parties having debates?
09:04:00
So, look, I want to thank Senator Lieberman. I want to thank Governor Huntsman. And I also want to thank Governor Engler. And I especially want to acknowledge Nancy Jacobson, who I've known for many, many years, and is the founder of the No Labels movement.
I thought I would share a few ideas with you before we go to question and answer. And as I often say when I'm given the talk on the chair in New Hampshire, by golly, if you have answers, make sure you raise your hand first.
09:04:28
Because really, what we are doing in the context of this presidential campaign is not only selecting a person to lead us forward, but also we are on a search for answers, aren't we? That sort of deeper understanding that we must achieve as a people that actually precedes the better actions we need to take as a country. The better actions that will make our country stronger, so we can give our children and future with more opportunity and -- rather than less. So, let me do a couple of things in the next few minutes before we open it up. I want to share with you first of all my take on what I believe are -- the theory of our case is as a nation right now, and then I want to share with you a little bit about my experience, which is the experience of solving problems. And then I want to talk to you about something I'm seeing out in our country today, which is not only a yearning for new leadership, but the emerging of a new way of governing, which I see coming up and emanating out of our cities and towns and also coming up from the attitudes and the perspective of the next generation of Americans. So let's begin, shall we?
09:05:36
You and I are part of a living, self-creating mystery called the United States of America. But the promise that's at the heart of that mystery is actually a very real and concrete promise. It's a covenant among us and between us that says wherever you start in our country you start, but through your own hard work, your own talent, you should be able to get ahead.
Call it the -- call it an economy that works for all us, call it the American Dream, it is the actions that solve problems and address challenges in every generation so that we can include more of our people more fully in the economic success of our country. That's what it means to be an American.
09:06:23
The truth of our times, the hard truth of our times that we must acknowledge, however, is this. While we have come a long way since the Wall Street crash of 2008, our country still faces big challenges and big problems. Thanks to President Obama's leadership, we are now creating jobs again as a country. And of course, we're the only species on the planet without full employment, so there is no progress without jobs.
So our country is doing better, but the hard truth of our times is that 70 percent of us are earning the same or less today than we were 12 years ago. And that's not how our economy is supposed to work, that's not how our country is supposed to work.
There is a growing injustice in our country today, and this growing injustice is leading to income inequality like we haven't seen for a hundred years and declining opportunities for our kids. And this problem won't solve itself, we need to solve it.
09:07:22
We are Americans. Our economy is not money, it is people, it is all of our people. And so we have to invite one another -- Democrats, Independents and Republicans -- to return to the table of democracy and solve these problems, not with words but with actions.
My experience is the -- not the experience so much of a legislator, but my experience as a mayor and governor is the experience of an executive, of a person who has forged new consensus after new consensus in order to get things done. What sort of things? I'm talking about tackling the worst violent crime problem of any city in America and achieving record reductions in violent crime, even as we achieved record reductions in our incarceration rate.
09:08:15
I'm talking about making our public schools number one in America. I'm talking about making college more affordable for more people by going four years in a row in a recession without a penny's increase in college tuition. Passing a living wage, raising the minimum wage, passing marriage equality and the DREAM Act and passing the most comprehensive gun safety legislation of any state in America after the slaughter of the innocent in Newtown.
Now, none of those things were -- none of those things was easy; they were all difficult. And we didn't get them done by running to our labeled corners. No. Instead, we invited one another to come with ideas to help us solve these problems. And that is the new way of leadership that I believe the people of our country are demanding of all of their elected leaders.
09:09:09
One of the happy things I came home with after traveling around the country for a year before I was -- before I made the decision to run for president was the realization that most people in our nation actually feel a lot better about how their cities are run today than they did 10 or 15 years ago. Why is that? It's not because their cities are necessarily rolling in cash; in fact, we haven't had a federal program and a federal action for cities in decades. What -- the reason why people are feeling better about how their cities are governed is because of entrepreneurial men and women who take on that title of mayor and actually go to work every day to get things done. They're not afraid of the information age, they know everybody can see and know things at the same time they do, so they don't obsess with trying to maintain a time advantage that they know things before the public knows them.
09:10:07
Shimon Peres, I once heard speak, and he said that, in this information age, the people are now smarter than their leaders and they know more than their leaders.
So, what does this mean for us as states and a country? I believe that we need to embrace new technology, the Internet, geographic information systems to make our state and federal governments performance measured entities, so that all of us, as citizens controlling this enterprise can see whether we are doing better this week than we were last week.
But most of our governments are led on the tyranny of last year's budget. Lots of department heads can tell you what sort of budget they want for next year, but very few of them can tell you specifically, at least at the state and federal levels, whether we are doing any better this week in solving our problems than we were last week. But in cities, they can, increasingly, more and more.
09:11:01
You see, the nature of leadership has changed, as I see it. And this is -- especially want to talk to the young people who are there in the room. In the time that you have come of age, there has been a big shift in leadership.
And I'm going to hold something up and show it to you. It used to be that leadership was this triangle, this hierarchy, this pyramid of command and control where the leader needed to be at the top and have all the information and hoard it, and things got done on the basis of because I said so, or worse, on the basis of ideology.
But the nature of leadership has changed in the information age. And the place for the leader to be now is in the center of the emerging truth, in a circle of collaboration and cooperation, and yes, dialogue and communication around problem-solving, asking one another every day, are the things we are doing working to achieve a better result, or not?
09:12:12
If they are, we should do more of it . If it's not, we should stop doing it and do less of it.
So, that is the way I have always governed. And I think part of what has allowed the to do that is I am of a different generation than some of my older baby boomer brothers and sisters or parents. I don't ask if an idea is from the left or from the right, or whether it's Democratic or Republican, I ask whether it works. And if it works, we do it.
And that is how we have been able to achieve some pretty nation-leading results and actually get some things done before any political pollster would tell you it was popular.
09:12:52
So, what does that mean for our country today? I believe that it means we need to take actions, and have the guts to show people that the things we are doing are actually working. We are a great people. We still have another 240 years of creative service ahead of us. And that is why I have laid out 15 strategic goals to rebuild the truth of the American dream, so that every family can get ahead, so wages go up again with productivity and not down.
09:13:22
So that a college degree is actually a gateway to a life of opportunity, not a trapdoor to a lifetime of debt. And to square our shoulders to the great challenge of our time of climate change, and actually create a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050, and create 5 million jobs along the way.
Let's be honest with one another.
(APPLAUSE)
09:13:45
It is not about words, it is about actions. And each of the goals that I have put forward, things like national service to cut youth unemployment in half in the next three years, things like cutting the deaths from gun violence in half in the next 10 years.
All of these things have dates attached to them. Why? Because the difference between a dream and a goal is a deadline. These problems won't solve themselves. We need to solve them.
And I thank you, No Labels, for having me with you this morning in this way, and I look forward to your questions, and more importantly, I look forward to your answers.
And I need your help. Thanks a lot.
(APPLAUSE)
09:14:38
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Governor. And if you were here, you would be right in the center of the knowledge. Right in this stage, it is all around, all sides.MODERATOR: And the first question is coming from a lady -- right over there, I saw a hand go up over there. So, let's start with you, ma'am.
09:14:55
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Jessica (ph). I'm from Manchester, New Hampshire. I want to thank you for being with us.
My question for you is rather specific. What would your energy policy look like as president? And do you think we should utilize our national resources to create jobs and grow the economy, while also working on solar and wind power?
09:15:16
O'MALLEY: Well, sure. The -- let me -- let me say this. I have put forward -- I am the only candidate in my party, or I should say, I can safely say I'm the only candidate in either party, to put forward a plan to move us forward to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050.
We did not land the man on the moon within all-of-the-above strategy. We landed a man on the moon because we faced up to a huge engineering challenge. We were intentional about the choices we make. So, this is what my -- and I commend you, please, go on my website. It's jonhuntsman.com <http://jonhuntsman.com/>.
(LAUGHTER)
09:16:03
Now, I'm just kidding. I wanted to see if you all are still listening. It's actually martinomalley.com <http://martinomalley.com/>. And we have put a pretty specific proposal out there. Among some of the leading actions, in order to move us to that clean electric energy grid, I believe we need to stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction...
(APPLAUSE)
And instead, and act long -- and instead, enact long-term investor credits first solar and for wind. I believe that we need to embrace clean technology and energy conservation technology. We need to see, through more investments in workforce housing and affordable housing, the advent of a new type of housing that is nit zero in its energy use. That could bring forward a whole new era of clean design and clean architecture, in terms of our built environment.
09:17:07
And I believe we need to make investments in the clean energy grid that will enable us to move the natural resources, renewable resources that we have, from places where wind is abundant, to places where energy is heavily used. What does that mean? That means, instead of drilling for oil off the Chesapeake Bay and the East Coast of the United States, we should be laying the vertebrae and the power lines so we can create wind off the East Coast, where so many of our people live.
(APPLAUSE)
And in the heart of American cities, where unemployment is actually higher now in many, many cities, than it was eight years ago, we need to throw ourselves into a whole program of training, workforce training, and retrofitting of old buildings in order to reduce energy consumption.
09:17:58
If we do all of these things, and if we invest more, rather than less in developing base load cleaner, greener technologies, like the next generation of safer nuclear, we can get to 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050, but it's not going to happen by itself, and it's not going to happen by embracing nostalgia.
Every job is important. We need to be intentional about those might have to transition in this clean economy, but we will not get there without solving this problem moving forward in an intentional ways, and that is what I intend to do as president.
(APPLAUSE)
09:18:32
MODERATOR: Very good. All right, Governor, you can see in the room, with all of these green shirts, all these problem solvers that are here in the room, but we have a superhero that's going to ask the next question, it's Problem-Solver Man.
He's right here in the room, he's got the mic, and he is ready to go.
Problem-Solver Man, go ahead.
09:18:52
QUESTION: Hello. Governor O'Malley, how are you doing? Can you hear me?
MODERATOR: He can hear you.
O'MALLEY: Did Problem-Solver Man -- Problem-Solver Man, do you have a theme song?
QUESTION: I don't, but I am in Spandex, I don't know if you can see that.
(LAUGHTER)
But I'm in -- oh, I have some advice for -- you for -- you are going to Las Vegas tonight, right?
09:19:10
O'MALLEY: Yeah, I'm going in a couple -- in about an hour.
QUESTION: OK, cool. I'm sure you're getting a lot of political advice, but I'm just going to give you some advice my grandma gave me when I turned 21 and went to Vegas. Don't gamble.
That's my main advice; just be careful. But I guess my question for you is, Governor, you know, you have talked about how you will be a bipartisan president.
So, within your first 100 days of office, which bipartisan restaurant would you take John Boehner to?
(LAUGHTER)
Or, you know, whoever.
09:19:39
O'MALLEY: I didn't know that restaurants were partisan. I thought that food and alcohol, in fact, were decidedly nonpartisan.(LAUGHTER)
O'MALLEY: Let me -- can I -- but let me -- Problem-Solver Man...
(CROSSTALK)
MODERATOR: There is a question in there somewhere.
O'MALLEY: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
09:20:03
O'MALLEY: I -- I think the -- let me answer the call of your question that's in there somewhere. This is what I have learned as a mayor and as a governor. You have to call the legislature the time, and you -- when -- you have to make sure that -- that you -- you relate and talk to people like people.
In other words, I think it was de Tocqueville who said that one of the unique things about America is the strength of our soft ties. Our ability to hold different political opinions and political views, but still be able to relate to one another as human beings.
09:20:38
And one of the sad byproducts, if we're not careful of it, is -- of this information age, is that we can program our phones, we can program our TVs, we can program the -- the streams of news we receive so that we only -- we only talk to people who think most exactly like us. And there's a danger in that.
So some of the things we got done in Maryland, we only got done with Republican votes. And I believe that part of the reason that happened was because we were very intentional about having -- about -- about having -- you know, nonpartisan, bipartisan pizza night at the -- at the governor's mansion, at making sure that we broke bread and treated people decently and -- and invited people to -- you know, a -- a holiday open house, and -- and all sorts of other things, with -- regardless of party label.
09:21:32
And so were it not for some Republican votes, I would not have been able to repeal the death penalty, something that took us three tries, and were only able to do with some Republican votes. I would not have been able to pass marriage equality, again, something that took us three tries and that we were only able to do because of some Republican votes.
(APPLAUSE)
09:21:54
And as I -- as we went back and -- and researched the -- the priority bills that I put in as governor, I was happy to see that 75 percent of the governor's bills -- and we only do about a dozen every session -- 75 percent of them received bipartisan support in one house or the other -- or rather, majority Republican support in one house or the other.
And I think we have to stay focused on the goals that unite us and the principles that unite us. Our belief in (ph) the dignity of every person. Our belief in our own responsibility to advance the common good we share. Thank you, Problem-Solver Man.
09:22:33
QUESTION: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Governor.
QUESTION: So essentially -- essentially, more pizza parties in Congress.
MODERATOR: Governor, we've got a question down -- I've got a hand...
O'MALLEY: Well, I don't -- it's not that -- it's not that simple. It's not that simple, but it -- it -- but sometimes it does come down to just treating people like human beings, and -- and picking up the phone, and calling members, and asking them their perspective, knowing what their wives' names are...
(APPLAUSE)
...knowing -- you know, what they do in life, knowing who their kids are. You know? We have to treat people like people.
09:23:03
MODERATOR: Well, Governor, we've got 10 minutes left. Let's see if we can get another question in.
O'MALLEY: OK.
MODERATOR: All the way down the aisle there.
O'MALLEY: We'll do light -- let's do lightning round, Governor.
(CROSSTALK)
O'MALLEY: How about we do lightning round? How about if the questioner does 30 seconds, I will be 30 seconds.
MODERATOR: All right, very good. First one.
09:23:17
QUESTION: Well, I hope this takes you more than 30 seconds. My name is Ken Mason, I'm a resident of New Hampshire.
I made the mistake of going on YouTube and looking at the 1992 presidential debates, and what I saw was the exact same issues that are being brought up this year. It tells me that nothing effective has happened in more than 20 years in Washington.
You're a person of great influence. I think that's great. What I'm asking you today is what will you do to unlock that gridlock, regardless of whether you are the elected president or not?
O'MALLEY: OK.
(APPLAUSE)
09:24:05
O'MALLEY: I believe that all of us have a responsibility to -- to stay at the table, not to check out, not to not assume that big money has taken over our politics. Not to assume that these -- you know, that the -- the outcome is determined before we have the conversation.
And so that's what I intend to do. And that's what I have done all my life. There's no easy -- there's no easy solution to the gridlock that we see now. I would -- I would push back on you a little bit. I think it's actually a lot worse now than it was in 1992. And certainly, we suffered a huge setback when our country was nearly plunged into a second Great Depression. But I -- I do -- this is what I believe, though, and talking to young people in our country, I really find among people under 30, young Americans that deny climate change is real or think that we shouldn't come together to do something about it. I rarely find young Americans who want to...
(APPLAUSE)
09:25:05
... bash immigrants. I rarely find young people that want to deny rights to gay couples or children, so that tells me we're actually moving in a better direction, in a more connected place, a more generous place.
(APPLAUSE)
And I'm going to attempt to continue to speak to that place and to call forward the good energy of our next generation.
09:25:26
MODERATOR: Governor, we want to wish you a -- I guess our lightning round has resulted in a lightning bolt taking me off this stage...
(LAUGHTER)
... and making room for the next panel. But we want to thank you from Baltimore, Maryland today for your willingness to be here, number one. You're the first, but won't be the last. And thank you for taking some questions and for your candor.
Well, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, Governor Martin O'Malley. Thank you. Hey. Very good.
(APPLAUSE)
END
CHRIS CHRISTIE SPEECH:
WASH 8 NO LABELS EVENT NH P3
13:17:24
CHRISTIE: All right. Good afternoon, good afternoon. I'm from not going to give any speech to this group. This is a group that knows what they want to talk about, knows what they want to hear about, and I'm much better giving you the time to ask me questions. So, no speech for me. Let's start -- let's just start with questions. Let's go.
(APPLAUSE)
All right -- listen, this guy knows what he's doing. On the night the Mets are hosting their first baseball playoff game in nine years, he put the Mets hat on to get a Mets fan to get him the first question. You got it.
Smart guy. All right. Someone going to bring the microphone, or just yell it. Let's see.
Q: [INAUDIBLE]
13:18:15
I will repeat the question. Don't worry. They don't have a microphone to them yet. Yeah, OK. So, the question was, he said that my views on marijuana are well-known and that in the spirit of bipartisanship, he wants to know if I would be willing to meet states have way on recreational marijuana.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, no.
(APPLAUSE)
13:18:53
And here's why. Here's why. There are a few reasons. The first one is that the laws in this country matter. They matter; and when we have lawless this in this country, we have a situation where folks feel like they can pick and choose which laws they like and which ones they don't. And you know, if we are ignoring a law you don't like, you are probably pretty happy. The minute we start ignoring a law you do like, all of a sudden, we have got a big problem on our hands.
So, I say to folks who want to legalize recreational marijuana, go to Congress and get a president who's going to legalize it and sign it. That's the way we do these things. Not by letting the states go off road and decide for themselves, well, we don't want to follow the laws here. Now, this is where I have the biggest problem with what is happening now. Because we don't have folks who are respect thing the law.
13:19:48
So, why is it the people of New Jersey have to follow the law that says there's no recreational marijuana, but the people in Washington state they don't have to follow it?
It doesn't make any sense.
And so, my -- so that's the kind philosophical reason, all right? But the bigger reason from a policy perspective for me is that it is a bad idea. And I believe it's a bad idea because every study I've seen shows that marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs, and if you walk around to this state or many other states I've been in, including my own, we have enormous drug abuse problems, enormous drug abuse problems that we don't need to be adding to in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
13:20:31
So, I would say let's hope this our attention on treatment of those folks who have the disease of drug addiction, and try to give them the tools they need to reclaim their lives. Let's not focus on those other issues. So, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the answer would be no.
All right. Right on the aisle, here.
13:20:53
QUESTION: Governor Christie...
CHRISTIE: No, no, I was picking this young lady right here. But I will get to you, then, OK.
QUESTION: Oh, thanks so much. Hi, Governor Christie. I'm actually a proud citizen of New Jersey, it's good to see you here today.
CHRISTIE: There we go. All right.
(APPLAUSE)
13:21:09
QUESTION: So, as a college student, an issue that's very important to me and a large network of students I represent is that of global health, specifically funding for AIDS. And I know you are a big proponent of bipartisanship, and this is definitely a bipartisan issue over the years.
So I was wondering if you are willing to make the commitment already made by Senator Clinton and Mr. Trump today to work double the number of people on aids treatment around the world to 30 million by 2020, a path that would prepare us for an AIDS-free generation?
13:21:38
CHRISTIE: Sure, listen. First off, I'll just answer the question directly, the answer is yes. And let me tell you why, though. You are right it's a bipartisan issue and it was made a bipartisan issue by President George W. Bush.
And I'm extraordinarily proud of the president and what he did to say that this type of disease running rampant through parts of the world, when we know there was an ability to treat it and make people better was just immoral. And that the American people, not only have a responsibility, but that is who we are.
That if we have a way to help others who are suffering, that we're the group of folks in this world that stand up and help the suffering.
(APPLAUSE)
13:22:22
And so, absolutely would join that commitment and think that it's not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. A healthier African continent in particular is better for world peace and stability. And that we should be shooting for that, and that is clearly one of the ways we could do it.
So, thank you.
All right. Let's go over to this side. Right there in the middle; you're waving your hand at me. Yes, sir, that one, right there. Yes.
13:22:53
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE).
CHRISTIE: Oh, man, how do I know it? It's like a feel thing, you know? We have a -- we have a feel thing between us.
OK, (inaudible).
13:23:03
QUESTION: All right, my question is this, Governor. Everybody says the best way to deal with public school education is to go back and let the districts handle the educational levels themselves.
But prior to No Child -- no, A Nation at Risk, all the local school districts had control over their school systems, and they -- some of them were decent and some of them were abysmal.
Do you really feel it in the nation's best interest, and in this technological age it is far more important to the United States, to the government, it is an issue of national security that we have highest level of education?
Now, everybody says No Child Left Behind was bad and whatever else was bad and go back -- how would you look at this to be assured every kid has the opportunity to have a world-class education?
(APPLAUSE)
13:24:15
CHRISTIE: All right. First off, I agree with the premise of your question that education is not only a human rights issue, it's a national security issue. It's both.
But I do agree as we have watched the educational system evolved in our country that we are much better off having these decisions made at the local level, and here is why.
I don't believe there's anybody who cares more about a child's education than their parents. Now, we can always find exceptions to that rule, and there are kids who do not live in stable homes, who do not have the appropriate adult influences, we know that and I will talk about that in a second.
13:24:54
But in the main in America, the people who care most about a child's education are their mother and their father. And so, I want the educational decisions made as close to those two people as we possibly can, and I want to give them as much choice in their ability to educate their child as they can possibly have.
And that means everything from homeschooling to private and parochial schools, to charter and renaissance public schools, to regular public schools. I'm a regular public school guy. I went from k to 12 to the public schools in New Jersey and I feel like they served me extraordinarily well.
I married a woman who is number nine of ten children and she went to Catholic school her entire life as did the rest of her family. So when we got married and had children, I thought they should go to public school. Mary Pat thought they should go to parochial school. So of course, all four of our children go to parochial school.
(LAUGHTER)
13:25:47
CHRISTIE: And it's served them extraordinarily well and it serves me extraordinarily well to have agreed with Mary-Pat on that. So I think parents should be making those and I think they should be making those choices regardless of their economic ability to effectuate those choices. We should not be making these decisions based upon just, if you have enough money. It's what you believe in your heart is the best way for your child to be educated.
And my wife really believes, and she has brought me around to the belief, for our kids, that she wanted them having that religious education, enjoined with their academic education. And that's not the choice everybody else ought to make and it's not the choice my parents made. But I like those choices being made close to the local level and curriculum choices being made close to the local level.
13:26:41
Because then, if the curriculum has gone off the rails, you have the ability to be able to go to your local school board and raise hell over it. And if it's happening, quite frankly at the federal part of the education, good luck. Not going to happen. You are not going to have the same ability to affect it.
And so that's why I'm now -- I'm on the side of making those choices at the local level. But acknowledging in your questions that there's no perfect way to do this and that is why parental and adult involvement in making sure we are keeping an eye on what's happening in our schools in every respect is a responsibility that requires vigilance.
13:27:15
And if we are not doing it, we only have ourselves to blame for the education that our kids are getting because we are certainly spending enough money on it in America. We're not getting the results we need right now and we need to change that around, so. That is the way I would approach that problem. All right. Let's go up to the bleachers.
This guy. Right? With the glasses, right there. Yes sir.
13:27:35
QUESTION: Hello, Governor Christie. My name is A. Fontenez (ph). I am too from New Jersey.
CHRISTIE: Well, if you are from there, you know we don't say it that way. Come on.
QUESTION: I'm a big fan of yours by the way.
CHRISTIE: Thank you. You sound like a Saturday Night Live skit brother. Go ahead.
Good to see you. OK.
13:27:54
QUESTION: So, we here at No Labels really aim to reform our broken political system to make our country progress for the good of the American people. So my question for you is, if you are elected as our next President, what specifically will you do to reform our broken political system?
(APPLAUSE)
13:28:15
CHRISTIE: Let me say this, I have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of your question. I don't think it is the system that is broken. I think it's the people who are running it better broken.
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: I think, -- this is the same system we've had for a long time that can work. And it can work. But you have to understand that compromise is not capitulation. Right now, we have an attitude that says if you are willing to compromise, you are a capitulator. That's not the case. It's not the case at all.
13:28:47
So first, we have to talk about the idea that people have to make the decision. I have a Democratic legislature. Senator Boxer (ph) said so on the introduction. So I wake up every morning knowing that they are not making a good day for me, OK? We don't agree on a whole lot and it's not like every morning they wake up and say how can we make the governor happy today?
In Washington, they use that as an excuse to do nothing. They say, well if they don't agree with me and they don't like me and I don't like them and I don't agree with them so I'm not going to do it. If that is what I had done in New Jersey for the last six years, I really like you.
13:29:24
If I've done that in New Jersey for the last six years, we would not have capped property taxes, we would not have cut spending, we would not have vetoed taxes and kept them lower. We wouldn't have reformed teacher tenure. We would not have reformed pensions and benefits. Because everything I wanted in those areas, I did not get everything I wanted in those proposals.
13:29:43
But I got more of what I wanted than I didn't want and I had to give a little bit to the other side to get them to come on board. I mean, I got pension and benefit reform sponsored by the Democratic Senate president who is the president of the iron workers local. OK? That is called compromise. That is called working together. So I don't believe the system is broken, what I believe is that the people we have employed to run it have broken their promise and their word to the American people. So what I would do going to Washington is do the same that I've done when I go to Trenton; when I have to stand up and fight I will, so I've vetoed over 400 bills since I've been Governor, more than any governor in New Jersey history. I've vetoed more tax increases than any governor in American history, and all those vetoes have been sustained.
13:30:34
So when I need to fight on something that's important I fight, but I also have a room in the State House where I bring the members of the Legislature, the leadership, to sit whenever they want to talk and to reason together. And we can argue outside in public, but when we get in that room it's time to get business done and get business done for the -- for -- for the people of the State of New Jersey. But the only way you do that is to build relationships, and that's the last part of this. We don't make anything, we don't create anything. OK? We govern. That's all you do when your elected to these positions, and if you don't make personal relationships with the people on both sides of the isle, then guess what, it's never going to work because they won't trust you ever because they don't know you.
13:31:16
The best bit of political advice, and I'll end the answer with this, the best bit of political advice I ever got was from a non-politician in a non-political setting. I was the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, he was the Deputy Attorney General of the United States and he had been my colleague as the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan; he's now the director of the FBI, guy name Jim Comey. And Jim came to visit me when I was U.S. Attorney as my boss and when he was leaving I said to him, "What are you doing next?" And he said, "I'm going to the New York Times Editorial Board." And I said, "Jim, you're John Ash Croft's Deputy, you're in George W. Bush's administration, you're going to the New York Times Editorial? Look, of you have a death wish, what's wrong with you?" And he looked at me he said, "No, no Chris, you don't understand. I'm going to the New York Times Editorial Board because it's harder to hate up close."
13:32:00
And it is extraordinarily good political advice everybody.
(APPLAUSE)
It's harder to hate up close everybody, much harder to hate up close.
All right, I'll go to this gentlemen on the isle, right here.
13:32:15
QUESTION: Governor Christy, Steve Corbin from Iowa.
CHRISTIE: Yes, Sir.
QUESTION: Hopefully you know where Iowa is.
CHRISTIE: I've -- I've come to learn that, Steve, yes.
QUESTION: We've -- we've seen you there, thank you.
I have a simple question, I hope, for you. Why would any presidential candidate in any of the 535 representatives and senators ever be opposed to four goals of No Labels that are supported in the super-majority by Republicans, Democrats and Independence. Can you think of a reason why they would be opposed to any of the four goals of No Labels?
13:32:50
CHRISTIE: Listen...
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: You're -- you're now, Steve -- Steve you're in very dangerous territory now, because now you're trying to impute logical into the way political decisions are made sometimes, so.
(LAUGHTER)
Be very, very careful about that. Listen, I wouldn't be here today if I didn't think that this organization and its goals were worthy and noble and achievable. OK? So that's why I'm here, otherwise I'd be someplace else.
(APPLAUSE)
13:33:20
But remember too, remember too that every leader brings a unique skill set and approach to their job. And so there may be times where you see me going in one direction or another, and you think, "No, no, no, the target's over here." And my method to getting to the target may be to go this way and then that way to get to the goal. That's why trust is so important in this also, and there has to be a sense of trust that you develop with the people you represent because you're not always going to be able to, nor are they going to want to listen to every method you're going to employ to get where you want to get to, but let's agree on the goals, I think that's an important thing, and let's get organizations who really care about getting something done in this country.
I will tell you this, if I hear one more -- I just -- I want to turn off the news with all this stuff that's going on in Washington right now with who's going to be the Speaker of the House. Who cares? I mean, who cares?
(APPLAUSE)
13:33:18
Because, quite frankly, whether it's been a Democratic speaker or a Republican speaker of late, they don't get anything done. I saw -- I watched these Sunday shows this weekend and I heard more talk about, "Well, who's going to decide the Committee chairs, and who will decide whether there can be free and open amendments and who's going to decide what bill gets brought to the floor?" You know what I want and what most of you want? How about they just do something? Do something...
(APPLAUSE)
... rather than all this -- this intrigue in that city where all they want to do is talk about who gets the big office, who gets the big title and who's able to get the best table at the best restaurant in Washington?
13:34:55
I'm bored, I think you are too, and especially as our country continues to deteriorate, I'd like the leaders in Washington to start telling me about what they believe and what their goals are, and then start to work towards achieving them together rather than continuing to bicker with each other over stuff that nobody in the main in America cares about, except for the people between Washington, D.C. and New York who ride that Acela train all the time.
All right. Other questions? That lady in the back. Right there. Yes, ma'am.
13:35:25
QUESTION: Thank you, governor, and thank you because you remembered you were going to call on me at the next event.
CHRISTIE: I did. I spotted you. It took a while. Big crowd here.
QUESTION: I have a question about the Social Security. I love the (ph) work -- working across the aisles. It's a great idea that No Labels wants to do.
But with our seniors living on an average of $16,000 a year for Social Security checks, what do you have to say about the cap on Social Security, making it fairer for the working class and lower middle class so we can survive? Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
13:36:03
CHRISTIE: In seven or eight years, Social Security is not going to be able to make the payments they make now. So take that in for second. In seven to eight years, a Harvard and Dartmouth study which came out just a few months ago said, Social Security will be insolvent.
Now, there's two different ways to approach this problem -- I guess there's three. The first would be what we were doing, which is to ignore it. That's one approach.
The second approach is to give the government more money, the third approach is to work on reforming the programs in order to make them affordable. I'd go for part three, and I'm the only person in the race who has actually put forward an entitlement reform plan, in detail.
13:36:45
It's the first thing I did in this race, and the reason is because of what this woman said. We have so many people in this country who are dependent upon making sure they get their Social Security payment. So there's a few things we need to do.
First is we need to acknowledge a happy truth, which is we're all living longer. We're living longer, better lives. The average life expectancy for a woman in this country now is 83 years old. The life -- average life expectancy for a man is 79.
I saw a few women smiling out there. I want to let you know that 10 years ago, you were ahead of us by six years. Ten years later, you're only ahead by four. We are gaining on you.
(LAUGHTER)
13:37:24
And that four-year vacation from us that you are expecting at the end of your life, you may not get it. You may be stuck with us the entire time.
Now listen: at 83 and 79, these programs were designed for people who died in their mid-60s. We're living 15 to 20 years longer and drawing from the Social Security fund for that much longer.
So let's acknowledge the fact that by having this happy circumstance because of medical science and pharmacology and all the rest -- eating better, better lifestyles -- we need to raise the retirement age. We need to raise it two years, I believe, and -- and phase it in over the next 25.
13:38:02
That would mean one month in increase in eligibility a year for 25 years. Believe me, the world will not stop spinning on its axis because of this. And when I get accused of throwing Grandma off the cliff for this, all right, that means that is the highest, longest fall ever. It took 25 years for her to get from the top of the cliff to the bottom. So let's be serious and honest with each other.
Secondly, Social Security should be a program that is there for the folks who need it. We need to have Social Security be there for the folks who it makes the difference between living their old age in poverty or living their old age in dignity. The difference between rent and heat and food. Those are the people that we need to make sure we take care of.
13:38:45
So I say to folks, if you're making over $200,000 a year in retirement income -- retirement income, that means you've got four million to five million bucks, at least, saved away -- if you do, I say to you, God bless you, great job.
I also say God bless America, because this is the only country you could have done it in. And I say you shouldn't get a Social Security check. You should not get a Social Security check.
(APPLAUSE)
13:39:11
Now, I did a -- I did a town hall meeting in Exeter where someone yelled out to me, "I paid for it, I want my money back." I said, listen, OK. Two points on that -- first is, you're right, you should get it back, but the government lied to you and stole from you.
And I'm not the first one to point this out to you. There's no trust fund, everybody, OK? There's no lockbox. All right? There's IOUs in the lockbox. It's not there. They're spending your money today. So forget that, it's a fiction, and someone needs to tell you the truth about that. Because, guess what? You already know it.
13:39:43
And secondly, there's plenty of things you pay for that you don't get money back for, but what you get back is peace of mind, right? So -- let's say like homeowner's insurance. Everybody who owns a home, you buy homeowner's insurance. You buy it in case your house burns down, or there's a flood, or there's a robbery. Some calamity that -- you know then the money will be there for you to rebuild your home.
Well, let's say you owned a home for 25 years, and you are going to sell it now and you never made it claim the entire time -- you invite the insurance company to the closing to ask for the money back?
13:40:15
I think if you do, they won't come, but if they do, they'll just come to laugh at you. Because what they will say to you is what you got in return was the peace of mind, the knowing that when you put your head on the pillow at night, if something happened, we would be there to make you whole.
Social Security has to be the same thing. If you play by the rules and pay into the system, it will be there when you need it.
But I know -- my friend Mark Zuckerberg, when I talking about this entitlement reform thing said, "So, Governor, entitlement reform, tell me exactly what does that mean? I said what it means for you, Mark, is you get nothing -- you get absolutely nothing. You are going to get zero, brother.
13:41:50
You don't need it, and then get it -- that's the way we have to take care of Social Security. And if we don't do it -- if we don't do it, I'm talking about option one, which some people say take the cap off the payroll tax and everybody pay more. Let me ask you a question. The government that lied to you and stole from you already, you think the way to solve this problem is to give them more money?
(APPLAUSE)
Because believe me, next time, they won't do it, right? Next time they won't do it. Of course they will. If they get a choice between taking, cutting a program or increasing tax, or stealing from this pile of money over here that you all know is sitting there, but no one is using right now, so, we just borrow a little from that and it will be fine.
13:41:30
Understand what politicians are like, OK? They're taking from that pile of money. Don't give them more. It's -- this is about the people who have done very well. If you take the cap off, it means taking it from them now and counting on the fact that the government won't waste it.
Or taking it from them later, when you have to trust the government at all, they have no part in the equation. Let's not trust the government to give them more money please, everybody. Let's take it on the backend, let's make Social Security solvent.
(APPLAUSE)
And let's have it be there for the people who need it.
13:42:01
All right, all right. Let's see, let's go to that gentleman in the plaid shirt down the aisle. Yes, sir.
Good, they're coming at you, look, they are all running at you.
They're either going to give you a microphone or arrest you, I don't know which one's going to happen, so.
(LAUGHTER)
All right, it's a microphone. Good, I'm relieved.
13:42:20
QUESTION: Londonderry, New Hampshire.
CHRISTIE: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: When the government shuts down, that damages the full faith in the United States as the world leader for the monetary system. Now, what could you do, or what do you recommend be done so we never experience another shut down in government?
Because I feel my government should never shut down because of some stupid reason that they seem to come up with.
(APPLAUSE)
13:42:52
CHRISTIE: Listen, I said this the last time it closed down -- it's a fundamental failure of leadership by everyone when government shuts down. A fundamental failure of leadership.
All you are getting hired to do is to govern, and then you stop governing and say that's OK? That is what you are hired to do. And so, for instance, in New Jersey, before I became governor, the governor was a guy named Jon Corzine, and he had a Democratic legislature. OK?
They closed down the government in 2006 because they couldn't agree on how much to raise taxes. Imagine -- you want to talk about the variety of stupid reasons to close down government? Here are two sets of people who said they ought -- they agreed, they wanted to raise taxes, but they couldn't agree on how much. So they shut down government.
13:43:41
Now, this is -- put aside non-partisan or bipartisan, this is a Democratic legislature with a Democratic governor. They shut down government for that reason.
One of the things I said when I was running against Governor Corzine in 2009 was the government will never shut down on my watch, ever. I will make sure that it doesn't, it is my responsibility as governor to make sure. And I have had a much tougher task, I'd say, because I have a Democratic legislature with me as a conservative Republican governor.
We've gone through six years together and we have not closed down the government once. And here's why. Because we get in the room like adults and we make agreements. Agreements that neither one of us like sometimes, but we make agreements because we know our job is to make sure state parks remain open on 4th of July, to make sure folks who need human services in our state continue to get them.
13:44:31
Because that is what we are supposed to be there to provide. The public safety has to continue, and our state police have to remain funded and out on the roadways.
It is not an option. And anybody who closes done the government has engaged in a fundamental failure of leadership with the American people, and if the federal government closes down sometime in the next couple of weeks, that's a pox not only on the House and Congress, it's a pox on the president of the United States. Because he has an obligation, too, to bring people in the room and get them to agree.
So, everyone is a failure when that happens. It hasn't happened on my watch in New Jersey, and if I'm president, it won't happen then, either.
(APPLAUSE)
CHRISTIE: All right, all right. This gentleman right here.
13:45:13
QUESTION: Thank you so much for being here today. I'm born and raised in Washington, D.C., and I wanted to ask you about a question that has not come up often. But we talk about the politicians and the gridlock in D.C., but we don't talk about the 650,000 residents that live there and lack a basic a democratic, fundamental right, and that's the right to vote in our Congress. We currently have no voting members there.
And I want to ask you why has this become at this conference, No Labels, why has this become a partisan issue that has prevented Washington, D.C. residents, the only capital of any country in the world, that doesn't have the right to vote. Why can we not get them this basic, Democratic right? Thank you.
13:45:59
CHRISTIE: Because I think that we're the only the capital, and I'll have to check myself on this, but I think we maybe the only capital created just to be a seat of government. And the fact is that Washington, D.C. was created to be a seat of government. That is how it was created and what it was created for. And it is now expanded and grown into something different. But, I have to tell you the truth, I'm not one who has given this a whole lot of thought, but I will give you my initial gut reaction.
My initial gut reaction is, I don't think adding another person to Congress is going to help. And I just don't think fundamentally, it will help or make an enormous difference. I understand the philosophical argument you are making and I'm not completely rejecting it. But I have to be honest with you. I haven't given it enough thought to give you a really thoughtful answer about it.
13:46:51
So, how about this. Somebody out here is going to come to my next town hall meeting here in New Hampshire when I'm back again next week. Make sure you ask me that question again. I'll give it some thought in the next week. But I don't want to give you an off-the-cuff answer that I haven't thought about. That's my initial instinct. But I will come back. I will give you a full answer on it.
All right. They have turned my screen blank, which means I can do what, one more? All right. The powers that be say one more, so I'm going to give one more. And let's go to this young lady right there in the middle.
13:47:25
QUESTION: Hi Thank you, Governor.
CHRISTIE: Thank you.
QUESTION: So National Service is a really important program to communities across the country. I'm just wondering if you are elected, will you expand National Service?
CHRISTIE: Yes, I will, and for a few reasons. First off, the folks from Americorps were extraordinarily helpful to us in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.
(APPLAUSE)
13:47:59
CHRISTIE: We had Americorps volunteers from all over the country who came to New Jersey and stayed with us for months. Months helping us get people back on their feet, getting their lives back to some sense of normalcy. Helping to clean up debris, helping to rebuild. Helping to cook meals, helping to read to children when they were out of school. All different kinds of things that Americorp volunteers did that were indispensable, not only to helping us rebuild, but also to giving the people in my state were really suffering, a sense that they were not alone.
CHRISTIE: And I think that's an intangible that you cannot place a value on. And so the enthusiasm and compassion that Americorp members brought to New Jersey, made me an even bigger supporter of the program. I also think we need to expand National Services a way to start to deal with the student debt problem in our country.
(APPLAUSE)
13:48:53
CHRISTIE: There's a whole bunch of layers to this which I can't go into now because my clock has run out but what I will tell you is that one of the options I think we need to give young men and women who graduate college with a significant amount of debt is for them to participate in National Service to work that debt off. It's going to be great for our communities. It'll be great for our communities and our states and our country.
And it will also give those young men and women in opportunity not to have to carry that milestone around their neck which prevents them from buying a home, starting a family and doing the kinds of things they want to do, because they leave with such an enormous amount of debt.
13:49:33
Now we need to deal with the colleges and universities too. And I talk about that all the time, but I won't today because you asked about National Service. National Service is an important thing to honor in this country and not just in the military, but across all types of disciplines.
And so, I would give young men and women the opportunity to engage in National Service in a much broader way when they graduate from college and when they do so, to have them work off things on their student loan debt so that they are not carrying a mortgage of their own before they ever own a home in this country that prevents them from really starting their lives.
13:50:04
So I thank those people for participating and I think we should expand it.
(APPLAUSE)
So the screen up here now says, "Time ending, wrap up." And then in case you don't really clear on that in big red they put, "Time's up!" So I'm from New Jersey, which means, Hell I ignore stuff like that.
(APPLAUSE)
13:50:30
I will just tell all of you that I think the gathering of all of you here today is enormously encouraging to me as a candidate for public office. That men and women of both parties and Independents who care deeply about this country's future are here today to try to make sure that those voices are heard and that you make sure you hear from us about what we believe in and what we're willing to stand for and fight for.
By you being here I know what you're willing to stand for and fight for, and that's a better America and a more stable world for everybody. I thank you for than. I thank Senator Lieberman and Governor Huntsman for what you're doing, I appreciate it very much.
Thank you for having me.
13:51:10
END
------
JOHN KASICH SPEECH
------
ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, No Labels Advisory Board Member Congressman Tom Davis.
(APPLAUSE)
DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you very much. This is hale and hearties, lasted all day. Thank you very much for being here.
(APPLAUSE)
So my Congressional district is right outside Virginia, so when I came here today, I had a little trouble finding the hotel. But I stuck out my arm to make a left turn and four candidates shook my hand.
(LAUGHTER)
I knew immediately I was in the right place. Well, it's been a great day, but we have -- we have a great speaker coming up.
Picture this: a divided government, record deficits, government shutdowns, and what happens? This was the 1990s, and we had a budget chairman in the House named John Kasich who negotiated a balanced budget agreement with a Democratic administration, got a strong vote out of Congress and it led to four years of balanced budgets. He didn't just talk about it, he did it.
Our agenda sets the goal of balancing the federal government's budget by 2030. We have our next speaker who did it as chairman of the House Budget Committee. From there, he left Congress, after accomplishing that, he left undefeated and unindicted and he...
(LAUGHTER)
...and he went from there to the private sector and came back as governor of Ohio, where unemployment was high and they were running deficits, and again, he balanced the budget. Ladies and gentlemen, you join me and welcome the governor from Ohio, John Kasich.
(APPLAUSE)
Well Governor, you're the last speaker. Now you're between them and dinner but...
KASICH: Wow. You know, you go to a good concert, it's always the last one who's the best. They hold it until the very end.
DAVIS: Exactly right.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me -- let me start, and we'll open up for some questions, but you came into Ohio, tough economic times, tough budget situation. What did you do to turn it around?
KASICH: OK. Let me -- let me start so I can see everybody. Let me tell you, this all started when I was a kid. I was elected to the Ohio Senate at the age of 26 promising no taxes. And two years in, the Republicans won a majority and decided to raise taxes, and I said, well, you know, I'm not going to for that, and they called me irresponsible, which is what they call you. And so I wrote my own budget, that was the first time it happened at the age of 28. And I had people sneaking into my office telling me about how we could clean everything up. I lost, but I made a big statement and we had a lot of really good ideas.
I went to Congress, and for the first six years, I served on the Defense Committee. But six years in, I was selected to go on the Budget Committee. And I went to my first Budget Committee Meeting and it wasn't going very well. I was not impressed with the Republican budget, the Democrat budget. I went back to Ohio and I was at a gas station complaining about it, Tom. And somebody walked around the corner and said, well, if you don't like what's going on here, what are you going to do about it?
So I flew to Washington and I met with my staff and I said look, we're going to write a budget for the country. They said I don't how we're going to do that, there's 100 people at the White House working on a budget and 100 people up here on Capitol Hill, and we only have six. And I said, yeah, if we stay out of each other's way, we'll be able to get it done, you know.
And the -- so in 1989, was my first budget in Washington, and the vote was 405 against me and 30 for me. And my friends were all down. I said, I think it's fantastic, we got 29 other people to think we can run the country. So I kept offering my own proposals, they became more sophisticated and we built a larger and larger team. And in my third budget, I got more votes than President Bush got for his budget. So the idea of whether this is a Republican or a Democrat doesn't matter that much to me.
And then I moved up, I became the senior Republican. I wrote -- I've written about 18 budgets in my lifetime, and then I joined with Tim Penny to try to take a penny out of every dollar to cut spending, and we were opposed by Hillary, the White House -- she was literally lobbying -- and the Republican Appropriations Committee. And we've got very close within about five votes.
And then I became the chairman of the Budget Committee and, you know, continued to work and build a bigger and bigger team, taking on all these tough issues. And then, of course, I became the chief architect, Pete Domenici and I, of the last time we balanced the budget, the first time since man walked on the moon, and we haven't done it since with a $5 trillion surplus and we actually paid down the debt.
(APPLAUSE)
Now here's the other thing you should all know, and Tom alluded to it. So I go in to be governor of Ohio, we're $8 billion in the hole, which is a historic high, 20 percent of our general revenue fund, and all I did was take the practices from Washington, and what are they? Just go do the job. You don't sit around worrying about who is going to yelp and scream and try to come up with something that is going to work, that people can accept. But you've just got to make choices. But you got to be as creative as you possibly can.
So $8 billion in the hole, everybody said raise taxes, I said no, baloney. If you have a restaurant and you don't have any customers, you don't raise your prices, you lower your prices, you change the menu and you reduce your overhead.
So in Ohio, we went from $8 billion in the hole and today, we are $2 billion in surplus. We're up 347,000 jobs. We are rock solid with our credit, there's no phony baloney in this budget, and we've cut taxes by $5 billion. Because you've got to remember, even in Washington, not only did we have a program to reduce our overhead, but we also cut our prices and we reduced the taxes on capital gains and we provided a family tax credit that was not an economic growth other than giving people more money in their pockets. But capital gains helped. Then you balance a budget by restraining your spending and also growing your economy. And, you know, you just have to rally people to get behind something for the good of something other than themselves. And then -- I'll give you one little story, though.
In our state, Medicaid when I came in was growing at 10 percent. In my second budget, it grew at 2.5 percent, and we didn't take one single person off the rolls and we did not cut one benefit. So you might say how do you do that? Well, one of the groups I had to fight was the nursing home industry. They had -- and they basically had called everything in Ohio for many years.
I'm not against nursing homes, but I'm against sky-high reimbursement rates, and I want mom and dad to be able to stay in their own home if they can rather than being forced to into a nursing home. And we used technology, and -- so the industry was very angry at me. They tried to keep me from getting elected and then they fought me when I did get elected and I had to take them on. And so imagine, controlling the hardest element of a state budget and to have Medicaid go from 10 percent to like 2 1/2 percent without taking anybody off the rolls, people like it.
So you see, when you go about doing this, everything doesn't have to be slash and burn, it's trying to figure out the most effective way you can do it to serve the customer. And by the way, on Thursday, this Thursday, I'm going to be unveiling a plan, a framework that will become more and more sophisticated as time goes on, that does -- deals with spending, the issue of fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, being able to provide economic growth in a variety of ways. And this is going to come Thursday.
I'm going to make a speech in Nashua. If you want to come down, we'd love to have you there. And I think it's going to give us a road map, it's a road map what John Kasich would do if I'm elected president of the United States. And it will be comprehensive. Yeah, you can clap. Go ahead. I like that.
(APPLAUSE)
So a lot of people talk about doing it, but you have to know how to do it. You have to put teams of people together, you have to tell them, pay no attention to the special interest groups. I mean, you can listen to them and if they have a legitimate objection, that's fine, but they don't call the tune. Nobody who gives you money, nobody who -- you cannot play that game because the minute you come off of the high moral ground, which is the issue of we need to do this for our kids, we need to do this for our country, we need to do this for our state. When you -- when you do that, people can accept by and large what you're doing, but all of a sudden, Uncle Joe gets a sweetheart deal or right here, Joe Lieberman or anybody else gets a certain deal, then you know what happens is then people say, well why them and not me? So it's difficult, it's challenging, but it's absolutely doable and you want to get there by 2030? That's too long. That's too long. I mean...
(APPLAUSE)
...I -- well, I think you can get there before 2030 and we'll give you a sense of all this come Thursday. But that's not necessary. That is not a necessary thing to do. And you have to deal with all the entitlements. You've got to deal with Medicaid, you've got to deal with Medicare and ultimately, I think with like with Social Security, you're going to -- that's going to have to be done over time with Republicans and Democrats really working together.
See, the problem is if you try to go after -- if you try to reform these entitlement programs and you don't have some members of both parties participating, it probably won't happen. When you go back to the Clinton years, when he was president and we forced him to balance the budget -- I'm sorry, Joe, but Clinton is a skilled politician. If there is a ride coming at him, he jumps in front of it and calls it a parade.
But at that point...
(LAUGHTER)
...at that point, you know he had some people in there that really wanted to get this done. And when we did it with both parties participating, nobody screamed about Medicare, nobody screamed about Medicaid, nobody really even screamed about welfare reform which was another very significant thing that we did.
So look, in war, you die once, Churchill said in politics, you can die 10 or 15 times, just look at my friend here from Ohio. How many times did you die in politics? Many, many. So that's what you have to do. And just, you know, shoot for the stars, have big ideas, be creative, be imaginative and look at every way to get this thing done.
And then I'll have to tell you folks one other thing. If you don't have a balanced budget amendment that requires a federally balanced budget, you will never be able to do it consistently. We need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force politicians to do what we did.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, some of you are not clapping about that, but I can tell you if we didn't have a balance budget requirement in Ohio, I don't think we'd be balanced. I mean, it forces people to be responsible. It would be great, it would be wonderful if we would just do it naturally, but I'm not some -- you know some buddy living in Lake Wobegon. If you have the lake, if you have the requirement -- think about this. I left Washington in 2000 -- after 2000, we had a $5 trillion surplus.
I went home to Ohio and my buddy said now that your friends are leaving, they're going to spend it all. I said, that's impossible. You can't spend $5 trillion. I mean you have to work to spend it all. And it was all gone in a blink of an eye. And we could have used that $5 trillion to provide -- we could have provided a 2 percent private account for all the young people in the country funded out of that surplus, but it's all gone. It was gone.
So, you know -- and why was it gone? All politicians are tarred with the same stick. They want to spend money and somebody's got to stand in the breach and say, no, no, we can't do that. Just like a mom and dad stand on the breach when members of their family want to spend money they don't have. You just have to do that. And I think the constitutional amendment is vital. OK.
DAVIS: Governor...
(APPLAUSE)
...talk about -- we're going to take some questions from the audience. We've got about 15 minutes for questions. Let me just ask, though, getting those jobs in Ohio, it was a very tough time. What did you do different?
KASICH: Well we privatized our economic development. It doesn't exist in the government anymore. We created a not-for-profit entity and this entity -- to make a long story short, they get about $100 million a year of liquor revenue and we have hired people that actually can talk to business people.
Secondly, we looked at Ohio and we figured out which of the areas of Ohio we could sell diversity. So we have cloud computing, IT, financial services, energy, medical devices, steel and manufacturing, agriculture. We are now a diverse state different than the way you thought about Ohio. And I can tell you why it happens. I talked to the CEOs.
When you balance budgets and cut taxes, and you as the CEO understand business -- I'm the CEO of Ohio, you think as being -- you know, the governor -- I'm the CEO of Ohio, you convince people to come, and that's how we're up to 347,000 jobs. It's -- it is about understanding how businesses work, how they decide things and make sure that the government, both from a tax, from a spending and regulatory -- that's another thing that's -- that's crushing our country is this overaggressive regulations. There needs to be some common sense. We'll deal with that on Thursday.
But if you can, in fact, balance a budget or head towards it, reduce the taxes, particularly on businesses in America now; I mean, having the highest corporate tax rate is just nuts, OK? We need to get that money back here because companies are investing in Europe and they ought to be investing in America because we tax our profits so high they just don't bring the money back. And get a regulatory regime going the right way.
And one final thing. Trade, these trade deals ought to be work -- it shouldn't be a good deal or a bad deal, they ought to be improved. And then when we get violated by -- because of companies taking advantage of it, we have to have an expedited process that doesn't drag out for years, and then we win and everybody that was affected lost their jobs. I mean, this is -- there's so much, the workforce development. It's a big comprehensive package, but if you can't balance a budget, you can't control your spending, businesses will go somewhere else. And if your taxes are too high, they will go somewhere else.
And the proof is in the pudding. We were dead in Ohio and now we're alive. Not only alive, we're thriving, and it's great. And as a result, no one has been left behind. I mean, if you're the mentally ill, if you're the drug addicted, if you're the working poor, we've got a program for you. If you're developmentally disabled, we want to mainstream you. Economic growth solves so many problems and allows you to do so many wonderful things for the public.
DAVIS: Thank you. First question?
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Thank you so much for being here. It's a privilege. You may be the first Republican that I might vote for or even campaign for. OK, so I am...
KASICH: Why don't we take the might out and...
QUESTION: Well...
KASICH: ...it would be perfect.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: But for this...
KASICH: OK.
QUESTION: ...OK, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
KASICH: Yeah.
QUESTION: Like gosh, it seems every person I seem to meet. So I -- what I don't understand is all this focus on, again, what I would consider to be social issues, the economic impact of Planned Parenthood, I'm sorry it's just not that significant. And I said -- I said earlier, actually to Donald Trump, I said it's like a deck chair everyone one keeps trying to rearrange and the Titanic, it's like, oh my, gosh, we hit the iceberg.
Nineteen trillion dollars are one of the most over -- the most imprisoned drug society in the world. Every kingdom on the Earth is threatened. I'm looking for -- trying to understand the thinking, but -- behind -- you know, the world behind your eyes...
KASICH: Yeah.
QUESTION: ...you know, it's like, where are you really going to focus?
KASICH: Well, I mean look...
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you by the way.
KASICH: First of all, our...
QUESTION: Thank you.
KASICH: ...our recidivism rate in the prisons in Ohio is almost half the national average, and we're now treating the drug addicted in the prisons and releasing them into community and the recidivism rate is less than 20 percent. So we are giving people a chance to get out and get on their feet so they can become productive citizens.
Planned Parenthood -- look, I don't care what your position is on that. We need to have family planning, it just shouldn't be done by those. They broke -- they went too far and it needs to be stripped out, but that doesn't mean we don't do family planning. My think our greatest -- there's a lot of moral purposes, great ones. But creating a job which allows a mom and dad to support -- think of the support of family is so important. Think about a dad who goes home at night because, you know, my dad carried mail on his back, I grew up in a blue collar town and if the wind blew the wrong way, dad had to go home and look at his kids and his spouse or mom and say I lost my job today, things are going to change around here.
Think about how great it is when mom or dad goes home, and particularly the single mom, and says I got a better job, or I got a raise or things are going great, we celebrate, right? We go out to dinner. Maybe we even get a shrimp cocktail, if things are going really well, right?
So we have to focus on economic growth. That doesn't mean these moral issues don't matter, they do matter, but we've got to get this country moving from the standpoint of stronger economic growth, helping families, training workers, having common sense regulations. And one other thing. We need to begin to transfer power, money and influence back to where we live. And I'm going to give you one example.
Why do we have -- why do we send gas tax money to Washington so they can scam it off the top and send less back? Why don't we just keep it here and take care of our own infrastructure and...
(APPLAUSE)
Think about this. We send a couple of pennies down to maintain the interstate, but we're not building anymore interstate. So what we ought to be doing is keeping our money to solve our problems based on the way we can do it. Have we lost -- we have not lost faith in ourselves. So we need to systematically -- we'll have more say about this on Thursday -- we need to systematically begin to move programs back to where we live, where we then take responsibility. It's not like we get them and then we do nothing, we get them and we have to be responsible with what we do with those programs. So a little bit about the things that I think about.
DAVIS: We have another question.
KASICH: And take the might out, I'll give you a gold star. How's that? Yeah.
DAVIS: We have a question back here.
QUESTION: Governor Kasich, what's your plan for fixing Social Security and Medicare?
KASICH: Well, look. On Social Security, in '99, I wrote a plan that would have kept our seniors held harmless, would have changed the wages and prices to one of the indices, which meant we would have started a little less in our initial benefit and over time it saves a ton of money. And then for the young people, they would have had a 2 percent private account. I left Washington and they did nothing for 16 or 17 years, so now we're deeper in the hole.
What I think you have to do with Social Security is gather up all the plans that everybody has, consider everything, get it on the table and get Democrats and Republicans to hold hands and agree to solidify that program. It has to be done.
In terms of Medicare, I'll have more to say about Medicare and Medicaid on Thursday, but they're -- but when you think about what we did with Medicaid in Ohio, there's a lot of similarities to what we can do with Medicare. We'll have more to say about it on Thursday, without getting into it.
But you can't get to a balanced budget if you don't deal with the entitlement programs. You have to deal with them. I've dealt with them throughout my career and I would say to you, I think I've written 18 budgets in my lifetime. It's not a mystery as to what I will do. It's not confusion about what I might do. We'll just give you more as time goes on.
Now come Thursday, we're going to give you a plan, a framework that will increasingly be filled out as we go along. We'll be addressing Social Security, the specifics of that, probably a little bit later, but we will deal with Medicaid, Medicare discretionary, defense spending, all of it. And we will give you a framework as to what that all means.
So I hope you will come -- come on Thursday if you can in Nashua. Here's one here.
DAVIS: OK. Take...
QUESTION: Where in Nashua?
KASICH: I don't know.
(LAUGHTER)
Where is it in Nashua? Does anybody know? Yell. Where's the event on Thursday?
(UNKNOWN): Community college.
KASICH: The community college. Good.
DAVIS: All right, we're back here.
KASICH: And by the way, we also are putting together plans for the ways to deal with the cost increases in our universities and community colleges using business-like processes, and I'll give you one. Why does it -- why do these colleges and universities have non-academic assets that we have to pay money to support? Why don't they get rid of them and let somebody else run them and let a college and university do what it's suppose to do, which is educate us, not run parking garages or dining room. We can do that. Yes, sir?
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Steven Bourne (ph), Rye, New Hampshire. So one of the reasons why I sort of got into -- more into politics was I went to a local budget meeting, and one of the things that's going up 200,000. I asked, what more are we going to get for that 200,000? I get lambasted about why am I questioning it. And so, every time I hear budget, what I want to know is what are we getting for it? How do we know we're getting better services for the same money all the time?
And I'm struggling at the local level, so I get it's going to be a gazillion times higher at the federal, but we need the analysis, we need to know what are we getting and what are we getting for everything we're spending. That discussion doesn't get out to the people.
KASICH: Right. Well look, do you understand in taking an $8 billion hole in Ohio and turning it into a surplus, and taking hundreds of billions of dollars worth of deficits and a rising national debt and getting it to balance and actually paying down a chunk of the publicly held debt. We didn't do that without good analysis.
Frankly, I will tell you there's too many -- it's too much in -- there's -- I really don't want to say this, but I'll say it. We don't need to have all of those entities operating in Washington. You know, when I was in Congress, we tried to kill the Commerce Department and I'll tell you why. There has some valuable and -- things that go on in it, but it is basically an attic for political junkies, where their kids go to work after a successful election.
We've got too much down there and because we have too much, they don't do much of what they do as well as we want them to do it. When Joe and I were in Washington, if you wanted a family to go to the White House, you had to spend two weeks to get tickets. Now, you just jump over the fence. I mean, it doesn't -- this doesn't work well anywhere.
So sir, let me tell you. If you think you can make those questions without aggravating people, you're wrong. You've got to be tough, but you've got to tell them that our town will lose jobs, our taxes are going to be too high for small businesses -- remember, small businesses create the jobs. And if in a little town you keep raising taxes or a have a building code group that just makes it so hard for somebody to open their doors, guess what? They're going somewhere else. They may be coming to Ohio and I -- you know, that'd be OK too.
So -- but you have to question people and you have to say, what do you get for it. And they're not going to like it, but that's OK. You know what will happen over time? They'll respect you.
There was a group of people, including Chris Shays who's back here. We took everybody on, we took them all on. I've been involved in reforming the Pentagon. You know what it's like to be a Republican reforming the Pentagon and trying to stop the development of the B-2 bomber and limit its production when it's -- you know, when it's a billion dollars a copy, you know how hard that is? I mean -- but you have to do it, because you're aren't in this business to win a popularity contest, you're in this business to be an adult, to make decisions, to advance the country. That's what politics do and answer it.
(APPLAUSE)
And when you get really frustrated, give me a call. I'll buck you up.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE).
KASICH: No, they don't hate you. You're just bothering them, but they'll be OK, they'll respect you over time.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
KASICH: The public is -- you've got to do -- look, leadership is walking a lonely road. And as hard as you work at that, you will find, if you know what you're doing -- probably do -- you'll find more people that will gravitate to your side. My first budget was 405 to 30. My third budget was more than what George Bush got for his budget. It happens over time, but make sure your ideas are creative, innovative and different. And if you do that, people will come to you and they'll -- they may sneak up to you. You got anybody kind of telling you on the sly, hey, that's probably a good question. Is any of that happening? A few, a few. Not none, a few. Keep at it.
(APPLAUSE)
DAVIS: Let's go one more question right here. Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Jess Lubian (ph) from Manchester, New Hampshire. Thank you for taking my question. I have a very specific question for you. Can you give us an example when you were working to solve an important problem, a specific example of a compromise that you made that, up until that point, you previously didn't think you were willing to compromise on.
KASICH: Yeah, that's a good question. Well, you know, look, when I was working to limit the production of the B-2 to 13 weapons and Dick Cheney called me up and he said, OK, I'll make an agreement, would you go to 20? And I had been working with Ron Dellums on this, who is, you know, a very liberal Democrat. I said, well, let me go check with my partner. So I called Dellums, I said, what do you think? He said, well, I'm against it. I said, I've got to go to 20. This, I think, is a reasonable proposal -- yes, we can do that.
Yeah, I think compromise is part of it, but you can never compromise beyond where you can't look yourself in the eye. Because look, see -- you're looking at all these candidates, OK? I'm not in this -- I am in this to fix the country. I am not in this so I can have some great election. That's why I'm not going to tell you something that you -- that you want to hear. The lady back here just said well if you would change -- I said, I'm not changing. I'll listen to you. I'm not unconvinced on a different issue.
My mind's eye is to just try. And I'm a flawed man. Just try to do the best thing to improve our nation. And then when I'm done, I'm happy. And that's what I want to be through this campaign, and if I get elected as best I can to navigate. But compromise is part of it, just don't compromise beyond your principles. I'll give you an area where I would not compromise.
I'm not for more revenue and I'm not for more revenue because I'm -- this is some ideological thing, it's an economic thing. And frankly, I know what they do down there in Washington. Why do I want to give them more revenue? And any time you do a deal and you say OK, this many cuts for this much revenue, all they do is take the revenue and they never give us the cuts. And then they come up with these phony baloney plans, these sequester and all this others stuff that -- it all gets changed at the end of the day.
Let's balance the budget, pass a constitutional amendment and get it done and stop this fooling around. This is our kids that are going to pay the price for it, so...
(APPLAUSE)
DAVIS: All right. We have time...
KASICH: Oh, ma'am, look. I can't remember anything really specifically, but I can't sit down with Pete Domenici and negotiate an entire federal budget without having to give on some things. I mean, nothing glaring stands out at me, but I couldn't get everything I wanted. I mean, who gets everything they want? Nobody. Not in life. And so, but never give up your fundamental principles. That's as well as I can answer that.
DAVIS: OK. We have time for one more question over here in the back.
QUESTION: Sir, hi. Thank you for being here. My name is Chris Meadows, I'm from Deering, New Hampshire. I know you chose me because you wanted the voice of a college student. I'm a sophomore in New England College, thank you.
My question is about gun control. When the president says that it's routine now and his responses to the -- to the questions are routine, it's too much. What do we do about gun control where there's almost a gun for every man, woman and child in the country? There are too many guns.
KASICH: Yeah.
QUESTION: They end up in the people -- in the hands of the people we don't want them in. So how do we fix that? Do we take people's guns away and how do we get people to not freak out when we want to do that?
KASICH: Well, first of all, we're not going to take their guns away. It's the Second Amendment and we're not going to do that. But let me just say a couple of things. First of all, there are laws that are on the books. I'll give you a couple. You're at a gun show, they're supposed to do an instant check. They must do it. You want to sell something in the parking lot, you're held accountable if you sell it to somebody and you didn't check out who they were.
Thirdly, there are many states that are not keeping the mental health records that need to be kept and entered to a database, so people who have mental illness can't get guns. But I'm glad you asked that because I'm going to talk about something I just want you to think about.
You see, we're focusing on the gun. Let's talk about the people. This person, this guy who committed the mass murder in Oregon, it was his mother, he and his mother. Where was dad? Where was brother or sister? Where was neighbor? I mean, folks, our marriages, too many of them have eroded. The relationship with our neighbors, what's happened to the neighborhood?
You see, we're all really our neighbor's keeper and we all have a responsibility to live a life bigger than ourselves. It's about justice and healing and who is helping this woman? Creigh Deeds down in Virginia. This is something the government could have done. There was not an emergency bed for his son. He took his son home and the next day, a tragedy occurred where he was stabbed and his son is gone. Why didn't we have the beds? Is it because we run over people who we don't understand?
But where -- what are we doing to help one another? We're spending a lot of our time worrying about who is going to be president, and that's great, but the country was not built from the top-down, the country was built from the bottom up.
We heard the pope the other day about the power of family, the pope about all of us is being connected. So the laws on guns should be enforced. I think we can respect the Second Amendment, but what about the other things that we're not doing that could have averted some of these tragedies? What are -- what are we doing to think about the things that we as a society can do, sometimes without government, to make sure that our neighborhoods are stronger, so that people don't live alone. That woman, that mother, could not control her son and she had nowhere to go.
A week ago or two weeks ago, I went to a place called Hope House, it was in Iowa. I don't know why they -- I think I know why they took me there. It's a house for women who really have gotten to the edge of falling apart. Beautiful place, wonderful people. I said why is this here? Because there's nowhere for people to go now. We're isolated, we're alone too much of the time.
One of my jobs, if I'm president, is to think about a way where we can re-ignite the spirit of who we are as Americans. When de Tocqueville came here, he talked about who we were, and we need to -- we need to re-ignite that. Endorse that model of strong families and strong neighborhoods and living a life beyond, beyond ourselves. We have responsibility that way.
And that even in some ways takes us back to the budget. That if you're going to be elected to public service and you're going to go serve, do your job. Don't worry about re-election, just go do your job. And guess what? You'll get re-elected. Just ask Lieberman who fought everybody down there. You did win, didn't you? Yeah, he did win. You can lead and you can win and you know what? You can feel good about yourself even if you don't win. And over the long haul, that's where the treasure is.
Thank you all very much.
DAVIS: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
END
-------------
GEORGE PATAKI SPEECH
-------------
PATAKI: Thank you very much for that kind introduction, Justice Broderick, a Democrat, enormously respected across the political divide, Republicans and Democrats. And that is what we need in Washington today: someone like him who is going to bring the American people together. And you are starting this afternoon with this Problem Solver No Labels conference.
So thank you all for being here. We have to solve problems and we have to come together to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, when I think of what we need to do in Washington to confront our problems, there are three big things. We have to grow our economy better. We aren't creating the jobs and opportunity, particularly young people like the ones here today need in the 21st century.
We have to shrink the size of the federal government. It is too big, too powerful, too expensive, too intrusive, too bloated, and it has to be shrunk and brought down to size where it serves the people instead of dominating the people.
And Justice Broderick talked about how I was Governor on September 11th. We have got to be far more proactive in rebuilding our military, honoring those who have served and put on the uniform to defend our country, the best people this country has ever produced. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
And making sure that we are as safe and secure as possible. Now other candidates are going to say similar things. They're going to have a plan. I have a plan. The question is how do you solve the problem? How do you actually get it done as opposed to just talking about it?
And as the Justice said, when I was Governor of New York, that's what I looked to do. I looked to shrink the size of the government and I was able to do it. When I left office, we had 15 percent fewer workers than when I took office and the government worked better. He talked about how when I took office -- when I left office, the unemployment rate was the lowest since they started keeping records.
And by the way, when I took office, we had the last -- we were last among the 50 states in creating jobs and opportunity, but we changed things completely. And he talked about how we were the most dangerous state in America when I took office and fourth safest when I left. And by the way, I did that as a Republican in New York State, a state with three million more Democrats and I did it with a state assembly where for most of my term there were 103 Democrats and 47 Republicans.
Now how was I able to get that agenda through? I'm just going to tell you two stories. One was welfare. When I took office, one in 11 -- think about this, one in 11 of every man, woman and child in the state of New York was on welfare, not Medicaid or disability. But I knew that what had happened is we had created a system where good people had become trapped in dependency because that was the best thing for their family.
So I sat down with the Democrats and I said, let's work together to end this tragedy. Let's replace dependency with opportunity. Yes, I want conservative policies like mandatory workfare for who those who are able-bodied. Yes, I want limits on welfare. But let's do other things to empower people to take that first job up the ladder of economic opportunity.
So we did things like expand the daycare slots, job training programs, and expanded the earned income tax credit. Working with Democrats when I left office, we had over one million fewer people on welfare. They had been able to transition to the private sector, to the workforce, to become a part of the American dream instead of depending on government, working in a bipartisan way. And I'll just...
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. And I'll tell you one of the stories about how we went from one of the most dangerous state in America to the fourth safest. I changed the criminal justice system from top and bottom. We passed over 100 different criminal justice laws, tough laws like ending paroles for violent felons, mandatory stronger sentences, empowering the police and changing evidentiary rules.
But one of the things we looked to do was change the drug rules. And I wanted to have harsher penalties for the kingpins, the big drug dealers, or for someone who used a weapon or was carrying a weapon while they were involved in drugs. The Democrats said we don't want to do those things, but by the way there are too many young people trapped in the drug culture. Yes, they may be out there on the street corner and get caught and convicted of a felony, 15, 16, 17, 18-year-old kid. We want to give them another chance.
So I sat down and let's meet and let's work this out because I agree with you, and we had a battle. We agreed where low-level drug offenders who had not been involved before would be given an alternative to going to jail where they could spend time in a shock incarceration camp and if they went through it, have their criminal record wiped out and never have to face the consequence of being -- having blight on the record their whole lives. But I couldn't get them to do the harsher penalties for the drug dealers and the guns.
So I, a conservative Republican in the middle of the night, while we were debating this with the Democratic leaders of the assembly, they kept saying Russell Simmons, this rap (inaudible) from central Brooklyn says we can't do this, says we cannot do that. So I say, let's call up Russell Simmons. I called him. I said, get up to Albany. He got to our capital at 3:00 in the morning, we went all night, we agreed on some of the changes. And I remember the last one was I wanted harsher penalties for someone involved in selling drugs who had a gun on him.
And the Democratic leadership was saying, no, we will trap people. And he goes I don't want somebody with a gun roaming around my neighborhood. Pataki is right. They passed the law. We changed the rules, and we made New York the fourth safest state in America, working across partisan lines.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what we have to do now. And by the way, there is one area where what I was talking about, shrinking government, growing the economy, protecting our security comes together, and that is the area of climate change. And let me tell you something -- I hope the stage doesn't open up. I'm a Republican and I happen to believe that when we emit CO2 and greenhouse gases the Earth gets warmer and we have to do something about it.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm a great believer that if we're going to have the brilliant, optimistic future we are all entitled to believe in as Americans, Republicans have to embrace science. We cannot be a party that questions vaccinations. George Washington settled it when he vaccinated his troops at Valley Forge 240-something years ago. We cannot question evolution. And we have to recognize that human activity is contributing to climate change, and there is a role for government to play in dealing with that issue for the future. Now...
(APPLAUSE)
Before the Democrats here get too excited, let me tell you my role is going to be -- my solution is going to be very different than President Obama's or those on the Democratic left, but to have a dialogue about that. I want to have a little discussion before all of you, not with another Republican, but with a great Democrat who served his state and served this country honorably.
As you know, Senator Evan Bayh. So Senator, let's just sit down and see if we can solve this problem in the next 15 minutes. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
BAYH: So George, let me begin. We served together as Governors back in the day, and Governors tend to try to be pragmatists, problem solvers and work across the aisle. And when I got the word that George wanted me to kind of be up here with him to talk about climate change, a lot like he was just saying, I thought to myself, a Republican candidate running for President who is interested in a conversation about climate change, this is a real man bites dog story we have here. So I have to do this. I have to say yes.
So George, I think that is to your great credit, by the way, to your great credit. So let me just start and ask the first question, why does this issue matter so much to you?
PATAKI: Well, first of all, it matters to everyone, or it should. It is about the future of the globe and if we do not deal with the issue of global warming, we are going to have unforeseen consequences that no one here can predict that could have a horrible, negative impact on future generations' lives.
And as I said at the beginning, Senator, it is the one area where reducing the size of government -- because I would not do it the way Obama is doing it with massive regulations and higher taxes, the heavy-handed government picking winners and losers, and driving jobs out of America.
I would do it in an exactly opposite way and that is by empowering American innovation, empowering the American belief in dreaming and creating, so that our private sector, our university sector, and government all working together could create the next generation of clean energy products that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but create tens, hundreds of thousands of jobs for America.
And by the way, if we did not need to be so dependent on things like oil, and not just the United States, if the world didn't need to be so dependent on things like oil, Russia, Iran, other totalitarian states would see their power greatly diminished and that helps the United States tremendously.
So unleash the creativity, the innovative ability of the American dreamer, thinker, entrepreneur, scientist, and we can have that next generation of energy that doesn't just slightly reduce greenhouse gases, but allows us to de-carbonize our economy while growing jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
BAYH: Interestingly, when he first mentioned the importance of climate change, there was a real round of applause and the first wave and the loudest came from behind us here. I was with a pollster in Washington -- I was speaking to a group of Indiana University students who were making a trip to Washington. They had -- actually, a Republican pollster there talking about the data and her survey research showed that this is the issue that matters the most to young people in our country because they kind of get that it's going to shape the future in a whole host of important ways, so thank you, guys, for leading on this issue.
George, are there -- are there any areas in your view where the two parties can agree now -- is there any common ground to build off?
PATAKI: Sure. I think there is enormous opportunity for common ground. Both parties want to see more solar, wind, next generation technologies. Where Republicans differ from Democrats and where I differ from most Democrats is don't want to see us pick winners or losers, I don't want to see the federal government invest $500 million in a company like Solyndra because it is politically connected, and I don't want to see our tax dollars used to say OK, we like this industry but we don't like that industry.
But where we can agree is in the concept of innovation. And let me tell you for example, in my private life, we are working with a company now that has thin solar panels. Right now, the average solar efficiency is 16 to 18 percent. They have 48 percent efficiency, more than three times as efficiency. You do that, and we're going to able to deploy solar across this country in a way that reduces energy costs and create jobs instead of driving up costs.
I think the Democrats -- reasonable Democrats would agree that we want to collaborate. It is not the federal government that's going to solve this problem. It is the private sector, it's our universities, it's our think tanks, and the federal government all working together, not the heavy hand of government.
So we do things, for example, like expand the R&D tax credit, research and development. We do that better than any country in the world. Make it permanent. Expand it to empower innovation. Everybody wants to see us build more energy, producing clean energy, producing assets in the United States. Instead of picking winners and losers, allow the immediate expensing from capital investment.
So if you put a lot of money into solar or wind or geothermal or any other type of technology, write it off right away to encourage the private sector and investors to put money into green energy.
So I think there is tremendous room for common ground. Unfortunately, the dialogue is such that people do not even talk, let alone try to solve problems, which is why events like this and approaches like you all believe in where we work across party lines to find a common future is so important.
BAYH: And do you have an opinion about energy conservation and efficiency, retrofitting homes so that they use less energy in the winter, those kinds of things, higher mileage vehicles so we use less oil out on the highway?
PATAKI: Senator, we're in New Hampshire. And heating oil when the price of oil -- when you are paying $4 a gallon for gas, heating oil went through the roof. There is no question that efficiency is one of the most important things we can do. When I was Governor, we put in place a number of policies, incentivizing using of efficient appliances, for example, incentivizing retro-fitting of homes with insulation and thermal windows that reduce costs. I mean, I -- there is no question that we can do that in a way where the homeowner or the business gets a return on their investment.
They are not losing money. They're going to save so much in lower energy costs that it will pay back over a very short period of time. So that's an important of it.
And another area where I'm sure that Democrats and Republicans, if we set aside the finger-pointing and trying to gain partisan advantage over solving a problem could come together and actually solve this problem.
BAYH: You know, there's a good idea out in California that I became aware of, and the neighboring states, Vermont and Maine has done some of this, but California's even done a little bit more of it. That is, George, they allow local counties to raise bond proceeds to then fund homeowners retrofitting their houses, solar panels you are talking about, insulation and energy efficiency. They then use the savings off of that to repay it over a period of time, and the federal government is kind of standing in the way now.
The Federal Housing Administration is kind of concerned whether that will -- you know, whether that will have priority over the mortgage and so forth and the federal government ought to get out of the way and let the states innovate here. But do you have an opinion about those kinds of state oriented solutions?
PATAKI: Absolutely, the federal government should not be in the way. They should be paving the way for programs like this to exist. You know, I got a lot done while I was governor. This, I couldn't get done. Not so much in New Hampshire but on Long Island, geothermal heating and cooling for homes where you have sand is so efficient. The temperature under the frost line is always 54 to 56 degrees. So whether you want to heat in the winter or cool in the summer, you use almost no energy. But the homeowner doesn't have the 12 to $15,000 upfront to invest.
So we wanted to get the utilities to upfront it and then pay it out of the savings in energy costs when you did not have to do that. So that is the type of innovative thing where the federal government can empower states, empower local governments, and ultimately empower homeowners to have that opportunity.
BAYH: There is another interesting angle on this, people might be interested in having your take on. I was on the Armed Services Committee, and I always hoped this was not a contradiction in terms. I was on the Senate Intelligence Committee for ten years.
And the reason I mentioned that is that our government has done some pretty extensive studies on the national security ramifications of climate change. You get crop failures going on in third world countries which lead to famines and population shifts, and therefore a rise in more radical views in terrorism and that sort of thing.
So some of our national security agencies have actually concluded that dealing constructively with climate change -- there is a real national security element to that for the United States for America, do you have a take on that?
PATAKI: There is no question that the Defense Department, the Army, and others have made this a priority, and rightfully so. And by the way, the Army and other defense agencies have pure research arms where they fund research into things that are militarily applicable and that will help our security and we should be looking into more of that.
But I'll just give you one example, one of the things I want the federal government is to work with the universities and the private sector to fund pure research.
When I was Governor I did that in a little town called Albany, New York. And we challenged universities and the private sector to come together and create the next generation of computer chips that power every single computer in the world, and to do it in Albany, New York. We put up some initial state capital.
To make a long story short, today, we have attracted over $20 billion in university and private sector research capital investment. There are thousands of research scientists, the most advanced computer chip research -- nano research in the world is being done in Albany, New York.
And by the way, the goal of this is not pure research. The goal is jobs and opportunity for every American. Today in the capital region, we have factories, factories making something in America. In this case, making computer chips, over $25 billion invested by the private sector in factories in upstate New York, thousands of great paying jobs because we invested in pure research with the private sector and the university sector, and we can do that in energy.
And Senator, forgive me here, I want to make one other point. Why I believe it is the private sector innovation and universities that hold the key here.
You know, in the United States and the globe today, there is one country -- one country that produces fewer greenhouse gases than they did in 1995. Do you know what that country is? It is the United States of America. And it is not because of regulations or driving up costs or driving out factories.
It is because of fracking. Fracking has allowed us to replace coal with natural gas, driving down greenhouse gas emissions, private sector developed, private sector deployed, but the federal government initially came up with some of those seed research moneys to develop horizontal drilling and fracking.
That is what we can do in energy, and in the process not just reduce our emissions, but have these new technologies that we can export around the world, helping other countries solve this problem and creating jobs here in America.
BAYH: George, one more question and then ladies and gentlemen, he was very eager to get to your questions. So let me just ask one more and let's just throw open the floor and you can him about climate change or I assume other things too.
This came up earlier in Donald Trump's comments and I know Hillary Clinton was involved in this when she was Secretary of State. That is, the United States of America for a long time was the biggest emitter of CO2 gases. But that is not the case today. The largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. And as the Governor mentioned, our emissions have plateaud off.
We are getting ours down compared to what it used to be. China has continued to go up substantially, India's continued to go up substantially. And when you talk to the Chinese and the Indians they say, it is very nice of you Americans. You have already industrialized. You have a high standard of living. How nice for you to cap our emissions now so we cannot grow and have a better life like you.
So that tends to be their objective, but since we have one atmosphere and one planet, we're not going to solve global warming if we cap our emissions and reduce them, but the Chinese and the Indians and other people increase theirs by more than that amount.
The planet's going to continue to get hotter, we're going to have all these adverse consequences anyway. So there's got to be some global responsibility here and some shared burden sharing. How would you go about dealing with the Chinese, the Indians, and others who want to continue to raise their emissions at a time that we are trying to get ours down?
PATAKI: You know Senator that is exactly right. Today, the United States produces only 16 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. If we cut ours in half, there's going to be a much higher level of greenhouse gases emitted because of China and India and Malaysia and other countries that are emerging.
There are going to be two billion more people in the world by the year 2050 that are going to be wanting to use energy. So the solution is not our government raising energy costs on Americans through regulations. It is not our government shutting down plants that it does not like. It's not our government picking a company or a technology where the people are politically corrected.
It's our government working to empower innovation and technology, because when we do something like fracking, when we create the next generation of solar panels that are much cheaper than any other source of energy, we are not just reducing our emissions, we're creating a technology we can export to China, we can export to India, allowing them to lower their emissions while we are strengthening our economy.
We don't want to impose costs that drive a factory out of America to Mexico or China where they have much weaker pollution control devices, we want to have lower energy costs, better technology, fewer emissions, and those factories building things right here in the United States for the next generation of American worker.
And with the right policies, I have absolutely no doubt we can do this in the United States.
BAYH: George, my last comment would be -- ladies and gentleman, it was Theodore Roosevelt, an environmentally-aware Republican, who established the National Parks System. It was Richard Nixon who did a whole lot of bad things, but he did establish the Environmental Protection Agency. So there is a tradition of Republicans who are environmentally aware and concerned.
And George, it looks like you are carrying on that tradition here today. So I commend you for that and I'm going to surrender the stage to you. These folks can vote for you. I cannot. So they're more important than me. Thank you, ladies and gentleman, George Pataki, former Governor of New York.
(APPLAUSE)
PATAKI: Thank you, Senator Bayh. And Senator Bayh talked about the Republican Party's tradition of caring about conservation and the environment, and I did that as Governor. And by the way, he mentioned Teddy Roosevelt, I named my older son Teddy after Teddy Roosevelt, because I think he was a role model in so many ways for what Americans should be like in the 21st century.
So now opening up questions, anything, we still have over five minutes left. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Just to comment, I'm a physicist. You are one of the first politicians I've heard that hit the nail on the head. You -- the technologies are out there that can greatly reduce carbon emissions at very much reduced costs, and the only way you're going to get countries like China and India where the real problem is today to deal with the problem is to give them something cheaper than coal, which is what they are burning now. And for the Chinese, the cost of producing electricity from coal is one of the cheapest ways of producing electricity anywhere in the world.
So -- but things like carbon capture, with sequestration, supercritical carbon dioxide can replace water as a fracking fluid.
PATAKI: Doctor, let me thank you because I want to get to some other questions, but thank you for your kind words. This is exactly what we have to do. You mentioned some of the technologies. One is nuclear. There is next generation nuclear like thorium reactors, or fusion reactors that produce zero emissions, have zero risk of meltdown, have zero military applicability, and we need to restructure the regulatory climate, not the climate in Washington, not to make it more powerful, but to make it more proactive in working with the think tanks, the universities, and our private sector to empower this next generation of technologies so that the United States can export that technology to help the entire globe deal with the issue of climate. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Hi, Governor, it's so nice to meet you.
PATAKI: Nice to meet you.
QUESTION: You and the last panel, there has been this -- we have to understand compromise is not a bad word. I don't think what you did or what any of the other panel did was compromise. I think it was collaboration, and there is a difference. There is -- when you have a problem and you have a goal and you are sitting down together, you are collaborating to come up with a solution. You're not compromising. I would like your opinion on that.
PATAKI: You know, I certainly had to compromise during my 12 years as Governor of New York. I did not get everything I wanted. We did our best through collaboration, but ultimately, if you think you're going to get your way 100 percent of the time, we have what we have in Washington now, which is an impasse where we do not solve any of the problems.
That doesn't work. It's not right for the future of this country and it has got to stop, which why I'm running for President. And that may well require compromise, let me say right here, if I can get 80 percent of an agenda through -- I would rather do that than get zero, but be pure when I go on TV at night. It is about solving problems and bringing Americans together.
(APPLAUSE)
Other questions here, someone with a microphone. Yes, sir, in the back, a student. We need -- we need -- can someone get a microphone over here? I don't want to run out of time waiting for the microphone, but I do want to hear from one of the students.
QUESTION: All right. I'd just like to start off by saying, ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America that is how you talk to the other side. That was beautiful.
PATAKI: Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
It was worth the wait for a microphone.
QUESTION: Secondly, I would like to say -- you are to put it politely, very, very far down in the polls right now. I agree with a lot of the things you have to say. I'm a Democrat, by the way, as strange as that is nowadays to agree with a Republican, however...
PATAKI: There is always that however, but go ahead.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: I didn't however actually, I apologize.
PATAKI: That's OK. I'm kidding.
QUESTION: I meant, how do you plan on getting yourself out there more?
PATAKI: You know, events like this. I think right now we have had a summer of political theater and a summer of political drama, but I think as we get closer to February and the first primary in the country here in New Hampshire, voters are going to say, OK, yes we are angry, yes we're extremely unhappy with Washington and yes, we don't trust politicians because they say all these things and nothing ever changes, but let's sit down and see who can actually run the country. Who actually has the solutions, who actually have the ability not to just talk about a plan, but to get the plan through Congress?
And I hope that when they do that, they're going to say Pataki did it for 12 years as a Republican in New York State with three million more Democrats. We send him to Washington, he can solve our problems down there as well. and let me just...
(APPLAUSE)
PATAKI: Thank you. Let me just give you one example of why Republicans are so angry and frustrated. Obamacare, in my view, is the worst law of my lifetime. In the name of helping the uninsured, which was a worthy goal, it changed heathcare for everyone, driving up costs, driving up deductibles, and costing a lot of Americans jobs because businesses won't let you work more than 29 hours or grow their company because they want to stay out from under Obamacare.
The Republicans control Congress. They haven't been even able to send a bill to Obama to veto because they can't get the 60 votes. Let me tell you what I would do. I would sit down with Democrats like Evan Bayh. It's a shame he's not there, and say, "I think this is a terrible law." You have to understand there are deep flaws in that law.
Let's -- let's not just repeal it, but let's sit together and come up with what we are going to replace it with. And I'm willing to work with you. And then we would get those 60 votes, we would repeal Obamacare, but simultaneously replace it with something that would reflected the input of both parties and the people of this country.
We have to remember, we are Republicans and Democrats, but in the end we are all Americans. And it is not about partisan political advantage. It is about people and problem solving. That is what I'm running on and that is what I hope will get people to take another look and say this is the right person to lead the country.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PATAKI: OK. I'll try to repeat it. Here we go.
QUESTION: Thank you, first for taking up RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative some -- many years ago. I think it was something of an 80 percent solution. Let me give you an example. I put in an air source heat pump in my house. Replacing oil, my carbon footprint is now half of what it used to be, assuming that the power is being produced from gas. Yet that strains the gas system or the greenhouse gas issues with gas because it pushes up on the demand.
How do we fix it so that somehow we get the power productions gets a credit for uses of electricity that reduce greenhouse gas, and in addition, what happens if we use the waste heat from our power plants to heat today under RGGI and also under the greenhouse gas initiative. There is no credit for heating cities with waste heat from power plants.
PATAKI: That is a very technical question, but let me just say that we did take an initiative working with other New England and Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gases, and it did have an impact. But I have to tell you I am very concerned about it. I no longer think cap and trade is the way to go. Because the day I left office, and the idea was we were going to impose a cost on carbon emissions by utilities, but rebate it to the consumers, so they didn't have higher electric costs. You cannot trust government.
After I left as Governor, the new administration within their first year took that money to use for their pet programs. And when they talked about cap and trade in Washington, the Waxman-Markey Bill, it wasn't cap and trade. It would have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal revenue, rewarded their friends, had credits for cronies, and I think the way we have to do it now is to bypass the heavy hand of the federal government and empower the creative hand of the American inventor and innovator. And I know that we can do that.
So another thing you talked about, getting energy from one place to another. That is one of the problems right now. We have enormous potential wind resources in the Great Plains, and solar resources in the southwest, but they're not near where the energy is used.
And what we should have is when we have a domestic source of clean energy, a more expedited permitting process, the private sector will build those transmission lines if we let government get out of the way so they can actually get the permit and not take eight or nine years and hundreds and millions of dollars to get approval to build a transmission in the first place.
So there are solutions and I think that is the point here. I am winding down with my time. But whether it's energy -- whether it's keeping us safe, and I have a lot of thoughts on that, whether it's growing our economy, yes through innovation but also by lowering our tax burden, particularly on manufacturing so we can have factories in America again.
You know, my grandparents were immigrants. They were -- both were -- my grandfather's in a factory, a great path to the middle class. Our energy costs are coming down. The value of products made today is going up. We have the opportunity to make America a manufacturing powerhouse again.
But instead of having the highest tax in the world, we should have the lowest tax on manufacturing in the world. Make things in America. Solve problems. Bring politicians across party lines together. And there is no reason the 21st century should not be the greatest century this country has ever seen and there is no reason you shouldn't be able to dream things I cannot even think of and see them come true during your lifetime.
Thank you. Thank you No Labels. God bless you and let's keep up the fight.
(APPLAUSE)
END