tv U.S. Senate CSPAN February 11, 2011 9:00am-12:00pm EST
and i did that. the therapist came in, and he was a fella from nigeria, and he came in three, four, five times, and at the end he told me what i had to do to be able to be mobile again. and he said, look, listen, may i say something? and i said, sure. he said, i don't think you people in america fully appreciate your country. he said, if you go outside the capitol -- capital, the embassy in the capital of nigeria any night, you're going to see people sleeping in the grass, waiting in the line so they can get up i to the front of the line and try to get a visa to come to the united states of america. >> amen. >> they see this country, as has been said, as a shining city. and it is. the united states is the most important invention of mankind. [cheers and applause] ..
philadelphia. go live to the conservative political action conference, cpac is what is known by. they're holding their three day annual conference that started yesterday and continues today and during our coverage we expect remarks from massachusetts governor met ronnie, members of congress including senator orrin hatch and johnson and congressman ron paul and marshall blackburn and minnesota governor temple and the. live coverage on c-span2. ♪ >> good morning, cpac. how is everyone? are you excited about 2,011? are you more excited about 2012? that is what i like to hear. we are talking today with 32 esteemed panelists. i want to bring them out. first we need no introduction,
pact could go -- pat caddell. he was a boy wonder and now a manly wonder. also -- republican pollster to go with our democratic pollster, john laughlin. please. [applause] i am going to set this up in just a moment because what the of these guys have to say is very important. we in the audience must really take this to heart because this won't be necessarily good news politically for republicans or for people who are afraid of the democratic party on security issues because the democrats last year won on terrorism. there is an exit poll. pat will get into that because
this is his number. when you looked at the exit poll for 2010 midterm elections 9% of voters said that the single most important factor to them when they pull the lever -- pulled the lever last november was do you remember the ink cartridges coming from yemen on the ups cargo planes going to the synagogues that were going to blow up over the eastern seaboard? that was listed as the single most important event for voters by 9% of them. of those voters, 55% went democrat. bear that in mind. by the way, this is a trend going back some because late 2009 into early 2010 as obama's numbers were taking across-the-board on all the issues. one issue, barack obama had a
plurality of support and approval on terrorism and national security. the question is this why did this politics happen when the reality everyone seems to be otherwise to answer that we have pat caddell and john mclaughlin. >> hi am not trusting with anything mechanical. >> you are setting me up for the fall. >> watching what is happening in egypt this could not be a more perfect panel. watching president obama reminds me of charlie brown and the football. every time you think he is gone he is back. the point joel just made that is important to discuss, we are here on behalf of secure america now organization when you go to their web site, in the same spirit of my friend richard
dreyfuss who are am happy to see here. we are stunned by a lot of people for being here but the idea of this group is a grassroots to new group and grass-roots effort to developed -- to secure america, input into our political discourse the point joel just made. 9% of people in the biggest midterm election we have had in my lifetime, 9% of people moved at the last minute, 13 points more democratic than republican the house of the rally round the flag because there's no narrative about foreign policy. the issue of security for america cannot be left to the experts. this is something that affects all americans. this is a non-partisan effort because 9/11, there was a
moment, there were no democrats and republicans or conservatives in that moment. there were americans. a lot of these issues if we cannot come together to inform ourselves and have a say to -- it doesn't matter if iran gets nuclear-weapons or gives away. effects every one. if al qaeda is much closer to having dirty weapons and chemical weapons than anyone thought and that got lost in egypt these things affect america. in any event i will turn to john who will run through some numbers and what will talk about a couple numbers. >> i was coming here years ago when reagan was president and it is an honor to be on the panel because pat was a super bowl elected president in '76 and i was volunteering for meghan way back when. what is amazing is the numbers.
gay confined numbers to put this on their web site. they have begun to do things that democrats and conservatives and liberals agree on which is the security of the united states. three major points. everything was about -- we elected the new majority leader eric kanter and sitting members of the house. governors across the country, everything was about economics but underneath the economic concerns terrorism and security threats are there. i have not seen these since the cold war the where they are today. depending on what is going on, they do not have good ratings when it comes to security and foreign policy.
i have a theory that underneath it is high or not high. and denise the security, one thing that makes the president different from any elected official in the united states is he has to keep america safe. i come from new york as you can tell from my southern accent. i compare them -- when he got elected, a good moderate mayor, historic mayor, and his job, going down crown heights. when you realize the mayor could be saved you throw him out. the obama administration, egypt and policy. when people don't think we are
safe that is his last job and iran is seen as a major threat by americans right now. most important issue, these are poles we did, secureamerica.org, e. economy was top concern. however, who or what, these were -- the second answer they're laughing at. this was the national survey. i couldn't have scripted that better. the number one answer, the number one answer is terrorism. 14% and then you have barack
obama, economy, ourselves, then you have iran. china 3%, borders 3%, deficit 3%, there are a slew of other answers that went down 2% al qaeda or iraq or middle east or radical muslims. 45%, plurality of voters, almost half cited an external threat off the top of their heads before they touched any other issue. the plurality of americans do not feel safe and they see external threats. this is the first time we have seent r that americans feel insecure. this was the rating that disapproved of barack obama last year handled american foreign policy. probably went up by january, state of the union but 54-42,
not good. when you see defense, negative ratings. these are thousand voters across the united states. when i am briefing elected officials and members of congress, versus 51%. poll numbers that are big poll numbers, we should pay attention to them. the american people 3-4 say they are way ahead of us on issues. now when we ask, president obama committed to a policy of our region the muslim world, and 51%
said decrease, 21% said increase. two-1. they think the president is making us un safe. this is not a good number for people paying attention to this. another big number. how concerned are you about islamic terrorism in the united states being sponsored by iran? 64% say concerned. thirty-two% not concerned. big number. across the board republicans, democrats, independents. another big number, many experts say iran is developing nuclear weapons. will united states be safe with a nuclear iran? 74% say no. only 15% say yes. the voters are so far ahead of us on this issue. they have iran in focus. they say will be a problem and this one is a very interesting number. if iran were to launch a nuclear missile at the united states do you think the united states has a missile defense system in place that could shoot down the
nuclear missile before it gets to the united states? 56% of all americans say that missile defense system is in place. when they find out it is the wrong answer it will be too late. do you approve or disapprove of the obama administration endorsing a decision by russia to supply nuclear fuel for an erector in iran? 74% disapprove. iran will use a nuclear weapon to threaten middle eastern oil to the united states and its allies. 83% say that is a serious threat. 11% say not serious. 91% of republicans, 81% of independents, everybody gets this. saudi arabia, egypt, this was last year before what was going on in the world right now. egypt and saudi arabia have started nuclear programs. do you think president obama's
failure to stop the nuclear program is leading to a nuclear arms race? yes, 57-25. iran is developing a nuclear weapon. when iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon how likely it is that iran will launch a nuclear attack in each of the following. provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack american cities. 80% think it is likely. 89 republicans, 75 democrats. personal 75 independents. people watch 24. you see movies about islamic terrorists. public opinion is there already. they think it is possible. launch a nuclear attack on israel, 72% likely. launch a missile attack and the united states, 55. when you look at it do you approve or disapprove, united states providing financial support to -- pro democratic dissidentss in iran who want to overthrow the radical regime
57-27 support allowing and assisting israel to attack and destroy iran's nuclear weapon programs, 57-28 and launch a iran to stop iran from building nuclear weapons 52-36. public opinion is already there. on this question, using the military to attack and destroy facilities in iran which necessary to boost nuclear weapons, the sanctions don't work, 60-30 they support that already. even the democrats' 46-42, 75-16. >> let me jump in here. this is an important thing about iran. this is backed up by a whole bunch of polls. for an issue that has been in a vacuum and not dealt with the american public is focused on this question and fear of it. the anxiety with what john is
talking about, large anxiety on american security. really an issue that is unbelievable, what is stunning about these numbers and consist of for a couple years on iran on the question -- that it comes to the time when americans believe iraq and afghanistan, wars were a mistake. but the imam in the 60s, it was a mistake colored everyone in america large majority to any efforts or action in foreign policy. this is the reverse. they are setting this aside. those numbers are more significant light of that. the other point to make that you see a lot of numbers is how much across the board, we are used to politics being divided strictly along lines of democrat or republican or liberal or conservative the personal i call these phoney arguments that somehow we are not americans. but on these issues it is across the board. there is a huge majority of
concern and great anxiety on this. >> you want to talk about these? >> i want to touch three clique points. you can see on the slide, we all remember the mosque. one of the problems we are trying to address in secure america now is trying to focus -- we have a vacuum in the discourse. there's no narrative about security in foreign policy. we as a domestically oriented. so much in the agenda of politicians of both parties as opposed to a discussion between ourselves. the issue of the mosque is a perfect example. i could take 50 different polls and first time i saw it i was stunned. this was a cnn poll from early august and i take it because it is certainly not a conservative
group. the question about support or opposition. 29% were in favor, 68% against. what is interesting to me is i know no other issue with these kinds of numbers in our political discourse were not only 82% of republicans and 70% of independents but a majority of democrats eager turtle majority of non-whites by a huge margin and most importantly what we don't know enough about, the issue of security particularly about radical islam and the threat in general among women rather than men. it is counterintuitive. most of the time we talk about military action when in tend to be -- to generalize, women tend to be more conflict resolution oriented. let's sit down and talk and be nice. on these issues women now pays men. on everything having to do this by a large margin in almost every poll.
i have never seen anything like it. we don't know why but has to do i suspect with -- let me talk. has to do with security or children but it is a major important component. i will pick up on that and one second. this is from the washington post. what is also happening is this has been tested every year. compared to before 9/11, is the country less safe from terrorism? you can see by september basically we have been running about in the 60%, better than 2-1 that the country was safer than less safe. look at the margin difference. 40 point swing between september of 2008, and september of 2010. the sense that we were becoming less safe is at work here but is not part of the political discourse or the answer of how we deal with it.
>> we have ten minutes left. what i want to get at here -- [talking over each other] >> this is from a q study that found 41% of the public says the united states plays a less important role in the world. lowest number they ever registered and reversal opinion in the beginning of 2009, almost half of the country said china was the leading economic power rather than the united states. the last thing a want to point out about foreign policy, it is hard to ignore politics. there are so many things happen we don't know about. last week in iran we saw what i mentioned about al qaeda getting weapons. the cell that was missing we didn't find, there was a story you might not have known. the incidents in fort hood. one of the things that is most shocking to me is the american people -- i don't know how many
people are familiar with it, a journalist, liberal journalist in seattle. she suggested everybody is so appalled'scomedy central, sheet suggested having a if mohammad cartoon day. she is in putting. the fbi told her to go into hiding. she is in her own witness protection program. gave up her career, her life and disappeared in the united states of america. the fbi said we will not protect you but suggest you go into hiding. this is on our soil under threat. there's something wrong here. the issue politically i find amazing is when you look at
attitudes about women and effect that she was in washington state. that very close senate race. republican party is so dumb about its politics but the very close race, that issue was never raised in that race. it would have been a decisive factor. we must make these issues of security and put them into the national dialogue. [applause] i am done. >> we have a few minutes left. what i hope you can address is the paradox. i look at the numbers from john mclaughlin on secureamerica.org and we all know that if you talk to people and numbers starting to come out in the president's handling of egypt and they're not positive, below 50% but people don't have confidence on foreign policy or terrorism and
yet the democrats, when it came to the 2010 elections, 9% of voters said terrorism attack was the most important issue the democrats won by 13 points over republicans. >> at least 1-1/2 or two points the delayed dozen house races that were decided by that. any time there's a national security crisis in the absence of any narrative or discussion of the issue the public rallies around the flag. you rally around the commander in chief. a very simple answer. there was no counter do a narrative or argument about it. >> explain it. >> at that point they intercepted those packages of cartridges with explosives. how many people are from north carolina? that is good. i was doing polling for renee elmer's in north carolina and she was an incumbent bunt her
first tv ad was about the ground zero mosque. it talked about how she was opposed to it and people said that doesn't matter in north carolina. people around the country supported her and helped her win that race. there she was in north carolina in a rural area where they were affected by that issue. it was the first signal that americans are insecure. your point about the plurality of voters with the president, that was because they had succeeded. in the meantime the rest of the country and the rest of the voters are concerned they may not succeed. >> let me say this about the mosque issue. i am amazed. there is a view among the elite that somehow or a discussion about the differentiation between radical muslim extremists and somehow an attack -- islamphobia going on.
it is amazing to me. the american people, we have had no pilgrims in this country against muslims or islam. it is about people can differentiate. they can walk and chew gum at the same time. they see what is dangerous and what is not. the fact of the matter is this inability to have the discussion, in new york state of the most liberal place in america other than i used to live in beverly hills, the opposition to it was overwhelming despite all the political leadership and the elite saying you must do this. the argument was a matter of common sense to people. this notion you keep telling people they are bigots and racist is very dangerous in this society because it does allow the voices that are less rational but the issue disappeared because republicans argue we shouldn't talk about this issue.
i don't get it. we need to have a rational discussion and we can do it in a unified fashion but there's a difference and you cannot say these blanket things. the greatest difference in this country right now is the politics between the political class which is so estranged it might as well be on a separate planets from the mainstream. when i say the political class i mean democrats and republicans both. no issue is this more so than the question of securing this country and being able to deal with that. we need to wonder stand that difference. time to stop serving the politicians and their agendas and serve the american agendas. [applause] >> it seems there's a change of pace from the obama administration. in the midst of the meltdown in egypt and the threat from the iran disappearing from the headlines janet napolitano came before congress and testified
that the greatest threat we face is from within from home grown terrorism. she went from not using the word terrorism at all last year to using it 60 times. do you see the narrative changing from a media standpoint reflecting the administration's shift on this issue? >> it is not clear what the administration's vision is. the evidence is there, as i said week ago this country should have been engaged in a debate about the fact that we discovered -- from wiki leaks, there are some important things that came out of this that al qaeda is much closer to a dirty bomb and chemical weapons than anybody thought. this is our own intelligence analysis and we have a missing still running loose. we still don't know about. these subjects, this is about internal terrorism, we see what
is happening in europe. in david cameron's speech following good german prime minister's speech, they have a problem in europe that we don't have but it is a question, one thing we have been able to do in this country is rather of and the idea of every ship on its own is having a national identity. i am irish-american and a lot of people are concerned about mixtures and catholic to. . this finger grew up over the whole, this is what is missing for people. this issue for us is very important. this notion of political correctness in the face of the idea of a national identity because the old leafing, my friend richard dreyfuss, amazing thing that we should have a civic engage public, without regard to public or ideology you
can have a democracy about it. this was an example. and we have to have this question that is what i call the ideology of american common sense and common sense thing is there's more that unites us than divides us but we can't be told we can't talk about it because it will offend some minor number of people. we have this backwards. and the problem with this is if you don't have a rational discussion i guarantee what you are talking about with all this anxiety we will see and hear rational discussion and we will all pay a price for that. >> pete king is one of my clients. don't do these hearings or talk about domestic or radical islam because you can't single the now. you can encourage him. when he got secretary janet napolitano up there and he said -- that is right. you didn't mention the word terrorism last year but
mentioned 50 times this year. a you coming around? he is willing to say change your policy but in the meantime the security of the united states. we should encourage more hearings like this because we have to keep the discussion going. .. >> we're going to have to because i will tell you what, it is the secret issue of this election. we are all focused on the economy and issue domestically. when you saw this thing about america decline, whatever it is, we will sell the stock market
determined. it's amazing. the sense we don't have this discussion is going to be let out of control. i believe that it is, in fact, in terms of a narrative, we have a vacuum now which is dangers. if we have a positive narrative it will turn out to be huge issue. it can be a very decisive issue. >> i fully agree. you will have -- everybody is focused on the economy for the next election when we show those numbers. it is rare you have a presidential election without it foreign policy or secure issue. it is there and it may be the deciding issue for those candidates who are running. whether they want to address these issues, if they ignore it, it is probably at their own peril. 75%, you're going to ignore that? i do want to run on think you're going to lose? lose? they'll have to pay attention to it because you are there. the fact you are all listening to this is a sign this is an extremely important issue. yes, we are concerned about losing our jobs, homes, health
care. we are also concerned about losing our country. >> the last point. there is a notion people go away. we will solve, deal with his and her own way that we want to. this -- bubble secure america is provide a platform. american people interject himself. it is your interest and your children's interest that will be decided. without that voice i don't want the elite making these decisions on their own basis. [applause] >> thank you very much, everyone. [applause]
♪ >> another round of applause for our great opening panel. [applause] we are moving right along here. we have a lot to do, and i am now very pleased to welcome a man i know as a friend, the libertarians libertarian i think we could call him, the former governor of the state of new mexico and a republican presidential aspirant, gary johnson. [applause] [applause] >> i'd like everyone here to know that first and foremost i'm an entrepreneur. i started a one main handyman
business in albuquerque in 1974, and in 1994 i actually had 1000 employees, electrical, mechanical, pipefitting, really american dream come true. work hard, show up on time. it's amazing what that will do. i sold that business in 1999. nobody lost their job and they are doing better than ever. i view my venture into politics as entrepreneurial. i introduced myself to the republican party a couple of weeks before i announced, and what they said was we like you, we like what you've got to see. we're an inclusive party. we want you to be a part of the debates debate, the discussion running for governor but you just need to note that you will never win. it is not possible to come from completely outside of politics and get elected governor in a state that is two to one democrat. i got elected and i would like to thank it was based on somewhat on what i have to say. which i was going to run the state business like -- the state
government like a business. everything would be a cost-benefit analysis. what are we spending and what are we getting for the money we are spending? [applause] >> i got elected. what i found myself doing right away was be doing a lot of bills. it vetoed 750 bills while i was governor of new mexico. [applause] >> i had thousands of line item vetoes and it took line item veto to a new art for. i have to tell you that just say no to legislation doesn't fly, but the discussion, the debate that follows which is do we really need to be spending this money, isn't going to make a difference in peoples lives in new mexico? i was willing to say no and i was willing to take on that debate. that debate got played out in the newspapers and on television. and i would like to think that
the fact that i got reelected in a state that was two to one democrats by saying no to billions of dollars worth of new spending really just speaks volumes to the fact that people really appreciate good stewardship of tax dollars. [applause] >> only two of those vetoes weren't overridden so it did make a huge difference. another thing i was known for nationally was i was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding pro-choice. i really believe -- [applause] >> i really believe that the only way that we're going to reform education in this country is to bring competition to public education. [applause] >> so for six figures i propose every single student in new mexico get a voucher that would have brought about that competition to education, the notion of educational entrepreneurs unleashed on the
educational system to bring better products, better services at lower prices is something that really excites me. and it would have a profound positive impact on education in this country. now, that didn't go anywhere, but the public opinion in new mexico went from 35% to supporting school vouchers when it first are the entire debate to over 50% supporting school vouchers when i left office. so i thought that was significant. another thing that i got known for nationally, and this was in keeping with a promise to look at everything that we were spending money on, what are we spending and what are beginning for the money that we're spending? i really wanted to take what i started my second term, i wanted to take a hard look at the war on drugs in this country and i wanted to include legalization as a potential alternative for what we were doing. i came at this from the standpoint that i wanted to
crack down on drinking and driving. that's where this all started. and guess what? the police, they don't have the resources. the courts, they are packed and the prisons are full. it turns out that have always been of law enforcement, the courts and the prisons is drug related. about $70 billion a year, and what are we getting for the $70 billion a year? we are arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country which i point out is the population of new mexico that gets arrested every single year in this country and we now have 2.3 million people behind bars in this country. we have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. i looked at this issue and i would ask you all if you haven't looked at this issue to just look at it, get online, talk to people and see if you don't come to the same conclusion that i have. and that is that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition related, not use related. and that's not to discount the problems of use and abuse, but
that ought to be the focus. so then and now i proposed legalizing marijuana. when i say legalize marijuana -- [applause] >> when i say legalize marijuana, control it, regulate it, tax it. it's never going to be legal to smoke pot become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car or do harm to others. and it's never going to be legal for kids to smoke pot or by pot under which situations will be easier for a young person to buy pot, the situation that exists today we can virtually buy anywhere, and by the way, the person that sells pot also sells harder drugs, or a situation where you have to produce an id to be able to do that? i think you could argue that youth would actually go down among young people. and based on holland and portugal's experience, it would suggest that would be the case. i got out of office january 1 of 2003. i was term limited. i'm a firm believer in term
limits. i think as a result of term limits, i think politicians do good things for you and i as opposed to whatever it takes to get reelected. but i find myself 18 months ago just outraged over the fact that this country is bankrupt. that 43 cents out of every dollar that we are currently spending is borrowed i just think the biggest threats to our national security, i think the biggest threat to our way of life is the fact that we are bankrupt and that we need to fix this right now. and how did we get here? well, on national television i was asked about a week ago what about repealing president obama's health care plan? yes. we should repeal president obama's health care plan. but how about if republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship, how about if republicans offered a repeal of prescription drug care benefit that they pass when they controlled both houses of congress and the president's
seat? [applause] >> and ran up record deficits. there's a shared responsibility in this, and it goes back a long way. but there's no taking the can down the road anymore. we have to slash government spending. i advocate balancing the federal budget tomorrow. that means cutting $1.5 trillion from the budget because that's 43% of the federal budget. [applause] >> and to do that you've got to start out with talking about medicaid and medicare and social security in defense. i think when it comes to medicaid and medicare, the federal government gives those functions back to the states. 50 laboratories of innovation, all out in this notion of best practices we're all really competitive. you know what, we do that it's
going to make huge difference. it will make a huge difference and huge savings. social security, by comparison is pale in comparison to medicare. medicare is going to virtually engulf the entire federal budget and less it's brought into check. social security, really, it's a function of a system that takes in more money than it pays out. so i think that's a matter of raising the retirement age. that maybe a slight benefit reduction and a slight reduction or a reduction in the escalator for social security going forward. perhaps entails means testing. when i talk about any of this, raising taxes is absolutely unacceptable. raising taxes in this country it -- is not acceptable. we should eliminate the corporate income tax if we really want to bring about a situation where this country is going to be the place to start up and incubate and grow businesses in this country. i talk about free markets when it came to education.
it's an exciting notion, free markets. when the whole health care debate started i had envisioned free market. i had envisioned the federal government eliminating impediments for health care entrepreneurs that want to enter into the space to deliver better products, better services at lower prices. what we've ended up with, we've ended up with legislation that is going to drop 30 million more americans onto a system with no added capacity. how is it not going to result in rationing and higher costs? and right now the immigration issue is really an issue that i think it's front and center. and as republicans, look, we're the party of ideas. the only party that's going to say this country is the republican party. it's the only party that's capable of doing this. and the republican party needs to stay principled when it comes
to looking at everything we are spending money on, and what are we spending our money on and what are we getting for the money that we spend x. and yes, we have hard. we want to do this as efficiently as possible. but when it comes to immigration i happen to think that immigration is really a good thing. we are a country of immigrants. i think immigrants end up being responsible for tens of millions of jobs in this country. i'm glad that google is a u.s. company and not a russian country. and right now because of our convoluted immigration policies we are educating kids from abroad and we're sending them back to the country of origin to ultimately startup businesses that i think will employ tens of millions of indians as opposed to u.s. citizens, that if allowed to have state in the united states would have happened and that would have happened. so we have a problem with illegal immigration. immigration should be about work, not welfare. when it comes to illegal --
[applause] >> and we have an issue in this country with welfare. our mexicans coming across the border and taking entry-level jobs from americans? no way. because we can sit home and make as much money or less money by collecting welfare. i think we have easy solutions when it comes to the border. it doesn't involve building a fence. it doesn't involve putting the national guard arm in arm across 1500 miles of border. i would really thank you all very much for allowing me here to speak. i thank you all for your activism and let's go the republican party, the republican party is the only party that's capable of fixing what's wrong in this country today. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪
and now for the next panel, the moderator i'm going to introduce now is ryan baker who is the president of i guess we can now say soon to be victorious taxpayers against earmarks. but as you know, on that subject someone else once said stay thirsty, my friends. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> thank you very much, and good morning. as roger said my name is brian baker and under president of taxpayers against him are his and our related political action committee called the ending spending fund. this morning our panel is about cutting spending and i'm pleased to be joined by three distinguished guests. first we have ryan hecker, right is a huge and -- a houston
attorney who grew up in new jersey, went to new york university and then to harvard for his law degree. ryan created a contract from america to give a voice to the thousands of frustrated americans who don't believe that the government is listening to them. many of you know about the contract of america. it was a crowd source 10-point plan created to the input of over a half a million americans. next we have and do more than. and to is the vice vice president of government affairs for the national taxpayers union. he lobbies on federal and state issues, conducts policy research and analysis, assist in taxpayer education and formulates reports and opinion pieces. if you read andrew record in the washington show, the "washington times" and "forbes" magazine. and, finally, we are honored to date to be congressman john michael labadie. it's my personal honor to do is congressman mulvaney because the ending spending fund believes
very deeply that the congressman that congressman mulvaney replace, i got by the name of john spratt was the chair of the budget committee had to go. john spratt was here in washington for far too long. during his time as the chair of the budget committee the house of representatives failed to even consider a budget for the federal budget or so along came nick mulvaney. a lifelong carolina resident, he went to high school in charlotte catholic, after high school he attended georgetown university. congressman mulvaney didn't receive a law degree at the university north carolina and attended harvard business school. congressman poe many and his wife are the proud parents of triplets. shortly after their trip was were born, he joined the family home building and real estate business. he is formally a member of the south carolina house of representatives and then in the south carolina senate. upon his arrival in washington the congressman was named to the house budget committee. so the cycle was complete and
now you have replace john spratt and you are leaving all of us on house budget committee. violate the congressman has been appointed chairman of a small business subcommittee on contracting in the workforce so we are honored to have congressman mulvaney. [applause] >> before my panelists become just like to talk to present about what we're doing in taxpayers against earmarks all year. i was very, very fortunate last year to be joined by joe ricketts, the founder of ameritrade and with his family, the owner of the chicago cubs. mr. rickets was a successful american entrepreneurs and he looked around and saw that our government was too big and out of control. he believed it marks one of the big reasons for it. a lot of people tell you year marks are just 1% of the budget, or earmarks don't really amount to that much of spending. what we decided to do was form a group called taxpayers against
earmarks and focused just on one thing, and that was convincing every member of the house and the senate to stop earmarking for two years. when we started there were 50 members of the house who didn't believe in earmarks and almost no senators who shared our views. there were a few, john mccain was one. russ feingold was another. but now over one year later and won election to the house has given up on earmarks for two years and the senate has given up on earmarks for two years. [applause] >> and something that will surprise this crowd, even president barack obama decided to give up on earmarks and he said he would veto any bill with earmarks so we managed to convince them. how did we do that? that was due to the work of millions of americans around the country that probably many of you in this room. we formed a website called in the spending. and what we decide to do is very simple. if you do it marked your a hooligan. it doesn't matter if you're a republican or democrat or if you're a conservative or
liberal. is traceable. if you waste the people's money with earmarks, you're a hooligan. if you don't you're a hero. and so we called them out on it and the other thing that we did was the other groups have been trying to fight it marks for years, we decide to try to in real-time. we thought if you catch that any act, if you could catch them in the middle of the crime that's how you could be earmarks. what we did was we funded the study and regather the it marked requests of every member while they were pending in congress and we found over 39,000 earmarks requests, totaling over $130 billion. what is that? john boehner, the newspeak of the house, said it marks rob the treasury. so we all know there funding local projects and crazy things. when you add them all up and you look at the because that's when you realize how big a crime it really is. now, no discussion of iraq would be complete without giving you a few examples. so maybe i can see by a show of
hands here in the audience what you think of these requests. $188,000 of your money to develop a media resource center to promote the cultural richness of hot air balloons. that was senator tom udall, a democrat from new mexico. how about this one? $2.5 million of your hard earned money to purchase decorative trash cans, bike racks and street lighting for at down in texas called baytown, texas. that was requested by none other than ron paul. so you see -- so you see there's hooligans on all sides of this fight. [applause] >> but thanks to you and thanks to people like nick mulvaney we
will not have earmarks for two years. the final point about earmarks and the important thing to remember is that while very small part of the budget they are perverting influence on our federal government. they lead to corruption in congressman and lobbies in jail and an entire industry of lobbyist was great just to steal the people's money for special interest. and as tom coburn has said, earmarks are the gateway drug to be government. they leverage higher spending in other bills. if you can't say no to decorative street lighting, then you can't say no to any other program in government. so that's the important thing. so now that we've stopped earmarks for two years, the next up is all of the rest of the spending. and that's what the subject of today's panel. so with that i like to call congressman mulvaney up your. don't let them play this podium until he tells you added to u.s. every question you want to ask how he's going to cut
$100 billion cut from the budget right now next week. [applause] >> it's great to be here. i'm going to begin by doing something that southerners are not very good at typically. which is am going to try to speed relatively quickly and speak very bluntly about some very bad news. i spent the last couple of weeks try to learn as much as i possibly can about our fiscal condition as a country. part of my job on the budget committee is trying to get up on speed where we were. it's hard to find any good news. in fact, all of the news is bad. i've been searching for the last couple of weeks a summary, one of those 30-second conversations you have with people and see how bad it is. i found recently in the congressional budget office's baseline, the first of the budget process, we just received this the week before last, about 160 pages and buried on page 118
is this line which i had the cbo director reid at the budget meeting yesterday. it's only once since. in january 2008, under the laws it affected that time, cbo projected that debt held by the public would total about $5 trillion by the end of 2018. in cbo's current, what i'm reading from projections debt held by the public is quote $16 trillion by the end of 2018 come and 18 billion by the end of 2021. three years we went from our projection of $5 trillion to $18 trillion of publicly held debt. it's hard to imagine how we did that. it's hard to imagine the impact that has on us as a country. hard to imagine the risk to which it exposes us. last year we spent about $250 million on interest. when you measure the debt at about 14 trillion you realize we are borrowing money at under 2%.
as any business owners are as i used to be i can tell you if you let me borrow money at 2% and i can show you a pretty good return. but that is cheap money. it is cheap even by government standards. the average rate over the last several years is about 6%. if we only go to the average rate, we will triple our spending on interest and we have absolutely no control over it whatsoever. it's inherited it does nothing we can do short of paying down debt. it's a tremendous risk and exposure to our country. we talk about projects to get us out, out from this debt situation. one of the best lines i've seen support congressman ryan's roadmap of america. i'm sure many of you are familiar with it. [applause] >> while it is the best plan that we've offered so far, i will tell you this, even under the plan, our debt as a percentage of our gdp, our debt will be 60% or more for the next
65 years. you cannot get into the european union with a debt in excess of 60% of the gdp. people asked me when do you think will turn into greece or iceland or portugal or spain what i'm saying at many levels we are there already because of the amount of money that we have spent over the last couple of years. its most frightening thing that i have seen. i had a press conference when the republican committee unveiled a spending cut program, someone asked me what you think about your first couple of weeks and i said if you're not losing sleep over this size of our deficit, then you simply are not paying attention. the good news is unduly you with us and let the other speakers talked, the good news is i think the house, them majority in congress is starting to pay attention. very excited about the announcement last night that we have cut $140 billion. the message is getting too. i don't think it would've happened but for this freshman
class. i don't think it would've happened but for groups like you. and it just glad that it has. thank you very much come and talk to you in a little bit. [applause] >> thank you very much, congressman. if i could ask andrew to please give some remarks. >> good morning, everybody. my name is andrew. i'm the vice president for the national taxpayers union. it's a pleasure to be here but, unfortunately, it's depressing to be looking at the numbers that we're looking at when it comes to spending. let me just touch on a couple other things that congressman mulvaney did and set the stage a little bit about what these numbers look like if you mention are $14 trillion worth of debt. that's about $45,000 per person. i had a two-year old daughter that is sitting at home right now that those $45,000 for she has ever walked to school for the first time in her life or done any other things that most of us in this room have. in the next 12 months alone we are going to rack up
$1.5 trillion in additional spending that we do not have the tax revenue to pay for. just a little bit of context. $1.5 billion, which will have an deficit over the next 12 months is equal to the entire federal budget in 1995. the republican revolution in 1994 when they came in 1995, the entire federal budget was $1.5 trillion that's just our deficit this year. i would be interested to see the windows the answer to this one. how long do you think it took us to rack up the first $1.5 trillion worth of debt to this country? do you think we did this in 1885 or 1985? take a guess. you guys got it. 1985. ronald reagan gets reelected in 1984. they go. met someone who is excited about that. he starts his second term in the beginning of 1985 and that is when we first surpassed $1.5 trillion worth of total
debt. 193 years it took us to get to that point and we will do it in 12 months. interest payments on the national debt i going to reach $1 trillion i 2020 at this rate. a trillion dollars a year just in interest payments alone. we've talked about the cr and i'm sure we'll talk more about this cutting $100 billion from. that's a heck of a good start, but you could cut all of the money in that bill and you still only tackle a little more than two-thirds of our deficit problem. i guess i don't need to convince you guys destiny as a proud and is something we need to deal with. so how do we deal with it? we start with the low-hanging fruit. we start to pick some of that already. we've gotten rid of earmarks for now. stay tuned and a couple of years as 15 or $20 billion with a special interest projects on indoor rain forest and hot air balloons and other held a seat anchoring things that is not going to be spent. we did a study with a liberal group, the was public research
group, and we got together, between the two of us were identified at least $600 billion worth of cuts that would make over the next couple of years just in waste and inefficiency a loan. those the things we could agree upon with the liberal group. then there's the big stuff. we talk a lot about discretion spending. we talked a lot about earmarks and those are stunning important, and each one of us should be engaged in fighting those battles. but at the end of the day with a big money is spent in defense and entitlement, on the defense side we can even start tackling things without having any material impact on our national security. one example is that some defense agencies are ordering as many as 50% too many spare parts for the equipment that they have. that doesn't make sense. we can't afford that when times are good. we sure as heck can't afford that now. that's something that can save
upwards of $130 billion by the middle part of this decade just figuring out how do not order to much stuff. we also have things that are more controversial but things that are big money. weapons systems and procurement process and things like that. there are efficiency changes that could be me but there are also things like the second engine for the f-35 where we are trying to spend $2 billion on an unnecessary second engine that the defense department robert gates says he doesn't want, and get congress to try to get to the and using our money to pay for it. now, entitlements, this is a big kahuna. social security, they're sort of as i call it a nervous tick of the conservative movement. and become a talk about entitlements we start talking about social security and how we can establish private accounts and make the system solvent. that's right but social security is a much smaller problem than medicare and medicaid. social security takes one type of upwards. so it's basically an actuarial problem. we even need more money or pay people less.
i think that all of us have come up with a pretty good reform plan to give people some individual investment there to have an actual interest in it instead of just handing it over to the government. but the real big one is medicare and medicaid which face exponential cost increases because of the cost of medical care. and because nobody, not a single thing the federal government will turn that when it comes to medicare and medicaid. that's why the rhine roadmap is so important because it's one of the few plants that sketches out how we can solve our entire crisis in a way that still keeps the contact we have no that doesn't rip the rug out from under the millions of americans who are trying to figure how to plan for the future. the ryan roadmap does this plan, but the old problem in medical cost is there's no market forces in medical care for the most part today because the people don't pay their own care.
they pay a co-pay. it a colleague of mine who wanted to have a minor procedure done. and called ask because she had an hsa and have to care what it cost, but this would cost or. they did know. they said will have to go back. they called her back three hours later and said we don't know the edge. we just built insurance companies. we have no clue. that can't continue. the reason it can't continue is because we are going to the debt crisis in this country if we don't stop. it's not going to develop over the span of six months. it's going to develop over the span of six hours. in asian markets on a sunday morning when all of you are going to church and hanging out with your family, when people start to say, i'm not so sure about that american debt anymore. that is when the cards are going to come crashing down at all these decisions become infinitely more difficult than they are today. that's what we need to start tackling the stuff right here and now. thank you, guys. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. and ryan come if you would join
us to the podium, please. again, this is ryan hecker from the contract of america. >> i just a tea party activist. one of millions. and -- [applause] >> it's a real, real honor to speak before you today. from 1998-2008, and especially since 2000, every republican politician tries to cite ronald reagan as often as possible. if they manage to snap a picture with him at some point during this pregnancy, passionate presidency, is plastered on magazines. most have failed to act like them. [applause] >> they successfully parade on our adoration of one of our greatest presidents, and then behind closed doors increase spending to astronomical levels
and engage in a culture of big spending corruption. they regularly cite a constitution and reagan in their rhetoric, in action were just as in favor of big government expansion and regulation, and the first to free capital markets and as democrats which they proved with t.a.r.p., through earmarks, the automobile bailouts. that's one reason that we lost the house and the senate in 2006 and 2008, and the presidency in 2008. the politicians supposedly representing our viewpoints were not come and they stopped listening to us, the base, their base. another reason, we let them. we honestly are just as guilty as they are because we were silent and we continue to vote for them even though they were to speak in rhetoric and in their actions were doing
nothing. that is why -- [applause] >> that's why the tea party movement rose, and that's what i initiate a contract for america project because we need to reassert our voice. and when america back. and so what we did, for everyone who doesn't know about the concept of america, we had a website where anyone could submit ideas about the country about how to fix our country. the idea is we have given the reins to washington to come up with solutions for so many years. and yet they fail to listen to us, but we have ideas. site opened up this website that anyone can submit an idea. we had about 1000 ideas submitted in about three months and about 100,000 people that maybe, those ideas. we did a series of forums to narrow those ideas down to 21 and then at seatac last year with senator demint who is one of those exceptions and a real
leader in washington -- [applause] >> launched a final vote, the final online vote. from february to april 453000 votes were cast and we ended up with a 10-point plan which we believe offered a bold reform. on the middle tax reform, a balanced budget and it required two-thirds majority for any tax hike. a number of other in terms of spending cap limits. so then we spent all summer making phone calls, tried it congressman and candidates to sign. represented mulvaney was one of the candidates. he got sound of candidates to sign. i want to thank you personally for doing so. >> and i think we offered a bold message that really resonate. now we have 71 elected candidates in congress. elected congressmen and senators which signed a contract from america. on the very first day of the house of representatives a top idea in the contract to require
every bill to cite the part of the constitution from which it originates to give them authority -- [applause] >> was adopted by speaker boehner. we're not done yet. i mean, we need to curb long-term spending. right now our movement is strong. it's going to remain strong, but what is key is we have to curb them long term. we have to put roadblocks in their way so that even 100 years from now they are not going to be able to blow up the budget. and that means a balanced budget amendment, two-thirds majority for any tax hike. that second part is cheap. that means spending cap limits. so we've got to continue to be diligent. what my biggest fear is that our entire movement, you know, obama was a great success. he moved this country five steps to the left. my biggest fear is we only move
the country one or two steps to the right back. we need to move the country six steps back to the right. [applause] >> and what we've learned, and i think we have all learned through this, is that the power is not in washington, d.c.. it's with us. the tea party movement showed that you don't need, you know, millions upon millions of dollars in fundraising to win a race to what you need is grass root support and which need to get grassroots support is to be authentic and genuine and offer real solutions to how to fix our country. [applause] >> so, so to conclude, what we said to the politicians is, there may not be a next ronald reagan ,-comamong you, but we sure as heck aren't going to make it act like them.
-- act like him. so thank you very much. [applause] >> so we have 15 minutes left in this panel, and let me please direct everybody to the microphones. please, we will take any questions you have. while you're preparing to question let me throw my first question to andrew. andrew, the national taxpayers union was instant and helping taxpayers against earmarks and other groups fight earmarks. tell us what lessons can be learned from house collectively we are able to convince the house and senate to get rid of earmarks for two years? >> i think it can be summed up by the old political axiom, when politicians feel the heat they see the light. and what happened is all of you out there who have had it up to here with earmarks, said enough, enough already. we are not going to continue to fund these obnoxious programs that do nothing to advance our national goal.
and that's been the real difference that we've had this concerted effort by not just a lot of conservative groups but a lot of moderate groups. we set the time has come to put an end to this way so process. how many members of congress have to go to jail? how many scandals have to occur? how many times we have to be outrageous with what's happening in washington before we said enough already? this is a pox on our country. the act of us got together. politicians got together everybody came to the same conclusion. and my hope is we can continue that after this to your little timeout that we have. >> congressman mulvaney, what's your opinion? >> there's another aspect to it which is specifically is in large part because of the grassroots organization, folks who never would've gotten into politics got into politics issued a third of the freshman class have absolute no political expense whatsoever and i think that's -- [applause] >> i think that speaks great
lengths to the outreach effort. battle in convincing the people who are there as you are right but also getting folks to come up in the grassroots who believe there's any way to get involved in politics. >> great, think you. first here. >> i want to start by saying i am not in favor of increasing the debt by decorative streetlights, what i'm also a nurse and i'm aware of the change the demographics in the country and the rise in information movement and the changes in of life law. and montana, washington state and oregon, the efforts elsewhere. and i've been watching closely the health care plan and i noticed -- to the obamacare and maybe sometimes legislative on both sides of the aisle, there's a cross analysis to the cost of health care.
as someone who cares very much about, that this could be a risk to the elderly and also the frail members of our society. and my question is, can we depend on the conservative and republican members of congress to stand up for the value of all of the members of society, even the frail and elderly? >> congressman mulvaney? >> the answer to that is yes, but let's put in perspective. certainly the republican members especially are going to defend life all the way through, inception to a natural death. [applause] >> let me speak candidly to you. let me do a politicians don't only do. everything will have to be cut. everything. [applause] >> let me tell you why. you heard me to say that by 2025 our interest payments could be a trillion dollars. they could be a trillion dollars tomorrow.
if interest rates go to 7% which is happened about 12 times in my lifetime, our interest payments beginning tomorrow will be $1 trillion a year. another aspect to this, i don't think we can be perceived as picking winners and losers. yes we're going to to prioritize about what gets cut and what gets cut more and what gets cut less. not easy for me to say. everyone is going to have to help. cuts will have to come from every place if we're going to balance this. it took us a lot of time and a lot of political capital, to get us to $100 billion worth of cuts yesterday. that's only one 15th of our deficit this year. it's much worse is that i think people realize that as the cuts will have to cover and place. just a question it will be a priority for the conservative numbers of congress to continue to protect life, if we start having a conversation about let's cut everything except those, or everything except that, the political will will be done to do what actually needs
to be done to put this country back on sound financial footing. >> next question. >> i am from arizona. i was trying to help eric goldwater a half-century ago. nobody small organization of the committee of the tea party in arizona. you talk about putting a cap on spending. that has been tried and it failed. the cab merely allows pressure to build until the pressure succeed employ the lid off. congress from the highway fund and took all the money out of the social security fund in order to make the budget looked balance. accounts can play, lawyers can play. stopped withholding with a constitutional amendment should prohibit employers from being required to or ordering or receiving tax money out of the earnings of people who earn it.
the fact that people don't see the money allows them to turn their backs on the problem. i once had a secretary who said i don't like to pay state tax because i have to pay more at the end of the year, but federal taxes okay because i get money back. i could not get her to understand what was happening. it wasn't because she was stupid. she wasn't. she was simply ignorant. and the only way we will fix it is for government to turn for a moment, honest enough, to say we will take the taxes when we earned them. but not before you see the money. suffix that. >> thank you so much. >> can i touch on that very briefly? i like the idea of eliminating withholding. one of the things that we support of the national taxpayers union a couple years ago, there was a bill introduced to move election -- excuse me, to move tax filing day right before election day.
[applause] >> so he would have that image in your head of writing that huge check up to washington when you walked into that ballot box. they basically put tax filing day as far away as humanly possible from election day. and i think it's about time we put it a little closer so people have a closer in their minds. >> thank you. jim kenney, united states navy, retired. [applause] >> in the month of march we have to leverage points that are going to hit in congress and the house of representatives is her only backstop. the senate nor the president was shut down this government to control spending. will the house stand firm on these cuts, even if it means shutting down the federal government because it doesn't have a budget?
>> the to leverage points, the to leverage points he speaks of, there's actually three, scr, the continuing resolution that will fund the budget through the end of the year. annex will be the discussion about the budget, and after that most likely will be a discussion about the debt ceiling. and the answer is are we willing to stand firm? the answer is absolutely yes. we have to have structural change in the way this government does business. the gentleman from arizona who spoke a second ago, hit the nail right on it. many spending limit years ago and was it nor. we have to change the structure way to change the culture of washington, d.c.. i think about is budget and them is a term is what to do that. i think term limits would be a good way to do that as well. yes, we ran a major concession i think it of chairman bernanke this week in the budget committee. there's been discussion about whether or not not raising the debt ceiling will imperil the full faith and credit of the united states of america.
pat toomey, senator toomey introduced a bill that would force the treasury to prioritize its expenditures so that the debt would stay first. by the way the treasury works as they pay the bills as the bills coming. they had was if the bill comes in for the interest and i don't have any money i can't pay it and we devoted so what a group of us has done in both the house that it is that is introduce a bill that sibley says that federal, have to pay the interest first but it is by the way a provision that both of their state constitutions have. this drove treasury notes because it took their leverage away. they convince bernanke to come out against it but we got dr. bernanke on tuesday to admit that it could be done and that if we could do it in such a fashion that would not impair the functioning of the treasury he would actually support it to be used as a way to get fiscal restraint in this country. [applause] >> it was very encouraging. the answer is yes, it's what we came here to do.
>> i also want to say one other thing, which is what congressman mulvaney touched on, and some of the elected officials have said to you all. and to the people watching on tv, what's so important and how we fought in marks, what's so important to hear from you here in washington. so i invite everybody if you're sitting in the audience and you have a computer, don't you endingspending.com, our website, sign up, endingspending.com. andrew, what's your website? >> our website is desperately poor information there. >> and ryan? >> contract with america.com. >> that's so important you sign up and make your voices heard. next question. >> mike horner, air force, retired. [applause] >> i don't understand the word balance i guess. balanced to me means you match income coming in with spending going out. i applaud 100 billion, that's
not balance. why can't we not do an across the board reduction? >> the simple answer, and again, so he was new to washington, i was as frustrated by it as your but the simple answer is the continuing resolution that we're dealing with today as a matter of fact, or ask i think it will be next week, only deals with discretionary spending. more than half of the budget is on autopilot. more than half of the budget has been on medicare, medicaid, social security and all the other benefits and we can't change that in the continuing resolution. we only played around with a couple hundred and dollars on a $3.7 trillion budget. so the chances to browse the budget this year words you. theory you could do it next year and we will have those very difficult discussions once the budget, once the budget process starts. we did not have a chance at all to the budget issue.
in fact, anything that she was a bonus for us. the only reason we're having this discussion, the only reason we have the opportunity to say this hundred billion is because the democrats failed to pass the budget. so as far as i'm concerned any of this stuff this year is a bonus. >> i'm going to do something very controversial and offer a couple but to barack obama by saying he has guts. i hope that republicans have as much guts as he does to really attack the sacred cows of social security and medicare. they are the elephant in the room for us, but we have to do things that may be unpopular in order to ensure that we as a society move forward, and our children and grandchildren are not leveled with debt and don't get social security because it's run out. [applause] >> over there.
>> thank you. i'm with the madison many men coalition. i applaud the support from the panel of the balanced budget amendment. but how would you react to the concept that congress is very, very unlikely to vote by two-thirds in both houses to limit its ability to borrow money? and what we really need in order to get a balanced budget is the state initiated effort to propose the amendment, and that states have so far been unwilling to do that because of a fear whether justified or not of a runaway convention. and, therefore, i'd be interested in your reaction to the idea that the key to getting constitutional reform to limit borrowing is an initial constitutional amendment to in the risk of a runaway convention come and that's what the madison a minute which is based on an original idea of ed meese's is designed to do. i'd be interested in your reaction to that. >> andrew?
>> well, we have been working with you and others on that concept to try to figure out the best way to get a real strong balanced budget requirement into the united states constitution. i think that there are legitimate disagrees the pilot was the best way to get there is. i think there are a lot of folks, and i talk to people who are staffers on capitol hill and others who say they think the debt limit increase both that will happen, one might one of the, that provides a sufficient amount of leverage to be able to enact something like that without having to go the route you are suggesting. but the way that i look at it is we have to combat this and every angle. i talk about my two year old daughter. she knows how to count but i don't think she knows how to count to 14 trillion. the teens get very confusing. they all sound the same two or. it is 13, 13, 13. we need to start tackling this do. i think we need whether it's the madison amendment or something congress, we need to all of it,
all across the board to try to forget how we can make this happen. >> before we leave it would love for congressman mulvaney to talk a bit of that spending reduction act, and it's something i know you've been working on and i think it's important for people to hear. >> it is and i've got about 45 seconds. this is the ever by the republican study committee to cut $2.6 trillion of the budget over the next 10 years. this is in addition to all the other efforts we have and people always do what you want to cut? so few people have an answer we decided to go ahead and answer it. this is one of those lists that you get and you think to yourself, i can't believe we were funding the stuff in the first place. i will give you the top 10 list. the corporation for public broadcasting, gone. [applause] >> we cut our own budget in several places including printing and travel. we've got our own federal vehicles. we cut the usaid, no funny of a federal office space, we
prohibited -- [applause] prohibit taxpayer-funded union activities by federal employees by 1.2 billion. [applause] >> the taxpayer subsidies a united nations and the governmental panel on climate change is gone in our bill. [applause] >> and my favorite, my favorite comment and certainly it mean elephants, certainly that it is whole process realizing this is not a personal thing. it's a physical thing. the same things our families have been doing a. you sit there with your husband or your wife and say you have to cut this, it's important to somebody. no offense to anybody by saying this but we're going to cut the exchange programs for alaska native, native hawaiians and the historical trading partners in massachusetts. so thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you all very much. thank you, panelists. [applause]
ladies and gentlemen, please give a big welcome to and romney. [cheering] [cheering] add mac. [applauding] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] >> thank you. it's great to be here. you know, at david has been a special friend to us all these years. as we say thank you to him, we look for to the many things that we can do for our friend. castro's nemesis, and our friend. next month mitchen that will
have been married for 42 years. [applauding] known for a lot of things he has done as a businessman, and all of its leader, and a governor, but the most important things he has done have been as a husband and a father. [applauding] when the children were young he would call home from a business trip on the road and would often hear a very tired and exasperated yang mother, overwhelmed by a rambunctious five boys. his consoling words were always the same, your job is more important than mine. my work is temporary. you're building a family that is forever. [applauding]
later in life we face another challenge when i was diagnosed. as we stood together fearing what diagnosis we would hear from the doctor he simply said this, we can handle anything as long as it's not terminal. i will let you know matter what. i no -- [applauding] thank you. i know that as a person, very good person. i have also seen him as a leader , and i for one would like to see him leave the country as president of the united states. [applauding] [applauding]
>> hey, there. how're you doing? [applauding] thank you. thank you. please. thank you. thank you. [applauding] cpac is always fabulous. thank you. what a welcome. great friends. great to be with you today. by the way, i have been in that woman's shall ever since our first day in high school. over the years together she has ways some pretty impressive battles, but among her many accomplishments there is none that is more important and reporting to us and, frankly, the country than her a compliment as a very them successful mother of five sons and grandfather of 16. thank you. thank you.
the other night from opposite coasts of the country and and i were watching the president's address. she figured out pretty quickly what was going on. she sent me an e-mail saying that what he was saying sounded just like he was reading my feedback speech from last year. now, what we were hearing was not just a new and improved barack obama, it was an entirely different barack obama. jeffrey gimel was an. the president went from a change you can believe and to can you believe this change? [applauding] it sounded like he was going tap take up the first lady's organic garden and put in a bob's big boy. but as the speech went on. it became more and more clear that this was
the appearance of change. his answer for americans out of work was more government spending and a $50 billion high-speed rail project. he replaced his chicago politician chief of staff with a fresh face for chicago named dailey. make no mistake here, folks. what we are watching is not a brave new world. it is groundhog day. [applauding] [laughter] two years ago this president faced an economic crisis, an increasingly uncertain world, and uncertain world has been made more dangerous by the lack of clear direction from a weak president. [applauding] the president who had taunted his personal experience as giving him special insight into
foreign affairs was caught unprepared when iranian citizens rose up. his proposed policy on the days met with ron in north korea won the nobel peace prize. how did that work? perron is harming hezbollah ands rushing toward nuclear armament. north korea fired nine -- missiles, tested nuts, shell the ship, and cite a island. there is a three step program which consisted of our abandoning our missile defense and signing a 1-sided nuclear treaty. the cause of liberty cannot endure much more of his they did we give diplomacy. [applauding] the world and our valiant troops
watched in confusion as the president announced he intended to win the war in afghanistan as long as it did not go beyond august of 2012. and while the attitude may not have an air force or sophisticated terms, they do have calendars. [applauding] it is my sincere hope that at some point in the near future this president will finally be able to construct of foreign policy, any foreign policy. that will be a change. now, here at home the president response to the economic crisis was the most expensive failed social experience in modern history. he guaranteed that unemployment would stay below 8%. as he watched million and millions of americans lose their jobs, their homes, hoping, his
response was this, it could be worse. it could be worse? this is the leader of the free world's answer to the greatest job crisis since the great depression? what's next? with the need to take. [applauding] bases me. but the organic. [laughter] it is often said that the presidency of the united states is the toughest job in the world. fair enough, undoubtedly true. how difficult is it to take office in the middle of a raging economic crisis and understand that the economy should be your number one priority. the president who took office on january 20th of 2009 should have had one central mission, but every american back to work, fight for every job it is every job is a paycheck, and paychecks
fuel american dreams. without a paycheck you can't take care of your family, by school books for your kids, keep a car on the road or help an aging parent make ends meet. president obama has stood and watched over the greatest job loss in modern american history, and that, my friends, is one inconvenient tree that will haunt this president throughout history. [applauding] today there are more men and women out of work in america than there are people working in canada. in the month of january canada created more new jobs than we did. now, when one of reagan ran for president remember he hung the misery index around jimmy carter's act. today's misery is real unemployment, home foreclosures,
bankruptcy. this is the obama misery index, and it is at a record high, and it is going to take a lot more than new rhetoric to put americans back to work. it is calling to take a new president. [applauding] [applauding] let me make this very clear. if i were to decide to run for president -- at teeseven. [applauding] it sure would not take me two years to break up to the job crisis threatening america, and i would not be asking to met the gate near how the economy works
or larry summers out to start a business. i know. [applauding] 15 million, 15 million americans out of work. millions and millions more can't find a good paying job. you have seen the heartbreaking photos and videos of the job fairs around the country where thousands show up and stand in line all day to have a chance to compete for a few job openings that probably aren't as good as the job they held two years ago. these job fairs and unemployment lines are present obama's hooverville, and they have to end. [applauding] make no mistake about this, this is a moral tragedy, a moral tragedy of epic proportions.
unemployment is not just a statistic. 15 million people out of work is not just a number. unemployment means kids can't go to college. it means that marriages break up under financial strain. young people can't find work and start lives. men and women in their 50's in the prime of their lives the a 11 be able to find a job again. liberals should be ashamed that they and their policies have failed these good and decent americans. [applauding] and so the president has tried to show that he finally gets it and he really isn't liberal after all. his idea of conservative economic policy is to invite some corporate ceos to the white house for an evening of table talk. i'm sorry, mr. president. that is not a policy. it's a dinner party.
[applauding] we have seen the failure of liberal answers before, liberal welfare policies condemned generations to dependency and poverty. liberal education policies fail our children today because they put pensions and privilege ahead for the union bosses at of reading scores for our kids. [applauding] liberal social policies, those have failed to protect the unborn. [applauding] and now -- [applauding] and the hollow promises of liberal economic policies have failed to provide millions of americans with work. under the pressure of a crisis people turn to what they really believe. with our economy in crisis the president and his fellow liberals turn to europe for their answers like the europeans
they grew government, racked up record deficits, to cover health care, post captain trade, stop the production of oil and gas and coal. they fought to impose unions on all america's workers and created over 100 new agencies or commissions and hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations. theirs is a european-style solution to an american problem. it does not work there, and it will never work here. [applauding] the right answer, the right answer isn't to believe in the european solutions. the right answer is to believe in america, free enterprise, capitalism, limited government, federalism, the constitution as it was written and intended by the founders. that is the right answer.
[applauding] my father never graduated from college. he apprenticed as a lab and plaster carpenter and was darn good at it. he used to brag that he could put a hand full of nails in his mouth and spit them out pointed nail and first. on his honeymoon pete and mom drove across the country. tasseled aluminum paint along the way to pay for hotels and gas. that always believed in america. in that america and plaster man could work his way up to running a car company called american motors and end up as governor of a state where he once sold aluminum paint. [applauding] for my dad america was the land
of opportunity, free enterprise, small-business and the entrepreneur is were encouraged and respected. the spirit of enterprise propelled america's economy and our standard of living passed every other nation on earth. i refuse to believe that america is just another place on the map but the fight. i believe that america is an exceptional nation of freedom and opportunity. we are an exceptional land. [inaudible conversations] the america that you and i believe in has a goodness and the greatness that creates a unique american genius. that genius has bus the world, led the world, even save the world from the unimaginable
darkness that could have occurred. we did not originate the concept of liberty, but our founding fathers redefined it and share it with the world from the sands of omaha beach to the dark valleys of the hindu kush. we have fought with an unmatched courage and determination, not to conquer territory, but to give others the chance to experience the liberty that is humanity's destiny. given all that america has done to lift others from poverty, given the millions of afflicted we have helped to heal and comfort and given the hundreds of thousands of america's sons and daughters lives that have been sacrificed and are today sacrificed at the foot of freedom, i will not and i will never apologize for america. [applauding]
[applauding] i don't apologize for america because i believe in america. we believe in freedom and opportunity. we believe in free enterprise and capitalism. we believe in the american dream, and we believe in the principles that made america the world's leader yesterday will make america the world's leader forever. we love this land. we believe in america. this is who we are. [applauding] these last two years have not been the best of times. while we lost a couple of years we have not lost our way. this is a fundamentally what conservatism is all about.
we sang for god to bless america. he already has. he does now, and thanks to the goodness of the american people and the principles that guide us he will do so for generations to come. believe in america. our freedom depends on it. thank you. it to be with you. [applauding] [applauding] [applauding] [applause] [applauding] [applauding]
>> all right. that was a pretty exciting thing. the thought we had the governor of alaska here for a minute, former governor. that must have been a pretty tough thing for pour governor romney to have to go through that. he showed very coolness during that. congratulations. it morning. i am donald devine. i am the vice chairman of the american conservative union and have been for a long time, as you can tell by the color of my hair. many of the folks to come to these meetings often call me the dog died because i once talked when ronald reagan picked me to
be the head of the civil service he said, don, i have three things i want you to do. i want you to cut back the generous benefits of the public employees. i want you to the cutback by 100,000 the non-defense employees in the government, and i want you to make them work harder. i said, banks a lot. i'm going to make a lot of friends in this job. high rubber when harry truman said that if you need a friend in washington by a dog. i bought to to be on the safe side. it was a great pleasure working for that great man. really the greatest man who was head of america in the 20th
century, i think, in the world probably. [applauding] in know, he is still the only president in modern times who absolutely produced, contrary to what you read in the papers, absolutely reduced non-defense discretionary spending by a more than 9 percent over his term. nobody else is in the-area at all. he even, including entitlements, took domestic spending down from 17210154% of gross national product. that is an enormous change. he did cut the 100,000 employees we did reduce benefits.
we get america back on the road to recovery after years of stagnation. he turned the world around. of course he won the cold war, too. i'm going to introduce an individual who i think is in that category. when i was director of the office of personnel management i had to go down to a pr, which i knew nothing about. there was a personal problem at the naval base at roosevelt roads. while i was down there the republican chairman put together a group of young intellectuals to let me and the reagan administration know there were top-level intellectuals,
conservatives in puerto rico. i must tell you, when i got in that room i was talking with people. i'm a professor. i know a little about this stuff. i was knocked off my chair about how knowledgeable and philosophical these people were about conservatives. governor luis for to know was one of those individuals. he is not somebody recent images started believing in this. this goes back almost 20 years. he has not done a bad job himself. in fact, he did reagan one better. he cut spending by 20% in just two years. he has proposed the biggest tax cut in puerto rico history, taking the rate reductions down
50 percent for individuals and 30% for corporations, unlike president obama he realizes that if businesses don't work nothing works. let me introduce somebody who is not only one of us as a philosophical and intellectual conservative, but also someone that knows how to put that into practice. governor luis fortuno of puerto rico. [applauding] [applauding] >> good morning. good morning. thank you, don, for that kind introduction. it is great to be with you all today and to have the opportunity to talk about the exciting new path that the
american people have chosen for this country. our country voted to change the way washington is working, and it is our responsibility to provide that change. two years ago in puerto rico wie similarly voted to change the way our government was working because it was also spending beyond what people could afford. some of that is those of us who cherish freedom and liberty can actually went these bags were while upholding our principles. well, in puerto rico we have done it. as a conservative republican -- [applauding] as a conservative republican i have been elected island-wide twice in the last five years. in 2008i was elected by the biggest margin of electoral
victory in 44 years. [applauding] we also have big dreams that included two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the state legislature, and we prevailed when the votes were counted. why? because when we grow the economy at the expense of the real economy, which is the people's economy, americans will choose freedom, opportunity, and growth. [applauding] we must act now for steady action to take on the big challenges we face. we must show that our brightest days are ahead and we can reignite america's engine for growth. we need to put our face in the hopes and dreams and the plans of the citizens of these great countries because they can outthink, outran him out work, and out produce anybody in the world as long as they are
rewarded fairly for what they do. that is exactly what we are doing in puerto rico as we speak. the tough decisions we make early on in my administration, we are addressing an inherent fiscal crisis that was the worst in the nation. when i took office two years ago we had been experiencing the deepest recession since the 1930's. a recession that began to fall years before it commenced in the rest of the country. i inherited a $3 billion budget deficit, personally speaking the large state budget deficit in the country representing a 44% of revenue. puerto rico credit rating was on the verge of junk status and i actually had to fly up to meet with the rating agency where i was sworn in to avoid a downgrade of our bonds. after i was sworn in we didn't even have money to meet our first payroll. we had to take out a loan to pay
for it. we can do it. we immediately enacted a fiscal emergency legislation with the support of our legislature requiring serious spending cuts, encouraged by a clear mandate from taxpayers in just two years. we have cut expenses by 20%. here is what we did. i first took a 10% pay cut myself. agencies took a 5% cat. we froze salaries for two fiscal years. we cut government contracts by 15 percent. we cut government operating expenses by 10%, including official vehicles, cell phones, and credit cards. week reduced by 30 percent. we shrank by 17,000 through a combination of voluntary and mandatory measures. another voluntary early
retirement and adjust enabled us an initial 4,000 last month. we reduced the number of agencies through consolidation and closed out of power defined benefit pension plan and moved to a performance plan for future employees. we did not shy away from the competition. in just two years our progress is clear and compelling on both of fiscal and economic side. we have expenses and broke down the budget deficits from 44% to less than 11% including getting 70% of total payroll. we are on course to balance our budget before the end of my first term. [applauding] we have reduced our deficit proportionally more than any other state in the ranking of all states by budget deficits after percentage of revenues.
we started dead last. today we are ranked 20th in the country and closing in. the rating agencies have noticed. they increase our bond rating to its highest level in 35 years. they granted us a positive outlook for the first time since 1983. that is not enough. now that we have turned our full forecast to restoring growth and creating the best business climate in the country. we have turned to a model where on to panera to ship and innovation are the drivers of economic growth and opportunity. at back the debate has already begun at the national level on fundamental tax reform as addressing a tax regime that puts american businesses at a competitive disadvantage around the globe.
pr as a u.s. territory has a code that is a mirror image of internal revenue code. the same challenge and high taxes especially on the corporate side that have hindered our competitiveness. i am convinced as the previous president was that the dollar and the taxpayers and will be used more effectively than if that same dollar remains in the government and. we just approved the largest across the board tax cuts that the individual and corporate level and our history. starting january of this year we cut the top corporate rate from a 41% to 30%. in three years that top corporate tax rate will drop to
25%. [applauding] for individuals' tax rates will drop an average of 25% this year , increasing to nearly 50 percent deduction over six years. however, to ensure that we sustain fiscal responsibility individual tax deductions will be contingent on the government meeting targeted goals to guarantee we continue to balance our budget every single year. [applauding] thus we are making the taxpayers the watchdog for fiscal discipline and insuring government keeps that discipline. in addition to the tax reform plan we have instituted a significant plans in our reform agenda to promote growth and
create jobs. we enacted one of the most advanced and aggressive public-private partnership laws in the country to encourage greater private investment and bring up efficiencies to schools, roads, airports, energy, water facilities, and other public infrastructure. we launched a new housing initiative that cut property and capital gains taxes. in the first four months of the program housing sales have increased over 20 percent. we have some of the highest energy costs in the nation from 70 percent of our power generation. we have begun a comprehensive energy program to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil in favor of natural gas and renewable energy. we are also merging government
agencies across applications as streamlining operations to be quick, agile, and efficient so that government red tape does not get in the way of entrepreneurial ship and job creation. a perfect example of the process , we have actually government agencies issuing 28 different permits. we have one permit to do business in pr. [applauding] with this reform we are convinced that job creation will be realized in the consumer will be starters, and the county will be more competitive and process. i was fortunate enough that i had the support from our state legislature. we were able to work as partners to address our challenges comprehensively i think that with pickups in november in congress the governor's office
and state legislatures around the nation, bold is possible. as you know, the mandate for voters is that bold action in washington is a must. [applauding] so my advice is, don't wait and don't blink. make your tough decisions early as stick to them with courage. our nation, the people are expecting leaders. at the beginning of my term i went to the state legislature to tell the public exactly what we faced and what we needed to do fix it. some may not like every decision, but they will respect you for doing what is right and what you said you do. [applauding]
the long practice, the long practice of allowing debt and deficit to grow unchecked has made our country less competitive. it is time for government to put its finances on the path of fiscal responsibility. i am confident that through clear and steady leaders we will be able to address these challenges just like many of us are doing all over the country. that brings me back to the importance at tested on at the start, reaching out to hispanics. our time and opportunity to elevate, growth families and make inroads in our hispanic community around the country. the late president reagan actually said that hispanics are republicans. they just don't know it yet. and he was so right.
actually, i started in the republican party stuffing envelopes in his first campaign. [applauding] he brought many of us into this party. the bottom line is we are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, and have a natural distrust of government. we want lower taxes. education is key, and we want to flourish. those are our conservative and republican values. [applauding] it is clear that republicans must reach out to hispanics to build trust. i strongly agree and leave you with this belief. we don't have to out run away from our values and principles to attract support. we have so proudly then. [applauding] let's show america what we can
accomplish if we protect individual freedom, promote growth and strengthen values. thank you and god bless you. [applauding] [applauding] >> what a crowd, what a day, what a weekend. i am one of those radical dangerous talk-show host that seem to be inspiring serial killers and arizona. what is that about? i don't know. i'm trying to keep track of all the names we've been called the last two years in this administration. racist, antichrist. that was the latest one i was called on the air. i was the antichrist. dr. lawrie, we all know who you
are. to add my? we all know you are the antichrist. this is because you are shredding the health care bill. that is dr. antichrists. coming, they key for sharing. once again the left does not much care about the fact. we have had quite a journey. we were domestic terrorists if we were pros second amendment, pro-life, returning vets from work who got sick. hello. pro state and federal sovereignty, uncomfortable and communist regimes. that was making us domestic terrorists. the same point in time that was removed from our fight. oh, no bid now we are fighting overseas contingency operations. what in the sam hill is that? does anyone have a clue? you are a lot smarter than i am if you understand what an overseas contingency operation
is. we are the terrorists. okay. i get it now. all right then. we have a lot of truth tellers the next few hours. i want you to get ready to put your hands together for an amazing lady, a partner in the washington d.c. office. member of the firm's public affairs practice groups. she is also on the board of the conservative union, the board of directors, served as the chairman of the american conservative union foundation. she is going to introduce our first speaker. quite a lady. put your hands together. [applauding] >> good morning. it is my great honor and privilege to introduce our next speaker, the congressman from the sixth district of georgia. [applauding] dr. price is an orthopedic surgeon who served four terms in
the state senate of georgia before being elected to congress in 2004. in the last congress congressman price served as chairman of the house conservatives and republicans study committee. i must say that i believe with all my heart and soul that it was the house conservatives standing up 100% voting no on the stimulus bill, voting no 100% on the first of bama budget. he did not even bother to submit another. he submitted. they never passed it. tom price was right there leading the charge. he now serve and has been elected by his colleagues to be the chairman of the republican policy committee which developed conservative solutions to america's problems. tom price was doing health care before anyone had ever heard of
obama care. his signature piece of legislation that he had introduced over and over and over is the empowering patience first act which is an attempt to solve our health care problems, not through government solutions, but through private solutions, free-market solutions. tom price is one of the leaders, you may remember, in 2009. they stayed on the house floor and talk about energy with gasoline over $4 a gallon. tom price is a leader. he is a true conservative. he is a man of conviction, man of faith, and i'm proud to call him my friend. dr. tom price. [applauding] [applauding] >> thank you.
how are all those conservative patriots out there? [applauding] thank you so much, cleta mitchell. i want to thank each and every one of you for coming out. a year ago i had the privilege of addressing this great conference. at that time, as some of you who were here will remember, you could feel something was in the wind. you could feel the awakening of the american people to the onslaught on freedom and liberty that this administration had put into place. one year ago i said to this very group, we are on the principles of an historic political revolution. i was wholly confident that next year we would be at cpac celebrating a conservative republican majority in the house and the removal of nancy pelosi from power, and you did it. [applauding] you know, in history the story goes that at the close of the constitutional convention, benjamin franklin was leaving
constitution hall, a convention hall having signed the constitution and was approached by a woman who said, well, dr. franklin, what have you given us, a monarchy or democracy? as you well know he said, we have given you a republic. then those five dennis words, if you can keep it. in that same vein coming in that same vein nancy webster said hold on, my friends, hold on my friends to the constitution and the republic for which it stands for miracles do not cluster. what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. hold on to the constitution. for if the american constitution should fail, their will be anarchy in the world. now, why did this to them and give us those warnings? i believe it is because they understood how precious liberty is and how fleeting liberty has
been in the course of history and what remarkable work it would take to preserve our freedom and liberty. this past election showed a remarkable amount of that eternal vigilance that is required to preserve our liberty. the numbers are absolutely astounding, as you well know. you probably talk about them. eighty-seven new republican members of the house of representatives. [applauding] sixty-three of those individuals turning democrat districts to republican districts, and 37 of those 87 never having served or run for office before in their lifetime. [applauding] ..
>> the deficit and the dead, sluggish economic recovery, the disastrous obama gear, that bailouts to politicize our economy, these are all symptoms of that arrogance in washington that puts government first. clearly the policies of the trajectory of government over the past few years have been a mistake. but not because the democrats need to do something different and didn't succeed. know, these failed policies were no accident. these failed policies were their goal. but i'm here to tell you that their goal doesn't have to be our vision.
[applause] >> why doesn't have to be our vision? because conservatism is alive and well. because fundamental american principles our conservative principles and the american people have been awakened and they are more involved than ever. so where do we go from here? in shortcoming or government and the leaders who espouse the virtues of conservatism need to walk the walk. we owe it to you. we owe it to those who we have the privilege to represent, and we owe it to future generations to get this moment in time right. we owe it to those inspirational leaders who have steered our movement with honor and pastimes of great challenge. this past sunday as all of you know was the bondage anniversary of reagan's birth. i had the privilege, the incredible privilege of being at the reagan library and museum just a few short weeks ago. want a giant of a man he was. he was a man who taught us what
positive leaders can do when they said about setting out a patriotic people into action. here was a leader who walked the walk. while commuting gracefully the virtues of principled solutions. reagan proved it is not enough just to identify the failings of big government or the moral imperative that we have to fight to preserve liberty, and to pass on to our children and our grandchildren and nation stronger and more secure than the one we found. he knew that we had to win the moment i putting those beliefs to the test, and to show skeptics what it means to have a government that gets out of the way and protects our inalienable rights, for the life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness within constitutional boundaries. [applause] >> and for most of our country right now that test begins with the job, with the economy and job creation.
president obama has tell the american people countless times, i've lost count, that his administration and its allies on capitol hill intend to focus on job creation. now, folks focusing on job creation who have never created a job. no wonder we're in such a mess. and the retreading and rebranding and his administration that is debarred on debate is really remarkable. using words like invest instead of spending, stimulus instead of taxing. and it won't change the same government first philosophy that has compounded our challenges and threatened our nation. so it will fall to you as individual voices of conservatism, and it will fall to the house of representatives were any republican majority has the opportunity to move forward positive and optimistic solution, even if we are met with a stiff arm by harry reid and the senate democrats or the
president. even in the face by the opposition we will move an agenda that demonstrates to the american people you do not have to suffer a government that ignores your voices, bankrupt your future and redistribute wealth. [applause] >> you do not have to abide a government that tells you to sit idly by because it has figured out how to dictate your education and your health care and your energy needs. and you know their math doesn't add up. the deficits that we've seen over the past few years are truly jeopardizing the future of our nation. so what we need is a little honesty, a lot of hard work and a resurgence of that wonderful american can-do spirit. our job creators across this land don't need washington to tell them where to invest a how to create jobs. what american small businesses and entrepreneurs need is greater certainty and stability
that only come when washington stops trying to pick winners and losers and orchestrating our economy. [applause] >> the current administration chooses to regulate and made it because they don't trust you with your own money. have you ever noticed that? they think the american people need washington to tell them to invest here or to support this cause, or most recently to keep this or to buy this lightbulb. meanwhile, they have no track record whatsoever that their policies actually work. they have little faith, if any come in the american people are in our founding fathers vision of free people acting in accordance with the law to build a brighter future. they want you to have faith that washington will do that for you. but we know that it's not washington that gives us our freedom. we know that our freedom comes from god almighty.
[applause] >> and that for an orderly society that preserves our rights, we cede a portion, just a portion of that freedom and our liberty back to our government. but only a portion. and i'm here to tell you that the government has taken too much. [applause] >> don't get me wrong. it is not an easy task to balance freedom and security. it's a battle we had since the beginning of the founding of our nation but throwing money at the problem and building a larger and greater bureaucracy, though a favorite pastime of american politics is a lazy brand of leadership, and its consequences are destructive to a healthy society. never before in our history have a witness government to put in -- and coach under liberties in the way it's done in recent years, regulations and taxes that limited the freedom of
americans in the power of american free enterprise. many people have lost their homes and their jobs and their security and most tragically, some have even lost their faith in our country and in the american dream. since the obama administration and democrats in congress have fallen short on their promises and only have themselves to blame, they cry out for a stronger economy and overly build roadblocks to that success. unfortunately, their failures are shared i our nation at large. we however are already working to rein in the size and scope and power and the cost of washington. republicans in the house of representatives have only just begun to take action to put our nation's fiscal house in order and get the democrats decry our efforts and in reasonable and extreme. i'll tell you was unreasonable, it's the tragic deaths that their big government has amassed in just a few short years. government can certainly do with
less. [applause] >> republicans have pledged to lead by listening and acting on behalf of and with the consent of the government. there's something novel. and that requires your active participation. we didn't get it without your help and we will not be a success without your help. so it's time for some tough decisions. the circumstances demand that we be bold. if conservatives are timid we will lose this battle. because you can rest assured that those who believe in a more active and an intrusive government will fiercely fight to increase and protect their power. so we have a long road ahead of us but what our opponents fail to grasp is that our people and our spirit and our perseverance, it is about to provide our shared prosperity and/or stability, not our government. ronald reagan said we believe faith and freedom must be our
guiding stars, for they show us the truth, they make us brave, they give us hope and they leave us wiser than we were. those who possess that faith and freedom, you are a part of the bedrock upon which this nation has been made great. and part of the foundation upon which our nation will proudly stand and remain great. so we are blessed to live in this republic if we can keep it. and with your faith, with your support and with your great work, i know that we will honor our founders legacy and those that defended it ever since. 90 so much. god bless you. god bless america. and keep fighting for freedom and. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ladies and gentlemen, please welcome michelle to the stage.
>> good morning. i michelle easton, president of the clare booth luce policy institute. at the institute we celebrate and promote strong conservative women leaders so it's my great pleasure today to introduce representative marsha blackburn who is a true champion of conservative principles in the united states congress. congressman blackburn was elected in 2002 to represent tennessee's seventh congressional district, the first woman in the state to win a congressional seat in her own right. she quickly became a leader in congress and a strong voice for smaller, more efficient federal government accountable to its citizens. she serves on the powerful energy and commerce committee which has jurisdiction over health care, energy regulation, and telecommunication issues. congressman blackburn is also the author of an excellent book
entitled life equity, realize your true value and pursue your passions any stage of life. and she put a steady guide to this book up on the internet. it says your life equity.com. i recommend it to all of you. she's a popular speaker when she speaks at the clare booth luce policy institute and she inspires the women and men in our with the her intellect, hard work and commitment. marsh and her husband, chuck, live in williamson county, tennessee. they have two children and two grandsons. she's a native of laurel, mississippi, and a graduate of mississippi state university. please join me in welcoming me and exceptionally from the great state of tennessee, representative marsha blackburn. [applause] >> all right. i tell you what, we do love this
conservative crowd. i love it. cpac is one of my favorite events of the year. you all come here with a lot of thoughts. you turn them into actions. you take principles. you apply them to policy. to energize us. you stand up and say let's take a stance on some of these issues and turn the clock back to some of our conservative values. and i've got a specific issue that we need to have you take a stand on today. this is one that you can help us with. we must act now. now, to completely turn back the federal communications commission regulation of the internet. [applause] >> if we do not, we will have failed to check the single largest unilateral imposition of
executive authority in a generation. if the american experiment is to succeed in a hyper connected century, and conservatives cannot fail to defend true internet freedom. [applause] >> here's how i see this. when a president or his administration proposes even minor expansions of government authority into the only sector of the economy showing consistent and sustained growth, and conservatives must be heard. when the president threatens innovation it expanding regulation, conservatives must stand up and object. when bureaucrats believe that they know better than activist and small businesses and entrepreneurs then conservatives have to say, absolutely not.
we know what is good for the u.s. economy. [applause] >> now, the president of the united states and his basketball playing buddies, the fcc chairman, decided to enact the first ever, first ever regulation of the internet. it was a done not by congress, they tried it for years, but they did this during christmas week after congress had already adjourned. now, all conservatives must stand and say, we are not going to stand for this. the administration's net neutrality plan, which is basically the fairness doctrine for the internet, will tilt the internet service providers that they no longer have sole control over the networks in which they
annually invest. annually invest 60 billion private sector job creating dollars. invoking powers previously reserved for third world countries, the fcc will change the terms of broadband leases. and bear in mind, your internet service providers have already gone to the government and least the spectrum. they're going to change this after the fact. and exercise powers that they have created for themselves in defiance of congress. because of this, it isn't an overreach to say then that net neutrality amounts to the nationalization of the internet. if there was ever a cause to rally the conservatives movement, it should be nationalization of our most innovative economic sector and a free speech tool that you and i
use every single day to get our conservative message out. [applause] >> if concerted action is ever urgently needed and should be when a bureaucracy staffed and advised by those who would regulate political speech in asserting control over the most aggressive platform for free speech ever, net neutrality is not needed. the american people do not want it. it cannot work, and i need your help to be sure we can defeat it. many of you county cpac not only to be inspired and motivated, but to really learn about the issues. and i want to put a couple of items on your reading list. here you go. those of you who want an excellent deep dive into this issue, go to reason.com and read the remarkable internet top article it peter salomon. go to "wall street journal" and
read john's column from december 21 about how the net roots have created this issue from thin air. so summarize, net neutrality is a hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. it seeks to restrain internet service providers from actions they have never taken, nor have any market interest in pursuing. in the name of preserving fairness over an open system, the fcc establishes a regulatory and that would be very difficult to turn back. basically if you like the internet, net neutrality promises to ruin it. the arguments that we must defend to defend the internet from evil corporate greed is fiction. or isn't a need for it and i want to give you an example that you are going to appreciate. last year the aclu and arguing
for net neutrality laid out 10 instances of isp, internet service provider mis- behaviors that argue for urgent need for intervention by the federal government. so we look into these. here's what we found. three of those instances were resolved through customer interaction in a matter of days. one was an action taken by at&t to protect itself from illegal activity. others were software glitches or content decisions not made it the isp. two of the cases happen, get this, in canada. of the 10, nine, nine remained unaddressed today and none were resolved by the federal government. [applause] >> there has been no market failure since congress decided
in 1996 to adopt a hands off approach to the internet. we have had staggering success. online status quo is an economy has given you facebook and youtube. the status quo has advanced business models from ebay to itunes. the current model has facilitated freedom movements from tea party rallies in nashville, tennessee, to the remarkable events at the rear square. this is the status quo that conservatives really want to defend. how many of you have ever heard somebody say well, if the internet service provider would get off my back, and i could go hire more people. and how many of you know anybody who would say that this company that is flooding them into the world wide web is restrain their
freedom. i think you agree with me on this. the truth is that broadband has become a modern synonym for in franchise but. when companies seek to locate to the role communities in my state, the first question they ask is about broadband and internet access. so that they can remotely monitor their machinery and operate those plans with schools who want to enhance their curriculum. they go to virtual books and to the internet rather than waiting for the school board to issue next year's appropriation. when the unemployed want to aggressively search for a new job, they go to online employment offices and online universities. washington creates a disincentive to expand those networks by removing the isps
ability to manage those networks. consequently, the profound enfranchisement offers broadband would be enabled by free people in a free market. but what they want to do is have you dependent on the government and on washington for that access, and this is something that conservatives should be enraged about. now, who is creating net neutrality and why? a cursory survey of net neutrality from confirmed socialists like robert chesney to network activists like free press and move on to you all need to know. another example yesterday the director of free press, eric sterner, argued it was up to washington to foster appropriate competition and ensure that disenfranchised had the right
price. we've all heard this argument before. so i decided i was going to have a little bit of fun. so i went to the column and i replaced the word wireless communication and digital with the word health care. and i wound up with a statement that is reminiscent of other the fight against comment expansion, and we conservatives are leading the way to repeal that one. [applause] >> you know, it is really quite amazing to live with presumption at cost and be lowered, access expanded enfranchisement agreed only, only to washington and beyond. it's the motivated behind both policies. both are wrong. and guess what? we can't afford it. the success of the internet is a
direct challenge to the liberal philosophy of government. a successful and open internet amplifies individual voices that have spurred democratic revolutions around the globe. it allows the entrepreneur to prosper without the burden and regulation associated with traditional brick-and-mortar establishment. it proves that free people created free market. it does all of these things without assistance our permission from washington, d.c.. in this, the internet is incomprehensible to big government liberals. that it persists equally without market gaza or regulation on fatah to the left, as such they are anxious to apply one of their central maxim, and radio is had it right on with liberals, it produces taxes, if
it moves, regulated. and that is what they are trying to do. i believe that the fcc's recent net neutrality regulation come if they are allowed to stand, they will surely prove themselves to be a colossal failure of historic and devastating proportions. but sadly, we all know that more regulation is brought about by failed regulation. they try and try again. for sometime i've argued that conservatives need to wake up and understand that our core values are being challenged in the pace of technology policy, and we've got to rise the the occasion because all too often we've been absent from this debate. and in our absence, the left has insidiously laid the groundwork for a massive expansion of federal authority. the left talks about we need
bipartisan agreement on issues that they say are small issues, like bandwidth which is not small at all. and you want to talk about regulating the next gadget that is going to come to the marketplace. they brag about building that, but their goal is this. their goal is to expand their reach far beyond anything that conservatives would ever accept. many of you have a join me in this call, and god bless our conservative online bloggers who are leading the fight on this, the fight against net neutrality every single day. [applause] >> you wonder as do i if the remarkable conservatives expansion that we have seen in the last few years could have been possible if blogs and apps
and strains had to be approved to buy the federal office of internet innovation. so now the left claims that we're going to take a bipartisan issue and turn it into a partisan issue. they say how dare you. and you know what? nothing is further from the truth. we are standing solid on conservative principles, and we have a plan. that me tell you what it is. this is how we are going to stop net neutrality first. congressman fred upton, chairman of the energy and commerce committee, and congressman greg walden who is chairman of our intelligence can indication subcommittee are bringing forward the congressional review act and we will pass a resolution of disapproval of the ftc's actions. secondly, congressman a john culberson from texas is leading the fight to make certain we
block the ftc's ability to spend one thing penny on employment in net neutrality rules and regulations. and finally, my bill, h.r. and 96, will answer this once and for all. it will explicitly say, it will explicitly say that the federal communications commission has no authority to enter that net neutrality rules and take over the internet. [applause] >> to pass these things, to pass this legislation we are going to need your help. we need you to help educate your friends and your families and your colleagues. we need you to make certain that we take this fight for free markets and free speech to everyone we know. the next great five against
government expansion is here. it is over the internet. i am asking you to stand with me, defeat the fcc overreach. god bless you. thank you for being here. thank you so much. thank you. [applause] >> yes, they need to stay away from the internet. but under domestic terrorist granted a degree of all kinds of things continue to go on a. were you all inspired by the governments -- the obama state of the union speech not long ago? suddenly and magically he is pro-business. a lot of business coming to the white house. i think with all the business he is inspired by now he should by the wal-mart food court.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on