Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Election’ Category

From Lynn Sweet’s:

The Scoop from Washington

Biden, Ryan vice presidential debate. Transcript.

By Lynn Sweet on October 12, 2012 8:48 AM | No Comments

transcript courtesy Federal News Service

Vice Presidential Candidates

Debate
Participants: Vice President Joseph Biden and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Republican Nominee for Vice President.

Moderator: Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News
 Location: Centre College, Danville, Kentucky

MARTHA RADDATZ: Good evening, and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I’m Martha Raddatz of ABC News, and I am honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service.

Tonight’s debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues.

And I’m going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic since that is what a vice president or president would have to do.

We will have nine different segments. At the beginning of each segment, I will ask both candidates a question, and they will each have two minutes to answer. Then I will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. By coin toss, it has been determined that Vice President Biden will be first to answer the opening question.

We have a wonderful audience here at Centre College tonight. You will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate and right now as we welcome Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. (Applause.)

Very nice to see you. Very nice to see you.

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: How you doing?

MS. RADDATZ: Hey, you got your little wave to the families in. That’s great.

Good evening, gentlemen. It really is an honor to be here with both of you.

I would like to begin with Libya on a rather somber note. One month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The State Department has now made clear there were no protesters there. It was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn’t this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: What it was, it was a tragedy, Martha. It — Chris Stevens was one of our best. We lost three other brave Americans.

And I can make absolutely two commitments to you and all of the American people tonight: One, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this.

And secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever — wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, w will make clear to the American public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again.

When you’re looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. That’s carrying forward the national security of the country. And the best way to do that is take a look at how he’s handled he issues of the day.

On Iraq, the president said he would end the war. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake; we should have left — that he ended it — Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake; we should have left 30,000 troops there.

With regard to Afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. Governor Romney said we should not set a date, number one, and number two, with regard to 2014, it depends.

When it came to Osama bin Laden, the president, the first day in office — I was sitting with him in the Oval Office. He called in the CIA and signed an order saying, my highest priority is to get bin Laden.

Prior to the election, prior to the — him being sworn in, Governor Romney was asked a question about how he would proceed. He said, I wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get bin Laden. He didn’t understand it was more than about taking a — a murderer off the battlefield; it was about restoring America’s heart and letting terrorists around the world know if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell, if need be.

And lastly, the — the president of the United States has — has led with a steady hand and clear vision. Governor Romney, the opposite. The last thing we need now is another war.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (Sighs.) We mourn the loss of these four Americans who were murdered. When you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video. It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. He went to the U.N., and in his speech at the U.N. he said six times — he talked about the YouTube video.

Look, if we are hit by terrorists, we’re going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an al-Qaida cell with arms? This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video; now they’re trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue.

And with respect to Iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the Obama administration: Let’s have a Status of Forces Agreement to make sure that we secure our gains. The vice president was put in charge of those negotiations by President Obama, and they failed to get the agreement. We don’t have a Status of Forces Agreement because they failed to get one. That’s what we are talking about.

And when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they’ve done for us, including your son Beau. But we also want to make sure that we don’t lose the things we fought so hard to get.

And with respect to Afghanistan and the 2014 deadline, we agree with a 2014 transition. But what we also want to do is make sure that we’re not projecting weakness abroad, and that’s what’s happening here. This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself. But unfortunately it’s indicative of a broader problem, and that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the world more — more chaotic and us less safe.

MS. RADDATZ: I just want to talk to you about right in the middle of the crisis. Governor Romney — and you’re talking about this again tonight — talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis?

REP. RYAN: On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let’s recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo.

So we had the same position, but we will — it’s never to early to speak out for our values. We should have spoken out right away when the Green Revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights, and we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we’re cutting our own defense —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Am I going to get to say anything here?

REP. RYAN: — it makes us more weak. It projects weakness, and when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us, they’re more brazen in their attacks, and our allies are less willing to —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey. In fact —

MS. RADDATZ: And why is that so?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all —

MS. RADDATZ: Be specific.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I will be very specific. Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.

Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this — this weakness, I — I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about here.

We — this is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is the guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating, most devastating — the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop with their — look, I — I — I just — I mean, these guys bet against America all the time.

REP. RYAN: I —

MS. RADDATZ: Can we talk about — let me go back to Libya.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yeah, sure.

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.

You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.

MS. RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you about — the Romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. He has a book called “No Apologies.” Should the U.S. have apologized for Americans burning Qurans in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. apologize for U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses?

REP. RYAN: Oh, gosh, yes. Urinating on Taliban corpses? What we should not apologize for —

MS. RADDATZ: Burning Qurans (immediately ?)?

REP. RYAN: What — what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he’s a good guy and then the next week say he ought to go. What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for — calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security.

There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored.

Look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. It was Libya, a country we knew we had al-Qaida cells there. As we know, al-Qaida and its affiliates are on the rise in northern Africa. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a Marine detachment? Of course there is an investigation so we can make sure that this never happens again. But when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not apologize for those.

Here is the problem. Look at all the various issues out there and that’s unraveling before our eyes. The vice president talks about sanctions on Iran. They got — we’ve had four —

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s move to Iran. I’d actually like to move to Iran because there is really no bigger national security —

REP. RYAN: Absolutely.

MS. RADDATZ: — this country is facing. Both President Obama and Governor Romney have said they will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. Last week former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. Can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the American people how effective would a military strike be? Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability.

Now, let’s take a look at where we’ve gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material, nuclear material, to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They’re racing toward a nuclear weapon. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability. We’ve had four different sanctions at the U.N. on Iran, three from the Bush administration, one here. And the only reason we got it is because Russia watered it down and prevented the — the sanctions from hitting the central bank.

Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I’ve been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way.

Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration. Imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. You think Iran’s not brazen? Look at what they’re doing. They’re stepping up their terrorist attacks. They tried a terrorist attack in the United States last year when they tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

And talk about credibility. When this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals.

And so in order solve this peacefully, which is everybody’s goal, you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. Look at where they are. They’re moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. It’s because this administration has no credibility on this issue. It’s because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting the tough sanctions in place. Now we have them in place because of Congress. They say the military option’s on the table but it’s not being viewed as credible, and the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Incredible. (Chuckles.)

Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there’s any possibility the entire world would have joined us, Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period, period.

When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, we got to keep these sanctions. When they said, well, you’re talking about doing more, what are you — are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that you want to do now?

REP. RYAN: We want to prevent war!

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Inaudible) — and I — the interesting thing is, how they’re going to prevent war. How are they going to prevent war if they say that there’s nothing more that we — that they say we should do than what we’ve already done, number one?

And number two, with regard to the ability of the United States to take action militarily, it is — it is not in my purview to talk about classified information.

But we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians. But number two, the Iranians are — the Israelis and the United States — our military and intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close — how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. There is no difference between our view and theirs.

When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up. Then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know we’ll know if they start the process of building a weapon. So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk — what are they talking about? Are you talking about to be more credible? What — what more can the president do? Stand before the United Nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah: We will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he’s talking about going to war.

REP. RYAN: Martha, let’s just —

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: — let’s look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They’re moving faster toward a nuclear weapon; they’re spinning the centrifuges faster. They see us saying, when we come into the administration, when they’re sworn in, we need more space with our ally Israel. They see President Obama in New York City the same day Bibi Netanyahu is, and he’s — instead of meeting with him goes on a — on a daily talk show. They see — when we say that these options are on the table, the secretary of defense walked them back. They are not changing their mind. That’s what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they’re going faster.

MS. RADDATZ: How will you do it so quickly? Look, you both saw Benjamin Netanyahu hold up that picture of a bomb with the red line and talking about the red line being in spring.

So can you solve this — if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear —

REP. RYAN: We — we can debate a timeline.

MS. RADDATZ: (Inaudible.)

REP. RYAN: We can debate the timeline, whether there’s — it’s that short a time or longer. I — I agree that it’s probably longer. Number two, it’s all about credibility.

MS. RADDATZ: You don’t agree with that bomb and what the Israelis —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No, look — (inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: (Inaudible) — look, we — we both — (inaudible) —

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

REP. RYAN: I don’t want to go into classified stuff, but we both agree that to do this peacefully, you’ve got to get them to change their minds. They’re not changing their minds, and look at what this administration does —

MS. RADDATZ: But what do you do — (inaudible) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let me tell you what the ayatollah sees.

REP. RYAN: You have to have credibility.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. The ayatollah sees that there are 50 percent fewer exports of oil. He sees the currency going into the tank. He sees the economy going into free fall, and he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon.

Now, with regard to Bibi, he’s been my friend for 39 years. The president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He’s spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he’s spoken to anybody. The idea that we’re not — I was in a — just before he went to the U.N., I was in a conference call with the — with the president, with him talking to Bibi, for well over an hour in — in — in — in — in stark relief and detail about what was going on. This is a bunch of stuff. Look, here’s the deal —

MS. RADDATZ: What does that mean, “a bunch of stuff”?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, it means it’s simply inaccurate.

REP. RYAN: It’s Irish. (Chuckles.)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It is. (Laughter.) We Irish call it malarkey.

MS. RADDATZ: Thanks for the translation. OK.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No, we Irish call it malarkey. (Laughter.) But last thing: the secretary of defense has made it absolutely clear. He didn’t walk anything back. We will not allow the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon. What Bibi held up there was when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon, they don’t have a weapon to put it into.

Let’s all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don’t know what world you guys are in.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan —

REP. RYAN: Thank — thank heavens we have these sanctions in place. It’s in spite of their opposition.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.) Oh, God.

REP. RYAN: They have given 20 waivers to this sanction. And all I have to point to are the results. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapon. I think that case speaks for itself.

MS. RADDATZ: Can you tell the American people what’s worse —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: By the way, they’re — no, no, they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon.

MS. RADDATZ: — another war in the Middle East or —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They’re — they’re closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. But —

MS. RADDATZ: You’re acting a little bit like they don’t want one, though.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Oh, I didn’t say — no, I’m not saying — (look ?), facts matter, Martha. You’re a foreign policy expert. Facts matter. All this loose talk about them — all they have to do is get to — enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon — not true. Not true. They are more — and if we ever have to take action, unlike where we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters. That matters.

MS. RADDATZ: What about Bob Gates’ statement? Let me read that again: “Could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.”

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: He is right. It could prove catastrophic if we do — we do it with — (inaudible) —

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?

REP. RYAN: And what it does is it — and it undermines our credibility by backing up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. That’s the point. The ayatollahs see these kinds of statements, and they think, I’m going to get a nuclear weapon. When — when we see the kind of equivocation that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy — so when the Green Revolution started up, they were silent for nine days. When they see us putting — when they see us putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in Israel, that gives them encouragement. When they see Russia watering down any further sanctions — and the only reason we got a U.N. sanction is because Russia watered it down and prevented these — (there ?) from being sanctions in the first place.

So when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue, and that’s the problem.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha, let me tell you what Russia’s — (inaudible) —

MS. RADDATZ: What — let me ask you what’s worse: war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?

REP. RYAN: I’ll tell you what’s worse. I’ll tell you what’s worse.

MS. RADDATZ: Quickly.

REP. RYAN: A nuclear-armed Iran, which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world’s largest sponsor of — of terrorism. They’ve dedicated themselves —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s the only thing my —

REP. RYAN: — to wiping an entire country off the map. They call us the Great Satan. And if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons as well.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

REP. RYAN: We can’t live with that.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: War should always be the absolute last resort. That’s why these crippling sanctions, what Bibi Netanyahu says we should continue — which, if I’m not mistaken, Governor Romney says we — we should continue. If I — I may be mistaken; he changes his mind so often, I could be wrong. But the fact of the matter is, he says they’re working. And the fact is that they are being crippled by them. And we’ve made it clear, big nations can’t bluff. This president doesn’t bluff.

MS. RADDATZ: Gentlemen, I want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue, the state of our economy. The number one issue here at home is jobs. The percentage of unemployed just fell below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months. The Obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6 percent now after the addition of close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money. So will both of you level with the American people? Can you get unemployment to under 6 percent, and how long will it take?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don’t know how long it will take.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We can and we will get it under 6 percent.

Let’s look at the — let’s take a look at the facts. Let’s look at where we were when we came to office. The economy was in free fall. We had — the Great Recession hit. Nine million people lost their job, 1.7 — $1.6 trillion in wealth lost in equity in your homes, in retirement accounts from the middle class.

We knew we had to act for the middle class. We immediately went out and rescued General Motors. We went ahead and made sure that we cut taxes for the middle class. And in addition to that, when that — and when that occurred, what did Romney do? Romney said, no, let Detroit go bankrupt. We moved in and helped people refinance their homes. Governor Romney said, no, let foreclosures hit the bottom.

But it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy who says 47 percent of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. My friend recently, in a speech in Washington, said 30% of the American people are takers. These people are my mom and dad, the people I grew up with, my neighbors. They pay more effective tax than Governor Romney pays in his federal income tax. They are elderly people who in fact are living off of Social Security. They are veterans and people fighting in Afghanistan right now who are, quote, not paying any taxes.

I’ve had it up to here with this notion that 47 percent — it’s about time they take some responsibility here. And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class, we’re going to level the playing field. We’re going to give you a fair shot again. We are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the superwealthy.

They’re pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. And they’re holding hostage the middle-class tax cut because they say, we won’t pass — we won’t continue the middle-class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the superwealthy. It’s about time they take some responsibility.

MS. RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan.

REP. RYAN: Joe and I are from similar towns.

He’s from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I’m from Janesville, Wisconsin. You know what the unemployment rate in Scranton is today?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I sure do.

REP. RYAN: It’s 10 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yeah.

REP. RYAN: You know what it was the day you guys came in?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No.

REP. RYAN: Eight-point-five percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yeah.

REP. RYAN: That’s how it’s going all around America.

Look —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You don’t read the statistics. That’s not “how it’s going.” It’s going down.

MS. RADDATZ: (Inaudible) — two-minute answer, please.

REP. RYAN: Look — (chuckles) — did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: But we’re going in the wrong direction! Look at where we are. The economy is barely limping along. It’s growing at 1.3 percent. That’s slower than it grew last year, and last year was slower than the year before. Job growth in September was slower than it was in August, and August was slower than it was in July. We’re heading in the wrong direction.

Twenty-three million Americans are struggling for work today. Fifteen percent of Americans are living in poverty today. This is not what a real recovery looks like. We need real reforms for a real recovery, and that’s exactly what Mitt Romney and I are proposing. It’s five-point plan. Get America energy-independent in North America by the end of the decade. Help people who are hurting get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. Get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crisis. Make trade work for America so we can make more things in America and sell them overseas and champion small businesses. Don’t raise taxes on small businesses, because they’re our job creators.

He talks about Detroit. Mitt Romney’s a car guy. They keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the Mitt Romney I know. This is a guy who — I was talking to a family in Northborough, Massachusetts the other day, Cheryl and Mark Nixon (sp). Their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them — two of them, Rob (sp) and Reid (sp), were paralyzed. The Romneys didn’t know them. They went to the same church. They never met before.

Mitt asked if he could come over on Christmas. He brought his boys, his wife and gifts. Later on he said, I know you’re struggling, Mark (sp). Don’t worry about their college; I’ll pay for it.

When Mark (sp) told me this story — because you know what, Mitt Romney doesn’t tell these stories.

The Nixons told this story. When he told me this story, he said it wasn’t the help — the cash help; it’s that he gave his time, and he has consistently. This is a man who gave 30 percent of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. Mitt Romney’s a good man. He cares about a hundred percent of Americans in this country.

And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way. (Laughter.)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: But I always say what I mean.

MS. RADDATZ: You —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And so does Romney.

REP. RYAN: We want everybody to succeed. We want to get people out of poverty, in the middle class, on to lives of self-sufficiency. We believe in opportunity and upward mobility. That’s what we’re going to push for in a Romney administration.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look —

MS. RADDATZ: I have a feeling you have a few things to say here. (Laughter.)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.) The idea, if you heard that — that little soliloquy on 47 percent, and you think he just made a mistake, then I think you’re — I — I — I — I — I got a bridge to sell you.

Look, I don’t doubt his personal generosity, and I understand what it’s like. When I was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife, and my two sons survived. I have sat in the homes of many people who’ve gone through what I get through because the one thing you can give people solace is to know they know you’ve been through it, that they can make it. So I don’t doubt his personal commitment to individuals.

But you know what, I know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. He just let — he said, let it go bankrupt, period, let it drop out. All this talk — we saved a million jobs. Two hundred thousand people are working today. And I have never met two guys who are more down on America across the board. We’re told everything is going bad. We have 5.2 million new jobs, private sector jobs. We need more, but 5.2 million — if they’d get out of the way, if they get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the — pass the jobs bill, if they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside-down, but they never missed a mortgage payment — just get out of the way.

Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility.

And by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, oh my goodness, where did it come from? It came from this man voting to put two wars in a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion- dollar tax cut for a — very wealthy. I was there. I voted against him. I said, no, we can’t afford that. And now all of a sudden these guys are so seized with a concern about the debt that they created —

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: Let’s not forget that they came in with one-party control. When Barack Obama was elected, his party controlled everything. They had the ability to do everything of their choosing, and look at where we are right now. They passed a stimulus, the idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on all these special interest groups and that it would work out just fine, that unemployment would never get to 8 percent. It went up above 8 percent for 43 months. They said that right now, if we just pass this stimulus, the economy would grow at 4 percent. It’s growing at 1.3 (percent).

MS. RADDATZ: When could you get it below 6 percent?

REP. RYAN: That’s what our entire premise of our pro-growth plan for a stronger middle class is all about: getting the economy growing at 4 percent, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years. Look at just the $90 billion in stimulus, and — and the vice president was in charge of overseeing this, $90 billion in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups. There are just at the Department of Energy over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched into just how —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha —

REP. RYAN: — stimulus — (inaudible) — are being spent —

MS. RADDATZ: Go ahead.

Go ahead, Vice —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha, look. His colleague runs an investigative committee —

REP. RYAN: Crony capitalism — (inaudible).

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — spent months and months and months going into this —

REP. RYAN: This is the — this is the inspector general.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — months and months. They found no evidence of cronyism. And I love my friend here. I — I’m not allowed to show letters, but go on our website: He sent me two letters saying, by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of Wisconsin? We sent millions of dollars. You know why he said he needed —

MS. RADDATZ: You did ask for stimulus money, correct?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Sure he did. By the way — (inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: On two occasions, we — we — we advocated for constituents who were applying for grants.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: That’s what we do. We do that for all constituents who are — (inaudible) — for grants.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I love that. I love that. This is such a bad program, and he writes me a letter saying — writes the Department of Energy a letter saying, the reason we need this stimulus — it will create growth and jobs. He — his words. And now he’s sitting here looking at me — and by the way, that program — again, investigated — what the Congress said was, it was a model: less than four-tenths of 1 percent waste or fraud in the program. And all this talk about cronyism — they investigated, investigated; did not find one single piece of evidence. I wish he would just tell — be a little more candid.

REP. RYAN: Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland or on windmills in China?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look —

REP. RYAN: Was it a good idea to borrow all this money from countries like China —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: — and spend it on all these various different interest groups?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let me tell you it was a good idea. It was a good idea — Moody’s and others said that this was exactly what we needed that stopped us from going off the cliff. It set the conditions to be able to grow again. We have — in fact, 4 percent of those green jobs didn’t go under — or went — went — went under — didn’t work. It’s a better batting average than investment bankers have. They have about a 40 percent — (inaudible) — loss.

REP. RYAN: Where are the 5 million green jobs that were being promised —

MS. RADDATZ: I want to move on here to Medicare and entitlements. I think we’ve gone over this quite enough. And both —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And by the way, any letter you send me I’ll entertain.

REP. RYAN: I appreciate that, Joe. (Laughter.)

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements.

Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, Mr. Ryan?

REP. RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.

Look, when I look at these programs, we’ve all had tragedies in our lives. I think about what they’ve done for my own family. My mom and I had my grandmother move in with us who was facing Alzheimer’s. Medicare was there for her, just like it’s there for my mom right now who’s a Florida senior. After my dad died, my mom and I got Social Security survivors benefits. Helped me pay for college. It helped her go back to college in her 50s, where she started a small business because of the new skills she got. She paid all of her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. We will honor this promise.

And the best way to do it is reform it for my generation. You see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don’t change for people in or near retirement, which is precisely what Mitt Romney and I are proposing.

Look at what — look what “Obamacare” does. “Obamacare” takes $716 billion from Medicare to spend on “Obamacare.” Even their own chief actuary at Medicare backs this up. He says you can’t spend the same dollar twice. You can’t claim that this money goes to Medicare and “Obamacare.”

And then they put this new “Obamacare” board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. This board, by the way, it’s 15 people. The president’s supposed to appoint them next year. And not one of them even has to have medical training.

And Social Security, if we don’t shore up Social Security, when we run out of the IOUs, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors in the middle of their retirement. We’re going to stop that from happening.

They haven’t put a credible solution on the table. He’ll tell you about vouchers. He’ll say all these things to try and scare people.

Here’s what we’re saying: Give younger people, when they become Medicare-eligible, guaranteed coverage options that you can’t be denied, including traditional Medicare.

Choose your plan, and then Medicare subsidizes your premiums, not as much for the wealthy people, more coverage for middle-income people and total out-of-pocket coverage for the poor and the sick. Choice and competition — we would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their Medicare is delivered to them instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what — if, where, when they get it.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden, two minutes.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems that every vice presidential debate, I hear this kind of stuff about panels. But let’s talk about Medicare.

What we did is we saved $716 billion and put it back — applied it to Medicare. We cut the cost of Medicare. We stopped overpaying insurance companies when doctors and hospitals — the AMA supported what we did. AARP endorsed what we did. And it extends the life of Medicare to 2024. They want to wipe this all out. It also gave more benefits. Any senior out there, ask yourself: Do you have more benefits today? You do. If you’re near the doughnut hole, you have $600 more to help your prescription drug costs. You get wellness visits without copays. They wipe all of this out, and Medicare goes — becomes insolvent in 2016, number one.

Number two, guaranteed benefit — it’s a voucher. When they first proposed — when the congressman had his first voucher program, the CBO said it would cost $6,400 a year, Martha, more for every senior 55 and below when they got there. He knew that, yet he got it — all the guys in Congress, and women in the Republican party to vote for it. Governor Romney, knowing that, said, I — I — I would sign it were I there. Who you believe, the AMA? Me? A guy who’s fought his whole life for this? Or somebody who had actually put in motion a plan that knowingly cut — added $6,400 a year more to the cost of Medicare?

Now they got a new plan. Trust me, it’s not going to cost you any more. Folks, follow your instincts on this one.

And with regard to Social Security, we will not — we will not privatize it. If we had listened to Romney, to Governor Romney and the congressman during the Bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market. Their ideas are old, and their ideas are bad, and they eliminate the guarantee of Medicare.

REP. RYAN: Here’s the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning Medicare into a piggy bank for “Obamacare”. Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s not what they said.

REP. RYAN: Seven point four million seniors are projected to lose the current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That didn’t happen.

REP. RYAN: What we’re saying —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More people signed up.

REP. RYAN: These are from your own actuaries.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More — more — more people signed up for Medicare Advantage after the change.

REP. RYAN: What — what they’re —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No — nobody is getting shut down.

REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No — no — (inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress — (laughter) — to make up for lost ground — (laughter) — but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, don’t take all the four minutes, then.

REP. RYAN: Now let me just — let me say this. We are not — we are saying, don’t change benefits for people 55 and above. They already organized their retirement around these promises.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They already are —

REP. RYAN: But you want to — (inaudible) — these programs for those of us —

MS. RADDATZ: Let me ask you this: what is your specific plan for seniors who really can’t afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher?

REP. RYAN: A hundred percent coverage for them.

MS. RADDATZ: And what —

REP. RYAN: That’s what we’re saying.

MS. RADDATZ: — what cost —

REP. RYAN: So we’re saying income-adjust —

MS. RADDATZ: How do you make that up?

REP. RYAN: — these premium support payments by taking down the subsidies for wealthy people. Look, this is a plan — by the way, that $6,400 number, it was misleading then. It’s totally inaccurate now. This is a plan that’s bipartisan. It’s a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: There’s not one Democrat who endorsed his —

REP. RYAN: It’s a plan —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — not one Democrat who signed his plan.

REP. RYAN: Our partner is a Democrat from Oregon.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And he said he does no longer support (you for that ?).

REP. RYAN: We — we put it — we put it together with the former Clinton budget director.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Who disavows it. (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: This idea — this idea came from the Clinton commission to save Medicare, chaired by Senator John Breaux. Here’s the point, Martha.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Which was rejected.

REP. RYAN: If we don’t — if we don’t fix this problem pretty soon, then current seniors get cut! Here’s the problem. Ten thousand people are retiring every single day in America today, and they will for 20 years. That’s not a political thing. That’s a math thing.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha, if we just did one thing, if we just — if they allow Medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like Medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat.

REP. RYAN: And it would deny seniors choices.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: All — all — all —

REP. RYAN: It — it has restricted (formula ?) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Seniors are not denied.

REP. RYAN: Absolutely.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Sorry, they are not denied.

Look, folks, and all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? Have you lost Medicare Advantage or, if you have signed up —

REP. RYAN: Because it’s working well right now.

VICE RESIDENT BIDEN: Because we changed the law!

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden, let me ask you, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years, as Congressman Ryan suggests?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security, in 1983. I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O’Neill negotiating with President Reagan. We all got together, and everybody said, as long as everybody’s in the deal, everybody’s in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way. We made the system solvent to 2033.

We will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating — the voucher says, Mom, when you’re — when you’re 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get; you’re out of Medicare. You can buy back in, if you want, with this voucher, which will not keep pace — will not keep pace with health care costs, because if it did keep pace with health care costs, there would be no savings. That’s why they go the voucher — they — we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of Social Security.

REP. RYAN: A voucher is you go to your mailbox, get a check and buy something. Nobody’s proposing that. Barack Obama, four years ago, running for president, said if you don’t have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from. Make a big election about small ideas.

MS. RADDATZ: You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security.

REP. RYAN: For younger people. What we said then and what I’ve always agreed is let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You saw how well that worked.

REP. RYAN: That’s not what Mitt Romney’s proposing. What we’re saying is no changes for anybody 55 and above.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: What Mitt Romney is proposing —

REP. RYAN: And then the kinds of the changes we’re talking about for younger people like myself is don’t increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everybody else —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha —

REP. RYAN: — slowly raise the retirement age over time.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha —

REP. RYAN: It wouldn’t get to the age of 70 until the year 2103, according to the actuaries.

Now, here’s the issue.

MS. RADDATZ: Quickly, Vice President.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Quickly, the bottom line here is that all the studies show that if we went with Social Security proposal made by Mitt Romney, if you’re 40 — in your 40s now, you will pay $2,600 a year — you get $2,600 a year less in Social Security. If you’re in your 20s now, you get $4,700 a year less. The idea of changing — and change being, in this case, to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you could do to make it work — is absolutely the wrong way.

These — look, these guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. Their party’s not been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this? A man who introduced a bill that would raise it $6,400 a year, knowing it and passing it, and Romney saying he’d sign it? Or me and the president?

REP. RYAN: That statistic was completely misleading. But more importantly —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s — there are the facts, right?

REP. RYAN: — this is — this is what politicians do when they don’t have a record to run on: try to scare people from voting for you. If you don’t get ahead of this problem, it’s going to — (inaudible) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Medicare beneficiaries have more benefits now — (inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: We are not going to run away — we are not going to run away —

MS. RADDATZ: OK. We’re going to — we’re going to move on to a very simple question to you both.

REP. RYAN: Medicare and Social Security did so much for my own family. We are not going to jeopardize this program, but we have to save it for the next generation so it doesn’t go bankrupt.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You are jeopardizing the program. You’re changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to a premium support. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is people are going to have to pay more money out of their pocket.

REP. RYAN: The wealthy would.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And the families I know and the families I come from — they don’t have the money to pay more out of — (inaudible).

MS. RADDATZ: Gentlemen, gentlemen —

REP. RYAN: That’s why we’re saying more for lower-income people and less for higher-income people.

MS. RADDATZ: I would like to move on to a very simple question for both of you. And something tells me —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

MS. RADDATZ: — I won’t get a very simple answer. But let me ask you this.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I gave you a simple answer: He’s raising the cost of Medicare.

MS. RADDATZ: OK, on to taxes. If your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes? Who will pay less? And we’re starting with Vice President Biden for two minutes.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example: the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. We’re arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 million — billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of a million dollars. We see no justification in these economic times for those — and they’re patriotic Americans. They’re — they’re not asking for this continued tax cut; they’re not suggesting it; but my friends are insisting on it. A hundred and twenty thousand families, by continuing that tax cut, will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years, and their income is an average of $8 million.

We want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for — permanently from the Bush middle-class tax cut. These guys won’t allow us to.

You what we’re saying? We say let’s have a vote. Let’s have a vote on the middle-class tax cut, and let’s have a vote on the upper tax cut. Let’s go ahead and vote on it. They’re saying no. They’re holding hostage the middle-class tax cut to the super wealthy.

And on top of that, they got another tax cut coming that’s $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will, in fact, give another $250 million dollar — yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle-income with a child by $2,000 a year. This is unconscionable. There is no need for this. The middle class got knocked on their heels. The Great Recession crushed them. They need some help now. The last people who need help are 120,000 families for another — another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman.

REP. RYAN: Our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. It’s a plan that’s estimated to create 7 million jobs.

Now, we think that government taking 28 percent of a family and business’ income is enough. President Obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8 percent of a small business’ income.

Look, if you taxed every person in successful small business making over $250,000 at a hundred percent, it’d only run the government for 98 days. If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we’d still have a $300 billion deficit.

You see, there aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. And so the next time you hear them say, don’t worry about it, we’ll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share, watch out, middle class. The tax bill is coming to you.

That’s why we’re saying we need fundamental tax reform.

Let’s take a look at it this way: 8-out-of-10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. And where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior — (chuckles) — the Canadians — they drop their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40 percent. Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. This one tax would actually tax about 53 percent of small-business income. It’s expected that’d cost us 710,000 jobs. And you know what? It doesn’t even pay for 10 percent of their proposed deficit spending increases.

What we are saying is lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes, primarily to the higher-income people. We have three bottom lines: Don’t raise the deficit, don’t raise taxes on the middle class and don’t lower the share of income that is borne by the high-income earners. He — he’ll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: — it’s been discredited by six other studies, and even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it wasn’t correct.

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well — (chuckles) —

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?

REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the —

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you’re doing?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’ll be — that’d be a first for the Republican Congress.

REP. RYAN: Look — look at what Mitt — look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is here’s our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent — we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion (dollars) in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher- income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. RYAN: — so we can lower tax rates across the board.

Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is here’s a framework —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I’m going to get time to respond to this.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress —

MS. RADDATZ: I — you’ll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful — look —

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.

REP. RYAN: Mitt — what we’re saying is — (laughter) — lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it —

MS. RADDATZ: And you guarantee this math will add up.

REP. RYAN: Absolutely. Six studies have guaranteed — six studies have verified that this math adds up, but here’s the other point —

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look —

REP. RYAN: (Inaudible) — one point — (inaudible) —

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let me translate. Let me have a chance to translate.

REP. RYAN: I’ll come back in a second then, right?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: First of all, I was there when Ronald Reagan tax breaks — I mean, he gave specifics of what he was going to cut, no — number one, in terms of tax expenditures.

Number two, 97 percent of the small businesses of America pay less — make less than $250,000. Let me tell you who some of those other small businesses are: hedge funds that make 6(00 million dollars), $800 million a year. That — that’s what they count as small business because they’re passthrough.

Let’s look at how sincere they are. Ronald — I mean, excuse me, Governor Romney, on “60 Minutes,” I guess it’s about 10 days ago, was asked, Governor, you pay 14 percent on $20 million. Someone making $50,000 pays more than that. Do you think that’s fair? He said, oh, yes, that’s fair; that’s fair.

This is — and they’re going to talk — I mean, you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes? The loophole — the biggest loophole they take advantage of is the carried interest loophole and — and capital gains loophole. They exempt that.

Now, there’s not enough — the reason why the AEI study, the American Enterprise Institute study, the Tax Policy Center study, the reason they all say it’s going to — taxes will go up on the middle class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle-class people, cut the health care deduction for middle-class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. That’s why they — (inaudible) —

MS. RADDATZ: Is he wrong about that?

REP. RYAN: He is wrong about that. There are — you can —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: How’s that?

REP. RYAN: You can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.

REP. RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.) It has never been done before.

REP. RYAN: It’s been done a couple of times, actually.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It has never been done before.

REP. RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy.

REP. RYAN: Ronald Reagan — (laughter) — (chuckles) — Republicans and Democrats —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: This is amazing.

REP. RYAN: Republicans and Democrats have worked together on this.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s right.

REP. RYAN: I understand aren’t used to doing bipartisan deals.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: But we told each other what we were going to do. When we did with Reagan, he said —

REP. RYAN: Republicans and Democrats —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — here — here are the things we’re going to cut. This is what he said.

REP. RYAN: We can agree on a framework; let’s work together to fill in the details. That’s exactly —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Fill in the details.

REP. RYAN: That’s how you get things done. You work with Congress —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Seriously ?).

REP. RYAN: Look, let me say it this way. Mitt Romney was governor —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s coming from the Republican Congress working bipartisanly?

REP. RYAN: Mitt — Mitt Romney —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Seven percent rating? Come on.

REP. RYAN: Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, where 87 percent of the legislators he served with were Democrats. He didn’t demonize them. He didn’t demagogue them. He met with those party leaders every week.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

REP. RYAN: He reached across the aisle. He didn’t compromise principles.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And you (saw what happened ?).

REP. RYAN: He found common ground, and he balanced the budget.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (You saw what ?) — if he did such a great job — if he did such a great job in Massachusetts —

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President, what —

REP. RYAN: He balanced the budget four times. He balanced the budget four times without raising taxes.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — why isn’t he even contesting Massachusetts?

REP. RYAN: (Inaudible.)

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President, what would you suggest — what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially reduce the long-term deficit?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not — just let the taxes expire like they’re supposed to on those millionaires. We don’t — we can’t afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum a million dollars. They do not need it, Martha. Those 120,000 families make $8 million a year. Middle-class people need the help. Why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? Why does he go out after the child — (inaudible)?

MS. RADDATZ: Can you declare anything off-limits —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Why do they do that?

MS. RADDATZ: Can you declare anything off limits? Home mortgages deductions —

REP. RYAN: Yeah. We’re saying close loopholes on high-interest people–

MS. RADDATZ: Home mortgage deductions —

REP. RYAN: — for higher-income people. Here —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can you guarantee that no one —

REP. RYAN: This taxes —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage —

REP. RYAN: This —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — their mortgage deduction impacted? Guarantee?

REP. RYAN: This taxes a million small businesses.

He keeps trying to make you think that it’s just some movie star or hedge fund guy or an actor–

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Ninety-seven percent of the small businesses make less than $250,000 a year —

REP. RYAN: Joe —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — would not be affected.

REP. RYAN: — you know, it hits a million — this taxes a million people, a million small businesses —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Doesn’t tax 97 percent of the American businesses — small businesses —

REP. RYAN: It — it taxes a million small businesses, who are our great job creators.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I wish I’d get it — the greatest job creators are the hedge fund guys.

REP. RYAN: (Let’s end ?) —

MS. RADDATZ: And you’re going — and you’re going to increase the defense budget.

REP. RYAN: Think about it this way.

MS. RADDATZ: And you’re going to increase the defense budget.

REP. RYAN: No, we’re just not going to cut the defense budget like they’re — they’re proposing —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They’re going to increase it $2 billion — $2 trillion.

REP. RYAN: That’s not accurate. We’re talking about preventing —

MS. RADDATZ: More than that. No — so no massive defense increase?

REP. RYAN: No, we’re saying is, don’t — OK, you want to get into defense now?

MS. RADDATZ: Let — yes, I do. I do —

REP. RYAN: All right. So —

MS. RADDATZ: — because that’s another math question.

REP. RYAN: Right. OK.

MS. RADDATZ: How do you do that?

REP. RYAN: So they proposed a $478 (sic) billion cut to defense to begin with. Now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that’s lurking on the horizon. They insisted upon that cut being involved in the debt negotiations —

MS. RADDATZ: Let —

REP. RYAN: — and now we have a $1 trillion cut —

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s put the automatic defense cuts aside. OK?

REP. RYAN: Right. OK.

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s put those aside. No one wants that.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I’d like to go back to that.

REP. RYAN: OK.

MS. RADDATZ: But I want to know how you do the math and have this increase in defense spending?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Two trillion dollars.

REP. RYAN: You don’t cut defense by a trillion dollars. That’s what we’re talking about. The additional trillion —

MS. RADDATZ: And what national security issues justify an increase?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Who’s cutting it by a trillion?

REP. RYAN: We’re going to cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 Marines, 120 cargo planes. We’re going to push the Joint Strike Fighter out.

MS. RADDATZ: Drawing down in one war —

REP. RYAN: We’re cutting missile defense.

MS. RADDATZ: — and one war — (inaudible ) —

REP. RYAN: If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the small it is — it — the smallest it has been since before World War I. This invites weakness.

Look, do we believe in peace through strength? You bet we do. And that means you don’t impose these devastating cuts on our military. So we’re saying don’t cut the military by a trillion dollars, not increase it by a trillion, don’t cut it by a trillion dollars.

MS. RADDATZ: Quickly, Vice President Biden, on this, and I want to move on.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Look, we don’t cut it. And I might add this so-called — I know we don’t want to use the fancy word “sequester,” this automatic cut — that was part of a debt deal that they asked for.

And let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the deal. He said — and I’m — we’ve been looking for this moment for a long time. (Inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: Can I tell you what that meant?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Why —

REP. RYAN: We’ve been looking for bipartisanship for a long time.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And so the bipartisanship is what he voted for: the automatic cuts in defense if they didn’t act. And beyond that, they asked for another — look, the military says, we need a smaller, leaner Army. We need more special forces. We need — we don’t need more M1 tanks. What we need is more UADs.

MS. RADDATZ: Some of the military — I know that’s — (inaudible) —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not some of the military; that was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That’s a fact.

MS. RADDATZ: Who answers to the civilian leaders.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: They made the recommendation first.

MS. RADDATZ: OK. Let’s move on to Afghanistan.

REP. RYAN: Can I get into that for a second?

MS. RADDATZ: I’d like to move on to Afghanistan, please.

REP. RYAN: OK.

MS. RADDATZ: And that’s one of the biggest expenditures this country has made, in dollars and, more importantly, in lives. We just passed the sad milestone of losing 2,000 U.S. troops there in this war. More than 50 of them were killed this year by the very Afghan forces we are trying to help. Now, we’ve reached the recruiting goal for Afghan forces. We’ve degraded al-Qaida. So tell me, why not leave now? What more can we really accomplish? Is it worth more American lives?

REP. RYAN: We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban does not come back in and give al- Qaida a safe haven. We agree with the administration on their 2014 transition. Look, when I think about Afghanistan, I think about the incredible job that our troops have done. You’ve been there more than the two of us combined.

First time I was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing. When I went to the Arghandab Valley in Kandahar before the surge, I sat down with a young private in the 82nd from the Menominee Indian Reservation who would tell me what he did every day, and I was in awe. And to see what they had in front of them — and then to go back there in December, to go throughout Helmand with the Marines to see what they had accomplished — it’s nothing short of amazing.

What we don’t want to do is lose the gains we’ve gotten.

Now, we’ve disagreed from time to time on a few issues. We would have more likely taken into account the recommendations from our commanders, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, on troop levels throughout this year’s fighting season. We’ve been skeptical about negotiations with the Taliban, especially while they’re shooting at us. But we want to see the 2014 transition be successful. And that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorists.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha, let’s keep our eye on the ball. The reason I’ve been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq 20 times — I’ve been up in the Kunar — I’ve been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter and sometimes in a vehicle. The fact is we went there for one reason: to get those people who killed Americans, al-Qaida. We’ve decimated al-Qaida central. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. That was our purpose. And in fact, in the meantime, what we said we would do, we would help train the Afghan military. It’s their responsibility to take over their own security. That’s why, with 49 of our allies in Afghanistan, we’ve agreed on a gradual drawdown so we’re out of there by the year — in the year 2014.

My friend and the governor say it’s based on conditions, which means it depends. It does not depend for us. It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security. We have trained over 315,000, mostly without incident. There have been more than two dozen cases of green on blue where Americans have been killed.

If we do — if the — if the measures the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols, we will not train in the field. We’ll only train in the — in the Army bases that exist there.

But we are leaving. We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we’re going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We’ve been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we’re doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It’s their responsibility, not America’s.

MS. RADDATZ: What conditions could justify staying, Congressman Ryan?

REP. RYAN: We don’t want to stay. We want — look, one of my best friends in Janesville, a reservist, is at a forward operating base in Eastern Afghanistan right now. Our wives are best friends, our daughters are best friends. I want — I want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible.

We want to make sure that 2014 is successful. That’s why we want to make sure that we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. We don’t want to extend beyond 2014. That’s the point we’re making.

You know, if it was just this, I feel like we would — we would be able to call this a success, but it’s not. What we are witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days, is the absolute unraveling of the Obama foreign policy. Problems are growing at home, but jobs — problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren’t growing here at home.

MS. RADDATZ: Let me go back to this. He says we’re absolutely leaving in 2014. You’re saying that’s not an absolute, but you won’t talk about what conditions would justify —

REP. RYAN: Do you know why we say that? Do you know why we say that?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I’d like to know why.

REP. RYAN: Because we don’t want to broadcast to our enemies, put a date on your calendar, wait us out and then come back.

We want to make sure —

MS. RADDATZ: But you agree with the timeline?

REP. RYAN: We do — we do agree with the timeline in the transition, but what we — what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. What we do not want to do —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We will leave in 2014.

REP. RYAN: What we do not want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more — we don’t want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over the —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Martha, that’s a bizarre statement.

REP. RYAN: That’s why we want to make sure — no, that’s why we want to make sure that this — that —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s a bizarre statement, since 49 of our allies — hear me, 49 of our allies signed onto this position, 49.

REP. RYAN: And we’re reading that they want to pull out early.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Forty-nine. Forty-nine of our allies said out in 2014. It’s the responsibility of the Afghans. We have other responsibilities —

REP. RYAN: Which is — which is — which is what we agree with.

MS. RADDATZ: Do you — do you think that this timeline — but we have — we have soldiers and Marines —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Theirs are sufficient. ?)

MS. RADDATZ: We have Afghan forces murdering our forces over there. The Taliban is, do you think, taking advantage of this timeline?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, look, the Taliban — what we’ve found out — and we — you — you saw it in Iraq, Martha. Unless you set a timeline, Baghdad in the case of Iraq and — and Kabul in the case of Afghanistan will not step up. They’re happy to let us continue to do the job — international security forces to do the job. The only way they step up is say, fellas, we’re leaving; we’ve trained you; step up. Step up.

MS. RADDATZ: But let me — let me go back —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s the only way it works.

MS. RADDATZ: Let me go back to the surge troops that we put in there. And you brought this up, Congressman Ryan. I have talked to a lot of troops. I’ve talked to senior officers who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season, and some of them saw that as a political — as a political move. So can you tell me, Vice President Biden, what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home before the fighting season ended?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The military reason was bringing — by the way, when the president announced the surge — you’ll remember, Martha — he said, the surge will be out by the end of the summer. The military said, the surge will be out. Nothing political about this. Before the surge occurred — so you be a little straight with me here, too — before the surge occurred, we said, they’ll be out by the end of the summer. That’s what the military said. The reason for that is —

MS. RADDATZ: Military follows orders. They — I mean, there — trust me, there are people —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Sure —

MS. RADDATZ: — who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting season.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: But — there are people that were concerned, but not the Joint Chiefs. That was their recommendation in the Oval Office to the president of the United States of America. I sat there. I’m sure you’ll find someone who disagrees with the Pentagon. I’m positive you’ll find that within the military. But that’s not the case here.

And secondly, the reason why the military said that is you cannot wait and have a cliff. It takes, you know, months and months and months to draw down forces. (Inaudible) — cannot wait —

REP. RYAN: Let me bring some — let me try and illustrate the issue here, because I think this — it can get a little confusing. We’ve all met with General Allen and General Scaparotti in Afghanistan to talk about fighting seasons. Here’s the way it works. The mountain passes fill in with snow. The Taliban and the terrorists and the Haqqani and the Quetta shura come over from Pakistan to fight our men and women. When it fills in with snow, they can’t do it. That’s what we call fighting seasons. In the warm months fighting gets really high; in the winter it goes down.

And so when Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus came to Congress and said, if you pull these people out before the fighting season is end, it puts people more at risk — that’s the problem. Yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month. But the remaining troops that are there, who still have the same mission to prosecute, counterinsurgency, are doing it with fewer people.

That makes them less safe.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Inaudible.)

REP. RYAN: We’re sending fewer people out in all these hot spots to do the same job that they were supposed to do a month ago —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because we turned it over —

REP. RYAN: — but we took 22,000 people out for them to do it.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — we turned it over to the Afghan troops we trained. No one got pulled out that didn’t get filled in by trained Afghan personnel. And he’s — he’s — he’s conflating two issues. The fighting season that Petraeus was talking about and former — and Admiral Mullen was the fighting season this spring. That’s what he was talking about. We did not — we did not pull them out.

REP. RYAN: The calendar works the same every year. (Chuckles.)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It does work the same every year. (Inaudible) — there —

REP. RYAN: (Chuckles.) Spring, summer, fall — (chuckles) — it’s warm or it’s not. They’re still fighting us, they’re still coming over the passes, they’ll — they’re still coming in to Zabul or to Kunar, to all of these areas, but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. And that is not safe.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s right, because that’s the Afghan responsibility. We’ve trained them.

REP. RYAN: Not in the East.

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s move — let’s move to another war.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Not in the East? (Inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: (Inaudible) — East, RC-East —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: RC-East, most dangerous place in the world.

REP. RYAN: That’s why — that’s why we don’t want to send fewer people to do the job.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s — that’s why we should send Americans in to do the job instead of the — you’d rather Americans be going in and doing the job instead of — (inaudible) —

REP. RYAN: No. We are already sending Americans to do the job —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No —

REP. RYAN: — but fewer of them. That’s the whole point.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That — that’s right. We’re sending in more Afghans to do the job, Afghans to do the job.

MS. RADDATZ: Let’s move to another war, the civil war in Syria, where there are estimates that — estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. In March of last year, President Obama explained the military action taken in Libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent further massacres from occurring there. So why doesn’t the same logic apply in Syria? Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: It’s a different country. It’s a different country. It is five times as large geographically. It has one-fifth the population that is Libya, one-fifth the population, five times as large geographically.

It’s in a part of the world where you’re not going to see whatever would come from that war. It’s (seep ?) into a regional war. You’re in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world. And in fact, if, in fact, it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it’s going to have impact on the entire region, causing potentially regional wars.

We are working hand in glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes and he will go, there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al-Qaida-sponsored government that follows on.

And all this loose talk of my friend, Governor Romney, and the congressman about how we’re going to do, we could do so much more in there, what more would they do other than put American boots on the ground? The last thing America needs is to get into another ground war in the Middle East requiring tens of thousands if not well over a hundred thousand American forces. That — they are the facts. They are the facts.

Now, every time the governor is asked about this, he doesn’t say any — he say — he goes up with a whole lot of verbiage, but when he gets pressed, he says, no, he would not do anything different then we are doing now. Are they proposing putting American troops on the ground, putting American aircraft in their airspace? Is that what they’re proposing? If they do, they should speak up and say so. But that’s not what they’re saying.

We are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces who, in fact, will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional Sunni-Shia war when Bassad (ph) — when Bashir (sic; Bashar) Assad falls.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: Nobody is proposing to send troops to Syria — American troops.

Now let me say it this way. How would we do things differently? We wouldn’t refer Bashar Assad as a reformer when he’s killing his own civilians with his Russian-provided weapons. We wouldn’t be outsourcing our foreign policy to the United Nations, giving Vladimir Putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. He’s vetoed three of them. Hillary Clinton went to Russia to try and convince him not to do so; they thwarted her efforts. She said they were on the wrong side of history. She was right about that. This is just one more example of how the Russia reset’s not working.

And so where are we? After international pressure mounted, then President Obama said Bashar Assad should go. It’s been over a year. The man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people and more foreign fighters are spilling into this country. So the longer this has gone on, the more people — groups like al-Qaida are going in. We could have more easily identified the Free Syrian Army, the freedom fighters, working with our allies, the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with, working through our allies. But no, we waited for Kofi Annan to try and come up with an agreement through the U.N. That bought Bashar Assad time. We gave Russia veto power over our efforts through the U.N. and meanwhile about 30,000 Syrians are dead.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: What would my friend do differently? If you notice, he never answers the question.

REP. RYAN: No, I would — I — we would not be going through the U.N. on all of these things —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let — let — let me — you don’t go through the U.N. We are in the process now and have been for months in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training, is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria.

That is under way. Our allies were all on the same page, NATO as well as our Arab allies, in terms of trying to get a settlement. That was their idea. We’re the ones that said, enough.

With regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that Russia has a different interest in Syria than we do, and that’s not in our interest.

MS. RADDATZ: What happens if Assad does not fall? Congressman Ryan, what happens to the region? What happens if he hangs on? What happens if he does?

REP. RYAN: Then Iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. He’s a sponsor of terrorism. He’ll probably continue slaughtering his people. We and the world community will lose our credibility on this. Look, he mentioned the reset.

MS. RADDATZ: So what would Romney-Ryan do about that credibility?

REP. RYAN: Well, we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons, but not putting American troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. They’re right about that. But what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters, those dissidents in Syria. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer, and we should not have — we should not have waited to Russia to give us the green light —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We didn’t call Assad —

MS. RADDATZ: What’s your criteria for —

REP. RYAN: We should not have waited for Russia to give us the green light at the U.N. to do something about it.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Russia —

REP. RYAN: They’re — they’re still arming the man. Iran is flying flights over Iraq —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: And the opposition is being armed —

REP. RYAN: — to help — to help — to help Bashar Assad. And by the way, if we had the status of forces agreement that the vice president said he would bet his vice presidency on in Iraq, we probably would have been able to prevent that. But he failed to achieve that as well. Again —

MS. RADDATZ: Let me ask you quickly, what’s your criteria for intervention?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don’t — yeah.

REP. RYAN: In Syria?

MS. RADDATZ: Worldwide.

REP. RYAN: What is in the national interests of the American people.

MS. RADDATZ: How about humanitarian interests?

REP. RYAN: What is in the national security of the American people — it’s got to be in the strategic national interests of our country.

MS. RADDATZ: No humanitarian?

REP. RYAN: Each situation will — will come up with its own set of circumstances. But putting American troops on the ground, that’s got to be within the national security interests of the American people.

MS. RADDATZ: I want to — we’re almost out of time here.

REP. RYAN: That means things like embargoes and sanctions and overflights — those are things that don’t put American troops on the ground. But if you’re talking about putting American troops on the ground, only in our national security interests.

MS. RADDATZ: I want to move on, and I want to return home for these last few questions. This debate is indeed historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time on a stage such as this, and I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And please, this is such an emotional issue for so many —

REP. RYAN: Sure.

MS. RADDATZ: — people in this country. Please talk personally about this if you could. Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, about how to make sure that people have a chance in life.

Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course, but it’s also because of reason and science. You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, “Bean.” (Chuckles.)

Now, I believe that life begins at conception.

That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now, I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through “Obamacare” with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious — religious liberties.

And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they want it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in “Obamacare,” taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second- guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that.

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy — any hospital — none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.

Now, with regard to the way in which the — we differ, my friend says that he — well, I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was — there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: All I’m saying is if you believe that life begins at conception, that therefore doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic Church and religious liberty.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: You have, on the issue of Catholic social doctrine, taken issue.

REP. RYAN: If they — if they agree with you, then why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Chuckles.)

MS. RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?

REP. RYAN: We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is.

Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned — excuse me — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.

I guarantee you that will not happen. We picked two people. We picked people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court —

REP. RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind, did not come with an agenda.

MS. RADDATZ: I’m going to move on to this closing question because we are running out of time.

It’s certainly known — you’ve said it here tonight — that the two of you respect our troops enormously. Your son has served, and perhaps someday your children will serve as well.

I recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. He told me, quote, “The ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other, rather than building up the country.”

What would you say to that American hero about this campaign? And at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone?

Vice President Biden.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I would say to him the same thing I say to my son, who did serve year in Iraq: that we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. That’s to equip those we send into harm’s way and care for those who come home.

That’s the only sacred obligation we have. Everything else falls behind that.

I would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country — that that should be honored. He should not be thrown into a category of the 47 percent who don’t pay their taxes while he was out there fighting and not having to pay taxes and somehow not taking responsibility.

I would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and occur in every campaign that I’m sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves and say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. It’s — it’s — it’s an abomination.

But the bottom line here is I’d ask that hero you reference to take a look at whether or not Governor Romney or President Obama has the conviction to help lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this Great Recession hit and they got wiped out or whether or not he’s going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to make — pay any part of the deal to bring the — bring back the middle class, the economy of this country.

I would ask him to take a look at whether the president of the United States has acted wisely in the use of force and whether or not the slipshod comments being made by my — my friend or by Governor Romney serve — serve our interests very well. But there are things that have been said in campaigns that I — I find not very appealing.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: First of all, I’d thank him to his service to our country.

Second of all, I’d say, we are not going to impose these devastating cuts on our military which compromises their mission and their safety.

And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame. You see, if you don’t have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. That was what President Obama said in 2008. It’s what he’s doing right now.

Look at all the string of broken promises. If you like your health care plan you can keep it — try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if “Obamacare” goes through or the seven point million — 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it.

Or remember when he said this: I guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up. Of the 21 tax increases in “Obamacare,” 12 of them hit the middle class.

Or remember when he said, health insurance premiums will go down, and $2,500 per family per year? They’ve gone up 3,000 (dollars), and they’re expected to go up another 2,400 (dollars).

Or remember when he said, I promise by the end of my first term, I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years? We’ve had four budgets, four trillion-dollar deficits. A debt crisis is coming. We can’t keep spending and borrowing like this. We can’t just keep spending money we don’t have.

Leaders run to problems to fix problems. President Obama has not even put a credible plan on the table in any — any of his four years to deal with this debt crisis. I passed two budgets to deal with this. Mitt Romney’s put ideas on the table. We’ve got to tackle this debt crisis before it tackles us.

The president likes to say he has a plan. He gave a speech. We asked his budget office, can we see the plan? They sent us to this press secretary. He gave us a copy of the speech. We asked the Congressional Budget Office, tell us what President Obama’s plan is to prevent a debt crisis. They said, it’s a speech; we can’t estimate speeches. You see? That’s what we get in this administration: speeches. But we’re not getting leadership.

Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. His lifetime of experience, his proven track record of bipartisanship — and what do we have from the president? He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country’s biggest problems. And what I would tell him is we don’t have to settle for this.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Inaudible.)

MS. RADDATZ: I — I —

REP. RYAN: We can do better than this.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I’ll get equal time.

MS. RADDATZ: I — you will get just a few minutes here, a few seconds, really.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The two budgets the congressman introduced have eviscerated all the things that the middle class cares about. It has knocked 19 — it will knock 19 million people off of Medicare. It will kick 200,000 children off of early education. It will eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to college. It cuts education by $450 billion. It — it — it does — it does virtually nothing, except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy.

And, you know, we’ve had enough of this. My — the idea that these — so concerned about these deficits, I pointed out, he voted to put two wars on a credit card. He did —

MS. RADDATZ: We’re — we’re going to —

REP. RYAN: He voted —

MS. RADDATZ: We’re going to the closing statements in a minute.

REP. RYAN: But let me — just a second —

MS. RADDATZ: I — you’re going to have your closing —

REP. RYAN: Not raising taxes is not cutting taxes. And by the way, our budget —

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We have not raised —

REP. RYAN: — we increased spending by 3 percent a year instead of 4 1/2 percent like they proposed.

MS. RADDATZ: Let me — let me calm down things here —

REP. RYAN: So not spending more money as much as they say is not a spending cut.

MS. RADDATZ: — just for a minute. And I want to talk to you very briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. If you are elected, what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being that no one else could?

REP. RYAN: Honesty. No one else could? There are plenty of fine people who could lead this country. But what you need are people who, when they say they’re going to do something, they go do it. What you need are when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems. We’re not getting that.

Look, we can grow this economy faster. That’s what our five-point plan for a stronger middle class is all about. It’s about getting 12 million jobs, higher take-home pay; getting people out of poverty, into the middle class. That means going with proven pro-growth policies that we know work to get people back to work, putting ideas on the table, working with Democrats — that actually works sometimes — and then getting things done.

MS. RADDATZ: Vice President, could we get to that — to that issue of what you could bring as a man, a human being? And I really am going to keep you to about 15 seconds here.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, he gets 40, I get 15, but that’s OK. That’s all right.

MS. RADDATZ: He didn’t have 40. He didn’t have 40.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Now, let me tell you, I — my — my record stands for itself. I never say anything I don’t mean. Everybody knows whatever I say, I do. And my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle-class people, giving them an even break, treating Main Street and Wall Street the same, holding the same responsibility. Look at my record. It’s been all about the middle class. They’re the people who grow this country. We think you grow this country from the middle out, not from the top down.

MS. RADDATZ: OK. We now turn to the candidates for their closing statements. Thank you, gentlemen. And that coin toss, again, has Vice President Biden starting with a closing statement.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, let — let — let me say at the outset that I want to thank you, Martha, for doing this, and Centre College. The fact is that we’re in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance. People are in real trouble. We acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now.

And — and in the process, we — in case you haven’t noticed, we have strong disagreements. But I — you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the — the American people. My friend says that 30 percent of the American people are takers. They — Romney points out, 47 percent of the people won’t take responsibility. He’s talking about my mother and father. And he’s talking about the places I grew up in, my neighbors in Scranton and Claymont.

He’s talking about — he’s talking about the people that have built this country. All they’re looking for, Martha — all they’re looking for is an even shot. When they’ve been given the shot, they’ve done it. They’ve done it. Whenever you level the playing field, they’ve been able to move.

And they want a little bit of peace of mind. And the president and I are not going to rest until that playing field is leveled, they in fact have a clear shot and they have peace of mind, until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, honey, it’s going to be OK. It’s going to be OK. That’s what this is all about.

MS. RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan.

REP. RYAN: I want to thank you as well, Martha, Danville, Kentucky, Centre College.

And I want to thank you, Joe. It’s been an honor to engage in this critical debate.

We face a very big choice. What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids? President Obama — he had his chance. He made his choices. His economic agenda, more spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care — it’s not working. It’s failed to create the jobs we need. Twenty-three million Americans are struggling for work today. Fifteen percent of Americans are in poverty.

This is not what a real recovery looks like. You deserve better. Mitt Romney and I want to earn your support. We’re offering real reforms for a real recovery for every American. Mitt Romney, his experience, his ideas, his solutions, is uniquely qualified to get this job done. At a time when we have a jobs crisis in America, wouldn’t it be nice to have a job creator in the White House?

The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency, or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues.

We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles; we will reapply our founding principles. The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote. Thank you.

MS. RADDATZ: And thank you both again. Thank you very much.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Thank you.

MS. RADDATZ: This concludes the vice presidential debate. Please tune in next Tuesday for the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York.

I’m Martha Raddatz of ABC News. I do hope all of you go to the polls. Have a good evening. (Applause.)

END

Categories: 2012 Obama re-elect

Read Full Post »

Via Lynn Sweet. It’s never the show-it’s always the words….

Obama, Romney Denver debate transcript

By Lynn Sweet on October 4, 2012 1:36 AM | No Comments

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release October 3, 2012

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AND GOVERNOR ROMNEY

IN THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Magness Arena

University of Denver

Denver, Colorado

7:00 P.M. MDT

MR. LEHRER: Good evening from the Magness Arena at the University of Denver, in Denver, Colorado. I’m Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour, and I welcome you to the first of the 2012 Presidential Debates between President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.

This debate and the next three — two presidential, one vice presidential — are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight’s 90 minutes will be about domestic issues and will follow a format designed by the Commission. There will be six roughly 15-minute segments, with 2-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment.

Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the Internet and other means. But I made the final selections. And for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the Commission or the candidates.

The segments, as I announced in advance, will be three on the economy, and one each on health care, the role of government, and governing, with an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics, and choices. Both candidates will also have 2-minute closing statements.

The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. No cheers, applause, boos, hisses, among other noisy, distracting things, so we may all concentrate on what the candidates have to say.

There is a noise exception right now, though, as we welcome President Obama and Governor Romney. (Applause.)

Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let’s start with the economy, segment one, and let’s begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs? You have two minutes — each of you have two minutes to start. A coin toss has determined, Mr. President, you go first.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Jim, for this opportunity. I want to thank Governor Romney, and the University of Denver for your hospitality.

There are a lot of points I want to make tonight, but the most important one is that 20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me. (Laughter.) And so I just want to wish, sweetie, you happy anniversary, and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. (Laughter.)

Four years ago, we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost. The auto industry was on the brink of collapse. The financial system had frozen up. And because of the resilience and the determination of the American people, we’ve begun to fight our way back. Over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has come roaring back and housing has begun to rise.

But we all know that we’ve still got a lot of work to do. And so the question here tonight is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going.

Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes skewed towards the wealthy and roll back regulations that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view. I think we’ve got to invest in education and training. I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America; that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States; that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America; and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.

Now, ultimately, it’s going to be up to the voters — to you — which path we should take. Are we going to double down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess? Or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says America does best when the middle class does best? And I’m looking forward to having that debate.

MR. LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It’s an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the President. I’m pleased to be at the University of Denver. I appreciate their welcome, and also the Presidential Commission on these debates.

And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I’m sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine, here with me. (Laughter.) Congratulations.

This is obviously a very tender topic. I’ve had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country — I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm and she said, I’ve been out of work since May, can you help me? Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He’s lost his most recent job and we’ve now just lost our home. Can you help us?

And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it’s going to take a different path — not the one we’ve been on, not the one the President describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That’s not what I’m going to do. My plan has five basic parts: One, get us energy independent — North America energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs. Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America; crack down on China if and when they cheat. Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world — we are far away from that now. Number four, get us to a balanced budget. Number five, champion small business.

It’s small business that creates the jobs in America. And over the last four years, small business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business, because new business startups are down to a 30-year low. I know what it takes to get small business growing again, to hire people.

Now, I’m concerned that the path that we’re on has just been unsuccessful. The President has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work. That’s not the right answer for America. I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the Governor just said about trickle-down, his trickle-down approach, as he said yours is.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me talk specifically about what I think we need to do. First, we’ve got to improve our education system. And we’ve made enormous progress drawing on ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools.

We’ve got a program called Race To The Top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country, raising standards, improving how we train teachers. So now, I want to hire another 100,000 new math and science teachers, and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so that people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now. And I want to make sure that we keep tuition low for our young people.

When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. So I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas

— I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.

On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production. And oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy sources of the future like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.

So all of this is possible. Now, in order for us to do it, we do have to close our deficit. And one of the things I’m sure we’ll be discussing tonight is how do we deal with our tax code and how do we make sure that we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also how do we have enough revenue to make those investments.

And this is where there’s a difference, because Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans I think is one of the central questions of this campaign.

MR. LEHRER: Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things. And we’re going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can. But first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you’d like to ask the President directly about something he just said?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, sure, I’d like to clear up the record and go through it piece by piece. First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of the scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re President or I am.

The people who are having a hard time right now are middle-income Americans. Under the President’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.

At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the President, electric rates are up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family. Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again? And I’ve described it. It’s energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the cornerstones of my plan.

But the President mentioned a couple of other ideas I’ll just note. First, education. I agree education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we’ve got 47 of them housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We’ve got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.

The second area, taxation: We agree we ought to bring the tax rates down, and I do — both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue and have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.

The third area, energy: Energy is critical, and the President pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up — but not due to his policies, in spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.

If I’m President, I’ll double them and also get the oil from offshore in Alaska, and I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada. And by the way, I like coal. I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.

And finally with regards to that tax cut, look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the revenues going to the government. My number-one principle is there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit. But I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And to do that, that also means I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans. So any language to the contrary is simply not accurate.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let’s talk about taxes because I think it’s instructive. Now, four years ago when I stood on this stage, I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and that’s exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.

And the reason is because I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who is going off to college, which means they’re spending more money; businesses have more customers; businesses make more profits and then hire more workers.

Now, Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.

But I’m going to make an important point here, Jim. When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals are currently taking advantage of, you take those all away, you don’t come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending.

And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families; the average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.

Now, that’s not my analysis. That’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And that kind of top-down economics where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that’s not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.

MR. LEHRER: All right, what is the difference? Let’s just stay on taxes for a —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But I get — right, right.

MR. LEHRER: Let’s just stay on taxes for a moment here.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Yes. Well, but virtually —

MR. LEHRER: What is the difference?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: — virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I’d say, absolutely not. I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is, I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist who can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. (Laughter.) But that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you described and say it’s completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.

But let’s get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, at the same time, lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need. And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is, because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people.

For me, this is about jobs. This is about getting jobs for the American people.

MR. LEHRER: All right, that’s where we started. Yes.

Do you challenge what the Governor just said about his own plan?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, for 18 months, he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is “never mind.” And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you described, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s math. It’s arithmetic.

Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small business 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was President, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot. And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we’re also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.

And we do have a difference, though, when it comes to definitions of small business. Under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they’re the job creators, they’d be burdened. But under Governor Romney’s definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business — and I know Donald Trump doesn’t like to think of himself as small anything. But that’s how you define small businesses if you’re getting business income.

And that kind of approach, I believe, will not grow our economy because the only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research — all the things that are helping America grow. And I think that would be a mistake.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Jim, let me just come back on that point, which is these —

MR. LEHRER: Just for the record —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: — small businesses we’re talking about —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me, just so everybody understands, we’re way over our first 15 minutes.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: It’s fun, isn’t it?

MR. LEHRER: It’s okay. It’s great.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s okay.

MR. LEHRER: Great, no problem. As long as you all don’t have a problem, I don’t have a problem.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: That’s good.

MR. LEHRER: Because we’re still on the economy. We’re going to come back to taxes, and we’re going to move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too. But go ahead, sir.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You bet. President, you’re — Mr. President, you’re absolutely right, which is that with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half — of all the people who work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one-quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is to take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.

Now, I talked to a guy who has a very small business. He’s in the electronics business in St. Louis. He has four employees. He said he and his son calculated how much they pay in taxes — federal income tax, federal payroll tax, state income tax, state sales tax, state property tax, gasoline tax. It added up to well over 50 percent of what they earned. And your plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35 percent to 40 percent. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs.

I don’t want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions — the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way. Get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions to create more jobs, because there’s nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. That’s by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.

THE PRESIDENT: Jim, you may want to move on to another topic, but I would just say this to the American people: If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for — $7 trillion — just to give you a sense, over 10 years, that’s more than our entire defense budget — and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney’s plan may work for you.

But I think math, common sense, and our history shows us that’s not a recipe for job growth. Look, we’ve tried this — we’ve tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney is talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. And we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years. We ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Bill Clinton tried the approach that I’m talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well. So in some ways we’ve got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans. And I believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they’ve got some money in their pockets, and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we’re not blowing up the deficit.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: The President began this segment, so I think I get the last word. So I’m going to take it.

MR. LEHRER: You’re going to get the first part in the next segment.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word of that segment — well, I hope — let me just make this comment.

MR. LEHRER: That’s not how it works.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Let me repeat what I said. I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one. So you may keep referring to the $5 trillion tax cut, but that’s not my plan.

Number two, let’s look at history. My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time, so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working. My priority is putting people back to work in America. They’re suffering in this country.

And we talk about evidence. Look at the evidence of the last four years. It’s absolutely extraordinary. We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country. It’s just — we’ve got — when the President took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today; economic growth this year slower than last year; and last year slower than the year before. Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let’s talk — we’re still on the economy. This is theoretically now a second segment, still on the economy, and specifically on what to do about the federal deficit, the federal debt. And the question — you each have two minutes on this. And Governor Romney, you go first because the President went first on segment one.

And the question is this: What are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Good, I’m glad you raised that, and it’s a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue. I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to passed on to the next generation, and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives. And the amount of debt we’re adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral.

So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number three is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes and you can get the job done that way.

The President would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth, and you can never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. Obamacare is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect.

THE PRESIDENT: I like it.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Okay, good. So I’ll get rid of that. I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.

Number two, I’ll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to the state.

Number three, I’ll make government more efficient and cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.

This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget. The President said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it — trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The President has put in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior Presidents combined.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, two minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: When I walked into the Oval Office I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me, and we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card, two tax cuts that were not paid for, and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for, and then a massive economic crisis.

And despite that, what we’ve said is, yes, we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we didn’t slip into a Great Depression, but what we’ve also said it let’s make sure that we are cutting out those things that are not helping us grow. So 77 government programs, everything from aircrafts that the Air Force had ordered but weren’t working very well, 18 government programs for education that were well intentioned but weren’t helping kids learn.

We went after medical fraud in Medicare and Medicaid very aggressively, more aggressively than ever before, and have saved tens of billions of dollars — $50 billion of waste taken out of the system. And I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget. That’s the largest cut in the discretionary domestic budget since Dwight Eisenhower.

Now, we all know that we’ve got to do more, and so I put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It’s on a website, you can look at all the numbers — what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut we ask for $1 of additional revenue paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

Governor Romney earlier mentioned the Bowles-Simpson commission. Well, that’s how the commission — bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward, suggested we have to do it — in a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. And this is a major difference that Governor Romney and I have. Let me just finish this point because you’re looking for contrast.

When Governor Romney stood on a stage with other Republican candidates for the nomination, and he was asked, would you take $10 of spending cuts for just $1 of revenue? And he said no. Now, if you take such an unbalanced approach, then that means you are going to be gutting our investments in schools and education. It means that — Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively, this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities. And that is not a right strategy for us to move forward.

MR. LEHRER: Way over the two minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: Sorry.

MR. LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles? Will you support Simpson-Bowles?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the President should have grabbed that.

MR. LEHRER: I mean do you support Simpson-Bowles?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson-Bowles. But in my view, the President should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it, and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now — a $4 trillion plan —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But you’ve been — but you’ve been President four years —

THE PRESIDENT: — a balanced —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You’ve been President four years. You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later; we still have trillion-dollar deficits. The CBO says we’ll have a trillion-dollar deficit each of the next four years. If you’re reelected we’ll get to a trillion-dollar debt. But you have said before you’d cut the deficit in half. And I love this idea of $4 trillion in cuts — you found $4 trillion of ways to reduce or to get closer to a balanced budget, except we still show trillion-dollar deficits every year. That doesn’t get the job done.

Let me come back and say, why is that I don’t want to raise taxes? Why don’t I want to raise taxes on people? And actually you said it. Back in 2010, you said, look, I’m going to extend the tax policies that we have. Now, I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone because when the economy is growing slow like this, when we’re in recession, you shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone. Well, the economy is still going slow. As a matter of fact, it’s growing much more slowly now than when you made that statement. And so if you believe the same thing, you just don’t want to raise taxes on people.

And the reality is, it’s not just wealthy people — you mentioned Donald Trump — it’s not just Donald Trump you’re taxing. It’s all those businesses that employ one-quarter of the workers in America, these small businesses that are taxed as individuals. You raise taxes and you kill jobs. That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.

I’ll make one more point.

MR. LEHRER: Let’s let him answer the taxes thing for a moment.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Okay.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve had this discussion before —

MR. LEHRER: No, about the idea that in order to reduce the deficit there has to be revenue in addition to cuts.

THE PRESIDENT: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He’s ruled out revenue.

MR. LEHRER: Is that —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Absolutely. Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That’s how we get growth and how we balance the budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you’ll never get there. You never balance the budget by raising taxes. Spain — Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We’re now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don’t want to go down the path of Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they’re working.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. President, you’re saying in order to get the job done, it’s got to be balanced.

THE PRESIDENT: If we’re serious, we’ve got to take a balanced, responsible approach. And by the way, this is not just when it comes to individual taxes. Let’s talk about corporate taxes. Now, I’ve identified areas where we can right away make a change that I believe would actually help the economy. The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don’t get. Now, does anybody think that Exxon Mobil needs some extra money when they’re making money every time you go to the pump?

Why wouldn’t we want to eliminate that? Why wouldn’t we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it.

When it comes to corporate taxes, Governor Romney has said he wants to in a revenue-neutral way close loopholes, deductions — he hasn’t identified which ones they are — but thereby bring down the corporate rate. Well, I want to do the same thing, but I’ve actually identified how we can do that. And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense. And all that raises revenue.

And so if we take a balanced approach, what that then allows us to do is also to help young people, the way we already have during my administration, make sure that they can afford to go to college. It means that the teacher that I met in Las Vegas, a wonderful young lady, who describes to me she’s got 42 kids in her class. The first two weeks, she’s got some of them sitting on the floor until finally they get reassigned. They’re using textbooks that are 10 years old. That is not a recipe for growth. That’s not how America was built.

And so budgets reflect choices. Ultimately, we’re going to have to make some decisions. And if we’re asking for no revenue, then that means that we’ve got to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff. And the magnitude of the tax cuts that you’re talking about, Governor, would end up resulting in severe hardship for people, but more importantly, would not help us grow.

As I indicated before, when you talk about shifting Medicaid to states, we’re talking about potentially a 30-percent cut in Medicaid over time. Now, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is numbers on a sheet of paper. But if we’re talking about a family who’s got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that’s a big problem. And governors are creative, there’s no doubt about it. But they’re not creative enough to make up for 30 percent of revenue on something like Medicaid. What ends up happening is some people end up not getting help.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Jim, we’ve gone on a lot of topics there. And so it’s going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools —

MR. LEHRER: Come back to Medicaid, yes.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: — to oil to tax breaks and companies going overseas. So let’s go through them one by one.

First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it’s actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that’s been in place for a hundred years.

THE PRESIDENT: It’s time to end it.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green-energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil, actually those $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

But you know if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why, that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive if you get that rate down to 25 percent. But don’t forget, you put $90 billion — like 50 years’ worth of breaks — into solar and wind — to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers. So this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure.

The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas — look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. But the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.

And finally, Medicaid to states — I’m not quite sure where that came in except this, which is I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year plus inflation, plus 1 percent. And then, you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.

And I remember as a governor, when this idea was floated by Tommy Thompson, the governors — Republican and Democrats — said, please let us do that. We can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor.

One of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. Don’t have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of Medicaid they have to have. Let states do this. And, by the way, if a state gets in trouble, well, we could step in and see if we could find a way to help them.

MR. LEHRER: Let’s go.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government.

MR. LEHRER: We’re going on — still on the economy, but another part of it. All right, this is segment three, the economy. Entitlements, first answer goes to you — two minutes, Mr. President. Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?

THE PRESIDENT: I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.

But I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare, and then talk about Medicare because that’s the big driver of our deficits right now.

My grandmother, some of you know, helped to raise me — my grandparents did. My grandfather died a while back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected President. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up — only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare.

She had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. And that’s the perspective I bring when I think about what’s called entitlements. The name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who’ve worked hard, like my grandmother, and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this.

So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term. And in Medicare, what we did was we said we are going to have to bring down the costs if we’re going to deal with our long-term deficits, but to do that let’s look where some of the money is going — $716 billion we were able to save from the Medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, by making sure that we weren’t overpaying providers, and using that money we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600, and we were also able to make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money throughout the system.

So the way for us to deal with Medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. When it comes to Social Security, as I said, you don’t need a major structural change in order to make sure that Social Security is there for the future.

MR. LEHRER: We’ll follow up on this. First, Governor Romney, you have two minutes on Social Security and entitlements.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, Jim, our seniors depend on these programs, and I know any time we talk about entitlements people become concerned that something is going to happen that’s going to change their life for the worse. And the answer is, neither the President, nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near-retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you’re 60 or around 60 or older, you don’t need to listen any further.

But for younger people we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring — oh, I just thought about one, and that is in fact I was wrong when I said the President isn’t proposing any changes for current retirees. In fact, he is on Medicare. On Social Security he’s not. But on Medicare, for current retirees, he’s cutting $716 billion from the program — now, he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers, actually, just going to them and saying we’re going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody is going to get a lower rate. That saying we’re cutting the rates. Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won’t take any more Medicare patients under that scenario. We also have 50 percent of doctors who say they won’t take more Medicare patients.

We have 4 million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts. I can’t understand how you can cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients in Medicare. Now, you point out, well, we’re putting some back, we’re going to give a better prescription program. That’s $1 for every $15 you’ve cut. They’re smart enough to know that’s not a good trade.

I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare. By the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake.

With regards to young people coming along, I’ve got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it’s important for Governor Romney to present this plan that he says will only affect folks in the future. And the essence of the plan is that you would turn Medicare into a voucher program. It’s called Premium Support, but it’s understood to be a voucher program.

MR. LEHRER: And you don’t support that?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t. And let me explain why.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Again, that’s for future people —

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: — not for current retirees.

THE PRESIDENT: So if you’re 54 or 55, you might want to listen, because this will affect you.

The idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, is that we would give a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance. The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year.

Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it. But there’s still a problem, because what happens is those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors. They recruit them, leaving the older, sicker seniors in Medicare, and every health care economist who looks at it says over time what will happen is the traditional Medicare system will collapse. And then what you’ve got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care.

So I don’t think vouchers are the right way to go. And this is not my — only my opinion. AARP thinks that the savings that we obtained from Medicare bolstered the system, lengthened the Medicare trust fund by eight years. Benefits were not affected at all.

And ironically, if you repeal Obamacare — and I have become fond of this term, Obamacare — (laughter) — if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care. They’re now going to have to be paying co-pays for basic checkups that can keep them healthier. And the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren’t making seniors any healthier. And I don’t think that’s the right approach when it comes to making sure that Medicare is stronger over the long term.

MR. LEHRER: We’ll talk about — specifically about health care in a moment. But do you support the voucher system, Governor?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare. And the President supports taking $716 billion out of that program.

MR. LEHRER: What about the voucher —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: So that’s number one. Number two is, for people coming along that are young, what I’d do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan — their choice. They get to — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them. So they don’t have to pay additional money, no additional $6,000 — that’s not going to happen. They’ll have at least two plans.

And by the way, if the government can be as efficient as the private sector and offer premiums that are as low as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional Medicare. Or they’ll be able to get a private plan. I know my own view is I’d rather have a private plan. I know I’d just as soon not have the government telling me what kind of health care I get. I’d rather be able to have an insurance company. If I don’t like them, I can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. Let people make their own choice.

The other thing we have to do to save Medicare, we have to have the benefits high for those that are low-income. But for higher-income people, we’re going to have to lower some of the benefits. We have to make sure this program is there for the long term.

That’s the plan that I put forward. And by the way, the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or Senator Wyden, who is a co-author of the bill with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. This is an idea that’s been around a long time, which is saying, hey, let’s see if we can’t get competition into the Medicare world so that people can get the choice of different plans at lower cost, better quality. I believe in competition.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: Jim, if I can just respond very quickly. First of all, every study has shown that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance does, which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it. And private insurers have to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that, that’s what they do. And so you’ve got higher administrative costs, plus profit on top of that, and if you are going to save any money through what Governor Romney is proposing, what has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere.

And when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies. And over time, if traditional Medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they’re stuck. And this is the reason why AARP has said that your plan would weaken Medicare substantially. And that’s why they were supportive of the approach that we took.

One last point I want to make: We do have to lower the cost of health care, not just in Medicare, but —

MR. LEHRER: We’ll talk about that in a minute.

THE PRESIDENT: — but overall.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And so —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: That’s a big topic. Can we stay on Medicare?

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a separate topic?

MR. LEHRER: Yes, we’re going to — yes, I want to get to it.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m sorry.

MR. LEHRER: But all I want to do is very quickly before we leave the economy —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Let’s get back to Medicare. Let’s get back to Medicare.

MR. LEHRER: Governor —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: The President said that the government can provide the service at lower cost and without a profit.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: If that’s the case, then it will always be the best product that people can purchase.

MR. LEHRER: Wait a minute, Governor. Wait a minute.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But my experience — my experience is the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at a lower cost.

MR. LEHRER: Can we — can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice, a clear choice between the two of you on Medicare?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: All right. So, to finish quickly, briefly on the economy, what is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much? And in your case, Mr. President, is there — should there be more? Beginning with you — this is not a new two-minute segment. Just start, and we’ll go for a few minutes, and then we’re going to go to health care, okay?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have — I needed to know the regulations. I needed them there. You could have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans. You have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become excessive.

MR. LEHRER: Is it excessive now, do you think?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: In some places, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Like where? Let me know.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Other places no. It can become out of date. And what’s happened with some of the legislation that’s been passed during the President’s term, you’ve seen regulation become excessive and it’s hurt the — it’s hurt the economy.

Let me give you an example. Dodd-Frank was passed, and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as “too big to fail,” and they’re effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that’s been given to New York banks I’ve ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There have been — 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd-Frank. So there’s one example.

Here’s another. In Dodd-Frank, it says if —

MR. LEHRER: You want to repeal Dodd-Frank?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I would repeal it and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation, and there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world. You need transparency. You need to have leverage limits for institutional —

MR. LEHRER: Well, there’s a specific —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But let’s — but let’s mention —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Let me mention the other one. Let’s talk the other big one.

MR. LEHRER: No, let’s not.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Okay.

MR. LEHRER: Let’s let him respond — let’s let him respond to this specific on Dodd-Frank and what the Governor just said.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think this is a great example. The reason we have been in such a enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. Now, it wasn’t just on Wall Street. You had loan officers that were giving loans and mortgages that really shouldn’t have been given because the folks didn’t qualify. You had people who were borrowing money to buy a house that they couldn’t afford. You had credit agencies that were stamping these as A-1, great investments when they weren’t. But you also had banks making money hand over fist, churning out products that the bankers themselves didn’t even understand, in order to make big profits, but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable.

So what did we do? We stepped in and had the toughest reforms on Wall Street since the 1930s. We said you’ve got — banks, you’ve got to raise your capital requirements. You can’t engage in some of this risky behavior that is putting Main Street at risk. We’re going to make sure that you’ve got to have a living will, so we can know how you’re going to wind things down if you make a bad bet so we don’t have other taxpayer bailouts.

In the meantime, by the way, we also made sure that all the help that we provided those banks was paid back — every single dime — with interest.

Now, Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, and I appreciate and it appears we’ve got some agreement that a marketplace, to work, has to have some regulation. But in the past, Governor Romney has said he just wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. Roll it back. And so the question is does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate. But that’s not what I believe.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Sorry, Jim, but that’s just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That’s why I’d have regulation. But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn’t thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.

Let me mention another regulation in Dodd-Frank. You say we were giving mortgages to people who weren’t qualified. That’s exactly right. It’s one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties — except they didn’t ever go on to define what a qualified mortgage was. It’s been two years. We don’t know what a qualified mortgage is yet.

So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It’s hurt the housing market, because Dodd-Frank didn’t anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It’s not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn’t come out with a clear regulation.

I will make sure we don’t hurt the functioning of our marketplace and our businesses, because I want to bring back housing and get good jobs.

MR. LEHRER: All right. I think we have another clear difference between the two of you. Now let’s move to health care, where I know there is a clear difference, and that has to do with the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare. And it’s a two-minute new segment, and that means two minutes each. And you go first, Governor Romney. You want it repealed. You want the Affordable Care Act repealed. Why?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I sure do. Well, in part it comes, again, from my experience. I was in New Hampshire; a woman came to me and she said, look, I can’t afford insurance for myself or my son. I met a couple in Appleton, Wisconsin, and they said, we’re thinking of dropping our insurance — we can’t afford it. And the number of small businesses I’ve gone to that are saying they’re dropping insurance because they can’t afford it — the cost of health care is just prohibitive, and we’ve got to deal with cost.

And unfortunately, when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost. And as a matter of fact, when the President ran for office, he said that by this year he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a family. Instead, it’s gone up by that amount. So it’s expensive. Expensive things hurt families. So that’s one reason I don’t want it.

Second reason, it cuts $716 billion from Medicare to pay for it. I want to put that money back in Medicare for our seniors.

Number three, it puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.

Fourth, there was a survey done of small businesses across the country. It said, what’s been the effect of Obamacare on your hiring plans? And three-quarters of them said, it makes us less likely to hire people. I just don’t know how the President could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.

And the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state — craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state, and then let’s focus on getting the cost down for people rather than raising it with a $2,500 additional premium.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, the argument against repeal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, four years ago when I was running for office, I was traveling around and having those same conversations that Governor Romney talks about. And it wasn’t just that small businesses were seeing costs skyrocket and they couldn’t get affordable coverage even if they wanted to provide it to their employees. It wasn’t just that this was the biggest driver of our federal deficit, our overall health care cost. But it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick — millions of families all across the country.

If they had a preexisting condition, they might not be able to get coverage at all. If they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit. And so, as a consequence, they’re paying their premiums; somebody gets really sick, lo and behold, they don’t have enough money to pay the bills because the insurance companies say that they’ve hit the limit.

So we did work on this, alongside working on jobs, because this is part of making sure that middle-class families are secure in this country. And let me tell you exactly what Obamacare did. Number one, if you’ve got health insurance it doesn’t mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. They can’t impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on your insurance plan until you’re 26 years old. And it also says that you’re going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care.

Number two, if you don’t have health insurance, we’re essentially setting up a group plan that allows you to benefit from group rates that are typically 18 percent lower than if you’re out there trying to get insurance on the individual market.

Now, the last point I’d make before —

MR. LEHRER: Two minutes is up, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think — I had five seconds before you interrupted me. (Laughter.) The irony is that we’ve seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state, to set up what is essentially the identical model. And as consequence, people are covered there. It hasn’t destroyed jobs. And as a consequence, we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs, as opposed to just leaving millions of people out in the cold.

MR. LEHRER: Your five seconds went away a long time ago. (Laughter.)

All right, Governor, tell the President directly why you think what he just said is wrong about Obamacare.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I did with my first statement —

THE PRESIDENT: You did.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: — I’ll go on.

THE PRESIDENT: Please elaborate.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I’ll elaborate — exactly right. (Laughter.)

First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary — elected a Republican senator — to stop Obamacare, you pushed it through anyway. So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer, and drove it through.

What we did in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together. Two hundred legislators in my legislature — only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished.

What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes. You’ve raised them by a trillion dollars under Obamacare. We didn’t cut Medicare — of course, we don’t have Medicare — but we didn’t cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive. We didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted.

Right now the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company, of American Businesses, said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.

So for those reasons — for the tax, for Medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance — this is why the American people don’t want Medicare — don’t want Obamacare. It’s why Republicans said, do not do this. And the Republicans had a plan. They put a plan out. They put a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside. I think something this big, this important, has to be done on a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a President who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.

THE PRESIDENT: Governor Romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. This was a bipartisan idea. In fact, it was a Republican idea. And Governor Romney, at the beginning of this debate, wrote and said, what we did in Massachusetts could be a model for the nation.

And I agree that the Democratic legislators in Massachusetts might have given some advice to Republicans in Congress about how to cooperate, but the fact of the matter is we used the same advisors and they say it’s the same plan.

When Governor Romney talks about this board, for example — unelected board that we’ve created — what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall. Because there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis. One is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured, and let them fend for themselves; to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they just give up and their workers are no longer getting insured — and that’s been the trend line. Or alternatively, we can figure out how do we make the cost of care more effective. And there are ways of doing it.

So at Cleveland Clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care, cheaper than average. And the reason they do is because they do some smart things. They say if a patient is coming in, let’s get all the doctors together at once, do one test, instead of having the patient run around with 10 tests. Let’s make sure that we’re providing preventive care, so we’re catching the onset of something like diabetes. Let’s pay providers on the basis of performance, as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they’ve engaged in.

Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.

And the fact of the matter is that when Obamacare is fully implemented, we’re going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up, it’s true, but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you’re already getting a rebate.

Let me make one last point. Governor Romney says we should replace it — I’m just going to repeal it, but we can replace it with something. But the problem is he hasn’t described what exactly we’d replace it with, other than saying we’re going to leave it to the states. But the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he’s offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there’s no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody who has got a preexisting condition be able to finally buy insurance. In fact, it’s estimated that by repealing Obamacare, you’re looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at a time when it’s vitally important.

MR. LEHRER: Let’s let the Governor explain what you would do if Obamacare is repealed. How would you replace it? What do you have in mind?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, actually, it’s a lengthy description, but number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That’s already offered in the private marketplace. You don’t have the government mandate that for that to occur.

But let’s come back to something the President and I agree on, which is the key task we have in health care is to get the cost down so it’s more affordable for families. And then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government — an unelected board, appointed board — who are going to decide what kind of treatments you ought to have.

THE PRESIDENT: No —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the costs than the government will ever be.

Your example of the Cleveland Clinic is my case in point, along with several others I could describe. This is the private market. These are small — these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how to do better and better jobs.

I used to consult to businesses — excuse me, to hospitals and to health care providers. I was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the American people. In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don’t need to have a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. We instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on target such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job for keeping costs down. And that’s happening — Intermountain Health Care does it superbly well. Mayo Clinic is doing it superbly well; Cleveland clinic, others.

But the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have. That’s the wrong way to go. The private market and individual responsibility always work best.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me point out, first of all, this board that we’re talking about can’t make decisions about what treatments are given. That’s explicitly prohibited in the law.

But let’s go back to what Governor Romney indicated — that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. Well actually, Governor, that isn’t what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what’s already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can’t deny you if it’s been under 90 days.

But that’s already the law. And that doesn’t help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. There’s a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn’t a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that, insurers, you’ve got to take everybody. Now, that also means that you’ve got more customers.

But when Governor Romney says that he’ll replace it with something, but can’t detail how it will be, in fact, replaced — and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts was because there isn’t a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions problem — it just reminds me of — he says that he’s going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. That’s how it’s going to be paid for, but we don’t know the details. He says that he’s going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we don’t know exactly which ones. He won’t tell us. He now says he’s going to replace Obamacare and assure that all the good things that are in it are going to be in there and you don’t have to worry.

And at some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No. The reason is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of preexisting conditions — these are tough problems and we’ve got to make choices — and the choices we’ve made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle-class families all across the country.

MR. LEHRER: We’re going to move to —

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: No, I have to respond to that — which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and lay down a piece of legislation and say it’s my way or the highway, I don’t get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You’ve said the same thing — you’re going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base.

Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families, and I’m going to work together with Congress to say, okay, what are the various ways we can bring down deductions, for instance. One way, for instance, would be to have a single number — make up a number — $25,000, $50,000 — anybody could have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That’s one way one could do it.

One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model, and tax deduction by deduction and make differences that way. There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth.

And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my preexisting condition plan. You obviously studied up on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with preexisting conditions; that’s part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state. And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.

MR. LEHRER: That is a terrific segue to our next segment, and it’s the role of government. And let’s see, role of government, and it is — you are first on this, Mr. President.

And the question is this: Do you believe — both of you, but you have the first two minutes on this, Mr. President — do you believe there’s a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I definitely think there are differences. The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function. And as Commander-in-Chief, that is something that I have worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.

But I also believe that government has the capacity — the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed. Look, the genius of America is the free enterprise system and freedom, and the fact that people can go out there and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions. But as Abraham Lincoln understood, there are also some things we do better together.

So in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, let’s help to finance the Trans-Continental Railroad. Let’s start the National Academy of Sciences. Let’s start land grant colleges — because we want to give these gateways of opportunity for all Americans — because if all Americans are getting opportunity, we’re all going to be better off. That doesn’t restrict people’s freedom; that enhances it.

And so what I’ve tried to do as President is to apply those same principles. When it comes to education, what I’ve said is we’ve got to reform schools that are not working. We use something called Race to the Top. It wasn’t a top-down approach, Governor. What we said is to states, we’ll give you more money if you initiate reforms. And as a consequence you have 46 states around the country who have made a real difference.

But what I’ve also said is let’s hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. And hard-pressed states right now can’t all do that. In fact, we’ve seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years, and Governor Romney doesn’t think we need more teachers.

I do, because I think that that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help. It can’t do it all, but it can make a difference. And as a consequence, we’ll have a better-trained workforce, and that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we’ve got a skilled workforce.

MR. LEHRER: Two minutes, Governor, on the role of government. Your view?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools — great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.

The role of government: Look behind us — the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty: We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.

Second, in that line that says, “We are endowed by our Creator with our rights,” I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another. We’re a nation that believes that we are all children of the same God, and we care for those that have difficulties. Those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled, we care for them. And we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams, and it’s not working.

And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work. We know that the path we’re taking is not working. It’s time for a new path.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let’s go through some specifics in terms of what — how each of you views the role of government. Education — does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in America?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, the primary responsibility for education is, of course, at the state and local level. But the federal government also can play a very important role. And I agree with Secretary Arne Duncan, some ideas he’s put forward on Race to the Top — not all of them, but some of them I agree with, and congratulate him for pursuing that. The federal government can get local and state schools to do a better job.

My own view, by the way, is I’ve added to that. I happen to believe — I want the kids that are getting federal dollars from IDEA or Title I — these are disabled kids or poor kids — or lower-income kids, rather — I want them to be able to go to the school of their choice. So all federal funds, instead of going to the state or to the school district, I’d have go, if you will, follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their student.

MR. LEHRER: How do you see the federal government’s responsibility to, as I say, to improve the quality of public education in this country?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve indicated, I think that it has a significant role to play. Through our Race to the Top program, we’ve worked with Republican and Democratic governors to initiate major reforms, and they’re having an impact right now.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think you have a difference with your views and those of Governor Romney about education and the federal government?

THE PRESIDENT: This is where budgets matter, because budgets reflect choices. So when Governor Romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it we’re having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference.

His running mate, Congressman Ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that Governor Romney has talked about. And it wasn’t very detailed — this seems to be a trend — but what it did do is to, if you extrapolated how much money we’re talking about, you’d look at cutting the education budget by up to 20 percent.

When it comes to community colleges, we are seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. And one of the things I suspect Governor Romney and I probably agree on is getting businesses to work with community colleges so that they’re setting up their training programs —

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Governor?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me just finish the point.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Oh, sure. Oh, yes. It’s, by the way, going very well in my state, by the way. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I suspect it will be a small agreement — where they’re partnering so that they’re designing training programs and people who are going through them know that there’s a job waiting for them if they complete it. That makes a big difference, but that requires some federal support.

Let me just say one final example. When it comes to making college affordable, whether it’s two-year or four-year, one of the things that I did as President was we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, even though the loans were guaranteed so there was no risk for the banks or the lenders. But they were taking billions out of the system. And we said why not cut out the middleman? And as a consequence, what we’ve been able to do is to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans.

And this is an example of where our priorities make a difference. Governor Romney, I genuinely believe cares about education, but when he tells a student that you should borrow money from your parents to go to college, that indicates the degree to which there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that folks like myself, folks like Michelle, kids probably who attend the University of Denver just don’t have that option. And for us to be able to make sure that they’ve got that opportunity and they can walk through that door — that is vitally important — not just to those kids; it’s how we’re going to grow this economy over the long term.

MR. LEHRER: We’re running out of time, gentlemen, so I think you have a chance to respond to that. Yes, Mr. Governor.

THE PRESIDENT: He has a chance.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the President, to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts, all right? I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I’m planning on continuing to grow, so I’m not planning on making changes there.

But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into green jobs. And, look, I’m all in favor of green energy. Ninety billion — that would have hired two million teachers. Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them — of the ones that have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happen to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

Look, the right course for America’s government — we’re talking about the role of government — is not to become the economic player picking winners and losers, telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that has existed in this country for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world. The right answer for government is to say, how do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective? How do we get schools to be more competitive?

Let’s grade them. I propose we grade our schools, so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a school that’s being more successful. I don’t want to cut our commitment to education. I want to make it more effective and efficient.

And by the way, I’ve had that experience. I don’t just talk about it. I’ve been there. Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation. This is not because I didn’t have commitment to education. It’s because I care about education for all of our kids.

MR. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen —

THE PRESIDENT: Jim, I —

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me, one — excuse me, sir. We’ve got — we barely have three minutes left. I’m not going to grade the two of you and say your answers have been too long or I’ve done a poor job —

THE PRESIDENT: You’ve done a great job, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Oh, well, no. But the fact is government — the role of government and governing — we’ve lost a pod, in other words. So we only have three minutes left in the debate before we go to your closing statements. And so I want to ask, finally here — and remember, we’ve got three minutes total time here. And the question is this: Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected, in your case — if reelected, in your case — what would you do about that? Governor?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Jim, I had the great experience — it didn’t seem like it at the time — of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out — from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done. We drove our schools to be number one in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what would you do as President?

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: As President, I will sit down on day one

— actually, the day after I get elected, I’ll sit down with leaders, the Democrat leaders as well as Republican leaders, as we did in my state — we met every Monday for a couple of hours, talked about the issues and the challenges in our state, in that case. We have to work on a collaborative basis, not because we’re going to compromise our principles, but because there’s common ground.

And the challenges America faces right now — look, the reason I’m in this race is there are people that are really hurting today in this country. We face — this deficit could crush the future generations. What’s happening in the Middle East — there are developments around the world that are of real concern. And Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need to have leadership — leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done, and could not care less if it’s a Republican or a Democrat. I’ve done it before. I’ll do it again.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think Governor Romney is going to have a busy first day, because he’s also going to repeal Obamacare, which will not be very popular among Democrats as you’re sitting down with them.

But, look, my philosophy has been I will take ideas from everybody — Democrat or Republican — as long as they’re advancing the cause of making middle-class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. That’s how we cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. That’s how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn’t advancing that cause. That’s how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world.

That’s how we repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That’s how we ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. And that’s how we’re going to wind down the war in Afghanistan. That’s how we went after al Qaeda and bin Laden.

So we’ve seen progress even under Republican control of the House of Representatives. But, ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader is, A, being able to describe exactly what it is that you intend to do — not just saying I’ll sit down, you have to have a plan. Number two, what’s important is occasionally you’ve got to say no to folks both in your own party and in the other party.

And, yes, we had some fights between me and the Republicans when they fought back against us reining in the excesses of Wall Street — absolutely — because that was a fight that needed to be had. When we were fighting about whether or not we were going to make sure that Americans had more security with their health insurance and they said no — yes, that was a fight that we needed to have.

And so part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you are for, but also being willing to say no to some things. And I’ve got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party.

MR. LEHRER: That brings us to closing statements. There was a coin toss. Governor Romney, you won the toss and you elected to go last. So you have a closing two minutes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Jim, I want to thank you. And I want to thank Governor Romney, because I think this was a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it. And I want to thank the University of Denver.

Four years ago, we were going through a major crisis. And, yet, my faith and confidence in the American future is undiminished. And the reason is because of its people. Because of the woman I met in North Carolina who decided at 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter, and now has a job from that new training that she’s gotten. Because of a company in Minnesota who was willing to give up salaries and perks for their executives to make sure that they didn’t lay off workers during a recession. The auto workers that you meet in Toledo or Detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world, not just because of a paycheck, but because it gives them that sense of pride that they’re helping to build America.

And so the question now is, how do we build on those strengths? And everything that I’ve tried to do, and everything that I’m now proposing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system or developing American energy, or making sure that we’re closing loopholes for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses and companies that are creating jobs here in the United States, or closing our deficit in a responsible, balanced way that allow us to invest in our future — all those things are designed to make sure that the American people — their genius, their grit, their determination is channeled and they have an opportunity to succeed, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is getting a fair share — everybody is doing a fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules.

Four years ago, I said that I’m not a perfect man and I wouldn’t be a perfect President. And that’s probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I’ve kept. But I also promised that I’d fight every single day on behalf of the American people and the middle class, and all those who are striving to get into the middle class. I’ve kept that promise. And if you’ll vote for me, then I promise I’ll fight just as hard in a second term.

MR. LEHRER: Governor Romney, your two-minute closing.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim, and Mr. President. And thank you for tuning in this evening.

This is an important election, and I’m concerned about America. I’m concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years. I know this is bigger than an election about the two of us as individuals. It’s bigger than our respective parties. It’s an election about the course of America — what kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children.

And there really are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening. And over the course of this month we’re going to have two more presidential debates and a vice-presidential debate — we’ll talk about those paths. But they lead in very different directions. And it’s not just looking to our words that you have to take into evidence of where they go; you can look at the record.

There’s no question in my mind that if the President were to be reelected you’ll continue to a see a middle-class squeeze, with incomes going down and prices going up. I’ll get incomes up again. You’ll see chronic unemployment. We’ve had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent. If I’m President, I will create — help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes.

If the President is reelected, Obamacare will be fully installed. In my view, that’s going to mean a whole different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. Many will lose it. You’re going to see health premiums go up by some $2,500 per family. If I’m elected, we won’t have Obamacare. We’ll put in place the kind of principles that I put in my place in my own state, and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured, and we’ll focus on getting the cost of health care down.

If the President were to be reelected, you’re going to see a $716 billion cut to Medicare. You’ll have 4 million people who will lose Medicare advantage. You’ll have hospitals and providers that will no longer accept Medicare patients. I’ll restore that $716 billion to Medicare.

And finally, military. If the President is reelected, you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military. The Secretary of Defense has said these would be even devastating. I will not cut our commitment to our military. I will keep America strong and get America’s middle class working again.

Thank you, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. President.

The next debate will be the vice-presidential event on Thursday, October 11th, at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. For now, from the University of Denver, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. (Applause.)

END 8:33 P.M. MDT

Read Full Post »

Myths vs Realities of Pentagon Spending | Research | Center for International Policy.

Read Full Post »

If you were out chopping wood to heat your house, after the weather we have had, you might have missed the tie-in of the Sandra Fluke story leading up to today’s vote to table the Blunt Bomb otherwise known as S.1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011². Last night, while trying to fall asleep, I came upon Nancy Pelosi’s pronouncement condemning Rush Limbaugh’s demented misogyny directed toward Ms. Fluke. I sure hope college student Fluke sues the gizzard out of Limbaugh and Clear Channel Vision and all those 600 stations and Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners.

Keep in mind though, Limbaugh is just the potty-mouth lap dog for those other paternalists who wouldn’t even let her speak at their hearing. I loved that the Pelosi site linked to this Think Progress page posted by Alex Seitz-Wald:

…[ While it¹s probably not even worth engaging with Limbaugh on the facts, Fluke¹s testimony was about a friend who is a lesbian and needed birth control for non-sexual medical reasons, so he¹s only wrong about three times over, and offensive many more times over than that….]

Clear Channel is to be blamed for this tripe. This kind of free speech does not deserve a 400 million dollar reward. That’s 50 million a year, and since his 8 year contract runs till 2016 we are going to be subjected to it for a while, unless we do something. COMPLAIN!!! BOYCOTT THE SERVICE!!

Clear Channel is owned by two groups. The first is Bain Capital which over the years has leveraged buy-outs on a lot of big name companies.

Founders for Bain Capital include:

Mitt Romney

T. Coleman Andrews III

Eric Kriss

Clear Channel’s other group is Thomas H. Lee Partners,(THL) which among other numerous assets, recently bought Warner Music Group. They also leverage big buy-outs.

The top three people for THL are:

Vice Chairman and Managing Director David Harkins
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Massachusetts/Boston/david-v-harkins/30357908 .aspx

Vice Chairman Scott Schoen

Co-President Scott Sperling
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Massachusetts/Boston/scott-sperling-P7833817. aspx

Sex is for two. Contraception is for humans. If there weren’t any men, women wouldn’t need it.

By the way, I hope you noticed who was at the top of the Bain list. No wonder he wasn’t sure how to answer.

Read Full Post »

I’m spending an inordinate amount of time in the “Asphodel Meadows”, so I haven’t posted. Hopefully, I’ll find my way out soon. However, I just had to say this regarding an email I received today—

POLITICO Breaking News
————————————————-

President Barack Obama declared that a “transformation” is taking hold in Egypt as reports said President Hosni Mubarak was on the verge of stepping down. “We are witnessing history unfold,” Obama said. “The people of Egypt are calling for change.”

“America will continue to do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt,” he added.

For more information…  http://www.politico.com

First, if there was a buzzword fuzzy employed in the 2008 election, that got my goat, it was the word “Transformation” used by Senator Kerry in the context of describing President Obama’s then active candidacy for President.

So I suppose it’s only appropriate that I should be equally annoyed with Politico’s reported use of the word now.

As we know, when transformation occurs, it can mean there has only been a change in form or appearance, rather than the third larger meaning of change in character. Secondly, transformation is not necessarily good or better, and can be worse; that kind of valuation comes later.

I now hate this word and the generational mythology it encompasses. Gone are the days of the cartoon “Transformers” where change is heroic and the battle is bad versus good.

Second, when Politico reported above that they were quoting Obama in a “genuine transition to democracy”, I wondered about that pronouncement on President Mubarak’s government and his subsequent refusal to step down. In the past Mubarak has espoused democratic principles. At this moment in time, it would be pretty insensitive of the USA to state that his government is not in any way, democratic, even if there is a genuine need for change.

As it turns out, Politico was summarizing or editorializing or something; HERE is the press release from the WH. It’s much more nuanced and neutral.

Are Politico’s quoted statements in the press release video that I can’t load on dial-up? I don’t know.  However, they don’t sound like something HRC’s Dept. of State would have prepared or reviewed. It does seem like the DOS and the Prez would be coordinating closely on the subject of Egypt affairs. Even if it is time for change, words matter.

 

Read Full Post »

On this one, I agree with the Prez. Pass the Disclose Act tomorrow, otherwise known as the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, S.3628,(correction) see file “getdoc.cgi“! Don’t let this Supreme Court Decision stand. Corporations should not have personhood, or the right to donate money without disclosure to elections. It was bad enough last election WITH disclosure.

The White House Blog

President Obama on Citizens United: “Imagine the Power This Will Give Special Interests Over Politicians”

Posted by Jesse Lee on July 26, 2010 at 03:07 PM EDT

With a Senate vote tomorrow on legislation to undo some of the damage from the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the President laid out the stakes in no uncertain terms:

Monday A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit

As pre-announced last month, Hayward’s head is going to be put on the plate for the BP Gulf debacle. If you will pardon the Cold War chuckle, they are sending him HERE in Siberia. Well not quite, the headquarters of TNK-BP was changed to the British Virgin Islands in 2006. However, if he takes the penitent’s job, I see no reason to believe that he will fail to visit the Irtyish River once or twice. TNK-BP announced in January they were aiming to double production. Hayward sounds like just the guy they need. Who needs a river anyway?

BP’s Hayward to Leave as CEO; Russia Job in Works

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11249030

Look at that, China doen’t want to  be left out of the story either!

In counterpoint to our health plans, Japan’s keep producing this:

Japan women’s life expectancy world longest for 25th straight year

Posted : Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:04:50 GMT

By : dpa

Tokyo – Japanese women held the world’s longest life expectancy for the 25th year in row in 2009, with their average life-span hitting a record high of 86.44 years, the government said Monday.

Japanese men’s life expectancy also posted a record high of 79.59 years, but they dropped to fifth in the world from fourth in 2008, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare said in a report.

The extension was attributed to improved treatment of major causes of death among Japanese – cancer, strokes, pneumonia and cardiac disorders.

“If an influenza epidemic does not break out, the life expectancy (of Japanese people) is likely to extend further,” a ministry official was quoted by Kyodo News as saying.

In the men’s list, Qatar topped the men’s list at 81.0 years, followed by Hong Kong at 79.8 years, and Iceland and Switzerland at 79.7 years.

As for women, Japan was followed by Hong Kong at 86.1 years, and France at 84.5 years.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/336496,longest-25th-straight-year.html

As adjunct to a recent comment about the lack of alternatives in political parties over at the Confluence last night, this news arrives from the Denver Post.  Just in case you didn’t know, there is frustration among Repubs as well as Dems. Upsetting TeaPartiers, Tom Tancredo has decided to openly declare his right wing intentions by running for the American Constitution Party. Frankly I like this kind of transparency; Tancredo hasn’t changed, he’s just come out of the closet.

Tancredo will run for governor as American Constitution Party candidate

By Karen Crummy, Denver Post Staff Writer

POSTED: 07/26/2010 08:48:17 AM MDT

UPDATED: 07/26/2010 11:49:11 AM MDT

Tom Tancredo (Denver Post | 2008 file)

[Former Congressman Tom Tancredo is in the race for Colorado governor, he said this morning. “I will officially announce at noon that I will seek the nomination of the constitution party,” Tancredo told the Post….]

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/07/26/tancredo-will-run-for-governor-as-american-constitution-party-candidate/12382/

In case you don’ think they are serious, take a look a t the Wiki link and see how many positions they are seeking in the 2010 election. A few can become a voting block pretty quickly.

At the same time, some over at the Black Agenda are advocating ending the sheep stroll for the Democratic party and going Black, Red And Green.

Black American Politics in the 21st Century: Is It Time For A New Plan?

Wed, 07/14/2010 – 09:28 — Bruce A. Dixon

[We all love and respect our ancestor and freedom fighter Frederick Douglass. But in the 21st century, nobody is trying to imitate his haircut or wear his 19th century clothes. So why is 21st century black America still stuck with Frederick Douglass’s political strategy, 140 years later? And how’s that old stuff working out for us, anyway?…]

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/black-american-politics-21st-century-it-time-new-plan

The Green Party has their own list, and want you to support their local candidates.

Keep a repugnant law on the books, just so the very arrogant and powerful can play God. Then, when the international community calls you on the carpet, blame them and the defenders of the victims.

We have our own problems with the death penalty here in the USA, but for this kind of torture even the Humane Society would have your ass in jail and the key thrown away.

Just who gets to throw these stones anyway? You gotta wonder what it does to the throwers as well. It’s government sponsored Milgrams, only with real consequences:

Attorney of Iranian Condemend(sic. Condemned) to Be Stoned Faces Arrest

Edward Yeranian | Cairo

26 July 2010

Iran has reportedly issued an arrest warrant for the attorney of Sakineh Ashtiani, whose stoning sentence has enraged many in the West.  Iranian authorities apparently detained the wife and brother-in-law of attorney Mohammed Mostafaei, when they were unable to locate him

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Attorney-of-Iranian-Condemend-to-Be-Stoned-Faces-Arrest-99249949.html

Read Full Post »

Update – Hubby was kind enough to print up a few examples of what is going on. See one below. When he put them to pdf, the second column normally on the right of my screen slid down to a separate page, so it looks a little different. However these were taken today July 12th, and so are still on my website. When the viewing with the right hand column in place, the text of my blog is a little smaller and ads are even larger. Google  appears to be placing ads on the basis of  some kind of text tagging.  Thus baby formula was inserted on a blog about kittens, that was intended to be a counterpoint to death in the Gulf.  A shoe ad was attached to the recent Oakland disturbance after the conviction where shoes were stolen. Imagine if I blog about a few politicians what might happen!!

Update – Perhaps many of you already know about these ads, but I have been on WP since 2008 and never saw one of these ads before. Find a comment HERE from Matt, clear back in 2006, discussing the ads and how we won’t see them. It’s anyone’s guess what our sites have supported. At the very least, should we decide to forgo the ad blocks, we ought to be able to see what they are. Matt says in his blog that they got very little feedback when they began the ads. How can we provide feedback to WP if we can’t see the ads?

Update – Bobbie informs me that the cost to keep the ads off my blog is $29.95 a year, not a month.

Update -I just logged out and still did not see the ads on MY computer, so I am pretty peeved right now.

Today I happened to be look at my blog site in my husband’s computer. I was stunned to see Google ads at the bottom my page. I had no idea my puny blog was worthy of that kind of consideration.

I immediately went in search of answers and found this one (Let me know if this link drops. I have a pdf.) from Bobbie Newman.

Bobbie thought that being signed out of  WP makes the Google ad visible. Since Hubby doesn’t have a WordPress account, he isn’t signed in, so this might be true. However, I have been signed out before and failed to notice the ads, so I don’t know for sure if this is the case. I wonder though, how many of us WP bloggers have them and don’t even see each others, because we have a WP account.

I OBJECT to these ads, because:

1) To turn them off requires that we pay WP $29.95 a month.

2) I have no control over the ads that display on my page.

3) I am unable to see them from my computer.

4) The formating is terrible and is bigger than almost anything else on my page.

Honestly, I would have considered the $30 bucks a month, but I don’t like the way this has been handled, so now instead, I will have to consider whether I will continue a blog here. The political ads are coming. I have already seen a Google ad denigrating Barbara Boxer on a web site I would not expect. I hated the way Sodahead and Newsmax banner ads were utilized during the election. It appears Google (And WordPress.) will do the same.

Read Full Post »

Another first – not from the United States. Julia Gillard was voted in as the first woman  Prime Minister of Australia today. She stood unopposed after Kevin Rudd was dumped.

Read Full Post »

What Riverdaughter SAID.

And get rid of the State Caucuses!

Read Full Post »

As we reported on February 28th, Change the Caucus.org was asking folks to take and present a resolution, ending the Texas Two Step, to their precinct conventions on March 2nd.  Yesterday they reported:

“Resolution to Reform the Texas Two Step System Passes Precinct 231 in SD 14 in Travis County”

They are asking anyone else who may have taken and presented the resolution to their precinct to inform them of the results.

In the mean time, Politico has tallied the election results for Governor HERE.

The election is now going to be (D) White against (R) Perry. Take a closer look at the map and note how many folks voted Republican versus Democrat.

Imagine the future.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »