Republican’s shifting stance on contempt

Late last night, the Department of
Justice wrote to inform us that they will ignore our subpoena for the
unredacted Mueller Report. The real obstruction of justice is what Democrats are trying to do to the Attorney General. These guys are bound and determined to
go after the Attorney General and to go after President Trump and not going to focus on what we need to do to help the country. The Attorney General has not only failed to produce all the relevant documents, he has misled this Congress and thereby prevented us from uncovering the truth. This is about the Constitution and it’s about Congress’ mandate to do oversight over both the
executive and judicial branches of government. Oversight is an institutional
obligation to ensure against abuse of power. Subpoena authority is a vital tool
of that oversight. It’s a fundamental tenant and a strength of our democracy that Congress has given not just the power, but the responsibility to exercise
its duty of executive over the oversight of the executives No Justice Department is above the law And no Justice Department is above the Constitution. The only recourse left for the House is to continue seeking the truth and to hold Attorney General in contempt of Congress. They’d rather play politics than uphold Congress’ right to investigate. Today’s vote is about
accountability. Every member of Congress should do their constitutional duty and hold the Attorney General in contempt today. All we have asked for is the
documents, all we want are the facts. And we have been thwarted. Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States the highest judicial enforcement officer of the United States has been in contempt is in contempt and is
showing contempt for the Congress and the responsibility under the

Libertarian Paternalism: Mental Nudges That Help You Save Time, Lives, and Money | Cass Sunstein

A number of years ago Richard Thaler, a terrific
economist, and I were talking about public policy and also about human behavior. And the idea developed that you can have a
form of paternalism that preserves freedom of choice. So, insist first and foremost on people being
able to go their own way if they want, but it acknowledges that some of us maybe don’t
know how to get where we want to go, or that some of us may be focused on today and not
next year, or that some of us might be unrealistically optimistic or some of us might not know a
whole lot, for example, about health insurance or savings plans or about how to manage our
credit card. So the idea developed, which wouldn’t have
sold any books but we use it anyway, called libertarian paternalism, and we change that
to a simpler form, “nudge”, and the idea behind libertarian paternalism or nudge is
that you have things that are like a GPS device. So a GPS device is a form of libertarian paternalism. If you don’t like the instructions you’re
getting from the little voice that’s coming in your car, you can say, “I want the scenic
route,” or, “I prefer a direction which is more familiar to me and I know better than
you do given what I care about.” But it’s steering you in a direction which
it has information suggesting is the best way to get you where you want to go. Now, we can all use a GPS device in a lot
of places and this is the idea of a libertarian paternalism. So if you get a credit card bill and it has
some information about what happens if you don’t pay the full amount, meaning you’re
going to start getting charged interest, or if it has information that tells you something
about the cost of late fees, that is like a GPS device in the sense that it doesn’t
force you to do anything, but it tells you a little bit about how to get to what is probably
your preferred destination, which is saving money. You might have also a warning on a cigarette
package or a warning on medicines and those things are liberty preserving because you
can do whatever you want really, but it is steering you like a GPS device in one direction
rather than another. Some of the most powerful forms of libertarian
paternalism, which in a way are changing the world, are using automatic enrollment in something,
so that if people don’t want the thing they have to opt out rather than saying opt in
if you do want to thing. And one that’s really taken off all over
the world is automatic enrollment in savings plans. The idea is that once you are working in many
places you’re just in a savings plan. If you don’t want to be you can opt out,
but the result of automatic enrollment has been to increase—massively—participation
rates in savings plans while preserving freedom of choice and that’s going to mean that
people all over the world are going to have more comfortable retirements. Now the idea of more comfortable retirements
is important, it may not be the sort of thing that gets people’s juices flowing, but when
I worked in the White House between 2009 and 2012 we thought a lot about this, about things
that could help people while preserving their freedom of choice. And one little example does get at least my
juices flowing, which is there’s a program to allow poor kids to have free school lunches
and breakfast, and it’s something that isn’t politically inflamed. Everyone thinks if you’re below a certain
threshold of poverty you should get a nutritious meal at school—and it’s free, you get
it. But a lot of kids haven’t signed up, maybe
because the parents are scared if they get some form from the government, maybe because
the form from the government is kind of daunting and complicated, maybe because the parents
are busy and focused on other things rather than some bureaucratic note from the Department
of Agriculture or the local school. So what we did was basically just shifted
the default. If the locality knows that you’re eligible
for the meal, you are getting the meal. If you don’t want to be in the program you
can opt out, but you’re automatically in. And at last count that means that about 11
million kids in the United States are getting school meals for free, to which they’re
entitled, and 11 million is a statistic, but if you think of some small fraction of those
kids ages 6/7/8/9 and imagine them having something that’s going to produce no hunger
plus nutrition, that’s a small intervention that is having a real impact. So one of the exciting things about the last
ten years is that the interest in libertarian paternalism or nudging has been intense and
strong, and it has cut across partisan lines. So when I worked in the White House there
were a number of things I worked on that Democrats liked and Republicans not so much—climate
change regulation, Republicans were not that excited about it, President Trump not so excited
about it, and Democrats were approving. But libertarian paternalism, we didn’t use
the name, but things like information disclosure about credit cards, information disclosure
about mortgages, automatic enrollment in savings plans, simplification of forms, which is a
way of preserving liberty but ensuring that people aren’t just drowning in complexity,
which prevents them from taking advantage of something, all of these things were able
to attract bipartisan enthusiasm. So Americans don’t like their freedom being
intruded on. They don’t like the idea of public officials
saying, “We know better than you do,” but so long as their freedom to go their own
way is maintained they are good with things like warnings, reminders, information, switching
the default role. You could imagine some examples of those that
would get people’s hackles up, but generally—and this is the kind of the excitement, I think,
of the era we’re in—these ideas, informed by behavioral science for decades of testing,
are changing people’s lives, saving in some cases literally billions of dollars, saving
in other cases significant number of lives per year, these are things that don’t really
get the salutary American antipathy to mandates from self-appointed in some cases elites,
and in other cases an elected elite. The opposition to mandates does not apply
to libertarian paternalism, at least so long as the word libertarian doesn’t merely have
too many syllables to be kind of the friendliest word, but at least so long as it really means
freedom then we’re doing something that’s compatible with American culture.

The new US tax law, explained with cereal

Ever since they won control
of the government in 2016. Republicans have been obsessed with getting
this one thing done. Tax reform. We’re going to have a phenomenal tax reform. They’ve passed a bill,
the President has signed it, so let’s break down what’s actually going to change. Imagine that instead of getting paid in dollars, you got paid in cereal. The government takes a certain amount of cereal in taxes. And it uses it to pay other people to do things build roads, fly fighter jets, do research. You get the picture. The more you earn, the bigger the share of your cereal the government takes. Sometimes the government wants to incentivize you to do certain things with your cereal. Like if you buy a house for a hundred pieces of cereal, and then sell it for 200 pieces of cereal, you’d normally have to pay
capital gains taxes on that profit. But there’s a special loophole
that says you don’t have to. The tax code is full of loopholes like this, which means if everyone puts their cereal together, there would be two bowls. One that the government dips into for taxes, and one it doesn’t. Now, Republicans want the government to take a smaller portion. And they say they want people to keep more of the cereal. But if they do that, the government won’t have enough cereal to pay for what it needs. So part of this new law is taking some of the cereal that’s not taxed, and change the rules so that it is taxable. That way, the government can take
a smaller share of the cereal but still pay for the stuff it needs. This is what politicians mean when they talk about ‘broadening the tax base.’ Here’s the problem: Republicans aren’t broadening the base enough. They’re taking a lot less cereal from people and adding some new taxable cereal but not enough to pay for what the government needs. To pay for that stuff, the government is going to have to go into debt. This means they’re going to have to take even more cereal, years in the future to pay back the debt they’re taking out now. Republicans think this will help
grow the total amount of cereal available to both tax payers and the government. So what happens to that 1.5 trillion dollar gap? It goes back into people’s bowls but not everyone gets the same share. If you break the population into five equally sized groups based on how much they earned in 2017 and look at how much each group will earn in 2018 every group does get a tax cut. But fast forward ten years and you can see that lower and middle class Americans will actually pay more since
their tax cuts aren’t permanent. And if you break that top group into smaller groups you can see the very wealthiest benefit most of all. So while this new law does close some loopholes to bring in new tax revenue The bill’s larger purpose is to realize the Republican vision of a fairer tax code. One in which the wealthiest pay a lot less.

You have to get the government’s permission to sue them

– What if you had to get permission to sue someone who hurt you? And that permission could only be granted by the person who hurt you? – Inconceivable! – This would be absurd
because no reasonable person would allow for you to sue them if they were given the
choice to avoid a lawsuit. In Utah, this is exactly what
happens with the government. Under Utah law, in most circumstances, you must obtain permission
from the government before you sue its officers,
even if you are injured as a result of a governmental function. – Just about the dumbest
thing I’ve ever heard. – There are a few narrow exceptions, but for the most part government
entities and employees are untouchable and can
do no wrong under the law. (heavy breathing) – This is especially preposterous, considering how many
potentially dangerous businesses governments own and operate,
such as golf courses and recreation centers with
gyms and aquatic centers. These are places which are
open to the public where, just like any golf course or gym, injuries could occur if
something went wrong. (screaming) – Ohh! – I shoulda yelled, “Two!” – When governments own
and operate businesses and compete against
privately-owned counterparts, they should not be specially immune from the rule of the law. If an individual is successful enough to even make it to the courtroom with a lawsuit against the government, success is arbitrarily limited due to unreasonable limits placed by law on the amount of money
a person can be awarded if they win in a lawsuit. You may end up saddled with
millions in medical debt and legal fees after being
injured by an agent of the state, but the maximum amount you could receive if your lawsuit was successful would be capped at a limited
amount set by the state. Fortunately, victims have
another route to pursue if they think they are
entitled to more compensation than they were legally able
to receive from their trial. – So you’re telling me there’s a chance? – Although it’s not an ideal process, victims can appeal to
the Utah Legislature’s Executive Appropriations
Committee for excess damages. Contrary to custom, the king can do wrong. – I am the king! – When government harms a person, that person should be made whole. The arbitrary cap on awarding
injured Utahns compensation should be removed entirely, allowing them to rightfully
sue the government in pursuit of justice. For Libertas Institute,
I’m Nichelle Aiden. (energetic dubstep music)

NBC News/Facebook/Union Leader “Meet The Press” Republican Debate in Concord, NH (January 8th, 2012)

>>GREGORY: This Sunday, a special edition
of Meet the Press. Live from New Hampshire. The last debate before the first-in-the-nation
Presidental Primary. Voting here is just 48 hours away. We come to the Granite State were
nearly one in five voters remain undecided dispite seeing this canidates face to face
in town halls, coffee shops, and even in thier living rooms. A small state that will have
a big impact on the race; their motto: Live Free or Die. The issues: Jobs and the economy,
America’s role in the world, and which of these canidates is best suited to take on
President Obama. This morning, a debate, in partership with Facebook, the worlds number
one social platform, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. The Canidates, the issues, and
your questions. [INTRO MUSIC]>>Announcer: This is the NBC News/Facebook
Republican Canidates Debate from the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, NH. here now
the moderator of Meet The Press, David Gergory [APPLAUSE]>>GREGORY: And Good Morning everyone and
welcome to this special edition of Meet The Press. The final debate before New Hampshire
voting begins; all six canidates are here. And before we begin, you know the drill, we
quickly go through the rules. Each canidate will have one minute, sixty seconds to –uh
make thier statement, respond to questions, and at my discresion thirty seconds for follow
ups or rebbuttls. We’re on a pretty tight schedule so I will ask the canidates to stay
within their allotted time and we’ll see how that goes. We’ve partnered with facebook,
so some of the questions will come from me and some of course will come from you. We
encourage you to weigh in on the debate realtime our online app at mtp (dot) msnbc (dot) com.
You can monitor the conversation there and well see some of your feedback during that
debate over the course of the debate. Canidates Good Morning, I just want to say on behalf
of all Americans that I thank you for being willing to debate each other every ten hours
weather you feel it or not. [LAUGHTER] This is an important moment, elections are
about choices. They are about distingushing one from the other, there is a political element
to that and of course it has to do with policy as well. Govoner Romney has won the Iowa Caucuses,
although, narrowly he’s up in the polls here in New Hampshire, he’s also up in the polls
down in South Carolina. Speaker Gingrich, why shouldn’t Governor Romney be the nominee
of this party? What about his record concerns you most or makes him– disqualified to be
the nominee?>>GINGRICH: Look, I– I think what Republicans
have to ask is who’s most likely in the long run– to survive against the kind of billion
dollar campaign the Obama team is gonna run. And I think that a bold Reagan conservative
with a very strong economic plan is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than
a relatively timid Massachusetts moderate who even The Wall Street Journal said had
an economy plan so timid it resembled Obama. So I think you’ve gotta look at, you know,
Massachusetts was fourth from the bottom in job creation under Governor Romney. I– we
created 11 million jobs while I was Speaker and I worked with governor– with President
Reagan in the entire recover of the 1980s. That is they– there’s a huge difference between
a Reagan conservative and somebody who comes out of the Massachusetts culture with an essentially
moderate record who I think will have a very hard time in a debate with president. [OVERTALK]>>GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, bottom line,
you believe that Governor Romney is unelectable?>>GINGRICH: Well, I don’t believe he’s unelectable
but I think he has a much– I– look, against Obama’s record, I think , you know, the fact
is President Obama’s gonna have a very hard reelection effort. But I do think the bigger
the contrast, the bolder ideas, the clearer the choice, the harder it is for that billion
dollar campaign to smear his way back into office.>>GREGORY: Speaker, this your flier that
you’re–>>GINGRICH: Right.>>GREGORY: –circulating here in New Hampshire.
It says very clearly, “Romney is not electable.”>>GINGRICH: I think he will have a very hard
time getting reelected. Getting elected?>>GREGORY: Governor?>>ROMNEY: David– I’m very proud of the record
that I have and I think the one thing you can’t fool the people about New Hampshire
about is– the record of a governor next door. And people have watched me over my term as
governor and saw that I was a solid conservative and that I brought important change to Massachusetts.
They recognized that I cut taxes 19 times. Balanced the budget every one of the four
years I was in governor. Put in place a $2 billion rainy day fund by the time I’d gone.
We had– we’d seen job losses– in the month leading up to my– becoming– the governor
and then we began to finally create jobs. And by the way, we created more jobs– in
Massachusetts than Barack Obama’s created in the entire country. We also got our state
police to enforce illegal immigration law, put in place– English immersion in our schools.
I’m very proud of the conservative record I have and I think that’s why some of the
leading conservatives in today’s– world who are fighting the conservative battles of today
that don’t have any axe to grind have gotten behind my campaign. Governor Nikki Haley of–
of South Carolina. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Right here, the great senator
of– of New Hampshire, Ken– Kelly Ayotte. These are conservative who looked at my record,
looked at my plan to get this economy going. I happen to believe that if we want to replace
a lifetime politician like Barack Obama, who had no experience leading anything, you have
to choose someone who’s not been a lifelong politician, who has not spent his tire– en–
entire career in Washington, and instead has proven time and again he could lead in the
private sector twice, in the Olympics and as a governor. We’ve got to nominate a leader
if we’re gonna replace someone who is not a leader.>>GREGORY: Well, Senator Santorum, had you
not lost a reelection in 2006 you would have been in Washington even longer than you were.
It would have been 21 years. So you’ve got a long Washington record. How do you address
this question? Why shouldn’t Governor Romney be the nominee? What is disqualifying, in
your judgment?>>SANTORUM: Well, if his record was so great
as Governor of Massachusetts why didn’t he run for reelection? I mean if you didn’t wanna
even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record. If it was that great,
why didn’t you– why did you bail out? I mean the bottom– the bottom line is– you know,
I– I go and fight the fight. If it was that important to the people of Massachusetts that
you were gonna go and fight for them, at least you can stand up and– and make the battle
that you did a good job. I did that. I ran for reelection a couple of times and I won
a couple of times in– in a 71% Democratic district. When I ran for reelection I was
redistricted and I was in a 71% Democratic district. Had a 90% conservative voting record.
It was a hard thing to do. My district was more Democrat than the state of Massachusetts
that I ran in. It was the Steel Valley of Pittsburgh. And I stood up and fought for
the conservative principals. I didn’t do what Governor Romney did in 1994. I was running
the same year he ran in 1994. I ran in a tough state of Pennsylvania against an incumbent.
Governor Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why? Because at the end of that campaign he
wouldn’t stand up for conservative principles, he ran for Ronald Reagan and he said he was
gonna be to the left just like Kennedy on gay rights and abortion, a whole host of other
issues. We want someone when the time gets tough– and it will in this election. We want
someone who’s gonna stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out
and not run and not run to the left of Ted Kennedy.>>GREGORY: Oh, you did say when you endorsed
him four years ago just those words. That he would stand up for conservative principles,
Senator.>>SANTORUM: Vis-à-vis John McCain.>>GREGORY: Vis-à-vis John McCain. Governor?
Your response.>>ROMNEY: Well, a lot of things that were
inaccurate in that and I’m not gonna go through ’em one by one. But I– but I can tell you
this. I– I think it’s unusual, and– and perhaps– understandable, that people who
spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics that that’s all you
wanna do. That if you’ve been elected to something, well, you get– wanna get reelected and reelected.
I– I went to Massachusetts to make it different. I didn’t go there to begin a political career,
running time and time again. I– I made a difference. I put in place the things I wanted
to do. I listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. There
were 100 things we wanted to do. Those things I pursued aggressively. Some we won. Some
we didn’t. Run again? That would be about me. I was tryin’ to help get the state in
best shape as I possibly could. Left the– the world of politics, went back into business.
Now I have the opportunity, I believe, to use the experience I have– you– you got–
a surprised look on your face.>>SANTORUM: I thought– [OVERTALK]>>ROMNEY: Hold– hold– wait. It’s still
my– [OVERTALK]>>ROMNEY: –it’s still my time.>>SANTORUM: –are you gonna– are you gonna–
are you gonna tell people–>>ROMNEY: Rick.>>SANTORUM: –you’re not gonna run for reelection–>>ROMNEY: Rick.>>SANTORUM: –for president–>>ROMNEY: Rick.>>SANTORUM: –if you win?>>ROMNEY: Rick. It’s still my time.>>SANTORUM: I– I’m just askin’.>>ROMNEY: Okay. Well– [LAUGHTER]>>GREGORY: Go ahead. [OVERTALK]>>GREGORY: Governor Romney.>>ROMNEY: I had–>>GREGORY: Governor Romney, take 30 seconds
there.>>ROMNEY: Yeah, what I’m gonna tell you is
I– this– this for me, politics, is not a career. For me my career was being in business
and starting a business and making it success. My– my life’s passion has been my family,
my faith and my country. I believe by virtue of the experiences I’ve had that I’m in a
good position to make a contribution to Washington. I long for a day where instead of having people
to go to Washington for 20 and 30 years who get elected and then when they lose office
they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connecting to businesses, I think it stinks.
I think we oughta have people go to Washington and serve Washington. And– and go– serve
as– as their– the people of their– of their nation and go home. I’d like to see term limits
in Washington.>>MALE VOICE: So one– so one term.>>ROMNEY: And so– no–>>GREGORY: Let me inter– speak–>>ROMNEY: –as the president of the United
States– [OVERTALK]>>ROMNEY: –as the president of the United
States, if I’m elected, of course I’ll fight for a second term.>>GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich–>>ROMNEY: There’s a lot of work do be done.>>GREGORY: Take 30 seconds here.>>GINGRICH: Oh yeah. I mean I– I realize
the red light doesn’t mean anything to you because you’re the front runner. [LAUGHTER]
But– but can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? The fact is you ran in ’94
and lost. That’s why you weren’t serving in the Senate with– Rick Santorum. The fact
is you had a very bad reelection rating. You dropped out of office. You had been out of
state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You didn’t have this
interlude of [UNINTEL] citizenship while you thought about what to do. You were running
for president while you were governor. You were gone all over the country. You were–
you were out of state consistently. You then promptly reentered politics. You happened
to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy. Now you’re back running. You’ve been running
consistently for years and years and years. So this idea that suddenly citizenship showed
up in your mind, just level with the American people. You’ve been running for– so at least
since the 1990s. [APPLAUSE]>>GREGORY: Governor, please.>>ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, citizenship has always
been on my mind. And– and I happened to see my dad– run for governor when he was 54 years
old. He had good advice to me. He said, “Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have
to win an election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position when you can serve,
why, you oughta have a responsibility to do so if you think you can make a difference.”
He said, “Also don’t get involved in politics if your kids are still young ’cause it may
turn their head.”I never thought I’d get involved in politics. When I saw Ted Kennedy running
virtually unopposed in 1994, a man who I thought by virtue of the policies of the liberal welfare
state had created a permanent under-class in America, I said, “Someone’s gotta run against
him.” And I happened to have been wise enough [CLEARS THROAT] to realize I didn’t have a
ghost of a chance of beat– beating him. This– this guy from Mass– a Republican from Massachusetts
was not gonna beat Ted Kennedy. And I told my partners in my firm, “I’ll be back in six
months. Don’t take my chair.” And I– I went in and gave it a real battle and went after
it. It was– I was happy that he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately
defeat me. And I’m– I’m– I’m very proud of the fact that I have stood up– as a citizen
to battle where I felt it was best–>>GREGORY: Well, let–>>ROMNEY: –for the nation. And– and we’re
talking about running for president. I am in this race ’cause I care about the country.
I believe my background and experience–>>GREGORY: All right. Let me–>>ROMNEY: –will happen to but–>>GREGORY: –break–>>ROMNEY: –an advantage [UNINTEL].>>GREGORY: –let me bring Dr. Paul into this,
because there is a question about who is the true conservative in the race. And Governor
Romney– said, only nine years ago, during an interview with New England Cable News,
he said the following. “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican. That I’m
someone who is moderate and my views are progressive.” Do you believe Governor Romney now when he
says that he is a man of constancy and that he’ll stand up for conservative principles?>>PAUL: You know, I think this whole discussion
so far has been very superficial. And I think the question in a way that you ask is superficial
in that you’re talking about character, which is very important. But I think we should deal
with the issues as well. And I don’t see how we can do well against Obama if we have any
candidate– that– you know, endorsed– you know, single payer systems and TARP bailouts
and don’t challenge the Federal Reserve. $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends.
I don’t see how we can have anybody really compete– with Obama who doesn’t challenge
this huge empire we have overseas and the overseas spending. I mean this is now nations
come down. Is they extend themselves too far overseas. That’s how the Soviets came down.
We– we really have to talk about real cuts and we haven’t gotten around to this yet.
So if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. Character is important
and motivation’s important. Our history’s important. But I really consider that in the
debate format to be less significant than what we really believe in.>>GREGORY: You read my mind, Dr. Paul, and
we’re gonna get to [APPLAUSE] some of the tough choices, not just on politics but on
policy. First, Governor Perry, I do wanna ask you though, flat out, you’re stakin’ your
campaign goin’ down to South Carolina. Is Governor Romney unelectable, in your judgment?>>PERRY: Well, I think you have to ask the
question of– who is it that can beat Obama, who it is that can invigorate the– the Tea
Party– who is it that can– take the message of– of smaller, outsider government that’s
truly gonna change at places. I look from here down to Rick Santorum, I see insiders.
Individuals who have been the big spending Republicans in– in Washington, D.C.. And
let’s be honest with ourselves. I mean the fact of the matter is that Obama has thrown
gasoline on the fire, but the bonfire was burning well before Obama got there. It was
policies and spending, both from Wall Street and from the insiders in Washington, D.C.,
that got us in this problem. And we need a candidate that can not only draw that stark
contrast between themselves and Barack Obama but also stand up and lead the Tea Party movement
back– 2010 was about the Tea Party standing up and understanding that Republicans, big
spending Republicans, had caused the– as much as of this problem as anything. And it
was their power that brought together– that brought Washington, D.C. and the House to
Republican–>>GREGORY: All right.>>PERRY: –control.>>GREGORY: Well–>>PERRY: And that’s the kind of individual
that we gotta have to– to–>>GREGORY: Before I–>>PERRY: –lead this–>>GREGORY: –get to Governor–>>PERRY: –election.>>GREGORY: –Huntsman, I’d be remiss, Governor
Romney, if I did not allow you to respond to the quote that I read from you nine years
ago. What would you say to conservatives so that they’ll trust that you will stand up
for conservative principles?>>ROMNEY: They’ve got my record as governor.
That– that’s the great thing in people here in New Hampshire, is they see what I did as
governor of Massachusetts. I also got– had the occasion after my last– failed attempt
to run for president, a learning experience, to sit down and write a book. And I wrote
a book and described my view for the country. And people can describe it differing ways.
But– but my view is that– the principles that I’ve learned in business and the principles
as governor frankly have made me more conservative as time has gone on. I’ve seen a lot of government
tryin’ to solve problems and it didn’t work. And– and my view is the right course for
America is to have someone who understands how the economy works, who will passionately
get America back on track.>>GREGORY: All right. We’re gonna come back
to the question of obstacles to the nomination, but let me get to policy, Governor Huntsman.
This is, by all accounts, an age of austerity for this country. A jobs crisis. Also a spending
crisis in Washington. I wonder what specifically you would do to say to Americans, “These are
cuts I’m going to make in federal spending that cause pain, that will require sacrifice?”>>HUNTSMAN: Let me say– let me say, first
of all, with respect to Governor Romney, you know, there are a lot of people who are tuning
in this morning. And I’m sure they’re terribly confused after watching all of this political
spin up here. I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country
first. And I just wanna remind the people here in New Hampshire and throughout the United
States that I think– he criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country
in China. Yes, under a Democrat. Like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy.
They’re not asking who– what political affiliation the president is. I wanna be very clear with
the people here in New Hampshire and this country. I will always put my country first.
And I think that’s important to them.>>GREGORY: All right. Well, why don’t you
get a response, Governor Romney, and I’ll come back to you on the austerity question.>>ROMNEY: I– I think we serve our country
first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything
in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama’s agenda. I think
the decision to go and work for President Obama is one which you took. I don’t– don’t
disrespect your decision to do that. I just think it’s– most likely that the person who
should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called
him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China.>>HUNTSMAN: This nation is divided, David,
because of attitudes like that. The American people are tired of the partisan division.
They have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people in the institutions
of power and among the American people and our elected officials.>>GREGORY: All right.>>HUNTSMAN: And I say we’ve had enough and
we have to change our direction in terms of coming together as Americans first and foremost–>>GREGORY: Dr. Paul–>>HUNTSMAN: –and finding solutions–>>GREGORY: –said let’s not be–>>HUNTSMAN: –to your problems.>>GREGORY: –superficial. Let’s talk substance.
So Governor Huntsman, name three areas where Americans will feel real pain in order to
balance the budget?>>HUNTSMAN: Well, I would have to say that
I agree with the Ryan plan. I think I’m the only one standing up here who has embraced
the Ryan plan. It’s a very aggressive approach to taking about 6.2– $6.2 trillion out of
the budget over 10 years. And it looks at everything. And what I like about it is it
says there will be no sacred cows.>>HUNTSMAN: Medicare won’t be a sacred cow.
Department of Defense won’t be a sacred cow. As president of the United States I’m gonna
stand up and I’m gonna say, “We are where we are. 24% spending– as a percentage of
GDP. We’ve gotta move to 19%–>>GREGORY: Three programs that will make
Americans feel pain, sir?>>HUNTSMAN: Well, let me just say on– on–
on entitlements. Across the board, I will tell the upper income category in this country
that there will be means testing. There are a lot of people in this nation–>>GREGORY: Social Security–>>HUNTSMAN: –who don’t need some of the
benefits?>>GREGORY: –and Medicare?>>HUNTSMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. And also
I’m not gonna tie Department of Defense spending some percentage of GDP. I’m gonna tie it to
a strategy that protects the American people. And if we think that we can’t find efficiencies
and cuts in the Department of Defense budget, then we are crazy.>>GREGORY: Senator Santorum, same question.
Three programs that would make– would have to be cut to make Americans feel pain, to
sacrifice, if we’re gonna balance the budget.>>SANTORUM: I’ve gotta agree with go–
Governor Huntsman, the means test. And I talked about that in Hollis yesterday. We had about
1,200 people there. And I walked through and talked about how we have to make sure that–
we’re not gonna burden future generations with a Social Security program that’s underfunded.
It’s underfunded right now. And– we have to take those who have– that have been successful,
who are seniors, who have a tremendous amount of wealth and we oughta reduce benefits. It–
it makes no sense for folks who are struggling right now to pay their payroll tax, which
is the biggest tax, it’s a tax on labor, it makes us uncompetitive, and the idea that
someone to the left would [UNINTEL] to raise those taxes to make labor even more uncompetitive
for those working people who are trying to get a job, to subsidize high income seniors,
doesn’t make any sense to me. Foods stamps is another place. We gotta block grant and
send it back to the states, just like I did on welfare reform. Do the same thing with
Medicare. Those three programs. We gotta– and– and– and including– housing programs,
block grant them, send it back to the states, require work and put a time limit. You do
those three things, we will help– take these programs, which are now dependency programs
which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them into transitional programs
to help people move out of poverty.>>GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, on the issue
of Medicare– when you were on Meet The Press– earlier in the year, you had talked about
what– Paul Ryan was talking about as a step too far, which is moving seniors onto a premium
support, or a voucher program, depending on how you phrase it. As you know, Senator Santorum
thinks that current seniors– should be moved off of that program into premium support or
a voucher program. Do you agree with doing it that quickly and making current seniors–
bear the brunt of that?>>GINGRICH: Well, the fact is that the–
Ryan Wyden bill, which was just introduced recently, actually incorporates allowing people
to choose and allows them to stay in traditional Medicare with the premium support model, or
go to new methods. And I think it’s a substantial improvement. It allows for a transition in
Medicare in a way that makes sense. But David, you know, I– I find it fascinating that very,
very highly paid Washington commentators and Washington analysts love the idea of pain.
What– who’s gonna be in pain? The duty of the president is to find a way to manage the
federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. On– on theft
alone we could save $100 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare if the federal government
were competent. That’s a trillion dollars over 10 years and the only people in pain
would be crooks. So I think a [APPLAUSE] sound approach is to actually improve the government,
not punish the American people because of a failure of the political class to have any
sense of cleverness.>>GREGORY: Governor Perry, from Facebook.
A lot of questions, as we’ve mentioned, have been submitted. And this from Martin Montalvo,
because we do have a spending crisis, but also a lot of people hurting, he writes this,
“With more Americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-American for Americans
to feel relieved when the government helps them?”>>PERRY: Well, let me answer the question
that you asked earlier. What are the three– areas that you would make some reductions
that people would feel some pain and I would tell you [LAUGHTER] it would be those– bureaucrats
at Department of Commerce and– and Energy and– Education– [LAUGHTER] that we’re gonna
do away with. [APPLAUSE] So that’s–>>GREGORY: And that’s your final answer?
[LAUGHTER]>>PERRY: You know, the fact of the matter
is that– that Americans wanna have a job. That’s– that’s the issue here. And the idea
that– that there are people clamoring for government to come and to give them assistance–
is– is just wrong headed. And– and that’s what we need to be focusing on as a people.
Is how do we create the environment in this country where the entrepreneurs know that
they can risk their capital, have a chance to have a return on the investment and create
the– the jobs out there so people can have the dignity to take care of their families.
That’s what Americans are lookin’ for. I’ve done that for the last 11 years in the state
of Texas and have the executive governing experience that no one else up here on this
stage has.>>GREGORY: All right. I’m gonna leave it
there. We’re gonna take a quick break. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>GREGORY: We wanna get right back to– the
questions here with our candidates. And– before the break– we were talking about Medicare.
Paul Ryan, Senator Santorum had a plan where he’d like to move– seniors off, give them
a voucher or premium support and then they would– take care of their healthcare from
there. There’s a lot of debate about that. And I mentioned you said seniors should be
affected right now. 55-plus– have them affected right now, which has been somewhat controversial.
You wanna respond to that?>>PAUL: Well, you know, I hear this all the
time when I was– have been campaigning around– the state. You know, we should have the same
kind of healthcare the members of Congress have. Well, that’s pretty much what Paul Ryan’s
plan is. That the– the members of Congress have a premium support model. So does every
other federal employee. I mean it works very well. As– you know, the– the federal government
has a liability. They put– put money out there. And then if you want, you– you have–
about this thick. If you’re an employee in Washington, D.C. it– got a– whole bunch
of different plans to choose from and you have all sorts of options available to you.
You want a more expensive plan, you pay more of a co-insurance. If you want a less expensive
plan, you don’t. But here’s the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and– and
everybody up here. It’s whether you believe people can be free to make choices or whether
you have to make decisions for them. And I believe seniors, just like every other American,
should be free to make the choices in their healthcare plan that’s best for them.>>GREGORY: Governor Romney, there’s a lot
of [APPLAUSE] discussion– a lot of discussion this morning on Facebook about taxes. And
as we talk about taxes and spending, of course we talk about economic security and economic
growth. There’s been a debate in Washington and beyond, as you well known, between Warren
Buffett and Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist, the anti-tax crusader, says, “No tax increases
under any circumstances.” Warren Buffett says, “Hey, the wealthier in this country can pay
more and they should pay more. Indeed– balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth
down the line.” Who knows more about the American economy, Grover Norquist or Warren Buffet?>>ROMNEY: Well, who knows more about tax
policy? I’m not sure that we’re gonna choose from the two of them, but I can tell you this.
The right course for America is not to raise taxes on Americans. I understand that President
Obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the American
people. And they want to do that so they can continue to grow government. The answer for
America is not to grow government. It is to shrink dro– government. We’ve been going–
over the last 20, 30, 40 years, government keeps growing at a faster rate relative to
inflation. We have got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. That’s why I put–
a plan that [APPLAUSE] reduces government spending. I’d cut– I’d cut programs, a whole
series of programs. By– by the way, the number one to cut is Obamacare. That saves $95 billion
a year. [APPLAUSE] Return– this, as Rick indicated, return to
states a whole series of programs, food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and then set how
much goes to them. And finally, with regards with entitlement, in the entitlement reform
area, I do not wanna change Medicare and Social Security for current retirees. But for younger
people coming up they have to recognize that in the future higher income people will receive
less payments in the premium support program.>>GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, who knows more
about the American economy? You– you– interested in that question. You seemed maybe a little
bit uncomfortable with a moment from earlier in this debate cycle when everybody said that
they would reject even a 10 to one ratio of cuts– to new taxes.>>HUNTSMAN: It was– it was a silly format.
I mean it was an important question and they asked us to raise our hands. I mean for heaven’s
sake, we didn’t get a chance to talk about it. I put a tax reform– proposal on the table
endorsed by The Wall Street Journal that goes farther than anybody else’s on this stage.
It calls for what absolutely needs to be done and everybody knows about it. We are so chuck
full of loop holes and deductions it weighs down our tax code to tune of $1 trillion,
100 billion. You can’t compete that way. It gives rise to lobbying on Capitol Hill that
needs to clean up. We’ve gotta phase out loopholes and deductions in total and we’ve gotta say
so long to corporate welfare and to subsidies, because this country could no longer afford
it and we’ve gotta prepare for competition in the 21st century.>>GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, if you become
President Gingrich and the leader of the Democrats– Harry Reid says he’s gonna promise to make
you a one term president, how would you propose to work with someone like that in order to
achieve results in Washington?>>GINGRICH: I think every president who works
with the leader of every opposition knows they’re working with somebody who wants to
make them a one term president. I mean– you know, that– that’s the American process.
I worked with Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s. Tip O’Neill was speaker. He wanted to make
Reagan a one term president. We had to get 1/3 of the Democrats to vote for the Reagan
tax cuts. And we did. As speaker I was negotiating with Bill Clinton. He knew I wanted him to
be a one term president. And we got a lot of things done, including welfare reform,
because you have to reach– I go to what Governor Huntsman said earlier. You have to at some
point say, “The country comes first. How are we gonna get things done? We’ll fight later.”
“Let’s sit down in a room. Let’s talk it through. I’ll tell you what I need and I’ll tell you
what I can’t do. You tell me what you need and you tell me what you can’t do.” And it
sometimes takes 20 or 30 days. But if people of goodwill, even if they’re partisans, come
together, talk it out. You know, we got welfare reform, the first tax cut in 16 years, 4.2%
unemployment and four straight years of a balanced budget with a Republican speaker
and a Democratic president. So it can be done with real leadership.>>GREGORY: Anybody else have a point of view
about how you actually work with the other side when they’ve committed to working against
you? Governor?>>ROMNEY: Yeah, I mean I was governor of
a state that had– a slightly Democratic– leaning House and Senate. [LAUGHTER] My legislature
was 85% Democrat. And– and I went around at the very beginning of having been elected
and met with the speaker of the House and the Senate president. The Senate president
said something I won’t forget. He said, “Mitt, the campaign is over. The people expect us
to now govern for them.” And we did. We met every week. We rotated in offices. We got
to know each other personally. We developed a relationship of respect and rapport, even
though we disagreed on a lot of issues. And when crises arose, as they did time and again–
we had a severe budget crisis. I went to them and said, “Will you give me unilateral power
to cut spending without even a vote of the legislature?” They had enough confidence in
me, they decided to do that. What– and I was able to cut the spending on an emergency
basis, not just slow down its rate of growth. We can work together. Republicans and Democrats
are able to go across the aisle because we have common– we really do have areas of–
of common interest. Even though there’re dramatically different perspectives on how the world works
and what’s right, we can find common ground. And I have proven in a state that is very
Democrat that I’m able to work with people, 19 tax cuts. I protected charter schools.
Drove our schools to be number one in the nation. Kept them there, rather. I– I– that–
that record could work with Republicans and Democrats who are willin’ to work together.>>GREGORY: Dr. Paul, there’s this question
of argument versus of accomplishment. The question again comes from Facebook. Heath
Treet writes, “I– I wanna–” Paul Treet, rather. “I want to know what Ron Paul’s plan
of action will be to achieve getting the House and Senate to help him do all he’s promised.”
And here’s the record, Dr. Paul. You have actually sponsored 620 measures. Only four
made it to a vote on the House floor and only one has been signed into law.>>PAUL: You know, that demonstrates how much
out of touch the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress is with the American people, because
I’m supporting things that help the American people. That’s the disgust that people have
because they keep– growing government, whether it’s Republicans in charge or the Democrats
in– in charge. But– as far as working with other groups, I think my record’s about as
good with anybody’s because I work on the principle that freedom and the Constitution
bring people together. For different reasons. People use freedom in different ways like
it does. It invites– variations in our religious beliefs. In– in economic beliefs. We tell
people that there are a lot of– you know– spend their money as they choose. On civil
liberties, that’s a different segment, ’cause– Republican conservatives aren’t all that well
known for protecting privacy and– and personal liberty. And when it comes to this spending
overseas, I can work a coalition. Matter of fact, my trillion dollar proposal to cut spending
doesn’t immediately deal with Social Security. It’s to try to work our way out of Social
Security. I’m cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back
to ’06 budgets. And I do not believe that you have to have pain– people who have gotten
special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the American people
that get their freedom back and get no income tax–>>PAUL: –they don’t suffer any pain.>>GREGORY: Senator Santorum, here’s the reality.
Two previous presidents. President Bush talked about being the uniter and not a divider.
President Obama talked about transforming Washington. And it hasn’t worked. Washington
is polarized. The country is polarized. And the American people are pretty sick of the
fact that nothing gets done in Washington. Specifically how do you change that? SANTORUM: Well, let me first address Congressman
Paul because the– the serious issue with Congressman Paul here is, you’re right, he’s
never really passed anything of any– any importance. And– and what– one of the pep–
one of the reasons people like Congressman Paul is his economic plan. He’s never been
able to accomplish any of that. He has no track record of being able to work together.
He’s been out there on the– on the margins and– has really been unsuccessful in– in
working together with anybody to do anything. The problem is that what Congressman Paul
can do as commander-in-chief is he can on day one do what he says he wants to do, which
is pull all our troops back out of seas– overseas, put them– here in America. Leave
us in– in– in a situation where the world is now gonna be created huge amounts of vacuums
all over the place. And– and have folks like China and Iran and others– look at the Strait
of Hormuz as I said last night. We wouldn’t even have the fifth fleet there. The problem
with Congressman Paul is all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish
and all the things they’re worried about he’ll do day one. And– and that’s the problem.
And– and so what we– what– what we need to do is have someone who has a plan and has
experience to do all the things Republicans and conservatives would like to do.>>GREGORY: Let me get–>>SANTORUM: And I–>>GREGORY: –Dr. Paul to respond to–>>SANTORUM: –and then I’d like my opportunity–>>PAUL: You know, he–>>SANTORUM: –to answer to go back and answer
your question.>>PAUL: –it’s–>>GREGORY: Well–>>PAUL: –it’s not exactly a simple task
to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic and still running a
foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, trying to make the world safe for democracy. And, look,
we have elections overseas and we don’t even accept the elections. You know, change in
foreign policy is significant, but that’s where a nation will come down if they keep
doing this. We can’t say in 130 countries, get involved in nation building. We cannot
have 900 bases overseas. We have to change policy. What about change in monetary policy?
Yes, we do. But we’ve had that for 100 years. And right now we’re winning that battle. The
American people now agree– about 75% of the American people now say, “We ought to audit
the Federal Reserve. Find out what they’re doing and who are their friends that they’re
bailing out constantly.>>GREGORY: Senator Santorum, come back to
this point. It’s easy to say, “Boy, I’m gonna change the culture in Washington.” Hasn’t
worked for the past two presidents.>>SANTORUM: Well, it– it worked in– in
my case. Look at– welfare reform. And– a federal entitlement that– I remember standing
next to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Ted Kennedy. We were out there just talking about how this
was gonna be the end of civilization as we know it. There’d be break lines. The– the–
the horrific consequences of removing federal income support– from basically– mothers
with children. And we stood up and said “No.” That creating dependency and creating that
dependency upon– upon federal dollars is more harmful than– and– and– in not believing
in people and their ability to work is more harmful. And so we stood up and fought and
went out to the American public. Bill Clinton vetoed this bill twice. We had– hard opposition.
But I was able to– to work together and paint a vision. We made compromises, but not on
our core principle. The core principles were this was gonna end the federal program. We
were gonna require work. We were gonna put time limits on welfare. I stuck to those principles
and we were able to compromise on some things like transportation funding and some daycare
funding. All voted to get a consensus that poverty is not a disability.>>GREGORY: All right.>>SANTORUM: And that programs that we need
to put in place should help transition people, not make them dependent. And we were able
to get 70 votes in the United States Senate, including 17 Democrats.>>GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, this question
of if the leader of the Democrats promised to make you a one term president, how would
you go about dealing with them in a more effective way than you think the man you served, President
Obama, did?>>HUNTSMAN: I think it comes down to one
word, David, and I think the one word– is trust. When the American people look at the
political process play out, they hear all the spinning and all the doctrinaire language.>>HUNTSMAN: And they still walk away with
the belief that they’re not being represented in Congress. That there’s no trust in the
executive branch. And the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of Barack
Obama and it lands in the garbage can. The first press conference I had when I ran for
governor in 2004 was on ethics in government service. I talked about term limits. I talked
about campaign finance reform. I talked about the role of lobbyists and knew I would make
a lot of friends. I had one member of the legislature who supported me in that run.
We won because we had the will of the people. And I believe the next president, and if that
is to be me, I wanna roam around this country and I wanna generate the level of excitement
and– enthusiasm that I know exists among the American people to bring term limits to
Congress. To close the revolving door on members going right on out and becoming a lobby. We’ve
gotta start with the structural problems. There is no trust.>>GREGORY: All right. Governor Perry, I wanna
continue on the theme of leadership.>>PERRY: We need to.>>GREGORY: This is– as you well know, New
Hampshire is an independent place. And I wonder where– besides criticizing the previous administration
for running up the debt, I wonder where you would buck your party? What would you say
or do to make Republicans uncomfortable?>>PERRY: I hope I’m makin’ Republicans uncomfortable
right now by talkin’ about the spending that they’ve done back in the 2000s when we had–
control of both [UNINTEL].>>GREGORY: But aside from–>>PERRY: I mean–>>GREGORY: –that I guess–>>PERRY: –that– that is–>>GREGORY: –I just– I just [UNINTEL] that.>>PERRY: –well, listen. Dr. Paul says that
the biggest problem facing this country is– is our– work overseas. I disagree with that.
The biggest problem facing this country today is a Congress that is out of control with
their spending. And we’ve gotta have someone, an outsider, that will walk in, not part of
the insider group that you see here. People who have voted for raising the– the debt
limit. People who have been part of the problem that is facing America. I will tell you two
things that can occur. That a president can lead the charge on. And it will put term limits
into place. One of those is a part-time Congress to tell those members of Congress, “We’re
gonna cut your pay. We’re gonna cut the amount of time that you spend in Washington, D.C.
Send you back to your district so you can have a job like everybody else in your district
has and live under the laws of which you pass.”>>GREGORY: Well, Governor–>>PERRY: And then a balanced budget amendment
to the United States Constitution.>>GREGORY: Governor, my question though–>>PERRY: You do those two things–>>GREGORY: But my question, sir, was–>>PERRY: –and that will make ’em uncomfortable.>>GREGORY: You think telling conservatives,
“A balanced budget amendment is something I’m gonna do and I’m gonna cut spending,”
that’s gonna make ’em uncomfortable?>>PERRY: You’re darn right, because there’s
a bunch of people standin’ up here that say they’re conservatives but their records don’t
follow up on that.>>GREGORY: All right. I gotta take another
break here. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>GREGORY: And we are back, in New Hampshire.
I’m happy to be joined now by our local partners for the debate. For the– from the New Hampshire
Union Leader, senior political reporter, John Distaso is with us. Good to have you here,
John. And from WHD– WHDH– we had this problem yesterday, TV– in Boston, Channel 7 in Boston–
political editor, Andy Hiller. Welcome to you, as well. Glad to have you both. John,
get us started.>>DISTASO: All right, Governor Huntsman.
It’s winter in New Hampshire. It’s a little mild, but it’s still winter. Home heating
oil is nearly $4 a gallon. Yet President Obama and Congress have cut by 25% the program that
helps– helps low income people heat their homes. About a million households that were
helped last year, won’t be helped this year. Is this an example of pain that must be suffered?
Should this– should this program funding be restored, should it be cut more? Should
this program be eliminated, perhaps? Where does this fit in? This is a practical problem
in this area of the country?>>HUNTSMAN: No. [CLEARS THROAT] We have people
in need. We have people suffering. And this is a challenge that we need to address. But
I believe we’re not going to be able to effectively– confront it head on, until such time as this
nation begins to move more toward greater energy diversity and energy independence.
One of the first things I would do as president is I would take a look at that one product
distribution bias, that always favors one product, and that’s oil. And I’d say if we’re
gonna do what this nation needs to be done, in terms of using a multiplicity of products
that we have in such diversity and abundance, and get them to the customers, we’re gonna
have to break up that one product distribution monopoly. I want to do to that oil distribution
monopoly what we did to broadcast communication in the– [CLEARS THROAT] in the early 1970s.
We blew it apart. We went to the Federal Trade Commission and said, “We need more. We need
diverse sources to draw from. We need– we need to service the consumers.” I believe
if we’re gonna do what needs to be done from an energy independence standpoint, all products,
getting the products to the customer, we’ve got to disrupt that one product monopoly that
does not serve this country well, nor its consumers.>>DISTASO: Congressman Paul– [APPLAUSE]
Congressman Paul, how do you feel about– how do you feel about subsidies in– in general,
for– for a specific energy? And also, though, more– more specifically right now, more immediately,
this low income– program, heating assistance program? Is this something that fits in un–
under your deal of– of what government does do or should not do?>>PAUL: Well, subsidies, per se, are– it’s
bad economic policy, it’s bad moral policy, because it’s using government force to transfer
money from one group to another. And economically, it does a lot of harm. But wh– when it–
when it comes to energy, we should– you know, deregulate it, like others talk about. But
we need to talk– you know, supply and demand, everybody knows about supply and demand. They
talk about oil. And if we had– more alternative sources that we– we always hope the prices
will go down. But everybody forgets that there’s an el– 50% of a transaction in the monetary
unit. And you don’t deal– very few people talk about the supply and demand of money.
And– when you create a lot of money, prices go up. So it goes up in the areas where government
most gets involved, you know, in education and medical care, housing, and in energy.
So prices go up much faster than in other place. So if you subsidize somebody and you
print money to do it, you compound the problem. It’s good politics, “Yeah, I’m gonna subsidize
you and take care of you.” But it’s bad economic policy and– it– it’s not a good way to s–
find any answers.>>GREGORY: Gov– Governor Romney, this is
such an important topic, because beyond the– the regional implication, there’s also a larger
question about the social safety net. You talk all the time about opportunity for Americans,
but what about Americans left behind? In this age of austerity, what do Americans have to
learn to live with less of?>>ROMNEY: Well, what– what we don’t need
is to have– a federal government saying, “We’re gonna solve all the problems of poverty–
across the entire country.” Because the– what it means to be poor in Massachusetts
is different than Montana, Mississippi and other places in the country. And that’s why
these programs, all these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure
we have a safety net, need to be brought together and sent back to the state. And let states
that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are d– able
to deal with their– the needs of those folks. So you– you– whether it’s food stamps and
housing vouchers, they’re certainly on the list, but certainly Medicaid– home– home
heating oil– support. What– what unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal
programs, you have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in Washington administering
all these programs, very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really
need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them. These– they– government–
folks in Washington keep building program after program. It’s time to say, “Enough of
that.” Let’s get the money back to the states, the way the Constitution intended, and let
states care for their own people, in the way they feel best.>>GREGORY: Andy Hiller. [APPLAUSE]>>HILLER: Governor Romney, I’d like to remind
you of something you said in Bay Windows, which is a gay newspaper in Massachusetts
in 1994, when you were running against Senator Kennedy. These are your words, “I think the
gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in
the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.” How have you stood up for gay rights
and when have you used your voice to influence Republicans on this issue?>>ROMNEY: Andy, as you know– I don’t discriminate.
And in the appointments that I made– when I was governor of Massachusetts, a member
of my cabinet– was gay. I appointed people to the bench, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Made it very clear that, in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring policies, in legal
policies. At the same time, from the very beginning, in 1994, I said to the gay community,
“I do not favor same-sex marriage.” I oppose same-sex marriage. And that has been my–
my view. But– but if– if people are looking for someone who– who will discriminate against
gays or will in any way– try and suggest that people– that– that have different sexual
orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.>>HILLER: When’s the last time you stood
up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?>>ROMNEY: Right now. [LAUGH] [APPLAUSE]>>HILLER: Senator Santorum, would you be
a voice [LAUGH] for increasing gay rights in the party?>>SANTORUM: Surprised it’s comin’ to me.
[LAUGH] What? What was your question?>>HILLER: Would you be a voice for speaking
out for gay rights in your party? And if not, why not?>>SANTORUM: I would be a voice in speaking
out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and
dignity and has the equality of opportunity. That does not mean that I would agree with
certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws with respect to
marriage, respect to adoption, and things like that. So you can be respectful– this
is the beautiful thing about this country. [CLEARS THROAT] James Madison called the first
amendment, he called it the– the– the perfect remedy. And that is people of all different
backgrounds, diversity, opinions, faiths, can come into the public square and can be
heard, and can be heard in a way that’s respectful of everybody else. But just because you don’t
agree with someone’s desire to change the law, doesn’t mean you don’t like them or you
hate them or you want to discriminate against them. But you’re trying to promote th– [CLEARS
THROAT] excuse me, promote things that you think are best for society. And I do so. And
I think if you– if you watch the– the town hall meetings that I’ve been doing all over
New Hampshire, I do so in a respectful tone, I listen to the other side, I let them make
their arguments, and then we do so on a very– a very respectful way. And you know what?
We may not agree. That’s why we leave it open to the public to be able to elect members
of Congress and the Senate and the president, who will support their idea.>>HILLER: What if you had a son who came
to you and said he was gay?>>SANTORUM: I would love him as much as I
did the second before he said it. And I would try to do everything I can [APPLAUSE] to be
as good a father to him as possible.>>HILLER: Governor Perry, we’re gonna move
on. The right– right to work, which outlaws mandatory union membership, as you know, continues
to be a major issue in the State of New Hampshire. You– you’ve spoken about the promoting–
having states pass state laws. What about on the federal level? Do you see this as a
federal issue and one that you would promote as president? Or is it a state by state–>>PERRY: Act– actually it is a federal issue.
And it’s a federal issue, because of the law that was passed that forces the states to
make the decision about whether or not they’re going to be– right to work. So Jim DeMint’s
legislation– I would support that, of repealing that– legislation that forces states to make
that– decision, to be a right to work, rather than all of this country being right to work.
Listen, I’m not anti-union, I’m pro-job. And the way you’re– you promote this country’s–
rehabilitation from the Obama Administration’s attack on– on– on job creation is by taxes
and regulation, particularly the regulatory side. And– and pulling those regulations
that have gone forward, over the course of the last, since ’08, and test them all for,
“Do they create jobs? Or do they kill jobs?” And if they kill jobs, you throw ’em out.
That will make more difference in this country, from the standpoint– I’m a right to work
guy. I come from a right to work state. And I will tell you, if New Hampshire wants to
become the magnet for job creation in the Northeast, you pass that right to work legislation
in this state. [APPLAUSE]>>HILLER: I’d like to ask both Governor Romney
quickly and Senator Santorum quickly to– what positive contributions to labor unions
provide in this country at this– this point in the 21st Century?>>ROMNEY: Well, the carpenter’s u– union,
for instance, trains their workers to be more effective on the job. And when they compete
against non-union workers, why, they do that on a fair basis. If that happens, that’s a
positive contribution. But let me just say this with regards to unions. I agree with
Governor Perry. Right to work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire and
for the nation. But– but also, let’s not forget the government union and the impact
they’re having. If we’re gonna finally pull back the extraordinary political power government
unions are exerting in this country, we’re gonna have to say that people who work for
the government, government workers, should have their compensation tied to that which
exists in the private sector. People who are pr– who are government servants, p– public
servants should not be paid more than the taxpayers who are c– paying for it.>>GREGORY: Governor, can I just enter– [CLAPPING]
very quickly, Sen– Senator, ’cause we’re about to hit a hard break. A quick comment
on this?>>SANTORUM: Yeah, I will. I– signed– a
pledge that I would– support a national right to work. And when I was in the– it was mentioned
this last night, when I was the Senator for Pennsylvania, I didn’t vote for it, because
Pennsylvania’s not a right to work state, and I didn’t want to vote for a law that would
change the law in Pennsylvania, number one. Number two, what can unions do? As– as Mitt
mentioned, they can do training. They also do a lot in the community. I work with a lot
of labor unions– in Philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement
work. And they– they try to participate as good members of the community, like a business
does.>>GREGORY: I– I gotta cut you off, I apologize.
We have a mandatory break. We’ll be back with more questions in just a moment. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>GREGORY: And– [APPLAUSE] we are back for our final half hour. So much
discussion, Speaker Gingrich, on Facebook, in the course of this debate, about jobs.
And you can understand why. And we’ve talked about spending. We’ve talked about economic
growth. It was Governor Romney who– made the point to a young person who approached
him that– if he were president– when this person got out of college– he or she’d have
a job. If President Obama has a second term, he or she will not have a job. Isn’t that
the kind of thing that makes people angry with politicians? Easy answers like that? GINGRICH: Well, I don’t think that’s an easy
answer. I think that’s a statement of fact. [LAUGH] [APPLAUSE] You know? But let– let
me take– let me go back to what John Distaso said, because it’s exactly the same question.
[CLEARS THROAT] The long-term answer to $4 heating oil is to open up offshore development
of oil and gas, open up federal lands to oil and gas, flood the market as– as Dr. Paul
said, make supply and demand work for us, not against us. The price will come down.
Under Obama, 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. It is a direct result
of his policies, which kill jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken
the United States, increase our dependence on foreign countries, and weaken our national
security in the face of Iran trying to– close the Straits of Hormuz. So the right president
opening up in a Reagan tradition and using massive development of American energy– there’s
3.2% unemployment in North Dakota. There’s a hint here. [LAUGH] You can actually have jobs, lower price heating
oil, which by the way, means less [UNINTEL] spending. So you get more revenue for the
federal government from royalties, less spending on– on [UNINTEL] subsidy, lower price. People
are happier all the way around. That’s what supply-side economics was originally all about
in the 1970s.>>GREGORY: But Governor Romney, on this economic
question, you blame President Obama for the jobs crisis, but when you look at the data,
and a positive trend line, he still only gets the blame and none of the credit. How come?>>ROMNEY: Actually, I don’t blame him for
the recession and for the decline, what I blame him for is having it go on so long and
going so deep. And having a recovery that’s been so tough it– businesses I talk to all
over the country that would normally be hiring people are not hiring. And I asked them why.
And they say because they look at the policies of this administration and they feel they’re
under attack. When you have an administration that tries to raise taxes and has on businesses.
When it puts in place Obama Care that’s gonna raise the cost of health care for businesses.
When they stack the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges, which means that
the policies relating to– to labor are now gonna change dramatically in a direction they
find uncomfortable. When you have Obama Care– that– that– places more mandates on them.
When you– when you have– Dodd-Frank, which makes it harder for community banks to make
loans. All these things collectively create the– a reality of a president who has been
anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-business. And people feel that. And if you want to get
this country going again, you have to recognize that the role of government is not just to
catch the bad guys, important as that is. It’s also to encourage the good guys.>>GREGORY: All right.>>ROMNEY: And to return America to a land
of opportunity.>>GREGORY: Back to John and Andy. [APPLAUSE]
John, go ahead.>>DISTASO: Great, for Governor Romney, I’m
gonna stay with you for one moment here. On the– talking about regulation. One of your
prime, New Hampshire supports, Senator Kelly Ayotte, has said, quote, “New Hampshire should
not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out of state power plants.” Many Senate Republicans
attacked an EPA rule limiting air pollution that affects downwind states. But she and
others, including Scott Brown, joined with the president and Senate Democrats to block
a repeal effort. Now is this an example, this cross-state air pollution rule, of fair regulation?
Something that we in the Northeast are very concerned about, in terms of– pollution?
Or is this over-regulation, job-killing over-regulation?>>ROMNEY: Well, I’m not– I’m not familiar
with this specific regulation, as it– as it applies to– to New Hampshire, but I do
believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean. And we have to find ways to
assure that we don’t have the pollution of one state overwhelming the– the– ability
of another state to have clean air. I know in my state of Massachusetts, we– we receive
a lot of air from the rest of the country, obviously, given the winds coming from the
West of the country to the East. And so the responsibility in our state, was to get the
cost– get the– the emissions from our power plants down. That’s one of the reasons why
we moved to natural gas. And– and really, by the way, this– this discussion about energy
and security and getting the cost of gasoline down. The– the big opportunity here is not
just a new oil distribution system, but it’s natural gas. We have massive new natural gas
reserves that have been found in Pennsylvania, in– in North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas.
Natural gas cheap, a fraction of the cost per BTU of– of oil. If we want to help people
in New England have– not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutant into the air, and
therefore would have cleaner air, and also have lower-cost energy, it’s let’s build out
this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new enormous source of American
economic strength.>>DISTASO: Speaker Gingrich, what– what
exactly is an “Environmental Solutions Agency”? I don’t– I think a lot of people might not
know or understand that– why you wanted to disband the EPA and set up– set up something
that kind of looks like the EPA.>>GINGRICH: If you look at the EPA’s record,
it is increasingly radical. It’s increasingly imperious. It doesn’t cooperate. It doesn’t
collaborate. And it doesn’t take into account economics. The City of Nashville, recently,
had a dump that was cited by EPA. They went out to find out what was it being cited for.
And they told them, frankly, “We don’t know. We can’t find the records that led to this
citation. And we’re not exactly sure what to reference, but it must be bad or we wouldn’t
have sent it out.” [LAUGH] In– in Iowa, they had a dust regulation underway, because they
control particulate matter. And I do agree on clean air. There are things they should
do [UNINTEL]. But dust in Iowa is– is an absurdity. And they were worried that the
plowing of a cornfield would leave dust to go to another farmer’s cornfield. And they
were gonna– they were plannin’ [UNINTEL] regulation. In Arizona, they went in on the
dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth, they
wouldn’t have these dust storms in the middle of the year. And people said to ’em, “You
know, the reason it’s called a desert [LAUGH] is there’s no water.” Now this is an agency
out of touch with reality, which I believe is incor– corrigible, and you need a new
agency that is practical, has common sense, uses economic factors, and in case of–>>GREGORY: All right, Speaker.>>GINGRICH: –of pollution, actually, incentivizes
change, doesn’t just punish it.>>GREGORY: All right, Andy.>>HILLER: Governor Perry, your party’s last
nominee, John McCain, wrote in the Washington Post in an Op-ed about a year ago, his words,
“I disagree with many of the president’s policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent
on using his time in office to advance our country’s cause. I reject accusations that
his policies and belief make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding
ideals.” Agree?>>PERRY: I make a very proud statement and
of fact that– we have a president that’s a socialist. I don’t think our founding fathers
wanted America to be a socialist country. So I disagree with that– premise that– somehow
or another that– President Obama reflects our founding fathers. He doesn’t. He talks
about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government.
I am a tenth amendment believing governor. I truly believe that we need a president that
respects the tenth amendment, that pushes back to the states. Whether it’s how to deliver–
education, how to deliver health care, how to do our– environmental regulations. The
states will considerably do a better job than a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C., led
by this president.>>GREGORY: Can I just jump in on– [APPLAUSE]
Senator Santorum, Governor Perry, you– you called the president a socialist. I wonder–
Senator Santorum, when you voted for a new prescription drug benefit that did not have
a funding mechanism, were you advancing socialism?>>SANTORUM: Well, I– I said repeatedly that–
we should have had a funding mechanism. And– it’s one of those things that I had a very
tough vote, as you know. In that bill, we had health savings accounts, something I’d
been fighting for 15 years, to transform the private sector health care system into a more
consumer, bottom-up– way of doing it. We also had Medicare Advantage to transform the
entire Medicare system into– Medicare Advantage is basically a premium support type model. [OVERTALK]>>GREGORY: So advancing socialism, though,
that’s the point.>>SANTORUM: Well, I– I– I think I’m just
answering your question. Maybe– maybe we’re not communicating well. But I just talked
about– that– medical– health savings account is an anti-socialistic idea to try to build
a bottom-up, consumer-based economy– in health care. The same thing with Medicare Advantage.
And we also structured the Medicare, part D benefit, to be a premium support model,
as a way of trying to transition Medicare. So there were a lot of good things in that
bill. There was one really bad thing. We didn’t pay for it. We should have paid for it. And
that was a mistake.>>GREGORY: Do you have another follow up
on that?>>HILLER: No, I’m gonna switch to Congressman
Paul. And I’m gonna say many Americans, particularly Democrats, believe that health care is a right.
In your opinion, what services are all Americans entitled to expect to get from government?>>PAUL: Entitlements are not rights. Rights
mean you have a right– [APPLAUSE] entitle– rights mean you have a right to your life
and you have a right to your– your liberty, and you should have a right to keep the fruits
of your labor. And this is quite a bit different, but earlier on– there was a little discussion
here about gay rights. I, in a way, don’t like to use those terms, gay rights– women’s
rights– minority rights– mon– religious rights. There’s only one type of right. It’s
your right to your liberty. And I think it causes– divisiveness, when we see people
in groups. Because for too long we punished groups. So the answer then was– let’s– let’s
relieve them by giving them affirmative action. So I think both are wrong. If you think in
terms of individuals and protect every single individual, no, they’re not entitled– one
group isn’t entitled to take something from b– somebody else. And– the basic problem
here is there’s a lot of good intention to help poor people. But guess who gets the entitlements
in Washington? The big guys get– the rich people. They run the entitlement system. The
military industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing
with.>>GREGORY: Dr. Paul, thanks, [APPLAUSE] in
our remaining moment here, back to you, John.>>DISTASO: Well– Governor Huntsman, Andy
and I are about to wrap up our role in this debate. And– as we do, I’d like to ask you,
as someone who’s– been here in New Hampshire a while, what does our state motto, “Live
Free or Die”– mean to you personally, and how would it guide you– in the White House?>>HUNTSMAN: It is the fu– fulfillment of
a citizenry being able to live out the meaning of our founding documents. Life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. And everywhere I’ve gone in this great state, and we’ve done
160-plus public events. [APPLAUSE] I feel it and I sense it, and people take that very
seriously. You know what else they take seriously? They take seriously the idea of real leadership.
I’ve heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game. Talkin’ about gays, talkin’ about
unions. Everybody’s got somethin’ nasty to say. You know what the people of this country
are waiting for, and the people in it, they want a leader who is going to unify, who’s
gonna bring us together. Because at the end of the day, that’s what leadership is all
about. It’s not about taking on different groups and vilifying them for whatever reason.
It’s about projecting a vision for a more hopeful tomorrow. That’s why there is no trust
in this country today. And that’s why, as president, I’m gonna attack that trust deficit
just as aggressively as I attack that economic deficit. Because with no trust, I can’t think
of anything more corrosive longer term for the people of this nation.>>GREGORY: All right, we’re gonna– [APPLAUSE]
we’re gonna leave it there. Thank– thank you, John, thank you, Andy, both. We’re gonna
take another quick break here. I’ll be back with a final round of questions, including
your questions from our Meet The Press Facebook page. We’re back with our final moments in
just a moment. [APPLAUSE] [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>GREGORY: We are back. Gentlemen, candidates–
we have just a few minutes left. And I’d like to try something, ’cause I do want to get
to as much substance and pin you down on views as best I can. I know this could be hard for
you, but you are spending a lot of money getting your message out in 30 second increments,
based on what I’ve been watching in the hotel room, here in New Hampshire. So I know you
know how to do this. Let’s try having 30-second answers to some of these questions, and we
might have some response along the way. Senator Santorum, I want to ask you about Iran. It’s
been a big issue in the course of this campaign so far. I wonder why it is if America has
lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we have come to live with a nuclear North Korea. Why
is it that we cannot live with a nuclear Iran? And if we can’t, are you prepared to take
the country to war to disarm that country?>>SANTORUM: They’re– they’re a theocracy.
They’re a theocracy that has deeply-embedded beliefs that– that the afterlife is better
than this life. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the
Islamic Republic of Iran is martyrdom. So when your principle virtue is to die for your–
for Allah, then it’s not a deterrent to have a nuclear threat, if they would use a nuclear
weapon. It is, in fact, an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon. And that’s
why there’s a difference between the Soviet Union and China and others and Iran.>>GREGORY: What about Pakistan? They are
an indifferent ally at best. They have nuclear weapons. Are you also prepared as president
to say they must disarm or else?>>SANTORUM: They are not a theocracy. And
we’re very hopeful of– of maintaining– a more secular state– than– than is in place
today. But there is a serious threat. And this administration has bungled it about as
badly as they can in trying to con– continue those positive relationships. We’ve had some
real serious problems with the– with the Pakistani military. Obviously– with respect
to– Osama bin Laden, with respect to– North Waziristan. But you have– the reason is we
have a president who’s just very weak– in– in that region of the world and is not respected.>>GREGORY: All right.>>SANTORUM: And therefore, he’s not– he
has not been able– to have that strong hand in working with Pakistan that they’re used
to.>>GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, how about tone
of this campaign? I was in Iowa. I heard you on the stump. You– complained bitterly about
the Super PAC, the outside groups that were lodging charges against you, bringing up–
some old issues against you. And now you have a former campaign spokesman, who is preparing
attacks against Governor Romney, calling him quote “a predator” for his involvement at
the investment company, Bain. You agreed with somebody who said that Governor Romney was
a liar, when he didn’t take account for those attacks against you. Are you consistent now,
as you’re preparing to launch against Governor Romney?>>GINGRICH: Sure.>>GREGORY: How so?>>GINGRICH: I’m consistent, because I think
you ought to have fact-based campaigns to talk about the records.>>GREGORY: Calling him a predator is not
over the line?>>GINGRICH: Well, I think you have to look
at the film, which I haven’t seen. But if you look at the New York Times article, and
I think it was on Thursday– you would certainly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in
behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people. That’s the
New York Times. That’s not me. So I think– I mean, one of the ads I complained about,
you had four Pinocchios from the walst– from the Washington Post. Now to– to get four
Pinocchios in a 30-second ad means there’s virtually nothing accurate, in 30 seconds.>>GREGORY: Speaker, you– you– you decry
the Washington establishment. And you’ve just talked about the New York Times and the Washington
Post. You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar. Look at him
now. Do you stand by that claim?>>GINGRICH: Sure, Governor, I wish you would
calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the PAC. It is your millionaire
friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads are in– are untrue. Just say that,
straightforward.>>ROMNEY: Well, of course, they’re– former
staff of mine. And of course they’re people who support me. They wouldn’t be putting money
into a PAC that supports me if they weren’t people who support me. And with regards to
their ads, I haven’t seen ’em. And as you know, under the law, I can’t direct their
ads. Well– Speaker– hold on a second, I– I can’t direct their ads. If there’s anything
in them that’s wrong, I hope to take it out. I hope everything that’s wrong is taken out.
But let me tell you this. The– the ad I saw said that– that you’d been forced out of
the speakership. That was correct. It said that– that you’d sat down with Nancy Pelosi
and– and argued for– for a climate change bill. That was correct. It said that you’d
called the– the– Ron Paul– wrong Paul. Paul Ryan’s plan to– to provide– Medicare
reform– a right-wing social engineering plan. It said that– that as part of an investigation,
an ethics investigation that you had to reimburse some $300,000. Those things are all true.
If there was something related to abortion that it said that was wrong, I hope they pull
it out. Anything wrong, I’m opposed to. But, you know, this ain’t– this ain’t a bean bag.
We’re gonna come into a campaign. We’re gonna describe the differences–>>GREGORY: All right.>>ROMNEY: –between us. But I– but I do
think.>>GREGORY: Go ahead, Speaker.>>ROMNEY: But I do think the rhetoric, Mr.
Speaker, I– I think it was a little over the top.>>GINGRICH: You think my rhetoric was over
the top, but your ads were totally reasonable. I just want to understand–>>GINGRICH: I’ve taken the governor’s advice.>>ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, the– the Super PACs
that are out there running ads, Ron Paul’s, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad.
I don’t write that ad. I can’t tell them not to.>>GREGORY: Well, how about this– would you
both agree to take these super PAC ads down?>>ROMNEY: But Mr. Speaker, I– I wouldn’t
call some of the things you– you’ve called me [UNINTEL]. That’s just over the top.>>GREGORY: Would you both agree that– to–
to request that these Super PAC ads be taken down?>>GINGRICH: David, wait a second. Come on,
come on. I– I’m glad, finally, on this stage, that weeks later, he has said, “Gee, if they’re
wrong, they should take them down.” They would, of course– we’ve sent a letter in South Carolina
saying– warning the stations to just fact check them before they start running ’em.
But I’m taking his advice. You know– we started to run his commercial from– from 1994, attacking
Teddy Kennedy for running negative ads. We thought, “No, that would be wrong.” So instead,
I– I agree with him. It takes broad shoulders to run. Can’t take the heat, get out of the
kitchen. When the 27 and a half minute movie comes out, I hope it’s accurate. I– I– I–
I can say, publicly, I hope that the Super PAC runs an accurate movie about Bain. It’ll
be based on establishment newspapers, like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,
the New York Times, Barron’s, Bloomberg News, and I hope it is totally accurate. And then
people can watch the 27 and a half minutes of his career at Bain and decide for themselves.>>GREGORY: Let me ask you, Senator Santorum,
we’ve talked some about the role of government, but the presidency is often called “the bully
pulpit.” I wonder, as president, how you’d use the bully pulpit to try to shape American
culture and values.>>SANTORUM: I haven’t written a lot of books.
I’ve written one. And it was in response to a book written by Hillary Clinton called It
Takes A Village. I didn’t agree with that. I believe it takes a family. And that’s what
I wrote. And I believe that there’s one thing that is undermining this country and that
is the break down of the American family. It’s undermining our economy. You see– the
rates of poverty among single parent families, which are– moms are doing heroic things,
but it’s harder. It’s five times higher, in the single parent family. We– we know there’s
certain things that work in– in– in America. Brookings Institute came out with a study
just a few year– a couple of years ago that said if you graduate from high school and
if you work and if you’re a man, if you marry, if you’re a woman if you marry before you
have children, you have a 2% chance of being in poverty in America. And to be above the
median income, if you do those three things, 77% chance of being above the median income.
Why isn’t the president of the United States or why aren’t leaders in this country talking
about that and trying to formulate, not necessarily federal government policy, but local policy
and state policy and community policy to help people do those things that we know work and
we know are good for society? This president doesn’t. In fact–>>GREGORY: All right, let me–>>SANTORUM: –he has required programs not
to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence if– in order to get federal funds.>>GREGORY: Dr. Paul–>>SANTORUM: He’s working exactly against
the things he knows works, because he has a secular ideology that is against the traditions
of our country–>>GREGORY: Dr. Paul–>>SANTORUM: –and what works.>>GREGORY: –quickly, how would you use the
bully pulpit? [CLAPPING]>>PAUL: I would continue to do what I’m doing
now, preaching the gospel of liberty. I think that the most important ingredients in this
country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. It– and that
is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted a long way. It involved our right
to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor.
We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought
to understand what sound money is all about. And we ought to understand what national defense
means. That means defending this country. That is the bully pulpit we need. We need
to defend liberty–>>GREGORY: All right. Defend liberty and? [LAUGH]>>PAUL: And liberty. [LAUGH]>>GREGORY: Thank you. We’re gonna take another
break. We’ll be back for some closing moments, right after this. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>GREGORY: I would like to thank the candidates
for joining us. I’d also like to thank our debate partners, Facebook, the New Hampshire
Union Leader, and our host here, of course, in Concord, the Capital Center for the Arts.
Thank you, of course, for watching and participating in this debate online. Post-debate analysis
will continue on MSNBC. Be sure to watch complete coverage of the New Hampshire primary returns,
this Tuesday night on NBC News, MSNBC, and online at We’ll be back next
week from Washington. If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet The Press. [APPLAUSE]

This Shouldn’t Be a Political Statement

I had a conversation recently in which this hat came up in regards to empathy and respecting people you disagree with. It got me thinking about a lot of things. This is a very profane and definitive political statement, and I don’t deny that. In fact, I embrace that. That’s definitely what that is. Now, I am a non-confrontational worm and I don’t enjoy fighting, especially at parties and things that are supposed to be celebratory and fun. So typically what I try to do is find middle ground immediately, diffuse whatever animosity and tension is in the air, and try to find common ground. That’s what I try to do always. That’s the kind of person I am. My mom has taught me a lot of things in my life. I’m very grateful for that. One of the most fundamental things that I believe I inherited from her is that I care very deeply about people. That obviously informs my politics. I do believe in many cases, even if you disagree with people, that desire to make the world better informs your politics. That’s where it starts. However, recently I’ve felt like this is a political statement, and I don’t want this to be a political statement. I don’t think it should be a political statement, but I want my world to reflect that. I want to live in a world where people care about each other on a fundamental level. I want a world where people look at another person and they see another human being and they think, “Wow! That is another human being over there. They’re allowed to be a human being in whatever way they see fit.” That’s something I want the world to be. I want people to be able to live as they want, to love as they want, to exist as they want, to make decisions over their own lives, to have the freedom and control to do that. I think all of that comes from my desire to just care about people. I want people to be happy. I want people to be living good lives, building things up rather than tearing them down. I think that’s a fundamental very simplistic human being thing and not a political thing. Something incredibly important that I witnessed growing up. Again, I’m gonna talk about my mom because she’s the best person in the world and I will fight anyone who disagrees. She showed me how to keep the door open for people who have either hurt you or for people who you don’t agree with. She showed me that very well. I’m not always perfect at this, but I want to be the kind of person who, even if I disagree with someone, even if someone has hurt me in the past, I always want to leave the door open for them, so if they take the steps necessary and show me that they care and that their intentions are good and that they want to get better, I want to be open to that. I want to hold their hand and be like “yes! I’m here! I’m here for you!” Disagreement does not have to mean hatred. However, sometimes it does. I reference the hat again. There are some ideologies and belief systems out there that reject peoples’ autonomy and ability to be full, loving, complete human beings. They disrespect their identity as human beings. I don’t think you can really engage with them. That’s not really an okay place to say “agree to disagree.” That’s when you can get really political and fine. But I truly believe this. I fundamentally believe this. I really want to believe this. I don’t think most people are like that. I definitely come from an extreme place of privilege being a white, assigned male at birth human being. Most people look at me and just see a person. Not everybody has that luxury, so that does inform my opinions here. But I really do believe that most people want to make this a better world. Sometimes, their ways of getting there are clouded in bias, ignorance, and fear, but people do want a better world, and I have to believe that in order to be a sane person that can wake up every morning and still find some contentment in my life. But here’s my main thought, and I guess the main point of this video. I don’t want empathy to be a political statement. I don’t want that. I don’t want to live in that world. I don’t want compassion and listening to be seen as some bleeding heart, agenda-lead, policy position. That’s not what it is to me. Caring about things obviously informs politics. I’m not denying that. However, on an individual human level, the relationships you have in your day to day life, the conversations you have, caring is not political. Or rather, it shouldn’t be political because again, sometimes in the world that I live in right now, it does feel political. I want to be able to look at someone, anyone, from whatever country, background, religion, sexual orientation, gender, all that stuff and see a person. See a person who’s able to define their own identity and live that truth fully. Because I believe that if everybody has the ability, the access to live their truth to the best of their ability, we all win. I do believe that. But I also believe that someone’s humanity is not contingent on what it can do for me. I think people should just be able to be people, not just for any kind of greater purpose for my life or the world that I live in, but just because that’s the right thing to do. And I notice that a lot with people is that they want to feel superior. They want to feel right all the time. They want to feel that they are the ones that are correct. They’re gonna win in the end. They get some sense of pride and satisfaction out of that. But I think we should care, we should be good to people, we should listen to people, simply because it’s the right thing to do. And that’s it. That’s all I’ve got to say on that. I don’t know if I made sense at all. This video is 100% not a “agree to disagree let’s give him a chance” because like I said, there are some ideologies that reject that fully. I stand by this political statement. Definitely. Fully. But something that I stand by that I don’t think should be a political statement is that I care about every human being. I do. That’s all I’ve got to say on that. I would love to hear what you have to think in the comments. I would love to hear your thoughts, if you have any stories to share, love reading stories. I love participating with you on this platform. It just makes me very very happy. I love you a lot. I’m gonna go. I’ll see you on Friday! A very happy Valentine’s Day out there to the world. Even if you’re not in a I’m putting my face on someone’s face situation. Or you’re single and feel very alone. You can tweet me! on Valentine’s Day. I’m here to send love your way. I’m all about it. I love you guys a lot. I’m trying to fall in love with every aspect of my creative life again. It’s difficult, but it’s something I’m trying to do. You guys are a big part of that. That’s enough of that. I’m gonna go. Byeeeee