tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 13, 2011 6:30pm-11:00pm EDT
penalties, >> congress called them. >> just because they think that. it generates revenue. $4 billion? >> the fact is here, what you have as legislative history. >> i understand, i am asking a different question. if we have the legislative history and we have this provision, and not a penalty, why is it so important? >> if you look at it consistent with what it does, it is not primarily to raise money for the government. >> it doesn't matter.
>> it certainly has way. >> hall downplayed that heavily? gosh you would, but there are cases where something has been called upon. they call it here. >> thank you very much. on my clock, you have 45 minutes. not 45, and sorry. 40 minutes. >> thank you, very much. after years of study and debate, after hearing tragic stories like the one just talked about about the sad road trip and after revealing a lot of hard evidence about the health care markets, congress makes specific findings including first that
the minimum coverage provision regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature, economic and financial in decision. this is what congress said it was. those about how and when health care is paid for. and the contention to you is that the activity is participation in the health-care market. that is what is going on at an unprecedented rate. >> " we want to do is not part of the health-care market, said that activity doesn't reach very far. >> i am saying and congress was saying that it is almost a universal feature. that we do use health care regardless of whether we think we might not want to or decide not to. it is on an individual basis because we don't know the chance that we will get hit by a bus or
get struck by cancer. >> that gives you a basis for saying comprehensive regulation. but it seems like he says this is an inactivity. the decision of a person not to get into the lobby, not to buy insurance. that in and of itself is not substantially affecting commerce. we have to be more careful than ordinarily one would. >> i think they hit it exactly right, there are different sources of authority that the government is invoking. what is a judicial source. >> i want and i'll wear your differing on this. as i understand it, it is an
activity. the sustainers says is three conditions. and do you agree or disagree with that characterization? >> let me first set out what the authority is of congress and then get to the specific question you're having about activity versus an activity. does this affect commerce? and that is the congressional finding, and whether or not the decision to soften sure. the second is the necessary and proper clause. it is incidental to an overall scheme that itself is justified by commerce. the third is the tax power. congress made specific findings on each of them. you asked whether or not we had
a different definition of activity or inactivity. what we're saying here is that congress is regulated activity. the activity is participation in the health-care market. that is a virtually universal feature of of human existence. everyone is going to seek health care. the know precisely when. it is if you show up, that issue. and they are sporadic and the noble. and those that make this market different from some of the other marks. >> the admission seems like it is sustainable. but before we get to participating health care, i guess you don't need to make a choice as to whether you're going to get health insurance. and that is an inactivity, to require someone to do something
they don't have to do, to get insurance has a characterization as opposed to whether people participate. i think -- >> we are not focusing as much on inactivity or activity. those words, they can break down semantically. we are asking what the commerce clause is about. the conduct that is being regulated, does it have a substantial effect on commerce? there were specific findings that when people self finance the health care, it raises the cost to you and me. the total for uncompensated costs is $43 billion. that raises the average family premium by thousand dollars a year. untold numbers of people out of the insurance markets altogether.
what congress was doing, essentially regulating the method of payment by which health care, something that everyone seeks is going to be paid for. >> is about payment. it wasn't about consumption, it was about the payment? >> and broccoli example, depending on the way it is served up, if the question is, can congress for someone to buy broccoli, and does not a question you are dealing with. congress is not asking people to buy something they wouldn't otherwise by. everyone needs health care. >> there is always that concern that if we make a ruling here, does this mean -- the question is, are we dealing with is the
ruling in your direction that it would end up that way? >> hit is absolutely important to test the limits of the logic of the government's position. the logic here is not as my friend says, the government is forcing people to buy something that they wouldn't otherwise by. health care is something that people who do need. >> of the government wants to own all of those things. you are, in fact, the statute requires people to buy health insurance or to pay the premium tax penalty, whatever, that is another question. >> is there another time in which congress is invoking its power under the cause has
required people to take some action? >> when we first answer the question, congress acting on the insurance market as opposed to the health-care market. i think is an artificial contention. they are integrally related the markets, which is what i started my argument with the point ha -- >> is the fact that health insurance as opposed to other kinds of insurance is in part by state in part by federal. >> he insurance under the commerce clause, you know that as the supreme court, and it has not been that provision except for the relatively new statute. we don't have this long tradition of congressional regulation.
>> for example, we avoid a lot of -- >> [unintelligible] >> i think this is a crucial point. the health-care market is really something that is the second half of the twentieth century. >> there isn't any data for the 1800's. >> however, is cause and regulation of health care or health insurance? >> of the government has been involved in a variety of ways. there are all sorts of rules that were in place of the government oppose the rule. regulatings isn't health insurance as an end. it is regulating it as a means. the end is more affordable health care for everyone.
congress, i don't thank, under the strict commerce clause or under the necessary and proper ones is limited to the one means of trying to solve the problem. the variety of ways is a flexibility. >> but was able to do when responding to a massive problem. millions of americans that are priced out of the insurance market altogether. >> in regard to the findings, i am curious what morrison has done to congressional findings and commerce clause cases. can you address this? it is important, but i am not sure how important it remains.
>> they talked about their role of congressional findings. >> they are comfortable but not necessary. it is a problem for this court to be able to review those findings, we are applying several principles to them. in here, we ask about it and so on. it is really what about them. there is a strong question of constitutionality. and here, they're coming in and saying that congress is unable to deal with this massive interstate economic problem. that is powerless to deal with it because it violates the commerce clause. >> it is the first time that congress will rely on these
powers. do you disagree with that? >> the first time to infer that obligation on them? i think it depends on how you characterize it. as they were saying earlier, some of the cases could be characterized into the market. people can force people to serve or not. but if the budget is this landmark thing. i think the answer is yes. this is a not social problem on a big scale. it'll be resolved by federal and legal principles. >> was a combination of both? >> he did not specify which
power he invoked. but i believe the election act provides an example, seeing the government requiring a purchase. the test is not what specific clause was a vote, it is rather in deciding what is necessary and proper. the court can look to all sorts of other powers and with the means were that were used. we're only talking about the means. we're only talking about that in the end, everyone agrees with the various health insurance in the market. and that has been absolutely clear that that is a question this is a substantial for congress. >> there are three different arguments. and when we have been talking about us far, that the decision
to selfish her affect interstate commerce. in the first payment, be necessary and proper clause. >> the government regarded the necessary and proper clause. it was congruent with one portion of the common law. is that the government's position? or could something be unconstitutional or not have the cause analysis? you come to this problem, obviously. [unintelligible] is sort of the agenda to the commerce clause.
>> here is what i think we need. >> you would go with that formulation? >> allows extra room for congress to act, they can fill in the gaps in otherwise comprehensive and constitutional schemes. they believed that the thousands of patients are generally constitutional, it is a direct regulation on insurance. and the question about southeast insurance, i think that the court case will not disagree. they can regulate those markets and make sure that millions of americans have access to health care. >> let me understand your characterization.
it is necessary and proper in light of justice scalia's views. congress's regulatory authority is not [unintelligible] including activities on interstate commerce. they arise from the necessary and proper clause. >> they said that is not part of the commerce clause. >> it is a wonderful question of constitutionality. and i think that just as -- justice scalia wants to collapse them.
>> isn't that correct? it doesn't matter for our purposes. >> you want to separate them. >> this court could make a decision on the way. it doesn't particularly matter. i think no one disagrees with the right -- there is broad power to act. it is directly constitutional. it is an otherwise comprehensive regulatory scheme. >> call with -- the problem is that those two faces were really a supply challenge. >> what is the difference
between commerce clause jurisprudence? >> this is another area where the supreme court is a little bit uncertain. our view is that it doesn't matter for the necessary and proper clause. the question here hall, the supply challenge is this. can congress regulate the decision to self insure as part of an overall comprehensive scheme? the answer has to be less because of what congress has before it that they cannot guarantee issues to those with pre-existing conditions unless the also adopted a minimum coverage position. there is strong empirical evidence before.
>> it doesn't go there. >> they can't carry that way. >> not if it is necessary and proper to fill in the gaps. >> of the government argued the necessary and proper clause. >> without comprehensive legislation and an obstacle, we can explain what congress is doing first. that we can talk about the differences, if any. there are eight states it with insurance markets. all of them, if you have the evidence, the insurance premium skyrockets and the market craters. the only states that worked was massachusetts. they coupled a guaranteed issue provision of the un like in those seven states, they gave up
and to buy insurance with a wave of the hospital. everyone waited so premiums went up. the only way to make the insurance reforms were was to have the minimum coverage provision. >> it is one of those great federalism experiments. >> this is part of a comprehensive scheme that makes it different, going back to your question about morrison. >> the they have something about pre-existing vision that is different from this one? think about states. if massachusetts can do it, it occurred to me that what i recall, it may have been a distinction on the pre-existing conditions.
the answer to your question is, does california see it? individual states on their own kind of very difficult to do this. but they are born often buy them and not by other states. massachusetts says our system worked, but it would work a lot better and help our system is there was another solution. >> you talk about states. if you only move one state, with the citizens, that is a problem. the the you can do it in the state like massachusetts unless the residency requirement changes.
>> that is exactly the argument that the california supreme court made to the united states. it is hypothetical about the virginia people going to maryland. that means one of the things congress was worried about was interstate repercussions. that is the role of the national government here. if you give it to other things, states may be able to deal with it. >> even go back to the supply challenges. that is what made it pretty clear. it wasn't a challenger, and it was over there. you don't make that contention either. you don't use it as a supply
challenged. to the state has required people to find it the same way? caution that as a question of the corps has to confront. >> other court at another time. the sum of my friend's remarked earlier, that makes it seem like what we're doing here. and just _ what congress is doing is regulating the and who needs of a groove that they otherwise would buy. is congress reacting to the market and huge economic effects as part of the purchase of wheat? i imagine the answer could be yes. because of the power we are asserting here, nothing of the
court should get into that because congress is reacting to something really different, and that is the first finding. >> seems when you talk about payment, from your perspective, light is responsibility. somebody has to pay for it. the regular citizens, the government. the question is, will the government require citizens to be responsible? or can you simply do nothing and wait until you get sick? it seems to be a formulation. as someone once said to me, if you want to form the issue, i will let you give that answer. >> when i listened to the statement, he makes a very good
argument from this perspective on an activity. yet given this judicial choices to make and i guess that makes the job a little difficult. >> that is exactly to the first half of your question. i said i would reject the characterization that what congress is doing is regulating activity. i know that is my friend's argument, some rhetorical of course. but what congress is doing here is dealing with the situation in which everyone is participating in the health-care market. many are doing it in an irresponsible way. >> and a broad sense, i am thinking in terms of social welfare. people can choose to not do things and somebody has to pay for it.
you don't choose to work, which will lead all kinds of social help. this is an instance where it is kind of the opposite. , you'rey you're saying responsible for paying that, but we as a nation are not going to allow them to go to emergency rooms and say that we are not going to treat you. somebody is going to ultimately treat them in the process. so from my perspective, we're going to make you responsible as citizens and you cannot put yourself in a position of not being responsible. of the state will address this, too, when you come back. am i wrong on that? >> doesn't that leave you with the whole argument that we now have a federal government as big
brother? >> ipod so at all. this is a situation in which people are invariably going to seek health care. they are active participants in that market. the only question is about financing. the gm car was another hypothetical. you can't show up at the gm lot and drive up -- and drive off with a car. the health-care market, it is different for health care because federal regulations, federal law, state law, they provide duties on a broader scale. someone is going to pay. that is what congress found. >> the way the government addresses it is by taxing everybody. >> that is how it is taking care
of. >> >> we can talk about that for a few minutes because i think congress did essentially invoke the tax power here. and what they did is certainly justified by the tax power. >> is that the d.c. case? >> we won the case in dc on appeal. we can defend the judgment on any grounds given the way. >> when the case. >> [unintelligible] >> there is an answer to that, but i am not sure. >> is there any legal
significance that we are to [unintelligible] >> more so than the supreme court, it was justified by the tax power which built with something called the premium. >> what if congress had said this is not a tax? >> i think would be still clear in this case, and in the csx case, it said it was really functional, what was congress doing, and the supreme court in 1948 in the woods case was the listed on this point. what are as the congress building, -- what is the congress doing, what is going on. >> does the absence of a robust
enforcement mechanism change anything? >> i don't believe so. i think with this court has looked to enforcement, they have asked the question, who is doing the enforcing? is it a criminal apparatus or the secretary of the treasury? here, the secretary of the treasury. >> but the only potential enforcement mechanism out there is the withholding of a tax refund. am i right? >> there are two different enforcement mechanisms. one is the tax withholding and is returned. the other is the irs be be able to file a lawsuit through the treasury and obtain information. >> if a taxpayer committed fraud -- >> excuse me? >> what if the taxpayer committed fraud with respect to this filing that were supposed
to make? would the internal revenue service have action for fraud under other provisions? >> my sense is that they would, but i would be hesitant to give you an authoritative answer on something that will not come up until 2014. i do not want to give an answer to that at this point. here are the things the court has looked to determine if something is a tax or penalty, whether it is punitive. one is, is it revenue-raising? congress found they would raise $4 billion per year. that is undoubtably revenue raising. is it for the general welfare? congress found that it was. finally, a hard question is, is it punitive? is it something like a criminal punishment? and therefore it is not justified by the taxpayer? -- by the text power? that is what we have some
problems with. the criminal statute, it does not exist here. the police themselves are not exorbitant. they are tied directly to the problem. and unlike any other criminal penalty, when you pay the penalty here, you are excused altogether from the underlying thing that the government is asking you to do, which is to have insurance. i don't think this looks like a penalty. i think it looks like a tax and functions like a tax. >> one of the things talked about in the child labor cases was the object of taxation, that was pushed back and talked about, it is it a commodity that is being taxed? think that itself is
relevant to that. congress can pass any number of things that are not commodities, from insurance to legal services. >> the court says the object of taxation is not a commodity. >> i understand that, but congress has power over taxation. otherwise, that would be a remarkable step to take to apply only to commodities. >> is it application tax? >> i don't think so. equally, everyone pays the same amount of money. this is not everyone pays the same amount of money. it is tethered to individual conduct. it is undoubtedly a tax in the mind of the public, because every april 15, they will know because of this law that they have to pay a certain amount of money or don't have to pay it because of if they have met the
minimum requirements. >> that have been told it is not a tax credit when it was enacted, there were told it is not a tax. at which point in time? >> i think congress was very clear in many different places, the supporters of the bill, the opponents of the bill. i think the bill and the senate was defeated on this ground, on the ground that in part it was a legitimate exercise. >> in the first argument, it said that the congress -- it did not really matter what the congress said about it. that all of this fight about what is this dilemma is beside the point. >> absolutely. >> the supreme court in recent
years has been very concerned about limits. are we not just opening up to a limited congressional power here? >> not at all. first of all, what we're seeking is quite narrow. it is about regulating financing transactions. it falls within it -- >> but given all of these incredible statistics about how huge this industry is, whether calling it health care or health insurance, it is narrow, and all of sudden this huge industry regulating this huge amount of legislation becomes this narrow position. >> it is a big industry and huge regulation, but it is followed by principles that did not expand to the limits. with this court said and gives
is that it established fundamental limits. this is the language, page 491. it rests on the principle that where a federal statute has connection to congress and infringes on traditional concerns, which assumes in memory of power. our point is that we completely agree that there are too rock- solid reasons -- there are two rock-solid reasons to use this. one is the can't act. -- one is the kent act. and it cannot infringe on state responsibilities. for the reasons i suggested earlier, this is a market that is truly national. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.
>> judge, and answered your question about whether this is the court's responsibility, i think that is in fact what this is. we could potentially say because there is homelessness, everybody needs some kind of purchase of a home. because there is obesity, everybody needs to consume vegetables. because there is obesity, there are other things that need to be done, too. therefore the need to join a health facility. in fact, there was testimony by a harvard law professor in the record that said perhaps congress could force people to join a health club. i think what we have here is the concern --
>> i want to make sure i understand the distinction. the examples, as opposed to what is going on here, they're saying it is not a choice whether you use health care services. in aggregate, you want to use health care services. i don't think you could make that argument or that in aggregate they will be on fit. i am trying to make the connection. but i see where you are going with this, but i want to know about that distinction. help me out with that distinction. i am thinking that if the argument is that you will in aker could use health care services -- in the aggregate that you will use health care services and this is an essential component to make this act by congress work to deal with what you will in aggregate
deal with, as opposed to the example you gave, and you have the differentiation. >> first of all, we're looking at the health care market as opposed to the health insurance market. >> that is what i wanted to know. your feeling is the other premise, and that is in the aggregate, individuals will require health care services at some point, and somebody not have to take care of it. but you dispute that. as being a comprehensive regulatory scheme. >> i dispute that everyone has to participate in the health- care market. >> but in aggregate, and when you are dealing with aggregation -- [inaudible]
>> that is why most people -- there is not a proper way to say everyone will be an aggregate. at the universal consequences to consuming because of the way they feel and the bodies, that congress can do this year in health insurance, congress could force others to consume certain kinds of food. [inaudible] >> could you help me understand the difference as applied, compared with a car commercial commerce clause? -- compared with the commercial commerce clause? >> winfred, there was no
challenge to the law. they just wanted to be exempted out. they as individuals wanted to be exempted out of the application, whereas here, the challenge here is a special challenge to a component of the mandate, and not only does it not apply here, it does not apply anywhere else. in that case, it did not apply to those individuals. >> so it is a special challenge to the individual mandate. >> correct, yes. >> alright, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> now available, the c-span congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact
information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> what series of choices they make to become terrorists to kill hundreds of thousands of people? >> looking at the architect of the 9/11 attacks. >> understanding him is about understand the future of the war on terror. now that osama bin laden it is dead, this is what we have to fear, these other terrorists. them inside the mind of a terrorist, sunday night. also note download at podcast of the show, one of our many signature interview programs, available online at c- span.org/podcast. >> this weekend on american
history tv, former massachusetts governor and presidential candidate michael dukakis on the master politician calvin coolidge and how he evolved into a popular political figure, a look at the jimmy carter and his handling of the energy crisis in the 1970's, and longs term -- a long-term restoration, and american history tv will be live from mississippi on the 50th anniversary of the freedom riders. >> next, we go live to the republican presidential candidate newt gingrich as he addresses the georgia republican party convention in macon. he announced he was running for president wednesday by twitter and today he returns to his home state to speak to the georgia gop. this will be his first speech to a political group as a declared candidate.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you guys are going to be tired of seeing me before this weekend is over, but tonight i have a great honor -- first of all, i want to thank sue for all of the wonderful thing she has done for our state party and all of the elected officials. you have done a great job. [applause] many of you may not know this, but in 1976, i went to west georgia college and i took a geography class from professor newt gingrich. and immediately started upon a journey that i clearly cannot describe in all its detail, but
i will share a couple of things, but i don't use up too much time because i think we all really want to hear from newt. in 1976, newt was running for his second time, having lost in 1974 in the midst of the watergate fiasco. in 1976, jimmy carter was the head of the ticket. you have to question his sense of timing for running for congress out of georgia. but in 1978, he was elected to the united states congress. in 1979, i went to washington and lived in the basement of his house. of course, as we all know, he then went on to lead a revolution. and he became the republican speaker of the united states house of representatives in 1994, riding on one simple concept, and that is that elected officials could make a contract with americans about what they would do if elected.
and within the first 100 days of the 104th congress, newt gingrich made good on his promise. but then he went on to do many other things that seemed impossible today. he balanced the budget. i know that is a shocker, because we in georgia, with the benefit of our speaker and a governor and lieutenant governor balance the budget every year. he balanced the budget at the federal level, pay down the deficit, reform welfare, and kept our country protected. when he left the speakership, he went on to become a small businessman, write 11 best sellers, along with callisto produce 60 bebe'dvd's.
many of us all remember newt from way back when. in that way, tonight is really like a homecoming. that is like having an old friend come back to share wonderful memories and think about all those things that have been done. it but since he has left the speakership, he has become a grandfather, maddie and robert, a loving husband and father to peggy sue and kathy, small business leader, and later. but for everybody here in the room, we all remember and love him not just as professor gingrich but as mr. speaker. mr. speaker, welcome. ♪ [applause]
>> well, first of all, thank you all very, very much. i am delighted to be home, delighted to be with -- fenty -- very many old friends who go back a long way. -- delighted to be with it -- thank you, very many old friends. i was reminded of how long i went into this when i was reminded of how long had been in this. there was a young intern there. that said you look familiar, have we met? he said, no, but my father was a page for you. [laughter] so, i look out at a lot of friends here to go back a very long time. i walked in and while ago and i
was reminded that she and i first started campaigning in 1973 together. the only thing i would disagree with -- excuse me, i have allergies. the only thing i would disagree with the introduction of about is i suspect most of you, at least the ones i was talking to and getting pictures with don't think of me as mr. speaker, i think most of you think of me as newt, and i suspect we ought to keep it that way. electt know if we can speaker gingrich, but i know that we can elect newt. i did decide that after long consultation with my family and spending a year thinking about it that i would run for president. [applause]
we made that decision, i think, for the most profound reason. the united states of america is in trouble and it needs every possible citizen to come to its aid if we are to remain the great center of freedom, the great developer of prosperity, and the provider of safety to our citizens and friends around the world. i think the challenges we face are so large that it requires leadership of an unusual kind. i don't believe that any one person in the oval office to make a decisive difference. i believe there are 300 million americans who have to be recruited, educated, convinced, led to work together so that all the fuss, putting our shoulders on the wheel, can make a
decisive difference. i believe the gap between where the people in this room and the vast majority of the people of georgia would take america and where president obama would take america it is so enormous that this would be the most consequential election since 1860. i believe that we are at a crossroads. [applause] down one road is a european, centralized, bureaucratic, socialist welfare system in which politicians and bureaucrats define the future. down the other road is a proud, sovereign reaffirmation of american sectionalism -- american exceptional wasn't an a commitment that we are all equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable
rights. [applause] this is the boldest, most radical statement about political power in human history. our founding fathers asserted in the declaration of independence, literally, that power comes from god to each one of you personally. you are personally sovereign, and you loan power to the government, the government does not loan power to you. [applause] so the choice will be between an obama administration which believes that politicians define
the future, with bureaucrats and implementing the future, and that we are merely subjects who were supposed to do with the government instructs us to do, and a gingrich administration which asserts probably that we are americans, that we are a free people, that the power starts at home, is vested in the citizens, and we're going to enforce the 10th amendment, that we are going to shrink government and washington dramatically, and we're going to return to a country that believes in the work ethic, opportunity, freedom, and in every american having a chance to pursue happiness without being dictated to by bureaucratic, politicians, and judges. [applause] we believe in this so deeply that we have launched three parallel projects. we've just completed a movie, "a city upon a hill," which
outlines in detail what american exceptional as a means. on june 14, i have a book coming out called a nation like no other, which outlines for historians, for people who want a deep in-depth understanding of what american exception alyssum is not only where it came from but why it is important and how -- what american exception alyssum is not only where it came from but why it is important. and september, there is a book called "sweet land of liberty," which is ellis the elephant introducing american children to history starting with key events starting with pilgrims and other offense. the reason we're doing these is we want to make very clear to the american news media which would like to avoid this debate that we are prepared to take on the pseudo intellectuals of the left on the core definition of the nature of america, and not based on conservative ideology,
not based on philosophy, but based on the accurate historical representation of the founding fathers and the concept that we hold these truths to be self evident. that will be a key center point of our campaign. we will go to every neighborhood, every background, every ethnic group, if you believe in america as a unique place, then we want you on our side and we want to work with you to make sure that we continue to be a special place. at the same time we're going to say, if you think a european model where you aren't subjected to the bureaucracy and dependent on the politicians, minute by political structure, you have a party -- where you are subjected to the bureaucracy in japan and other politicians, you have a party, and you should be for obama. when you go home tonight, if you
want to help me, go in email, facebook, twitter, and tell all of your friends around the country to go to newt.org and sign up. one of the sections that we robot and the next couple weeks will be a section for first- generation americans. i find people are around the country some of the people who best understand american exception alyssum are people who come here for the very first time -- american exception alyssum are people who come here for the very first time because they have seen the contrast. we have to illustrate that and we are thrilled. maybe he will be one of the folks that will help us watch first generation americans talking about american exceptionalism. sometimes i say to become an american citizen, americans --
immigrants all to learn american history. [applause] but maybe we should also have a voting standard that says to vote as a native-born american, he should have to learn american history -- you should have to learn american history. the you realize how many of our students could not pass the citizenship test? now, america it is a cultural memory. it is only one generation deep. we stand across roads. if we lose this fight and we have four more years of radical, left-wing values in washington, this country will be dramatically weakened, the fabric of our society will be weakened, and we will be in deep trouble. but if we win this fight, particularly on a principled policy basis, not personalities
of policy, the american people faced with these choices decisively choose a feature of american exceptionalism, shoes a feature with the work ethic, then i think we will do it very well. the second -- let's bring it home to georgia. what a job program in georgia look like? but what a program for jobs in america look like? let me tell you, the reason i think we have to focus on this is very straightforward. because we are a free society, america's only works when americans are working. people have to have a job -- [applause] the most important social welfare program in america is a job, and nothing replaces it as the center of how you get to a healthy country.
[applause] i started the day talking to a conference in washington. some of you remember the laugher curve, which says there is a point in taxation will start losing revenue because you raise taxes too much. our laugher, jude, jack kemp, a number of people including me in the 1970's developed supply side economics, which was returned to general economics. a part of what it said was if you want economic growth, you incentivize it. if you want more jobs, you incentivize. if you want encourage people to take risk, yet incentivize it. it was pretty straightforward. in 1980, ronald reagan campaigned on that. in 1980, we had 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, we were rationing gasoline every other
days, and we were sliding into the worst recession from the great depression and the obama recession. at that point, ronald reagan can along, all the left-wing intellectuals wanted to do more of what was making us sick. at that point, ronald reagan came along and he had a program that was very simple -- dramatic reduction in taxes to incentivize people economically, dramatic reduction in regulations to make it easier t, happy, and positive about business owners, whether they are small, brave new start-ups, big companies. if you take the risk and create a job, i am proud of the. this is the opposite of the obama model. it was illustrated when it went to brazil recently. having stopped all american
drilling for oil and gas offshore, he had the nerve to go to the brazilians and said, i am proud that you are developing oil and gas offshore. i am proud we have on you several billions dollars to purchase equipment from a company owned by george soros, and then he said, we want to be your best customer. first of all, he has a model that says we're going to borrow from the chinese to pay the brazilians. now, that will not work economically. second, we need a president who goes out to the world and says, i want you to be our best customer. we need it the president who says i want to sell you american products. [applause] i outlined this morning and it will be posted at newt.org an entire economic program. i will not go into all of it in
detail, but i do want to share with you the tax component. first, we freeze all the current taxes so nobody is faced with the danger of taxes going up in 2013. because if we do not freeze the taxes, we will get to an investment freeze in about june of next year as ever but it waits to see what the tax code will be and we will increase the likelihood of going into second, deeper recession. if we go into recession with 9% unemployment, we have real problems. at second, there are for tax cuts. i will be open about this. i am looking forward in october to debating president obama about it. i am happy to have a long business debate with the white house. i stand for tax cuts designed to increase the number of jobs in the united states by incentivizing the people who create jobs. [applause]
president obama believes america will make the bridge pour by leveling down, not -- before we make the rich poor by leveling down. that is a fundamental difference. my goal is to get back to where we were when i left the speakership. because we cut taxes and we had the largest capital gains tax cut -- the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, we got from 5.6% to under 4% unemployment your left office. if we move from 15% which is the correct number from unemployed, the under-employed, and quit looking for work, if we got down to 4% unemployment, the number of people that you would take off food stamps, off unemployment, off medicaid and you put them back to work making
a living, ping to run away, paying taxes, that is the biggest single step towards a balanced budget that you can take because you or lowering costs and raising revenue simultaneously -- because you are lowering cost and increasing revenue simultaneously. so it is the first that of moving back to a dramatic economic growth. i would have at your major tax cuts. one, correct the capital gains tax rate at zero. [applause] just think about that, everybody tells you, all of the world, there are people with capital. they want to build something, that would like to create a new company, build a new factor. if you woke up one morning and u.s. capital gains tax rate was zero, could you imagine how much capital would flow into the united states to create new jobs?
second, the correct corporate rateates is the ira's tax of 12%. -- is the irs tax rate of 12%. we currently have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which means, guess what, corporations don't pay it. the red clay, this is terrific, obama is out there, -- theoretically, this is terrific, obama is out there, theoretically socking it to the big companies. he is so effective, they paid zero. why? because 35%, it is worth their while to hire 375 tax lawyers, the largest tax department in the world that it's up every morning at general electric and says, what are the loopholes that let us avoid paying taxes? i don't blame general electric, i blame a tax code that is rewarding behavior of not paying
the taxes. i want to find the corporate tax rate at which they will lay off the lawyers and pay the government. because it is cheaper to just pay the tax then to avoid it. third, we must go to 100% expensing for all new equipment. this is a big deal for farmers and business. you should be able to write off old equipment every year in 12 months, and that will -- [applause] the goal is very straightforward -- we want the american worker to be the best equipped, the most modern, the most productive worker in the world. we want the american machine tool industry in the world to be the most modern and effective in the world. germany pays 50% more manufacturing labor than we do, and they today have their lowest unemployment rate in 19 years.
we have a government that actually works on exports. and the government actually favors jobs, that wants people to go to work. one of my pledges is that we will appoint as the u.s. trade representative a trial lawyer, and we want somebody with the right kind of personality that they can fly into beijing every monday morning looking for a fight. [laughter] and we simply want to teach the chinese, glad you came into the big leagues, now we will show you what the big leagues are really like and we will fight for every sale around the world to maximize american industrial production and american job production. [applause] finally, the fourth tax change is to eliminate permanently the death tax. [applause]
one of the things which always surprised me about republican leadership in washington is they have never been able to understand that for my entire adult lifetime, eliminating the death tax is 80% issue. people who are never going to pay it a hate it, for the deepest of cultural reasons. first of all, most americans believe is just wrong to require somebody to visit the irs and the undertaker in the same week. it is just grotesque. [laughter] second, americans deeply believe that if you work all your life, you save all your life, you did everything right, and your twin brother or twin sister did everything wrong, there's something fundamentally wrong with the government reaching and your wallet the day you die and taking away half your money to give it your brother and sister in some form of government program. it is your money, you earned it, you paid for with your lifetime of work, you keep it. [applause]
there is also a practical jobs- creating part of this. you get some great business figure, and they create hundreds of jobs. now, when i was teaching at college, one of the great joys of my life was getting to meet or richards. he is one of the great business people of georgia, in getting to know bill flowers. state,.the street business people. i don't want them spending the last 20 years of their lives on tax avoidance. i want them growing a bigger company to hire more people to be even more productive, and that is fundamentally what we have to get back to. [applause] now, we will get back to a
dramatic economic growth. by the way, i will summarize this is the easiest possible format to tell your friends and neighbors and everyone of you can take this to every neighborhood of every ethnic background in your county. it is very simple. walk out the door, say, go to the grocery store come talk to the people and say, would you rather have food stamps for a paycheck? if they tell you they would rather have food stamps, don't worry about it, we need it liberal democrats. but i bet you in almost every neighborhood in america, 80% of the people will say, you know, i won a paycheck, oh my kids to have a paycheck. i want the freedom and opportunity to have a paycheck. why is this important? president obama is the most successful food stamp president in american history. [applause] more people are on food stamps today than any point in american history, and he is proud of it.
i would like to be the most successful paycheck president in american history. [applause] and i would like to voter, the last thing before they vote, a couple questions you want to ask before you vote, and one of them will be, the want a future of paychecks or a future of food stamps? i believe that we win that argument dramatically. it also say if you want economic growth, a unit also have to have an american energy policy producing energy in the united states. [applause] the fact is when we developed drill here, drill now, pay less, we were right, they were wrong. if they had drilled now in 2000, we would be paying less in 2011.
that is not an accident. [applause] which gets me to one of the central themes of this campaign. my theme will be, together, we can win the future. the right policies lead to the right results. i will argue that, in fact, president obama represents was in the future because of the wrong policies leading to the lot -- the wrong results. the easiest to examples are detrick and texas. if you want to study job prosperity in a better future, start with detroit, which through three generations of bad politicians and bad policies went from 1 million, 800,000 people at highest per-capita income in the united states and dropped to less than 700,000 people last year. over half of the houses in detroit are not occupied. that is a catastrophe comparable to war. it was not a tsunami, there was not a flood, it was not an
earthquake, it was politicians. this is a city destroyed by bad policies. when the other hand, rick berry -- our campaign has rob johnson as our campaign manager, it was his campaign manager last year. he started 27 points behind senator kay bailey hutchison and ended the year 21 points ahead. i am not promising new a 48 point swing against obama, but it is a nice model to think about. [laughter] in texas, with a bureaucracy that encourages businesses to move in, what have they done? in two of the last four years, over half of the private sector jobs in america have been in one state, texas. you think anybody in washington is studying texas? it has all the wrong lessons, small government, a legislature
that meets only every other gear. imagine a government where congress was only allowed to meet every other year. [applause] part of my summer about economics is simple, you want a party that is going to try to learn from texas how to create jobs in america, the gingrich campaign like to have your help. if you want a campaign that will do for america what they did to detroit, obama is your man. we will talk about american exceptionalism, balanced budget, spending, and the third thing we'll talk about his national security and homeland security. let me say about foreign policy, we should have won. -- we should have one. [laughter] [applause]
but i will go a step further. we should have an american foreign policy based on american interests, doing what is right for america. [applause] when the president of the united states goes to make a major speech explaining libya by citing the united nations and the arab league eight times and you knowcongress wantsonce, that he does not have a clue about how to lead american foreign policy. and let me be very clear, you know, think about this. he cites the arab league. have any of you look at what mix of the arab league? it is mostly dictators and
monarchs. it is important recognize that dealing with the realities of the world, but they're not exactly the 40 figures. authority not exactly figures. if you told me the king of this and the sultan of that and the duke of this and the prince of that have decided that we should do "x," i have less interest than if you told me what 5 random people at the grocery store said. why would we take a self-serving group and use this as our thesis? and then you say, well, the u.n. said. have you looked at the united nations? the truth is that george mitchell, the former majority leader, shared the united nations reform task force. the general assembly is a totally corrupt institution, the bureaucracy is totally corrupted, and the idea that an american president would take seriously the practice of the dead nations is a sign that he
does not understand the real world -- of the united nations is a sign that he does not understand the real world. i think we have to reset our foreign security and national security policies building around american interests to protect american lives, working with those countries that are truly our allies. finally, i think all of us need to realize that one of the side effects of the killing of osama bin laden has to be a real exploration of our relationship with pakistan. [applause] i don't know about the rest of you, but when i learned that after paying $20 billion since 9/11 they had been housing him in pakistan for the last nine and half years, i was trying to figure out what the word "ally" meant. i know what the word "sucker"
meant. there was a point where you have to say to people all around the world, how stupid do you think we are? is there any person in this world who believes that with some of that laden was in that place with a town that size that long and nobody in the pakistani government knew? it is absurd. i think we need to throw reappraisal of what our policies are and what we're trying to accomplish. let me close by -- if my good friend sue will let me -- long before she became a statewide figure, she was the chair of my teachers advisory group in the sixth district of georgia. we go back a fair distance. [applause] let me just say, candidly, when i first ran in 1974, the middle of watergate, people said i could not win, and it turned out they were right.
[laughter] but i got 48.5%. i came back in 1978, and jimmy carter was running for president as democrat, a huge president, huge turnout, and people said i cannot win, and your right. i finally came back and won in 1970. this leads directly for how i hope our presidential campaign will work. if we had not had the south fulton republican women opening the office, we would not have been able to campaign. if we had not had the spalding county republican women opening the office, we cannot have campaigned. if we had not had young republicans showing up from all of the states over the weekend in helping us out, we could not have campaigned. i realize in trying to get from here to the nomination that i am faced with some fairly find people, and at least three of
them to personally write checks for $60 million or more and not notice. but we have been a good few years out of office, but they have not been that good. [laughter] furthermore, the kind of campaign of want to run it is not about somebody writing a giant check. the kind of campaign i want to run is getting every neighbor, every friend that i can to tweet , e-mail, telephone, facebook, walk the neighborhood, chat with friends saturday morning over coffee. i like to directly say to each one of you, the people i have worked with in the creation and growth of the drug republican party, and, lieutenant governor -- of the georgia republican party, and lieutenant governor, i am so happy this has occurred. by the way, jack kemp and i did a lot of good work together in the mid-1990s, and it is not to
be with him tonight. a boston scott -- austen scott, doing a great job. [applause] the nice thing about being gerrymandered so often in the old days, have so many friends who represents some districts. [laughter] speaker murphy condit rid of me on the grounds that if he did not, there would eventually be too many republicans. he was right. i just want to say that when we began the campaign, we were very honored. the senator led the campaign and was a co-chair. governor produce signed up and said he would help lead it. i would like to ask each of you to consider becoming a leader. help us reach out. but to make this the most fun, interesting, idea-oriented campaign in history. i will close with this. this is something i learned from reagan.
he used to get attacked by the new york times and cbs news, and he never seemed to notice. it was interesting. i asked him one afternoon, a junior member, and occasionally i would get to meet with the president. i was fascinated. he said, look, i represent the vast majority of the american people. i represent the key principles that have made as a great country. i represent the idea that it actually works. why would i not be happy? they represent a bitter minority whose ideas are really destructive and they have no future. why would they be happy? so when they are mean it and miserable, it tells you who they are, not who we are. everybody who would like to be classic americans seeking opportunities, pursuing happiness, having a great future, everybody would like to have a paycheck, everybody who would like to have an american foreign policy and american energy policy, you have a chance to have a great, happy 18
months. and then after we win, will be even happier. thank you all very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you, newt, very much. he is right, it is a turning point for our country. we have to take it back. i have a few housekeeping items. the first is please do not take the centerpieces, we need them for breakfast. [laughter]
the prius meeting will begin at 8:30 -- the praise meeting will begin at 8:30. and then we will have the victory celebration at the marriott. you can dance all night if that is what you want to do. and anything else that you would like to do over there, we would have be -- we would be happy to see you back. i will just say i look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning at the breakfast honoring the governor. that starts at 7:30. good night, have a good evening, and thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by
on conversations people are having with a presidential candidate for 2012, newt gingrich. we are going to open the file lines and see what you think about the gop lineup so far. the numbers to call or at the bottom of your screen. we are going to keep an eye on the room as a former speaker newt gingrich makes its way around to talking to various people. let's listen in.
gop lineup. you have the numbers on the bottom of the screen. our first call comes from a democrat in georgia. >> thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a few comments about -- are reside in his old district. i would like to say that georgia democrats did not take well to the former speaker criticizing former speaker tom murphy for the redistricting, especially in a state where the republicans have turned over the redistricting process to a
kentuck -- to a consulting firm of. >> what do you think about his chances in this race? >> i think that his chances, if he continues to talk the same, they're not very well. at this is about the situation that we face in the country. if you aren't middle-class or a poor country and this country, would you be better off under this policy? would you be under a president -- those of us to do not work and make of work to under $50,000 a year, that is the choice that we face as a country. a president that thinks about poor people, the middle class, people who are losing their jobs, or one who values the opinion of the wealthy people in this country. >> we will leave it there. we will go on to john, a
republican in kentucky. >> good evening. thank you very much for taking my call. i'm so elated tonight. i was contacting newt gingrich in 20 08 to ask him to run back then. be considered it, but decided that the time was not right. >> what do you think about him declaring this time around? >> i think the time is perfect. i applaud his statement that this election was about policies, not personalities. he was talking about facts and real decisions that -- beyond a gifted speaker, and inarticulate, and knowing the
business of our government and known the business of running the country, he also has great vision and brilliant ideas and brilliant understanding that he puts altogether. i have written him an e-mail to tell him about how i would like to help him in the energy rom. -- realm. i am supporting him. theet's get a call from independent line in trade we will go to new york city. >> i want to ask a question regarding changing demographics of the country. we all know that the country is aging rapidly. we are going to have twice as many people over age 65 by 2025 as we do now. we will have 70 million seniors.
at least 25% of u.s. adults are now carrying -- caring for their family members at home on coat you incur a lot of financial distress. >> what do you think about this line up in terms of the concerns that you have? >> i live not heard anything from anyone and i want to hear what newt gingrich thinks he can do. it makes a lot of sense to start distributing resources to the families. it is so much better for people to be cared for at tom rather than the model that we have now. just giving money to nursing homes. a lot of people do want to continue to take care of their elders, it is just that they cannot miss out on the payments from the labor market. >> we probably will be hearing about some health care concerns,
specifically from mitch romney -- mitt romney. he is starting his potential campaign for president by addressing the health care reform that he signed into law while he was massachusetts gov.. it is opposed by a lot of conservatives. the former governor addressed health care directly from the university of michigan when he reiterated his call to repeal and replace the national law. we are taking your calls and find out what you think about the gop lineup. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. let's go to minneapolis, minn., and richard on the democrats' line. >> the republicans always sound like democrats to confuse the independence because that is their key to winning the
election. that is what they want to do. they did the exact opposite of what they say when they are running. mitt omrney had a heart when he was governor, now he does not because if he does not go against what he helped create and pass in massachusetts, he does not have a snowball's chance to make it at all. >> who has a chance? >> i would like to see trump did is because he would really shake them up. he is anti-establishment. he is against everything the republicans stand for. it would be an interesting race if it came down between obama and gem because some -- obama and emma because he is a businessman and he knew he -- he has been on the other side of
the fence. he is a success story. >> we do want to get a couple of calls android we will go to georgia -- we do want to get a couple calls in. we will go to georgia. >> i want to predict that rodney will be the next president. i think he will be like ronald reagan, at a great believer in free enterprise, capitalism. he is a successful businessman and i am so fired up about 10, i cannot even sleep at night. he is a businessman and he has been very successful. he knows how to create jobs and he knows the answers is to keep taxes down. i am just really fired up and energized. >> we will take one more call on this open phones session. we will go to madison, ga., and duane is on our independent line. >> i used to be a republican.
i met newt gingrich many years ago in a meeting before he was elected to congress. my problem with them, he is an intellectual, he writes very good books. but i have an ethical problem with him and that is am abandoning his wife during her bouts with cancer. i think that is a real problem for me because somebody that would do that, we do not know what he would do. mitt romney has a failing health care plan in massachusetts and had a business in an offshore at bats. he is out there playing the game. i am sure there are a lot of people that have accounts with him in one of this island
business establishment. mike huckabee has got a nice personality, like him as a host -- >> hill is your top choice? >> here is the bottom line. i like donald trump. i am not happy with this playboy past, but he is a graduate of the wharton school of business and the knows how to run things and clean this government up. i'll let somebody who tells it the way that it is. >> very good. we will leave the last word with you. that does in the recession. i want to let you know that on sunday night, 6:30, you can see newt gingrich, it's again to the georgia republican convention. coming up next, ron paul of texas, he formally announced his
you. i am very pleased to call and center. chris, thank you for your efforts. i want to the knowledge all of our special guest behind me. thank you very much for attending. thank you for coming. i am so delighted to see you involved in our revolution. [applause] i have one of data about the revelation. the revolution is spreading and the momentum is building. the momentum is here today not because of what i have done, it is necessary that the grass- roots people understand what the issues are, in a generation
of people need to know. i am delighted that the young people are with us in this revolutionary. that we have. [applause] a lot of other work has been done. it has been the intellectual work. i am convinced that a nation does not change just for partisan reasons. what has to happen is there has to be an intellectual revolution to energize people and get people to understand the problems from economic and political terms. that is what has been happening for quite a few decades. there is quite a bit of difference about attitudes, economics, foreign policy today than it was in 1976 when i was first elected. there is a big difference. involves a lot of work from a lot of people and now that so many people in this country have come to understand that
government to so far in its pretense that they can take care of us from cradle to grave and police the world, it is so evident that this crime number of people that government is not the solution. government has created the problem. [applause] our opponents say, you people do not want any government. you know, in our society, with our constitution, there is a role for government. the constitution was written explicitly not to restrain your behavior and your life, it was written to restrain the federal government. [applause]
because of the educational efforts and the work that so many have done, all those strong evidence there is a failure of there, especially since we saw what happened with the housing bubble and that was a predictable event that the housing bubble would burst. it did, and because of all that, people are now listening to this revolutionary spirit that is spreading across this country. [applause] is great that i'm able to announce in this very special state, i am very pleased that i am once again able to say that i am a candidate for the presidency. [applause]
there are many who live to belittle this effort to, but let me tell you, there is an old saying, 3 is the charm. [applause] the conditions have certainly changed even from four years ago. when i think back over the first year that i came up here, it must've been the end of 2006 or to a dozen 7, the atmosphere was
a lot different grade -- the atmosphere was a lot different. it did not make all of us to believe in liberty all that happy. there has been a said it didn't change. the people have awoken and they have sent a message and elected a lot of new people to your state legislature. i will tell you what, i am convinced that liberty is alive and well in new hampshire. [applause] there is a lot of talk about what you should seek in a president. i am not one that is prone to talk about, i did this, i will do this. but i can tell generically about what i think the president should be able to do. one thing the american cable want -- the american people want, they want a strong
president. the question you should ask, where should those strengths be directed? should this trend of the president be directed toward building homeland security and policing the world? the strength and the character of the individual should be directed towards standing out for freedom, standing up for liberty, and restraining government. that is for the strength should be. [applause] there's been a lot of challenges already today and yesterday and this last week because of certain positions. i find one very fascinating. that has to do with the drug issue. it is so symbolic of understanding what liberty is all about. when you think of my position,
my position is that you have a right to a freedom of choice with your lives. that i believe is basic principle of liberty. what does that mean? if you have civil liberties and write your life and your property. it means that you can make a very important choices. for most of these, most americans agree with that. yes, the most important thing in my personal life is that i and my family and others, we make our decisions about our spiritual life. about our salvation grade it cannot be done by government and we have to provide the maximum out of freedom for individuals to make those decisions. the government should always but out of our spiritual lives. [applause] also, intellectually, we are fairly good at that. the political correctness movement has tried to undermine a, but most americans believe in
the first amendment and say that we have a right to talk about controversial issues. the first amendment was not written for us to be able to talk about the weather. it is written so that we can discuss controversial issues and read a dangerous literature, especially the literature that promotes big government and socialism. we recognized that to be the case. all the sudden, people have lost the understanding of liberty and we have conceded way too much to the government to decide what we put into our own bodies, if we can control what goes into our spiritual life, it goes into our intellectual life, watching we can see to the government that they decide everything that we should do with our own bodies? [applause]
i take a strict constitutional position and the government has very little authority to get involved in our economic or personal lives. that excludes the federal government from being involved. the federal government should not be involved. that does not prohibit the states from doing some of the things that they do not go even though we might disagree with it at the national level, states have more prerogatives and more choices. if we look at education as an example, the constitution gives new authority for the federal government to run our educational systems and they should not be doing that. [applause]
at the state and federal level, we should be guaranteeing the protection of freedom of choice. we should always be aware of the fact that it is very important that individuals who want to opt out, we have to protect the rights of individuals to own school and go to private schools as well. [applause] this freedom of choice should be two other choices about to -- about what we put into our bodies. for instance, your right to take things into your body, such as nutritional substances, should never be regulated by the federal government and absolutely never regulated by the united nations. [applause]
i do not know what is so bad about giving the federal government out of the business of regulating unpasteurized milk. weiss and we be so intimidated if they want to use the issue of somebody using hard drugs as the reason we have to give up all of our freedoms? it is better to defend the position and says, did you have freedom of choice, but you also have to have responsibility for what you do and if you do harm to yourself, you cannot go crawling to the government to penalize your neighbor to take care of your. [applause] i see this position of the government controlling all of those decisions as detrimental to progress in medicine.
so often, there are alternative treatments for cancer and other diseases that are not approved for years and years and years because we have to have this fda deciding when and what we can do. we ought to decide about all partner did care as long as people are up front and tell you the truth. [applause] in all that i just explained, everything that i have done in politics, i of never introduced a bill to emphasize heroin. they take all of what i said and turned around and say, he would legalize heroin. you know, the plain truth is that pearland was -- carol when
was legalized and there was no abuse of this. is in our recent history. there was a long time where marijuana was legalized. i happen to have a personal disgust with the abuse of drugs, but it is all drugs. physicians prescribe way too much medication and get to a medieval addicted. -- too many people addicted. [applause] the line at caught a little bit of attention down in south carolina was when this came up and they wanted to paint me as a monster about carolyn, i did not get a chance to say, i never mentioned that word. i talk about liberty and freedom. the interpretation is correct that i do want people to make choices of. in my less than 30 seconds left to make my point, i said, all
right, if it would happen to become legal, how many of you would all the 70 using heroin? people make decisions and they make good decisions before the most part. i do not like when the government makes the decision and it violates the principles of liberty. is a blanket decision and it affects us in everything that we do to the point where you do not even know if you are allowed to drink the milk that you can buy from the farmer. [applause] when they challenge you and say -- and want to paint a negative picture, stick to your guns. defends liberty, defend our constitution, defend state's rights.
there are a few regulations in the state on alcohol. is different in different states, but at least there are different states that handle this. the kids in high school today can get a hold of marijuana easier than they can get ahold of alcohol. it is not like you just turn it lists and down the out there in the streets. ultimately, even that does not solve the problem. what solves the problem is a good family relationships, families that keep their it -- that teach their kids right from wrong. [applause] because of my understanding of the constitution and economic and moral policy, i've taken a position that i do not let the federal agencies breathing down our necks and regulating our
property. for this reason, i have opposed the federal government insurance programs because they cause moral hazard. the one that they quizzed me on today was the insurance is that take care of everybody in the midst of a natural disaster. natural disasters are very bad and they're very damaging and i believe that they can be taken care of without the federal government going further into debt not go through the system of liberty and separate the government and the state government, because the point was about flood insurance. i lived near the gulf coast and i used to have a house right on the beach. you cannot buy private insurance because it is dangerous, too expensive. they have to tax you in north carolina to a guy can have a beach house in texas.
they want to turn that into saying, you do not care about the people suffering from a natural disaster. free-market economic lot really helps us sort these problems out. if you want to build a house on the beach, and you love it, yes, by insurance. that is giving you a very important economic lesson. it is dangerous to live on the beach. [applause] the people that do not live on the beach should not have to pay for those of us to take the risk and live there in a guarantee from the government. our society and our country has been very generous. when people really get hurt, we go to help people around the world. when there are earthquakes and other things, we have been very generous. that is going to end because our economic policies in this
country is destroying our walt. we will not have money to take care of ourselves, let alone help the world. i am convinced that if you think these -- think things through, you can figure out how sound economic policy and morality will help us. does that mean -- they should not be destroying your property rights, and they should be protecting your property rights. obviously, one of the most important property rights that we should always beat -- defend is the right to own a weapon to defend ourselves. [applause]
other questions had to do with foreign-policy. i am so radical but i want to go back to the constitution and have a foreign policy which is a pro-american foreign-policy and not do the things that we're not authorized to do. because the status quo has drifted over to the assumption that we have to be the policeman of the world. i do not think the american people ever fully endorsed the idea of. even in recent history, our candidates, he ran on a -- not going into nation-building. that is what i am running on. i believe it and we should do it. [applause]
a lot of people would like to label less. you are a bunch of isolationists. if you believe in freedom of choice, you believe in trading with other people, believing that you have the right to buy goods from anybody want. id is your money. -- it is your money. it just means that we stay out of the internal affairs of all the conflicts and the civil wars and the religious civil wars, especially going on in the middle east. if we do not have to be involved in that. we make more enemies for it, and it is very nice down financially. therefore, we need to reassess it and have a new foreign- policy. [applause] it gets a little trickier because when bad policy brings bad events to ourselves, such as what happened on 9/11, it is
very difficult to say, if we would not have had that foreign policy that we had, we would not be under such attack. we have been attacked, there are limits. no matter how many mistakes we made in the past, when a country is attacked, a president and a country and a congress should respond. for that reason, i did respond foreboding for the authority -- for voting for the authority to go after the individuals that were responsible. what happened was the authority was abused. it was abused and ignored. @ osama bin laden was allowed to get off the hook and escape. there are nuclear weapons and
indicted, so we have to go in and fight this war in iraq. what did we end up with? 10 years of thousands of our people being killed. tens of thousands have been wounded the serious injuries. there is information coming out now about the persian gulf war syndrome is going to have massive number of people with those conditions coming back. head injuries, we have a big problem on our hands and that is a cost, trillions of dollars, thousands of lives. to go after a group of people who deserve to be gone after, but the cost was way too high. [applause] though i supported that authority, i had reservations
and feared that it would be misused, and i was looking around for another option. that is when i reviewed what i have learned about the constitution, and they have a provision in the constitution that maybe we can have a narrow defined or. we cannot declare war against the government when it is a band of criminals that are attacking us, that is when they provided the principal of a letter of mark and reprisal. target the enemy, go after them, and get them. the good example of how this might work is what ross perot did. he had some of its employees to take him into hostage in iran, he did not go to the federal government and say, attack them and declare war. he got some special forces, retirees, he got in his people and got them out and brought them out. [applause]
it this principle had been ingrained in our system and we had used it, we could have paid $500 million or billion dollars to capture the individuals that were responsible. yet we did not do that. that would've been cheap compared to the trillions of dollars involved. not only do i see some of that as a conflict, every time we occupy a country, every time we killed a civilian, civilians get killed, to. they get angry at as. what would we do with that happened? we have to go get them. at the taliban is not the al qaeda. the taliban are a group of people who are very determined that they do not want any foreign occupation. that is their religious and political belief. we joined them when they were so annoyed with the soviets
occupying afghanistan. we're on this side of those is said, no occupation. if we are involved over there, that is what happens. if you want to demonstrate the futility of reform policy, i think about pakistan. we are lobbing bombs into pakistan, innocent people are getting killed, at the same time, and we give them billions of dollars. we give the money, our problem in this country is that we have only to foreign policies, -- two foreign policies. in this case, we are doing both. there is a lot of room for a sensible foreign policy. it goes back to the constitution. not only is this a detriment to
us militarily and for our national security, it is a great detriment to us economically. you cannot ignore these dollars that we are spending. ic politically the real opportunity is cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of the military industrial complex that does not help our national defense. [applause] then we do not have to take this politically unpopular stand that many have on our side and say, we need to cut medical care for the children. that is not a good point to make. it is more difficult. all the programs should be cut. i did not vote for them because they are unconstitutional. synthesizing big cuts overseas, you could alleviate some of these problems in a political way that would be more acceptable. this is glenn to be worked out in congress.
they're trying to figure out how it -- if we should raise the national debt. if we did not come to the rescue and bailout all the rich guys comment that would be a depression. it would have been a depression for wall street, but the depression was dumped on the people instead. [applause] instead of making the correct economic policy changes, we had all these problems from too much spending and too much taxing and regulation, we are in trouble. the bubble has burst. we have to put more money, spend more money, borrow more money, regulate and print more. we're not out of the recession.
we are still in recession and it is going to get worse. foreign policy is a significant amount of our spending and the printing of money is an important thing in. there'll be a lot of talk about inflation. inflation is here. it is very important that we define inflation the way that the pre-market economist do. inflation is when the print money and increase the money supply. the consequence of inflating a monetary system will be higher prices. unpredictable, where the money goes, and when it happens, and to what degree, because there are a lot of elements built in. when you devalue the currency, the prices will go up. we are at the beginning of a big seat on inflation. they say that we have to vote for the the debt increased. by the way, i am not going to vote for the debts increase. [applause]
their argument is, that there would be a disaster if we defaulted. it is a disaster if we defaulted, but we are in the midst of a default and we have done it before. we have done it from the beginning of our history. we defaulted with the greenbacks in a civil war. we defaulted in the 1930's when the american people were denied their gold from the gold bonds that they held. we disclosed and said we're broke, we cannot do it anymore. they're talking about defaulting, there will not be enough cash. that is not the people to worry about. the default is on you because default is, they're going to print the money, the national debt will be raised, they will continue to print the money, and they will give out your dollar and their defaulting on new.
if you of the savings account, if you have $1,000, right now, prices are going up closer to 10% a year. and one-year, you could list $100 out of $1,000. that is a default. they did not count it that way. they did not count it that way, that is just price adjustment. it is a deliberate policy to depreciate the currency, that is what their business is. that is why our dollar has lost 98% of its value. that is dishonest and unconstitutional and the reason why we ought to get rid of the federal government. [applause]
there is a lot of reasons why we should not have a central bank. it is not authorized in the constitution. it is immoral and bad economic policy. the one issue that is dangerous to our cause of liberty is that it allows the expansion of government. if we did not have a fed to buy the debt, we do not have to be responsible because ultimately, the federal reserve will keep the interest rates from going up, either we cannot borrow. the federal servo print the money and keep interest rates low. it is always there to do that not go that facilitates the growth of government. the fed is a culprit and we have to address that's. we cannot solve our problems without looking at the monetary issue. [applause]
the great thing about what has happened in the last four years is that all the sudden, the federal reserve and monetary policy has become an issue out on the table. that is a great victory and i think so many of you live helps. -- thank so many of you who have helped. we did not get our fed bill passed. it was not passed in the senate. a lot has happened. we got a partial audit and we are getting more information and it is astounding. as much as i had anticipated it would be very bad, more than a third of these trillions of dollars that they have pumped in to help out their friends, a third of it went to overseas banks. not to the americans who are losing their mortgages. one bank that bailed out and gets it was a one-third owner,
gaddafi. this is the reason that we should direct our interest to the preservation of liberty, to the people in this country, taking care of ourselves, the prosperous, set a good example and others will want to emulate us. we cannot spend our goodness with a gun at. using a gun pilots are goodness. -- using a gun and violates our goodness. [applause] liberty should be our cause. i believe all political activity is for the promotion of liberty. liberty and freedom is not perfect, but it will do more good than all the government intervention in the world. terms are thrown around, a conservative, libertarian, liberal. i like the word intervention. i did not to like -- i do not
like to have a government that is an intervener. [applause] in many ways, i believe a good president woodwork and the direction of saying that, i want to do less, but i want to firmly and courageously stand up to those who want to do more. they use an authoritarian approach and when they do, everything that they do undermines your personal liberty. it undermines everything that was good and great about america. we were never a perfect nation, and we do not have a perfect document, but we were the most prosperous ever and there is still a lot of spirit left in
this country. our group is saying, we have had enough. we want our freedom back. [applause] the reason i worked so hard for personal liberty is a very important reason. is for myself, my family, my friend, my neighbors, and my country. if we did have our liberties, we would have more prosperity. it is a humanitarian argument because the other side, they do not produce. more importantly, a free society offers tremendous opportunities. it really releases us, against this the time and the weld to release more creative energies. it is in these credit energies, then we can deal with our problems. whether it has to do with our
economic conditions, helping other people, or whether it is dealing with other countries. we will have the wealth and with this, we can work on our own imperfections to improve ourselves. work on becoming more virtuous and more compassionate. this is the society that i want to live in. regardless of what happens, the goal is a very important gold. i am so pleased to see what is happening in the country, the interest in understanding of liberty. where i go, the numbers are growing. where i really get excited is when i go to the university and talk to the young people. they understand what they're getting. they understand that something has to be done. they also understand that whether they are in high school or college, the burden will be falling on them. no matter what happens in the
next election, this cannot be changed immediately. 8 and only be changed -- it can only be changed if the people endorse the changes and the representatives understand it and do it. that is where i think we are making great progress. when i first started, i had difficulties even finding the literature. i had an inclination to study and treat, but it took a long time, there was no internets and books were hard to find. today, it is so great to use the internet to find out what is going on. if i need a book, i can get it in five or 10 seconds off amazon. big things are happening. we have to take that and use it for a just cause and that just cause is promoting the greatness of america and promoting individual liberty in our country.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] sherri daniels address the republican party at their annual spring dinner. they share videos and slides of the different shows she does. she is introduced by her husband who talks about a possible run for president. it took place in indianapolis. >> thank you.
yardy ready? -- are you ready? this will come to order. we are a record crowd. this is a record take. he will find the doors are locked. as a as a last check is clear, you'll be free to go. we have a record number of guests with us tonight. this is a special welcome. you have come in large numbers. they are concerned about the raw deal they are being handed by current national politics. we appreciate the effort you
i got to be the homeless most boring person that has ever talked about the president. there is only one reason for any of this. indiana is different tonight. it is different from the rest of america. people are noticing. when people talk about the great climate, they talk about indiana. there is crumbling infrastructure. people have searched their way creatively to bring health insurance to low income people. more recently there bringing it reform to public education to give every person a better job of indiana. this seems to be the case.
as much as anything, what draws attention to indiana and anyone associated with the progress is in a broken bankrupt state. people cannot help but notice the third lowest spending in america. this is the lowest property taxes in the country. there are billions in reserves. the debt takes down 48%. we take care of the people's money.
there is only one reason indiana is different. i hope each of you understands this. the only reason indiana is different is because the republican party is different. i think this has been a source of frustration to our opponents for a long time. it is been a source of confusion. we do not fit the stereotypes. we do not fit the carton they carry. this party is known by what we are not against. we are too busy about building a
better state for our children and there is children -- and of their children. we are a party that acts on ideas all the basic government services, every single day we are looking waste to improve -- we are looking for ways to improve them. they have a sacred responsibility. we are thinking about our central objective. it is just a means to the end. they have the most receptive and firemen possible for jobs to be
the most inviting place on the planet. they come together with their ideas and their capital and ambition. we have said that we were going to build the best sandbox in america. look at what we have done. the indiana republican party is different in another respect. we are about a better life for everyone. we have campaigned in a way that there are no forgot some places. and what to listen and make new friends. there will never be any forgotten people in this state. this party takes the primary
commitment to make a better life for the folks who not in this room. it has not been our primary objective to see this. our objective is to see that people with little or no money may earn some. >> indiana republican party is believed in people. we believe it is not just the right but. every human being in this society to make decisions that are central to their own lives. been -- they believe they are
incapable of making sound judgments about the future judgments. we see them as creatures of dignity. we have saved all of our policies that way. give yourself a hand. he made this possible. now the fun part. in 1975 i met a small-town girl. it is one of the first sight things. at that my eyes off her legs. she cannot take her eyes up a double cheeseburger i was eating. whatever works.
we began dating. i still remember what struck me most, the moment i knew that i had to somehow trick this lady into spending live with me. our life has involved the children. the woman is a magnet for children. we would be at a social occasion and within 10 minutes anybody in the room over 12 was talking to her. she knew how to talk to them. she knew how to get them laughing. we got married. she became a business woman. she is in the business of producing beautiful young woman. they turned out to be even more beautiful than they are an appearance. that is saying something.
it is not overstate the case. if i'm going to try this, we will do a lot of things differently. i will compete differently. we are going to go everywhere. we will see everyone. we even put it to personal contact -- put the personal contact back in our lives. we are going to be as open as we can be. when we decide what we think is right, we are going to go do it. you and i can be different too.
i would never want you to be different than you are. he can go anywhere you want. i hope you would choose to do a lot. i have held up my end of the deal. i had a very strong decision that if things went that way that the state would come to embrace and love a first lady for her genuine and authenticity. everyone knows is she wants to be there. everyone can form their own opinion. i love the way she handles this.
>> that is one of my favorite songs. this is easier than i thought it was going to be. thank you so much. i appreciate that warm welcome. when i was first asked to speak here, i thought this is really a great honor. then i thought, i wonder you cancel. -- i wonder who canceled. this is one of his jokes.
he charged me $10 to use it. in the past, the keynote speaker for this event has always been a very politically inspired speech. if he came here tonight expecting that, i am sorry to report that you will be disappointed. if he came here tonight with a sense of humor, you have a really good time. being a first lady is many things. there are school visits, interviews, and so much more. it tonight i'm going to share with you some of the really glamorous things that i get to do. i think he will be a little surprised to find how similar my role is to the governors role.
he gets to me lots of important people. i also get to meet a lot of very important people. you might recognize some of these people. some of our great mascots. we all know them. a lot of the ones i me are a little bit on the harry sighed. there is a lot of awards that come and go. mitch has received honorary degrees. i have received some very prestigious awards.
i think that speaks for itself. i am an honorary hooters girl. [applause] thank you. i received a lot of first-place ribbons at the indiana state fair. some of the may have heard. i won the milk and cal competition. a sheet showing, porn has gained -- corn husking and the pioneers and pioneer village crown to me mrs. maize in the year of corn. i did not get a diamond tiara.
>> you have to admit that that is pretty special. as most recently, 17 days. some are no longer able to have a state fair. hours keeps getting bigger and better. the reason it keeps getting bigger and better is because of the director of our state fair. i have to tell you. she has the power over me. i cannot say no.
she can ask me to do anything imaginable. i say yes. i think she assignees to speak here tonight. i am kidding. everywhere we have a theme. we have had the year of corn. we have had the year of the tomato. last year she called me a few days before it opened. she said can you come out into a photo shoot? i am thinking this is glenn to be pretty glamorous. of course. she said it was the year of the cake. -- pig.
i would add to the state fair. i walked into this with a bunch of this. the photographer toni to pick up the little pig. their fees are going in all directions. the photographer is patiently waiting for may to oppose. what can i do? i can stay close to them. by start scratching behind his ear. it works. i thought i was a whisper. it was so sweet and quiet.
the entertainment at the state fair is fabulous. as a consolation for all of the crazy things i do, they will be nice enough to get my favorite country singer out there. there is one little thing that goes out of the state fair every year. nothing could be more scary than having 10 elvis person nader's -- elvis impersonator sing to you. it is always a fun event. one day they gave us sunglasses. the state fair offers different things. there is something for everybody out there. i love writing the trolly and announcing the stops.
al-azhar recognize at all. it is completely different. we did a pretty good job. there are lots of opportunities to dress up. my definition of dressing up maybe a little different than yours. i make the toughest decision of the year. what are we going to wear for halloween? each year we dress up and passed
out candy at the governors residence for neighborhood kids. it is a big deal to figure out what we are going to be. we have done the wizard of oz. in the 500, grease -- the best part was saying much of that ridiculous way. and alice in wonderland. these days are also filled with a high-powered meetings in ground-breaking ceremonies. my days are pretty interesting,
>> if any of you know mitch, you know getting him to pay $15 for a glass of lemonade is pretty darned good. he did try to get change. one of the things about literacy, i love to read, and i knew i wanted to make children's literacy one of my main initiatives as first lady. for the past seven years, have been visiting schools all over the state and reading to children and answering questions. reporters are not the only people with inquiring minds. i have been asked some pretty interesting questions by school kids. one of my favorite ones is, are you the very first lady in the world? [applause] did you come in a limo? who does your hair? how much money does the first
lady make? i think my check is in the mail. and my personal favorite, what is your favorite carnivore? another one of my initiatives has been hard disease. heart health is very important and i have a very personal reason for taking on this cost, and that is because my mother has heart disease. we have learned in recent years that it is the number-one killer of women. i decided it would be a good idea to take this message all over the state and teach people how they can improve their heart health. i created a program called hart to hart. it began as a program that just went to college campuses and spoke to young women. we decided this would be a good target audience because it was a good age to get them to start making it hard healthy habits. but the program grew, and we
started taking it to women's groups and hospitals all over the state. one of the things we do to promote heartfelt and to make people aware is we have a walk at our state fair every year. it is free, and it is not a race, but everybody comes out, we give lots of information, and we have free screenings. we usually have about 600 people or more there, and we would love to see some of you there next year. it is something that is very important to all of us. the best thing about being the first lady is that there is no job description. you can make it your own. you can do whatever you want with it, and that is what i have tried to do. in all seriousness, being first
lady has given me the opportunity to travel all over our state and the lots of wonderful people. i truly appreciate the encouragement you have given us, which has enabled mitch to do is an incredible things for our state. on behalf of our entire family, i think you for your ongoing support and kindness, and for allowing me to share some of the funny and memorable moments i have had as your first lady. thank you. [applause]
>> this is a surprise, but i am so delighted that more hoosiers and out of state guests learn more about sheri daniels tonight, because to know her is to love her. you now have a little more understanding of her work and how she makes a great contribution to this day. she is refreshing. she is authentic. she is obviously funny, and she is different than the more political first ladies of the past. while she has never sought out the spotlight, i know how much she does. i know how much he cares, how
much she travels around the state of indiana. i know how passionate she is about her very special initiative, heart health, children's literacy, and business. i sent her little notes of gratitude and encouragement from time to time, and especially when i hear from hoosiers to tell me what a great job she has done in their community. we have never had just the perfect opportunity to show our affection for you or to let you know how much we thank you for your great job performance until tonight. there is a few things you need to know first. i want to tell you first that if you have not learned by now, sherry is the queen of the indiana state fairgrounds. she is not the state fair queen, we have one of those, but she is the queen of hearts.
you mentioned our state fair director, who loves you. all of the volunteers at the pioneer village as well, all of those who work in the livestock barns got everyone loves sherry daniels. to show our appreciation, we present to you your very own official engraved indiana state fair official milk pail. [applause] it is indeed it does double duty. there is a surprise inside the bucket. we wanted you to have something
a little more memorable and long-lasting, so there is a very nice, the lucks, state of the art sports watch here. you may not know, but this woman practices what she preaches. she walks 10 miles a day and has done so for years. this sports watch will be a great fit for you, and a little necklace. we love you, thanks for all that you do. [applause] we certainly thank everyone for sharing this evening with us. as you can see, we are proud of the indiana story. we have no intention of slowing down. there is just too much at stake.
some banks so much for all of your support. thanks for being here tonight. thanks, and goodnight everyone. [applause] >> next, our report on the solvency of social security and medicare. then, the former president of shell oil. after that, the european parliament debates the emigration of africans. tomorrow on "washington journal," peter landers has an update on the legal challenges to the new health-care law. myron ebell and bill snape
discussed the endangered species act stephenorlins talks about the status of trade disputes, exchange rates, and other issues. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> what series of choices they made to become terrorist, to kill hundreds and thousands of people? >> in his new book, investigative journalist richard miniter books that the architect of the 9/11 attacks. >> now that bin laden is dead, this is what we have to fear, these terraced entrepreneur is. >> inside the mind of a terrorist, sunday night on "q&a". you can also download a podcast of "q&a", one of our many signature interview programs available online at c-span.org. >> next, the social security and
medicare fund trustees released their annual report on the fiscal condition of both federal programs, projecting a shorter life span for each, due in part to the recession. we'll hear from treasury secretary tim geithner who is the managing trustee of the fund as well as kathleen sebelius and labor secretary hilda solis. this 35-minute news conference was held at the treasury department. >> welcome, nice to see you all. >> i want to begin by welcoming my fellow trustees, in particular our two new trustees. welcome. it is nice to have you with us. i also want to knowledge the the
chief actuaries. , richard foster. thank them and their staffs for their excellent work. today's reports make clear while both social security and medicare have sufficient resources to meet their obligations for at least the next decade, it is important that we put in place reforms to strengthen these programs. social security and medicare benefits are secure today but reforms will be needed so that they will be there focurrent and future retirees. the social security program has dedicated resources that will cover benefits for the next 25 years but in the year 2036, one year earlier than was projected in last year's report, the social security trust fund will exhaust its assets and income, incoming revenues will be insufficient to maintain payment of full benefits. and due to technical changes
in the economic assumptions underlying the projections, medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will exhaust its assets in 2024, which is five years earlier than was projected in last year's report. the medicare report illustrates once again the importance of the reforms in the affordable care act which will significantly strengthen medicare's finances and extend the life of the medicare trust fund. the trustees reports under score the need to act sooner rather than later to make reforms to these entitlement programs. last year of course the presidt and congress to a timely first step by enacting the most significant entitlement reforms in decades but we have to go beyond the affordable care act and identify additional reforms. americans are living longer and health care costs are continuing to rise. if we do not do more to contain the rate of growth in health care costs, then our cmmitments will become unsustainable.
so in light of these reality, the president, as you know has proposed a balanced comprehensive framework for deficit reduction. and this framework includes health care reforms that will generate substantial additional savings on top of those that will be generated by the affordable care act. now of course we should not wait for the trust funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees. larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform and by making reforms soon th are phased in overtime, we will help reduce uncertainty about future benefits. now as the president said, social security and medicare define and reflect the values of america. they are commitments that make our society more fair and more just. we have kept those commitments for generations
but our responsibility is to make the reforms necessary to allow us to maintain those commitments for the future. now on a slightly separate note, on monday, may 16th, just three days from now, the united states will reach the debt limit set by congress and because congress has not yet acted to raise the limit, we have now set in motion a series of extraordinary measures that will give congress some additional time to raise the debt lamt. -- limit. i want to encourage congress to move as quickly as possible so all america will remain confident that the the united states of america will meet all its obligations, not just our interest payments, but also our commitments to our seniors. i want to return the floor now to my colleague and fellow trustee, secretary kathleen sebelius. >> thank you, secretary geithner and i think that,
we have heard in today's medicare trustee report that there's no question we have strengthened medicare but there is still work to be done as the secretary has already said. from day one the obama administration has made protecting seniors for today and tomorrow a top priority. and that's why we implemented a series of reforms over the last two years including those in the affordable care act signed into law just a little over a year ago which hve already produced significant savings for the medicare hospital insurance program. now without these important steps the hospital insurance trust fund would have been exhausted in 2016, just five years from now. instead, today's report found that the hospital insurance trust fund will remain solvent until 2024. over the next 75 years, medicare costs on average
are projected to be 25% lower due to the new law. this is happening even as we're adding important new befits to help people with dicare stay healthy and to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. this year the projected exhaustion date of the medicare hospital insurance trust fund did move forward from last year's projections. this is due in large part to lower payroll tax revenues as a result of the slower than expected economic recovery. it's important to note this is exactly what we've seen in previous recessions. and that, having the affordable care act in place is the main reason that those projections are not worse. indeed what the trustee's report shows that the affordable care act has put medicare on a much more sustainable path. because of the law, medicare cos per enrollee are now expected to grow more slowly than gdp per capita, through
2019 after growing much faster than gdp per capita for the last four decades. still theeport shows we have work left to do. every day, nearly 48 million people our parents, grandparents, nghbors and friends rely on medicare for the medical treatments and prescription drugs they need to stay healthy. to keep medicare strong for them and for their children and grandchildren we need to continue to look for opportunity to slow medicare costs by improving care and reducing waste and fraud. we recently launched the partnership for patients, an existing effort that has brought together hospitals, doctors, nurses employers, patient advocates and others, to improve the quality and safety of care for all americans. if reach the goals we have set for just this one program, medicare will save another $10 billion over the next three years and as much as $50 billion over the next
10 years, as well as saving 60,000 lives. and the president's fiscal framework would buildn the affordable care act to save medicare another $200 billion over the next 10 years. what we can't do is follow the republican plan to turn medicare into aoucher program and shift the cost to seniors. under that plan a typical 65-year-old who becomes eligible for medicare, would pay an extra $6400 a year out of their own pockets for health care. even wse, the plan does nothing to address the main factor driving up medicare spending and other health care spending, are which is the underlying growth in health care costs. medicare is a promise to all americans that if you work hard, you can retire knowing that your medical bills won't force you into bankruptcy. while our work is not finished, today's report shows that the steps we've taken in the last two years
have put medicare on a more ten sustainable course for the future. i would like to now turn ov the podium to our colleague, secretary hilda solis. >> good afternoon and thank you for being here today. today we've heard much about the long-term financial outlook of social security and medicare. undoubtedly challenges remain that threaten both the solvency of these programs and the retirement security of many american workers and beneficiaries who depend on these benefits. program costs are projected to increase sigficantly through 2035 for mainly two reasons, the rapid increase in reirrelevant toos of the baby boomer generations and lower birthrates of more recent generations that result in slower growth of the labor force and gdp. furthermore, people are living longer, so while costs of these programs are rising it's critical to
recognize contributions of demographic. in addition slowing the growth in projected long range cost of medicare will depend largely on program changes under the affordable care act which will take effect in the coming years. this highlights the importance of making every effort to ensure that the affordable care act is successfully implemented. the affordable care act extend health care coverage for tens of millions of people who would otherwise not have access to health insurance. and to create a more efficient health care system, the legislation will rein in costs even as we expand and promote quality, not just for medicare beneficiaries but for everyone. while trust fund income and earnings are projected to cover costs for a few year the trust fund assets will ultimately be used to pay for benefits, benefits like the social security disability insurance, the di trust funds, which are projected to be exhausted in 20. this is especially important
as the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high. loss of wage income has and continues to be devastating for working families across this country but it also eres the payroll tax base, the revenues from which are needed to pay current program benefits. the department of labor is playing a critical role in getting the country back to work and has put in place many policies and programs that are providing opportunities for americans to succeed, keeping our workers safe and making sure that working families keep what they earn. these efforts ar't only critical it revitalizing the middle class, they create more revenue for social security and medicare. for instance, we vrl a program called job corps. it is a free education and training program that helps young pele earn a high school diploma or ged to find or keep a good job. the job corps program provides low income youth with skills they need to succeed in career and in fe. there is no question that young workers who join the
labor market through job corps and other training initiatives fundamental strengthen social security and mecare programs. we're also working hard to tackle worker misclassification. when workers are properly classified they receive the pay they earn and deserve and for the work that they do and social security and medicare services receive the appropriate taxes that are paid on their behalf. additionally we're also creating opportunities for our workforce development system to partner with state and community-based organizations, businesses serving associations and economic development agencies to expand employnt opportunities for people with disabilities. let me be clear. people with disabilities can and want to work. there's a growing body of evidence that proves that workers with disabilities meet and exceed the job performance of coworkers without them. yet the talent, those with disabilities bring to the workplace, continues to be undervalued. thus, their labor force
participation remains lower and their unemployment rate remains very high. increasing the employment of people with disabilities is no only good for them, it's good for social security and for medicare and it's critical to the economic prosperity of our country. the social security and medicare programs provide an important safety net for millions of retired workers and beneficiaries, many of which are lower income and who depend on these benefits to survive. we must act and we must act swiftly to provide smart, viable solutions that will fill the gap between income and costs of these programs. the well-being of our people in the future and prosperity of our country depend on it. thank you again for being here today. and i'd like to next introduce commissioner esther. >> like to begin by saying that in my opinion this year's report is a better
document because of the collegial work of our new public trustees, dr. rieschour and dr. blah house. we went threeyears without public trustees and we need perspectivthat we bring. public debate about social security has focused on retirement benefits. from a technical point of views president obama has mentioned many times, legislative change is relatively straight forward. if congress has the will to make meaningful changes they can do so with high degree of confidence that the program will perform as predicted decades into the future. this year's report is typical. there are no big swings relating to the oasdi fund. our disability programs are far more complex though than our retirement programs. there is a long history of well intended reforms cause
unintended consequences. and i think the risk of that result is greater than in the past. congress has allowed ssa's demonstration authority to lapse. it has not asked gao to do the type of research that would support sious reforms. disability legislation predicated on anecdotes or sound bites would be a disservice to beneficiaries and taxpayers. one area that desperately needs reform and want to echo secretary solis here whereby partisan support has been very possib in the past is area of work incentives for the disabled. historically congress has been frustrated by low numbers of people who return to work but it has layered new legislation on top of old without revisiting the old and made the problem worse rather than better. the complexity of the statutes, deters many beneficiaries who are inclined to try work one and indicator of this problem is a congress in recent years has appropriated up to $23
million annually just for contractors to explain these complexities to our beneficiaries. it is time for congress to review all statutory work incentives from scratch and ask the simple question, is this the best we can do? we need clear, significant incentives if we want those people who can return to work to do so. the president this year in his budget sent to congress our work incentive simplification prorofl or wisp, with which would be a good start for bipartisan progress. i urge the house and senate to review this prosed legislation quickly and schedule hearings on this topic as soon as possible this year. thank you and i will turn now to dr. blahouse. >> well, i'd like to begin,
first of all, by thanking secretary geithner for the outstanding work that his team at treasury did in managing this process. adding my thanks to the terrific actuaries at cms and ssa for the outstanding work that they do. thanking secretary sebelius, secretary solis and commissioner astrue as well for terrific work their staffs did throughout the process. i want to most of all thank, dr. riesch 135is er fellow trustee ideal partner in very pressureable experience for me. we report each year on. two programs, social security and medicare. medicare is by far the most complex, difficult to project of the two programs. social security is a much easier challenge to grasp intellectually. so i will speak about social security and leave medicare for dr. rieschuor.
the story in social security, is pretty straightforward. costs are growing in the program at a pretty rap pace and will do so until 2030s as consequence of baby boomers entering retirement. by our projections cost of paying benefits in 2035 will be 17% of the taxable wages that workers earn and total costs will amount to 6.2% of national gdp. before the baby boomers enter retirement in 2007 report, the last one before the boomers began to hit the rolls, these figures were 11 1/2% of taxable payroll and 4.2% of gdp respectfully. you could see we'll have substantial continuing cost growthn the social security program to the point where mid 2030s, costs will be roughly 50% larger relative to the size of the economy compared to where they were before the baby boomers enter retirement. that much we have
long-anticipated. we knew that was coming and we knew it would place financial strains on social security but unfortunately at the same time as the boomers began to enter the retirement rolls we experienced a economic downturn. and so some of these fiscal pressures have arrived earlier than previously anticipated. in 2010 for the first time since the mid 1980s incoming tax revenue began to fall behind outgoing benefit obligations. in this year's report we projecthat these deficits in social security which began last year will be a permanent feature of program finances going forward unless and until legislative correct are enacted. now because of interest payments from the general fund to the trust funds, the nominal value of the trust funds continues to rise and we project that will continue to be the case through the early 2020s. there are some important caveats to be made about that. one is that in terms of financing benefits, the nominal value of a trust funts is probably not quite
as importance as duration of benefits the trust funds can finance and presently the costs of paying annual benefits is rising at a more rapid rate than the ninal value of trust funds. so-called trust fund ratio which measures the amount of time full benefits can be paid by the trust funds peaked in 2008. is declining this year and will continue to decline going forward. the other caveat i issue echoesan important point made by secretary solis and commissioner astrue we have more pressing challenges on the disability side of the equation than we have on the retirement side of equation. disability fund is declining in nominal terms and we project exhaustion of the disability fund by 2018. in this year's report we do not change our view of the long-term fundamentals after affecting social security. none of the long-term assumptions, basic economic or demographic assumptions have been changed relative to last year's report.
what we have done we updated data for more recent information about longevity trend, trends immigration, and economic performance. of these the most important to the long-term projections is a change in longevity experience. we'll find that both in the years 2007 through 2010 and going forward, we expect greater advances in longevity than we're ticipated in the 2010 trustees report. indeed much of this is already in the books and has already occurred. as commissioner astrue indicated we do not have a qualitative change this year in social security's long-term out look. at the same time you will see a significant change in the 75-year acutarial balance for social security. last year this was measured at 1.92% of taxable payroll over 75 years. this year's report has 2.22% of taxable payroll. that is a 30 basis point change.
we don't tend to have wild swings in social security finances as commissioner astrue said but this is actually the largest single year deterioration in the 75-year balance we've seen along with a comparable change in the 2009 report since the 1994 social security report. in the end i would just say to all of you, if, there are any of you who don't feel like struggling through the entirety of the medicare and social security tustees reports i would commend to you the messages written collectively by the six trustees and by the two public trustees. they echo the appointments that have been made earlier here today that the earlier we act to strengthen these programs the better off we will be. time is important in the sense that the longer we wait the more our options narrow. of course in the trustees report we present the illustrative nightmare scenario which shows that at the point of trust fund exhaustion in social security we would be looking at either a 23% benefit reduction or an increase in the payroll tax rate to the 16.4%. but if we act earlier, we
will not have to face consequences of this magnitude and indeed we'll be able to preferentially look afr interest of vulnerable low income americans and those already in retirement. i've been heartened to see people on both sides of the aisle their intention to do just that. with that i will yield to my fellow trustee. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm pleased to be here and participate in this process with my fellow trustees. i want to begin by just making a few comments about the process. as you've been told by several of the other speakers before dr. blah house and i -- blahouse. assumed our responsibility in september of this year,
the two public trustee positions had been vacant for three years. so there was n public trustee input to the 2008, 2009, or 2010 report. as major responsibility of the public trustees is to assure that the american people that the financial and acutarial analyses that are contained in these reports are done in a subjective of a manner as possible using the best available data and estimat and employing the most appropriate methodologis. having been emersed in this process now for a bit over six months, dr. blahouse and i feel that there is no doubt this is the case. one can not be impressed by the dedication and expertise by the actuaries and their staff. the departmental staffs that support the ex officio trustees and the staffs of the social security administration. we participated in what was
an open, robust and vibrant discussion of the numerous issues that have to be resolved each year as these reports are developed as e-mails flown back and forth, sometimes late at night, we've seen all of the participants have been striving to produce the most accurate possible projections of what our inherently uncertain numbers. we've also been encouraged by the collective effort that has been made to make theseeports more transparent. and the thrust that was spearheaded by commissioner astrue to improve the aspirational clarity of what tends to be rather dense material. i will turn and make a few comments that relate in a very broadway to the content of these reports. first, i add my voice to what already is a chorus that is emphasized that
under current law these vitally important programs are on, are on unsustainable paths. the sooner policymakers address this problem, the less disruptive and, the unavoidable adjustments will be and the greater the possibility for adjusting in a way that is balanced, equitable and measured. well the bottom line message of the 2011 reports are no different from those of previous reports. one can not but be struck by the uncertainty that surrounds the environment in which both social security and medicare operate. while our economy is improving steadily, we live in a very uncertain world, one in which economic developments in europe, political instability in the middle east, or changed tional priorities in asia can have profound repercussions on our economy, our employment, our growth, and these programs.
within our borders we are in the midst of a period of unprecedented innovation in the capacity of medicine and unprecedented amount of experimentation in the way we deliver and pay for health care. these changes are being spurred by many efforts in the private sector and by profound changes in public policy, most notably the affordable care act. because of this turbulent environment, unavoidably there is wide confidence ban around around the estimates for medicare cost for the short and intermediate run, not to mention the much longer time period. given this reality it is important that the central tendency projections we produce be ones that represent a sustainable future which under the current law is not e case. i want to close by saying
that both, on my part and on dr. blahouse's part we look forward to working with the actuary, other trustees and their staffs on future reports and hopefully on policy changes that eventually will put these two programs on a sustainable path. ank you. >> thank you, dr. reischauer. we'll take a couple questions. i ask you leave any technical questions to the background briefing we will do after the secretaries and trustees depart. we'll take a couple. up front? >> this is for secretary sebelius. you mentioned some affects of the affordable care act on medicare. besides the 500 billion that was cut from medicare advantage, what other specific programs are affecting that long-term cost? if you could just explain some of them? >> first of all there wasn't
500 billion cut from medicare advantage. that is a portion of the reduction in cost increases over time. certainly there are some significant delivery system reforms that are just getting underway, we anticipate significant savings. the accountable care organization structure, the new partnership for patients which i just mentioned which has some cost savings. we have new tools for going after fraud, waste and abuse last year alone produced about $4 billion back into the trust fund. we produced a report yesterday that is available in more detail which, analyzes about $120 billion worth of savings over the next five years, which are part of the early implementation of the aca and that can give you considerably more detail. >> in the back.
>> could you explain the distinction between social security being in deficit and the trust funds being exhausted? is it slightly deceptive to talk about social security running a deficit currently considering it takes in less than it pays out until 2036? >> [inaudible]. can you hear me? good. i'm ad you aed that question. actually in last year's press conference stressed the importance of the media understanding the term exhaustion which means something different tohe actuaries than it does to the average person and that what exhaustion in 2036 this year means that we'll have money to pay aittle more than 3/4 of benefits with no other legislative changes. now that's not good. we need thave the congress
step up and make changes so that that's not the outcome but that's radically different from, it is totally bankrupt, there's nothing there at all and, is a constant irritation for me pickg up the news clips and seeing how often the media reports that exhaustion figure as if there would be no money left in the trust fund. so bless you for asking that question. in terms of the cash flow, i have somewhat similar response. we have moved to, from very slightly positive in several of the coming years to very slightly negative. it is a rounding error in terms of its significance in my opinion and has no significance in terms of the long-term future of social security. again as i stressed last year, what matters in the long run is the exhaustion datend the percentage of benefits we can pay after
exhaustion, whether we are, in terms of points of view of social security, and the stability of the system, there's really, these tiny swgs in the grand scheme of things from one year to another, from slightly cash flow positive to slightly cash ow netive, in my opinion, are not significant for the long-term future of the program. >> we'll go right here in the middle. yep. >> the disability trust fund is a much worse shape than the sial security trust fund. both you and secretary solis talked about incentives for returning people to the workforce. in a time of chronic unemployment where a lot of people use the disability system as pseudo unemployment insurance system, what are some of those incentives? >> i think the most important thing is to, to simplify it. if you work through what someone on the rolls who has to, decided to try to go back to work, has to try to
mast, what the ramifications are, it's extremely complicated and we know from experience that the difficulty of doing it, and the fear that if they make a mistake that they might forfeit, usually not the cash benefits that matter. it is medicare and medicaid benefits that matter. that is a very significant deterrent. simplifying the program and making it clear what happens when you y to go back to work, if you fail what happens and what happens to your medical benefits i think that's a enormously important. and i don't think you could take, certainly i couldn't sit down and explain it to you and get it exactly right in all the technical glory. and it's not reasonable to expect the public to understand that. so i think the most important thing, go back from scratch. realizthat a lot of these well-intentioned statutes from the past are the in conflict with each other and they're detering people from
going back to work. so what we've done in the wisp proposal is given congress a cost neutral example of how that might be done so that the significantly more simple and that the ramifications for health benefits in particular are going to be exponentially clearer to people. and i think particularly as the economy improves that will result in a significant amount of return to work. but let me add one qualificatioto that because i've had this conversation recently with several members of the media. a significant portion of the disability, disabled population is unreasonable to expect them to go back to work. that's why we have the program in the first place. it is significantly less than half. for those who can go back to work, we should do it because, it promotes dignity. the are small savingto the public, but it will not significantlyhange the solvency of the disability
fund even if we are successful at the high end of your reasonable expectations in and of itself. the work incentive programs are not going to change the solvency picture for the fund. >> thanks very much, everybody. thanks to our trustees [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a former president of shell oil talks about u.s.-arab energy relations. in the european parliament debates the emigration of africans. then another chance to see the report on the solvency of social
security and medicare. speaker of the house john boehner give the commencement address at catholic university in washington, d.c., and immediately following that, we will show you the first lady's commencement address at the university of northern iowa. that begins tomorrow at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span. nextel available, c-span congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members, with compact information, including committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> next, with national gas prices topping $4 a gallon, the former shell oil co. president talks about rising energy prices.
he is the founder and chief executive of the group citizens for affordable energy. he is interviewed by john duke anthony, founding president and ceo of the national council on u.s.-arab relations. this is a little over an hour. >> thank you, dr. anthony, and good afternoon, everyone. it is a pleasure to be here at this time in this place to talk about what i think are astounding issues that we as people have to deal with. i refer to this decade in the 2010-2020 period as the decade in which the chickens come home to roost. for the western democracies of this world. what do i mean but the chickens coming home to roost? we have some major issues, ladies and gentlemen, in the western democracies that some
other parts of the world are watching and waiting to see how will these democracies deal with such difficult and challenging decisions that must be made and cannot be deferred. what i am referring to our decisions about sovereign deficits and how nations deal with having spent more than they take yen for too long, and what the implications of those are in democracies where parlements and congresses have difficult times making hard choices, and what will happen to the economies and the society's if this deficit rose -- deficit growth continues and is not addressed in this decade. in the united states, the world's oldest western democracy, there is a serious come to grips time with
education. we are developing a nation of haves and have-nots. educationally, which has consequences economically and socially. how do we come to grips with this? it has been going on for a considerable period of time. we are going through an enormous demographics change as well in the western democracies, as the baby boom generation, post world war ii generation, fades into later life, in which they have security and income needs that will further stress the budgets of western democracies. the whole question of welfare and medical care is something that is being addressed oregon, did -- addressed or not, depending on which country you talk about, but collectively, it
remains a major issue. and then the issue of the military-industrial complex, which president eisenhower warned about at the end of his second term, which has evolved, as he predicted it should not, and now it is such a major factor of our economic life, our political life, and our international life, that it, too, is one of the chickens that must be dealt with as they come home to roost. in the midst of all of this, is the energy issue, question, debate, concern with all of the above. i would say that the united states of america, at the current time, is upside down on energy, without fully understanding are realizing it. one of the reasons i wrote the
book, why we hate the oil companies, is to try to shed light on what it is we are dealing with. yesterday's in washington d.c., on the 12th of may, we had a repeat of a food fight that happened in november 2005. it happened in june 2008. i was there for six of the food fight between november 2005 and june 2008. six food fights in congress, with house committees and senate committees in which nothing was resolved. companies were insulted. elected officials felt insulted, and not a single thing was done as a consequence of those hearings or yesterday's hearing in terms of resolving what is a
huge energy dilemma for the united states of america, which is, where is the plan? where is the plan for energy? there is no plan for energy in the united states, and there has not been. even while the eight presidents, from nixon to obama, have spoken of the importance of getting off foreign oil, or spoken more emphatically about energy independence, not a one of them has put a plan forward that 19 congress is in that same time frame have dealt with. so we are living in this country, and europe is living in its own western democracy, with energy infrastructures that our products, by and large, of the post world war to build out, or in the case of the united states, pre-world war ii build out, for much of the coal and
hydro power infrastructure that exist in this country, and i should say oil and gas infrastructure that exists in this country. that 20th-century infrastructure is getting old. it is just plain getting old. matt simmons, who many of you will recognize his name, the author of "twilight in the desert," used to say that the existing u.s. infrastructure, before he passed last august, the existing u.s. infrastructure needs 8 $15 trillion facelift to bring it to it's original standard. $15 trillion. for which there is no plan to do that. which means it is deteriorating, ladies and gentlemen. but no plan to refresh their existing infrastructure, it only gets older. the average age of coal plants
in this country, 38 or 39 years. in the past five years, 100 coal plant projects have been put on the shelf and will not be billed because of opposition. not because of lack of money or lack of need, but because of opposition. it is not worth it to the boards of directors of the utilities involved to push forward with a plan for a new coal plant. the fight is too great. we have not build the new nuclear plant in the united states in 30 some odd years. there will not be one build this decade. it is already too late. the average age of original licensing or permitting for nuclear plant, 40 years. average age of nuclear plants today, more than 30 years. kohl plans are designed for 50 years. the average age, 38 or 39 years. think about 10 years from now,
when the coal plant infrastructure and the nuclear plant infrastructure has come to the end of its designed life. and yes, we can extend permits and keep those plants operating, but how safe are they? how much risk are we inviting? continuing to operate as a necessity, plants that are at the end of their design live. meanwhile, this country fritters on the edge of alternative energy. they are doing not very much about our turn to the forms of energy, for good reason. it is not ready for primetime. the any decency, the technology, the land, water requirements of new alternative energy such as wind and solar and biofuels, they have not really thought those through. were revealed when form of 100 hours, it should be 1000 hours.
imagine how much land. when you are using roughly 3 acres per tower, for 100 hours, you need a 300-acre plot. to build out the size you need, you are not talking 300 acres, you are talking 3,000 acres. so the land use of wind, the land use of solar, the land use of biofuels, these things have not been thought through to the point that we could ever scale up this kind of energy as a successor form of energy to the existing infrastructure. in the oil and gas case, the united states uses 20 million barrels a day, every day. 10,000 gallons a second, which is a figure you can better recognize, perhaps, than 20 million barrels. we produced 10 million barrels a day in the 1970's and 1980's. today we produce less than seven
.illar that means we have to import two-thirds of the crude oil we use every day. we have an administration that uses the past tense for oil. as the president has said on numerous occasions with respect to tax deferment for oil companies, why do we subsidize the past, when we should be investing in the future? i have to really say to the administration, using oil and gas in the past tense is domestically misleading and internationally dangerous. dangerous because our national security is ever more dependent upon the steady flow of foreign imports. where do those foreign imports come from? everywhere. and this is where the arab nations, the middle east, an
opec are very important part of our everyday life in america, because rhetoric will not make oil in the past tense. reality is, we have spent 100 years building a hydrocarbon infrastructure in the united states of america and across europe. that infrastructure is not going to change quickly. the president can boast and cannot explain that by 2015 we have a million new cars on the united states highways, hybrids, advanced hybrids, and battery cars, 1 million. that is progress. but against a base of 250 million cars on the road today, with tens of