CANDY CROWLEY: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I’m Candy Crowley from CNN’s State of the Union. We are here for the second presidential debate, a town hall sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The Gallup Organization chose 82 uncommitted voters from the New York area. Their questions will drive the night. My goal is to give the conversation direction and to ensure questions get answered.
The questions are known to me and my team only. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen them. I hope to get to as many questions as possible. And because I am the optimistic sort, I’m sure the candidates will oblige by keeping their answers concise and on point. Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up.
The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive; no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort. We will set aside that agreement just this once to welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. (Cheers, sustained applause.)
Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us here tonight. We have a lot of folks who’ve been waiting all day to talk to you, so I want to get right to it. Governor Romney, as you know, you won the coin toss, so the first question will go to you. And I want to turn to a first- time voter, Jeremy Epstein, who has a question for you.
Q: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can — what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
MITT ROMNEY: Thank you, Jeremy. I appreciate your — your question, and — and thank you for being here this evening. And to all of those from Nassau County here that have come, thank you for your time. Thank you to Hofstra University and to Candy Crowley for organizing and leading this — this event. Thank you, Mr. President, also for being part of this — this debate.
Yours question — your question is one that’s being asked by college kids all over this country.
I was in Pennsylvania with someone who’d just graduated. This was in Philadelphia, and she said, I — I — I got my degree. I can’t find a job. I’ve got three part-time jobs. They’re just barely enough to pay for my food and pay for an apartment. I can’t begin to pay back my student loans.
So what we have to do is two things: we have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college and also make sure that when they get out of college, there’s a job. When I was governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree, you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your class, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, four years tuition-free to the college of your choice in Massachusetts. It’s a public institution. I want to make sure we keep our Pell — Pell Grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program so that people are able to afford school.
But the key thing is to make sure you can get a job when you get out of school. And what’s happened over the last four years has been very, very hard for America’s young people. I want you to be able to get a job. I know what it takes to get this economy going. With half of college kids graduating this year without a college — or excuse me, without a job and without a college-level job, that’s just unacceptable. And likewise, you got more and more debt on your back. So more debt and less jobs.
I’m going to change that. I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. And kids across this country are going to recognize we’re bringing back an economy. It’s not going to be like the last four years. The middle class has been crushed over the last four years, and jobs have been too scarce. I know what it takes to bring them back, and I’m going to do that and make sure when you graduate — when do you graduate?
Q: (Off mic.)
MR. ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014 — I presume I’m going to be president — I’m going to make sure you get a job. (Chuckles.) Thanks, Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Jeremy, first of all, your future is bright, and the fact that you’re making investment in higher education is critical, not just to you but to the entire nation.
Now, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country, but not just jobs, good-paying jobs, ones that can support a family. And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we’ve created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone. And there are a bunch of things that we can do to make sure your future is bright.
Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. You know, when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it’s come surging back. I want to do that in industries, not just in Detroit but all across the country. And that means we change our tax code so we’re giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States and creating jobs here. It also means we’re helping them and small businesses to export all around the world in new markets.
Number two, we’ve got to make sure that we have the best education system in the world. And the fact that you’re going to college is great, but I want everybody to get a great education. And we worked hard to make sure that student loans are available for folks like you, but I also want to make sure that community colleges are offering slots for workers to get retrained for the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs of the future.
Number three, we’ve got to control our own energy, you know, not only oil and natural gas, which we’ve been investing in, but also we’ve got to make sure we’re building the energy sources of the
future, n
ot just thinking about next year, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now. That’s why we’ve invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars.
We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way — asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more, along with cuts, so that we can invest in education like yours. And let’s take the money that we’ve been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America — roads, bridges, schools. If we do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America’s future’s going to be bright as well.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romley (sic).
Just quickly, what can you do — we’re looking at a situation where 40 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed for six months or more. They don’t have the two years that Jeremy has. What about those long- term unemployed who need a job right now?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, what you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job, and a lot of them, as you say, Candy, have been out of work for a long, long, long, long time.
The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years, and they haven’t put Americans back to work. We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office. If the — the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when he took office. It’s 7.8 percent now. But if you calculated that unemployment rate taking back the people who dropped out of the workforce, it would be 10.7 percent. We have not made the progress we need to make to put people back to work.
That’s why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay. It’s going to help Jeremy get a job when he comes a out of school. It’s going to help people across the country that are unemployed right now.
And one thing that the — the president said which I want to make sure that we understand — he — he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt, and — and that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and — and — and Continental Airlines and come out stronger. And — and I know he keeps saying, you wanted to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And — and I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommend and ultimately what happened.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me — let me give the president a chance. Go ahead.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open, and we would have lost a million jobs.
And that — don’t take my word for it; take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.
And Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector; that’s been his philosophy as governor; that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate. You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.
That’s exactly the philosophy that we’ve seen in place for the last decade. That’s what’s been squeezing middle-class families. And we have fought back for four years to get out of that mess, and the last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here.
And Mr. Romney — Governor Romney, there’ll be plenty of chances to go on, but I want to — we have all these folks —
MR. ROMNEY: That — that Detroit — that Detroit answer — that Detroit answer and the rest of the answer — way off the mark.
MS. CROWLEY: I — OK. We’ll — you certainly will have lots of time here coming up. I — because I want to move you on to something that — sort of connected to cars here, and go over — and we want to get a question from Philip Tricolla.
Q: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy.
So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.
But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional sources of energy; we’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we’ve doubled clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels. And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years.
Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make a — it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and a hundred years’ worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficient energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand, and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.
Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future, because China, Germany — they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.
So that’s going to help Jeremy get a job, it’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, on the subject of gas prices.
MR. ROMNEY: Well, let’s look at the president’s policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we’ve had four years of policies being played out. And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits fo
r drilling on federal lands and in federal waters. So where’d the increase come from? Well, a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? Twenty or 25 birds were killed, and they brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.
Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities — ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and say, please, save my job. The head of the EPA said, you can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually — it’s virtually impossible, given our regulations. When the president ran for office, he said, if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America. Let’s take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I am planning on doing, which is getting us energy-independent, North American energy independence within eight years, you’re going to see manufacturing come back jobs because our energy is low-cost.
They’re already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy.
I’ll get America and North America energy-independent. I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses. We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline, I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up, and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up. But our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently.
And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration. And my — the previous president was an oilman. And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically; we’re encouraging it and working with the industry.
And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.
So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas.
And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years, oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.
And that’s creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, because that’s the demand around the world. And it also means that it’ll save money in your pocketbook. That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.
MR. ROMNEY: But that’s not what you done in the last four years. That’s the problem.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Sure it is.
MR. ROMNEY: In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.
MR. ROMNEY: So how much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not true.
MR. ROMNEY: By how much did you cut them by, then?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, we have actually produced more oil on —
MR. ROMNEY: No, no, how much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal waters?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney, here’s what we did. There were a whole bunch of oil companies —
MR. ROMNEY: No, I had a — I had a — I had a question —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, you — no, you — you — you want —
MR. ROMNEY: — and the question was how much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you want me to answer a question, I’m —
MR. ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — I’m happy to answer the question.
MR. ROMNEY: All right, and it is?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here’s what happened. You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren’t using. So what we said was, you can’t just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it’s most profitable for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it.
MR. ROMNEY: OK — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so what we did was take away —
MR. ROMNEY: That’s —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — those leases, and we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit.
MR. ROMNEY: And — and — and production on private — on government lands is down.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And the production is up. No it isn’t.
MR. ROMNEY: Production on government land of oil is down 14 percent.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: And production of gas is down 9 percent.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What you’re saying is just not true. It’s just not true.
MR. ROMNEY: I — it’s absolutely true. Look, there’s no question but that the people recognize that we have not produced more oil —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ll give you your time. Go ahead.
MR. ROMNEY: — and gas on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal — coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal.
You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.
(Chuckles.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Well, Governor, if — if you’re asking me a question, I’m going to answer it.
MR. ROMNEY: My — and the answer is I don’t believe people think that’s the case, because I — I’m — that wasn’t a question.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. All right.
MR. ROMNEY: That was a statement. I don’t think — (chuckles) — the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof — the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about a buck eighty-six a gallon. Now it’s four bucks a gallon. Price of electricity is up.
If the president’s energy policies are working, you’re going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country to get America energy-secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me —
MR. ROMNEY: Those things will get us the energy we need.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address — because we did finally get to gas prices here — could you address what the governor said, which is: If your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was 1.80 (dollars), 1.86 (dollars). Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney is now promoting. So it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices, because with his policies we might be back in that same mess. (Audience murmurs.)
What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we’ve — we’ve built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once. So I’m all for pipelines; I’m all for oil production.
What I’m not for is us ignoring the other half of the quotation. So for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says these are imaginary jobs, when you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado who are working, creating wind power, with good- paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that — in Iowa is all for it, providing tax credits to help this work and Governor Romney says, I’m opposed, I’d get rid of it, that’s not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future, and I intend to win it as president of the United States.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to — I got to move you along. And the next a question is for you —
MR. ROMNEY: No, he — he gets the first — he actually got — he actually got the first question. So I get the last question — last answer on that one.
MS. CROWLEY: If — actually, in the follow-up. It doesn’t quite work like that.
MR. ROMNEY: Actually —
MS. CROWLEY: But I’m going to give you a chance here. (Laughter.) I promise you I’m going to.
And the next question is for you, so if you want to, you know, continue on, but I don’t want to leave all these guys sitting here and — because —
MR. ROMNEY: Candy, Candy, Candy, I don’t have a policy of — of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they’re not phantom jobs. They’re real jobs.
MS. CROWLEY: OK.
MR. ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I’m going to make sure —
MS. CROWLEY: So you’re — OK. Thank you, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: — that taking advantage of our energy resources will bring back manufacturing to America. We’re going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 3.5 million more jobs in this country. It’s critical to our future.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, it’s OK.
MS. CROWLEY: We’re going to move you along to taxes —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m used — I’m used to being interrupted. You know, the —
MS. CROWLEY: (Chuckles.) We’re going to move you both along to taxes over here and all these folks that have been waiting.
Governor, this question is for you. It comes from Mary Pollano — Follano. Sorry.
MR. ROMNEY: Hi, Mary.
Q: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions — the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit?
I forgot. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You’re doing great.
Q: Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important for the middle class?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you very much. And — and let me tell you, you — you’re absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down, I want to simplify the tax code, and I want to get middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes.
And — and the reason I want middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle-income taxpayers have been buried over the past four years. You’ve seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums — up $2,500. Food prices up, utility prices up. The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years. So I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That’s part — that’s part one.
Now, how about deductions? Because I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now. The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same. Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.
And so in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be to say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits. And you can decide which ones to use, your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth. You can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down, and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason.
And that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains, no tax on your savings.
That makes life a lot easier. If you’re getting interest from a bank, if you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investments you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there will be no taxes for anybody making $200,000 a year and less on your interest, dividends and capital gains.
Why am I lowering taxes on the middle class? Because under the last four years, they’ve been buried, and I want to help people in the middle class. And I will not — I will not under any circumstances — reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest-income taxpayers, and I will not under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle class. The president’s spending, the president’s borrowing will cost this nation to have to raise taxes on the American people, not just at the high end.
A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will see $4,000 a year higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration. I will not let that happen. I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget, and I’m going to reduce the tax burden on middle-income families. And what’s that going to do? It’s going to help those families, and it’s going to create incentives to start growing jobs again in this country.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My philosophy on taxes has been simple, and that is, I want to give middle-class families, and folks who are striving to get in the middle class, some relief, because they have been hit hard over the last decade, over the last 15, over the last 20 years. So four years ago I stood on a stage just like this one — actually, it was a town hall — and I said I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and that’s what I’ve done by $3,600. I said I would cut taxes for small businesses, who are the drivers and engines of growth, and we’ve cut them 18 times. And I want to continue those tax cuts for middle-class families and for small businesses.
But what I’ve also said is if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts, we’ve also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more.
So what I’ve said is your first $250,000 worth of income, no change. And that means 98 percent of American families, 97 percent of small businesses, they will not see a tax increase. I’m ready to sign that bill right now. The only reason it’s not happening is because Governor Romney’s allies in Congress have held the 98 percent hostage because they want tax breaks for the top 2 percent.
But what I’ve also said is for above 250,000 (dollars), we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president, we created 23 million new jobs. That’s part of what took us from deficits to surplus. It will be good for our economy, and it will be good for job creation.
Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on “60 Minutes” just two weeks ago, and he was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 a year? And he said, yes, I think that’s fair. Not only that, he said, I think that’s what grows the economy.
Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think what grows the economy is when you get that tax credit that we put in place for your kids going to college. I think that grows the economy. I think what grows the economy is when we make sure small businesses are getting a tax credit for hiring veterans who fought for our country. That grows our economy.
So we just have a different theory. And when Governor Romney stands here after a year of campaigning, when during a Republican primary, he stood onstage and said, I’m going to give tax cuts — he didn’t say tax rate cuts; he said tax cuts — to everybody, including the top 1 percent, you should believe him, because that’s been his history.
And that’s exactly the kind of top-down economics that is not going to work if we want a strong middle class and an economy that’s thriving for everybody.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, I’m sure you’ve got a reply there. (Laughter.)
MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.) You’re absolutely right. You heard what I said about my tax plan. The top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.
And why do I want to bring rates down and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people. And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America’s economy going again.
Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.
For me, I look at what’s happened in the last four years and say, this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don’t have to settle for how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now. There are 3 1/2 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office. We don’t have to live like this. We can get this economy going again.
My five-point plan does it: energy independence for North America in five years; opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America, cracking down on China when they cheat; getting us to a balanced budget; fixing our training programs for our workers; and finally, championing small business. I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go.
And they’re going now because of the policies of this administration.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, let me ask the president something about what you just said. The governor says that he is not going to allow the top 5 percent — I believe is what he said — to have a tax cut, that it will all even out, that what he wants to do is give that tax cut to the middle class. Settled?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it’s not settled. (Chuckles.) Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board 20 percent, along with what he also wants to do in terms of eliminating the estate tax, along what he wants to do in terms of corporates changes in the tax code — it costs about $5 trillion. Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs, even though the military’s not asking for them. That’s $7 trillion. He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That’s another trillion dollars. That’s $8 trillion.
Now, what he says is he’s going to make sure that this doesn’t add to the deficit, and he’s going to cut middle-class taxes. But when he’s asked, how are you going to do it, which deductions, which loopholes are you going to close, he can’t tell you. The — the fact that he only has to pay 14 percent on his taxes when a lot of you are paying much higher — you know, he’s already taken that off the board. Capital gains are going to continue to be at a low rate, so we — we’re not going to get money that way. We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics, beyond Big Bird and
eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, in terms of how he pays for that.
Now, Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here; I want to spend 7 (trillion dollars) or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal. And neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.
And — and what’s at stake here is one of two things. Either, Candy, this blows up the deficit — because keep in mind, this is just to pay for the additional spending that he’s talking about, 7 (trillion dollars), $8 trillion. That’s before we even get to the deficit we already have. Or alternatively, it’s got to be paid for not only by closing deductions for wealthy individuals. That will pay for about 4 percent reduction in tax rates. You’re going to be paying for it. You’ll lose some deductions. And you can’t buy this sales pitch. Nobody who’s looked at it that’s serious actually believes it adds up.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me get — let me get the governor in on this.
And Governor, let’s — before we get into a vast array of who said what — what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up, if somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in, if somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent —
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course they add up. I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years.
When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, 5 trillion (dollars). That’s math that doesn’t add up. We have — we — we have a president talking about someone’s plan in a way that’s completely foreign to what my real plan is, and then we have his own record, which is we have four consecutive years where he said, when he was running for office, he could cut the deficit in half. Instead, he’s doubled it.
We’ve gone from $10 trillion of national debt to $16 trillion of national debt. If the president were re-elected, we’d go to almost $20 trillion of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece.
I know what it takes to balance budgets. I’ve done it my entire life. So for instance, when he says, yours is a $5 trillion cut, well, no, it’s not, because I’m offsetting some of the reductions with holding down some of the deductions and — and this —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, I got to — I got to —
MR. ROMNEY: I’m — and I’ve told you — yeah.
MS. CROWLEY: I need you have you both — I understand the stakes here. I understand both of you. But I will get run out of town if I don’t allow — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: And I just — and I just described to you, Mr. President —
MS. CROWLEY: OK, great.
MR. ROMNEY: I just described to you precisely how I do it, which is with a single number that people can put — and they can put their deductions and credits — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible.)
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, you’re — we’re keeping track, I promise you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.
MS. CROWLEY: And Mr. President, the next question is for you, so stay standing.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great. Looking forward to it.
MS. CROWLEY: And it’s Katherine Fenton, who has a question for you.
Q: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Katherine, this is a great question. And you know, I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we need. And my grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president at a local bank.
But she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career. She didn’t complain; that’s not what you did in that generation.
And this is one of the reasons why one of the first — the first bill I signed was something called the Lilly Ledbetter bill.
And it was named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found out about it earlier, when she had no way of finding out about it.
So we fixed that. And that’s an example of the kind of advocacy that we need because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women’s issue. This is a family issue. This is a middle-class issue. And that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.
It also means that we’ve got to make sure that young people like yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier Governor Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education accessible for young people. Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including millions of young women, all across the country. We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program and we said, let’s just cut out the middleman. Let’s give the money directly to students. And as a consequence, we’ve seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that’s going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace.
But we’ve got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing. And we’ve also got to make sure that in every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination. That’s been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I’m going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women.
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?
They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?
And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior
staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.
We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.
What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.
This is what I’ve done, it’s what I look forward to doing, and I know what it takes to make an economy work.
And I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that — that — that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy. An economy with — with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t find a job, or a college-level job — that’s not what we have to have.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: I’m going to help women in America get — get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.
MR. CROWLEY: Mr. President, why don’t you get in on this quickly, please?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney’s campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it, he said, I’ll get back to you. And that’s not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy.
Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace: for example, their health care. (Inaudible) — a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making. I think that’s a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured, because this is not just a — a health issue; it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket.
Governor Romney not only opposed it; he suggested that, in fact, employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage. That’s not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care. They rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country.
And it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we talk about child care and the credits that we’re providing, that makes a difference in terms of whether they can go out there and earn a living for their family. These are not just women’s issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues. And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men are.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I’ve got two daughters, and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have. That’s part of what I’m fighting for as president of the United States.
MS. CROWLEY: I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question.
And Governor, it’s for you.
Q: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?
MR. ROMNEY: Great. Thank you. And I appreciate that question. I — I just want to make sure that — I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that I don’t believe —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t think so, Candy.
MR. ROMNEY: I don’t believe —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.
MS. CROWLEY: OK. The timekeepers are all working.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right.
MS. CROWLEY: And let me tell you that the last part, there’s — it’s for the two of you to talk to one another, and it isn’t quite as — (inaudible). But go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to. The question is on the floor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, that’s not true.
MR. ROMNEY: Let me come back and — and — and answer your question.
The — President Bush and I are different people, and these are different times. And that’s why my five-point plan is so different than what he would have done. I mean, for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology, actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the — the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn’t true in his time. That’s why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America, become energy-secure.
Number two, trade. I’ll crack down on China. President Bush didn’t. I’m also going to dramatically expand trade in Latin America. It’s been growing about 12 percent per year over a long period of time. I want to add more free trade agreements so we have more trade.
Number three, I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t. President Obama was right. He said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a
trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right. But then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years, and his forecast for the next four years is more deficits almost that large. So that’s the next area I’m different than President Bush.
And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.
And the thing I find most troubling about “Obamacare” — well, it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.
My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush had a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor. Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to tell you that we did come in during some tough times. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when I started.
But we have been digging our way out of policies that were misplaced and focused on the top doing very well and middle-class folks not doing well. And we’ve seen 30 consecutive — 31 consecutive months of job growth, 5.2 million new jobs created. And the plans that I talked about will create even more.
But when Governor Romney says that he has very different economic plan, the centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts. That’s what took us from surplus to deficit. When he talks about getting tough on China, keep in mind that Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in countries — in — in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That’s — Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.
And what we’ve done when it comes to trade is not only sign three trade deals to open up new markets, but we’ve also set up a task force for trade that goes after anybody who is taking advantage of American workers or businesses and not creating a level playing field. We’ve brought twice as many cases against unfair trading practices than the previous administration, and we’ve won every single one that’s been decided.
When I said that we had to make sure that China was not flooding our domestic market with cheap tires, Governor Romney said I was being protectionist, that it wouldn’t be helpful to American workers. Well, in fact we saved a thousand jobs, and that’s the kind of tough trade actions that are required.
But the last point I want to make is this. You know, there are some things where Governor Romney’s different from George Bush. George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a voucher. George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform. He didn’t call for self-deportation. George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
So there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush, but they’re not on economic policy. In some ways, he’s gone to a more extreme place when it comes to social policy, and I think that’s a mistake. That’s not how we’re going to move our economy forward.
MS. CROWLEY: I want to move you both along to the next question because it’s in the same wheelhouse. So you will be able to respond. But the president does get this question. I want to call on Michael Jones.
Q: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’ve gone through a tough four years; there’s no doubt about it. But four years ago I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have. I said that I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we’d refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after al-Qaida’s leadership like never before, and Osama bin Laden is dead.
I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can’t jerk you around, and if you don’t have health insurance, that you’d have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have. I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We’ve created 5 million jobs, gone from 800,000 jobs a month being lost. And we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse.
Now, does that mean you’re not struggling? Absolutely not. A lot of us are. And that’s why the plan that I put forward for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America and putting people back to work, making sure that we are controlling our own energy, but not just the energy of today but also the energy of the future — all those things will make a difference. So the point is, the commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept. And those that I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying, and we’re going to get it done in a second term.
But you should pay attention to this campaign, because Governor Romney’s made some commitments as well, and I suspect he’ll keep those, too. You know, when members of the Republican Congress say, we’re going to sign a no tax pledge so that we don’t ask a dime from millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education and helping kids go to college, he said, me too. When they said, we’re going to cut Planned Parenthood funding, he said, me too. When he said, we’re going to repeal “Obamacare,” first thing I’m going to do — despite the fact that it’s the same health care plan that he passed in Massachusetts and is working well — he said, me too. That is not the kind of leadership that you need, but you should expect that those are promises he’s going to keep.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me let —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And the choice in this election is going to be whose promises are going to be more likely to help you in your life, make sure your kids can go to college, make sure that you are getting a good-paying job, making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be there for you.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, thank you.
Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I think you know better. I — I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.
He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan — didn’t get there.
He said he
would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.
He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges — didn’t even file it.
This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.
He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by 2,500 (dollars) a year. And if “Obamacare” is passed — or implemented — it’s already been passed. If it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another 2,500 (dollars) on top.
The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.
That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty — one out of six people in poverty. How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps; today 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year and more slowly last year than the year before.
The — the president wants to do well; I understand. But the policies he’s put in place, from “Obamacare” to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies — these policies combined have not led this economy take off and grow like it could have. You might say, well, you got an example of when it worked better? Yeah, in the Reagan recession, where unemployment hit 10.8 percent. Between that period — the end of that recession and equivalent period of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.
The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a — as a — a — a — as a speaker and — and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we — median incomes are down $4,300 a family, and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, I want to move you along.
Don’t go away, and we’ll have plenty of time to respond. We are quite aware of the clock for both of you.
But I want to bring in a different subject here. Mr. President, I’ll be right back with you. And Lorraine Osario has a question for you about a topic we have not heard —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: This is for Governor Romney?
MS. CROWLEY: Yes, this is for Governor Romney, and we’ll be right with you, Mr. President. Thanks.
MR. ROMNEY: Is it Lorraina (ph)?
Q: Lorraine.
MR. ROMNEY: Lorraine?
Q: Yeah, Lorraine, yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: (Great ?).
Q: How you doing?
MR. ROMNEY: Good, thanks.
Q: President — Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Lorraine. Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for your question. And let me step back and tell you what I’d like to do with our immigration policy broadly and include an answer to your — your question.
First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American parents. Ann’s dad was born in Wales and is a first- generation American. We welcome legal immigrants into this country.
I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined, I want it to be clearer. I don’t think you have to — shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally. I also think that we should give visas to people — green cards, rather, to people who graduate with skills that we need, people around the world with accredited degrees in — in science and math get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the US of A. We should make sure that our legal system works.
Number two, we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.
What I will do is I’ll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won’t put in place magnets for people coming here illegally, so for instance, I would not give driver’s licenses to those that have come here illegally, as the — as the president would.
The kids of — of those that came here illegally, those kids I think should have a pathway to become a — a permanent resident of the United States.
And military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.
Now, when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation — he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our — our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn’t do it. He had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate, supermajority in both houses. Why did he fail to even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come here legally and for those that are here illegally today? That’s a question I think the — the president will have a chance to answer right now.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good. I look forward to it. Was — Lorena? Lorraine.
We are a nation of immigrants. I mean, we’re just a few miles away form Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around the world wants to come here, people who are willing to take risks, people who want to build on their dreams and make sure their kids have an — even bigger dreams than they have.
But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make sure that we fix this system.
First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that’s good for our economic growth. They’ll start new bu
sinesses. They’ll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States.
Number two, we do have to deal with our border. So we’ve put more Border Patrol on than anytime in history, and the flow of undocumented workers across the border is actually lower than it’s been in 40 years.
What I’ve also said is, if we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families, and that’s what we’ve done.
And what I’ve also said is, for young people who come here, brought here oftentimes by their parents, have gone to school here, pledged allegiances to the flag, think of this as their country, understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers, then we should make sure that we give them a pathway to citizenship, and that’s what I’ve done administratively.
Now, Governor Romney just said that, you know, he wants to help those young people, too. But during the Republican primary, he said, I will veto the DREAM Act that would allow these young people to have access. His main strategy during the Republican primary was to say, we’re going to encourage self-deportation, making life so miserable on folks that they’ll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. Part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and checked their papers. And you know what, if my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they’re not a citizen, I don’t want — I don’t want to empower somebody like that.
So we can fix this system in a comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says the challenge is, well, Obama didn’t try, that’s not true. I sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term, and I said, let’s fix this system, including senators previously who have supported it on the Republican side.
But it’s very hard for Republicans in Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform if their standard bearer has said that this is not something I’m interested in supporting.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me get the governor in here, Mr. President. Let’s speak to, if you could, Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: Let’s —
MS. CROWLEY: — the idea of self-deportation.
MR. ROMNEY: Let — no, let — let me go back and speak to the points that the president made and — and let’s get them correct. I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the e-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is — which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally — that that was a model for the nation. That’s number one.
Number two, I asked the president a question I think Hispanics and immigrants all over the nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you’d file legislation in your first year, didn’t you do it? And he didn’t answer. He don’t — he doesn’t answer that question. He said the standard bearer wasn’t for it. I — I’m glad you thought I was a standard bearer four years ago, but I wasn’t. Four years ago you said in your first year you would file legislation. In his first year — (chuckles) — I was just getting or — I was licking my wounds from having been beaten by John McCain. All right? I was not the standard bearer. My — my view is that this president should have honored his promise to — to do as he said.
Now let me mention one other thing, and that is, self-deportation says let it — let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we’re not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented, illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead, let — make — people make their own choice. And if they — if they find that — that they can’t get the benefits here that they want and they can’t find the job they want, then they’ll make a decision to go a place where — where they have better opportunities. But I’m not in favor of rounding up people and — and — and — and taking them out of this country. I am in favor, as the president has said, and I agree with him, which is that if people have committed crimes, we got to get them out of this country.
Let me mention something else the president said.
It was a moment ago, and I didn’t get a chance to — when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth. Let me —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, hold on a second. The — (inaudible) — there’s some points we got to —
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — you know, I’m still — Mr. President, I’m still speaking.
MS. CROWLEY: I’m sorry.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney, I — I’m — I’m — I’m — (inaudible) — make sure — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: Mr. President, why don’t you let me finish? I’m going to — I’m going to continue. I’m going to continue. The president made a —
MS. CROWLEY: Go ahead and finish, Governor Romney. Governor Romney, if you could make it short. See all these people? They’ve been waiting for you. Could you make it short, and then —
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in — in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible) — Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ve got to say — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it — it doesn’t take as long. The —
MR. ROMNEY: Well, let me — let me give you — (laughter) — let me — let me give you some advice.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t check it that often. (Chuckles.)
MR. ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) OK.
MR. ROMNEY: You also investments in Chinese companies.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments outside the United States.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right. (Inaudible) —
MS. CROWLEY: And we are way — we’re sort of way off topic here, Governor Romney. We are completely off immigration.
MR. ROMNEY: So — so Mr. President — so —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We’re — we’re — we’re a little off topic here, yeah. Come on. The — I thought we were talking about immigration. I — I — I — I — I — I — I do want to — I do want to
— I do want to make sure that —
MR. ROMNEY: I came — I came back to what you spoke about before.
MS. CROWLEY: And we were. So quickly, Mr. President — if I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I do want to make sure that we just understand something. Governor Romney says he wasn’t referring to Arizona as a model for the nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it — not E-Verify, the whole thing. That’s his policy, and it’s a bad policy. And it won’t help us grow. Look, when we think about immigration, we have to understand there are folks all around the world who still see America as the land of promise. And they provide us energy, and they provide us innovation. And they start companies like Intel and Google, and we want to encourage that.
Now, we’ve got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don’t have bipartisan support — I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done.
And we can’t — we can’t —
MR. ROMNEY: I’ll get it done. I’ll get it done, first year.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We have not seen Republicans —
MS. CROWLEY: OK, Mr. President let me move you on here, please.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — serious about this issue at all.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And it’s time for them to get serious on it. This used to be a bipartisan issue.
MS. CROWLEY: Don’t go away, though. Don’t go away, because —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m — I’m here.
MS. CROWLEY: — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka, who has a — wants to switch a topic for us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. Hi, Cara (ph).
Q: Good evening, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, what’s your name?
Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.
Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.
And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I’ve made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we’d go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That’s what I’m doing.
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to move us along. Governor?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It’s an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for that — the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.
I — I’m — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. Today there’s a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply.
There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?
But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you’d hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We’ve read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.
And this calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tou
r and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.
MS. CROWLEY: Because we’re closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly. Your secretary of state, as I’m sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did.
MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I’m — I’m happy to —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.
MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.
MS. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
MS. CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.
MS. CROWLEY: Because what I want to do, Mr. President — stand there for a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzales, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.
Q: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, we’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment. And I believe in the Second Amendment. You know, we’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.
But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency where I’ve had to comfort families who’ve lost somebody, most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually probably about a month, I saw a mother who I had met at the beside of her son who had been shot in that theater.
And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer. And remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new. But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.
So my belief is that A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.
But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.
And so what can we do to intervene to make sure that young people have opportunity, that our schools are working, that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control?
And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and — and taking guns away or — or making certain guns ill
egal. We of course don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.
What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.
He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll — we’ll give people the — the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.
But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the — the benefit of having two parents in the home — and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone — that’s a great idea because if there’s a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically.
So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.
The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to gun violence, in some respects, is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration — and how it worked exactly, I think we don’t know precisely — but where thousands of automatic and — and AK-47-type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords. They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them.
And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It’s been investigated to a degree, but the administration has — has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence — thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings, why is it that you’ve changed your mind?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it’s referred to as a — as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn’t previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.
That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s — that’s gridlocked. We haven’t had — we haven’t — we haven’t — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.
MS. CROWLEY: So if I could, if you could get people to agree to it, you’d be for it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy.
MS. CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The — first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was in part because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.
So that’s on the record. But I think that one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they’re less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed, and we’ve got to make sure that they don’t get weapons. But we can make a difference in terms of ensuring that every young person in America, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance to succeed.
And Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much. But I think it is very important to understand that the reforms we put in place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing schools that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science. When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs, including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting another chance — training them for the jobs that exist right now. And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers, and so we’re matching them up. Giving them access to higher education — as I said, we have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an education that they weren’t able to get before.
Now — but —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to — I have to move you along here. You said you wanted to hear these questions, and we need to do it here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — but — but it’ll — it’ll — it’ll — it’ll be just — just one second, because —
MS. CROWLEY: One —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election. And when Governor Romney was asked whether teachers — hiring more teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn’t grow our economy. When — when he was asked — (inaudible) — class size —
MS. CROWLEY: The question, of course, Mr. President, was guns here. So I need to move us along.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I understand.
MS. CROWLEY: You know, the questions was guns. So let me — let me bring in another —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people —
MS. CROWLEY: I understand.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — and reduce our violence.
MS. CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much. I want to ask Carol Goldberg to stand up, because she gets to a question that both these men have been passionate about. It’s for Governor Romney.
Q: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?
MR. ROMNEY: Boy, great question, an important question, because you’re absolutely
right. The place where we’ve seen manufacturing go has been China. China is now the largest manufacturer in the world. Used to be the United States of America. Lot of good people have lost jobs. A half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last four years. That’s total over the last four years.
One of the reasons for that is that people think it’s more attractive, in some cases, to go offshore than to — than to stay here. We have made it less attractive for enterprises to stay here than to go offshore from time to time.
What I will do as president is make sure it’s more attractive to come to America again. This is the way we’re going to create jobs in this country. It’s not by trickle-down government saying, we’re going to take more money from people and hire more government workers, raise more taxes, put in place more regulations. Trickle-down government has never worked here, has never worked anywhere. I want to make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for small business, for big business to invest and grow in America.
Now, we’re going to have to make sure that as we trade with other nations, that they play by the rules, and China hasn’t. One of the reasons — or one of the ways they don’t play by the rules is artificially holding down the value of their currency, because if they put their currency down low, that means their prices on their goods are low. And that makes them advantageous in the marketplace. We lose sales, and manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can’t compete.
China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to — to label them as a — as a currency manipulator but refuses to do so. On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers.
So we’re going to make sure the people we trade with around the world play by the rules.
But let me — let me not just stop there. Don’t forget: What’s key to bringing back jobs here is not just finding someone else to punish — and — and I’m going to be strict with people who we trade with to make sure they — they follow the law and play by the rules — but it’s also to make America the most attractive place in the world for businesses of all kinds. That’s why I want to bring down the tax rates on small employers, big employers, so they want to be here. Canada’s tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. So if you’re starting a business, where would you rather start it? We have to be competitive if we’re going to create more jobs here.
Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president. I’ve talked to small businesses across the country. They say we feel like we’re under attack from our own government. I want to make sure that regulators see their job as encouraging small business — not crushing it. And there’s no question but that “Obamacare” has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people. My priority is making sure that we get more people hired. If we have more people hired, if we get back manufacturing jobs, if we get back all kinds of jobs into this country, then you’re going to see rising incomes again. The reason incomes are down is because unemployment is so high. I know what it takes to get this to happen, and my plan will do that, and one part of it is to make sure that we keep China playing by the rules. Thanks.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, two minutes here because we are then going to go to our last question.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. We need to create jobs here. And both Governor Romney and I agree, actually, that we should lower our corporate tax rate. It’s too high.
But there’s a difference in terms of how we would do it. I want to close loopholes that allow companies to deduct expenses when they move to China, that allow them to profit offshore and not have to get taxed, so they have tax advantages offshore. All those changes in our tax code would make a difference.
Now Governor Romney actually wants to expand those tax breaks. One of his big ideas when it comes to corporate tax reform would be to say, if you invest overseas, you make profits overseas, you don’t have to pay U.S. taxes. But of course if you’re a small business or a mom- and-pop business or a big business starting up here, you’ve got to pay even the reduced rate that Governor Romney’s talking about. And it’s estimated that that will create 800,000 new jobs. Problem is, they’ll be in China or India or Germany. That’s not the way we’re going to create jobs here.
The way we’re going to create jobs here is not just to change our tax code but also to double our exports. And we are on pace to double our exports, one of the commitments I made when I was president. That’s creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country. That’s why we’ve kept on pushing trade deals but trade deals that make sure that American workers and American businesses are getting a good deal.
Now Governor Romney talked about China. As I already indicated, in the private sector, Governor Romney’s company invested in what were called pioneers of outsourcing. That’s not my phrase; that’s what reporters called it.
And as far as currency manipulation, the currency’s actually gone up 11 percent since I’ve been president because we have pushed them hard. And we’ve put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That’s why exports have significantly increased under my presidency. That’s going to help to create jobs here.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, we have a really short time for a quick discussion here.
IPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China, and one of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here?
MR. ROMNEY: The answer is very straightforward. We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China’s been cheating over the years, one, by holding down the value of their currency, number two, by stealing our intellectual property, our designs, our patents, our technology. There’s even an Apple store in China that’s a counterfeit Apple store selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis. That’s number one.
Number two, we have to make America the most attractive place for entrepreneurs, for people who want to expand a business. That’s what brings jobs in. The president’s characterization of my tax plan —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: How much time (you ?) got, Candy?
MR. ROMNEY: — is complete — is completely — is completely false.
MS. CROWLEY: (Inaudible) — let me go to the —
MR. ROMNEY: Let me tell you —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Wait, wait, wait ?) —
MS. CROWLEY: Let me go to the president here, because we really are running out of time. And the question is can we ever get — we can’t get wages like that. It can’t be sustained here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back, because they’re low-wage, low-skill jobs. I want high- wage, high-skill jobs. That’s why we have to emphasize manufacturing. That’s why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That’s why we’ve got to make sure that
we’ve got the best science and research in the world.
And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race. If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country, then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, a hundred years from now.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Mr. President.
Governor Romney —
MR. ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. (Chuckles.)
MS. CROWLEY: — but Governor Romney, I want to introduce you to Barry Green, because he’s going to have the last question to you first.
MR. ROMNEY: Barry? Where’s Barry? Hi, Barry.
Q: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. Each of you: What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And that’s an opportunity for me, and I appreciate it. In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they’d like to do. And in the course of that, I think the president’s campaign has tried to characterize me as — as someone who — who is very different than who I am.
I care about a hundred percent of the American people. I want a hundred percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to — to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I — I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help, with the experience I have, the American people.
My — my — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God, and I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were — were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times. I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get a hundred percent of my people insured — all my kids; about 98 percent of the adults. Was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation so a hundred percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future.
I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a — at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.
If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will. I’ll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming — coming generations. The president said he would. He didn’t.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: I’ll get our incomes up. And by the way, I’ve done these things. I served as governor and showed I could get them done.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, last two minutes belong to you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe.
I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that’s how our economy is grown. That’s how we built the world’s greatest middle class.
And — and that is part of what’s at stake in this election. There’s a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith.
But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives, veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.
And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.
And when my grandfather fought in World War II and he came back and he got a GI Bill and that allowed him to go to college, that wasn’t a handout. That was something that advanced the entire country, and I want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. That’s why I’m asking for your vote and that’s why I’m asking for another four years.
MS. CROWLEY: President Obama, Governor Romney, thank you for being here tonight. On that note, we have come to an end of this town hall debate. (Applause.) Our thanks to the participants for their time and to the people of Hofstra University for their hospitality. The next and final debate takes place Monday night at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Don’t forget to watch. Election Day is three weeks from today. Don’t forget to vote. Good night.
Bangladesh Factory in Fire: WalMart & Disney Among Clients
in News, WalmartAn Associated Press reporter searching the factory Wednesday found these and other clothes, including sweaters from the French company Teddy Smith, among the equipment charred in the fire that killed 112 workers Saturday. He also found entries in account books indicating that the factory took orders to produce clothes for Disney, Sears , nd other Western brands.
Garments and documents left behind in the factory show it was used by a host of major American and European retailers, though at least one of them — Wal-Mart — had been aware of safety problems. Wal-Mart blames a supplier for using Tazreen Fashions without its knowledge.
The fire has elevated awareness of something labor groups, retailers and governments have known for years: Bangladesh’s fast-growing garment industry — second only to China’s in exports — is rife with dangerous workplaces. More than 300 workers there have died in fires since 2006.
Police on Wednesday arrested three factory officials suspected of locking in the workers who died in Saturday’s fire, the deadliest in the South Asian country’s less than 35-year history of exporting clothing.
Local police chief Habibur Rahman said the three will be questioned amid reports that many workers trying to escape the blaze had been locked inside. He said the owner of the factory was not among those arrested.
The three officials were arrested Wednesday at their homes in Savar, the Dhaka suburb where the factory is also located. Rahman did not identify the officials or give their job status.
Workers who survived the fire say exit doors were locked, and a fire official has said that far fewer people would have died if there had been just one emergency exit. Of the dead, 53 bodies were burned so badly they could not be identified; they were buried anonymously.
The fire started on the ground floor, where a factory worker named Nasima said stacks of yarn and clothes blocked part of the stairway.
Nasima, who uses only one name, said that when workers tried to flee, managers told them to go back to their work stations, but they were ignored.
Dense smoke filled the stairway, making it hard to see, and when the lights went out the workers were left in total darkness. Another surviving worker, Mohammad Rajiv, said some people used their cellphones to light their way.
“Everyone was screaming for help,” Nasima said. “Total chaos, panic and screaming. Everyone was trying to escape and come out. I was pulling the shirt of a man. I fainted and when I woke up I found myself lying on the road outside the factory.
“I don’t know how I survived.”
Rajiv said the factory conducted a fire drill just three days before the fire broke out, but no one used the fire extinguishers. “Only a selected group of workers are trained to use the extinguishers. Others have no idea how to use them,” he said.
Now windows at the eight-story factory are broken, sewing machines melted or burned to ash. Much of the clothing on the lower floors was incinerated. Nightgowns, children’s shorts, pants, jackets and sweat shirts were strewn about, piled up in some places, boxed in others.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Interior Minister Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir have said arson is suspected. Police say they have not ruled out sabotage.
Wal-Mart had received an audit deeming the factory “high risk” last year, said it had decided to stop doing business with Tazreen, but that a supplier subcontracted work to the factory anyway. Wal-Mart said it stopped working with that supplier on Monday.
Calls made to The Walt Disney Company and to Sears Holdings were not immediately returned.
Local TV reports said about 3,000 garment workers held protests over the fire Wednesday, blocking roads and throwing stones at some factories and vehicles. It was the third straight day of demonstrations, and as they did previously, factories in the area closed to avoid violence.
Police used batons to disperse the protesters, but no injuries were immediately reported.
According to local television, most factories in the area closed after opening briefly because of the protests — a common tactic to avoid violence.
—–
Associated Press writer Farid Hossain in Dhaka, Bangladesh, contributed to this report.
Is Traditional America Dying?
in Uncategorized11/18/2012
Actually, I was not surprised by O’Reilly’s irrational observations. The Republican party threw every weapon it had at President Obama during the recent election, including racism, birtherism, homophobia, xenophobia, socialism, communism, sexism, tax laws, abortion, birth control, legitimate rape, Kenya, NPR and Big Bird.
It didn’t start there, either. Those Chicken Little cries of “The Sky is Falling” started long before President Obama ever arrived on the scene.
When we declared our Independence from England, there were some who said it would be a disaster and was doomed to fail. When we ended slavery, others also declared that it was the end of America. Likewise, when we stopped segregation, gave women the right to vote, and allowed gays to openly serve in the military. They were wrong in all cases, and today we are a stronger nation because of the changes.Despite O’Reilly’s accusations about the president, which include everything from losing the big picture of God and country, to bowing and apologizing to corrupt leaders, to wreaking havoc on society with welfare, abortion and the public school system, to running us off a fiscal cliff with entitlements for the poor, the death of traditional America has little to do with Obama. It has more to do with the wealthy. Ask yourself this: why aren’t tax perks for the rich, agricultural subsidies for mega-farms, $700 billion dollar bank bailouts and lobbyists securing legislation favorable only to the rich labeled entitlements? I don’t know about you, but I call that welfare at the highest level.
The real truth about traditional America, though, is that this country is shifting, not sinking. Someone needs to tell O’Reilly that you can’t run a modern government based on ideals that are hundreds of years old (or thousands, if you believe the Bible). It was once legal to own people, to force employees to work in unsafe conditions, and to not allow women the right to vote. Face it, traditional America was never good for women, Native Americans, African-Americans, Asians, the disabled or the elderly.
It’s funny how quickly we forget the bigotry, homophobia and racism that was so common in our past. Remember the centuries of slavery, followed by segregation, religious intolerance, sweat factories, Salem witch hunts, McCarthy era communism, exploitation of immigrant labor, racism, anti-Semitism, economic oppression of the poor, and the breaking of treaties with Native Americans? If that’s tradition, who needs it?
Bill O’Reilly is cherry picking history. The idealized version of America he envisions is one where white men were the dominant social class, diversity was feared, a person’s worth was measured by the size of their bank balance, and the regulation of a woman’s body by church and state was good. Bill would like to go back to a time when the government, not you, decides who you can and can’t marry. Back to when the votes of minorities and women didn’t count, and where it was perfectly OK for individuals in power to force their beliefs and ideology on others.
I hate to burst O’Reilly’s bubble, but American history is no Norman Rockwell painting.
If you’re searching for traditional America, the best place to look is in the White House. President Obama and the first lady are strong supporters of traditional values of faith, and caring for one’s neighbors and family. They don’t think people should go bankrupt over health insurance or go hungry for lack of food. They want all religious institutions protected, but don’t want them (or the government) to dictate who should have access to contraceptives. The president and his wife believe that the education of our children is important, and that we need to do everything possible to keep them happy and healthy. That’s the kind of America I want to carry forward into the future.
Tim Martin resides in McKinleyville
Made In America Has A New Ring
in Uncategorized11/19/2012
The data shows that Made in the USA resonates even stronger for U.S. consumers, of course.
Naturally, this presents a great opportunity for the many small businesses and manufacturers to tap into a new market like China with over a billion people. Many have tried to tap overseas markets only to fail because of the cultural differences, government red tape (on both sides), and shipping logistics, just to name a few of the challenges. The good news is there are many international trade resources for navigating this complex arena.
If you are looking to understand what your competitors are shipping, you can check out a company like Manifest Journals where a business connection of mine, Michael Heffernan, helps companies make sense of U.S. Customs Import Trade Data. Or head to the International Trade Administration to start your exporting journey. The USA.gov site on international trade is also a powerful resource.
The findings—part of BCG’s ongoing study of the changing global economics of manufacturing and its Made in America, Again research series—support previous BCG analysis showing that the U.S. is becoming increasingly attractive as a location for making certain products for the U.S. market and as a base for global exports.
The U.S. has improved its cost competitiveness compared with China and the advanced economies of Western Europe and Japan, leading BCG to estimate that higher U.S. exports—combined with production “reshored” from China—could create 2.5 million to 5 million new U.S. jobs in manufacturing and related services by the end of the decade (which I’ve reported on earlier this year).
In both the U.S. and China, respondents of all age groups and income levels expressed a concern for quality, a key driver of the consumer preference for U.S.-made products. Eighty-five percent of U.S. consumers and 82 percent of Chinese said they “agree” or “strongly agree” that they feel better about Made in USA quality. Patriotism is another strong consideration among U.S. consumers: 93 percent said that they would pay more for U.S.-made goods in order to keep jobs in the U.S., and 80 percent said that buying U.S. products demonstrates patriotism.
In contrast to U.S. and Chinese consumers, European consumers strongly prefer products made in their own countries. More than 65 percent of consumers in both Germany and France said that they would be willing to pay more for products made in their home country than for those made in the U.S.
Shopping for American-Made Holiday Gifts – Renewed Focus on Gifts Made in USA
in ChristmasRead more
The Revival of American Manufacturing: An Update
in UncategorizedChris Mayer
Nope. Made in the USA. The Solo Cup Co. makes them in Lake Forest, Ill.
Recently, another company started making an almost identical-looking reusable red cup. Trudeau USA makes millions of these cups, which they call simply the Red Party Cup. This was a job that in another year not so long ago might’ve headed to China. Not today.
American manufacturing is quietly enjoying a revival on some levels. Goods once made in China are now coming back to the USA — a process called re-shoring. In May, I wrote to my Capital & Crisis readers about “A New Trend ‘Sneaking up on People’”. I talked to Scott Huff, a principal at Innovate International, an engineering design and contract manufacturer for several industries. Scott was actively involved in re-shoring. Recently, I talked to Scott again to get an update.
“That red cup has been one of the most successful things we’ve re-shored,” he told me. I love this story precisely because it goes against what so many people think they know. They think US manufacturing is in inevitable decline. The red cup story is another strand in a growing thread of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
As Scott says:
The end result is kind of like what we see in the mortgage market: superlow rates that not many borrowers can access. Ergo, manufacturers need to run lean these days.
“So,” Scott continues, “if you can make your manufacturing process leaner, you can free up cash. One way to do that is to make it local and turn over the dollars faster.” This way, you don’t have cash sitting in goods on a boat from China.
Driving the renaissance is more than just shipping costs, of course. Many of the factors we talked about back in May are still in play today. Namely: It is getting expensive to do business in China.
“The glory days of China’s export business are over,” Scott says. “Now it is down to hard work. The adjustment in the renminbi [China’s currency] took some of the pressure off the export companies, but the cost of living continues to just crawl upward — the cost of food and the cost of housing, especially. Those don’t come down. There is only so much you can do with currencies.”
Cheaper US energy prices also help along the re-shoring trend. Fertilizer and chemical firms want to put down roots in the US and plug into cheap sources of natural gas. In Asia, natural gas costs at least four times the price.
“Natural gas production has gotten to the point where we can’t store it all,” Scott says. “Natural gas prices should be even lower. And things that include natural gas as a raw material, such as olefin plastics, propylene and ethylene, should be cheaper to make here. We should have the cheapest propylene and ethylene in the world in the US.”
The same could happen with oil. US production is up 25% since 2008 as new technology cracks up new supplies. As I write, the price of West Texas Intermediate, the US benchmark oil price, is down nearly 16% on the year.
So China’s cost advantages have been ground away in several ways. Still, there are challenges bringing stuff back to the US — like a dearth of manufacturing know-how.
“You have a base of experience in Illinois and Michigan and places that have traditionally been the centers of excellence for some of these manufacturing processes,” Scott said. “A toolmaker who is capable and has kept up with the technology — well, let’s just say there aren’t very many unemployed toolmakers. There’s plenty of opportunity now as people are trying to re-shore stuff.”
I was fascinated by a role reversal Scott described.
“The vast majority of my design engineers are Chinese and work in my office in China,” Scott said. “And these are guys that have been with me for five years or more, in some cases as long as I’ve been in China. I’ve been there eight years. They’ve got a lot of experience.
“So,” he says with a chuckle, “one of the things we’re starting to do is bring some interns from the States to work with them. It’s kind of a role reversal. We have design engineers that actually put lines on paper in China for the products being made in Chicago. Eight years ago, I was taking a handful of older American guys to China with me to help work with these young Chinese designers. And now it’s going back the other way. Now I have young American graduates I’m shipping over there for six months to get experience with people that know what they’re doing.”
Incredible, isn’t it? All things change. As I like to say, if you stand around long enough in markets, you’ll see them come full circle.
US consumers also favor US-made products — to a point. “People love this story,” Scott said. “Having US-made products is an advantage in the marketplace. But on consumer products in particular, as much as people love US-made products, there is a limit to what they’ll pay for them. The economics of it all will still rule the day.”
There are a handful of publicly traded US manufacturers headquartered in places like Milwaukee, Wis., and Mansfield, Ohio, that are lean and world-class competitors. They are in good position to gain from this trend. But, as always, patience is key.
The stock market may be somewhat overzealous in its enthusiasms at this very moment. While keeping my eye on this still-nascent trend, I’ve determined to wait for better prices — and they will come, I have no doubt. In the meantime, though, the revival of American manufacturing is an important story to keep in mind…especially for contrarians who don’t mind getting paid to go against the crowd.
Made in USA Label Popular in China, Too: Study
in UncategorizedNovember 14, 2012
The report, by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), found 61 percent of Chinese consumers would pay more for a product made in the United States. When products are of similar price or quality, about 47 percent prefer the U.S.-made alternative, more than double the number who would pick the Chinese-made item.
“The Chinese consumer is quietly concerned about what they’re getting,” said Hal Sirkin, a BCG senior partner and co-author of the BCG study.
Consumers are responding to recent cases of lead paint in toys, tainted milk and other scandals that, in some cases, led to severe penalties for those responsible. As more Chinese enter the middle class, they will increasingly look for value in the goods they buy rather than just the lowest price, which will pressure Chinese manufacturers to improve quality, Sirkin said.
Chinese consumers’ preference for U.S. goods, of course, is not as strong as U.S. consumers’, and its causes are different: Chinese shoppers more often cite durability and environmental impact than do shoppers in the United States.
But the survey still shows a potential advantage for manufacturers or retailers of consumer products, who may be able to charge higher prices for goods made in the United States.
BCG cited several examples of U.S.-based manufacturing: Dell Inc. makes computers; Google Inc. makes Motorola-branded phones; and General Electric Co manufactures home appliances in Kentucky.
PREMIUM FOR U.S. GOODS
The survey of more than 5,000 consumers helps support the argument that more manufacturers should base production in the United States, according to BCG.
As the cost of producing and shipping goods from China rises, more U.S. manufacturers are expected to expand U.S. capacity, BCG predicts. And as U.S. factories churn out more autos and auto parts, electrical equipment and furniture, they could spark an industrial renaissance with 5 million new jobs, it says.
BCG recommends retailers lock in U.S. suppliers to attract shoppers, and is advising consumer brands to make their U.S. sourcing as visible as possible. For now, relatively few do.
“If you’re going to have things that have a long life, like mechanics’ hand tools, there’s real premiums for ‘Made in USA’ over a foreign brand because the quality is better,” Sirkin said. He named Stanley <SWK.N> brand tools as an example.
In both the United States and China, more than 80 percent of those polled cite quality as a reason to pay more for U.S. goods. Baby food, household appliances, tires, car parts and furniture are items for which most people are willing to pay a premium, generally of 10 percent or less.
Some categories are outliers: shoppers in China would pay 77 percent more for U.S.-made athletic shoes, a status symbol.
Patriotism motivates U.S. consumers. More than nine in 10 cited domestic jobs as a reason for choosing “Made in USA” goods. Overall, 81 percent of Americans are likely to pay more for goods that carry the “Made in USA” label. More than a quarter of people are willing to pay at least 10 percent more for appliances, furniture, and baby food.
The BCG study, to be published Thursday, focused on consumer goods rather than pricy capital equipment geared toward business and government. It found only minor differences in attitudes based on age, income and whether respondents had children.
The appeal of U.S. goods is by no means universal, however. French consumers see U.S.-made mobile phones, shoes or baby toys as less valuable than local equivalents, and almost two-thirds of Germans would pay more for German products.
AMERICAN MOUNTAIN CO.: U.S.-MADE ALPINE GEAR WITH STYLE
in UncategorizedNovember 14, 2012
Driven by a desire to make products with fortitude and inspired by passion for the experiences unique to the magnificient peaks, the company makes mountain wear reminiscent of a time when climbing was in its purest form and excellence was found in all aspects of a product—when performance and quality were as important as style and design.
American Mountain Co. uses high-tech materials combined with classic style for its products, all manufactured in the United States. Every single stitch of their wears is sewn by a craftsman who takes personal pride in each pass of the needle. And every garment is arduously tested to ensure you can rely on it for a lifetime. When a product is finally deemed perfect, the crafter signs the garment before it’s sent to you with American Mountain Co.’s lifetime guarantee.
The company is launching on Kickstarter now with two products: the No. 907 High-Altitude Hardshell Jacket and the No. 307 Mid-Altitude Windproof Fleece Jacket.
The company took a ground-up approach to design these pieces. The made-in-the-USA fabrics are the best available, and the jackets have innovative features, like a system to keep the base of the jacket tight around your waist, which is far superior to the ubiquitous elastic waist drawcord used in most other jackets. And American Mountain Co.’s hightop collar offers increased wind protection and heat retention.
—Berne Broudy
@berneb
Available February 2013, $325 for the #307 and $625 for the #907 at americanmountainco.com.
Check out American Mountain Co. on:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
American Manufacturing Loses Another Member
in UncategorizedNovember 13, 2012
Third-generation owner Walter Meck and other family members bought the company back from the Fessler family after Meck’s father had sold it in 1960. After the advent of “free trade” and NAFTA had claimed its three biggest customers, the company shifted from high-volume mass-market apparel to higher-end products made with more expensive fabrics produced quickly in small quantities. The company adopted a policy of offering organic cotton, and fabrics made from bamboo.
FesslerUSA thrived. So much so that five years ago the company doubled its capacity and moved into a new factory. But it finally fell victim to the Great Recession with its tighter credit standards, Asian competition, and weak consumer spending.
The Detroit News, itself a part of a dying industry (the printed newspaper), quoted Meck as observing, “We knew that it was change or die. We had to reinvent ourselves.”
So reinvent they did. Meck laid off half his workforce and maintained a leaner, more profitable company until 2010, when sales again plummeted. New markets and new product proposals were promising, but not in time to avoid the bank calling the company’s loan.
Meck noted that his company could have survived had he been able to find a lender, but that tightened credit is a common problem for small manufacturers. Chad Moutray, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, told The Detroit News,“Many of [the member companies] have complained to me that the standards for borrowing have become a lot more strict since the recession. It’s much tougher to get a loan today than it was in the past.”
In particular, new lending standards, a casualty of the country’s bailout policy, are what have made it much more difficult for struggling companies to get a loan. That, along with a national program of increased taxation and regulations on producers, has resulted in jobs and production going overseas. Meck also blamed part of his company’s problem on lack of investor interest — not surprising to analysts, given that the economy is scaring investors into hanging onto their money.
Fessler was one of the few remaining vertically integrated companies, meaning that all aspects of production remained under one roof. The company wove its own fabric, and did its own cutting and sewing.
Los Angeles-based American Apparel is an example of a highly successful clothing manufacturer using the vertical integration model, having carved itself a good chunk of a niche market. It has bucked the system. According to The Detroit News report,
“’It’s going to be tough for me to get a job because of my age,” said Bambrick, who became the sole breadwinner for her stepdaughter and elderly mother after the recent death of her husband. “I am very strapped. I will need a good job.”’
Americans still do have choices, although they are shrinking. Though die-hard label-readers are finding fewer and fewer items made anywhere but China, analysts note that perseverance can pay off. In addition to American Apparel, “Made in the USA” labels can still be found at Munro Shoes, Finley Shirts, Unis, and Patricia Wolf, among others.
For Fessler, however, the run is over. Production will shut down in November after nearly 113 years, leaving 130 employees out of work. Meck commented,
New U.S. Address in Foxconn's Future? Don't Bet On It
in UncategorizedNovember 9, 2012
I was skeptical about this story — which talks about production of LCD TVs, not iPhones — and that might have been the end of it.
But maybe it’s not quite as crazy as it seems. A spokeswoman for Foxconn told me in an e-mail that the company “already has multiple facilities based in the U.S.” but she also went on to say that “there are no current plans to expand our operations there at this time.”
Suppose, however, you want to make the case that once the camel gets its nose under the tent, why should it stop there? I’d imagine Exhibit A could include the comments offered up the other day by Foxconn’s Chairman Terry Gou, who revealed just how badly the company was straining just to keep pace with current iPhone production demands. Any extra manufacturing capacity coming online would go a long way to help relieve that crunch. Then there’s the political benefit of turning out products with “Made in the U.S.A.” labels stamped on the back, no small benefit given the touchy state of U.S.-Sino trade relations these days. And it is entirely possible that Foxconn is getting prodded by one of its major customers because of those same political considerations.
And more jobs equals good politics. The two cities mentioned by Digitimes are Detroit and Los Angeles where both Mayors Dave Bing and Antonio Villaraigosa would be eager to put out the welcome mat: Los Angeles, with an 11.2 percent unemployment rate and Detroit, where 18.1 percent of the labor force is out of work, are doing far worse than the national average of just under 8 percent.
“If you want to make things in America, we know how to make things,” said Ned Staebler, formerly of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and now Wayne State’s vice president for economic development.
Michigan business circles have indeed been buzzing about “a big announcement” related to technology, according to Staebler, though it’s still unclear whether we’re talking about Foxconn or some other company. Word has it that the site in question might ultimately wind up in one of Detroit’s suburbs. The announcement also may have more to do with software than hardware. We’ll know more in a few weeks.
Now to the question whether Foxconn would ever employ Americans to put together iPhones or iPads in the U.S. The skeptics will note that while Foxconn has already crossed the Pacific to Brazil — last year it began operating an assembly plant not far from Sao Paulo in a the bedroom community of Jundai — average wages in Brazil remain lower than in the U.S. This becomes a case where math really matters. Foxconn — and by extension its bigger clients, like Apple — rake in fat profits from Chinese sites where hourly wages and production costs are much lower than those in the United States. (Foxconn pays its assembly workers a monthly wage of 2,500 RMB ($400).) It’s hard to imagine that tax breaks from Detroit, L.A. or Oshkosh would be enough to compensate for taking lower margins just for the “benefit” of being on U.S. soil. Economists have estimated that paying a U.S. labor force to make the devices” would add between $65 to $100 to the cost of an iPhone.
“It would be a positive if Apple made at least some percentage of their products (here) and I would like to see them do that,” notes Scott Nova, the executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a Washington D.C.-based labor rights monitoring organization. “But it would be a huge leap from their current manufacturing policy… and would be a radical change You cannot replicate Chinese working conditions in LA.”
Foxconn would also have a tough selling job to win hearts and minds given its spotty labor history, which is rife with complaints about worker conditions in factories making iPhones and other high-volume tech products. As much as Foxconn would want to keep the unions out, a new U.S. factory would still have to conform to local labor standards. Would it be worth the hassle?
Nothing is out of the realm of possibilities, but those aren’t the sorts of jobs that the political class says America ought to invest in for the future. As President Obama noted during his third debate with Mitt Romney, echoing what the late Steve Jobs told him during a dinner in Silicon Valley in 2011, “There are some jobs that are not going to come back, because they’re low-wage, low-skill jobs.”
And in this case, it may be a good enough reason not to invite them back. To be continued.
Popular Wrench Fights a Chinese Rival
in UncategorizedNovember 8, 2012
The tools have one significant difference, Mr. Craig noted. The Bionic Wrench is made in the United States. The Max Axess wrench is made in China.
The shift at Sears from a tool invented and manufactured in the United States to a very similar one made offshore has already led to a loss of American jobs and a brewing patent battle.
The story of the Bionic Wrench versus Craftsman, which bills itself as “America’s most trusted tool brand,” also raises questions about how much entrepreneurs and innovators, who rely on the country’s intellectual property laws, can protect themselves. For the little guy, court battles are inevitably time-consuming and costly, no matter the outcome.
Still, the inventor of the Bionic Wrench is determined to fight. He is Dan Brown, an industrial designer in Chicago who came up with the wrench after watching his son try to work on a lawn mower. Mr. Brown says he believes that the Max Axess wrench copies his own and he is planning to file suit against Sears, which declined to answer any questions about the wrenches for this article.
Since Sears has halted new orders, the Pennsylvania company that makes the Bionic Wrench has had to lay off 31 workers, said Keith Hammer, the project manager at the company, Penn United Technologies. “And that’s not to mention our suppliers,” he added.
Mr. Brown sees a broader issue than just the fate of his wrench. “Our situation is an example of why we’re not getting jobs out of innovation,” he said. “When people get the innovation, they go right offshore. What happened to me is what happened to so many people so many times, and we just don’t talk about it.”
Inventors typically spend $10,000 to $50,000 to obtain the type of patent Mr. Brown has on the wrench, said John S. Pratt, a patent expert at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton in Atlanta. Though he said he could not comment on the merits of Mr. Brown’s potential suit, patent infringement cases can be especially difficult in the tool field, where many improvements are incremental, Mr. Pratt explained.
A defendant in such a case would most likely argue that either the tool did not warrant a patent in the first place, or that its own product did not violate the patent.
The fact that Sears made some changes to the wrench’s design, like making the grooves that allow the metal prongs to slide back and forth visible instead of hidden, will make the case more challenging, he said. “It’s hard for me to imagine that Sears isn’t particularly careful about breach of patent, so there’s probably another side to the story,” he said.
After patenting the wrench in 2005, Mr. Brown formed a company, LoggerHead Tools, to bring it to market, making a point of having it made in the United States.
The Bionic Wrench was greeted with enthusiasm at trade shows and in industrial design competitions, and the company survived the downturn in 2008. Mr. Brown resisted overtures from large chain stores that wanted to sell the tool under their proprietary brand, he said, and rejected the lure of cheaper manufacturing in China. “I was raised a different way,” he said.
The tool sold fairly well on its own — LoggerHead has shipped 1.75 million of them — but Mr. Brown, 56, who teaches industrial design at Northwestern University, says LoggerHead operated on a shoestring and he plowed much of the profit back into the company. “You cannot have big offices and fancy cars and everybody with an administrative assistant, because we are competing with China,” he said.
In 2009, LoggerHead hit pay dirt when Sears agreed to do a test sale. The product sold out, Mr. Brown said, and Sears ordered 75,000 Bionic Wrenches the next year. In exchange Mr. Brown agreed not to sell the wrench to Sears’s competitors, including Home Depot and Lowe’s.
In 2011, sales at Sears increased again, far outpacing LoggerHead’s other outlets like the QVC shopping channel and smaller hardware stores. But LoggerHead’s profit margin remained small, in part because it produced a television commercial and paid Sears to show it.
The Sears Holdings Company, which owns the Craftsman brand, declined multiple requests to comment on the Bionic Wrench or the Max Axess Wrench. The company would not answer questions about patent infringement or the volume of sales.
But in a string of e-mails provided by Mr. Brown, the buyer at Sears who had the LoggerHead account wrote, making liberal use of exclamation points, that the wrench’s holiday sales last year exceeded its target by 23 percent.
In the manufacturing world, lead time can determine price, and from the beginning cost was a particular issue for the Bionic Wrench, because of the competition from China. A 2006 article in The Wall Street Journal was headlined, “Wrench Wins Awards, but Is It Priced Too High to Be a Hit?”
According to Mr. Brown’s account of his dealings with Sears, the chain was pleased with the tool’s performance and agreed to place an order for 2012 in plenty of time to keep the cost low. Then his buyer at Sears changed and that agreement seemed to get lost in a new round of haggling. When the order for Father’s Day
finally cam
e, Mr. Brown said, it was too late to guarantee the lower price. He refused the order.
Sears responded by agreeing to the higher price. But when it came time for the Christmas holiday order, negotiations stalled once more, again pushing LoggerHead past the deadline to get the best price, according to Mr. Brown.
“We were sitting there going, ‘Why do they want Father’s Day so bad but they won’t commit for Christmas?’ ” Mr. Brown said. Now he believes that the company had already placed its order for the Craftsman version.
In late September, Mr. Brown said, his suspicions were confirmed. LoggerHead got a “customer feedback” e-mail from Mr. Craig, the tool connoisseur, describing the new Max Axess wrenches. “Sadly, they are made in China,” Mr. Craig wrote. “Can you tell me if LoggerHead has authorized these?”
Craftsman has come under fire before, accused of misleading customers into thinking that its tools are made in America and for stealing intellectual property. In one case, Sears spent two decades defending itself against a claim by Peter M. Roberts, who as a young Sears employee had, on his own time, invented a type of socket wrench.
Mr. Roberts told the court that Sears had played down the value of his invention, paid him $10,000 for the rights, and then made tens of millions of dollars. He eventually received settlements of less than $10 million, according to news reports.
In another, more recent case led by Lee Grossman, Mr. Brown’s lawyer, a judge awarded $25 million to the maker of a tool called the Rotozip who said he had disclosed trade secrets to Sears in an attempt to get the store to carry a new version of the tool.
Sears, a jury decided, took the trade secrets and had the tool made abroad for Craftsman.
“You have LoggerHead out, Dan Brown out, and dozens of American workers laid off — all in the name of profits for Sears,” Mr. Grossman said.
LoggerHead’s lawsuit, Mr. Brown said, will most likely include claims that Sears interfered with the company’s ability to do business with other stores.
“I’m in favor of free trade,” Mr. Brown said. “The person who’s out-innovated loses. But it’s destructive when someone competes but doesn’t out-innovate, they just produce it in a different market without regard to safety codes and human conditions.”
The company that makes the Max Axess wrench and other tools for Craftsman, the Apex Tool Group, is being acquired by Bain Capital, the company founded by Mitt Romney, in a $1.6 billion deal.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Bain was criticized on the grounds that it encouraged outsourcing by companies it buys at the expense of American workers. Apex makes many of its tools overseas. A company spokesman referred all questions to Sears.
Mr. Brown and his lawyer say they believe they have a solid case against Sears, but it could take years to litigate. “What happens to us in the meantime?” Mr. Brown asked.
Mr. Brown is also concerned that while he fights in court, Sears can undercut the price of his wrench.
For now at least, Sears still has some of Mr. Brown’s wrenches in its inventory. On the Sears Web site, the Craftsman and the LoggerHead wrenches are listed at the same regular price, $24.99 for the 8-inch version, and today both are on sale. But for at least a few days in recent weeks, only the Craftsman version was on sale, for $19.99.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 9, 2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: An Innovator vs. a Follower.
How New Parents Can Bring Back ‘Made in the USA’
in UncategorizedFounder & Creative Director, Oliver & Adelaide
11/07/2012
As an online retailer of baby and toddler products made exclusively in the U.S., I am in a position to see an area where American manufacturing is trying to make a comeback.
Manufacturing American-Made Values
The word “manufacturing” tends to conjure images of industrial assembly lines and heavy machinery. But it’s worth remembering that the word means, at root, “to work by hand.” The vendors I work with range from a retired schoolteacher who crochets blankets to savvy, garment-industry veterans who have struck out on their own with smaller design ventures. Whatever the size of their respective enterprises, these are true businesspeople; I would not be able to work with them if they weren’t capable of delivering products on time, season in and season out.
They are also people who are operating from a system of core values — paramount among them, that “Made in the USA” still matters. It matters for a country where that label remains a source of pride. It matters for the environment, when it makes a real difference whether a product needs to be transported 200 miles versus 6,000 miles. And for parents, it matters perhaps most of all in terms of quality and safety.
What’s at Stake
My own background is in the fashion industry. I’ve lived in China, overseeing production at factories there, and seen firsthand how impersonal and indifferent that process can be. As a parent of two young children, I know that what I buy for them ends up in their hands and, inevitably, their mouths. So for every piece of clothing, each doll and toy I purchase, I want to know exactly how it was made, what it is made of and where it’s been. My experience tells me that when something comes from half a world away, you simply cannot know where it’s been sitting, and for how long, on what warehouse floor, in what cargo ship — and, to me, that’s unacceptable. When scarcely a week goes buy without a recall of a foreign-made product, that’s unacceptable, too.
What “Made in the USA” Means in a World of Choices
Being a new parent can be, let’s face it, intimidating. We are presented with an overwhelming list of products that we are told we need to buy in order to be a “good parent,” and then faced with thousands of choices from scores of brands. My company, Oliver & Adelaide, grew out of my own process of trying to separate the things a parent really needs from the marketing hype, and trying to find the very best manufacturers making these products here in the USA.
Very few parents have the time to undertake this kind of research, and fewer still have the opportunity to visit studios and factories. I have made it my business. In seeing for myself where the products are designed and made and inspecting the raw materials used to make them, I have discovered an impressive group of businesses that put a very personal degree of care and concern into every step of their manufacturing processes. And in meeting these suppliers, I have also discovered that they also bring real passion and pride to what they do.
Small businesses like Loop, which was founded in 2010 by two knit designers to create heirloom quality children’s clothes and blankets, or Zuzii, which uses the highest-quality materials and employs traditional cobbler techniques to handcraft shoes for babies and toddlers, are making outstanding products here in the United States, and doing so with love. But without the huge sales forces and marketing budgets of larger companies that outsource manufacture overseas, they face an uphill climb when it comes to connecting with parents. And because they insist on making American products with American labor and materials, they are unable to take advantage of the mass manufacturing that drives down costs for major brands.
Good for Baby, Good for the Economy
These are the kinds of manufacturers who depend on small retailers to spread word of their products. I’m proud to play a part in that. More than that, though, they depend on parents who will make it a point to buy American — even if it means buying fewer items, but of significantly higher quality. Births, aside from being a joyous experience for each family, are also tremendous drivers of the economy; much like house sales, they set in motion a cascade of purchases. If parents commit to supporting manufacturers who believe in the USA, I believe we can take a real step towards bringing jobs back to this country. In doing so, we may find that the answer to fixing the trade imbalance lies not with any particular policy — or any particular candidat — but, rather, in our own hands.
It’s an approach that could benefit all sectors of our economy. Why not start with the purchases that end up in the hands of our children?
Carhartt's Patriotic New Made-in-USA Line, Old Made-in-USA Line
in UncategorizedNovember 7, 2012
But clothing brand Carhartt has been making its clothing in the US since, well, forever. And now its is working to make this fact more a part of its message.
Carhartt’s tan, swirly wave logo on its characteristically tan garments is probably familiar even to those who don’t count on the brand for work wear. But construction workers, truckers, welders, farmers, and just about anyone else in America who works outside an office have a special appreciation for the brand.
“Best for wear” and “From the mill to millions” have been a couple of the mottos the brand has used since it was founded in 1889 by its namesake, Hamilton Carhartt. The “Made in America” tags on its clothing was more or less an afterthought. But now, Carhartt has released a “Made in the USA” line featuring some of its most iconic products. The line, Carhartt says, is “stitched on American soil for any person that believes in hard work.”
“Rather than follow trends, our goal is to always design and manufacture premium work-worthy apparel at a price that respects our consumer’s hard-earned dollar,” Carhartt Vice President of Marketing, Tony Ambroza, told brandchannel when asked about the new line’s timing. When asked any Carhartt chose now to stress its “Made in America” bona-fides, Ambroza said, “Our Made in the USA line of apparel was created in response to consumer feedback; they told us they wanted to know exactly which products we make and source in the U.S. We were able to shift some product to other manufacturing facilities in order to accommodate production of these popular styles.”
But a recent study published by the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal argues that American consumers overvalue US-made apparel. From the study:
With this in mind, Ambroza hinted that the line was not yet complete, suggesting Carhartt fans “look for additional USA-made exclusives this holiday season.”
Made in America Markets Create Communities of Like-Minded Consumers
in UncategorizedNovember 5, 2012
They arrived in town late Friday night and were among the first to show up on a recent crisp October morning at a warehouse in Chicago’s Fulton Market area. Music by Band of Horses played softly in the background, giving the airy, white-washed loft space an ambiance equal parts gallery opening and trade show. A large vintage American flag looming over the showroom signaled the common domestic origin of the clothing, accessories, shoes, bicycles and skin care products for sale.
Adachi and Kennedy were already fans of some of the brands at NorthernGRADE, a pop-up menswear market of American-made goods making its Chicago debut two years after launching in Minnesota. Meeting the crafters, designers and small-business owners behind the brands added to the appeal, they said.
“I like the idea of craftsmanship. I feel like the brands are doing it because they care and there’s something about that that’s very commendable. I’d rather support that than go to the mall and buy something made overseas,” said Adachi, 25.
“We had to come, especially since events like this don’t happen much in the Midwest,” said Kennedy, a 23-year-old self-described “made in America freak” who was turned onto the concept by her boyfriend. “It’s so awesome to see people doing what they love. It’s evident in the quality of their products.”
About 800 people turned up for NorthernGRADE Chicago, according to organizers’ estimates, from across the Midwest and beyond, underscoring the growing popularity of the made in America movement in style and fashion, especially among younger consumers.
The markets are fueling the movement beyond the country’s major fashion markets, where the concept has proven successful. NorthernGRADE is modeled after New York City’s annual Pop-Up Flea, which began in 2009 as a showcase of brands mostly from the United States known for their quality goods. The creators of NorthernGRADE adopted the model for a Midwestern audience by focusing on brands from region. But the focus on quality brands hasn’t changed, said Katherine McMillan of men’s accessory line Pierrepont Hicks, which co-founded NorthernGRADE.
“I would not feel comfortable producing this market if I didn’t believe in all of the brands we invite to take part,” she said. “We all have similar philosophies and ethics about our products. If someone’s products don’t turn out to meet (our standards), we don’t invite them back.”
“The Midwest has long history of manufacturing, but no one was cheering it on until now,” said fashion and brand consultant Noah Zagor, who showed up at the market dressed the part in a vintage denim Levi’s jacket and Alden “Indy” boots, both of which were made in the United States.
“There’s a new generation of men learning about basics of getting dressed, and they want knowledge. They want to know where their stuff comes from.”
It’s tempting to want to stereotype supporters of American-made apparel as either a bunch of trendy urbanites who want to look like lumberjacks on the weekend or blue-collar workers expressing patriotism through their work boots. But this event brought in visitors of all stripes. Teenagers dragged their parents along for their wallets while middle-aged men scanned the displays for unadorned pairs of jeans and silver-haired couples, who remembered the days when manufacturing plants dotted the Midwest, tried on trapper hats.
One thing they all seemed to share was nostalgia for an era when clothing and accessories were made to last, regardless of whether they were actually alive during that time.
One man came from London in search of “a few bits of inspiration” for a potential American-made and UK-made retail concept in England, which is also experiencing a wave of nostalgia for a time when clothing was made closer to home.
“People like me want to stray from goods made in the Far East,” said David Swetman, a 27-year-old freelance designer who resembled a menswear model in a Barbour jacket and fisherman’s sweater over a flannel shirt, JW Hulme duffel bag slung over his shoulder.
“We’re swinging away from fast fashion, and we’re willing to invest and spend more on quality,” he said. Sure enough, he left the market about an hour later with a $300 Archival waxed cotton vest, a $195 shawl-collared Pendleton sweater and leather shoelaces of different colors. “A nice way to accessorize your brogues,” he noted.
For anyone who might use the words “classic,” “structured,” “Americana” or “heritage” to describe their personal style, there was plenty to covet: colorful racks of Oxford cloth button-ups, thick shawl-collared sweaters, jeans from some of the hottest names in premium denim and all manner of vintage.
Footwear fanatics had their choice of leather boots and shoes in every imaginable color and texture from Red Wing and Oak Street, two boot makers representing old and new school establishments. Tables displayed unisex accessories, from sturdy canvas rucksacks, shoulder bags and pencil cases to wool trapper hats and candy-colored assortments of neckties, bow ties and blankets.
Like other market-goers, Adachi was dressed as though his outfit had come from the showroom: Red Wing Heritage boots (made in America), Raleigh Denim jeans (naturally), flannel shirt (no) and Hill-Side scarf (yes) over a henley (no).
Kennedy also looked the part in dark jeans, vintage pullover sweater and boots, though none of it was made in America, underscoring arguments that clothing made in America can be prohibitively expensive or hard to find.
What would make her wardrobe more patriotic, so to speak? “More shows like this would help,” she said. “It’s hard to find this stuff in person.”
13;
Radio host Glenn Beck last month announced his line of American-made jeans, which gets its denim from the same North Carolina mill used by many premium jean brands. Made Collection, an online flash site sale, launched this fall offering American-made products at discounted prices. In time for the holiday season, luxury and mass market retailers such as Anthropologie, Urban Outfitters and Barneys are continuing the trend of partnering with independent brands and designers who make their products in America.
It’s also been a busy year for pop-up markets. The Chicago show marked NorthernGRADE’s first incursion into another city, two years after it was started by Pierrepont Hicks and J.W. Hulme. Another show is scheduled for Minneapolis in December, which will be its third there this year. In 2013, it plans to expand to San Francisco, Nashville, Denver and Moscow.
Another pop-up, American Field, debuted in Boston the weekend before NorthernGRADE Chicago and featured 40 vendors, organizer Mark Bollman said.
“It’s one thing to read about companies making things in the U.S. or to check a label, but I think it’s a whole other thing to have a physical representation of like-minded companies in one place,” said Bollman, founder of Boston-based outfitter Ball and Buck. “You can directly see and understand the growth of this movement and really understand the impact of a purchase, be it big or small.”
The markets featured a combination of businesses that use American factories and workshops to produce their goods along with artisans and crafters who, by virtue of living in the United States, make their product here. Across all categories, the raw materials may or may not be domestically sourced depending on availability, with hardware such as zippers, snaps and woven fabric among the materials in shortest supply in the United States.
The growing hype has some worried that “made in America” is on the precipice of becoming a passing style trend before it actually has a chance to realize its oft-cited underlying goals.
“The initial made in the USA message was about bringing jobs back to the country to stimulate the economy, ending the dependency on other countries for goods and bringing back the education and know-how that comes along with the industry. All that’s being diluted and boiled down into the message of buy made in the USA. The bottom has been taken out and become a selling point,” said Chicago-based menswear blogger and digital strategist Brad Bennett, who helped coordinate NorthernGRADE.
It’s unclear whether interest in American-made clothing correlates with an increase in industrial domestic manufacturing of clothing, which declined by 0.7% from September 2011 to September 2012, according to the Federal Reserve’s numbers on industrial production. However, preliminary numbers for September showed a 1.6% increase over the previous month.
That’s where the markets come into play, to create a movement by bringing together consumers, brands and retailers who are doing their part to raise the profile of American-made fashion.
“It’s definitely a celebration of things made here but also a celebration of the people making it,” said Bennett, whose blog, Well Spent, features “obtainable, honestly crafted goods” from the United States and abroad.
“It’s a pretty cool thing to pick up a bag knowing it’s going to last the rest of your life and then shake the hand of the person who made it,” he said. “You’re not just coming to NorthernGRADE to spend money, you meet people and it’s sort of like, here’s your community.”
A big part of selling made in America is educating the consumer on what they get from their investment, said Lesli Larson, co-founder of Archival Clothing, whose best-selling roll top backpack goes for $220.
“You pay upfront, but you buy sparingly and wisely with the idea that you’re going to use this piece for many seasons and eventually you get pennies per wear,” she said.
Her business grew out of her blog, which documented “long-lost artifacts” from Montgomery Ward catalogs and Americana-inspired fashion being produced in Japan with old machines and equipment purchased from the United States.
“The shift of moving past a state of nostalgia to what can we do to make this a reality using available resources has been the challenge,” said Larson, who has kept her job as an archivist at the University of Oregon-Eugene even as her business has grown.
Larson relishes the opportunity to share her knowledge, which she did with fans including Adachi, who spent more than three hours floating around the showroom before deciding to drop $300 on an Archival vest. His girlfriend’s big-ticket purchase was a pair of Tellason jeans for $198. They were confident that the purchases were worth the money, not only for their quality but because of the stories behind them.
It reminded Adachi of a TED Talk by Simon Sinek who put forth the idea that people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.
“I’m the type of person who’s more interested in why,” Adachi said.
For others, though, the origin of the goods was not nearly as important as their quality.
“I came to the event for the uniqueness of the collections,” said Jeff Medchill, a mortgage industry auditor who also picked up a pair of Tellason jeans. “American-made is not a strong point, I wouldn’t go out of my way to avoid or buy American-made.”
Collin Moody said he was drawn to the event because he supported Chicago-based retailers Haberdash and Penelope’s, which were showing at the market. Normally, not everything they carry in their stores is domestically made, reflecting a commonly held position among consumers and stockists that buying made in America is secondary to sourcing high-quality products made responsibly regardless of their origin.
“We’re interested in
the
ethics of the products. We try to be conscious of where they come from and who’s making them,” said Moody, 21, also a student. “It also helps us not be wasteful.”
For retired carpenter Paul Hortenstine, the market was simply an opportunity “to find quality products made in the USA.”
He and his wife made the trip from Shorewood, Illinois, after learning of the event on Twitter. He had his sights set on a Stormy Kromer trapper hat, but stopped on his way over to quiz George Vlagos, proprietor of Oak Street Boots, on the origin of material for his footwear (Horween Leather of Chicago).
“This guy from Oak Street Bootmakers, he’s making quality product. I’m all for seeing people succeed making quality products in the U.S.,” Hortenstine happily exclaimed as he walked away without purchasing a pair, which run from $200 to $500.
“The price is high but quality justifies it,” he said. “Maybe you can buy it all or you can focus on one or two things.”
He finally settled on two hats in different colors from Stormy Kromer, which have been made in Ironwood, Michigan, for more than 100 years. He also picked up a vest, a recent addition to Stormy Kromer’s apparel catalog, reflecting the success of what sales rep Joel Anderson called “the Trojan horse approach.”
“They come for the hats, because that’s what we’re known for, and they find our apparel,” said Anderson, whose brand was one of few at NorthernGRADE that fell into the heritage category (along with Red Wing) for its long history. While Stormy Kromer is an established brand, being in the same space alongside up-and-coming brands puts it in front of a new, younger audience of consumers and potential wholesalers.
“It’s a three-pronged approach. Educate consumers on our rich history and story, meet fellow vendors, and get new retail business,” he said. “You never know who’s going to come in.”
What Is ‘Made in America’ Worth?
in American Made, Domestic Sourcing, Economy, Made in USA, Manufacturing & SourcingRead more
It's Global Warming, Stupid
in UncategorizedNovember 01, 2012
Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.
In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.
Sandy featured a scary extra twist implicating climate change. An Atlantic hurricane moving up the East Coast crashed into cold air dipping south from Canada. The collision supercharged the storm’s energy level and extended its geographical reach. Pushing that cold air south was an atmospheric pattern, known as a blocking high, above the Arctic Ocean. Climate scientists Charles Greene and Bruce Monger of Cornell University, writing earlier this year in Oceanography, provided evidence that Arctic icemelts linked to global warming contribute to the very atmospheric pattern that sent the frigid burst down across Canada and the eastern U.S.
If all that doesn’t impress, forget the scientists ostensibly devoted to advancing knowledge and saving lives. Listen instead to corporate insurers committed to compiling statistics for profit.
On Oct. 17 the giant German reinsurance company Munich Re issued a prescient report titled Severe Weather in North America. Globally, the rate of extreme weather events is rising, and “nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” From 1980 through 2011, weather disasters caused losses totaling $1.06 trillion. Munich Re found “a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades.” By contrast, there was “an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe, and 1.5 in South America.” Human-caused climate change “is believed to contribute to this trend,” the report said, “though it influences various perils in different ways.”
Global warming “particularly affects formation of heat waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity,” Munich Re said. This July was the hottest month recorded in the U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. Drought Monitor reported that two-thirds of the continental U.S. suffered drought conditions this summer.
Granted, Munich Re wants to sell more reinsurance (backup policies purchased by other insurance companies), so maybe it has a selfish reason to stir anxiety. But it has no obvious motive for fingering global warming vs. other causes. “If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible,” said Peter Hoppe, the company’s chief of geo-risks research, “all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”
Which raises the question of what alerts and measures to undertake. In his book The Conundrum, David Owen, a staff writer at the New Yorker, contends that as long as the West places high and unquestioning value on economic growth and consumer gratification—with China and the rest of the developing world right behind—we will continue to burn the fossil fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. Fast trains, hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, carbon offsets—they’re just not enough, Owen writes.
Yet even he would surely agree that the only responsible first step is to put climate change back on the table for discussion. The issue was MIA during the presidential debates and, regardless of who wins on Nov. 6, is unlikely to appear on the near-term congressional calendar. After Sandy, that seems insane.
Mitt Romney has gone from being a supporter years ago of clean energy and emission caps to, more recently, a climate agnostic. On Aug. 30, he belittled his opponent’s vow to arrest climate change, made during the 2008 presidential campaign. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet,” Romney told the Republican National Convention in storm-tossed Tampa. “My promise is to help you and your family.” Two months later, in the wake of Sandy, submerged families in New Jersey and New York urgently needed some help dealing with that rising-ocean stuff.
Obama and his strategists clearly decided that in a tight race during fragile economic times, he should compete with Romney by promising to mine more coal and drill more oil. On the campaign trail, when Obama refers to the environment, he does so only in the context of spurring “green jobs.” During his time in office, Obama has made modest progress on climate issues. His administration’s fuel-efficiency standards will reduce by half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks by 2025. His regulations and proposed rules to curb mercury, carbon, and other emissions from coal-fired power plants are forcing utilities to retire some of the dirtiest old facilities. And the country has doubled the generation of energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind.
Still, renewable energy accounts for less than 15 percent of the country’s electricity. The U.S. cannot shake its fossil fuel addiction by going cold turkey. Offices and factories can’t function in the dark. Shippers and drivers and air trave
lers w
ill not abandon petroleum overnight. While scientists and entrepreneurs search for breakthrough technologies, the next president should push an energy plan that exploits plentiful domestic natural gas supplies. Burned for power, gas emits about half as much carbon as coal. That’s a trade-off already under way, and it’s worth expanding. Environmentalists taking a hard no-gas line are making a mistake.
Conservatives champion market forces—as do smart liberals—and financial incentives should be part of the climate agenda. In 2009 the House of Representatives passed cap-and-trade legislation that would have rewarded more nimble industrial players that figure out how to use cleaner energy. The bill died in the Senate in 2010, a victim of Tea Party-inspired Republican obstructionism and Obama’s decision to spend his political capital to push health-care reform.
Despite Republican fanaticism about all forms of government intervention in the economy, the idea of pricing carbon must remain a part of the national debate. One politically plausible way to tax carbon emissions is to transfer the revenue to individuals. Alaska, which pays dividends to its citizens from royalties imposed on oil companies, could provide inspiration (just as Romneycare in Massachusetts pointed the way to Obamacare).
Ultimately, the global warming crisis will require global solutions. Washington can become a credible advocate for moving the Chinese and Indian economies away from coal and toward alternatives only if the U.S. takes concerted political action. At the last United Nations conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, the world’s governments agreed to seek a new legal agreement that binds signatories to reduce their carbon emissions. Negotiators agreed to come up with a new treaty by 2015, to be put in place by 2020. To work, the treaty will need to include a way to penalize countries that don’t meet emission-reduction targets—something the U.S. has until now refused to support.
If Hurricane Sandy does nothing else, it should suggest that we need to commit more to disaster preparation and response. As with climate change, Romney has displayed an alarmingly cavalier attitude on weather emergencies. During one Republican primary debate last year, he was asked point-blank whether the functions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ought to be turned back to the states. “Absolutely,” he replied. Let the states fend for themselves or, better yet, put the private sector in charge. Pay-as-you-go rooftop rescue service may appeal to plutocrats; when the flood waters are rising, ordinary folks welcome the National Guard.
It’s possible Romney’s kill-FEMA remark was merely a pander to the Right, rather than a serious policy proposal. Still, the reconfirmed need for strong federal disaster capability—FEMA and Obama got glowing reviews from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Romney supporter—makes the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign-trail statement all the more reprehensible.
The U.S. has allowed transportation and other infrastructure to grow obsolete and deteriorate, which poses a threat not just to public safety but also to the nation’s economic health. With once-in-a-century floods now occurring every few years, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the country’s biggest city will need to consider building surge protectors and somehow waterproofing its enormous subway system. “It’s not prudent to sit here and say it’s not going to happen again,” Cuomo said. “I believe it is going to happen again.”
David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large ofForeign Policy, noted in an Oct. 29 blog post that Sandy also brought his hometown, Washington, to a standstill, impeding affairs of state. To lessen future impact, he suggested burying urban and suburban power lines, an expensive but sensible improvement.
Where to get the money? Rothkopf proposed shifting funds from post-Sept. 11 bureaucratic leviathans such as the Department of Homeland Security, which he alleges is shot through with waste. In truth, what’s lacking in America’s approach to climate change is not the resources to act but the political will to do so. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in October found that two-thirds of Americans say there is “solid evidence” the earth is getting warmer. That’s down 10 points since 2006. Among Republicans, more than half say it’s either not a serious problem or not a problem at all.
Such numbers reflect the success of climate deniers in framing action on global warming as inimical to economic growth. This is both shortsighted and dangerous. The U.S. can’t afford regular Sandy-size disruptions in economic activity. To limit the costs of climate-related disasters, both politicians and the public need to accept how much they’re helping to cause them.
THIS CHRISTMAS: WILL YOU SUPPORT AMERICAN OR FOREIGN WORKERS?
in UncategorizedOctober 27, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Well, retailers have the Christmas tree displays out for a couple of weeks now, gradually squeezing out Halloween junk. People are commenting, “I don’t even want to think about it” or “I just hate this time of the year”. I thought Christmas was supposed to be so special with all the family, warm and fuzzy? Presents, Old Saint Nick and new credit card bills go into high gear the day after Thanksgiving.
With 25 million Americans out of work, this “holiday” season is likely to be one of more pressure put on parents to buy children birthday presents even though it’s supposed to be the birth date of Jesus Christ.
No question according to polls – jobs are the number one issue this election cycle because folks are desperate. Just like Americans were during the “Great” Depression.
Since the crooks, liars and thieves in the Outlaw Congress (likely at least 80% or more will get reelected) refuse to get the U.S. out of all the job killing treaties (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT/WTO and a dozen more passed since 1994), it’s up to we the people to continue forcing the issue by refusing to buy foreign junk keeping people in other countries employed while Americans stand in soup lines, live in their cars or collect unemployment insurance for years.
One of the carrots used to sell the American people for NAFTA was “cheaper” goods. They sure are – cheap in quality, but not in dollars. Go to Dillard’s, Macy’s or other department stores and look at the price tag on some rag or shoes made in Communist China. It is as high or higher than a similar one made in America. I know because I do price comparisons as research. Of course, the purchasing power of the dollar continues to take a beating, so that worthless piece of paper in your wallet doesn’t go as far. Tens of millions of Americans have no idea what that means anymore than they know how critical it is to understand the trade deficit:
“The cession of the whole treaty-making power to the president and the senate is one of the most fearful features in this Constitution, as they can enter into the most ruinous of foreign engagements.” Patrick Henry
John Boehner and the Senate have given the impostor president, Barry Soetoro aka Obama, every single “free” trade treaty since he unlawfully took office. The traitorous dogs in the Outlaw Congress aren’t finished yet with killing off yet more jobs:
“JBS CEO Art Thompson’s weekly video news update for September 24-30, 2012. In this week’s video he discusses how Republicans and Democrats want to open up trade with Russia, which means that more jobs will leave the country; how the State Department and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are working to get U.S. businesses to invest in Egypt, which means still more U.S. jobs lost; how JBS was calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist back when the world press was naming him a man of peace; and how the Council on Foreign Relations is continuing its drive toward a New World Order with its influence over our military’s role in Afghanistan.”
I hear people say all the time, you can’t find Made in USA. Not true. More and more retailers are making sure with a big sticker on the product that it’s Made in America and in tv commercial ads. Two days ago I needed a new cookie sheet and a new pizza pan. I bought both of them at my local HEB grocery store and both had a nice big easy to remove sticker that said Made in USA. I wanted to purchase the orgreenic frying pan you see on tv; nothing sticks to it. I called their toll free number. Made in Communist China. No, thanks. I’m not going to sell out my fellow Americans over a frying pan.
As this is a small rural town, over the years you get to know management where you shop on a regular basis. When I first moved to Big Spring, there was no organic veggies and few products at our local supermarket. After a couple of years, I took my receipts to management and said, here — see what I spend over in Midland (40 miles away) to get what I want? It’s taken time, but HEB has really improved with an excellent assortment of organic items like Virgin Organic Coconut Oil, which I use for cooking, as well as a full selection of fruits and veggies.
I showed management they lost money because I refuse to buy foreign fruits and vegetables. I will drive out of town to get them and buy from local farmers markets. We just have to make our voices heard and let management know where we put our consumer dollars.
Every time you buy made in Communist China, Communist Hong Kong or some other country — especially for cars and trucks owned by Toyota and the rest of the foreign manufacturers — you enrich them, not America.
The trade deficit continues to go up while employment for Americans goes down. People are now paying workers in India for a job they used to have, yet they continue to reelect the same sell outs like John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi who have consistently voted to kill American jobs and send them overseas.
Does anyone see the insanity going on here?
More than 223,000 businesses have closed since the 2008 meltdown. After the above mentioned unconstitutional, sovereignty killing treaties were passed, America began to shift from being the world leader in agriculture, manufacturing and engineering. “Free” trade was going to be the biggest boon for America since the railroad!!!
That is nothing but propaganda. It was America’s protectionist policies of the of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that made America an economic superpower on this earth. Fair trade worked in the past, until greed, as usual, took over.
Those protectionist policies made America prosperous, providing good paying jobs in the ag, manufacturing and industrial sectors. After those destructive trade treaties were passed, MILLIONS ended up working at McDonald’s or other minimum wage jobs. Instead of manufacturing and growing all we need to be a self sustaining nation, more and more entertainment based businesses sprung up. When the middle class began hemorrhaging jobs, people were forced to count every penny and that means eating at home and no more $100 a game NBA tickets. Foreclosures were the hottest business in the country.
For almost two decades, the American people, through their consumer dollars, have been building up
countr
ies like India while America continues to slide into economic depression. For almost two decades, Americans are now paying foreign workers for jobs they once held.
Of course, we must not forget the profitable undelcared “wars” that have been going on for over a decade in the Middle East. Big money for defense contractors and private sector contractors hauling in blood money. Yes, blood money. Work for a company building those drones that killed more than 2,500 innocent civilians in countries like Pakistan:
“According to a report last month by academics at Stanford and New York universities, between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed since the strikes in Pakistan began in 2004. The report said of those, up to 881 were civilians, including 176 children. Only 41 people who had died had been confirmed as ‘high-value’ terrorist targets.”
Murder being done in our name. Paychecks that drip blood of innocents.
“New Report: U.S.A. Too Dependent on Foreign Suppliers in Crises Revitalizing American Manufacturing called “Urgent National Priority.” New report by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and former Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security Robert B. Stephan sees the U.S. as too dependent on foreign suppliers in crises.”
Every time we buy Made in America, those companies grow. The money stays in our country. The employee spends locally for things like the dry cleaners, the hardware store and all the small businesses that are the engine of our economy.
There is plenty of time to order on line for items for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Keep telling retailers you want Made in America. Let foreign junk sit on the shelves. Tell retailers you will take the time to order on line. Tell retailers you want Made in America products in their store or you won’t buy.
I would also ask folks to remember that Communist China is NOT our friend. They use slave labor, kill their own people all the time and force women to have abortions right up to term. Can it get more evil than that?
Let me also offer this up as I do every year. If you do gift giving, it doesn’t always have to be a ‘thing’. A few years ago when my niece and nephew lived in Las Vegas, I purchased a family membership to the fantastic Las Vegas Natural History Museum. For $65.00, the kids, my neice and her husband had a year of memories and fun instead of some junk you made in Communist China or another piece of clothing from India.
There are many creative things to give to children, teens and young adults for Christmas that enrich their lives. Use a search engine for your city and type in tourism. You’ll see all kinds of things to give gift certificates for like maybe horse back riding, a day trip to one of the most fabulous places outside Denver, CO, The Wild Animal Sanctuary, or some other activity that creates family memories instead of some toy made in Communist China. Look at how many recall of toys over lead content are from Communist China. Think it’s an accident?
Just my personal note: I rejected American Apparel when they contacted me because they use sex to sell their products; too many of their models look underage. The last time I looked at their site, young girls had their backsides spread to the camera with a thin piece of material barely covering their “butt crack”. Not to mention:
“American Apparel finds itself once again in a familiar place — sued again for sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment, because of the vulnerability its CEO’s philosophy of sexual freedom in the workplace creates for the publicly held company.” (Chief of American Apparel Faces 2nd Harassment Suit) No thanks.
Did you know Glenn Beck did this? “The 1791 brand was built around one idea: Made in America. Late last year, Glenn took a look at some of his favorite denim companies and realized they were making their clothing overseas. He was frustrated. How could something so inherent to the spirit and the history of this country NOT be made in the USA anymore? Not content to sit back and complain, Glenn charged the 1791 team with creating a pair of jeans that would be designed and crafted here in America.
“The result is 1791 Denim. It took 1791 a full year to get the jeans right, but now they’re finally ready. The premium 100% cotton ring-spun selvage denim jeans are 100% “Made in the USA”. They are woven in Greensboro, NC at Cone Denim® Mills, and are cut and sewn in Kentucky in a factory established in the 1920’s.”
Please make this a Made in America Christmas so those companies can expand and hire American workers- all year long. We the people, our ancestors and family built this nation and made it a prosperous one. We can do it again.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Buy American: Movement to Find ‘Made in U.S.A' Products Gains Steam
in UncategorizedOctober 23, 2012
Perry, 44, sometimes uses her great-grandmother’s crochet hooks to make crafts and her original Slinky — a toy she saved from her childhood — is still in top shape.
Perry is surrounded by items from the past, but she’s an example of the future — one in which more American consumers are seeking out and buying 100 percent American-made goods.
“It is very difficult to find a truly ‘made in America’ product,” said Perry, a married mother of four. As a small-business owner, she understands the costs associated with stateside manufacturing, but as a consumer, she wants high-quality goods made right at home.
“How many plants have to shut down or jobs have to be lost because we do not manufacture in this country anymore?” she asks.
For several decades, “made in the U.S.A.” — a label once proudly imprinted on everything from apparel to cars — hasn’t just been hard to find; it’s been a hard sell.
In the minds of many American consumers, foreign goods came to represent superior quality at a lower cost. Shoppers showed their preference with their purchases.
Several previous attempts to invigorate consumer interest in American-made products fell flat, says Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst for market research firm, NPD Group, but this time around the movement seems to have more traction with a broad range of consumers, including younger generations.
In the past two years, retailers, fashion designers and even musicians — most recently at a two-day benefit concert last month in Philadelphia curated by rapper Jay-Z — have all seized some aspect of the modern made-in-America movement.
“Made in the U.S.A. now is all about patriotism,” Cohen said. “It’s about supporting jobs in the U.S. rather than shipping them off.” The topic is a hot issue in the current political climate, fueled in part by last summer’s outcry from members of Congress over the Chinese-made U.S. Olympic team uniforms.
Buford, Ga.-based Okabashi Brands, Inc., which has designed, manufactured and assembled its sandals and flip-flops in the U.S. since the company launched in 1984, is changing its tagline to reflect that history.
They are on the verge of deals to manufacture private-label shoes for several large companies — including one that holds a 50-percent share of the flip-flop market — seeking to launch made-in-America lines, said Jason Boswell, vice president of sales.
Traditionally, U.S. manufacturing has come with a higher cost, but as overseas labor costs increase, the gap is closing, Boswell says.
Consumers, seduced by decades of low-cost goods or facing economic constraints, have resisted paying higher prices for American-made products, but this, too, is slowly changing, Cohen said.
“Consumers will say, ‘I’ll pay (up to) 10 percent more (for American-made goods).’ Some will say up to 25 percent more,” Cohen said. “I believe half of that to be true, but the fact that they are willing to spend a little more tells you something.”
Still, the desire to buy American doesn’t always translate into action, and one of the challenges consumers face is figuring out which products are truly American-made.
In addition to buying antiques that she knows were made in America, Perry will email or call companies to ask if their products are 100-percent U.S.-made. It takes effort and sometimes she is forced to take her business elsewhere — often to mom-and-pop stores where she may pay more.
But Perry isn’t complaining.
“Either society has to shift and be willing to pay a little more for something that is a little better,” Perry says, “or ‘made in America’ simply isn’t going to exist anymore.”
US Economic Growth Up Sharply in Third Quarter
in UncategorizedThe jump was partly due to a large increase in government spending.
The figures are the one of the last pieces of important economic data before the US presidential election between Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney on 6 November.
Federal government expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6% compared with the previous quarter, while national defence spending rose by 13%. The Commerce Department said there was a jump in personal consumption as well.
A drought in the US, which was the worst for 50 years, cut farm output and took 0.4 percentage points off the GDP figures, the Commerce Department said.
With more than 20 million Americans unemployed and a huge public deficit, the economy has become one of the central issues of the campaign.
The US has now been growing for more than three years, since June 2009.
“Growth came in a little higher than we had feared, largely because of the big jump in federal spending,” said Paul Ashworth, chief US economist at Capital Economics.
“But the economy is still not growing rapidly enough to create sufficient jobs to reduce the unemployment rate.”
Economic fightMr Romney has repeatedly challenged President Obama’s record, saying ”we have not made the progress we need to make”.
“If the president were re-elected, we’d go to almost $20 trillion (£12.4tn) of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece,” Mr Romney said during the second presidential debate.
Mr Obama replied that his opponent did not have a five-point plan to fix the economy, but ”a one-point plan”.
Last month, the US unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, down from 8.1%, its lowest since January 2009 when Mr Obama’s term in office began.
Nigel Gault, chief US economist at IHS Global Insight, said: “There is prospect that we could do better next year if we could clear up some of the uncertainties, particularly the fiscal cliff.
“A lot of the ingredients for stronger growth are falling into place, particularly the gradual easing of credit conditions and the improvement in the housing market.”
The “fiscal cliff” refers to automatic tax hikes and government spending cuts that were agreed by Democrats and Republicans during the last budget face-off, which will drain about $600bn out of the economy next year unless action is taken by Congress.
Low interest ratesTo help get the US economy back on track, the US Federal Reserve in September restarted its policy of pumping money into the economy via quantitative easing. The Fed pledged to buy $40bn of mortgage debt a month, with the aim of reducing long-term borrowing costs for firms and households.
“Growth was fairly resilient,” said Christopher Vecchio, a currency analyst at DailyFX, but “nevertheless, this is still not the stable recovery the Federal Reserve is looking for”.
Recent housing data has also shown some encouraging signs of recovery, analysts say.
Sales of existing homes and housing construction have picked up and the main home price index has risen consecutively for three months.
House prices have rebounded in some areas, while mortgage rates are expected to stay at record lows because of low interest rates.
The Fed has vowed to keep rates at the current levels of close to zero until 2015.
The economy grew by 1.3% in the previous quarter. The US states its growth in annualised terms, meaning that its quarterly growth rate is extrapolated as if it was growing at that pace for the whole year.
What is your experience of the US economy? Have you recently found a job? Or are you unemployed? Have you found borrowing easier? Send us your comments using the form below.
Billions in Hidden Riches for Family of Chinese Leader
in UncategorizedOctober 25, 2012
The details of how Ms. Yang, a widow, accumulated such wealth are not known, or even if she was aware of the holdings in her name. But it happened after her son was elevated to China’s ruling elite, first in 1998 as vice prime minister and then five years later as prime minister.
Many relatives of Wen Jiabao, including his son, daughter, younger brother and brother-in-law, have become extraordinarily wealthy during his leadership, an investigation by The New York Times shows. A review of corporate and regulatory records indicates that the prime minister’s relatives — some of whom, including his wife, have a knack for aggressive deal making — have controlled assets worth at least $2.7 billion.
In many cases, the names of the relatives have been hidden behind layers of partnerships and investment vehicles involving friends, work colleagues and business partners. Untangling their financial holdings provides an unusually detailed look at how politically connected people have profited from being at the intersection of government and business as state influence and private wealth converge in China’s fast-growing economy.
Unlike most new businesses in China, the family’s ventures sometimes received financial backing from state-owned companies, including China Mobile, one of the country’s biggest phone operators, the documents show. At other times, the ventures won support from some of Asia’s richest tycoons. The Times found that Mr. Wen’s relatives accumulated shares in banks, jewelers, tourist resorts, telecommunications companies and infrastructure projects, sometimes by using offshore entities.
The holdings include a villa development project in Beijing; a tire factory in northern China; a company that helped build some of Beijing’s Olympic stadiums, including the well-known “Bird’s Nest”; and Ping An Insurance, one of the world’s biggest financial services companies.
As prime minister in an economy that remains heavily state-driven, Mr. Wen, who is best known for his simple ways and common touch, more importantly has broad authority over the major industries where his relatives have made their fortunes. Chinese companies cannot list their shares on a stock exchange without approval from agencies overseen by Mr. Wen, for example. He also has the power to influence investments in strategic sectors like energy and telecommunications.
Because the Chinese government rarely makes its deliberations public, it is not known what role — if any — Mr. Wen, who is 70, has played in most policy or regulatory decisions. But in some cases, his relatives have sought to profit from opportunities made possible by those decisions.
The prime minister’s younger brother, for example, has a company that was awarded more than $30 million in government contracts and subsidies to handle wastewater treatment and medical waste disposal for some of China’s biggest cities, according to estimates based on government records. The contracts were announced after Mr. Wen ordered tougher regulations on medical waste disposal in 2003 after the SARS outbreak.
In 2004, after the State Council, a government body Mr. Wen presides over, exempted Ping An Insurance and other companies from rules that limited their scope, Ping An went on to raise $1.8 billion in an initial public offering of stock. Partnerships controlled by Mr. Wen’s relatives — along with their friends and colleagues — made a fortune by investing in the company before the public offering.
In 2007, the last year the stock holdings were disclosed in public documents, those partnerships held as much as $2.2 billion worth of Ping An stock, according to an accounting of the investments by The Times that was verified by outside auditors. Ping An’s overall market value is now nearly $60 billion.
Ping An said in a statement that the company did “not know the background of the entities behind our shareholders.” The statement said, “Ping An has no means to know the intentions behind shareholders when they buy and sell our shares.”
While Communist Party regulations call for top officials to disclose their wealth and that of their immediate family members, no law or regulation prohibits relatives of even the most senior officials from becoming deal-makers or major investors — a loophole that effectively allows them to trade on their family name. Some Chinese argue that permitting the families of Communist Party leaders to profit from the country’s long economic boom has been important to ensuring elite support for market-oriented reforms.
Even so, the business dealings of Mr. Wen’s relatives have sometimes been hidden in ways that suggest the relatives are eager to avoid public scrutiny, the records filed with Chinese regulatory authorities show. Their ownership stakes are often veiled by an intricate web of holdings as many as five steps removed from the operating companies, according to the review.
In the case of Mr. Wen’s mother, The Times calculated her stake in Ping An — valued at $120 million in 2007 — by examining public records and government-issued identity cards, and by following the ownership trail to three Chinese investment entities. The name recorded on his mother’s shares was Taihong, a holding company registered in Tianjin, the prime minister’s hometown.
The apparent efforts to conceal the wealth reflect the highly charged politics surrounding the country’s ruling elite, many of whom are also enormously wealthy but reluctant to draw attention to their riches. When Bloomberg News reported in June that the extended family of Vice President Xi Jinping, set to become China’s next president, had amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, the Chinese government blocked access inside the country to the Bloomberg Web site.
“In the senior leadership, there’s no family that doesn’t have these problems,” said a former government colleague of Wen Jiabao who has known him for more than 20 years and who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “His enemies are intentionally trying to smear him by letting this leak out.”
The Times presented its findings to the Chinese government for comment. The Foreign Ministry declined to respond to questions about the investments, the prime minister or his relatives. Members of Mr. Wen’s family also declined to comment or did not respond
to re
quests for comment.
Duan Weihong, a wealthy businesswoman whose company, Taihong, was the investment vehicle for the Ping An shares held by the prime minister’s mother and other relatives, said the investments were actually her own. Ms. Duan, who comes from the prime minister’s hometown and is a close friend of his wife, said ownership of the shares was listed in the names of Mr. Wen’s relatives in an effort to conceal the size of Ms. Duan’s own holdings.
“When I invested in Ping An I didn’t want to be written about,” Ms. Duan said, “so I had my relatives find some other people to hold these shares for me.”
But it was an “accident,” she said, that her company chose the relatives of the prime minister as the listed shareholders — a process that required registering their official ID numbers and obtaining their signatures. Until presented with the names of the investors by The Times, she said, she had no idea that they had selected the relatives of Wen Jiabao.
The review of the corporate and regulatory records, which covers 1992 to 2012, found no holdings in Mr. Wen’s name. And it was not possible to determine from the documents whether he recused himself from any decisions that might have affected his relatives’ holdings, or whether they received preferential treatment on investments.
For much of his tenure, Wen Jiabao has been at the center of rumors and conjecture about efforts by his relatives to profit from his position. Yet until the review by The Times, there has been no detailed accounting of the family’s riches.
His wife, Zhang Beili, is one of the country’s leading authorities on jewelry and gemstones and is an accomplished businesswoman in her own right. By managing state diamond companies that were later privatized, The Times found, she helped her relatives parlay their minority stakes into a billion-dollar portfolio of insurance, technology and real estate ventures.
The couple’s only son sold a technology company he started to the family of Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, for $10 million, and used another investment vehicle to establish New Horizon Capital, now one of China’s biggest private equity firms, with partners like the government of Singapore, according to records and interviews with bankers.
The prime minister’s younger brother, Wen Jiahong, controls $200 million in assets, including wastewater treatment plants and recycling businesses, the records show.
As prime minister, Mr. Wen has staked out a position as a populist and a reformer, someone whom the state-run media has nicknamed “the People’s Premier” and “Grandpa Wen” because of his frequent outings to meet ordinary people, especially in moments of crisis like natural disasters.
While it is unclear how much the prime minister knows about his family’s wealth, State Department documents released by the WikiLeaks organization in 2010 included a cable that suggested Mr. Wen was aware of his relatives’ business dealings and unhappy about them.
“Wen is disgusted with his family’s activities, but is either unable or unwilling to curtail them,” a Chinese-born executive working at an American company in Shanghai told American diplomats, according to the 2007 cable.
China’s ‘Diamond Queen’
It is no secret in China’s elite circles that the prime minister’s wife, Zhang Beili, is rich, and that she has helped control the nation’s jewelry and gem trade. But her lucrative diamond businesses became an off-the-charts success only as her husband moved into the country’s top leadership ranks, the review of corporate and regulatory records by The Times found.
A geologist with an expertise in gemstones, Ms. Zhang is largely unknown among ordinary Chinese. She rarely travels with the prime minister or appears with him, and there are few official photographs of the couple together. And while people who have worked with her say she has a taste for jade and fine diamonds, they say she usually dresses modestly, does not exude glamour and prefers to wield influence behind the scenes, much like the relatives of other senior leaders.
The State Department documents released by WikiLeaks included a suggestion that Mr. Wen had once considered divorcing Ms. Zhang because she had exploited their relationship in her diamond trades. Taiwanese television reported in 2007 that Ms. Zhang had bought a pair of jade earrings worth about $275,000 at a Beijing trade show, though the source — a Taiwanese trader — later backed off the claim and Chinese government censors moved swiftly to block coverage of the subject in China, according to news reports at the time.
“Her business activities are known to everyone in the leadership,” said one banker who worked with relatives of Wen Jiabao. The banker said it was not unusual for her office to call upon businesspeople. “And if you get that call, how can you say no?”
Zhang Beili first gained influence in the 1990s, while working as a regulator at the Ministry of Geology. At the time, China’s jewelry market was still in its infancy.
While her husband was serving in China’s main leadership compound, known as Zhongnanhai, Ms. Zhang was setting industry standards in the jewelry and gem trade. She helped create the National Gemstone Testing Center in Beijing, and the Shanghai Diamond Exchange, two of the industry’s most powerful institutions.
In a country where the state has long dominated the marketplace, jewelry regulators often decided which companies could set up diamond-processing factories, and which would gain entry to the retail jewelry market. State regulators even formulated rules that required diamond sellers to buy certificates of authenticity for any diamond sold in China, from the government-run testing center in Beijing, which Ms. Zhang managed.
As a result, when executives from Cartier or De Beers visited China with hopes of selling diamonds and jewelry here, they often went to visit Ms. Zhang, who became known as China’s “diamond queen.”
“She’s the most important person there,” said Gaetano Cavalieri, president of the World Jewelry Confederation in Switzerland. “She was bridging relations between partners — Chinese and foreign partners.”
As early as 1992, people who worked with Ms. Zhang said, she had begun to blur the line between government official and businesswoman. As head of the state-owned China Mineral and Gem Corporation, she began investing the state company’s money in start-ups. And by the time her husband was named vice premier, in 1998, she was busy setting up business ventures with friends and relatives.
The state company she ran invested in a group of affiliated diamond companies, according to public records. Many of them were run by Ms. Zhang’s relatives — or colleagues who had worked with her at the National Gemstone Testing Center.
In 1993, for instance, the state company Ms. Zhang ran helped found Beijing Diamond, a big jewelry retailer. A year later, one of her younger brothers, Zhang Jianming, and two of her government colleagues personally acquired 80 percent of the company, according to shareholder registers. Beijing Diamond invested in Shenzhen Diamond, which was controlled by her brother-in-law, Wen Jiahong, the prime minister’s younger brother.
Among the successful undertakings was Sino-Diamond, a venture financed by the state-owned China Mineral and Gem Corporation, which she headed. The company had business ties with a state-owned company managed by another brother, Zhang Jiankun, who worked as an official in Jiaxing,
Ms. Zhang’s hometown, in Zhejiang Province.
In the summer of 1999, after securing agreements to import diamonds from Russia and South Africa, Sino-Diamond went public, raising $50 million on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The offering netted Ms. Zhang’s family about $8 million, according to corporate filings.
Although she was never listed as a shareholder, former colleagues and business partners say Ms. Zhang’s early diamond partnerships were the nucleus of a larger portfolio of companies she would later help her family and colleagues gain a stake in.
The Times found no indication that Wen Jiabao used his political clout to influence the diamond companies his relatives invested in. But former business partners said that the family’s success in diamonds, and beyond, was often bolstered with financial backing from wealthy businessmen who sought to curry favor with the prime minister’s family.
“After Wen became prime minister, his wife sold off some of her diamond investments and moved into new things,” said a Chinese executive who did business with the family. He asked not to be named because of fear of government retaliation. Corporate records show that beginning in the late 1990s, a series of rich businessmen took turns buying up large stakes in the diamond companies, often from relatives of Mr. Wen, and then helped them reinvest in other lucrative ventures, like real estate and finance.
According to corporate records and interviews, the businessmen often supplied accountants and office space to investment partnerships partly controlled by the relatives.
“When they formed companies,” said one businessman who set up a company with members of the Wen family, “Ms. Zhang stayed in the background. That’s how it worked.”
The Only Son
Late one evening early this year, the prime minister’s only son, Wen Yunsong, was in the cigar lounge at Xiu, an upscale bar and lounge at the Park Hyatt in Beijing. He was having cocktails as Beijing’s nouveau riche gathered around, clutching designer bags and wearing expensive business suits, according to two guests who were present.
In China, the children of senior leaders are widely believed to be in a class of their own. Known as “princelings,” they often hold Ivy League degrees, get V.I.P. treatment, and are even offered preferred pricing on shares in hot stock offerings.
They are also known as people who can get things done in China’s heavily regulated marketplace, where the state controls access. And in recent years, few princelings have been as bold as the younger Mr. Wen, who goes by the English name Winston and is about 40 years old.
A Times review of Winston Wen’s investments, and interviews with people who have known him for years, show that his deal-making has been extensive and lucrative, even by the standards of his princeling peers.
State-run giants like China Mobile have formed start-ups with him. In recent years, Winston Wen has been in talks with Hollywood studios about a financing deal.
Concerned that China does not have an elite boarding school for Chinese students, he recently hired the headmasters of Choate and Hotchkiss in Connecticut to oversee the creation of a $150 million private school now being built in the Beijing suburbs.
Winston Wen and his wife, moreover, have stakes in the technology industry and an electric company, as well as an indirect stake in Union Mobile Pay, the government-backed online payment platform — all while living in the prime minister’s residence, in central Beijing, according to corporate records and people familiar with the family’s investments.
“He’s not shy about using his influence to get things done,” said one venture capitalist who regularly meets with Winston Wen.
The younger Mr. Wen declined to comment. But in a telephone interview, his wife, Yang Xiaomeng, said her husband had been unfairly criticized for his business dealings.
“Everything that has been written about him has been wrong,” she said. “He’s really not doing that much business anymore.”
Winston Wen was educated in Beijing and then earned an engineering degree from the Beijing Institute of Technology. He went abroad and earned a master’s degree in engineering materials from the University of Windsor, in Canada, and an M.B.A. from the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., just outside Chicago.
When he returned to China in 2000, he helped set up three successful technology companies in five years, according to people familiar with those deals. Two of them were sold to Hong Kong businessmen, one to the family of Li Ka-shing, one of the wealthiest men in Asia.
Winston Wen’s earliest venture, an Internet data services provider called Unihub Global, was founded in 2000 with $2 million in start-up capital, according to Hong Kong and Beijing corporate filings. Financing came from a tight-knit group of relatives and his mother’s former colleagues from government and the diamond trade, as well as an associate of Cheng Yu-tung, patriarch of Hong Kong’s second-wealthiest family. The firm’s earliest customers were state-owned brokerage houses and Ping An, in which the Wen family has held a large financial stake.
He made an even bolder move in 2005, by pushing into private equity when he formed New Horizon Capital with a group of Chinese-born classmates from Northwestern. The firm quickly raised $100 million from investors, including SBI Holdings, a division of the Japanese group SoftBank, and Temasek, the Singapore government investment fund.
Under Mr. Wen, New Horizon established itself as a leading private equity firm, investing in biotech, solar, wind and construction equipment makers. Since it began operations, the firm has returned about $430 million to investors, a fourfold profit, according to SBI Holdings.
“Their first fund was dynamite,” said Kathleen Ng, editor of Asia Private Equity Review, an industry publication in Hong Kong. “And that allowed them to raise a lot more money.”
Today, New Horizon has more than $2.5 billion under management.
Some of Winston Wen’s deal-making, though, has attracted unwanted attention for the prime minister.
In 2010, when New Horizon acquired a 9 percent stake in a company called Sihuan Pharmaceuticals just two months before its public offering, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange said the late-stage investment violated its rules and forced the firm to return the stake. Still, New Horizon made a $46.5 million profit on the sale.
Soon after, New Horizon announced that Winston Wen had handed over day-to-day operations and taken up a position at the China Satellite Communications Corporation, a state-owned company that has ties to the Chinese space program. He has since been named chairman.
The Tycoons
In the late 1990s, Duan Weihong was managing an office building and several other properties in Tianjin, the prime minister’s hometown in northern China, through her property company, Taihong. She was in her 20s and had studied at the Nanjing University of Science and Technology.
Around 2002, Ms. Duan went into business with several relatives of Wen Jiabao, transforming her property company into an investment vehicle of the same name. The company helped make Ms. Duan very wealthy.
It is not known whether Ms. Duan, now 43, is related to the prime minister. In a series of interviews, she first said she did not know any members of t
he Wen family, but later described herself as a friend of the family and particularly close to Zhang Beili, the prime minister’s wife. As happened to a handful of other Chinese entrepreneurs, Ms. Duan’s fortunes soared as she teamed up with the relatives and their network of friends and colleagues, though she described her relationship with them involving the shares in Ping An as existing on paper only and having no financial component.
Ms. Duan and other wealthy businesspeople — among them, six billionaires from across China — have been instrumental in getting multimillion-dollar ventures off the ground and, at crucial times, helping members of the Wen family set up investment vehicles to profit from them, according to investment bankers who have worked with all parties.
Established in Tianjin, Taihong had spectacular returns. In 2002, the company paid about $65 million to acquire a 3 percent stake in Ping An before its initial public offering, according to corporate records and Ms. Duan’s graduate school thesis. Five years later, those shares were worth $3.7 billion
The company’s Hong Kong affiliate, Great Ocean, also run by Ms. Duan, later formed a joint venture with the Beijing government and acquired a huge tract of land adjacent to Capital International Airport. Today, the site is home to a sprawling cargo and logistics center. Last year, Great Ocean sold its 53 percent stake in the project to a Singapore company for nearly $400 million.
That deal and several other investments, in luxury hotels, Beijing villa developments and the Hong Kong-listed BBMG, one of China’s largest building materials companies, have been instrumental to Ms. Duan’s accumulation of riches, according to The Times’s review of corporate records.
The review also showed that over the past decade there have been nearly three dozen individual shareholders of Taihong, many of whom are either relatives of Wen Jiabao or former colleagues of his wife.
The other wealthy entrepreneurs who have worked with the prime minister’s relatives declined to comment for this article. Ms. Duan strongly denied having financial ties to the prime minister or his relatives and said she was only trying to avoid publicity by listing others as owning Ping An shares. “The money I invested in Ping An was completely my own,” said Ms. Duan, who has served as a member of the Ping An board of supervisors. “Everything I did was legal.”
Another wealthy partner of the Wen relatives has been Cheng Yu-tung, who controls the Hong Kong conglomerate New World Development and is one of the richest men in Asia, worth about $15 billion, according to Forbes.
In the 1990s, New World was seeking a foothold in mainland China for a sister company that specializes in high-end retail jewelry. The retail chain, Chow Tai Fook, opened its first store in China in 1998.
Mr. Cheng and his associates invested in a diamond venture backed by the relatives of Mr. Wen and co-invested with them in an array of corporate entities, including Sino-Life, National Trust and Ping An, according to records and interviews with some of those involved. Those investments by Mr. Cheng are now worth at least $5 billion, according to the corporate filings. Chow Tai Fook, the jewelry chain, has also flourished. Today, China accounts for 60 percent of the chain’s $4.2 billion in annual revenue.
Mr. Cheng, 87, could not be reached for comment. Calls to New World Development were not returned.
Fallout for Premier
In the winter of 2007, just before he began his second term as prime minister, Wen Jiabao called for new measures to fight corruption, particularly among high-ranking officials.
“Leaders at all levels of government should take the lead in the antigraft drive,” he told a gathering of high-level party members in Beijing. “They should strictly ensure that their family members, friends and close subordinates do not abuse government influence.”
The speech was consistent with the prime minister’s earlier drive to toughen disclosure rules for public servants, and to require senior officials to reveal their family assets.
Whether Mr. Wen has made such disclosures for his own family is unclear, since the Communist Party does not release such information. Even so, many of the holdings found by The Times would not need to be disclosed under the rules since they are not held in the name of the prime minister’s immediate family — his wife, son and daughter.
Eighty percent of the $2.7 billion in assets identified in The Times’s investigation and verified by the outside auditors were held by, among others, the prime minister’s mother, his younger brother, two brothers-in-law, a sister-in-law, daughter-in-law and the parents of his son’s wife, none of whom is subject to party disclosure rules. The total value of the relatives’ stake in Ping An is based on calculations by The Times that were confirmed by the auditors. The total includes shares held by the relatives that were sold between 2004 and 2006, and the value of the remaining shares in late 2007, the last time the holdings were publicly disclosed.
Legal experts said that determining the precise value of holdings in China could be difficult because there might be undisclosed side agreements about the true beneficiaries.
“Complex corporate structures are not necessarily insidious,” said Curtis J. Milhaupt, a Columbia University Law School professor who has studied China’s corporate group structures. “But in a system like China’s, where corporate ownership and political power are closely intertwined, shell companies magnify questions about who owns what and where the money came from.”
Among the investors in the Wen family ventures are longtime business associates, former colleagues and college classmates, including Yu Jianming, who attended Northwestern with Winston Wen, and Zhang Yuhong, a longtime colleague of Wen Jiahong, the prime minister’s younger brother. The associates did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
Revelations about the Wen family’s wealth could weaken him politically.
Next month, at the 18th Party Congress in Beijing, the Communist Party is expected to announce a new generation of leaders. But the selection process has already been marred by one of the worst political scandals in decades, the downfall of Bo Xilai, the Chongqing party boss, who was vying for a top position.
In Beijing, Wen Jiabao is expected to step down as prime minister in March at the end of his second term. Political analysts say that even after leaving office he could remain a strong backstage political force. But documents showing that his relatives amassed a fortune during his tenure could diminish his standing, the analysts said.
“This will affect whatever residual power Wen has,” said Minxin Pei, an expert on Chinese leadership and a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California.
The prime minister’s supporters say he has not personally benefited from his extended family’s business dealings, and may not even be knowledgeable about the extent of them.
Last March, the prime minister hinted that he was at least aware of the persistent rumors about his relatives. During a nationally televised news conference in Beijing, he insisted that he had “never pursued personal gain” in public office.
“I have the courage to face the people and to face history,” he said in an emotional session. “There are people who will appreciate what I have done, but there are also people who will criticize me. Ulti
mately, history will have the final say.”
A version of this article appeared in print on October 26, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Billions Amassed in the Shadows By the Family of China’s Premier.
Why China Hates U.S. Presidential Elections
in UncategorizedOct 24, 2012
Ding’s article, which ran with the headline “China-bashing: Shame on American Politics,” is an extreme example of the angst—even anger—that many Chinese feel when they listen to American presidential candidates talk tough on China. Most people in China, of course, don’t hate Americans. But Chinese policymakers do hate American elections—especially the effect they have on China’s image in the United States. This year has been especially bad, analysts say, as Beijing has been blamed for everything from the sluggish U.S. economy to America’s high unemployment rate. Coming at a time of declining economic growth in China and fierce competition over trade between the two countries has created considerable tension.
That tension is reflected in the polls. An October poll from the Pew Research Center found that 49 percent of American voters want the U.S. to get tough on China, an increase of nine percent from March of 2011. And only 42 percent of voters want the U.S. to build a strong relationship with China, compared to 53 percent in March of last year. Most of the American angst about China is economic as opposed to military, according to a September Pew poll, with the biggest concerns being the amount of American debt held by China and the loss of U.S. jobs.
Poll results reflect rising friction in China as well. A separate Pew Survey, for instance, found growing wariness and negative perceptions of America compared to two years ago. The percentage of Chinese respondents who characterize their country’s relationship with the U.S. as one of cooperation has dropped from 68 percent in 2010 to 39 percent today. More than a quarter of those surveyed said the relationship was hostile, compared to eight percent two years ago. Confidence in Ratings President Barack Obama also declined significantly, down to 38 percent compared to 52 percent in 2010.
One reason why Chinese leaders in particular dislike changes in Washington: they feel the need “to teach the new American president about the realities of the relationship,” said one Chinese source who requested anonymity because he wasn’t cleared to talk with media. These realities, in the Chinese view, include the need to avoid a trade war that, because of their interdependence, would undermine both economies. The learning curve for U.S. presidents can make for jittery moments. In April of 2001, for instance, not long after George W. Bush took office, a U.S. EP-3 spy plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter in mid-air over the South China Sea. The 24 crew members of the American plane subsequently landed on China’s Hainan Island. After 11 days of intense negotiations over apologetic language, they were released. But the incident turned out to be more protracted and more difficult to resolve than expected.
Ding’s strident take on American-style multi-party democracy is not shared by a majority of Chinese, according to a Pew survey, conducted earlier this year in China. More than 50 percent of respondents said they like American ideas about democracy, while 29 percent said they dislike them. Yet this favorable opinion of democracy is yet another reason why Beijing hates American elections: they underscore how ordinary Chinese citizens have little say in choosing their own leaders. The contrast is especially clear when the U.S. results are startling, like Barack Obama’s groundbreaking victory 2008, an outcome which blindsided Chinese analysts.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and them on Twitter for updates all day long.
Melinda Liu is Bejiing bureau chief for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, a veteran foreign correspondent, and recipient of a number of awards, including the 2006 Shorenstein Journalism Award, acknowledging her reporting on Asia.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
U.S. GDP Grows At Quickening Pace On Government And Consumer Spending
in Uncategorized10/26/2012
The pickup in growth may help President Barack Obama’s message that the economy is improving. Still, growth remains too weak to rapidly boost hiring. And the 1.74 percent rate for 2012 trails last year’s 1.8 percent growth, a point GOP nominee Mitt Romney will emphasize.
The report is the last snapshot of economic growth before Americans choose a president in 11 days.
Growth was held back by the first drop in exports in more than three years and flat business investment in equipment and software.
Can ‘Made in America’ Make a Comeback?
in UncategorizedOctober, 2012
“It is very difficult to find a truly ‘made in America’ product,” says Melissia Perry, 44, a married mom of four from Woodstock. “How many plants have to shut down or jobs have to be lost because we do not manufacture in this country anymore?” she asks.
Perry drives a 2001 GM Chevy Suburban. Her husband drives a ‘68 Ford Mustang. She’s got fully functional radios and televisions from the 1940s and sometimes uses her great-grandmother’s crochet hooks to make crafts.
She’s surrounded by items from the past, but she’s an example of the future — one in which more American consumers are seeking out and buying 100 percent American-made goods.
The topic is a hot issue in the current political climate, fueled in part last summer by the outcry from members of Congress over the Chinese made U.S. Olympic team uniforms.
Retailers are responding to consumer demand.
In January 2012, AmericasMart — the Atlanta-based global wholesale market center— launched Made in America during The Atlanta International Gift & Home Furnishings Market. The merchandise products mix includes jewelry, paper, candles, apparel and textiles, many of which and much more. Many of the products are manufactured by small independent companies that who take pride in providing local jobs, said Amy James, executive director of AmericasMart.
Buford-based Okabashi Brands, Inc., which has designed, manufactured and assembled its sandals and flip-flops in the U.S. since the company launched in 1984, is changing its tagline to reflect that history.
Traditionally, U.S. manufacturing has come with a higher cost, but as overseas labor costs increase, the gap is closing. At the same time, Americans say they are willing to pay more for American-made products. The hard part is figuring out which products are truly American made.
In addition to buying antiques, Perry says she emails or calls companies to ask if their products are 100 percent U.S. made. Sometimes she has to take her business elsewhere, and sometimes when she does find American made products, she has to pay a bit more. But she isn’t complaining. “Either society has to shift and be willing to pay a little more for something that is a little better,” Perry says, “or ‘made in America’ simply isn’t going to exist anymore.”
Are you willing to pay a little more for Made in America products? Why? And what are your strategies for making sure what you buy is really American made?
Follow Nedra Rhone on Facebook | Twitter | Email
Data Hint at China Manufacturing Rebound
in UncategorizedOctober 23, 2012
Analysts said the improvement in the October reading reflected the effect of a steady drip of stimulus measures introduced by Beijing. A gradual improvement in overseas demand in recent months also has helped. A subindex measuring new export orders, for example, rose to a five-month high of 47.3 points as orders for the Christmas season came in.
The reading provided a “positive sign,” and “further evidence of a pickup for the fourth quarter,” economists at Australia & New Zealand Bank in Hong Kong wrote in a research note. At the same time, however, the October number was still below 50 points — the level that separates expansion from contraction, showing that the companies polled in the survey still faced considerable challenges.
Lackluster overseas demand for Chinese exports and moves last year by Beijing to dampen the rapid pace of growth and cool inflation and a red-hot property market have slowed down the Chinese economy this year. The health of the important property sector, in particular, continues to worry some analysts. They fear that many developments that were rushed out when the Chinese authorities engineered a major stimulus program in late 2008 and 2009 may ultimately go sour.
Reflecting a widespread recognition that future economic expansion is likely to be much more subdued than in the past, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both lowered their economic growth forecasts for China this month.
The I.M.F., for example, said it expected the Chinese economy to expand by 7.8 percent this year — a pace that easily outpaces the United States or Europe, but falls short of China’s 9.3 percent expansion in 2011, and its 10.4 percent growth rate in 2010.
For next year, the I.M.F. forecasts 8.2 percent growth in gross domestic product — in other words, a slight pickup from this year, but no return to the double-digit growth rates of the years before the global financial crisis. Economic data for September, and the HSBC index for October, underlined that view, showing that the pace of growth appeared to have stabilized and could pick up in the coming months.
Thanks to a series of recent measures to bolster the economy, in the fourth quarter of this year, “growth has likely bottomed out and is headed for a gradual recovery,” Qu Hongbin, chief China economist at HSBC, wrote.
Over the past year, the authorities have loosened lending constraints for banks in a bid to encourage more loans and have stepped up infrastructure project approvals. Two small interest rate cuts in June and July also aimed to improve growth.
The ongoing financial turmoil in Europe and the risks associated with the looming “fiscal cliff” in the United States, however, mean that the outlook remains “challenging,” Mr. Qu said.
Released Wednesday, a purchasing managers’ index for manufacturing and services businesses in the euro zone, compiled by Markit, an economic data firm, underlined his point: The preliminary reading for October fell to a 40-month low of 45.8 points, from 46.1 in September, confounding expectations for a slight rise.
A version of this article appeared in print on October 25, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune.
Made in Middle America – A Manufacturing Resurgence Happening Here
in UncategorizedDan Henson and Anil Makhija
The fact is that the story of American manufacturing is rosier than many of us might think. It’s a story about leading from the middle. As a whole, the middle market may be just one part of our country’s economic recovery, but as an engine of sustainable growth and job creation, it’s a sector that deserves additional attention.
Middle market companies are often overlooked by the media. The typical middle market company employs three or four hundred people and brings in sales of $40 to $50 million a year. They are too big to be considered small businesses but not yet of a size that makes them large corporations and more than 70 percent of them are privately owned, with almost a third still under family ownership.
In the aggregate, they employ more than eight million manufacturing workers in the United States., and, despite uncertain economic times, they have been growing steadily, hiring consistently and quietly leading a resurgence in American manufacturing.
This week, we’re welcoming more than a thousand middle market executives to a meeting in Columbus, Ohio, where we will share some good news. In the past 12 months, the 20,000 or so middle market manufacturing firms in the United States grew sales by more than six percent — in total that’s around $48 billion of new revenues — and added around a quarter of a million jobs. The manufacturing middle grew more than three times as fast as the broader U.S. economy over the same period, and grew faster even than the developing economies like Brazil, India and Russia that we hear so much about.
You won’t hear as much about these companies. You likely won’t read about them in the press because they don’t quite fit into the small business section and they aren’t likely to be in your 401K, but the truth is that they are leading the recovery and renewal in American manufacturing.
What makes middle market companies different, and worthy of their own place in our business theories, is precisely what makes them so important. On average, an American middle market company is over 30 years old. And over 70 percent of them are privately owned, many by their founding families. These two factors combine to create a distinct formula. A formula for growth. These factors mean that they are both more established and therefore better positioned than smaller companies to survive through tough economic times, while also benefiting from more flexible management who can take a longer term approach than peers at larger corporate.
But the size and nature of these companies also means that they face their own set of challenges. Middle market firms are beset by a similar set of operational issues and constraints faced by small businesses — everyday concerns around compensation and margin pressures — and yet at the same time they are faced with the external challenges that beset larger companies — regulatory and healthcare costs — without the economies of scale that larger corporates benefit from.
If we want to navigate through these tough economic times, the role that the middle market plays needs to be recognized. We need to see U.S. business in a different way, not just as a two dimensional combination of large and small, but as a more complex and dynamic blend.
Dan Henson is President and CEO, GE Capital, Americas. Dr. Anil Makhija is the academic director of the National Center for the Middle Market, the leading source of knowledge, leadership and innovative research on the U.S. middle market economy and a partnership between The Ohio State University Fisher College of Business and GE Capital. For more information, please visit www.middlemarketcenter.org.
WHY IT MATTERS: Outsourcing
in UncategorizedOctober 22, 2012
U.S. multinational companies have taken advantage of lower trade barriers over the past 15 years to shift jobs and production to lower-wage countries, a practice generally known as outsourcing. That’s cut costs for consumers and helped those companies grow, which can support employment in the United States. Still, it has also raised fears that the United States is permanently losing the kind of high-paying manufacturing jobs needed to support a healthy middle class.
President Barack Obama has proposed giving tax breaks to U.S. manufacturers that produce domestically or bring back jobs from overseas. He also wants U.S. companies to pay taxes on more of their overseas earnings. Currently, U.S. corporations don’t pay U.S. taxes on overseas profits unless they bring that cash back to the United States. Obama argues that this encourages outsourcing. Many Republicans say his proposal would raise taxes on U.S. companies and encourage them to move their headquarters overseas, so they would no longer be considered U.S. corporations.
Mitt Romney says he wants to make the United States a more attractive place to do business by cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulations. Romney also says he will discourage companies from moving operations to China by pushing that country to let its currency rise in value. That would make its exports more expensive.
__
Why it matters:
With unemployment painfully high, it’s not surprising that fears over outsourcing, which first surfaced in the mid-2000s, have returned. Unemployment topped 8 percent for 43 months from February 2009 through August 2012, the longest stretch since the Great Depression. It dipped to 7.8 percent in September.
Also fueling fears is the decision by Apple and other high-tech companies to manufacture many of their goods in China. That suggests it isn’t just low-skilled jobs in industries such as textiles that are being lost.
According to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder told Obama in 2010 that there weren’t enough engineers in the U.S. to support its vast manufacturing operations. Jobs also argued that government regulation made it harder to set up factories in the U.S.
One new twist is that U.S. manufacturers are more competitive after the recession and fewer jobs are being shifted overseas. Wages in China are rising and its currency has increased in value. U.S. factory workers have accepted pay cuts and are more productive. And energy has become cheaper for U.S.-based companies thanks to gains in oil and natural gas production.
All those factors have eroded China’s cost advantages and perhaps slowed the outsourcing trend. Michael Dolega of TD Economics estimates that the U.S. has gained about 55,000 manufacturing jobs in the past year that in the past would have been shipped overseas.
Even so, economists warn that the two candidates are overstating the potential for a manufacturing renaissance. Jeffrey Bergstrand, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, calls it “factory nostalgia.”
The United States lost roughly 6 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010. Since then, it has regained about a half-million of those jobs, or less than 10 percent of the losses. Dolega estimates that under a best-case scenario, the U.S. could add another 1 million manufacturing jobs over the next decade.
“There are some jobs that are not going to come back,” Obama acknowledges. “I want high wage, high skill jobs. That’s why we have to emphasize manufacturing.” Says Romney: “We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level.”
Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts
in UncategorizedIn short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: “Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?”
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.
More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions, is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.
If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.
And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.
In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.
Montauk Tackle Company: Why we Make Our Apparel in The United States of America
in UncategorizedPresident/Founder
Montauk Tackle Company
The list below will show you what one small American Made Company can do and how each shirt we sell at MTC filters through our US economy. In our nations history it has never been more important to support each other. I believe it is up to U.S. to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps despite Washington Politics.
Here are the Americans MTC affects directly. Some folks are individuals and some are part of companies that have a dozen employees or even hundreds.
It starts with our fabric. Lena (NY/CA) who has her group mill the fabrics to our specs, Joann (NY) our sample maker, Tony (NY) and his group that make the patterns, Ming (NY) and his group that cut all the fabric. Mike(NJ) and his group that embroiders our logo on the sleeves for us. Denise (NY) and her group who silk screen our logo on our shirts. Jeffie (NY) and her group that sew it all together. Gary (CA) who gets all of our size labels/hangtags/bumper stickers printed. Gee (NY) and his storefront for thread and zippers, John (NY) and his store for buttons. Uline (IL) for poly bags, boxes, tape. Avery Dennis (IL) for UPC codes, Robert (NY) our messenger/trucking service, Lauren (NY) and her group that warehouse, pick and pack for us, Pat (NY) our UPS driver. The employees at the Staples store in Freeport (NY) (office supplies), Roy (NY) our landlord, Barbara (NY) our Bookkeeper, Glen (NY) our Accountant, Chris (NY) our attorney, Jack (NY) who services my truck, Hess employees in Oceanside (NY) where I get my diesel, Marcel (PA) design/ads/website(my right hand man) Our marketing effort (think about the printers running the presses, editors, writers, office workers at each of the following magazines) Patti(TX) our sales rep at Texas Saltwater Angler Mag., Boone (FL) Florida Sportfishing mag., Bill (CA) Pacific Coast Sport Fishing, Mark, (FL) Sport Fishing, Marlin, Saltwater Sportsman, Saltwater Fly Fishing Mags., 3Dcart-our webhosting company. Mike (TX) our sales rep and his group in Texas. Bob (NH) our sales rep group in the northeast. Trade shows we attend, FL/NV/UT flights, hotels, car rentals, meals.
Our retailers to name a few big and small, who I want to thank for giving MTC a shot and supporting an American Made Company. Fred (NJ) at Tackle Direct, Kim (FL) Capt. Harry’s, Norma, (TX) Tackle Unlimited, Ben (NH) Orvis, Mark (NY) Baypark Marine, Toni (CT) The Dock Shop, Mike (OH) Newport Dry Goods.
As our Business expands, we have already identified Mills and Factories in North and South Carolina for the future. With expansion comes more U.S employment, rep groups in the southeast and west coast. Expanding advertising and trade show events.
Buying American Made is the right thing to do. Right now. There are some great American Made products out there. And I am sure no matter what you are looking for or need you can find an American company that could fulfill that need. Rest assure that company is also effecting the lives of American families as well. There are a bunch of blogs and Facebook pages that list all kinds of American made products. Google American Made. Here are a few URL’s to check out.
The Made in America Movement
Made in USA Challenge
USA Love List
Made in America Stuff
Buy Direct USA
USA Only
Please, if you can, share our American story, a True American Brand, with your friends, family, business associates and any media contacts you may have. The sooner we expand the sooner we can engage more fabric mills, factories, truckers, warehouse workers..…well you get the idea.
Doing my part,
Ron (NY)
Facebook: Montauk Tackle Company
Pinterest: Montauk Tackle
Twitter: @MontaukTackle
Google+: Montauk Tackle Company
—————————
Montauk Tackle Company is a Proud Corporate Member of the Made in America Movement. Become a Corporate Member and enjoy some amazing benefits which come along with membership. Email us for details: info@themadeinamericamovement.com
Defense Department Pushed to Buy 'Made in America' Military Uniforms
in UncategorizedOct. 18, 2012
“If it’s taxpayer dollars, it should help American workers and American businesses, pure and simple,” Brown told ABC News.
A spokesman for Kendall told ABC News: “Our policy has been and will continue to be to purchase combat boots and other articles of military clothing that are made in the U.S.”
Since 1941, the Berry Amendment has required the Department of Defense to give preference to clothing and other items made in the U.S.
An Air Force spokeswoman told the newspaper that the Berry Amendment did not apply for purchases under $150,000.
In his letter, Sen. Brown questioned the law’s language that allows for waivers and asked if the Defense Department violated its policies.
“Our service members should not be given equipment manufactured in other countries when domestic options exist,” Brown wrote. “Our men and women in uniform are fighting for their country, and deserve to fight in quality uniforms and boots that are made in the U.S.A.”
Earlier this month, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, also drafted a letter to Kendall about the Berry Amendment.
“There’s no justifiable explanation for issuing foreign-made uniforms when there are American manufacturers who can make high quality items for everyday military use,” Hunter told ABC News. “Our military not only defends American interests but it represents American interests and it’s definitely in the national interest to have a military that directly supports domestic manufacturers.”
About 40 bipartisan lawmakers are in the process of signing the letter and plan to send it to Kendall soon.
“We should not rely on other countries, particularly those who may have competing global interests, to supply our forces with basic items,” Hunter and Michaud wrote. “This is especially true when there are millions of Americans looking for work.”
Brown said it is not clear if the Defense Department would be paying more or less for products in the U.S., but public support is in favor of using U.S. products, especially for groups representing the country.
He pointed to the outcry over U.S. Olympic team members wearing uniforms made in China. In July, a “World News” report revealed outfits for the opening ceremony were not made in the U.S. Lawmakers wrote letters to the U.S. Olympic Committee asking that future uniforms be made in America.
“American flags that fly over post offices should be 100 percent American-made,” Brown said. “Any kind of military uniforms should be made in this country.”
Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back, No Matter Who’s President
in Economy, Jobs, ManufacturingRead more
What did President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney actually say? Transcript And Audio: Second Presidential Debate
in UncategorizedEditor’s Note: NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future.
What did President Barack Obama and
Gov. Mitt Romney actually say?
The Gallup Organization chose 82 uncommitted voters from the New York area. Their questions will drive the night. My goal is to give the conversation direction and to ensure questions get answered.
The questions are known to me and my team only. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen them. I hope to get to as many questions as possible. And because I am the optimistic sort, I’m sure the candidates will oblige by keeping their answers concise and on point. Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up.
The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive; no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort. We will set aside that agreement just this once to welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. (Cheers, sustained applause.)
Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us here tonight. We have a lot of folks who’ve been waiting all day to talk to you, so I want to get right to it. Governor Romney, as you know, you won the coin toss, so the first question will go to you. And I want to turn to a first- time voter, Jeremy Epstein, who has a question for you.
Q: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can — what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
MITT ROMNEY: Thank you, Jeremy. I appreciate your — your question, and — and thank you for being here this evening. And to all of those from Nassau County here that have come, thank you for your time. Thank you to Hofstra University and to Candy Crowley for organizing and leading this — this event. Thank you, Mr. President, also for being part of this — this debate.
Yours question — your question is one that’s being asked by college kids all over this country.
I was in Pennsylvania with someone who’d just graduated. This was in Philadelphia, and she said, I — I — I got my degree. I can’t find a job. I’ve got three part-time jobs. They’re just barely enough to pay for my food and pay for an apartment. I can’t begin to pay back my student loans.
So what we have to do is two things: we have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college and also make sure that when they get out of college, there’s a job. When I was governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree, you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your class, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, four years tuition-free to the college of your choice in Massachusetts. It’s a public institution. I want to make sure we keep our Pell — Pell Grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program so that people are able to afford school.
But the key thing is to make sure you can get a job when you get out of school. And what’s happened over the last four years has been very, very hard for America’s young people. I want you to be able to get a job. I know what it takes to get this economy going. With half of college kids graduating this year without a college — or excuse me, without a job and without a college-level job, that’s just unacceptable. And likewise, you got more and more debt on your back. So more debt and less jobs.
I’m going to change that. I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. And kids across this country are going to recognize we’re bringing back an economy. It’s not going to be like the last four years. The middle class has been crushed over the last four years, and jobs have been too scarce. I know what it takes to bring them back, and I’m going to do that and make sure when you graduate — when do you graduate?
Q: (Off mic.)
MR. ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014 — I presume I’m going to be president — I’m going to make sure you get a job. (Chuckles.) Thanks, Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Jeremy, first of all, your future is bright, and the fact that you’re making investment in higher education is critical, not just to you but to the entire nation.
Now, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country, but not just jobs, good-paying jobs, ones that can support a family. And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we’ve created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone. And there are a bunch of things that we can do to make sure your future is bright.
Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. You know, when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it’s come surging back. I want to do that in industries, not just in Detroit but all across the country. And that means we change our tax code so we’re giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States and creating jobs here. It also means we’re helping them and small businesses to export all around the world in new markets.
Number two, we’ve got to make sure that we have the best education system in the world. And the fact that you’re going to college is great, but I want everybody to get a great education. And we worked hard to make sure that student loans are available for folks like you, but I also want to make sure that community colleges are offering slots for workers to get retrained for the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs of the future.
Number three, we’ve got to control our own energy, you know, not only oil and natural gas, which we’ve been investing in, but also we’ve got to make sure we’re building the energy sources of the
future, n
ot just thinking about next year, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now. That’s why we’ve invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars.
We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way — asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more, along with cuts, so that we can invest in education like yours. And let’s take the money that we’ve been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America — roads, bridges, schools. If we do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America’s future’s going to be bright as well.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romley (sic).
Just quickly, what can you do — we’re looking at a situation where 40 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed for six months or more. They don’t have the two years that Jeremy has. What about those long- term unemployed who need a job right now?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, what you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job, and a lot of them, as you say, Candy, have been out of work for a long, long, long, long time.
The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years, and they haven’t put Americans back to work. We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office. If the — the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when he took office. It’s 7.8 percent now. But if you calculated that unemployment rate taking back the people who dropped out of the workforce, it would be 10.7 percent. We have not made the progress we need to make to put people back to work.
That’s why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay. It’s going to help Jeremy get a job when he comes a out of school. It’s going to help people across the country that are unemployed right now.
And one thing that the — the president said which I want to make sure that we understand — he — he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt, and — and that’s right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy’s and — and — and Continental Airlines and come out stronger. And — and I know he keeps saying, you wanted to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And — and I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommend and ultimately what happened.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me — let me give the president a chance. Go ahead.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open, and we would have lost a million jobs.
And that — don’t take my word for it; take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney. But they’ll tell you his prescription wasn’t going to work.
And Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector; that’s been his philosophy as governor; that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate. You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.
That’s exactly the philosophy that we’ve seen in place for the last decade. That’s what’s been squeezing middle-class families. And we have fought back for four years to get out of that mess, and the last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here.
And Mr. Romney — Governor Romney, there’ll be plenty of chances to go on, but I want to — we have all these folks —
MR. ROMNEY: That — that Detroit — that Detroit answer — that Detroit answer and the rest of the answer — way off the mark.
MS. CROWLEY: I — OK. We’ll — you certainly will have lots of time here coming up. I — because I want to move you on to something that — sort of connected to cars here, and go over — and we want to get a question from Philip Tricolla.
Q: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy.
So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.
But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional sources of energy; we’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we’ve doubled clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels. And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years.
Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make a — it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and a hundred years’ worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficient energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand, and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.
Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future, because China, Germany — they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.
So that’s going to help Jeremy get a job, it’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, on the subject of gas prices.
MR. ROMNEY: Well, let’s look at the president’s policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we’ve had four years of policies being played out. And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits fo
r drilling on federal lands and in federal waters. So where’d the increase come from? Well, a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? Twenty or 25 birds were killed, and they brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.
Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities — ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and say, please, save my job. The head of the EPA said, you can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually — it’s virtually impossible, given our regulations. When the president ran for office, he said, if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America. Let’s take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I am planning on doing, which is getting us energy-independent, North American energy independence within eight years, you’re going to see manufacturing come back jobs because our energy is low-cost.
They’re already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy.
I’ll get America and North America energy-independent. I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses. We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline, I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up, and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up. But our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently.
And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration. And my — the previous president was an oilman. And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically; we’re encouraging it and working with the industry.
And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.
So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas.
And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years, oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.
And that’s creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, because that’s the demand around the world. And it also means that it’ll save money in your pocketbook. That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.
MR. ROMNEY: But that’s not what you done in the last four years. That’s the problem.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Sure it is.
MR. ROMNEY: In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.
MR. ROMNEY: So how much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not true.
MR. ROMNEY: By how much did you cut them by, then?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, we have actually produced more oil on —
MR. ROMNEY: No, no, how much did you cut licenses and permits on federal land and federal waters?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney, here’s what we did. There were a whole bunch of oil companies —
MR. ROMNEY: No, I had a — I had a — I had a question —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, you — no, you — you — you want —
MR. ROMNEY: — and the question was how much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you want me to answer a question, I’m —
MR. ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — I’m happy to answer the question.
MR. ROMNEY: All right, and it is?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here’s what happened. You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren’t using. So what we said was, you can’t just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it’s most profitable for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it.
MR. ROMNEY: OK — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so what we did was take away —
MR. ROMNEY: That’s —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — those leases, and we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit.
MR. ROMNEY: And — and — and production on private — on government lands is down.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And the production is up. No it isn’t.
MR. ROMNEY: Production on government land of oil is down 14 percent.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: And production of gas is down 9 percent.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What you’re saying is just not true. It’s just not true.
MR. ROMNEY: I — it’s absolutely true. Look, there’s no question but that the people recognize that we have not produced more oil —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ll give you your time. Go ahead.
MR. ROMNEY: — and gas on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal — coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal.
You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.
(Chuckles.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Well, Governor, if — if you’re asking me a question, I’m going to answer it.
MR. ROMNEY: My — and the answer is I don’t believe people think that’s the case, because I — I’m — that wasn’t a question.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. All right.
MR. ROMNEY: That was a statement. I don’t think — (chuckles) — the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof — the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about a buck eighty-six a gallon. Now it’s four bucks a gallon. Price of electricity is up.
If the president’s energy policies are working, you’re going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country to get America energy-secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me —
MR. ROMNEY: Those things will get us the energy we need.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address — because we did finally get to gas prices here — could you address what the governor said, which is: If your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was 1.80 (dollars), 1.86 (dollars). Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney is now promoting. So it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices, because with his policies we might be back in that same mess. (Audience murmurs.)
What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we’ve — we’ve built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once. So I’m all for pipelines; I’m all for oil production.
What I’m not for is us ignoring the other half of the quotation. So for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says these are imaginary jobs, when you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado who are working, creating wind power, with good- paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that — in Iowa is all for it, providing tax credits to help this work and Governor Romney says, I’m opposed, I’d get rid of it, that’s not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future, and I intend to win it as president of the United States.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to — I got to move you along. And the next a question is for you —
MR. ROMNEY: No, he — he gets the first — he actually got — he actually got the first question. So I get the last question — last answer on that one.
MS. CROWLEY: If — actually, in the follow-up. It doesn’t quite work like that.
MR. ROMNEY: Actually —
MS. CROWLEY: But I’m going to give you a chance here. (Laughter.) I promise you I’m going to.
And the next question is for you, so if you want to, you know, continue on, but I don’t want to leave all these guys sitting here and — because —
MR. ROMNEY: Candy, Candy, Candy, I don’t have a policy of — of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they’re not phantom jobs. They’re real jobs.
MS. CROWLEY: OK.
MR. ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I’m going to make sure —
MS. CROWLEY: So you’re — OK. Thank you, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: — that taking advantage of our energy resources will bring back manufacturing to America. We’re going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 3.5 million more jobs in this country. It’s critical to our future.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, it’s OK.
MS. CROWLEY: We’re going to move you along to taxes —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m used — I’m used to being interrupted. You know, the —
MS. CROWLEY: (Chuckles.) We’re going to move you both along to taxes over here and all these folks that have been waiting.
Governor, this question is for you. It comes from Mary Pollano — Follano. Sorry.
MR. ROMNEY: Hi, Mary.
Q: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions — the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit?
I forgot. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You’re doing great.
Q: Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important for the middle class?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you very much. And — and let me tell you, you — you’re absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down, I want to simplify the tax code, and I want to get middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes.
And — and the reason I want middle-income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle-income taxpayers have been buried over the past four years. You’ve seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums — up $2,500. Food prices up, utility prices up. The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years. So I want to get some relief to middle-income families. That’s part — that’s part one.
Now, how about deductions? Because I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now. The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same. Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.
And so in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be to say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits. And you can decide which ones to use, your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth. You can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down, and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason.
And that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains, no tax on your savings.
That makes life a lot easier. If you’re getting interest from a bank, if you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investments you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there will be no taxes for anybody making $200,000 a year and less on your interest, dividends and capital gains.
Why am I lowering taxes on the middle class? Because under the last four years, they’ve been buried, and I want to help people in the middle class. And I will not — I will not under any circumstances — reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest-income taxpayers, and I will not under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle class. The president’s spending, the president’s borrowing will cost this nation to have to raise taxes on the American people, not just at the high end.
A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will see $4,000 a year higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration. I will not let that happen. I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget, and I’m going to reduce the tax burden on middle-income families. And what’s that going to do? It’s going to help those families, and it’s going to create incentives to start growing jobs again in this country.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My philosophy on taxes has been simple, and that is, I want to give middle-class families, and folks who are striving to get in the middle class, some relief, because they have been hit hard over the last decade, over the last 15, over the last 20 years. So four years ago I stood on a stage just like this one — actually, it was a town hall — and I said I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and that’s what I’ve done by $3,600. I said I would cut taxes for small businesses, who are the drivers and engines of growth, and we’ve cut them 18 times. And I want to continue those tax cuts for middle-class families and for small businesses.
But what I’ve also said is if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts, we’ve also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more.
So what I’ve said is your first $250,000 worth of income, no change. And that means 98 percent of American families, 97 percent of small businesses, they will not see a tax increase. I’m ready to sign that bill right now. The only reason it’s not happening is because Governor Romney’s allies in Congress have held the 98 percent hostage because they want tax breaks for the top 2 percent.
But what I’ve also said is for above 250,000 (dollars), we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president, we created 23 million new jobs. That’s part of what took us from deficits to surplus. It will be good for our economy, and it will be good for job creation.
Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on “60 Minutes” just two weeks ago, and he was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 a year? And he said, yes, I think that’s fair. Not only that, he said, I think that’s what grows the economy.
Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think what grows the economy is when you get that tax credit that we put in place for your kids going to college. I think that grows the economy. I think what grows the economy is when we make sure small businesses are getting a tax credit for hiring veterans who fought for our country. That grows our economy.
So we just have a different theory. And when Governor Romney stands here after a year of campaigning, when during a Republican primary, he stood onstage and said, I’m going to give tax cuts — he didn’t say tax rate cuts; he said tax cuts — to everybody, including the top 1 percent, you should believe him, because that’s been his history.
And that’s exactly the kind of top-down economics that is not going to work if we want a strong middle class and an economy that’s thriving for everybody.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, I’m sure you’ve got a reply there. (Laughter.)
MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.) You’re absolutely right. You heard what I said about my tax plan. The top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.
And why do I want to bring rates down and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people. And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America’s economy going again.
Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.
For me, I look at what’s happened in the last four years and say, this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don’t have to settle for how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now. There are 3 1/2 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office. We don’t have to live like this. We can get this economy going again.
My five-point plan does it: energy independence for North America in five years; opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America, cracking down on China when they cheat; getting us to a balanced budget; fixing our training programs for our workers; and finally, championing small business. I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go.
And they’re going now because of the policies of this administration.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, let me ask the president something about what you just said. The governor says that he is not going to allow the top 5 percent — I believe is what he said — to have a tax cut, that it will all even out, that what he wants to do is give that tax cut to the middle class. Settled?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it’s not settled. (Chuckles.) Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board 20 percent, along with what he also wants to do in terms of eliminating the estate tax, along what he wants to do in terms of corporates changes in the tax code — it costs about $5 trillion. Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs, even though the military’s not asking for them. That’s $7 trillion. He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That’s another trillion dollars. That’s $8 trillion.
Now, what he says is he’s going to make sure that this doesn’t add to the deficit, and he’s going to cut middle-class taxes. But when he’s asked, how are you going to do it, which deductions, which loopholes are you going to close, he can’t tell you. The — the fact that he only has to pay 14 percent on his taxes when a lot of you are paying much higher — you know, he’s already taken that off the board. Capital gains are going to continue to be at a low rate, so we — we’re not going to get money that way. We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics, beyond Big Bird and
eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, in terms of how he pays for that.
Now, Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here; I want to spend 7 (trillion dollars) or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal. And neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.
And — and what’s at stake here is one of two things. Either, Candy, this blows up the deficit — because keep in mind, this is just to pay for the additional spending that he’s talking about, 7 (trillion dollars), $8 trillion. That’s before we even get to the deficit we already have. Or alternatively, it’s got to be paid for not only by closing deductions for wealthy individuals. That will pay for about 4 percent reduction in tax rates. You’re going to be paying for it. You’ll lose some deductions. And you can’t buy this sales pitch. Nobody who’s looked at it that’s serious actually believes it adds up.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me get — let me get the governor in on this.
And Governor, let’s — before we get into a vast array of who said what — what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up, if somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in, if somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent —
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course they add up. I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years.
When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, 5 trillion (dollars). That’s math that doesn’t add up. We have — we — we have a president talking about someone’s plan in a way that’s completely foreign to what my real plan is, and then we have his own record, which is we have four consecutive years where he said, when he was running for office, he could cut the deficit in half. Instead, he’s doubled it.
We’ve gone from $10 trillion of national debt to $16 trillion of national debt. If the president were re-elected, we’d go to almost $20 trillion of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece.
I know what it takes to balance budgets. I’ve done it my entire life. So for instance, when he says, yours is a $5 trillion cut, well, no, it’s not, because I’m offsetting some of the reductions with holding down some of the deductions and — and this —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, I got to — I got to —
MR. ROMNEY: I’m — and I’ve told you — yeah.
MS. CROWLEY: I need you have you both — I understand the stakes here. I understand both of you. But I will get run out of town if I don’t allow — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: And I just — and I just described to you, Mr. President —
MS. CROWLEY: OK, great.
MR. ROMNEY: I just described to you precisely how I do it, which is with a single number that people can put — and they can put their deductions and credits — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible.)
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, you’re — we’re keeping track, I promise you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK.
MS. CROWLEY: And Mr. President, the next question is for you, so stay standing.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great. Looking forward to it.
MS. CROWLEY: And it’s Katherine Fenton, who has a question for you.
Q: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Katherine, this is a great question. And you know, I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we need. And my grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president at a local bank.
But she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career. She didn’t complain; that’s not what you did in that generation.
And this is one of the reasons why one of the first — the first bill I signed was something called the Lilly Ledbetter bill.
And it was named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found out about it earlier, when she had no way of finding out about it.
So we fixed that. And that’s an example of the kind of advocacy that we need because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women’s issue. This is a family issue. This is a middle-class issue. And that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.
It also means that we’ve got to make sure that young people like yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier Governor Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education accessible for young people. Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’ve expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including millions of young women, all across the country. We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program and we said, let’s just cut out the middleman. Let’s give the money directly to students. And as a consequence, we’ve seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that’s going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace.
But we’ve got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing. And we’ve also got to make sure that in every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination. That’s been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I’m going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women.
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?
They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?
And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior
staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.
We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.
What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.
This is what I’ve done, it’s what I look forward to doing, and I know what it takes to make an economy work.
And I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that — that — that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy. An economy with — with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t find a job, or a college-level job — that’s not what we have to have.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: I’m going to help women in America get — get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.
MR. CROWLEY: Mr. President, why don’t you get in on this quickly, please?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney’s campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it, he said, I’ll get back to you. And that’s not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy.
Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace: for example, their health care. (Inaudible) — a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making. I think that’s a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured, because this is not just a — a health issue; it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket.
Governor Romney not only opposed it; he suggested that, in fact, employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage. That’s not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care. They rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country.
And it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we talk about child care and the credits that we’re providing, that makes a difference in terms of whether they can go out there and earn a living for their family. These are not just women’s issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues. And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men are.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I’ve got two daughters, and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have. That’s part of what I’m fighting for as president of the United States.
MS. CROWLEY: I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question.
And Governor, it’s for you.
Q: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?
MR. ROMNEY: Great. Thank you. And I appreciate that question. I — I just want to make sure that — I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that I don’t believe —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t think so, Candy.
MR. ROMNEY: I don’t believe —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.
MS. CROWLEY: OK. The timekeepers are all working.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right.
MS. CROWLEY: And let me tell you that the last part, there’s — it’s for the two of you to talk to one another, and it isn’t quite as — (inaudible). But go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to. The question is on the floor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, that’s not true.
MR. ROMNEY: Let me come back and — and — and answer your question.
The — President Bush and I are different people, and these are different times. And that’s why my five-point plan is so different than what he would have done. I mean, for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology, actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the — the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn’t true in his time. That’s why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America, become energy-secure.
Number two, trade. I’ll crack down on China. President Bush didn’t. I’m also going to dramatically expand trade in Latin America. It’s been growing about 12 percent per year over a long period of time. I want to add more free trade agreements so we have more trade.
Number three, I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t. President Obama was right. He said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a
trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right. But then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years, and his forecast for the next four years is more deficits almost that large. So that’s the next area I’m different than President Bush.
And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.
And the thing I find most troubling about “Obamacare” — well, it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.
My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush had a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Governor. Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to tell you that we did come in during some tough times. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when I started.
But we have been digging our way out of policies that were misplaced and focused on the top doing very well and middle-class folks not doing well. And we’ve seen 30 consecutive — 31 consecutive months of job growth, 5.2 million new jobs created. And the plans that I talked about will create even more.
But when Governor Romney says that he has very different economic plan, the centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts. That’s what took us from surplus to deficit. When he talks about getting tough on China, keep in mind that Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in countries — in — in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That’s — Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.
And what we’ve done when it comes to trade is not only sign three trade deals to open up new markets, but we’ve also set up a task force for trade that goes after anybody who is taking advantage of American workers or businesses and not creating a level playing field. We’ve brought twice as many cases against unfair trading practices than the previous administration, and we’ve won every single one that’s been decided.
When I said that we had to make sure that China was not flooding our domestic market with cheap tires, Governor Romney said I was being protectionist, that it wouldn’t be helpful to American workers. Well, in fact we saved a thousand jobs, and that’s the kind of tough trade actions that are required.
But the last point I want to make is this. You know, there are some things where Governor Romney’s different from George Bush. George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a voucher. George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform. He didn’t call for self-deportation. George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
So there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush, but they’re not on economic policy. In some ways, he’s gone to a more extreme place when it comes to social policy, and I think that’s a mistake. That’s not how we’re going to move our economy forward.
MS. CROWLEY: I want to move you both along to the next question because it’s in the same wheelhouse. So you will be able to respond. But the president does get this question. I want to call on Michael Jones.
Q: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’ve gone through a tough four years; there’s no doubt about it. But four years ago I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have. I said that I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we’d refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after al-Qaida’s leadership like never before, and Osama bin Laden is dead.
I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can’t jerk you around, and if you don’t have health insurance, that you’d have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have. I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We’ve created 5 million jobs, gone from 800,000 jobs a month being lost. And we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse.
Now, does that mean you’re not struggling? Absolutely not. A lot of us are. And that’s why the plan that I put forward for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America and putting people back to work, making sure that we are controlling our own energy, but not just the energy of today but also the energy of the future — all those things will make a difference. So the point is, the commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept. And those that I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying, and we’re going to get it done in a second term.
But you should pay attention to this campaign, because Governor Romney’s made some commitments as well, and I suspect he’ll keep those, too. You know, when members of the Republican Congress say, we’re going to sign a no tax pledge so that we don’t ask a dime from millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education and helping kids go to college, he said, me too. When they said, we’re going to cut Planned Parenthood funding, he said, me too. When he said, we’re going to repeal “Obamacare,” first thing I’m going to do — despite the fact that it’s the same health care plan that he passed in Massachusetts and is working well — he said, me too. That is not the kind of leadership that you need, but you should expect that those are promises he’s going to keep.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me let —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And the choice in this election is going to be whose promises are going to be more likely to help you in your life, make sure your kids can go to college, make sure that you are getting a good-paying job, making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be there for you.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, thank you.
Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I think you know better. I — I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.
He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan — didn’t get there.
He said he
would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.
He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges — didn’t even file it.
This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.
He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by 2,500 (dollars) a year. And if “Obamacare” is passed — or implemented — it’s already been passed. If it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another 2,500 (dollars) on top.
The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.
That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty — one out of six people in poverty. How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps; today 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year and more slowly last year than the year before.
The — the president wants to do well; I understand. But the policies he’s put in place, from “Obamacare” to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies — these policies combined have not led this economy take off and grow like it could have. You might say, well, you got an example of when it worked better? Yeah, in the Reagan recession, where unemployment hit 10.8 percent. Between that period — the end of that recession and equivalent period of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.
The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a — as a — a — a — as a speaker and — and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we — median incomes are down $4,300 a family, and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, I want to move you along.
Don’t go away, and we’ll have plenty of time to respond. We are quite aware of the clock for both of you.
But I want to bring in a different subject here. Mr. President, I’ll be right back with you. And Lorraine Osario has a question for you about a topic we have not heard —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: This is for Governor Romney?
MS. CROWLEY: Yes, this is for Governor Romney, and we’ll be right with you, Mr. President. Thanks.
MR. ROMNEY: Is it Lorraina (ph)?
Q: Lorraine.
MR. ROMNEY: Lorraine?
Q: Yeah, Lorraine, yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: (Great ?).
Q: How you doing?
MR. ROMNEY: Good, thanks.
Q: President — Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Lorraine. Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for your question. And let me step back and tell you what I’d like to do with our immigration policy broadly and include an answer to your — your question.
First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American parents. Ann’s dad was born in Wales and is a first- generation American. We welcome legal immigrants into this country.
I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined, I want it to be clearer. I don’t think you have to — shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally. I also think that we should give visas to people — green cards, rather, to people who graduate with skills that we need, people around the world with accredited degrees in — in science and math get a green card stapled to their diploma, come to the US of A. We should make sure that our legal system works.
Number two, we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.
What I will do is I’ll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won’t put in place magnets for people coming here illegally, so for instance, I would not give driver’s licenses to those that have come here illegally, as the — as the president would.
The kids of — of those that came here illegally, those kids I think should have a pathway to become a — a permanent resident of the United States.
And military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.
Now, when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation — he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our — our immigration system, protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn’t do it. He had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate, supermajority in both houses. Why did he fail to even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come here legally and for those that are here illegally today? That’s a question I think the — the president will have a chance to answer right now.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good. I look forward to it. Was — Lorena? Lorraine.
We are a nation of immigrants. I mean, we’re just a few miles away form Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around the world wants to come here, people who are willing to take risks, people who want to build on their dreams and make sure their kids have an — even bigger dreams than they have.
But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make sure that we fix this system.
First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that’s good for our economic growth. They’ll start new bu
sinesses. They’ll make things happen to create jobs here in the United States.
Number two, we do have to deal with our border. So we’ve put more Border Patrol on than anytime in history, and the flow of undocumented workers across the border is actually lower than it’s been in 40 years.
What I’ve also said is, if we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they’re trying to figure out how to feed their families, and that’s what we’ve done.
And what I’ve also said is, for young people who come here, brought here oftentimes by their parents, have gone to school here, pledged allegiances to the flag, think of this as their country, understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers, then we should make sure that we give them a pathway to citizenship, and that’s what I’ve done administratively.
Now, Governor Romney just said that, you know, he wants to help those young people, too. But during the Republican primary, he said, I will veto the DREAM Act that would allow these young people to have access. His main strategy during the Republican primary was to say, we’re going to encourage self-deportation, making life so miserable on folks that they’ll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the nation. Part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and checked their papers. And you know what, if my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they’re not a citizen, I don’t want — I don’t want to empower somebody like that.
So we can fix this system in a comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says the challenge is, well, Obama didn’t try, that’s not true. I sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term, and I said, let’s fix this system, including senators previously who have supported it on the Republican side.
But it’s very hard for Republicans in Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform if their standard bearer has said that this is not something I’m interested in supporting.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me get the governor in here, Mr. President. Let’s speak to, if you could, Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: Let’s —
MS. CROWLEY: — the idea of self-deportation.
MR. ROMNEY: Let — no, let — let me go back and speak to the points that the president made and — and let’s get them correct. I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the nation in that aspect. I said that the e-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is — which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally — that that was a model for the nation. That’s number one.
Number two, I asked the president a question I think Hispanics and immigrants all over the nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you’d file legislation in your first year, didn’t you do it? And he didn’t answer. He don’t — he doesn’t answer that question. He said the standard bearer wasn’t for it. I — I’m glad you thought I was a standard bearer four years ago, but I wasn’t. Four years ago you said in your first year you would file legislation. In his first year — (chuckles) — I was just getting or — I was licking my wounds from having been beaten by John McCain. All right? I was not the standard bearer. My — my view is that this president should have honored his promise to — to do as he said.
Now let me mention one other thing, and that is, self-deportation says let it — let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we’re not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented, illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead, let — make — people make their own choice. And if they — if they find that — that they can’t get the benefits here that they want and they can’t find the job they want, then they’ll make a decision to go a place where — where they have better opportunities. But I’m not in favor of rounding up people and — and — and — and taking them out of this country. I am in favor, as the president has said, and I agree with him, which is that if people have committed crimes, we got to get them out of this country.
Let me mention something else the president said.
It was a moment ago, and I didn’t get a chance to — when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth. Let me —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, hold on a second. The — (inaudible) — there’s some points we got to —
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — you know, I’m still — Mr. President, I’m still speaking.
MS. CROWLEY: I’m sorry.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney, I — I’m — I’m — I’m — (inaudible) — make sure — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: Mr. President, why don’t you let me finish? I’m going to — I’m going to continue. I’m going to continue. The president made a —
MS. CROWLEY: Go ahead and finish, Governor Romney. Governor Romney, if you could make it short. See all these people? They’ve been waiting for you. Could you make it short, and then —
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in — in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible) — Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ve got to say — (inaudible) —
MR. ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it — it doesn’t take as long. The —
MR. ROMNEY: Well, let me — let me give you — (laughter) — let me — let me give you some advice.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t check it that often. (Chuckles.)
MR. ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) OK.
MR. ROMNEY: You also investments in Chinese companies.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments outside the United States.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
MR. ROMNEY: You also have investments through a Caymans trust, all right?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right. (Inaudible) —
MS. CROWLEY: And we are way — we’re sort of way off topic here, Governor Romney. We are completely off immigration.
MR. ROMNEY: So — so Mr. President — so —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We’re — we’re — we’re a little off topic here, yeah. Come on. The — I thought we were talking about immigration. I — I — I — I — I — I — I do want to — I do want to
— I do want to make sure that —
MR. ROMNEY: I came — I came back to what you spoke about before.
MS. CROWLEY: And we were. So quickly, Mr. President — if I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I do want to make sure that we just understand something. Governor Romney says he wasn’t referring to Arizona as a model for the nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it — not E-Verify, the whole thing. That’s his policy, and it’s a bad policy. And it won’t help us grow. Look, when we think about immigration, we have to understand there are folks all around the world who still see America as the land of promise. And they provide us energy, and they provide us innovation. And they start companies like Intel and Google, and we want to encourage that.
Now, we’ve got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don’t have bipartisan support — I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done.
And we can’t — we can’t —
MR. ROMNEY: I’ll get it done. I’ll get it done, first year.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We have not seen Republicans —
MS. CROWLEY: OK, Mr. President let me move you on here, please.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — serious about this issue at all.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And it’s time for them to get serious on it. This used to be a bipartisan issue.
MS. CROWLEY: Don’t go away, though. Don’t go away, because —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m — I’m here.
MS. CROWLEY: — I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka, who has a — wants to switch a topic for us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. Hi, Cara (ph).
Q: Good evening, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, what’s your name?
Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.
Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.
And people — not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I’ve made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we’d go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That’s what I’m doing.
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to move us along. Governor?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It’s an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for — for that — for that — the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.
I — I’m — I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. Today there’s a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We — we think of their families and care for them deeply.
There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?
But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance, and perhaps even material significance, in that you’d hoped that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We’ve read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.
And this calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tou
r and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.
MS. CROWLEY: Because we’re closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly. Your secretary of state, as I’m sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did.
MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I’m — I’m happy to —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.
MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.
MS. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
MS. CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.
MS. CROWLEY: Because what I want to do, Mr. President — stand there for a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzales, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.
Q: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, we’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment. And I believe in the Second Amendment. You know, we’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.
But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency where I’ve had to comfort families who’ve lost somebody, most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually probably about a month, I saw a mother who I had met at the beside of her son who had been shot in that theater.
And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer. And remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new. But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.
So my belief is that A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.
But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.
And so what can we do to intervene to make sure that young people have opportunity, that our schools are working, that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control?
And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and — and taking guns away or — or making certain guns ill
egal. We of course don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.
What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.
He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll — we’ll give people the — the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.
But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the — the benefit of having two parents in the home — and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone — that’s a great idea because if there’s a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically.
So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.
The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to gun violence, in some respects, is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration — and how it worked exactly, I think we don’t know precisely — but where thousands of automatic and — and AK-47-type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords. They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them.
And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It’s been investigated to a degree, but the administration has — has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence — thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings, why is it that you’ve changed your mind?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it’s referred to as a — as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn’t previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.
That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s — that’s gridlocked. We haven’t had — we haven’t — we haven’t — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.
MS. CROWLEY: So if I could, if you could get people to agree to it, you’d be for it.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy.
MS. CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The — first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was in part because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.
So that’s on the record. But I think that one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they’re less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed, and we’ve got to make sure that they don’t get weapons. But we can make a difference in terms of ensuring that every young person in America, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance to succeed.
And Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much. But I think it is very important to understand that the reforms we put in place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing schools that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science. When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs, including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting another chance — training them for the jobs that exist right now. And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers, and so we’re matching them up. Giving them access to higher education — as I said, we have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an education that they weren’t able to get before.
Now — but —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to — I have to move you along here. You said you wanted to hear these questions, and we need to do it here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — but — but it’ll — it’ll — it’ll — it’ll be just — just one second, because —
MS. CROWLEY: One —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election. And when Governor Romney was asked whether teachers — hiring more teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn’t grow our economy. When — when he was asked — (inaudible) — class size —
MS. CROWLEY: The question, of course, Mr. President, was guns here. So I need to move us along.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I understand.
MS. CROWLEY: You know, the questions was guns. So let me — let me bring in another —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people —
MS. CROWLEY: I understand.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: — and reduce our violence.
MS. CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much. I want to ask Carol Goldberg to stand up, because she gets to a question that both these men have been passionate about. It’s for Governor Romney.
Q: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?
MR. ROMNEY: Boy, great question, an important question, because you’re absolutely
right. The place where we’ve seen manufacturing go has been China. China is now the largest manufacturer in the world. Used to be the United States of America. Lot of good people have lost jobs. A half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last four years. That’s total over the last four years.
One of the reasons for that is that people think it’s more attractive, in some cases, to go offshore than to — than to stay here. We have made it less attractive for enterprises to stay here than to go offshore from time to time.
What I will do as president is make sure it’s more attractive to come to America again. This is the way we’re going to create jobs in this country. It’s not by trickle-down government saying, we’re going to take more money from people and hire more government workers, raise more taxes, put in place more regulations. Trickle-down government has never worked here, has never worked anywhere. I want to make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for small business, for big business to invest and grow in America.
Now, we’re going to have to make sure that as we trade with other nations, that they play by the rules, and China hasn’t. One of the reasons — or one of the ways they don’t play by the rules is artificially holding down the value of their currency, because if they put their currency down low, that means their prices on their goods are low. And that makes them advantageous in the marketplace. We lose sales, and manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can’t compete.
China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to — to label them as a — as a currency manipulator but refuses to do so. On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers.
So we’re going to make sure the people we trade with around the world play by the rules.
But let me — let me not just stop there. Don’t forget: What’s key to bringing back jobs here is not just finding someone else to punish — and — and I’m going to be strict with people who we trade with to make sure they — they follow the law and play by the rules — but it’s also to make America the most attractive place in the world for businesses of all kinds. That’s why I want to bring down the tax rates on small employers, big employers, so they want to be here. Canada’s tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. So if you’re starting a business, where would you rather start it? We have to be competitive if we’re going to create more jobs here.
Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president. I’ve talked to small businesses across the country. They say we feel like we’re under attack from our own government. I want to make sure that regulators see their job as encouraging small business — not crushing it. And there’s no question but that “Obamacare” has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people. My priority is making sure that we get more people hired. If we have more people hired, if we get back manufacturing jobs, if we get back all kinds of jobs into this country, then you’re going to see rising incomes again. The reason incomes are down is because unemployment is so high. I know what it takes to get this to happen, and my plan will do that, and one part of it is to make sure that we keep China playing by the rules. Thanks.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, two minutes here because we are then going to go to our last question.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK. We need to create jobs here. And both Governor Romney and I agree, actually, that we should lower our corporate tax rate. It’s too high.
But there’s a difference in terms of how we would do it. I want to close loopholes that allow companies to deduct expenses when they move to China, that allow them to profit offshore and not have to get taxed, so they have tax advantages offshore. All those changes in our tax code would make a difference.
Now Governor Romney actually wants to expand those tax breaks. One of his big ideas when it comes to corporate tax reform would be to say, if you invest overseas, you make profits overseas, you don’t have to pay U.S. taxes. But of course if you’re a small business or a mom- and-pop business or a big business starting up here, you’ve got to pay even the reduced rate that Governor Romney’s talking about. And it’s estimated that that will create 800,000 new jobs. Problem is, they’ll be in China or India or Germany. That’s not the way we’re going to create jobs here.
The way we’re going to create jobs here is not just to change our tax code but also to double our exports. And we are on pace to double our exports, one of the commitments I made when I was president. That’s creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country. That’s why we’ve kept on pushing trade deals but trade deals that make sure that American workers and American businesses are getting a good deal.
Now Governor Romney talked about China. As I already indicated, in the private sector, Governor Romney’s company invested in what were called pioneers of outsourcing. That’s not my phrase; that’s what reporters called it.
And as far as currency manipulation, the currency’s actually gone up 11 percent since I’ve been president because we have pushed them hard. And we’ve put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That’s why exports have significantly increased under my presidency. That’s going to help to create jobs here.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, we have a really short time for a quick discussion here.
IPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China, and one of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here?
MR. ROMNEY: The answer is very straightforward. We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China’s been cheating over the years, one, by holding down the value of their currency, number two, by stealing our intellectual property, our designs, our patents, our technology. There’s even an Apple store in China that’s a counterfeit Apple store selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis. That’s number one.
Number two, we have to make America the most attractive place for entrepreneurs, for people who want to expand a business. That’s what brings jobs in. The president’s characterization of my tax plan —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: How much time (you ?) got, Candy?
MR. ROMNEY: — is complete — is completely — is completely false.
MS. CROWLEY: (Inaudible) — let me go to the —
MR. ROMNEY: Let me tell you —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Wait, wait, wait ?) —
MS. CROWLEY: Let me go to the president here, because we really are running out of time. And the question is can we ever get — we can’t get wages like that. It can’t be sustained here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back, because they’re low-wage, low-skill jobs. I want high- wage, high-skill jobs. That’s why we have to emphasize manufacturing. That’s why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That’s why we’ve got to make sure that
we’ve got the best science and research in the world.
And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race. If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country, then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, a hundred years from now.
MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Mr. President.
Governor Romney —
MR. ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. (Chuckles.)
MS. CROWLEY: — but Governor Romney, I want to introduce you to Barry Green, because he’s going to have the last question to you first.
MR. ROMNEY: Barry? Where’s Barry? Hi, Barry.
Q: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. Each of you: What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And that’s an opportunity for me, and I appreciate it. In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they’d like to do. And in the course of that, I think the president’s campaign has tried to characterize me as — as someone who — who is very different than who I am.
I care about a hundred percent of the American people. I want a hundred percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to — to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I — I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help, with the experience I have, the American people.
My — my — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God, and I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were — were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times. I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get a hundred percent of my people insured — all my kids; about 98 percent of the adults. Was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation so a hundred percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future.
I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a — at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.
If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will. I’ll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming — coming generations. The president said he would. He didn’t.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor —
MR. ROMNEY: I’ll get our incomes up. And by the way, I’ve done these things. I served as governor and showed I could get them done.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, last two minutes belong to you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe.
I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that’s how our economy is grown. That’s how we built the world’s greatest middle class.
And — and that is part of what’s at stake in this election. There’s a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith.
But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives, veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.
And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.
And when my grandfather fought in World War II and he came back and he got a GI Bill and that allowed him to go to college, that wasn’t a handout. That was something that advanced the entire country, and I want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. That’s why I’m asking for your vote and that’s why I’m asking for another four years.
MS. CROWLEY: President Obama, Governor Romney, thank you for being here tonight. On that note, we have come to an end of this town hall debate. (Applause.) Our thanks to the participants for their time and to the people of Hofstra University for their hospitality. The next and final debate takes place Monday night at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Don’t forget to watch. Election Day is three weeks from today. Don’t forget to vote. Good night.