tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 11, 2012 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
administration has not. he doesn't plan to wake up the foreign minister in the middle of night to tell them we just change your missile defense plan. he doesn't plan to go whisper to the president of france that mr. netanyahu was a pain, you know where. he doesn't plan to turn around to the russian president and say, just wait, once i have flex but i can do all kinds of things i can't do right now. he doesn't plan to stand aside when there's a major green revolution in iran, and the united states does nothing. we're supposedly trying to get the mullahs to appeal to what we're looking for, and at the same time, the very same mullahs know that when there was a real threat to them, we sat on our hands. what does that tell you about our credibility? what does that tell you about us? >> dov them you've written a book about afghanistan. you were the point person on the
afghan account, during the george w. bush administration. governor romney mentioned of course the 2014 drawdown in his monday speech. what he didn't talk about is that it was a strategic partnership agreement that the administration had negotiate with the afghan government, which will keep american soldiers in afghanistan until 2024. do you have a sense of what the minimum number of soldiers should be going forward? >> let me clarify a couple of things. there are more than a few former administration folks here who will say that was not the total point man on afghanistan. i was involved, but share the credit with many, many others who probably had more input than i did. the first point i'd like to make about afghanistan and the big difference between a strong and mr. obama is that mr. obama set a deadline, creed, full stop. i was in kabul december 2009 when mr. obama made that speech.
and i was talking to isaf people, the people from international force, you know, people who are out there getting shot at from other countries, not just our own. to a man and a woman, there were a lot of women there, they all, almost took no notice of the surge statement. what they noticed was the deadline. what our pakistani friends have noticed is the deadline. what the taliban has noted is the deadline. and everybody is playing to that deadline. including president karzai quite frankly who has no other choice. what mr. romney has said is, yes, that works, as long as the military thinks it works. if you trust commanders on the ground, and they say can't leave just yet, then you're going to
change your plan. and the taliban is terrified of that. the last thing they need it to know that the united states may not leave as quickly as they expect. and look what happened in iraq. boy, we stopped our deadline and we didn't work all that hard to make sure that schmidt [inaudible] with iraq. and look at iraq today. with a man who is trying very hard to become a shia, with civil war breaking out again, without had acted not only in iraq but in iraq's neighbors, so how well have we done? have we brought peace and democracy to iraq? by the iraqi people safe? the answer we know is now mac. so the difference is, mr. romney says for those years, there's a glitch i don't want to do, how
many troops, how me troops will depend on the situation on the ground? what you don't want to have is an announcement ahead of time we will have x number of troops, or y. number of years and let the taliban plan against the. because if we announce what we're going to do, it's like telegraphing in basketball. the best way to get the other team to steal your ball is to telegraph your past. >> just to follow-up on that, the fact that the administration is negotiating an agreement that will last until 2024, presumably something are all happy about spend it depends on the nature of the agreement, number one. it depends on whether the next president of afghanistan with halted. the devil is always in the details. we thought we're going to have an arrangement where we would have some troops staying in iraq. it didn't happen. >> but the iraqi parliament wouldn't allow it. >> that's the whole point. you don't know how things play out until they actually do. i don't know how the afghan
parliament will behave. i don't know how the president in 2017, a president of afghanistan will behave. until something is finalized its just words. again, i come back to my fundamental point. we have had four years of words, big words, little words, words. >> we've had a lot of tough talk from other campaigns, and it does remind us of what we have lived through for eight years with a lot of tough talk, with 200,000 troops in the middle east, 100 down, unable to go to asia or anywhere else frankly by the iranian regime was getting stronger, because we could do nothing else. and it seems to me that's exactly the strategy that the governor has is headed towards again. war in syria, war in iran.
some untold doubts of the number of troops in iraq and unlimited presence for who knows when and how me troops in afghanistan. what about that what i say make us safer and stronger in this new threatened environment is very curious. i think it does have something to do with them as i started, with a vision that the governor has. if your vision of what's happening in the world is driven by russia's strategic threat and you want to confront china on day one and you want to confront the states, and you want to be hunkered down in the middle east while these transnational threats and substate actors are hitting is very hard, then that's a totally different approach, i agree. if you want to be where the president has been, which is very aggressive against al qaeda, supporting the democratic and moderate forces, during the transitions in afghanistan and iraq, frankly to lighten our burden in the middle east, so we could move into confront other threats of the world. it is a faster, more agile, it
is a smarter, tougher and stronger approach. one has to look at the previous administrations. if that's what people want in their security process going forward, they can have it again because it sounds exactly like what it does, is suggesting. >> is al qaeda largely defeated in your view? >> of course not. but you can look at the testimony. you can look at the testimony of public comments of john brennan, others administration officials that the core of al qaeda hasn't been decimated. the senior leadership ranks have been decimated. what we have to guard against is the ethnic groups and extremist groups, but even the court affiliate senior leadership ranks have been taken out as well. whether the governor our dov would like to admit it or not there is a battle taking place across the middle east. it is a battle of ideas. we can't kill and capture our way out of this battle.
we have to support the moderate forces. we have to help our allies. you do that through strength and power. you do that through diplomacy. you do that through development. the governor's approach and dov's approach as far as i can do is put everything on the backs of u.s. soldier and say go get them. again, we've seen that approach and likes to bring up iraq. if iraq is really what you want to run on, and signature kind of way to transact business in the middle east, the governor is free to do that. but the fact is i don't think american people want to replicate that experience again. >> well, i guess you keep on running against george w. bush forever, but that's not what governor romney is talking the. no, they're they're not the same idea. now i can rebut you. look at -- what is governor romney said about -- what did you want to increase? ships. 15 ships a year.
three submarines a year. very, very different from going into iraq are going into iran. we are convinced that the only way to stop the iranians is not to go and invade a country that large, but to be credible about what you're going to do about your sanctions, about your relationship with the israelis. when the iranians see us quarreling with the israelis, they conclude we are not going to do anything. when the iranians see us giving people exemptions, i don't care how you want to work, and exemption is an exception is an extension. if it quacks like one, if it walks like one, it looks like one. when they see those exemptions, they conclude weakness. they conclude lack of credibility. that's what we're talking about. not a bunch of warmongers. nobody has said go in and invade anybody. quite the contrary. and peace through strength which
as you know, governor speaks quite frankly, was ronald reagan. and ronald reagan didn't go to war with the soviets. he actually was the one i convinced the soviets that it was pointless to go to war with us, or to try to out build us. the real issue here is how credible is the united states going to be? if you want to pivot to asia, you want to cut the defense budget, you tell me how those to add up. because i can't figure it out. >> let me follow up on the iran point for just a moment. and ask both of you, what should the ultimate objective of u.s. policy in iran be? should it be a nonnuclear iran? should be a regime change? can we live with us, and iran if it's not pursuing a nuclear weapon? >> the president said we would not accept a rare with a nuclear weapon. there are a lot of other issues on the agenda with iran, international terrorism,
cracking down on its people, but it seems to me the issues that were most focus on, among many, it is the nuclear issue and preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon. the governor has taken a multitude of positions on iran, including agreeing with the president that that was exactly the position that he should take. and then changing it and taking a bit of an evolving position on iran. i do want to come back to a couple things that dov said about the defense spending bill. and it is interesting, kind of story about jack lew come up with the sequester. i mean, i don't think you are in the room for the, dov, as far as i can do. and it's an interesting story to tell, especially when you go back, someone who would do a google search or the number of republican leaders that stood up for sequester and said what an
important tool this is. and no one, no one is saying it should come into effect. it was never supposed to, to thank. and, frankly, a vice presidential candidate, congressman ryan supported sequester and the budget control act, and the cuts that dov says is so devastating. but we would also agree that fiscal strength is probably important abroad as well. and economic strength. and i don't know how an additional $2 trillion in spending on defense, that is unpaid for, with the additional assets that you're talking about, that no one in the pentagon has asked for except perhaps former adviser who now serves on the campaign. it is an amazing thing to pick a number and then build a campaign around it instead of defining a strategy, of which you then build a philosophy around that. >> well, first on iran, the fact that mr. romney actually agrees on the priorities stopping iran
from having a nuclear weapon shows that ultimately both the president obama and mr. romney recognize the threat that iran poses. the issue is where do you go from there? fine, it's your priority. how do you deal with it quacks it's no good to say -- deal with it? it's no good to say what he would've said seven years ago, six years ago. that is not a prescription for the future. we keep looking back, the real issue is how do you get the iranians to stop enrichment? if you wait until there a month away or six weeks away and then so i'm going to rely on my intelligence, i repeat, our intelligence doesn't allow us to pick up your the good guys and bad guys in syria. our intelligence didn't tell us that, well, actually they did tell us that is going to be
trouble in libya and egypt, but we ignored the intelligence. and there's a hearing today about it. pat kennedy is testifying about it. so even if we get the intelligence, that doesn't mean we will pay attention to it. how far do you want to risk that? what mr. rahman is saying is i don't want to take that kind of risk. i share with the president the concern about iran getting a nuclear weapon, but i'm going to go about preventing that in a very different way. now, since you want to talk about the budget, i'm perfectly happy to do that. mr. lew is quoted in bob woodward's book, the last time i checked, nobody has challenged the. nobody. partly because people in the white house talked to bob woodward so how will the challenge what he said? the fact is that the president of the united states has sat on
his hands when it has come to resolving the fiscal crisis. he keeps kicking it over to the congress. whether you agree with simpson-bowles or you don't agree with simpson-bowles, this was a group of people that came up with a bipartisan solution. where was the president? warehouse the president in on all of this, other than saying i'm going to veto any attempt to prevent defense from being included in the sequester. in other words, holding defense hostage to the ideology that we cannot touch entitlement. the sequester goes after -- let me put it this way. 2% of the sequester addresses entitlement. 2%. that works out very nicely if you buy into that ideology. it does not work out very nicely if you're concerned about events. and oh, by the way, the $2 trillion, we're trying to just get the baseline budget,
and the last time i checked, bob gates wasn't just the republican appointee. >> it seems like a good time to explore the defense issues a little bit more thoroughly, both the military reforms our military changes associated with pivot. that begin with the budget part, it does seem a little disingenuous to say that these were, that these are dollars in programs, depending on how the math works, when as recently as 2011 they were in the obama budget. they were asked for programs during the obama administration, and they've been cut and taken away since the president took power. the second part of that question is, in the jockeying over the sequester, does the commander-in-chief played a
fundamentally different role than any of the other actors in the melodrama? does he have a different constitutional set of responsibilities than the others? and finally for dov, you alluded to the fact that in dollar terms the defense increases are relatively modest in comparison to the overall spending reforms that are necessary to get, to reach the governor's target of 20% of federal spending over all for all federal programs. that probably means pretty substantial cuts and entitlement spending. so if one is dependent upon the other, how does the governor intend to, within the time, space of a single administrati
administration, make such a substantial and drastic change in government spending? >> so, i think this is a place where facts really do matter. and you know just remind people, the base budget for this year is about $525 billion, which is up 34% since 2001. the notion that some of this budget, even compare the base budgets of fy '13 to 2007 under george h. w. bush, under his last budget it's gone up considerably. and defense will continue to go up under this administration. and it's projected to go up in fy 20. the question is controlling the rate of growth and that's where the congress, congressman ryan, speaker boehner, bipartisan group all decided that they should be cuts to the growth. you know, just against some of the facts. you know, talk about naval assets. our navy is bigger than the next
13 navies combined. and that's why but fy 20 we will have 300 ships. that's the projection. i can, their plan is in search of a strategy. 60% of those assets are going to be deployed to the pacific by 2020. the air force will have roughly the same amount of plants by 2017 the significantly more platforms, significant more capabilities. this notion of counting ships and we had in 1916 versus ships that we have been 2011, or projected (112)020-2020, is slightly ridiculous, given the incredible capabilities that our forces, their ships under weapons systems now have. and in which they operate. so if you know, it's one thing to say, dov says we should listen to the military when it comes to afghanistan, but we should listen to the military when it comes to our budget. and we should listen to the military when it comes to new
start. the fact is general dempsey said this is not a budget, this is a budget that will support our military needs them a test of ever proud on the half of this budget. so picking and choosing when you decide to listen to the military is an interesting tactic. >> i'll try to answer your question. obviously will have to be adjustments to entitlement spending. there's no question about that. remember, mr. romney also believes he's going to be up to stimulate the economy picks of the economy will grow, which means receives will go. is also said that is going to be able to tax loopholes. i'm not a tax expert, but it seems to me that there's an awful lot of those loopholes, and that will help. and again when we're only talking about essentially 1.4% of% of the entire problem, it se a doable doing to fix. you can't fix it in one year. you can fix in four years for
sure. so at least i try to answer your question. now, i can't just sit back and listen to some of the stuff and be told in effect well, facts matter but you, dov, you just don't know any facts. first of all, one little fact, i really wonder whether mr. panetta who talked about the smallest number of ships since 1915, said that in a letter to your former boss, senator mccain, would really be happy to give this argument is ridiculous. wasn't a republican who made that case. it was mr. panetta. number one. number two, the navy is going to be bigger because i funded the ships that are being built. it takes a few years to get them out to see. look at the pattern of naval spending, and the number of ships over the next few years. the air force, rich was very
careful to talk about platforms, not aircraft. why? because he's talking about drones. not just planes. you want to watch this very, very carefully. i'm not saying rich wasn't giving you facts. i'm saying that it's a reflection of this administration that when it comes to worst, there's a lot of -- there's an awful lot of fancy footwork. finally, defense going up, it's not going up in real terms. it's going up in nominal terms. big difference. and i come back to the point, why has this administration given its own secretary of defense is concerned, and remember, the pentagon followed the commander-in-chief's orders. i'm not surprised general dempsey has said what he said. that's what she's do.
nevertheless, the secretary of defense is so agitated that it was not in a press conference, not in an open mic statement to somebody, but but in an open letter to his concerns about the sequester. and this administration is prepared to hold defense hostage in order to further its ideological goals spent just on that point, every administration official has spoken out against the sequester, so that is solely consisting. >> and you proved my point. >> no one, no one supports the sequester. i think that's a point that you might have lost in the translation. >> i'm not saying that mr. obama supports a, but he's prepared to sit on his hands. and sometimes no action is action. >> you're a where the senate republican leader actually said that his number one goal was to stop the president, presidents agenda and keep them from being
reelected, therefore, the notion that we're getting the kind of cooperation to stop the kind of sequester that you're concerned about is how i think it's a bit of a fictional account spent on the contrary, how many -- look, i don't care what senator mcconnell may or may not have said. if the president wants to stop the sequester, he needs to be calling people into the white house every day. this should be his number one concern. instead what you're getting is the labor department issuing confusing guidelines about the war in act. the administration saying they will cover contractors if they get sued by their employers, and senator mccain saying that's against the law. that's what we're getting. we are getting fancy footwork, not be all that pressure to get a deal that only the president of the united states can oppose. >> perhaps the house chairman of the budget committee, who could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, also could have been against the sequester. but, in fact, he was a.
and effect spoke out in support of it. >> we have other issues to get you as well but wait a minute, aren't you like jim lehrer? [laughter] spent i'm not going to comment on that. [laughter] >> we do have other issues to get to, and i know that people will want to ask about issues like asia, trade, russia, things like that but let's go to the audience now. we have microphones around the room. please raise your hand if you'd like to be recognized. stager name and affiliation. make sure you're asking a question rather than a long statement, please. the lady right here. >> my name is megan. my question is for mr. verma. you sit in the beginning of your statement that al qaeda has been decimated them and you also said that, at the picture exact words, but the people of libya are facing a much more free and optimistic situation than they did before the invasion into
libya. i just want to raise the specter of something which was raised earlier, which was the recent assassination of our ambassador in benghazi. just a couple of things to set up my question. just after that general hayden wrote an article ending the responsibly of the security situation which led to the assassination on the presidents invasion of libya which by the way did not get congressional approval. number two, on capitol hill today, lieutenant colonel would is testifying as part of the last security team in their who said he recommended increasing security because of a deteriorating situation in benghazi. that didn't happen that he and his team are pulled out. the ambassador himself expressed his own fear and/or his being targeted. i could go on and on and on. the point is the administration was forewarned that it would be completely incompetent to say that they had no clue that something like this was about to happen. yet when this did occur, they said this was buntings come with
no idea come we've got to look into it. so my question is, why should the american people, why would a be a better idea for the american people to vote to give this president another four years, rather than demand a criminal investigation into the assassination in what's now being called benghazi gate? >> so, you might have a point of view that you are -- [laughter] trying to express any form of the question. let me -- where should i begin? there's so much to talk about. chris stephens is really an american hero. and i think anyone who knew him and knew what he was trying to do their would agree with that. he went to benghazi for a reason, because benghazi is really where these kinds of battles take place. they are the battles between forces of extremism and forces of moderation. and newsflash, benghazi is a very dangerous place. and he knew that, and the state
department knew that. and that's what secretary has appointed an account of the review board. that's why they're doing investigations to see the right decisions were taken. but let me also tell you what happened after the ambassador was killed. tens of thousands of people marched in the streets of benghazi, and they said with signs, chris stephens is our friend. they overran the militias. the president of libya ordered all malicious to be shut down. this is a country going through an incredibly difficult time. from the premise of your question it sounds as if you would rather have supported gadhafi still being there. the fact is without american leadership, gadhafi would still be there. and we were principal partner leading that effort, and we are a principal part of ensuring and supporting the moderate forces in libya.
now with regard to the investigation, you know, you can take the threat you want to take. you try to make it into a political matter as the governor tried to do, hours after, hours after a tragedy. after that already bungled the press release a night of archimedes had to go out the next morning. now there is something about judgment and temperament of a future commander in chief, when even your political advisers osha to the podium, he might have enough we strength to say no. this is not the right time. we actually don't know all the facts. it turns out he knows one of the deceased, mentioned on the campaign trail yesterday. had he known facts like that maybe he would have rushed up to the podium. the fact that his position has been everywhere, you look at the five or six positions he sat on libya. i'm not sure what it is people would have done differently. it is critically important we -- our diplomats are at risk every day. they are at risk and dangerous
parts of the world. and, frankly, the house republican budget committee has struck states farm spending and done over for department so good but i hope that's a fact that is looked at as well. but judgments called me by diplomats, made by patriots about security situations, when the military is not there with them, these are very difficult situations. and so i would not prejudge, prejudge the fact and tell the full investigation is done. and, frankly, everything that has been done thus far has been based on the information available at the time. and it is a very for difficult situation to get back some a place like benghazi on the night of a very tragic attack. i have no doubt that the facts will continue to evolve him and that as we get more clarity there will be more definitive statements. but sounds like you and the governor, bring other people, would rather make a political case of it. >> i think it's unfair to the
questioner. first of all, the first statements were not made by the governor. the first statement was made by an administration official who blamed it on a video. and the american embassy in egypt, which is what the governor was criticizing, had essentially said look, this video is terrible but we've got to be, you know, we have to be respectful of all religions. although quite frankly, i have not heard the administration come out and say that those who abuse buddhist temples, burn sikh temples, abuse jewish history, persecute christians should also be held equally accountable. i have not heard that. this was really a teachable moment by the way. this was a time when mr. obama could have said look, what this video is about is wrong, but guess what? there are things that are being done in the muslim world that
are also wrong and islamic speakers don't speak out. their leaders don't speak out. the mullahs don't speak a. not loudly enough. not enough of them. there are many courageous want to do but certainly not enough of them. but this wasn't about the video at all. that's the whole point. it was about al qaeda. and that has come up. that's coming out in the testimony this more. it's come out before already. but the administration did not want to admit it was al qaeda, because that would mean we are not destroyed al qaeda. i don't care if it's al qaeda center or al qaeda franchises. that's like saying gee, you know, mcdonald's isn't really selling hamburgers except in san diego. i don't count all the franchises all over the country and all over the world. what difference does it make if it's al qaeda franchise or al qaeda central or a terrorist group by some other name? this dancing around issues is
just so frustrating, not for me, not for governor romney, but for the world. for our friends, for those who depend on us. >> all right. another question right here. >> i'm dave stafford, 30 years i worked and i retired recently. my question goes to this issue of the navy, and it does adhere to most in the information age, our carrier battle groups are far more capable than they were in an industrial age at but at a different level, numbers matter. and it seems to me that if you have 10 or 11 carrier battleships you only deploy three or four at any given time. so i'm not quite sure what the argument is when you say you need to increase the navy size,
and the other size says we've got adequate forces. it doesn't seem to jive if you want to carry all of the pacific, as your new pivot strategy that you're going to have two or three carriers deployed at any given moment. can someone comment on that? >> as you know very well, anybody who knows naval forces very well, if you want of a kerry in the middle east it will take you five or six to support it. just run up the numbers. you want to carriers in the pacific, one carrier stationed in japan, so the calculation is now 1.15 carriers in support of it. any other carry in the western pacific will take four to five. how are you going to have two carriers in the west pacific and two more in the indian ocean? and oh, by the way, what about these in the mediterranean? it doesn't add up. it just doesn't add up and
that's just carriers. what about escorts? what about submarines? you display the number to yes, they are more capable. the carriers and ships generally don't fly. aircraft fly. and if you want to have a naval presence, which is what the state department historical has always called upon whenever there's been a crisis, the ones who say send the carriers are always our diplomats. because they know the diplomatic valley of naval forces. if that's what you want, if that's what you need, this administration's program is not going to hack it spent i would just say communism repeat some i said earlier which is the navy is going to grow under this administration. our navy is already a good than the next navies combined. we are on track to of 300 ships by fy 20. you know, but you have to
balance that in terms of what the threats are where i actually trying to deter and defeat. and you have to have a balanced approach to your defense posture. if you look at the strategy that secretary panetta put out in january 2012 when he listed the areas of which were going to be priority for the event station, counterterrorism and irregular warfare, cybersecurity, just keeping the sea lanes open, countering wmd's, and there's a lot of threats and we're trying to balance that with in the fiscal reality. and the fact is th is that capabilities and technologies on our ships are better than ever before, and they're the best in the world and they will remain that way. >> okay. yes, sir. right here. >> good afternoon. i'm patrick wilson, i'm an iraq veteran. i watched with interest the drawdown in iraq from very, very
close, transition to a new dawn and into that area. most recently i've watched the boxes turn red in afghanistan. forgive me, i'm a veteran of infantry battalion, is a 10. we make slides. in our slides, commanders want to know make the boxes dream. what i see in afghanistan, those recent report is, everything the army has said about the quote unquote progress of research in afghanistan, all the boxes are read. my question is, if you're looking back to the iraq conflict, if the surge had gone as bad as it now appears the surge is gone in afghanistan, where would be political fallout be? i'm frustrated not about the political debate at how little discussion there is anywhere in the media about the fact that afghanistan apparently the surge there, the soldiers who sacrificed the blood and treasure we put there has all been for not. and wondering and the political
context what the means for both accountability for the white house and obvious at what governor romney plans to do about it? >> first, let me thank you for your service. and i would agree with you, there's an not enough discussion about these issues, about afghanistan frankly, and the troops that we have to. and there wasn't in a discussion about what was happening in iraq as well. look, it's a very difficult situation in afghanistan. it has been well before we got there, and will continue to be a difficult situation. fact is what is the strategy to try to get the afghan government and the place and afghan military where it can actually defend itself so we can weaken the taliban, next to extremism, and that is exactly what the strategy is built around, which is trying to use combination of force and billing of institution in afghanistan and trying to support civil society and other elements to try to give it the chance.
the afghans are very anxious to try to take the lead from the time it, which is why the transition plans are so important, which apparently there is very little difference and why the strategic partnership agreement that the president entered into is so critical. we do have an enduring interest in and having an enduring presence in afghanistan. the president has made that very clear. and i don't think anyone and you know it better than anyone how difficult this is going to be. how difficult it's been. the question is do we have the right strategy and try to mix of political and military, tools that are required to see this thing through, with our isaf partners. you know, we are going dutch but beyond that transition point at 2014 through different functions, supporting the afghan military and security forces the best we can. >> first of all i agree, thank you for your service. it's really rough to be out
there. i know too many people have come back not in one piece. and some have come back in body bags. so i do thank you. the difficulty, as those of us who support the governor and as the governor himself has made clear, is that by coming up with a fixed deadline, we have sent the wrong signals to our adversaries. now remember, you know, we are counseled been told president bush said he would pull out of iraq as well, but it was going to be a sofa. a status of forces agreement. in the white house didn't push very hard. again, if that was really important, the president should been on the phone to malachite every single day, he wasn't. -- maliki. you got the situation where we were out. yes, we have a civilian presence on the ground but you see that's not doing the job.
i don't envy john allen one bit. he has a very tough job as commander out there and he's a brilliant guy and he will do it as well as anybody i know. but again, how do you deal with the fact that already some of our allies are talking about and have started pulling troops out because of this deadline? how do deal with the talibans behavior because of this deadline? the big difference, i reiterate, between mr. obama and mr. romney is that mr. romney says he will consult the folks in uniform. which opens the door to the possibility that we are not going to pull out in 2014 if the situation doesn't warrant it. if the situation warrants it of course would pull out. why should we stay one extra day, why she would risk our kids lives one more minute if we can get out? but if our commander, if the general allen's of this world turn around and say, not yet,
governor romney is not locked into pulling out. that is a huge difference. and if those boxes continue to be read, as you say, then maybe our generals are going to say we need a little more time. spent all right. let's see. this lady right here. >> i'm a political researcher. my question is for both speakers, but i referenced an opening remark by mr. dov zakheim saying you both agree on objectives, but differences how are we going to go about it. now, i totally think that really describe the situation very well. going back, thinking about the last two administrations, i think there are real agreements
from both sides, republican and democrat, on bailout policy. it was continued. cutting the budget despite the fact that majority of american citizens are going under. also were policy, we are debating him, but for different reasons, different ways, this war have continued under both democratic and republican presidency. and also our reference, the cover up of 9/11, george bush presidency covered up the 9/11 documents that basically 28 pieces of document on saudi arabia -- >> can you get to your question, please? >> sure. and cover up, the 9/11 just happen. so my question is okay, seems to me that both parties have agreed upon objective. but my question is, what is really objective here? because i don't think it's to
bring down our nation, and i really think if you agree to bring back our nation back, there is some policies that are just no-brainers. glass-steagall -- >> i think we got there, thank you. >> and i want speakers to address the. >> let's take one more question in addition to that, right next to her. spent it was her interest during the away campaign have have the president said the then candidate obama said, we need to end the war in iraq so we can win the war in afghanistan. that's the one we've got to win. by the since he came into office he went from the narrative of winning the war in afghanistan to end in the war afghanistan. can you tell me where this policy shift went from winning to ending? because when you start talking about your objecting ending war rather than winning a war, it appears to me that it sends a message not only to our adversaries, but our friends
that we are not serious about the mission. so if you could address that it would be very helpful. >> sure, and thank you for your many years of service as well. look, the fact is the afghan campaign has gone on for 11, 12 years. and it was very important in the president's mind to set inflection points, a transition point to focus the afghanis aren't taking responsibility, or else it would be a perpetual state of affairs where we could have 100,000 troops there and provide security indefinitely. that is not what the american people want or expected. frankly, it's not in our long-term national security interest to have that number of troops bogged down there when we can train an afghan force to do the job. it's their country. they are a sovereign government. they need to do the job. i think it's very important, and i'm sure you know this, the strategic partnership agreement
does not suggest an absence of the united states. in fact, is suggest just the opposite. it's just an enduring partnership, an enduring relationship with security responsibilities. we clearly have interest in the region in keeping the afghans from becoming a safe haven for terror again. and so that's what the policy is about. and you know i really focus on the president's word when he talks about a transition at the end of 2014, to focus the afghan leadership, of which they are very anxious to take over security responsibilities. and we need to make sure that they are ready. >> i would just say if the president's speech in december of '09 had said you want to train forces, we want to have a strategic partnership agreement, we would be in a totally different situation. by saying as well we are getting out by date certain, he created
the mess we're in, in my view. now let me deal with this lady's question. you were absolutely right. rich and i agree on the national secure objectives of our country. we have different ways of going about it. we both agreed we've got to fight terrorism. we both agree that we have interest and allies abroad. we both agreed that our forces should be deployed forward. we both agree that we need to provide the best for our troops. and by the way, we both agree that there was no 9/11 conspiracy. i don't know where you came up with that paper. but let me tell you, send it to "the new york times." i'm sure they will print it out, and then we will see what people say about it in the biggest problem we have are those folks, like you who bought this nonsense. it's 19. it's not me. it's not just president. it's not my governor. no responsible person was involved in any 9/11 conspiracy.
and it is an insult to the leaders of our country to say that. and i'm sorry to bang on you, but i have to tell you, it's an insult to the dead as well. [applause] >> hi. i'm christy. and executive director of a foundation, nonprofit dedicated to bridging the civilian noted by. i'm also an 11 year military why. my question is for anyone on the panel. we as a content basically outsourced to wars over 10 years to less than 1% of the population. and i don't think that this is a myopic question although i do have skin in the game. we've done a really good job at doing what you guys have asked us to do. whatever party has asked us to do it. my question is in regards to
national service in general. is this not something that any candidate will ever take on -- you don't miss the have to wear a uniform to serve, but i'll tell you, we are pretty tired after doing this for 10 years with so few of us and we're talking about the different budgets, the different going up, going down. but in the end it seems like it's more of if america had skin in the game, and i wanted into the draft question, but i really wish that both the candidates would this issue of national service so that we can all feel like we've been at war. because i tell you, it doesn't feel like that to us. >> i'll take it first. i can't speak for the governor on this. i speak personally. i've served my country for about 15 years. never came out ahead financially when i was doing it. i have a son that serves my country right now. not in uniform, but on the hill. he said lawyer. he could make at least five times as much.
i've got another son who served his down time and it was really hard trying to keep a family together while you're serving on a city council. i totally agree with you that we all need to play a part of serving our country. it starts i think with people like yourself speaking out more. i think we need, again, i'm speaking personally here, i think when you get more and more people be conscious of the fact that, you know, kennedy was right. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. sometimes democrats are right. [laughter] >> maybe we should end it there. [laughter] >> i said sometimes. so i would say that your point is a very important one, and i certainly personally would hope that anybody was watching this
pays attention to your concerns. because being a military wife is now less easy than serving in the military. i know. i've been working with the military for more than 35 years. i have friends who lost their husbands, had to bring up kids on their own. i had other friends, many navy and marine corps friends that spent months on in paying the bills, dealing with the kids, doing the carpool, taking care of the house, working the job, morning to night, 24/7. there is no end. and then god forbid if somebody comes on without an arm or leg, stomach, and i or whatever, so you've got dov zakheim's 100% support. >> and also thank you again for your families service, and i ago everything that dov said, and
you know, president has taken every opportunity he can to support the military, to meet with military veterans, those that return, those that are there. you know, i do think it raises a larger question, however. and it is about what we ask our military to do. and i think, i don't want to put words in your mouth but i think that was kind at the heart of your question, which is you've done a lot over the last decade, and people are not asking you to do more. don't they know kind of what it's like to pick up and leave kids for a year and leave spouses for multiple rotations. and i think that is the real difference between the two approaches of foreign policy and defense. and let me try to explain it this way. in the president's approach, it's a by using all elements of our power, diplomatic power, using our development tools,
using our military, using our intelligence assets, using homeland defense commit using advanced technologies. so that we don't think that every solution, every problem as a military solution attached to it. and did you think that is the difference in the speeches. it's the difference in the budget priorities. it's the difference in the rhetoric the two candidates talk about. and it's a difference, frankly, in the budget that congressman ryan put together. and i know, you know, budgets take months to put together. they take a lot of thought and deliberation, of thought and deliberation that went into his national security blueprint for america that the military is going to solve all of our national security problems. and that was the approach in the previous administration. i am not looking back. what i'm doing is seizing upon ideas that have been brought forward by your game. i think there's a real difference, and i think that is exactly what happened in the
prior eight years. we put the burdens of the country's security on the backs of men and women in uniform, without looking at other tools of american power as well. and i think the presidents approach is more balanced. >> i think franco if you follow the president's approach and to cut defense, you're going to wind up going to war more often. you don't go to war with people think you're strong. you go to war when people think you're weak. if you look at president reagan's buildup and you look at the build of the continued under president clinton, yeah, we were involved in which michael skirmishes, but we weren't involved in long-term wars. and so i would argue, not the mr. romney is against using every tool of our power. on the contrary, he is. that's what he's concerned about the loopholes and sanctions, for example. precisely because he says let's use the tools we've got and avoid having to use the military more than we need to. and, frankly, of lloyd having to
use them at all if we can get away from it. but you not going to convince your enemies if you are week. why did north korea attacks south korea in 1950? because we announced that south korea was outside our security perimeter and oh, by the way, we cut our forces by a tremendous percentage and the north koreans concluded we weren't interested. why did the argentines invade the falkland islands in the '80s? because the braves cut back on their forces. cutting back on your strength invites the exact thing you want to avoid. >> yes, this lady in red back here. >> hi, jennifer. i was running a feature you could comment on the thread that you see the u.s. facing from bioterrorism. and what, if anything, you think we should be doing to counter that threat?
>> so, i mean i will talk from personal experience here. i was on the weapons of mass destruction commission to prevent terrorism, wmd terror commission. and the shocking conclusion that the commission found was that the threats from bioterrorism was actually greater in terms of a short-term threat than even nuclear and chemical weapons. and so the recommendations that came out of that commission, which the president had adopted many of them, about securing vital facilities around the world, about working with scientists from different countries that produce biotoxins. is a very comprehensive diplomatic efforts on securing biological weapons and precursors. it is a big issue. is a serious issue, and i think the administration has taken it seriously, but make no mistake, it's a very serious issue. >> i would simply say that one of the conclusions, as we
haven't done enough, and i don't think the program reflects that we have done enough. we need to do more. there's no question about. i think there is consensus on the. >> all right. we have time for one last question. let's go to this jump in right here the front. >> -- this gentleman in front spent first of all, thank you for providing this forum. a great group of people you put together here today. my name is scott. i'm a former nsa linguist and also a u.s. air force linguist, i served my country for quite a long time. i will tell you that the country needs a big reality check. very disingenuous to say that reagan was a peaceful president. he fought two wars that i cover very closely against iran and another work that i cover very closely against -- the best way to fight your enemy is to use your enemy. that's what we did with saddam
and guys like, folks in afghanistan and pakistan against the russian. we thought the russians for 10 years as well. so that's very disingenuous. in fact, my question is how can we continue to define this country? i'm 50. we've murdered over 25 million people in this world and lost less than 100,000 battle. 58,000 of those were in vietnam. the fact is that if we are far more boring nation than any other nation on the history of this plan. we have killed more people and what doesn't terrible things around the world. and i feel it's disingenuous to sit in front of the crowd and mislead them about the kind of nation that we have become. we've got more weapons of mass destruction. we provided mustard gas in the '80s to saddam hussein. the reason we didn't find weapons of mass destruction there is because they had stamped made in u.s. them and we destroyed them. that's a fact. thank you. >> and you might want to wrap in any other comment you might want to make as a wrapup as will go
to each of you, and maybe we can start with dov and go in reverse order. >> everybody is entitled to their opinion. you may have been in the middle of our shipping mustard gas to saddam. you may have been in the middle of our killing 25 million people. that's not the country i know. simple as that. it's not the country i serve. i would say this. it's true we supplied the afghan rebels. no doubt about it. they were doing the fighting. and if we helped saddam against the iranians, he is doing the fighting. so i stand by what i said. we send troops into grenada. it wasn't exactly a 10 year old battle. we actually pulled ourselves out of lebanon. so i stand by what i said about mr. reagan. i don't believe that we are the evil empire. maybe you do. and i really do believe that our
and there are real differences. i feel you heard many of them today. the question is what kind of condition do we want for the future and what kind of -- who is best suited to keep america secure? the president said that his number one responsibility to keep the american people safe and secure. i think the more comprehensive approach the president laid forward with all the tools of american power working with our allies, rebuilding international law instution and alliances ultimately acting in the u.s. interest to act and protecting the country the president has a strong record on that front, and i fink -- i'm not going to rehash would be covered over the last 90 minutes but i think there are differences and i think the president has a very strong record coming and unfortunately i think the governor would take it back to replace where we have fled from.
nothing except to borrow and spend and as a result of the president's abdication of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in the country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a 4 trillion-dollar debt reduction plan. 4 trillion. we've already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. no, no, i mean it. okay. i get that. you don't like our plan. what is your plan?
>> four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost, the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, the financial system had frozen up, and because of resilience and the determination of the american people, we've begun to find our way back. >> the president has a few similar to the view he had four years ago. a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will trickle down government would work. that's not the right answer for america. i will restore the vitality that gets america working again. >> c-span's video hub has videos of last week's debate so you can watch and click by topic. it's the place you can see live behind-the-scenes coverage of
each debate including the spin room, watch and engage with political reporters and other viewers and add your own. up next, new york city mayor michael blumberg and british prime minister david cameron yesterday spoke of the conservative party conference in birmingham england. this is just over an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mayor michael bloomberg. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.
thank you very much. i will say i have a great position to be speaking between some olympic medal winners and a gold medal prime minister. [applause] now, sebastian my hope is still here. i wasn't thrilled the last time i saw sebastian in singapore when he led the london bid over new york. [laughter] but i will say that he and the people of great britain and london deserve an enormous amount of credit. they staged one of the most powerful olympic and paralympic evin severin and all of the world is a beneficiary of it. [applause] it really is a pleasure to be
here, thank you for letting a yank crash the party. [laughter] i was actually thinking about jumping out of a helicopter with barr's and parachuting in with them. [laughter] the last time i was suspended in the area didn't work out well. [laughter] it's great to be back at the conservative party conference. i was with you in 2007. my former wife grew up not far from york pool in your shire although she would say that it's very far. her father was an old raf leyna commander and in the war my mother-in-law was a radar operator for the raf. now, i'm not sure whether she could get inside of a german plane and goose but somehow we did manage to end of the war so all is well that ends well. over the years mai tais to the u.k. remains strong. my daughters have british
passports and my company which currently employs 2600 people across great britain is building a new headquarters designed by the lord of foster and the city of london. so that special relationship that has always existed between the u.k. and the u.s. is something that i have experienced in a very personal way. and one of my political heroes has always been, i am very proud to say, the son of a new york city native, sir winston churchill. [applause] churchill the want to two parties in his lifetime while always been an independent and having been a republican and democrat in new york i can relate to that. but in the common good ahead of the party politics and the next election really was at the core of churchill's's approach to leadership. it was an approach that i've always believed we need more of
at every level of government all around the world, especially now. we all know these are difficult times. the shift in the global economy has presented tough spending taxes and managing deficits and on unleashing the forces of innovation. from everything i've seen the u.k.'s first coalition government since churchill is meeting these challenges head-on. in the face of the most challenging economic times we have experienced in decades this is a government that is clearly not afraid to leave. and in 2010 when david cameron went down the british economy and the entire european union was in dire straits. since then as we keep reading most national governments have tried to ride out the storm buy simply putting down the hatches and hoping that the sky is will return quickly.
the governments have charted a new courses that will lead them to clear skies and i think the united kingdom has been an exception and the conservative party has been the reason. [applause] prime minister kim and together with his chancellor of george osborn are creating a new course for britain. it's not easy work, and i can appreciate how hard it is to step into a crisis and make the tough decisions to overcome. i first took office in the three months after the attack of my 11 -- 9/11. we lost 67 citizens of the u.k. and we will always be grateful for the support you give us in the weeks and months that follow. it's easy now to forget that back then people said new york city is best days can be behind us. we believe we can build a stronger future and we made the
tough decisions the we knew where necessary to do it. that meant raising taxes and cutting spending. and let me tell you, that did not make me the most popular man in new york. those who confuse popularity with leadership suffer progress for power. we see that all too often in politics. but fortunately for britain, not with prime minister david cameron. [applause] if you do what you believe is right over time even if people don't support that particular policy and they respect you and support you. it's like the former mayor of new york city used to say if you agree with me on eight out of 12 issues vote for me and if you agree on 12 of 12, go see a psychiatrist. [laughter] leadership isn't about a
checklist of issues it is about taking on big challenges and pushing bold ideas that in the end makes the society stronger, safer and more economically secure. he's providing the leadership in three areas that i see clearly even from the other side of the pond. he refused to take no for an answer when it comes to government reform and accountability. i'm talking especially about his education reform and welfare reform and his police reforms. when they didn't work, their answer was always more money. but we have learned from experience the governments must focus on product that comes out of an agency, not on the tax revenue that goes into an
agency. [applause] in new york city we have seen how accountability and innovation has led to transformation. in public safety, public education and public assistance. crime in new york city is down more than 30% compared to a decade ago and high school graduations are up 40% and welfare rolls are up 25%. that didn't just happen because i spend more money. it happened because accountability and innovation has become an integral part of the work. it's not easy. it never is. they will always be doomsayers. i also know that tough problems are not solved by an waving a magic wand and charting the right course rather than the easy course takes courage to the
and i don't have any doubt that david cameron has the courage of the convictions and i believe that he is charting the right course from britain. [applause] the second area his leadership has been especially strong is making the government more business friendly. and here again simply spending more money is not the answer. the best way to spur economic growth is by not ramping up the government spending, it's by knocking down barriers to private sector investment and they simplify regulations will create jobs at no cost to taxpayers and the same is true of your work of reforming the planning wall to spend opportunity for investment. both of these have been important priorities to the new york city and they are part of the reason why we have been outpacing the rest of the u.s. in job growth.
in new york city we are working to attract more r&d investment in technology and the bioscience and your plan to expand tax credit is a smart investment in the future. [applause] of course the first rule of economic management is the same as it is a medicine. the do no harm. so why couldn't agree more with your opposition to the tax on financial transactions. if you want to send financial firms out of the country intact on transition is as good a way as i know to do it. that may not be a popular thing to say but we live in a global economy. it's the reality. and you are right for standing up and saying. [applause] third, finally and maybe most
importantly, david cameron has been a leader in creating the government that lives by values it preaches, and that is all too rare. too often we hear those in government around the world preach fiscal responsibility but then run up huge deficits. we hear them preach a personal responsibility but then blame everyone but themselves. we hear them preach of making the hard decisions when it comes time to spell out the details they kick the can down the road. not david cameron. he has governed with integrity, not just promised change what he has delivered it and he's been a conservative in the very best sense of the word. [applause] david cameron has refused to buy into the something for nothing philosophy that is common in world politics and he's refused to settle the next generation
with debt they cannot afford. as a result you are making real progress on the very toughest issues, determined hard-earned progress and you should all be very proud of that. the united kingdom and the united states have weathered many storms in our shared history and we will both whether the current economic crisis. we are rooting for this coalition government to succeed, because america succeeds when britain succeeds and vice versa. we may be economic competitors that we are in this together and we will always be allies first through thick and thin and war and peace. the tough decisions you are making honoring churchill's's legacy of putting the national interest ahead of the party politics that i believe will lead you to a better and brighter tomorrow. thank you and good luck. you are lucky to have david
office that we were assuming. we were entering into government as a brief moment in the modern history of britain. at the time when people felt uncertainty and even fewer, here was the challenge to make the insolvent nation solvent again, to set our country back on the path to prosperity, to bring home our troops from the injured while keeping our citizens safe from terror to mend a broken society. two and a half years later of course i can't tell you that all is well but i can say this, britain is on the right track. [applause] as prime minister it is to say
things and help our country face some hard truths. all of my life of the difficulties, the british people have at least been confident about one thing. we can pay our way. it's a major with industrial country, and we will always remain one. it is to us to say that we cannot assume that any longer. unless we act and to difficult and painful decisions and share determination and imagination britain may not be in the future when it has been in the past because the truth is and we are in a global race today and that means in the reckoning for countries like ours, sing or swim, do more d. klein, to take office to the common of government at such a moment is a duty and an honor and we will
rise to the challenge. today i want to set out a serious argument in this country about how we do that, about how we compete in this world. how can we make sure that in this century like the ones before nothing matters more. every battle we fight, every play and we make, every decision that we take is to achieve that end. britain and the rise. now that is a challenge before us. i have confidence in our country. one, because britain can deliver. we can do big things. we saw it this summer in the olympics, the paralympics, the best country in the world come and the finest state on earth.
[applause] it yet [applause] i was recently trying to think of my favorite moment of that extraordinary summer telling them know we haven't cheated, or wheels were not rounder than anyone else. we just peddle faster than the french. [laughter] it was seen the young woman that swam her how heart out for years to hours at a time my best moment was putting the best metal around the neck of amy simmons. [applause]
and you know something? i am so grateful for what they did. when i used to push my son around in his wheelchair, i used to think what to many people saw the wheelchair and not the boy. i think today more people would see him and not a wheelchair and that is because of what happened to britain this summer. [applause] >> and the olympics showed us something else, something important. whether our athletes were scottish, english or from northern ireland they drape themselves in a warm flag. [applause]
for there was one person that didn't write that. i'm going to go see him on monday by the end of 2014 because there are many things along this coalition government to do. what could be more important than saving our united kingdom? let's say at we are better together. we will rise together and let us fight the referendum with everything we've got. [applause] there are so many people to thank thank, those that build the stadium from those that ran the games, that national order, but conservative area you just heard from, not the giant he was this summer. [applause]
but of course there's also the man that put a smile on all of our faces, the conservative mayor of london johnson. [applause] and the games makers, those extraordinary games makers to but i've spent three years trying to explain the big society. they did beautifully in just three weeks and i want to thank you for that as well. [applause] now there is another backer of people that stepped into the breach this summer and we in this party never forget them. our armed forces have been on the ground in afghanistan now for over ten years. 443 men and women have paid the
ultimate price and made the ultimate sacrifice. just last weekend there was a memorial service for one of the fallen and the eulogy said this. all that they have they gave. all that they might have had come all that they had ever been, all that they might have ever become. beautiful words, words we should never forget when we send our young men and women into harm's way to work on our behalf for all of those that serve their families i repeat the commitment i made when the government came to office. by the end of 2014 and the u.k. combat operations in afghanistan would have come to an end and all the troops would be home, their country proud in their duty done and what everyone mendenhall stand and show how profoundly grateful we are to everything they have done.
to read that challenges the countnges the country faces we must have confidence in ourselves, confidence as a party. we've been at this for two and a half years now and we have done some big life changing things. just ask whitestone. i met him years ago when we were in opposition. he had cancer and he said to me the drug i needed was out there but they won't give it to me because it is too expensive. please come if you get in, do something about it. and we have. a new cancer drug fund that has got the latest drugs to more than 21,000 people and counting and there is a reason. there is a reason that we could do that. it's because we made the decision to protect the nhs from spending cuts. no other party made that commitment. just us, the conservatives. and to all of those people who said we are bringing the nhs
down, i would say this, you've got a point. i will tell you what's down, waiting list is down, the number of management is down, bureaucratic target's, hospital inspections, and what is up? the number of doctors and dentists, the number of midwives and operations carried out. so let no one be in doubt this is the party of the nhs and that is the way that it's going to stay. [applause] that is to go on saving lives abroad. some are skeptical about our budget. that picture the scene. you see the child with a needle in her arm being injected with a
yellow fever vaccine. that is the difference between living and dying. how can anyone tell me that is a waste of money? since we've gathered here in birmingham and sunday, the british aid money has vaccinated 130,000 children are around the world. 130,000 children. you, the conservative party helped to do that the and you should be proud of what you've done. [applause] and here's something else this party has done in government. last december i was at a european council in brussels. was three in the morning and there was a treaty on the table that was not in britain interest. and there were 25 people around that table telling me to find it. but i did something that no
other british leader has done before. i said no, britain comes first and i vetoed that treaty. [applause] so my friends were doing big conservative things. people said you will never reform the public sector tensions to the cut pensions. they will stand for it and it's going to cut the cost of the tax payer almost in half. for years people said the benefits are out of control. there's nothing you can do about it and because of the welfare caps they will be getting more in benefits than the average family. for years people say. [applause] for years people ask why can't we get rid of those radical preachers that spread hatred about our country living off the
taxpayers which the secretary has done it. out of the country to face justice. [applause] should be proud of what we've done already been taken out of income tax altogether, over 18 million households with a freeze in the council tax and freezing it all over again next year, too. these are big conservative things delivered by this government and made possible by this party. we can deliver and we can do big things. the olympics reminded us how great it feels to be successful. but we must not let that give us a warm glow or false sense of security.
yes we've been hearing about india and china for years but it's hard to believe what is happening in brazil and indonesia and nigeria, too. meanwhile the powers are on the slide. what are the countries on the rise have in common? they are lean, fit, obsessed with enterprise and spending money on the future, on education, and infrastructure and technology - and with the countries on the slide have in common? they are overregulated, spending money on welfare systems, pension bills, public service. i sit in those endless meetings in brussels where we talk forever about greece when on the other side of the world china is growing fast and creating another economy the size of greece every three months. i am not going to stand here as
prime minister and allow this country to join my job, our job. it's to make sure that in this 21st century as in the centuries that came before in our country, britain is on the rise. and here we know how that is done. it's the collective result of individual efforts and aspirations. the ideas you have come the businesses you start, the hours you put in. aspirations are the engine of progress. countries rise when they allow the people to rise. and in this world where technology shapes our lives and this powerful resource that we have is our people. it's not just the scientists, the entrepreneurs, not just the teachers, the parents, the nurses, but all of our people including those that have never had a chance, never had a job, never had hope. that is why the mission for this
government is to build an aspiration nation to on a leash and unlocked the promise and and for our people and for us. for us conservatives. this is not just an economic mission. it is a moral one. it's not just about growth in the gdp. it is what has always made our hearts beat faster rising from the bottom to the top. line one, rule one is not where you come from that counts, it is where you are going. [applause] we have been led by the musical performer by a woman on the sideline we look at the label
and we look at what is in it. let me put that another way. we don't preach about one nation to practice the class we just get behind people. [applause] that's right. the risk takers, the young people that dream of their first paycheck, their first car and home. those people are ready and willing to work hard to get those things while the other intellectuals and other parties might swear at people that want to get on in life, we salute you. they call us the party of the better off, now we are the party of the one to be better off, those that strive to make a better life for themselves. [applause]
this party, our party has a great heart but we don't like wearing it on a was leaves. conservatives tend to think let's get on with the job. it's not our style. but there is a problem with that. it leaves a space for others to twist our ideas. the cartoon conservatives who don't care. my mission from the day that i became the leader of the party was to change that. we have to show that the conservative party is for everyone north or south, black or white, straight or gay. but above all it is to show that conservative methods are not just the way the we grow a strong economy, they are the way to build a society to be the the
methods are not just good for the strong and successful, but they are the best way to help the poor, the week. because it's not enough for us to move our ideas. we've got to explain where they are compassionate, too. it's not what we are up against. we say we've got to get the private sector out in the public sector smaller. our opponents and got it. it's the best way to create a sustainable jobs people need. [applause] lycee help people become independent from welfare. our opponents call it the leading people to fend for themselves. no, there is only one. of course you've got to insist on a discipline and a rigorous education for your children. our opponents say it's
old-fashioned and out of touch. no, a decent education is the only way to give all of our children the chance they need in this world. [applause] the reason we ought to reform schools and reduce government spending is not because we are the same tories that went off the rich, it's because we are the tories whose ideas help everyone. the strong private sector, welfare that works, schools that teach, these three things are essential to helping our people rise and essential to our success in this world. and you know what, labor will fight each and every one of them as we expect. so, these things come of these
three things are not just the back of britain's future, they are also the battle lines for the next election and it is a fight we've got to win for the party and the country but above all for the nation's future. [applause] so to help our people rise, number one, we need an economy that creates good jobs. we need businesses of every size and every industry and every part of the country investing and taking people on. there are basic things they need in order to do that. they need lower interest rates and they can afford to take out a loan. they need confidence that is worth investing because the customers would be there at home or abroad. bye getting the deficit down is
the essential for those things. that is why our deficit reduction plan is not an alternative to a great plan, it is the very foundation of our great plan. it is the only way that we will get to britain on the rise. now, i know that you are asking whether our plan is working and here is the truth. the damage was worse than we thought and its taking longer than we hoped. the world economy, especially in the year autozone has been much weaker than expected in the last two years. some of your big trading partners like spain, ireland, italy are separating less by us. it makes it harder for us to pay off our debt. but here is the crucial thing you need to know. yes it is worse than we thought and yes it is taking longer but we are making progress thanks to the good result of george osborn
we've cut off the deficit. 25%. that has helped to keep our interest rates at record low levels. keeping the market is low. more money in your pockets, giving businesses more confidence to invest, creating more jobs. and if you don't believe me, just to get the job creation figures. since the government took office, they are worth 1 million new jobs created in the private sector. that is more in the last two years the labor managed in ten years. [applause] the labor politicians who got us into this mess say they have a different way out of it. they call it plan b and it goes like this.
we should stop worrying about deficit reduction and spend it to boost the economy. it sounds so reasonable when you put it like that. let me tell you why it is not. right now while we have got a deficit, the people that we are borrowing money from believe that we will pay it back because we set out a plan to cut spending and deliver it in our means. that is why they are the lowest in the role of labour was one of the highest in the world. if we did what lieber wants -- labor once we would risk the people would start to question our ability and resolve to pay off our debt. some might actually refuse to lend us any money at all. others would only lend at high interest rates. the would hurt th economy and would hit people hard. any other mortgage and
100,000 pounds just a 1% increase in interest rates would mean an extra thousand pounds to play each year so they are trying to borrow more and it is a massive gamble in our economy and our future. it would round off all of the sacrifices we have already made. and let me put it like this we are here because we spent too much and we borrowed too much. how on earth can we do more spending and borrowing? [applause] i honestly think that labor hasn't learned a single frame. when in office the answer is always borrow more money. now they are out of office and its borrow more money. whenever the day and the
question if you borrowed more money. the party of one motion, borrowing. [applause] there are times i wonder if they know anything about the real economy at all. ed miller band set about taxes he described the tax cut as the government right and people a check. i just want to explain it for him. this is how it works. when people learned money it's their money, not the government's money, it's their money. [applause]
don't interrupt i don't want them to lose the trend. then the government takes some of it away so if we cut taxes we are not giving them money we are taking less of it away. [applause] who suffers when the entrepreneur goes off in geneva paying about half the taxes to stay here? it's those that want to work because the jobs and investors in the growth would go somewhere else. [applause] we promised those with the broad shoulders of the bear the biggest burden and the rich would pay a greater share of taxes in every parliament than in any one of the 13 years on the labour.
[applause] we haven't forgotten what it was like under labor. we remember who spent our golden legacy and dusted our backs and smothered our business his and racked up our debt and economy and a ruined our reputation and risked our future. who did this? labour did this and our country should never forget it. [applause] to get our country on the rise, to get britain on the rise, we need a new economy, more enterprising and aspiration. and it is taking shape already. we are getting back of the entrepreneurial streak. last year the new business creation was faster than any of your year in our history. let me repeat that. the rate at which new businesses
started was faster last year than ever before. we are making things again. for the first time in almost 40 years it's not just the old industries that are growing. it's the new ones. we are number one in the world for offshore wendi and number one in the world for tidal power. the world's first green investment bank. britain is on the rise. we are showing we can do it. look at the new investment that is coming in. in the last two years, google, intel, the big technical firms, they have set up new bases and we are selling to the world again. i said to the foreign office those indices you've got, the department stores for fashion, technology, yes, your platts and as it was set in that fantastic speech your the best diplomats on the globe but you also need
to be the country's sales force. [applause] and look what's happening. in just two years the exports resolve about 25% to china 40% and russia up 80%. there are so many opportunities in this world. and i want to tell you briefly about the one business. he and his partner saw the world with 6 billion mobile phones with just 2 billion bank accounts. they saw a huge gap in the market and start of a mobile banking firm helping people in the poorest parts of the world manage their money and start new companies using their mobile phones. he's been with me on trade missions all over the world and his business is booming.
back in 2010 when we came to office the employ about 100 people. now it's more than 700. back then they were nowhere in africa, nowhere in asia with 1 million new users, so don't let anyone tell us britain cannot make it in this world. we of the most enterprising dynamic nation on earth. [applause] the and to those who question whether it's right for me to load up a plan with business people, whether in indonesia, the goal for china, whether we are taking people with energy, finance, technology or defense i say this, there is a global background there to jobs, workers and contractors antonette bedle i believe in leading from the front. [applause]
but to get our economy on the rise there is a lot more that we need to do. and frankly to be had because there are too many people love their that i would call the yes but no people. the ones that say yes our businesses need to expand but we can't reform the planning. its symbol for business to expand it means places to build but it takes too long. i visited a business the other day that wanted to open a big factory right outside. but the council was going to take so long to approve the decision that building the factory on the continent to your taking hundreds of jobs with them. if we are going to build in this global race we've got to beat off this suffocating bureaucracy once and for all.
[applause] and then there are those who say yes of course we need more housing but no to every development in my backyard. [applause] house building is not just a vital engine in our economy. it goes much, much wider and bigger than that. it's okay for my generation. many of us have got on the latter. but dealing with the average age some advice their home today 33-years-old. we are the party of the ownership and we cannot let this go on. so, yes we are doubling the discount come helping first-time home buyers. but there is something else we need to do and that is to accept the need to build a lot more
houses the britain. there are young people that work hard year after year but they're still living at home. they sit in their child's bedroom dreaming of a place of their own and i've asked to say we are on your side and we will help you achieve your dreams. [applause] if we want our people to rise so britain can rise, we must tackle welfare. here are two factors. number one, we spend 80 billion pounds a year on the welfare for wealthy age people, not pensions, just welfare for working age people and that is one eighth of every pound that the government spends. fact two, more of our children
live in households where nobody works than almost any other nation in europe. let me put that simply. welfare isn't working and this is a tragedy. our reforms are just as profound as those 60 years ago. he had a great evil to say, squalor, ignorance, want and disease. first, what are hard-working people who travel long distances to get into work and pay their taxes what to think and they see families come individual families getting 40, 50, 60,000 pounds of housing benefits to live in homes that these hard working people could never afford themselves? it is an outrage and we are ending it by capping the housing benefits. [applause]
the second, in justice. here is the choice that we give our young people today. choice number one, work hard, go to college, get a job, live at home, save up, and as i said, that can feel like ever. trace number two, don't get a job, don't even need to produce when you do sign on. get housing benefits, get a flat, and then get a job or you will lose a load of the housing benefits. we must be creative. this is what we've done. now you have to find a contract that says you do your bit and we will do hours. it requires you and makes clear you have to seek work and take work, where you will lose your benefits. [applause]
and we are going to look at the access to housing benefits for people under 25, too. let me put it like this. if hard-working young people have to live at home while they work and save why should it be any different for those that don't? [applause] the next evil, bureaucracy. sign here, come back. what does this do for the guy that has been out of work for years, even decades living in some fantasy because he hates his real life? but we have got to do something new, and we are. the program takes the money that we are going to save and uses it to get them to work with proper training. we are prepared to spend at 14,000 pounds on one individual to get them into work.
and already almost 700,000 people have gone on to the work program. so, i have to be clear in this party. in british politics today, it is this party that is saying no one is a right off, no one is helpless coming and in this revolution let us be the party that shows there is of devotee and promise and each and every one of our citizens. [applause] just one more thing on welfare. your work experience program we give young people the chance to work in a supermarket and shop or office here is what one trade union official said, and i quote, the scheme belongs back in the 19th century along with oliver twist and the workhouse.
it isn't short of state-sponsored slavery. what a snobbish, a appalling idea to the rules work. we are not sending young people will opportunity, we are giving them the chance it is when there is nothing, it's the poverty of slavery and then again us, the modern compassionate conservatives to fight against poverty today. [applause] help people rise there is a third crucial thing we have to do. educate all of our children. and i mean really educate them. don't just pump up the greeds
each year. in math, science and reading we have fallen behind. not just behind germany and canada but estonia and australia, too. this is the report coming and it reads we must do better. you have heard of pushy parents for a better education for their children. this is a cushy government. leverage is very, very simple. i have got to children in school, and i want for your children what i want for my coming to go to school where discipline is strict, expectations are high and no excuses are accepted for failure. and i don't want great schools just to be the preserve of those that can pay the fee in a nice area. i want them to be open to every child in every neighborhood. the reason every child can go to a school like this is because
the transmore make has been a-- transformation has been astonishing. smart uniforms, teachers in suits, children taught physics, chemistry, and biology. extra resources for those in need, but no excuses is lacking. and when you see as a parent schools like that, just poses one question, why can't every school be that way? why can't our children have those chances chance. it's not because parents are ambitious enough. most of them are overly subscribed. it is because the old educational establishment, the leader of the teacher union, the law labour party they are resist stand in the way. when we have a failing school and want to turn it in to academy, the labour authority
and the teaching units said no. inspirational teachers and parents in brings ton, -- when they wanted to open free schools, the left-wing establishment said no. when we proposed more pay for good teachers getting rid of bad teachers longer school dais to help children learn. flexible school hours to help parents work while stretching exams for who are able. the left-wing establishment said one thing, no. do you know what? when you ask why is a school failing? why aren't the children succeeding? you hear the same thing over and over again. what can you expect with children like these? these children of disadvantage? of course, we want to tackle every -- but isn't the greatest disadvantage of all being
written off by those to a culture with low exec tickses they forgetten what it's like to be ambitious. to overcome circumstance to succeed on your own. in that toxic of low expectations, that lack of ambition that every child which is held our country back, and i can tell you -- [applause] [applause] and let me tell you a thing or two about michael and i. we are not waiting for an outbreak of sanity at the hours of the nut, we're not waiting for some great embrace of aspiration in the higher reaches of labor before we react. our children cannot wait. when people say, please, slow down the education reform so somehow adult can learn to adjust them. say no.
i want more free school, more academy, more rigorous examination, more expected of every child and every school. and to those who says, those do, he wants children to have the kind of education he at his posh school. do you know what i say? yes, you're absolutely right. i went a great school, i want every child to have that sort of education. [applause] [applause] i'm not here to defend privilege, i'm here to spread it. [applause] [applause] i don't have a hard life story. my dad, my dad was a stock broker.
[laughter] but it's only when your dad is gone that you realize not just how much you misthem or really love them. but how much you really owe them. my dad influenced me more than i ever thought. he was born with no heels on his feet with legs that were about a foot shorter than they were meant to be. he never complained even when he lost the legs later in his life. because disability in the 1930s was such a stigma, he was an only child. probably a lonely child. but my dad was the internal optimist. to him the glass was always half full. usually with something very alcoholic in. [laughter] when i was a boy, i remember once going for a long walk with him in the vblg where we lived, and we walked pass the church he supported all of his life and past the village hall where he took part in unbelievably long
parish counsel meetings. and he told me what he was most proud of. it was simple, it was working hard from the moment he left psychological and provided a good start in life for his family. not just all of us, but helping his mum too when his father ran off. what a hard luck story but a hard work story. work hard, family comes first, but put back in to the community too. there's nothing complicated about me. i believe in working hard, caring for my family, serving my country. and there's nothing complicated about what we need today. this is still the greatest country on earth. we showed that begun -- again this summer 22nd in the world population, third in the table. but it's tough. these are difficult times. we're being tested. how will we come through it?
again, it's not complicated. hard work, strong families, taking responsibility, serving others. and as i said on the steps of downing street before walking through that door, those who can should, those who can't we will always help. the job of this party, this government, is to help bring out the best in this country. because at our best we're unbeat. ful. we know britain can deliver. we have seen it time and time again. this is the country that invented the computer. defeated the nazis. started the web, finished the slave trade. we persuaded to jump out a helicopter. there's nothing we can't do. [applause] [applause] and we made britain a best place
to start a business, maintain a business. yes, can we the people, the people who invented the welfare state in the first place turn it in to something that rewards helps, that keeps families together. yes, and can we take those school and turn out students that will take on the brightest in the world. yes, of course we can. here in this government together in this country make this pledge. let us build an aspiration nation. let us get britain on the rise. deficit, pay down, tough decisions taken, aspiration back all the way. we know what it takes to win. to win in the tough world of today. to win for all of our people. to win for britain let us get out there and do it. [applause] [applause]
c-span networking celebrating the 40th anniversary this year. join us ladies and gentlemen later for a luncheon marking the milestone. you can watch that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion networking. half hour later, lawrence summers speaking at the center for american progress here in washington. we'll have that live for you starting at 1:30 eastern here on c-span2. look what president obama did on the budget. nothing! except borrow and spend. and as a result of the president's abdication of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predickble economic crisis in our country's history rep and not fixing it. our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan. $4 trillion. we will already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything.
no. i really mean it. not when they say they don't like our plan. i get that. you don't like our plan. what's your plan. tonight paul ryan and goaden will face off in the only debate. martha moderates from centere college in danville, kentucky. you can watch and engage with c-span with the live debate preview at 7 p.m. eastern. followed by two two ways to watch the debate tonight. both candidates on screen. multicamera version of the debate on c-span2. followed by your calls, e-mails, and tweets. follow our live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and onlike at c-span coring. >> four years ago we wept through the worst financial depression since great depression. the financial system had frozen up. and because of the resilience, and the determination of the american people, we begun to
fight our way back. >> president has a very similar that he had four years. big government, spending more, regulating more, trickle down government would work. that's not the right answer for america. i'll restore the vitality that gets america working again. c-span debate hub has video of the presidential debate last week. we made separate requests. it's the only place you can see live behind the scenes coverage at each debate including the spin room. watch and engage with with tweets from political reporters. ed a your own at c-span.org/debates. and coming up next, the debate between congressman jim renacci representing ohio's 16th district. and betty cut ton. -- surprised about half of the privacy district 16 and 20
percent behalf -- this debate moderated by it's about an hour. tmz is proud to represent this. additional support coming from cleveland state university. support for closed caption transcripts is provided by the in nordson corporation foundation. ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> moderator: good afternoon. my name is jim forecaster i'm exective directer. i'm pleasessed welcome 0 you to the debate.
the city club is the oldest forum in the country. we have a long and distinguished history of presenting political debates, which provide an opportunity for the audience here and throughout ohio to be able to compare and contrast these two candidates. each and every week throughout the year, the city club presents interesting programs with informed speaker, addressing these significant issues of the day. we will be pleased to welcome you as a sporter of the city club in the ongoing mission of civic dialogue. our broadcast partner is idea stream. not only for the program today, but each day ideas be being broadcast on 90.3 and sunday mornings at 10:00 at pbs ibs stream. television broadcast received substantial support for cleveland state university and pnc bank. i'm pleased to turn it over to
mike mac tire. he is the mod rare for the moderator for the debate. he's writing the popular tip off column and sound of ideas. mike? [applause] >> moderator: thank you. jim, thank you very much. i'm delighted to moderate this gait for candidates for the ohio newly redistrict 16th congressional district. jim renacci has currently been serving and served one term. and betty sutton served for three terms in congress. the two districts have been redrawn and the two candidates are buying for the single seat that will be ohio's 16th district in the 113th congress congress beginning next january. both are incumbents there are many folks who had an opportunity to vote vice president heard from you.
our hope is after the exercise, votes will have a clear understanding of where each of you stands and can cast an informed vote. that's not to say folks haven't heard a lot about it you. as they reported yesterday on cleveland.com the race has been one of the highest draws with outside spending $4.4 million by groups essentially to run attack ads of each of the candidates. set your dvr because a couple of million is on the way. it's refreshing to hear from not just about the represents. two keywords i hope you keep in mind, specifics and contrasts. and if you can be civic in your answers and draw contrast to your opponent. we'll have accomplished our goal of enlightment today. let me set the ground rules quickly. the rules for the opening portion of the debate are each representative has a total of three minutes for an opening statement. and after these opening words, we'll move to questions that i will ask, and then the traditional city club audience
questions. we're pleased to welcome our audience with us here and those listens to wcp90 idea stream or other broadcast around the country. i know, many in the audience support or the other of the candidates. we appreciate you giving everyone a chance to be heard. this once, it's your chance to be heard. you can show your support now for your candidates. [applause] >> moderator: thank you. the order of presentation was determined by a drawings just a few minutes ago. and congresswoman sutton, you will present first. sutton: tha. thank you to the cleveland club. and to our moderator and our audience for participating in the pornts process. i want to start off by introducing myself. i grew up in new york ohio. i'm the youngest of six. my dad worked at the boilermaker factory and my mom work at the
local public library. and i grew up watching what happened when people work hard and they play by the rules. i've seen how great we can be when we invest in ohio's people. and our inquestion knewty. far too often, middle class family like the family i grew up. we have seen the roles changed. they have seen investments and opportunity packed up and shipped off to other countries. they have seen those at the very top get an unfair advantage sometimes -- of an opportunity and fair chance at the american dream. when big corporate lobbyists have a strangle hold on the government, that's the result we get. washington has a lot of politicians who like to coz sei up to lobbyists. washington has a lot of politicians who are there to enrich themselves. that's not who i am. and that's not who i will ever
be. that's why i introdisused a bill to stop lobbyists from giving -- gifts to members of congress. and why i have stood up to people on both sides of the aisle which they have violated the publics' trust. why i -- using information to enrich themselves. and why saw my brave troops who were being sent on extended tours of duty, beyond their contract terms, i stood up and fought to make sure they were being fairly compensated and treated. because they deserve to have someone on their side. and when politicians, some said let the auto industry go under, taking thousands of ohio's jobs with. it i said, no way, no how. because our workers are the best in the world.
and they deserve to have someone on their side. we hear a lot of talk in washington these days about protecting job creators. and i couldn't agree more. but we disagree about who creates jobs. i believe in simple economics that jobs are created when demand for products is there. and demand is created by fighting for avibrant middle class. not by putting more wealth not hands that are super wealthy so they can hold on it to scare. i will keep fighting for the job creators and ohio middle class families that outnumbered in washington. special interest have plenty of representation. you can bet this daughter of a boiler maker is going to be there on your side representing you. thank you. [applause]
[applause] >> moderator: a reminder on the plus a. we'll be able to get more with the questions. if we can hold it. we had our chance earlier and obviously have a chance at the end of the program as well. thank you, congresswoman sutton. and congressman renacci your three minutes. renacci: thank you. i want to thank you for holding this debate and congresswoman sutton to be here and talk about our views and differences. i want to thank mike for being the moderator at the event. you know, clearly this election in 28 days is important for the 16th district. it's important because it remits two views. we have two basic views. my views came from my family, growing up in a blue-collar union family. my grandfather was a coal miner. my dad was a railroad worker. i understand what it meant to work in that -- you know, in democratic union family. i understood what it was when my dad lost his job when i was
eight years old. i understand what it was and how tough it was to make a difference. that's what actually is started my idea of america is about. my dad said america is about opportunity. it's definitely about the future and opportunity. and that was the difference for me. and i'm happy to say that i was able to create 1500 jobs with that opportunity. i started my own business, first person to go to college in my family. paid for it on my own. drove a infrastructure. can a lot of things. that's the defense. my opponent, her views come from being a career politician. she also had a she talked about a family and boilermaker female. i applaud she grew up in the same views. the views are different. want election isn't about either of them. it's not about me or her. you know what it's about? the 23 million people who are looking for full-time employment right now. it's about the 47 million people that are on food stamps today.
it's about the 50 million people, the 50 million people who now really are poor. that's what this is about. that is what this election is about. since 2009, it's about the increase in the amount of people that have become poor. it's also about the last four years of adding on those $5 trillion to the national debt. that's what it's about. it's not about congresswoman sutton or me. it's about those people. it's about making it better for them. it's about taking our economy and moving in a different are direction. what's important as you look at both candidates after today and all the way to november 6th, is you understand what they believe. and what their views are. congresswoman sutton believes in bigger government, she believes in more spending, she'll call that investing. but it's really spending.
she believes in more taxes, she believes in thing in this case don't agree with. i don't agree that government should be bigger. i don't agree that we should be spending more money. i'm concerned for our children and grandchildren. i'm concerned for the debt we're putting on them. i'm concerned for that $16 trillion that continues to grow every day. that's the difference. so if you want bigger government, the decision is going to be easy. if u yo want more taxes, the decision is going to be easy. but if you want somebody who wants to get america back to the people and make government smallinger and less taxes. i hope i can earn your vote on 6th. >> moderator: thank you qan renacci. [applause] we are now turning, thank you boat both for the opening statement. we are turning to the moderated portion of the debate. candidates will have one minute to respond to each question i'll reserve the right ask a followup
question to each of the candidates. followup responses will be allow a 30 second time frame. the first question starting with you, congressman renacci. and i'd like each of you to answer the question. each have a minute for it. we've been talking about jobs in this debate and in fact, during this campaign and in fact in the debate already. how would each of you go about creating more job football your district and what role would the federal government play in that process? mr. renacci? renacci well, doesn't create jobs. entrepreneurs create jobs. people in the private sector create jobs. we need to bring certainty and predictability back. i was a small business owner for 28 years. i understand what it is to create a job. i understand what it means to risk capital and when government has more regulations when government doesn't allow certain predibilit when government if you're a small business owner today, you don't know what your
taxes are going to be? january. you don't know what new regulations are coming down the road. you don't know when the health care costs are going to be. you don't have any idea. how can you ever get certainty and predictability when a government doesn't give up. that's one of the problems. we need to get certainty and predibility. the private sector needs it. when you get certainty and predibilitiability you're willing to create jobs. one of the things i have done over the last year is really get out and meet with the small business owners and listen to them. >> moderator: same question. sutton. thank you i have a plan called the american job first plan. through that we would level the playing field for american workers and businesses inspect is one of the things we could do. is strengthen the american laws. when we are investing on behalf of not just one individual or those at the very top, but on behalf of all of us in our infrastructure, that also spurs
greater development and strengthening manufacturing, we can do so by making sure when we build that infrastructure, we can use american iron steel, manufacturing goods to get those ripple effects at the good jobses for our folks. we can close the loophole my opponent has consistently voted for that encourage outsources of our jobs. and stop these bad trade deals continuing to support bad deals as my opponent voted for three bad trade deals that don't serve ohio well in the the future. those are a couple of quick things we can do. we can reign in chinese currency manipulation. something i would ask my opponent to put on the house floor. that could mean a million jobs. >> moderator: time. thank you. congressman renacci, a followup to the previous question. you mentioned predibilitiability and certainty a lot on the
campaign trail and on your answer. it a realistic goal. renacci: absolutely. it is available to us. we have to make sure that government is certain and predictability. we have to stop using political rhetoric. congressman sutton talked about loopholes. i'm a cpa i would love to tell what the loopholes are. i don't know what the deductions are. i would love to hear them someday. i believe we need certainty and predictability for those job creators. she talk about what he believes, i believe the job creators are the ones that we should be listening to. we shouldn't be telling them. >> moderator: move on to the next question. what specifically would you do to attack the federal debt and deficit would tax increases of any kind be appropriated.
how equipmently should we reach balance spended in it country? congresswoman sutton, you're first. sutton: thank you. it's time for those to pay their fair share. the deep tax cuts that have existed for those at the very top of the spectrum, we can no longer afford those. so i would definitely allow those to expire. i also would close those loopholes for companies shipping jobs overseas. those are important things we can do to right this ship. the other thing, i believe the job creators, as i said are the middle class. we have to look out and instead of having a budget that hits them, and increases their burden, if we make sure this a those at the top pay a fair share invest in smart things like infrastructure and advanced manufacturing, get our people to work, tie the i are re"issue" --
reduction. we have the way to get rid of it is to put people to work. so that revenue keeps coming in. so i would focus on job creation, tie the unemployment numbers to the rate at which we reduce the deficit. >> moderator: congressman renacci? renacci: again, we need to get the deficit down. the key is start looking at what we're spending. raising taxes, raising taxes is not the answer. if you think about it washington, you should not want anybody to send my more money to washington until they learn fix what they spend today. if i held up a budget and put the holes and the leaks and the spending that's going on. you would say why would anybody want to put more water in the bucket. let's fix it. that's the difference. washington doesn't know how to spend the money they're getting already. we need make sure we are looking at every line item. we are borrowing 40 cents on the
dollar for every thing we spend we need to make sure is it worth borrowing money from chinese to do this. >> moderator: a followup question, i'm start with you mr. renacci. how kickly -- quickly shouldly reached balance spended you supported the ryan budget which takes twenty five years to reach the goal. is that realistic or should it be shorter? renacci: i'm concerned that making social security, medicare, and medicaid are solvent. i want to make sure that those 55 and older have no changes to the medicare system going to those younger we make sure it's solvent for them too. the problem is, we didn't get in to the situation in one year. we didn't get it in two years. it's taken a lot of years. i think what it's going to take a is number of years. the ryan budget it takes up to 25 years. the more jobs we have, the more jobs we create, the more we vote to increase the amount of jobs, the faster the deficit will go down. i think we should be able to
push from anything to 25 plus. we better have a goal. >> moderator: what about a time frame, congresswoman sutton? sutton: as i said, i would tie the deficit reduction timeline to drops in unemployment. my opponent says that he's not about raisings taxes. he's essential not about allowing those tax cuts for the super wealthy to expire. that same budget that same budget that protects those tax cuts puts a hard hit on our working family and drives up cost for our seniors. it ends medicare as we know it. turning it in to a vowture program. the independent estimates show that it could cost the seniors up to 4eu6d 00 on average under that budget. i think that those at the top need to pay a fair share so that all the burden doesn't fall on our working families and our seniors. >> moderator: thank you. along the lines of finance and
the budget, do each of you support a grand gar began on -- bargain on the budget. if so, what your must-have regarding taxes and cut. congresswoman sutton? sutton: i think it looks like something i just described. we hear a lot in washington that, you know, that republicans are focused on the disef sit. we all agree we have a long-term deficit problem. we have to responsibly address it. we also, and i heard my opponent say the key to that is getting people back to work. that's where i would focus. i was the person in charge of everything. what i would say is to democrats you go out and come up with full-employment plan and republicans you focus on how we reduce the deficit and frankly, it doesn't have to be democrats and republicans. as i say we have these mutual interest. we could sit down together and take that approach. let's get a full employment
plan. tie the reduction and employment to the deficit and the reduction. and how we're going to get there. it's building it to the end. it's a great thing. putting people to the work through the cars act and the manufacturing. i know we could do it and come up with that right bargain for the american people. >> moderator: congressman renacci your thought on a grand bargain? renacci: i'm a believer in the grand bargain. we need to work together. and the only problem is we need to work together and make sure it's all about jobs. it's about the 23 million people unemployed looking for work. it's about the 47 million people on food stamps. we need make sure we start looking for jobs, jobs, jobs, at the same time why would you increase taxes on people that create jobs? one thing, my opponent and i definitely agree on, we should never raise taxes on anyone during a recession. she voted for that in 2010. she agreed. she voted not to increase the
taxes on anyone and to extend the tax rates. she did the right thing because she -- back then the growth of our country was not even -- our growth is even less today. so i do agree with her on that. we should be voting to make sure we don't raise taxes on anyone in the time of recession. >> moderator: followup question to that, the fiscal cliff that's been called is coming up at the end of the year. and that woud involve spending cuts sequestered cuts that were agreed to in the 2011 budget as well as tax the rollback of tack cuts as well. i wonder if you, congressman renacci would support a temporary measure to avert the cuts and the changes in the tax code until a deal could be reached. are you in favor of the temporary stopgap? renacci: i'm not favor of not temp rare those. we need to extend the tax cuts to bring certainty and
predictability back to the work force. if we bring certainty and predictability we need to do it sooner and later. i'm in favor of that. i think we need to move forward and make sure that no one, especially in recession, a time of recession, that even president obama agreed with that, in 2010, along with my opponent in time recession we should never raise taxes on anyone. i think we should have long-term plan and also do tax reform. ultimately a tax reform plan over that extension period. >> moderator: congressman sutton, your thoughts on that given election is in november. there are couple of months to divert from going over the cliff. would you endorse a short term proposal. sutton: i two voted it against it in the first place i knew it would get us here. i think it's important to set the record straight. my opponent talks about why i voted for the tension of the tax cut for the super wealthy. i'll tell you why the
controlling block held it hostage. they helped the middle class tax cuts hostage to those for the wealthy. i think they should have expired then and, by the way, they have been in effect. where the jobs where the are jobs from the job creators let's put more money not hands of the middle class, the ryan budget does not do. it actually takes away important deductions like the home interest or the home mortgage interest deduction and the earned income tax credit. so i think it's all about helping the job creators. but it's the middle class that is the engine of job creation. >> moderator: moving on to the next question. what are your specific proposals regarding entitlement only indications such as medicare, medicaid, social security and how do you differ from your opponent. where do you see room for comprise. renacci: retalking about political rhetoric. she voted to extent the tax cuts when the house was involve bid
the democrats. not by the republicans. [laughter] how can you say we held it back? she had all the cards. but when it comes to entitlement, i believe we need to make sure that entitle element reform is around so that social security, medicare, and medicaid are here for everyone. i think we need make sure, looks, my opponent, what has she done? two choices voted to do nothing. we know what happens if you do nothing. if you do nothing right now medicare will be insole vent social security will be insole solvent. we need to make sure we reform it so everyone has helped medicare, medicaid and social security for the future generations. >> moderator: qot sutton. sutton: we degree it. i got a 100% committee to prerve social security and medicare. my opponent got a 0. the reality of this is that, you
know, my opponent voted to end medicare as we know. turn it to a voucher program. cause seniors to have to pay more with no guarantee they get the care they needed. thing is the wrong approach i think we need to cut out waste and fraud and abuse. from the providers side and not for the benefit. i think we need to continue to close that hole not leaving our senior citizens in a letter choosing between medicine and food. something my opponent voted to allow to come back. i also think that, you know, working families and most people pay on a 100% of their income for social security. and once again, if 94% are paying on 100% of their income, why shouldn't those at the very top also do it? because that would make social security solvent for a very long time in to the future.
>> moderator: moving on to the next topic. you both have widely divergent views on the benefit of the patient affordable care act or obamacare which the president is referring to it. in ways are the changes brought by obamacare or the improvement over the previous system or converse riley making things work? start with you congresswoman sutton. sutton: i think it was important we push back on the abuses by the insurance company. the discrimination against people based on preexisting conditions. the arbitrary lifetime scaups were keeping people who are facing disease or sickness from getting the care they need because of those annual an lifetime. i also think it's important that now students can stay on their parents' insurance coverage until the age of 26. and that we close that doughnut hole that was hurting our seniors and making them make choices that we are too great of
a country for them to have to make. there are a lot of things that are good. there are a lot of things that need to continue to be improved. we have to continue roll back and reduce the cost curve on health care. we strengthen the solvent sei of medicare through that bill. so there a lot of thicks that happen people are actually now in the medical industry making money, keeping people well because of the preventive services they can get. the cancer screenings that i'm a supporter of. those are good things about the bill. that's why i supported it. >> moderator: congressman renacci, you ran on a viewpoint of repealing obamacare. renacci: sure i ran on a viewpoint of representing my people in the district. people wanted it to be repealed. the other thing is important, it did nothing. absolutely nothing to bring costs down. we know that for a fact.
the president said the cost will come down by $2,000 per year. they have gone up by $2,000 per year. there were god things. preexisting conditions. i agree with them. that could have been four or five pages. we don't need to throw a 2400-page bill on the table saying we need to know it to pass it. look at what is in it year after year. two things in if for sure. $718 was taken out of medicare. if you taunt changing $718 billion was taken out of medicare to pay for obamacare. that's a fact. and the other thing is we have a 15--member board unelected officials that will make health care decisions in the future. those are the two things that changed medicare forever part of obamacare. >> moderator: followup. you said $718 billion taken out of medicare. that's a fact. fact checking organization would disagree with you on that. and what also say that deny paul
ryan's budget plan there's similar accounting measure. what is your thought on that? why do you call it a cut from medicare? renacci: well it is a cut if you take $718 million. if you take $718 billion out it's a cut. paul ryan had to develop a budget based on the cuts. they are loss. his budget now has taken those out. there's no doubt about that. his budget has taken them out because it was a cut in the law already. but question dice it, slice it, spin any way you. $718 billion was taken out of the system. it was taken from insurance company, medicare advantage, it was taken from medicare. >> moderator: congresswoman sutton, you have 30 second on that as well. sutton: i appreciate the question. and let's just be very, very, very clear my opponent said he wanted to stop the
discrimination based on preexisting condition. he voted repeatedly to have reinstated. he's a member of the majority party of the house of representatives. he can offer up different things. it's part of our responsibility to make things work and sometimes that means moving your own people in the house of representatives. you know, if anyone in the room, and i appreciate the problem and i think we have to continue to work on bringing down health care costs. if there's anyone here listening who thinks health care costs are not going up before we passed the health care bill, i would be very surprised. i have recently stood at the opening of the wellness center where it has effected the way of doing business because the folks who built the wellness center said before the health care bill i had to make money treating people who were sick. but now i can make money by keeping people well. i think that is the right way to
turn. >> moderator: ask a final question before i ask jim foster to come back up with important announcement and move to the audience question portion of our debate today. the final question is about the district in which you're run, the redrawing of the ohio's district has been called on obscene by many political sobers who see evidence of jury mannedder. i wonder if you agree with the -- changing process if you don't support that what other changes would you on i did candidate to draw congressional districts like the one you're running in. renacci: i believe the congressional district, i'm not happy with the way they were drawn. you know we turn around and should chattize those for? those that did it. we have elected officials that did it. if you are concerned, you talk to the elected officials. if you don't like the answer you change them. that's the answer. the answer isn't to put an
unelected board in place. it is going to cost millions of dollars to set up to sponsor to move forward with to change the system. we have to live with the system. we have to live and i guess ten years ago it was an issue. what we need to do is get out and meet people. i think if my opponent would spend more time out there talking to business, she would find out that health care costs have been gone. up i had over a hundred meetings with businesses in the old district but in the new district. i think that's important. we're representing them, talk to themed and find out exactly what health care costs are. that's the key. >> moderator: congresswoman sutton? sutton: thank you. i sport support it too. it's interesting to hear my opponent say these things here today. my opponent was chastising the folks drawing the district in miss favor. he was communicating with them, finding out how much of my district would actually be included in his district to make sure that advantage was still there. there's a report that shows
this. i didn't see the chastising when the speaker of the house in a matter of minutes turned around on behalf of my opponent to make sure that a big contributor was moved in. the only place in can ton, ohio that was looped in to the 16th district a big contributor for my opponent. so it is interesting to hear that. people deserve better. they deserve districts they know their representatives, who they are, what they're about. they deserve better than that was offered up in the answer. >> moderator: given the answer i'm going to ask you, mr. renacci to respond in thirty questions. renacci: sure, it's amazing you heard on the debate about facts, my opponent may own her house. she doesn't own the fact. there are is no fact show jim renacci was involved in redistricting. it i was involved i guarantee the redistricting would not have been the way they were. i was the first one that was shocked when i found out the
districts are. it's very difficult for my opponent to say something like that. i would love to hear the facts on that. i'm sure she doesn't have that. >> moderator: thank you it will conclude the portion of the debate. here is jim foster with the city club for important announcements. they'll be brief. thank you. in a minute we will have the traditional city club audience question and answer period. to the audience, thank you in advance for opportunity for making your questions questions. stating theme as briefly as possible. we would like to thank the many generous supporters who are purchased tables today. please refer to the program. there's a list of the table holders. thank you very much. today is the annual peter endowed forum on local politicking. peter was a long time and much beloved city club member. he was a member for more than
fifty years. joining us at the head table today is paul -- [applause] [applause] >> thank you and with the announcements. i'll turn the podium back over to mike for and the audience for questions directly from the audience. it will be moderate by mike. let's have the first question. >> moderator: before we take the question, i want to make thed a mo nation we would love this to be in the form of a question. and i know that many of us here would have come to support your candidate might have comments to make as well. i implore you to ask a question. we're not going to be having any tacks or speeches here from the audience. we would love to hear from the full house and let's have our first question. >> good afternoon and thank you for coming. i would ask both of you to comment on this please. i am the owner of a small manufacturing with 62
employees. i have been excluded from all the small business deals that take place. i would like to understand mow both of you feel regarding the escalading regulations that were batting up under the prior administration administration but are frankly staggering under the current administration with some of the thanks that have been passed over the last four years. >> moderator: thank you. as a reminder each of the candidates will have one minute to deliver an answer to the question that was asked of both of them. congressman renacci, you can begin. renacci: okay. again i always say it's about certainty and predictability. you heard me talk about we have to make thiewr that tax rates whawns the tax rates are. small business understand what the regulations are. the problem is regulations are growing and growing. we don't replace the old one. they stay there and add more. reat the bill in the house my opponent did not go along with and pass. we got it out of the house.
it's not been touched by the senate yet, which basically says such common sense it just say, if we don't unemployment doesn't drop below 6%, we should not add another regulation. isn't that a common sense idea? do not add another regulation until we get unemployment below 6%. if we look at things like that, it's common sense ideas, we take advantage of making sure small business owners like yourself understand what it is. and we have to be able to look at the regulations and make sure we get another bill that basically said if it exceeds $100 million of economic growth, they have come and explain to congress. part of the oversight we should actually be able to hear why they're doing some of the regulations. >> moderator: congresswoman sutton. sutton: thank you. thank you for the question. you know, just i would want to talk to you after this. we only have a little bit of time lore to hear more about your situation. certainly small business is
important part of our economic recovery. we have to make sure that we have regulations that are effective and smart but not overly burdensome. i think that the approach my opponent pointed out with the legislation that passed the houses is a good example of the differences between us. i think that it is irresponsible to say that we should just not pass any regulations no matter what they are without having to look carefully at what they are. for example a good example of why is this. we are all aware of the danger that we face with the invasive species. the asian carp that right now we are racing against the fact to keep out of the great lakes. you know where it's important to do that? not only because of, you know, it's an environmental asset we have, but it's an economic engine. there are a lot of jobs that would be at risk if we were to sit on our hands because we passed some arbitrary
overreaching bill that says no regulations without -- everything to stop. that's not responsible. so i think smart regulations, effective regulations, get rid of ones that don't work, and we don't need. but you can't just have the simpleistic approach that said get rid of them. >> moderator: next question, please. >> i have a question about veterans military families and soldiers, and this is for both candidates. can you say very specifically what you have voted for or against while you have been in office that affects military families, veterans or soldiers? >> moderator: let me start with congresswoman sutton. sutton: thank you. there are a number of things and not enough things we can do to help our veterans and call it day. their services is amaze and what had made the country all it is. i have been proud to support the g.i. bill and my first year
stand up and make sure that the va was finally, finally fully funded. i have been proud to work with protection a bill i introduced that made sthiewrt troops will be extent on repoeted and extended toward a duty would get fair compensation. i have been proud to fight for va benefits and making sure that clinics stayed open in our neighborhoods. working with some of the men right here in the room who have proudly served us. i have been proud at every turn to do all i can. [applause] i have gone so far as to not only provide opportunity to bring resources to help our homeless veterans but gone out and worked with my staff, we have actually gone to the habitat for humidity and worked together to build a shelter. we are too great a country to have veterans that are homeless in this great country. >> moderator: congressman renacci?
renacci: a son of world war two veteran that have cursens with, uncles, i believe we need to support them 100%. i believe we need to make sure they have everything they need from the equipment, the pay and when they comb home. they need to have jobs. we need to make sure they have jobs. i supported every program in congress that's been there to make sure that we can continue to support our veterans. i just passed a -- i came out of a house, a piece of legislation that actually removes how they calculate revenue for homeless veterans so that homeless veterans can be afford the opportunity of help financing to get -- to not be homeless anymore. it was a recent bill i passed i believe we need to stand with our military 100%. >> moderator: thank you. next question, sir. >> welcome to the city club. i would like to find out what your background is for both of
you, actually, i think the law was passed by congresswoman sutton. what your background is in the auto motive industry for the cash for clunkers. >> moderator: if you have a question in the audience, i saw a couple of people trying to signal me. you grab one of the folks with the microphone and they're standing around here. let's start with common renacci. renacci: we have washington passing bills that don't unwhat the results of them. are. my opponent will tell you about this or that. the facts are the department of labor shows that in an all august of 2009, 15,000 jobs were lost, this is a labor. 15,000 jobs were lost in auto motive, manufacturing, and parts because of the economy that the time, what was going on. my opponent will tell you -- 15,000 jobs were lost. i was a car dealer. i understand what happened.
we had car sales new car sales in the sixth district in the county, six districts. so the first six months 4500 new cars new vehicles were sold. during the time for cash clunkers it went to the average of 5900. guess what happened after cash for clunkers. it dropped down to 3700. if you take the 15-month period for cash for clunkers. we didn't sell any more cars than we did two years prior. that's a problem. and here's the worst part about cash for clunkers. it race raised the cost of new cars. it put a tax on the working poor. it should never happen. they have to pay 11 percent more for the farmers in wayne county they can't find used cars. >> moderator: congresswoman sutton. sutton: thank you. i appreciate the my opponent thinks that this bill was about him. it was called the cars acted it was about people. it was about the family that work hard and auto and related
industry. i department hear any studies, i just my opponent's opinion. every study out there has shown the program was a timely temporary targeted stimulus that worked. accounted for 60,000 job. it didn't solve every problem we had. before it happened, there were no car sales happening. and when it stay thed happening, guess what if we saw dealership team i i got the service award from the ohio automobile association when i believe my opponent is a member. was named a u.s. automotive all-star by u.s. automotive news. it wasn't about the awards it was about the families who had a paycheck, it was about the part suppliers, it was about the money coming in to the communities, and the firefighters we able to hire and the police officers and the teacrs