ways like it does. it invites variations of our religious beliefs and economically we tell people that they can spend their money as they choose. on civil liberties, that is a different thing. republicans and conservatives are not known for protecting privacy and personal liberty. when it comes to the spending overseas, i've been working with the coalition. my trillion dollar proposal to cut spending does not immediately deal with social security. it is try to work our way out of social security. i'm cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to the 2006 budget. and i do not believe that you have to have pain. people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts make it the pain, but the american people can get their freedom back and there and come back, they do not suffer any pain. >> here is the reality. two previous presidents, president bush talked about being a united, president obama talk about transforming washington, and it has not worked. the american people are sick of the fact that nothing gets done in washington. specifically, how do you change that? >> let me address congressman paul. this serious issue is that you're right, he is ever passed anything of any importance. one of the reasons people like congressman paul is his economic plan. he has never been able to accomplish any of that. he has no track work of working together. his been out on the margins and has really been unsuccessful in working together with anybody to do anything. what congressman paul can do as commander-in-chief is that he can on day one says what he wants to do, pull all of our troops back out of overseas and put them here in america. leave us in a situation where the world is not going to be creating vacuums all of the place. have folks like china and iran like others, look at the straits of hormuz, last night, we will not even have the fifth fleet there. you cannot accomplish the things that you like about him and the things that he can accomplish he will do one day one. that is the problem. what we need is to have someone who has a plan and has experience to do all the things republicans and conservatives would like to do. gillette me get dr. paul to respond. >> it is not a simple task to repeal hundreds of years of sliding away from our republic and running the foreign-policy of woodrow wilson, trying to make this world safe for democracy. we have a license overseas that we do not even accept. changing foreign-policy is significant, but that is where nations will come down if we keep doing this. we cannot stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation- building, we have to change policies. what about changing monetary policy? yes, we do, but we have had that for 100 years and right now we're winning that battle. the american people agree about 75% that we ought to audit the federal reserve and find out what they are doing and who their friends that they are bailing out constantly. >> senator santorum, come back to this portrait is easy to say to change the culture in washington but it has not worked for the past two presidents. >> if it worked in my case. look at welfare reform. federal entitlement that i remember standing next to daniel patrick moynihan, ted kennedy talking about how this would be the end of civilization as we know it. there would be bread lines, the horrific consequences of moving federal income support from basically mothers with children. and we stood up and said, no, creating dependency and creating that dependency upon federal dollars is more harmful and not believing people in their bill ability to work is more harmful. so we stood up and fought. and we went one out to the american public, and bill clinton vetoed this bill twice. we have hard opposition but i was able to work together and pay division. we make compromises but not on our core principles. this would in the federal program and we would require work and put time limits on welfare. i stuck to those principles, and we were able to compromise on some things like transportation funding and some day care funding, all in order to get a consensus that poverty is not a disability. and the programs that we need to put into place a tough transition people, not make them dependent, and we're able to get 70 votes in the senate -- in the united states senate, including 17 democrats. >> governor husband, the leader of a bit democrats decides to make a one-term president, how would you go about working with them? >> if comes down to one word, trust. when the american people look at the political process playing out, they hear all the spending in all but doctrinaire language, and they still walk away with the belief that they are not being represented in congress. that there is no trust in the executive record and the simpson-bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of barack obama and it lands in the garbage can. the first press conference i had as governor in 2004 was on ethics in government service. i talked about term limits. i talked about campaign finance reform. i talked about the role of lobbyists and you would not make a lot of friends. i had one member of the legislature who supported me in the run. we won because we had the will of the people. i believe the next president, if that is to be me, i want to roam around this country and generate the level of excitement and enthusiasm that i know exists among the american people to bring term limits to congress, to close the revolving door on member is going right on out and becoming a lobbyist. we have to start with a structural problem. there is no trust. >> all right, governor perry, i want to continue on the theme of leadership. >> me, too. >> you have sure is an independent place. -- new hampshire is an independent place. when you criticize the administration for running up debt, where would you bust your party? where would you make republicans uncomfortable? >> i hope i'm doing that right now by talking about the spending they were doing in the 2000's when we get control of both parties. dr. paul says that the biggest problem facing this country is our work overseas? i disagree with that. the biggest problem facing this country today is a congress that is out of control with their spending. we have to have someone, an outsider double what in, not part of the insider group did you see here, people who have voted for rating -- raising the debt limit, people who have been part of the program -- problem facing america. i'll tell you two things that will occur that a president can lead the charge on. it would put term limits and the place. one of those is a part-time congress to tell those members of congress we're going to cut your pay, cut the amount of time that you spend in washington, d.c., you bet your districts and you can have a job like everyone else is in your district, and live under the laws that you pass. and in a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. >> if but my question, sir -- >> that will make them uncomfortable. >> you think that is going to make them uncomfortable? >> you are darn right. a lot of people say that they are conservatives but their record should not follow up on that. >> we will have to take a break on that. we will return with much more and of course share your thoughts with us online at facebook. [applause] ♪ >> the nbc news/facebook republican candidate debate continues in partnership with the new hampshire union leader. >> we are back in new hampshire. i'm happy to be joined by our local partners for today. the senior political reporter for the new hampshire union leader. and from whda tv, the political editor. welcome to you both. >> governor huntsman, it is winter in new hampshire. a little mild, but home heating oil was barely $4 a gallon. yet president obama and congress have cut by 25% the fund to help low-income people heat their homes. 1 million less homes will be held this year. is this pain that must be suffered through this program? should the funding restored? should be cut more? should this program be eliminated? this is a practical problem in this area of the country. >> know, we have people in need and suffering. this is a challenge that we need to address. but we're not going to be able to effectively confront it head on. until such time as the station begins to move toward greater energy diversity and energy independence. one of the first things i would do as president as take a look at that one product distributed by s -- distribution bias, which always favors oil. if we need to do what this nation needs to do in using a multiplicity of products that we have in such diversity and abundance, and get it to the customers, we have to break up that one product distribution by a spirit of what to do to that monopoly what we did the broadcast communications in the early 1970's. we blew apart it went to the federal trade commission and said that we needed to verse sources to draw from. when a disservice to consumers. i believe if we're going to do what needs to be done from an energy independence standpoint, all products, getting the products to the customer, we have to disrupt that one product monopoly if that does not serve this country well, nor its consumers. >> congressman paul, how do you feel about -- [applause] how you feel about subsidies in general for specific energy, and also were specifically right now, more immediately, this low- income program, the heating assistance program? is this something that fits in your view of what government does? >> subsidies per say are bad economic policy and bad moral policy because it uses moral force -- government forced to transfer money from one group to another and economically it does a lot of harm. when it comes to energy, we should be regulated like others talk about. but we need to talk -- supply and demand, everybody knows about supply and demand. the talk about oil and if we had more alternative sources, we of the prices would go down. but everyone forgets that there is 50% of a transaction is the monetary union. very few people talk about this supply and demand of money. when you create a lot of money, prices go up. it goes up in areas where government must get involved, education and medical care, housing, and in energy. prices go up must faster than any other place. if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, if you compound the problem. it is good politics. i am going to take care of you. but it is bad economic policy. it is not a good way to get an answer. >> this is beyond a regional implications. also about the social safety net for you talk about opportunity for americans, but what about americans left behind? in this age of austerity, what americans need tell learn to live with less of? >> we do not need a federal government solving all the problems of poverty a crossing card country. -- across the entire country it is a difference in massachusetts and montana and mississippi. all these federal programs bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net need to be brought together and sent back to the states. but states that are closest to the need of their own people craft the programs that are best able to deal with the needs of those folks. whether it is food stamps and housing vouchers, those are on the list purred but certainly medicaid. home heating oil support, but unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, if you have massive overhead. government bureaucrats in washington administering all these programs, very little of the money that is needed by those who need help, those who cannot care for themselves, actually reaches them. folks in washington keep building program after program. it is time to say enough of that. let's give the money back to the states the with the constitution intended and let states care for their own people in the way that a filibuster. which it that they feel best. >> governor romney, public like for you to remember something that you said in a gay newspaper when you're running against senator kennedy. these are your words. i think the gay community needs support from the republican party and i would be a voice in the republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts. how have you stood up for gay- rights and when have you used your voice to influence republicans on this issue? >> as you know, i do not discriminate. of the appointments that i made when i was governor of massachusetts, a number of my cabinet were gay. i appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation. amid a very clear that we should not discriminate in hiring policies, and legal policies. at the same project of the same time, i said to the gay community, and not favor same- sex marriage. i oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view. people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way i try to suggest that people may not have full rights in this country, they will not find that in me. >> what is the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing their rights? >> right now. [laughter] [applause] >> senator santorum, would you be a voice for increasing their rights in the party? [laughter] >> surprise that you would come to me. what was your question? >> would you be a voice for increasing gay-rights in your party, and if not, why not? >> i would make sure that every person is treated with respect and dignity and as the equality of opportunity. that does not mean i would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to change in laws with respect to marriage and adoption and things like that. you can be respectful. this is the beautiful thing about this country. james madison called the first amendment the perfect remedy, that is, people of all different backgrounds and diversities and faiths can come to the public square and can be heard. they can be heard in a way that is respectful of everyone else, but just because you do not agree with someone's desire to change a lot does not mean that you do not like them, that you hate them, or you want to discriminate against them. but you're trying to promote things that you think are best for society. i do so and if you watch the town hall meetings that i've been doing all over new hampshire, i do so in a respectful tone. i let them make them arguments -- their arguments and we may not agree. that is why we leave it open to the public to elect members of congress and the senate and the president who will support their idea. >> what if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay? >> i will love as much as heat -- as i did the second before he said. i would try to be as good a father to him as possible. [applause] >> governor perry, we will move on. like to work, -- right to work continues to be an issue in the state of new hampshire. you have spoken about promoting having states pass state laws. what about on the federal level? to you see this as a federal issue and one that you would promote as president? >> it is a federal issue because of a law was passed that forces the states to make a decision about whether or not they are going to be right to work. jim demint's legislation, i would support that, repealing that legislation that forces states to make that decision to be a right to work rather than all of this country being right to work. i am not anti-union, i am pro- jobs. the way you promote his country's rehabilitation from the obama administration's attack on job creation is by taxes and regulation, particularly the regulatory side, and pulling those regulations that have gone forward since 2008 and test them all for creating jobs or do they kill jobs. if they kill jobs, you throw them out. i will make more difference in this country from the standpoint -- i am a right to work died. i come from a right to work state. if you hampshire was to become a magnet for job creation in the northeast, you pass that right to work legislation in this state. >> how like to ask you quickly, what positive contributions to labor unions provide in this country in the 21st century? >> unions train their workers to be more effective and when they compete against non union workers on a fair basis, that as a positive contribution. but i agree with governor perry, right to work legislation makes a lot of sense for new hampshire and for the nation. but let's not forget that government unions and the impact they are having. if we're going to be finally pulled back extraordinary political power government unions or exerting this country, we have to say that people who work for the government, government workers, should have a compensation tied to that which exists in the private sector. people who are public servants should not be paid more than the taxpayers who are paying for it. >> a quick comment on this. >> i signed a place that i would support a national right to work. when i was the senator from pennsylvania, i did not vote for because pennsylvania is not our right to work state and i did not want to vote for a law that would change the law in pennsylvania. they can do training and do a lot in the community. i'll work with a lot of labor unions in philadelphia to do community involvement work. they tried to participate like a business. >> we have a mandatory break. we have more questions in just a moment. ♪ >> the nbc news/facebook republican presidential debate continues from new hampshire. now the moderator of meet the press, david gregory. [applause] >> and we're back for final half-hour. so much discussion, speaker gingrich on , about jobs per you can understand why. we talked about economic growth. it was governor romney who made the point to a young person who approached him that if he were president and when this person got out of college, he or she would have a job. if president obama has a second term, he or she would not have a job. isn't that what makes people angry at politicians? >> i do not think that is an easy answer. i think that is a statement of fact. [laughter] [applause] let me go back to what john said, because it is exactly the same question. the long-term answer to $4 a gallon heating oil is to open up federal lines and gas, flood the market, and make supply and demand work for us and not against us. under obama, 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. it is a direct result of his policies which killed jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken the united states, increase our dependence on foreign country, and weaken our inertial -- our national security in the face of iran trying to close the straits of hormuz. there is a hit here. you cannot have -- you get more revenue from federal government from royalties, less spending on liheap subsidies, people are happier all the way around. that is what supply-side economics was originally all about in the 1970's. >> governor romney, you blamed president obama for the jobs crisis but when you look at that data and the positive trend line, he still gets only the blame and none of the credit. >> i do not blame him for the recession and the decline. i blame him for having it going on for so long and so we can having a recovery that is so tepid. businesses that would normally be hiring people are not hiring dream i asked them why and they say because they look at the policies of this administration and feel that they are under attack. when you have an administration raising taxes on business, when it puts in place obamacare they will raise the cost of health care for businesses, when a stack and national labor relations board, which made the policies of labor will change dramatically in the direction they find uncomfortable, when you have obamacare placing more mandates on them, when you have dodd-frank which makes it harder for community banks to make loans, all of these things collectively make a reality of a president who has been anti- investm