that was actually in new hampshire this week, not at the debate. but you said something similar at the debate. charles? that s a major ax that is nearly half. are you saying in your first year of office, you would cut the check that social security recipients get today, then, by almost half? you would cut the benefits that the people who are on medicare would get by almost half, and you would cut the defense budget by almost half in your first year? well, for starters, it is not about cutting social security. social security is really a problem that is small in comparison to medicare. social security very simply is a system that needs to take in more money than what it pays out, so to fix social security, raise the retirement age, means testing, change the escalator built into social security dprt wage index to the inflation rate and then have an option for self directing those funds. that s the fix for social
not. i am not sure i understand the logic. well, these are the questions that i would another thing, as president of the united states, i would be really transparent. look, i am signing this legislation authorizing wiping out the lords resistance army. i am authorizing that legislation. on the other hand, going into libya. i heard the transparency, i didn t see the military threat. no, do i not for a second see a military threat from the lords resistance. i dont see that as a threat to national security at all. but i have always it s there is a lot of nuance. there is a lot of nuance. being president of the united states, there is a lot of nuance. you would like to have somebody in charge, i think, that will be very, very transparent, regarding decisions being made. what are the differences? these are the questions questioi would be asking regarding signing that legislation in the first place, back to the lords
action? here, he has made an exception for a part of the world that i am not sure 1 in a thousand americans know of. you don t have to oppose this mission to say that the president s statement in which he says that i believe that this is furthers u.s. national security interest is complete nonsense. this is a human staritarian operation. perhaps we ought to do it for moral reasons. but the pretense that it has to do with the national security of the united states is wrong. and the implication is wrong. these are not people who target americans or have any ambition of attacking the united states. if you want to make a humanitarian mission, say it openly and say that s the only reason and we can have a debate in the country as to whether a president ought to deploy purely for moral reasons, which raises a lot of reasons, why here and not there. one quick issue, if i could. why do do you this with a press release on a friday afternoon wort any explanation, speeches,
resistance army. anwar al-awlaki, what if he hadn t been an american and he posed a threat to the united states? it wasn t oppose ago it wasn t opposing that order. it was the notion, first of all, this is unprecedentedded, this is an american citizen. if i were to have signed that order eye am not saying i wouldn t have signed that order where was the transparency for such an unprecedented action? i would have been very, very transparent. here s why i am ordering the assassination of a u.s. citizen, unpres debted in the history of this country and why i do view this to be a national security threat. so guilt/innocence aside, there was no due process here. i think that s what i am trying to point out. no due process i. i think due process is a cornerstone of the u.s. constitution. let me change gears here for a second. many people on the conservative side of things, me included,
americans is a lack of jobs. reporter: texas governor rick perry says increased domestic energy production holds more jobs. i offer a plan that will create more than a million good-paying american jobs across every sector of the economy and enhance our national security. reporter: like many candidates before him, perry says his is an all of the above energy plan, but stresses domestic oil production. he wants more federal lanced opened up to exploration, including off-shore drilling. to get that darnings he says he would roll back what he describes as activists environmental regulations. i do not accept the choice that we must pick between energy and the environment. it is time for a balanced, pro-american, pro-jobs energy policy. reporter: perry also wants much more u.s. production of natural gas, which america has an abundance of. a large number of new natural