tv New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN June 13, 2011 11:00pm-1:00am PDT
welcome to manchester, new hampshire, and the first republican presidential debate. behind me on the stage on the republican candidates for president appearing together for the first timt tonight. tonight's debate is different than any presidential debate you've seen. over the course of the next two hours, in addition to questions from myself and journalists from wmur and the new hampshire union
leaders, the candidates take questions directly from voters right here in manchester as well as from voters as town meelgts tonight across new hampshire. let's meet the candidates. we've asked for no opening statements, but we will continue a tradition from our past new hampshire debates to ask each candidate in one short sentence hopefully five or six seconds to introduce themselves to the voters of new hampshire and the united states of america. let me begin with an example. i'm john king with cnn. i'm honored to be your moderator tonight, and i'm thrilled to be back in red sox nation. let's start at the edge of the stage. rick santorum. >> i served 12 years represents nentz united states senate, but i also have substantial executive experience making the tough decisions and balancing budgets and cutting spending. karen and i are the parents of seven children.
>> my name is michelle bachmann. i'm a former tax lilt gags attorney. i'm a business woman, we started our own successful company. i'm a member of the united states congress. i'm a wife of 33 years and i have five children and we're the proud foster parents of 23 great children and it's a thrill to be here in the live free or die state. >> i'm newt gingrich, former speaker of the house. when 14 million americans are out of work, we need a new president to end of obama depression. >> governor. >> i'm mitt romney, and it's an honor to be back at st. ansum. hopefully i get it right this year, and i appreciate the chance to be with you and to welcome your wife. i have five sons, five
daughters-in law and 16 grandkids. i want to make sure their future is bright and america is always known as the hope of the earth. thank you. >> i'm congressman ron paul. i've been elected 123 texas. before i went to congress i delivered 4,000 babies. i want to defend the title i'm the champion of liberty and i defend the constitution. thank you. >> governor. >> good evening. i'm tim pawlenty. i'm a husband. my wife mary and i have been married for 23 years. i'm the father of two beautiful daughters, i'm a neighbor, and i'm running for president of the united states because i love america. like you, i'm concerned about its future. i have the experience and leadership and results to lead it to a better place.
>> hello. i'm herman cain. i'm not a politician i'm a problem solver with over 40 years of business and executive experience, father of two, grandfather of three, and i'm here tonight because it's not about us, it's about those grandkids. happy to be here in new hampshire. each candidate is given one minute to answer the leadoff question. to my discretion i may ask other candidates to weigh in on each topic. you get about 30 seconds to answer. i say about 30 seconds because we're on the honor system tonight. no bells or whistles.
i try to gently remind them it's time to move on. we hope the answers will be short, maybe a sentence and one word. we can hope, right? we've asked the candidates to answer the questions that they're asked rather than the question they might have wished to be asked. that's enough, uh-huh for me tonight. let's get straight to the people of new hampshire. our first question comes from a voter in plymouth. also there is new hampshire union leader is tom fahey. tom. >> thank you, john. i'm here with mr. marquez sterling. he's a retired professor from plymouth state university, and he's got a question about jobs. >> yes. mr. gingrich said that 14 million people are unemployed. my question is this. the democrats say that the republicans don't have any plans to create jobs. jobs in the private sector, not in government jobs.
i'd like to know what are those plans? >> mr. cain, let's start with you tonight. let's be as specific as i can. what would you do as president of the united states to create jobs? >> the thing we need to do is to get this economy boosted. this economy is stalled. it's like a train on the tracks with no engine. the administration has simply been putting all of this money in the caboose. we need an engine called the private sector. that means lower taxes, lower the capital gains tax rate to zero, suspend taxes on repatriated profits. make them permanent. uncertainty is killing this economy. this is the only way to get this economy moving, and that's to put the right fuel in the engine which is the private sector. >> senator santorum, you said you have executive experience. governor pawlenty laid out a plan, a lot of tax cuts. some economists said he had unrealistic expectations, he said you could grow the economy 5% a year.
do you believe that is a possible, or is that too optimistic to the american people who want help but don't want to be misled? >> we need a president who has a pro-growth agenda. what we need is an economy that's unshackled. what's happened in this administration is they have passed a oppressive policy and regulation, obamacare being first and foremost. anybody that wants to invest to get a return, when you see the regulations that are going to be put on business, when you see the taxation, throw on top of that what this president has done on energy. the reason we're seeing this second dip is because of energy prices, and this president has put a stop sign against oil drilling, against any kind of exploration offshore or in alaska, and that is depressing. we need to drill and create energy jobs just like we're doing, by the way, in pennsylvania, where we're drilling 3,000 wells this year for gas, and natural gas prices are down as a result.
>> i'll ask you to keep the follow-ups to 30 seconds so we can get more in. governor pawlenty, answer the critics who say 5% every year is unrealistic. where's the proof that just cutting taxes will create jobs? if that were true, why during the bush years after the big tax cut, where were the jobs? >> john, my plan involves a whole plan, not just cutting taxes. we propose to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up the pace of government, and to make sure we have a pro-growth agenda. this president is a declinist. he he views america as one of equals around the world. we're not the same as portugal and argentina. this idea we can't have 5% growth in america is hogwash. it's a defeatist attitude. if china and brazil can have 5% growth, then the united states of america can have 5% growth. i don't accept this notion we're average or anemic. my proposal has a 5% growth target. it cuts taxes but dramatically cuts spending. we need to fix regulation and
have a pro-american energy policy and fix health care policy. if you do those as i propose including cut spending, you'll get this economy moving. >> i don't want to do much of this. governor romney, come in on that point. is 5% overly optimistic, and is it fair to compare the united states economy to the chinese economy, which is still in many ways developing? >> tim has the right instincts, which is he recognizes what this president has done has slowed the economy. he didn't create the recession, but he made it worse and longer. now we have more chronic long-term employment than this couldn't has seen before. 20 million people out of work, stopped looking for work or are in part-time jobs that need full-time jobs. we have housing prices continuing to decline and foreclosures at record levels. this president has failed, and he's failed at a time when the american people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing. instead of doing that, he delegated the stimulus to nancy
pelosi and harry reid and he did what he wanted to do. card check, cap and trade, obamacare, deregulation. i spent my life in the private sector. this is an important topic. i can tell you how to get jobs going in this country and president obama has done it wrong. >> mr. speaker if you look at a poll in "the boston globe" 35 herself of republican voters say they're willing to have higher taxes on the wealthy to bring down the deficit. are they wrong? >> would it it increase jobs or kill jobs? the reagan recovery which i participated in passing in seven years created for this current economy of equivalent of 25 million new jobs, raised federal revenue by $800 billion a year in terms of the current economy and clearly it it works. it's a historic fact. the obama administration is an anti-jobs, anti-business, anti-american energy destructive force.
we shouldn't talk about what we do in 2013. the congress this year, this next week ought to repeal the dodd-frank bill and the sarbanes oxley bill and create jobs right now. for 14 million americans this is a depression now. >> the speaker just said, congresswoman, repeal dodd-frank. maybe the american says i don't like all of the details, but after what happened in 2007 and 2008, i don't want wall street to not have somebody looking at them watching what they're doing. >> i'm looking forward to answering that question, because i introduced the repeal bill to repeal it it because it's an over the top bill that leads to more job loss rather than job creation, but before i fully answer that, i just want to make an announcement here for you, john, on cnn tonight. i filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the united states today, and i'll very soon be making my formal announcement. i wanted you to be the first to know.
>> if you don't get the distinction coming into the night, she has not taken at that last stay. i'm sure they welcome you into the fray. i want to come to congressman paul. you're all here saying the president. united states is making the economy worst. has he done one thing right when it comes to the economy in this country? >> boy, that's a tough question. i can't think of anything. bloo 5% is too optimistic? no, there's nothing wrong with setting a goal of 5 or 10 or 15% if you have a free market economy. we're trying to unwind a bubble that's going on for 70 years, and you're not going to touch this problem until you liquidate the bad debt and go back to work. you have to have sound money and have to recognize how we got in the trouble.
we have a financial bubble caused by the federal reserve. we will continue the trend of the last decade. we haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. as a matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs and it's because people don't understand monetary policy and central economic planning, free markets will give you 10% or 15% growth and you will not have to turn it off because you think it's going to cause inflation. it doesn't work that way. >> i'm going to ask one more time, we want to get as many voters involved. try to shorten up the follow-up answers if you can. tom has another voter with a question. >> i'm here with sylvia smith. she's a freelance journalist that writes about the health care industry. she has a question about health care. >> as a journalist who has written frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and for corporate
publications, i'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive relt care legislation that was passed last year. my question is, what would each candidate do, what three steps would they take to defund obamacare and repeal it as soon as possible? thank you. >> congresswoman bachmann, let's start with you on that. sylvia, thank you for the great question. i was the first member of congress to introduce the full-scale repeal of obamacare, and i want to make a promise to everyone watching tonight. as president of the united states i will not rest until i repeal obamacare. it's a promise. take it it to the bank, cash the check, i'll make sure it happens. this is the symbol and the signature issue of president obama during his entire tenure. this is a job killer, sylvia. the cbo, the congressional budget office has said that obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs.
what could the president be thinking by passing a bill like this knowing full well it will kill 800,000 jobs? senior citizens get this more than any other segment of our population because they know in obamacare the president of the united states took away $500 billion, a half trillion dollars out of medicare, shifted it it to obamacare to pay for younger people, and it's senior citizens who have the most to lose in obamacare. >> governor romney, yesterday governor pawlenty called your massachusetts plan, which is a focal point of criticism in this campaign from your friends here, obamanicare. is that a fair comparison? >> i'm elected president i will repeal obamacare, and also on my first day in office, if i'm lucky enough to have that office, ilt grant a waiver to all 50 states from obamacare.
there's similarities and big differences. obamacare spends a trillion dollars. if it were perfect, we can't afford more federal spending. secondly, it it raises $500 billion in taxes. we didn't raise taxes in massachusetts. third, obamacare takes $500 billion out of medicare and funds obamacare. we, of course, didn't do that. finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it our state, they can change it it. that's why states are the right place for this type of responsibility. that's why i introduced a plan to repeal obamacare and replace it with a state centric plan. >> sylvia has put her finger on one of the most important issues facing the country. president obama stood before the nation in 2008 sxsd he promised to do health care reform, focused on cost containment
along with republicans. he'd do it on a bipartisan basis. >> the question was why obomnicare. >> this is another example of breaking his promise, and he has to be held accountable. in order to prosecute the case against president obama, you have to show you have a better plan and different plan. we took a different approach in minnesota. we didn't use top-down government mandates and individual requirements from government. we created market alternatives and powered consumers. >> you don't want to address why you called governor romney obomnicare. >> what was the similarities between the two. president obama looked to massachusetts as a blueprint or guide when he designed obamacare. >> why would you choose those words informant comfort of a sunday show studio.
your rival is standing right it there. if it was obomnicare on fox news sunday, why isn't it? >> president obama is who i quoted to say i looked to massachusetts to design his program. he said it's a blueprint and he merged the two programs, and so using the term was a reflection of the president's comments that he designed obamacare on the massachusetts health care plan. >> you want to respond to that at all? >> no, just to say this is my guess the president is going to eat those words and wish he didn't put them out there, and i can't wait to debate him. if you did look at what we did in massachusetts, why didn't you give me a call and ask what worked and what didn't? i would have told you, mr. president, that what you're doing will not work. it's a huge power grab by the federal government. it's massively expensive, raising taxes, cutting medicare. it's wrong for america. that's why there's an outpouring across the nation to say no to obamacare. i'm delighted to be able to
debate him on that. >> mr. speaker, you have at times said you have to consider a mandate. you've been open to the individual mandate. it becomes a litmus test in this republican primary. should it be? >> yes, it should be. if you explore the mandate, which the heritage foundation looked at, when you get into an mandate, it has unconstitutional powers, it allows the government to define virtually everything. if you can do it for health care, you can do it for everything in your life and we should not have a mandate. i want to answer sylvia at a different level. this campaign cannot be only about the presidency. we need to pick up at least 12 seats in the u.s. senate and 30 or 40 more seats in the house. if you're serious about repealing obamacare, you have to be serious about building a big enough majority in the legislative branch you can in the first 90 days pass the legislation. it's important to understand it's not about what one person in america does. it's about what the american people does, and that requires a
senatorial majority as well as the presidency. >> let's get down to the floor. >> hi, john. thank you very much. meet terry pof. granite state, born and bred? >> yes, ma'am. >> what's your question for the kntds tonight? >> i'm a new hampshire native and been an active republican for years from a town committee chairman, miramac county and up to 2004 delegate for president bush. my question is how will you convince myself? i'm a mainstream republicans and we need the independents and mainstream republicans to win in november. how can you convince me and assure me you bring a balance and you won't be torn to one side or the other to any faction in the party? you have to have a balanced approach to governing to solve or serious problems. >> go first on that one.
>> i've accomplished a lot on big issues. take, for example, welfare reform. i was in the united states senate and actually at the direction of newt gingrich i was on the ways and means committee and i drafted the contract with america welfare reform bill. it was considered this extreme measure. that extreme measure we won an election and got the seats. that was now the starting point. i managed at that bill in the united states senate because i cared about the dignity of every person. i didn't believe that poverty was the ultimate disability. i believed that people could work and they could succeed. we brought people together. i got 70 votes to end a federal entitlement, which was what paul ryan's proposed for medicaid and food stamps and other welfare programs. he we did it. we set the template, and i led and got bipartisan support to do it. >> that wasn't the question. are you concerned at all about the influence of the tea party? >> not at all. i think the tea battery is a great backstop for america.
i love it when people hold up the constitution and say we have to live by what our founders laid out for this country. it is essential we have that backbone to the republican party going into this election. >> i know you agree, congresswoman. address his concerns. the tea party pushes him out? >> what i've seen in the tea party, i'm the chairman of the tea party caucus in the house of representatives. unlike how the media has tried to wrongly and grossly portray the tea party, the tea party is made up of disaffected democrats, independents, people who never been political a day in their life. it's a wide swath of america comes together. i think that's why the left fears it so much. they're people who simply want to take the country back. they want the country to work again. i think there's no question, terry, this election will be about economics. it will be how to create jobs, how will we turn the economy around and have a pro growth economy.
that's a great sfoer for republicans to tell. president obama can't tell that story. his report card right now has a big failing grade on it, but republicans have an awesome story to tell. we need every one of us in a three-legged stool. we need the peace through strength of republicans, we need the fiscal and social conservatives. we need everybody to come together, because we're going to win. make no mistake about it. i want to announce tonight. president obama is a one-term president. >> i'm polite so far. as somebody with no experience, if you were to become the nominee of this party and you associate yourself with the tea party, politics is about math and coalition building. a candidate who loses a mainstream republican as he describes himself might not win this state in november. might not win a big state like pennsylvania in november.
address the concern of the gentleman who seems to think that at least some people in the tea party maybe in their dissatisfaction or anger of the president are too negative and critical. >> they're not too negative and critical. as a businessman, one of the first things do you, which allowed me to be successful, is make sure you're working on the right problem. if we're working on the right problem, i will surround myself with the right people and we will put together the right plans that i'm going to take it to the people. i will be a president that does what's right, not what's politically right. if the other party disagrees but the american people embrace those common sense solutions, that's how get things done. so those experiences in the business world, managing large organizations with a diverse constituency are the same skills to get the people involved and not exclude the people like this administration has done. >> i want to remind the candidates and people in the audience. cnn is hosting a tea party debate september 12th.
to watch how this plays out, we'll see what the influence is in 2012. let's continue our conversation with the voters of new hampshire. we have a voter with a question. jean. >> thanks very much, john. welcome to the hancock inn. i'm here with mike who is a small business owner from harrisfield, new hampshire. what question do you have tonight? >> for the candidates i'd like to know how they plan on returning manufacturing jobs to the united states. >> congressman paul, why don't you answer this one. >> everything we've done in the last 30 to 40 years we've exported our jobs. when abuse it, you export money. it goes with the money. you have to invite capital. the way you get capital into a country, you need a strong currency and not a weak currency. today it's a job of the federal reserve to weaken the currency. we should invite capital back. we have trillions of dollars, at
least over a trillion dollar of u.s. money made overseas, but it stays over there. if you bring it home, they get taxed. if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate the money and take the taxes office and set up a financial system, deregulate and detax to invite people to go back to work again. as long as we he run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade. >> governor pawlenty, does the congressman have it it right? >> there's a number of things to restore manufacturing in this country. i grew up if in a meet packing town and i was in a union for six, seven years. i understand what it's like to see the blue collar communities and the struggles they've had. i've seen that first hand. we have to have fair trade, and what's going on right now is not fair.
i'm for fair and open trade, bhutd imt not for being stupid and a chump. we have individuals in organizations around this world who are not following the rules when it it comes to fair trade. we need a stronger president. we need to make the costs and burdens of manufacturing in this country lower. we're asking them to climb the mountain with a big sack full of rocks on their back. we have to take the rocks out. one is obamacare. one man is moving his whole company out of the country in arizona because of obamacare. the message everywhere around this country, from business leaders large and small, including manufacturing, is get the government off my back. as president i will. >> how about to help workers get ready for the new jobs in manufacturing. should the federal government help community colleges with vocational training programs and things like that. >> they've done numerous job training with mixed results.
we need to bring manufacturing back to the united states. what we need to do is today the united states has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. i'm a former federal tax lawyer. i've seen the devastation. we have to bring that tax rate down substantially so that we're among the lowest in the industrialized world. here's the other thing. every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill on big spending projects. we need to pass the mother of repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. i would begin with the epa, because there is no other agency like the epa. it should be renamed the job-killing organization of america. >> i want to show people. we're asking people watch willing at home to tell us on facebook and twitter who concerns them. look what has happened. three most important issues, jobs, jobless, and whether you
want a job. senator santorum, your state is pennsylvania that's a big industrial state that struggles. >> we still make things, and i represented the steel valley of pittsburgh when i was in the congress. what i learned from growing up in butler, pennsylvania, is the broad middle of america was a broad middle of america when we had lots of manufacturing here. that's how the wealth from those that create the jobs get down. we've been outsourcing those jobs. we need to do what was said here. i would add another thing that i'm proposing. we need to cut the capital gains tax in half. for manufacturers we need to give a five-year window and cut it to zero. we want people to set up jobs here in america. take that r and d credit and make it permanent and take that innovation and invest that money here to create that broad middle of america and have that wealth really trickle down. >> let's stay on jobs and the economy. i want to bring in josh down here on the floor. he has a question related to that. >> thank you, john. governor pawlenty the possibility exits new hampshire
could be the 23rd state to pass right to work legislation. unions don't like it. where do you fall on right to work, and would you support a federal right-to-work law. >> we live in the united states and people shouldn't be forced to belong to an organization. the government has no business telling you what group to be a member of or not. i support strongly right-to-work legislation. like i said, for much of his life my dad was a teamster truck driver. my brothers and sisters are in unions, i was in a union. we grew up in a blue collar town. my family were reagan democrats, and now most listen to rush limbaugh actually. i understand these issues, but we don't have a government tell us what organizations or associations we should be in. we tell the government what to do.
>> mr. speaker, i assume you agree. one of the criticisms -- you tell me whether it's fair or not -- is as you watch governors deal with this issue across the country, some say there's a tone about t. they steam to demonize public employees or union workers? >> that's a totally different question. the question asked was right to work. the congress should defund the national labor relations board which went into south carolina to punish boeing, which wants to put 8,000 american jobs in south carolina by fundamentally eliminating right-to-work at the national labor relations board. that's a real, immediate threat from the obama administration to eliminate right to work. i think it's fundamentally the wrong direction. i hope new hampshire does adopt right-to-work. i keep it at the state level, because each state sends a signal toll remaining states, don't be stupid. why be california's unemployment level when you can be texas's employment level? let the states learn from each
other. the right-to-work stalts create more jobs today. the public employee is a question. >> as a businessman who says your strength in this campaign is someone who created jobs, the question of right-to-work. >> i believe in right-to-work, and i hope that new hampshire gets it passed. i agree with the speaker and others who if if you believe the federal government does the kinds of thing this is administration is trying to do through the back door, through national labor relations board, that's killing our free market system, and the free market system is what made this economy great. we have to keep the free market system strong. >> we're about to take our first break of the evening. a lot more ground to cover. a lot of foreign policy. who you might want as your next commander in chief. one of the other things to do is learn more about these candidates and their personalities. i'm going to borrow something
from my sports fan experience. every time we go to break i'm going to ask the candidates i'll call this or that. i give them a choice. these are not serious political issues. it's to show personal sides of the candidate. senator santorum, i want to start with you. >> thank you. >> of course. >> leno or conan? >> probably leno. i don't watch either. sorry. >> that's all right. the answer is the answer. for those of you watching at home, remember facebook and twitter to send us questions and analysis. we'll give you a chance for exclusive content. get your smartphone ready. we'll be right back in just a moment. [ male announcer ] the inspiration for its shape
welcome back to st. anselm college in manchester, new hampshire. if you have a smartphone, look at krur screen rights now. you see an electronic code on your screen. snap a picture of dheed, and you'll get exclusive access about the debate. we'll do it throughout the debate and campaign. we'll get back to questioning seven republican candidates for
president. right before the break we did this or that. senator santorum doesn't stay up late. he's a parent. he said if he had to he'd pick leno over cone nan. congresswoman bachmann, elvis or johnny cash? >> that's tough. both, both. i have christmas with elvis on my ipod. >> all right. now we know what's on the congresswoman's ipod. let's get to the questions. >> john, congressman paul, this is for you. the federal government assists many industries, green jobs, the auto industry, research and development, all get subsidies. given the current state of the economy, what standards do you have, if any, for government assistance to private enterprise? >> there shouldn't be any government assistance to private enterprise. it's not morally correct and legal, and it's bad economics and not part of the
constitution. if you allow an economy to thrive, they'll decide where to invest their monies. when the politicians direct things, you get the malinvestment. it's a fallacy to think that governments and politicians are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn't happen. >> these are the republicans, the conservative candidates. every time you applaud, you're happy with the answer. we expect to get an answer, less government is better. one question we want to explore tonight is when do you reach that extraordinary moment when the government might do something. you're a businessman who supported the t.a.r.p. program initially. former senator judd gregg was one of the architects of that program during the late hours of the bush administration. you said we needed to do something drastic because we faced a drastic situation. >> i studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own
we needed to do something drastic, yes. when the concept of t.a.r.p. was first presented to the public, i was willing to go along with it. when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also dreking funds to general motors and other that is had nothing to do with the financial system, that's where i totally disagreed. the government shouldn't be selecting winners and losers, and i don't believe in this concept of too big to fail. if they fail, the free market will figure out who will pick the up pieces. >> tom has a question. >> thank you, john. i wanted too ask romney about the auto industry. they have rebounded since the obama administration bailed them up. would you say the bailout program fls a success? >> it was not a success, because the bailout program wasted a lot
of money. about $17 billion was used unnecessarily. when the ceos went to washington asking for money from wash, i wrote an op-ed and said the right process is not a bailout or a big check from washington but instead letting them go through bankruptcy, re-emerge, getting rid of the unnecessary costs they had and re-emerge, and that's the preferred way to get on their feet again. instead the bush administration and obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry, ultimately they went to the very bankruptcy process i suggested from the beginning. the big difference was $17 billion was wasted, and then president obama, given that money, was able to put his hands on the scales of justice and give the company to the uaw. there's a perception in this country that government knows better than the private sector. that washington and president obama have a better view for how an industry ought to be run.
they're wrong. the right way for america to create jobs is to keep government in its place and the energy and passion of the american people a brighter future for our kids and ourselves. >> let me read you an op-piece you wrote. from a profit standpoint they're doing well right now, and that point, i understand you disagree with the policy. kiss the industry good-bye. were you wrong? >> i wasn't wrong. if you read the rest, it says they need to go through a bankruptcy process to shed unnecessary costs. any get paid checks after checks in the federal government, they're locked in with high uaw costs and legacy costs and they can't get on their feet and have to go through bankruptcy. that's what they did. they said the government had to step in and give a check. that's the wrong way to go. use the process of law and
american inbegin knit. don't have government try to guide this economy. >> is there anyone given that prospect, anyone here who have stepped in and said i don't want to do this, but this is the backbone of american manufacturing, i'll do something? >> absolutely not. we should not have had t.a.r.p. or the government bailout. they could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government. the federal government tipped to the cronies and the unions and gave the unions the company. if they went through the orderly bankruptcy process, they'd have the same place. only we have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it. >> quickly, please. >> john, i was in the middle of this debate. i was behind closed doors when secretary paulson made the extraordinary never before made request to congress, give us a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached. i fought behind closed doors against my own party on t.a.r.p.
it was a wrong vote then. it's continued to be a wrong vote since then. sometimes that's what you have to do. you have to take principle over your party. >> let's continue the conversation. let go to jean in hancock. she has a question. >> thanks, john. this question goes out to speaker gingrich. next month the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30 years, and last year president obama effectively killed government-run space flight to the international space station and wants to turn it over to private companies. in the meantime, u.s. astronauts would ride russian spacecraft at a cost of 50 to $63 million a seat. what role should the government play in future space exploration? >> sadly -- i say this sadly because i'm a big fan of going into space and i worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point. nasa has become an absolute case
study in which bureaucracy can't innovate. if you take all the money we've spent at nasa since we landed on the moon and applied it to the private sector, we would have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, and a new generation of lift vehicles. instead we have bureaucracy after bureaucracy. i think it's a tragedy, because younger americans should have the excitement of thinking they can reach out to a new frontier. we're not a developed country. the scientific future is going to hope up. unfortunately nasa is standing in the way of it, when nasa ought to get out way and encouraging the private sector. vilts to american's innovation and i want the government to stay in the lead here?
>> i think the space program has played a vital role for the united states of america. >> can we afford it going forward? >> it can be refocused and reprioritized, but i don't think we should eliminate the space program. we can partner with private providers and scale it back, but i don't think we should eliminate the space program. >> in a sentence or two. >> you mischaracterized me. i didn't say end the space program. we built the trans continental railroads without a national department of railroads. you can get there more effectively if you decentralized and got out of washington and cut out the bureaucracy. it's not about getting out of the space program. it's about getting to a real space program that works. >> i think fundamentally there are some people that really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector. they happen to be wrong. >> we'll continue on the role of government. josh, please.
>> thanks very much, john. governor pawlenty, back to you. there are roughly a million homes in the hands of banks and lender. they owe more than their home is worth. what would you do to try to right the housing ship? >> the first ning we need to do is get the government out of crony capitalism. we have an alliance between big government and big businesses. congressman paul said a few minutes ago we had politicians try to micromanage the housing market and they created a bubble and the mess. now we have innocent by standers, the good people of the united states of america, many middle income people who have been devastated by this. the market is going to have to adjust. the programs that president obama has put forward haven't really worked. they've been failure and slow. they haven't solved the problem, but the best thing we can do is get the economy moving again. it won't happen by growing government. his way failed.
we have to get the private sector going. we have to have people starting businesses, growing businesses, building things, starting places of employment. this is how we're going to get money back in people's pockets and get them financially stable. >> as you do don't make it just about foreclosures. you have to start cutting. it's the economy of priorities. what should the government do in a better economy that it can't do now that has to go? talk about foreclosures a bit. if you were president and dealing with it in my first few weeks and say i might like to do this, be as specific as you can, what goes? >> i would want to do much less much sooner. the government shouldn't be involved. with the bankruptcies we're doing a whole lot. we had the federal reserve buy all the liquid assets worth little and stick it with the taxpayers. the people that made the money when the bubble was blown out, they got bailed out. you want the correction. corrections are good. the malinvestment in the bubble are caused by the government,
and we keep propping it up. it was predictable it would come and last three years. it's predictable it will last another ten years in washington. we're doing what we did in the depression. we're doing what the japanese have done. you need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market. they have programs in washington to stimulate housing. you need to clear the market, and we can all go back to work. what we're doing now is it absolutely wrong. >> let me give you another topic. people say the government is too involved. that's food saflt. you see the e. coli scare in europe right now. you're trying to cut money. what do you do? >> you look inside the fda and determine whether or not it needs to be streamlined, and maybe it should. >> should the federal government do food safety? >> yes. i want to get back to helping the housing market.
we have a crisis of the three es,ed economy, entitlement spending and energy. we have to work on all of those so we can put 13 to 14 million people back to work. it's not just a single issue. it's those three critical problems. >> what else, governor romney. i've been in other communities dealing with tornadoes and flooding and worse. fema is about to run out of money, and some people say do it on a days by case basis. maybe we're learning a lesson here the states should take on the role. >> every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it it back it to the states, that's the right direction. if you send it back to the private sector, that's better. what we should cut in the federal budget, we should say what should we keep? we should take all of what we do at the federal level and say fema is about to run out of money, and some people say do it on a days by case basis. maybe we're learning a lesson here the states should take on the role. >> every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it it back it to the states, that's the right direction. if you send it back to the private sector, that's better. what we should cut in the federal budget, we should say what should we keep?
we should take all of what we do at the federal level and say what are the things we're doing that we don't center to do, and those things we have to stop doing. we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we take it. >> including disaster relief. >> we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. it's simply immoral in my view to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids. it makes no sense at all. >> we need to work in another break. all the candidates want to get in on these issues. as we go to break, if you have a question on facebook, send it to us. if you have a question on twitter, send it to us. you can use the smartphone to get exclusive information. we're playing this or that to learn more about the candidates. it was conan or leno or elvis or johnny cash. mr. speaker, dancing with the stars or "american idol"? >> "american idol." >> "american idol" it is. they try to impress the
>> announcer: this past year alone there's been a 67% spike in companies embracing the cloud-- big clouds, small ones, public, private, even hybrid. your data and apps must move easily and securely to reach many clouds, not just one. that's why the network that connects, protects, and lets your data move fearlessly through the clouds means more than ever. [ male announcer ] the inspiration for its shape
was an archer drawing his bow. ♪ could that have also inspired its 556 horsepower supercharged engine? ♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪
they try to impress the voters of new hampshire and the voters tonight. we've become a trending topic on twitter. look up there just a bit, and we'll get to the questions. privatization there, improving relations with the middle east, what industries can reinvent america. all good suggestions from concerned citizens from across the country. before we go and out of every break, we do an exercise this or that to learn more about the candidates. the speaker had no hesitation, "american idol" over dancing with the stars. congressman paul, blackberry or iphone? >> blackberry. >> we want to bring up a very important issue. you want to weigh in on it. that's the debate about entitlements. specifically medicare. right now down to our audience. we have josh mckelvin with a kesh. >> i have dr. paul koenz.
you have run a family practice how long? >> 27 years. >> not surprising your question is related to health care. what's your question, sir. >> as a member of the baby beerm generation, i've been contributing to medicare for over 30 years. how do you propose to keep medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond? >> let's start with dr. paul on this one. >> under these conditions it's not solvent and won't be solvent. if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. in your lifetime you will take out more than three times as much. arithmetic tells you it's not solvent. we're up against the wall on that. it can't be made solvent. it has to change. we have to have more competition in medicine, and i would think if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly because
we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money. that's why i argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare and foreign militaryism and corporate welfare and the military industrial complex. then we might have enough money to tie people over. some revampling has to occur. what we need is competition and a chance for the people to opt out of the system. you talk about opting out of obamacare? why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves? >> let's continue the conversation. governor pawlenty, congressman paul says opt out, and congressman ryan says squeeze a lot of savings across the federal bugts. he doesn't like this word, but it turn it into a voucher program. instead of having a program, the government give us you money and you shop for it. is that the right way to do it? >> let me address the doctor. you said in your question that you've paid in your whole life,
and we respect that. people have made plans, particularly people on the program now or close to eligibility, we should keep our word to peep we made promises to. under my proposal, if you're on the program or near the program, we'll keep our word. we have to recognize what congressman paul said. there was a report out that the premiums for medicare and payroll withholdings are paying half the program. it's not financially solvent. we have to fix it and reform it. i'm going to have my own plan, john, that will feature differences from congressman ryan's plan. it will feature performance pay rather than volume pay to hospitals and clinics and providers. it will allow medicare to continue as an option, but it's priced against various other options we offer people as well. if it was a choice between barack obama's plan and doing nothing, we have a president of the united states with one of the worst crisis finally in this country, you can't find him on the issues. >> mr. speaker, i want to bring
you into the conversation. your initial reaction to the ryan plan. then you backtrack. why? >> first of all, it was a very narrow question, which said, should republicans impose an unpopular bill on the american people? now, i supported the ryan budget as a general proposal and wrote a newsletter supporting the ryan budget, and those words were taken totally out of context. i'm happy to repeat them. if you're dealing with something as big as medicare and can't have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you're doing is the right thing, you better slow down. we got mad at obama because he ran over us when we said don't do it. the republicans ought to follow the same ground rule. if you can't convince the american people it's a good idea, maybe it's not a good idea. second, there are certain things i would do different on medicare. i agree on medicaid. two quick things. >> quickly. >> congressman tom price has a good bill in that would allow
private contracting so those people that want to voluntarily could contract with their doctor or hospital in addition to medicare, and it would be outside the current system and relieve the pricing pressure on the current system. we did a study called stop paying the crooks. we think you can save 730 to $120 billion in medicare and medicaid by not paying crooks. >> we have to save time. let me start with the senator first. should the republicans slow down? >> no. we have a $1.4 trillion deficit, and it isn't getting any better anytime soon. we have to deal with this problem now. what paul ryan is suggesting, which i wholeheartedly support, is to use a program that is identical to what seniors already having. it's called medicare part d. they have a program right that seniors like. we give seniors depending on income a certain amount of money so they can purchase health care that helps them and this is the
key, john. we need to include seniors in controlling costs. what president obama -- let me finish, please. what president obama has done is he put in the obamacare bill the i understand pend payment advise board. medicare will be cut by the federal government and it's rationing of care from the top down. what paul ryan and rick santorum what to do, is take a program, medicare prescription drugs 41% under budget because seniors are solved in controlling costs and apply it to medicare, it's the right approach for medication. >> the speaker's point is if you lost the american people, you have to slow down until you get them with you. is that a fair point? >> we don't need to slow down. i hate to be the one do give you the bad news, doctor. you won't get most of the money you put into medicare if we don't restructure it it. the reason we're in the
situation today with medicare and social security is because the problem hadn't been solved. we can no longer rearrange it. we have to restructure those programs, and paul ryan approach i totally support. he has been courageous in taking the lead on this. you know this commercial with medicare and having it tossed off the bridge, it if decent fix that problem, it will be our grandkids thrown off the bridge. we have to fix the problem. >> let's continue the conversation on entitlements. >> thank you, john. mr. cain back to you. while you're fired up there, let's turn to social security. can you be specific regarding ages and income levels. everyone talks about reform. what is your specific social security reform plan in regards to raising the retirement age, at what ages cut be benefits
means testing kicking in. >> let's fix the problem i support a personal retirement account option in order to phase out the current system. we know this works. it worked in the small country of chile when they did it 30 yergsz. that payroll tax got up to 27% for every dollar that the worker made. i believe we can do the same thing. that break point would approximately 40e years of age. young people are have to contribute to the current system for people on social security. >> are you going to raise the retirement age as president of the united states? >> i don't have to raise the retirement age, because that won't solve the problem. if congress decides to do that, that's a different matter. here's another example where this approach has worked. the city of galveston opted out of the social security system in the '70s, and now they retire with a whole locality more money.
why? they have their act with their money on it. we have to restructure the program using a personal retirement account option in order to eventually make it solvent. >> we'll keep the conversation move. people want to weigh in. let's move to jennifer on the floor with a question. >> john, thank you very much. governor romney, i'd like to ask this to you first, please. the treasury department says the united states will hit its credit limit on august 2nd. do you believe we will ultimately have to raise the debt ceiling? >> i believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president finally, finally is willing to be a leader on issues that the american people care about. the number one issue that relates to that debt ceiling is whether the government is going to keep on spending money they don't have. the american people and congress and every person elected in washington has to understand we want to see a president finally lay out plans for reigning in the excesses of government. you've heard on here a whole
series of ideas about entitlements. that's about 60% of federal spends. that's a big piece, ideas from all the people up here. where are the president's ideas. we have different ideas here. we can try different ideas in different states and different programs at the federal level, but why isn't the president leading? is he isn't leading on balancing the budget and on jobs. he's faileded american people, and that's why he's not going to be relaektsed. >> governor, what happens if you don't raise it? is it okay not to? >> what happens if we continue to spend time and time again, year and year again? more money than we take in? what we say to america is, at some point you hit a wall. at some point people around the world say i won't keep loaning money to america because america can't pay them back and the dollar is not worth in this case anymore. in that circumstance we saddled the future of our kids in a that is unacceptable. you'll see republicans stand up
and say, mr. president, lay down plans to balance this budget. if he does so, if we gets democrats to come at that time table and deal with the challenges we have and with the jobs issues and say we can't afford another trillion dollars of obamacare. if he's honest about things, you'll see the progress you'd hope to see. >> congresswoman bachmann, you get a vote on this issue. if you can't get that on the short term and those negotiations are continuing, what is your price tag in at least a first wave of cuts? if you don't get it, would you say to the house republicans, no, let the government go into default? that's where we need to stand. >> i've already voted no on raising the debt ceiling in the past. unless there are serious cuts, i can't. i want to speak to someone that's far more eloquent than i. someone who said just dealing
with the issue of raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership. that person was then senator barack obama. he refused to raise debt ceiling because he said president bush had failed in leadership. clearly president obama has failed in leadership. under his watch in two and a half years, we've increased the federal debt 35% just in that amount of time. what we need to do both from the congress and president, he needs to direct his treasury secretary, pay the interest on the debt first, then we won't have a failure of our full faith and credit from their prioritized spending. we have to have serious spending cuts. >> i want to ask the candidates a little shorter on answers to keep the voters involved. >> mr. kennedy runs a juvenile correctional institute in massachusetts. >> i wonder what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making.
>> governor pawlenty, take that one first. >> the protections were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. this is a country that in our founding documents says we're a nation that's founded under god, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator, they're not from our member of congress or county commissioner. 39 of the 50 states have until the early phrases of constitution languages like minnesota has. it says we the people of minnesota, grateful to god for our civil and religious liberties, and so the founding fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation xom from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. i embrace that. let's spend a little time talking. >> let's spent time talking about it. senator, let's start with you. what role does faith play in your political life?
are there certain issues where you meet with my advisers and others where you have a moment of private prayer? >> i believe that you approach issues using faith and reason. if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place. the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country, madison called it the perfect remedy, which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square. to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out. because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. just the opposite. we get along because we know that we all -- aum of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. that makes america work. >> congressman paul, is it a personal issue? >> i think faith has something to do with the character of the
people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. we shouldn't expect us to try to change mother ralt. you can't teach people how to be moral, but the constitution addresses this by saying -- it says no theocracy but doesn't talk about church and state. the most important thing is first amendment. congress shall write no laws, which means it should never prohibit the expression of your faith in a public place. >> let's go down and continue the conversation. >> thank you. >> while we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question to mr. cain. you recently said you would not appoint a muslim to your cabinet and said you would want to know if they're committed to the constitution. you expressed concern that a lot of muslims are not totally dedicated to this country, american muslims as a group less committed than christian or jews?
>> first, the statement was would i be comfortable with a muslim in my administration, not that i wouldn't appoint one. that's the exact transcript, and i would not be comfortable because you have peaceful muslims and then you have militant muslims. those that are trying to kill us. when i said i wouldn't be comfortable, i was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one. secondly, yes, i do not believe in sharia law in american courts. i believe in american laws in american courts, period. there have been instances -- [ applause ] there have been instances in new jersey, there was an instance in oklahoma where muslims did try to influence court decisions with sharia law. i was simply saying very emphatically american laws in american courts. >> on that point, governor romney let me come to you on this.
mr. cain said he would have a purity test or a loyalty test, ask a muslim a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a christian or jew. >> you are restating something i did not say, if i may? >> let's make it clear. >> when you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one on one personal interview. during that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you know how committed they are to the constitution and the mission of the organization. >> i asked this question the other night, you said you want want to a muslim those questions but wouldn't have to answer those questions to a christian or jew? >> i would ask certain questions, john. it's not a litmus test. it's making sure we have people committed to the constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration. >> should one segment of americans, should one segment singled out and treated differently?
>> first of all, of course, we're not going to have sharia law applied in u.s. courts. that's not going to happen. we have a constitution and we follow the law. no, i think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country, our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. that's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect for five times with their religious persuasion. anybody who comes into my administration is someone i knew, who i was comfortable with and who i believed would honor as their highest oath to defend the constitution of the united states. >> i want to comment for a second. the pakistani who emigrated to the u.s., became a citizen, not blt a car bomb that luckily failed to go off in times square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he swore on oath to the united states, and he looked at the judge and said, you're my enemy.
i lied. now, i want to go out on a limb here. i'm in favor of saying to people if you're not prepared to be loyal to the united states, ultimate not serve in my administration, period. we did this in dealing with the nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists and it was controversial both times and both times we discovered there were bad people that would like to infiltrate the country. we have to stand up and say no. >> we have to work fwh another break. you can help us at home on facebook and twitter. please send in suggestions. in and out of every break we ask a candidate a personal question. mr. cain, deep dish or thin crust? >> deep dish. >> deep dish it is. our seven candidates for the republican presidential nomination will be right back. a] this...is the network.
a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪ this past year alone to help move business... forward. there was a 93% increase in cyber attacks. in financial transactions... on devices... in social interactions... and applications in the cloud. some companies are worried. some, not so much.
thanks to a network that secures it all and knows what to keep in, and what to keep out. outsmart the threats. see how at cisco.com cisco. right now, go to priceline for a sneak peek at recent winning and better than ever! hotel bids to find where you n save up to 60% on hotels. * we'll even email you other people's winning bids, so you'll know what price to name. *á with new hotel bid alerts, from priceline. has twice the calcium of the leading yogurt. that's 50% of the daily value. pass on the news and make sure you and everyone you know is getting the calcium they need. ♪ maybe you don't think you're at risk for heart attack or stroke but if you've been diagnosed with p.a.d., or have pain or heaviness in your legs, i want to talk to you. you may have heard of poor leg circulation, which could be peripheral artery disease, or p.a.d. with p.a.d., if you have poor circulation in your legs,
you may also have poor circulation in your heart or in your brain, your risk for heart attack or stroke is more than doubled with p.a.d. now, ask yourself: am i at risk? if you're not sure, call for this free information kit to learn more. [ female announcer ] call the toll free number on the screen now to find out what the risks of p.a.d. really are. you'll find a 7-point checklist that helps you understand what could be putting you at risk. if you have symptoms, you'll learn how treating symptoms is different from reducing your risk. you'll also learn about lifestyle changes and treatment options that can help reduce your risk for heart attack and stroke. there's even a discussion guide for you to bring to your doctor that can help you discuss p.a.d. together. call the toll free number on the screen for your free information kit today.
the risk is real. take the next step. call today. people have all kinds of retirement questions. no problem. td ameritrade has all kinds of answers. call us for quick help opening your new ira. or an in-depth talk with a retirement expert. like me. stop by my branch for a free retirement check-up. retirement hows and how-muches? whens... and what-ifs? bring 'em on. it's free. you're gonna retire. and we're gonna help. retirement answers at td ameritrade. roll over your old 401(k) and get up to $500.
seven republican candidates for president here on the campus of st. anselm college in manchester, new hampshire. let's continue the conversation. deep dish from mr. cain before the break. governor romney to you now. maybe it's new hampshire or south carolina ordering some wings. spicy or mild? >> oh, spicy. absolutely. by the way, bruins are up 4-0. >> all right. all right. there you go. there you go. i think that's an audience pleaser. let's continue the questions and get down to the floor. >> thank you, john. congresswoman bachmann, let's turn to a serious subtle. new hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. this is a question of conflicting interest. i know you're opposed to same-sex marriage. as president would you try to overturn -- what influence would you use from the white house to overturn state laws despite your
own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances. >> i do believe in the 10th amendment and self-determination for the states. i believe it's between a man and woman. i carried that legislation when i was a senator in minnesota, and i believe for children the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life. now, i didn't come from a perfect background. my parents were divorced, and i was raised by a single mother. there's a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. that's why my husband and i have broken hearts for at-risk kids and why we took 23 foster children into our home. >> what would you do to initiate a repeal law on the state level? would you come into the state of new hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?
>> i'm running for the presidency of the united states. i don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws. >> on that point to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's go through it. let's start at this end and go through. i'll describe it this way. are you a george w. bush republican meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage or dick cheney who said this should be made -- this decision should be a state's decision? >> state's decision. >> i support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. i was the co-author. >> the federal government should not be involved. i wouldn't support an amendment. one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. we know what marriage is all about, but get the government out of it. why doesn't it go to the church
or the individuals? i don't think government should give us a license to get married. >> constitutional. >> mr. speaker, i helped author the defensive marriage act, which the obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. if that fails, at that point you have no choice but a constitutional amendment. >> the constitutional amendment includes the states. three quarter counties of the states have to ratify it. the states should be involved in this process. we should have one law with respect to marriage. there needs to be consistency. >> john, i do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and woman, but i would not be going into the states to overturn their state law. >> the obama administration is in the process and leon panetta will implement the repeal of don't ask don't tell. gays are allowed to serve openly in the military. if you become president of the united states, now gays are
allowed to serve openly mountain military, would you leave that policy in place or try to change it, go back to don't ask don't tell or something else? >> i would have never overturned don't ask don't tell in the first place. now that they have changed it, i wouldn't create a distraction to turn it over as president. they have too many other things to be concerned about rather than deal with that distraction. >> leave it in place if you inherit the new policy or try to overturn it? >> we're in a nation in two wars. we need to listen tom kol bat tant commanders and how this faekts the military going forward. i know they expressed concerns when this was originally repealed by the obama administration. >> i would not work to overthrow it. we have to remember rights don't come in groups. we shouldn't have gay rights. rights come as individuals. it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
>> leave it in place, what you inherit from the obama administration or overturn it? >> we ought to fwauk the economy and jobs. i believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over. >> i think it's very powerful that both the army and the marines overwhelmingly opposed changes it. their recommendation was against changing it, and if as president i've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working and is dangerous and we should go back, i would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women they're trying to protect. >> congresswoman. >> i would keep the don't ask don't tell policy. >> wlaefr the administration does now, you would try to go back? >> i would after following what the speaker just said, i want want to confer with our commanders in chief and the joint chiefs of staff because i want to know how it's being implemented and if it had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that come.
>> the job of the united states military is to protect and defend the people of this country. it is not for social experimentation. it should be repealed, and the commanders should have a system of discipline in place as ron paul said that punishes bad behavior. >> let's go back down to the floor here. jennifer vaughn has a question. >> senator santorum, you are staunchly pro-life. governor romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position a few years ago. do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? should this be an issue in in primary campaign? >> i think an issue should be in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and their record over time. that's a faktdor that should be determined. you can look at my record. i've been consistently pro-life, but i've not just taken the pledge but the bullets to fight
for this and lead on those issues. i think that's a factor that people should consider when you look. what is this president going to do when he comes to office? a lot of folks run for pro-life, and thash uis shoved to the back burner. the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth but on the issue of abortion but with respect to to the entire life, welfare reform and dignity of people at the end of life, those issues are top priority issues for me to make sure all life is respected and held with dignity. >> governor romney, take 20 or 30 seconds, if there is a republican who questions your authenticity on the issue? >> people have looked at my record and look what i said through the last campaign. i believe people understand i'm firmly pro-life and will support justice who is believe in following the constitution and not legislating from the bench. i believe in the sanctity of life from the beginning to end. >> is there anybody that believes that's an issue in the campaign, or case closed?
>> case closed. >> case closed it is. tom forman standing by in rochester. >> hi, john. representative bachmann, i have a question for you. governor pawlenty opposed abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at stake. do you have any problem with that position, and if so, why? >> i am 100% pro-life. i've given birth to five babies and taken 23 foster children into my home. i believe the dignity of life from conception until natural death and ipgible in the sanctity of human life. the most eloquent words written were in the declaration of independence that said a creator endowed us with rights given to you from government sxnt from government. the but dpee is government cannot take those rights away, only god can give and only god can take. the first of those rights is life. i stand for that right. i stand for the right to life.
the very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases. yet, they get all the attention. all the firepower is and where the real battle is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. i stand for life from conception until natural death. >> governor pawlenty, it was your position brought into the question. we'll give you a few seconds. >> this is a great example where we can look at our records. the national review online said based on results i was the most pro-life candidate in the race. as governor of the state of minnesota, i appointed for the supreme court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. we passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state which i proposed including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion and many others. i'm solidly pro-life.
the main pro-life organization in minnesota gives me high marks. i haven't just talked about these things. i've done it it. >> let's go to plymouth, new hampshire. thomas fahy is standing by with a voter with a question. >> i'm here with lydia, and she is a naturalized citizen who moved to new hampshire several years ago from minnesota of all places. she has has a question about emigration. >> as a naturalized american citizen who came here legally, i would like to know how you, as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, education, or welfare systems? >> senator santorum, why don't you lead off on that one. >> i'm the son of a legal immigrant in this country and believe in legal immigration.
that is a great well spring of strength for our country. we cannot continue to provide -- the federal government should not require states to provide government services, and i have consistently voted against that and believe that we are unfortunately my grandfather came to this country in summer set county. he sdint come here because he was guaranteed a government benefit. he came here because he wanted freedom. most people want it because they want the opportunities of this country, and that's what we should offer. we shouldn't offer to peopletic already lay those that broke the law to come here, we shouldn't offer government benefits. >> dr. paul, on this one, the question comes up once they're in the country illegally, compassion bumps up against enforcing the law and state budget crises. a 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. does the child get care? >> we shouldn't have the mandated. we bankrupted the hospitals and
schools in texas and other states. we should think about protecting our borders rather than the borders between iraq and afghanistan. that doesn't make any sense to me. there was a time when we didn't depend on government for everything. there was a time when the catholic church looked after them. >> should taxpayers have to pay for that care? >> no, she thoont be forced to. we wouldn't penalize the catholic church. some of the the anti-imt grants want to come down on hard on the catholic church, and that's wrong. this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. when we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work, and people flowed over here getting jobs. so there is an economic issue here as well. but no, if you have an understanding and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before.
you don't have to say you won't have care and everybody will starve to death and die on the streets without medical care. that's the implication of the question. that's not true, and you shouldn't accept it. >> mr. cain, another issue in recent years as this debate has bubbled up is the whole question of birth right citizenship. in two adults came in here illegally and have a child, should that child be considered a citizen of the united states? >> i don't believe so. let's look at solving the real problem. immigration is full of problems. not one. we keep kicking the can down the road. get serious about securing the borders, and enforce the laws already there. number three, promote the path to citizenship like this lady did by getting cleaning up the bureaucracy. here's how we deal with the illegals here. empower the states to do what the federal government hasn't done and won't do and can't do. then we won't get into the problem that was raised.
we are a compassionate nation. of course they get care. >> to empower the states, do you support arizona's version, parts of it enforcement law are up held. alabama has a new bill. would you want to be president of the united states in which each state can decide what it does, or would you make the point, this is a federal purview period? >> a strong supporter of state rights, but if the federal government won't do its job, protectsing and securing the border, let the states do it. and they will. when president bush asked governors to volunteer their national goord to go to the border to reinforce through operation jump start our border, i was one of the few governors that did it. i sent minnesota national guard there to reinforce the border, and that works. this birthright citizenship brings up the importance of appointing conservative justices.
that result is because a u.s. supreme court determined that right exists, notwithstanding language in the constitution. i'm the only one up here who's appointed solidly, reliably to the court. >> i want to do one more on this issue. president bush and senator mccain spent a lot of time on this. there are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. if you rounded them all up and kick them up, they broke the law, they shouldn't be here. i don't know where the money would come from this environment. is that what the federal government should spend money and resources on? or like president bush and like senator mccain, should we have some path to status for those willing to step up and admit where they are and come out of the shadows? >> one of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives.
you either have to ship 20 people out of america or legalize all of them. that's nonsense. we're never going to pass a comprehensive bill. obama couldn't get a comprehensive bill through with nancy pelosi and harry reid, and he didn't try because he knew he couldn't do this. you break this down. herman cain is essentially rilt. first of all, you control the border. we ask the national guard to go to iraq and kuwait and afghanistan. somehow we would have done more more american security if we had had the national guard on the border. if you don't want to use the national guard -- one last example. if you don't want to use the national guard, take half of the current department of homeland security bureaucracy in washington, transplant it to texas, arizona and new mexico. you'll have more than enough people to control the border. >> all right. >> let me finish, john. no serious citizen who is concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in xh you're for
totally selling out america or totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. they are humane, practical steps to solve this problem if we get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly. >> john has a question on the floor. >> congressman paul, this is for you. john, if you don't mind i'd like to hear from governor romney and a couple candidates because it relates to a specific new hampshire issue with a national question. here in new hampshire there is a popular bill that is being considered by our state legislature that would restrict the state's power to seize private land to build a power plant or a transmission facility. should governments at any level be able to use eminent domain for major projects that will reduce america's dependence on foreign oil? >> no. we shouldn't have that power
given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. the eminent domain laws vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. it was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it will help in that locality. this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. property and free society should be owned by the people and shouldn't be regulated to death by the governments, whether it's washington, d.c. or local governments. right now we don't own the land. we pay rent on the lands. the courts should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group. >> governor romney, you're a property owner in new hampshire. you are a new hampshire property owner. you also are for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. there are a lot of people in the state that are concerned about this project, but they also want to have energy independence. how do you feel about that?
>> i don't believe that land should be taken by the power of government to give to a private corporation, and so the right of eminent domain which is a right used to foster a public purpose and public ownership for a road, highways, and so forth. my view is if land is taken for purposes of a private enterprise, that's the wrong way to go. the right answer for us to have energy independence is to start developing our own energy in this country, and we're not doing this. we have a huge find with natural gas, 100 years of new natural gas has been found. more drilling for oil, natural gas, clean coal. we have coal in great abundance and nuclear power ultimately. it's time for a president who caring about getting america on track for energy security. >> let's stay on this issue because it's important. josh down to the floor. >> timely issue and question for senator santorum. the senate tomorrow is voting on possibly abolishing the ethanol tax effective july 1st. it will have a major impact on our friends in iowa.
they grow corn. this is a move that would basically remove tax credits worth $6 billion. my question to you is, do you support abolishing? >> i actually proposed that we can phase out the ethanol subsidy, which is the blender's credit, over a five-year period of time. i proposed as part of helping nem in that transition. i also phased out the tariff on ethanol coming into the country over the five-year period of time. one of the issues for ethanol industry is distribution networks. i would take half the credit every year, four and a half cents, and use it to help expand distribution for e-85 in other areas of the country. that all would be shut down in five years. i say that because i voted against ethanol subsidies my entire time in congress. the ethanol industry has matured greatly, and i think they're capable of surviving and doing quite well going forward under that plan. >> all right. we'll work in one more break
before we go. believe it or not, we're running out of time here. into and out of every break we've have an experiment this or that. governor pawlenty to you, coke or pepsi? >> coke. >> coke it is. a good swift answer there. before we go to break, we were asking you on twitter to show us what you think. what are the candidates' opinions to withdraw troops from afghanistan? that and more questions when we return here in manchester new hampshire. seven republicans who want to be your next president debating. stay right here. ♪ hello sunshine, sweet as you can be ♪ [ female announcer ] wake up to sweetness with honey nut cheerios cereal. kissed with real honey. and the 100% natural whole grain oats can help lower your cholesterol. you are so sweet to me. bee happy. bee healthy.
25 years of service. right now he has three sons serving in the navy. so you can imagine he has an important question. what would you like to ask tonight, john. >> osama bin laden is dead. we've been in afghanistan for ten years. isn't it time to bring our combat troops home from afghanistan? >> governor romney, take the lead on that one. >> it's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the government over in the way the afghan military to defend themselves from the taliban. that's an important distinction. i want to say first of all, thank you to you for the sacrifice of your family and your sons in defending the liberty that we have and our friends around the world. thank you for what you've done. >> congressman paul -- >> let me -- let me continue. that is i think we've learned some important lessons in our
experience in afghanistan. i want those troops to come home based upon the not politics or economics but based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals. i think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. only the afghanees can win independence from the taliban. thank you. >> congressman paul, do you agree with that decision? >> not quite. i served five years in the military and spent a little time over in pakistan/afghanistan area as well as iran. i wouldn't wait for my generals. i'm the commander in chief. i make the decisions. i tell the generals what to do. i'd bring them home as quickly as possible and get them out of iraq as well and i wouldn't start a war in libya, i'd quit bombing yemen and pakistan. i'd start to take care of people at home. our national security is not enhanced by our presence over
there. we have no purpose there. we should learn the lessons of history. the longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you. >> governor pawlenty, a growing number of republicans are more skeptical of these foreign involvements. take what congressman paul said there. he said no bombing in yemen. the strikes in yemen have been targeted at al qaeda leaders and the president of the united states views as serious threats against this nation. do you agree with congressman paul or president obama or the strikes? >> let me say to john thank you for your family's commitment to our nation, to your service, to the sacrifices you made and to the burdens you bear. i speak for everyone in this room when we say we're grateful to you. we wouldn't have the country without people lie you and your sons. thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> i start with this perspective. on september 11th, 2001, individuals and groups killed 3,000 or so of our fellow americans. they would have killed 30,000 or 300,000 or 30 million if they could have. if they had the capability to do that in their hands, and as soon as they get it, they'll try. the first duty of the president of the united states as the leader of this nation and commander in chief is to make sure the nation is safe. you bet. if there are individuals i have intelligence on in yemen that present a threat to the security of our region or the united states of america, they will hear from me and we'll continue the bombings. >> let's stay on foreign policy. tom forman in rochester. tom. we lost him. >> all right. we're not -- >> here we go. >> i'd like to know your opinion on your involvement with libya.
>> congresswoman bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more u.s. presence with a nato operation? is that the right thing to do for the united states of neshg? >> no, i don't believe so it is. that isn't just my opinion. that was the opinion of our defense secretary gates when he came before the united states congress. he could not identify a vital national american interest in libya. our policy in libya is substantially flawed. it's interesting. president obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. the united states doesn't lead from behind. as commander in chief, i would not lead from behind. we are the head. we are not the tail. the president was wrong. all we have to know is the president deferred leadership in libya to france. that's all we need to know. the president was not leading when it came to libya. first of all, we were not attacked. we were not threatened with attack. there was no vital national interest.
i sit on the house select committee on intelligence. we deal with the nation's vital classified secrets. we to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. there are some reports that they may contain al qaeda of north africa. what possible vital american interests could we have to empower al qaeda of north africa and libya? the president was absolutely wrong in his decision on libya. >> mr. speaker, address the same question. was it in the vital national interest of the united states? as you do so, i had a conversation with a soon-to-be candidate governor huntsman said he didn't think when it came to vital national interest and said we can't afford it right now. should the price tag r the factor when you're the commander in chief of the united states? >> sure. the price tag is always a factor, because generalize hour pointed out and lincoln and washington understood, that's part of the decision. what congresswoman bachmann said should sober everybody.
ten years after 9/11 our intelligence is so inadequate we have no idea what percent of the libyan rebels are, in fact, al qaeda. libya was the secondest largest producer of people that wanted to kill americans in iraq. we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region. we should say to the generals we would like to figure out to get out as rapid as possible with the safety of the troops involved and we better find new and different strategies because this is too big a problem for us to deal with with the american ground forces in direct combat. we need a totally new strategy for the region, because we don't today have the kind of intelligence we need to know what we're doing. >> mr. cain, take 30 seconds, please. people say he's a businessman with no experience in government. how would you look at juror responsibilities add commander in chief?
>> it starts with making sure we understand the problem, which i don't think we did. we didn't have the intelligence. number two, is it in the vital interest of the united states of america? if the answer is no, then we don't go any further. if it's not in the interest of america. to paraphrase my grandmother with the situation in libya and many of these other situations, they're not simple situations. it's a mess. it's just an absolute mess, and there's more that we don't know that we do know, so it's difficult to know exactly what we do until like others have said we learn from the commanders in the field. >> let's stay on how you would focus as a commander in chief. jennifer has a voter with a question. >> greg, what's your question tonight for the kndzs? >> well, i support the u.s. military. frankly we're in debt up to our eyeballs. we have nation building going on around the world where the world's police force, world war
ii is over, the korean war is over but we have military bases all over europe and asia. we have 900 military bases all over the world. i want to know if there's a candidate on the stage that is willing to shut down bases not vital to the national security and take the money to pay off our national debt? >> we closed down a lot of bases overseas. what we're dealing with say failure of leadership on this administration's part to actually put together a strategy where we can confront our enemies. and our enemies are asymmetric threats. terrorism. not just the position in the middle east but around the world. we have to have the ability to confront the threats around the world which means we need basing around the world so we do need the bases and we they'd to be able to attack where we're attacked. it's not just a threat. we don't need to build bases in
germany from the threat of the soviet union. its much broader so we have to engage our allies andal our allies know that we have their back. the president has not done that. he's done everything he can, whether it's israel or honduras or colombia or the czechs the poles or he's turned his back on american allies and he has embraced our enmiss. our enemies no longer respect us. our friends no longer trust us and we have a foreign policy that unfortunately we'll need more of a presence because we've created such a vacuum, thus, all the contingency operations you're seeing as a result of america's problems with dealing with the threats. >> i need to step in. we'll take our last break. i know a lot of you have a lot of things to say. look up here and you'll see the conversation on facebook and twitter. a lot of good questions. good questions from our viewers. we're here on the campus in manchester, new hampshire. we'll be right back.
the place they've been searching for. staples. the one place that makes it easy to buy a new laptop. ♪ or get one fixed. ♪ with highly trained tech experts, staples makes trouble-shooting and repairing technology just the way you want it -- easy. easy to buy. easy to fix. easy to save. staples. that was easy. ♪
>> in the closing moments of our republican presidential debate here on the st. anselm college campus. time flies when you're having fun. let's go town to the floor. >> hi, mr. cain. this one is for you. public opinion polls consistently result in low approval ratings for congress as a whole and early polls show a lack of enthusiasm for this field of cads. most of you will say that you don't watch polls but shouldn't you pay attention to public sentiment and aren't these polls a direct reflection of what voters are and are not looking for? >> yes. i believe the polls represent a become testify because it's way too early. secondly, probably a lot of the people don't know us yet because it's still real early in the process so as people get to know us more and more i think they'll find this really is a good feel of candidates, at least in my opinion but the people that know the most about everybody up here, they don't see this as a wheatfield and neither do i.
>> all right. it is likely that the republican nominee for president is standing on the stage tonight. if you win the nomination you'll have to make the choice and that is picking a running mate. governor pawlenty, 2008 and the process. president obama made a pick. senator mccain made a pick. who made the best choice? >> senator biden has been wrong about every major strategic decision in the modern history of the international conflict in the military. look at his judgment about partitioning iraq, for example. now we have iraq being a shining example of success in the middle east. if vice president biden we would have had a partitioned iraq and probably more mayhem in the middle east. i think governor palin is a remarkable leader and i think she's qualified to be the president of the united states and equally as qualified or more qualified and would have been a as strong as a president as joe biden.
he's wrong on everything. >> go ahead, governor. >> john, any one of the people on this stage would be a better president than president obama. he has failed in job one, which was to get this economy going again. he failed in job two, which was to restrain the growth of the government and he failed in job three which is to have a coherent, consistent foreign policy. had presidents in the past who had bad foreign policies. this is the first time we've had a president that doesn't have a foreign policy and this hit or miss approach has meant a couple of successes, getting osama bin laden, congratulationses, but a lot of misses, like throwing our friends under the bus and that's why any of these people can serve as president over the future. >> if there is a president bachmann and you're only allowed to hire one of the candidates on the stage, which one would it be and why? >> don't choose the old guys.
>> well, maybe we'll have to have an "american idol" contest and go from there. we'll let the audience decide into let the audience decide. congressman paul, if you were the president of the united states and you could pick one of the gentlemen or the lady to join your administration and why? >> join the administration? >> yes. >> i would think everybody would qualify. >> you only get to pick one. it's about choices. >> i have to pick one? hmmm? let me look them over. i would have to do a bit more quizzing. i would have to -- they haven't even told me how they feel about the federal reserve yet. they haven't told me about the foreign policy. so i have to do some more quizzing. >> down to our last minute i want to get to everybody. senator is an tore rum, what have you learned in the last two hours. >> what hermann said. we have a grade field of candidates. i was very impressed. i hope everybody else was. these are folks that answered the questions that were asked. >> congresswoman?
>> in the last two hours i've learned more about the goodness of the american people. from the question from john, his three sons that are serving in the navy, his wonderful service. anyone who asked a question has talked to me about -- >> don't mean to interrupt you. >> i think once again, new hampshire is proving why it's first in the nation as the primary because the questions are so good. >> governor? >> and new hampshire is proving that the issue people care most about is getting this economy growing again so we can have rising housing prices again. people can have the kind of incomes they deserve. they don't have to wonder whether the future is brighter than the past. people in new hampshire love the future. >> i've learned with the group here that disagrees on some issues we can talk about it and be civil to each other. >> governor? >> i learned that if you trust the people, our future is bright and i learned the boston bruins have more heart than the vancouver canuks. >> mr. cain? >> what i've learned is that all