Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., answers a question during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.8

CAIN: I don’t believe so. But let’s — let’s look at solving the real problem, OK? Immigration is full of problems, not one. This is why we keep kicking the can down the road. Secure the borders. Get serious about securing our borders.

Number two, enforce the laws that are already there.

Number three, promote the path to citizenship, like this lady did, by getting — cleaning up the bureaucracy.

And here’s how we deal with the illegals that are already here. Empower the states to do what the federal government hasn’t done, won’t do, and can’t do. Then we won’t be getting into the problem that was raised.

We are a compassionate nation. Of course they’re going to get care. But let’s fix the problem.

KING: Well, to empower the states, Mr. Cain says, Governor Pawlenty, do you support, then — Arizona has its version, parts of it — parts of it, employee enforcement law, have been upheld. The big SB 1070 making its way to the Supreme Court. Alabama just has a new bill. Would you want to be president of the United States in which each state can decide what it does? Or would you make the point, look, this is a federal purview, period?

PAWLENTY: I’m a strong supporter of state rights, but if the federal government won’t do its job — in this case, protecting and securing our border — then let the states do it. And they will. And…

(APPLAUSE)

… when President Bush asked governors to volunteer their National Guard to go to the border to help reinforce, through Operation Jump Start, our border, I was one of the few governors who did it. I sent Minnesota National Guard there to reinforce the border, and it works. And that’s what we need to do.

And, by the way, this issue of birthright citizenship again brings up the importance of appointing conservative justices. That result is because a U.S. Supreme Court determined that that right exists, notwithstanding language in the Constitution. I’m the only one up here — I believe I’m the only one up here — who’s appointed solidly, reliably conservative appointees to the — to the court.

KING: I want to do one more on this issue. President Bush and Senator McCain spent a lot of time on this, Mr. Speaker. I want your view. There are an estimated maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. People have different numbers. If you were going to round them all up — Congressman Tom Tancredo on this stage four years ago would have said round them up and kick them up, they broke the law, they shouldn’t be here. I don’t know where the money would come from in this environment.

So I want you sense. Do you — is that what the states should be doing, the federal government should be spending money and resources on? Or — or like President Bush and like Senator McCain, at least in the McCain-Kennedy days, should we have some path to status for those who are willing to step up and admit where they are and come out of the shadows?

GINGRICH: One of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives. You either have to ship 20 people out of America or legalize all of them.

That’s nonsense. There’s not — we’re never going to pass a comprehensive bill. Obama proved that in the last two years. He couldn’t get a comprehensive bill through with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and he didn’t even try, because he knew he couldn’t do it.

You break this down. Herman Cain’s essentially right, you break it down. First of all, you control the border. We can ask the National Guard to go to Iraq. We ask the National Guard to go to Kuwait. We ask the National Guard to go to Afghanistan. Somehow we would have done more for American security if we had had the National Guard on the border.

But if you don’t want to use the National Guard, I’m…

(APPLAUSE)

Just one last example. If you don’t want to use the National Guard, take — take half of the current Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy in Washington, transplant it to Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. You’ll have more than enough people to control the border.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. Let’s…

GINGRICH: No, but let me say this, John. No serious citizen who’s concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you’re either for totally selling out protecting America or you’re for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. There are — there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly.

KING: All right.

John Distaso down on the floor has a question.

DISTASO: Thank you, John.

Congressman Paul, this is for you. John, if you don’t mind, I’d also like to hear from Governor Romney and a couple of the candidates, because it relates to a specific New Hampshire issue with a national question.

Here in New Hampshire, there is a popular bill that is being considered by our state legislature that would restrict the state’s power to seize private land to build a power plant or a transmission facility. Should governments at any level be able to use eminent domain for major projects that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil?

PAUL: No. We — we shouldn’t have that power given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. The eminent domain laws are going to vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. It was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it’s going to help that locality.

And this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. Property and free society should be owned by the people, and it shouldn’t be regulated to death by the governments, whether it’s Washington, D.C., or local governments.

Right now, we really don’t own our land. We just pay rent on our land and we listen to all these regulations. So I would say that courts should get out of the way, too. They should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group.

(APPLAUSE)

DISTASO: Governor Romney, you’re a property owner in New Hampshire. You are a New Hampshire property owner, but you also are for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There are a lot of people in the state who are concerned about this project, but they also want to have energy independence. How do you feel about that?

ROMNEY: Well, I don’t believe that land should be taken — the power of government to give to a private corporation. And so the right of eminent domain is a right which is used to foster a public purpose and public ownership for a road, highways, and so forth. And so my view is, if land is going to be taken for purposes of a private enterprise, that’s the wrong way to go.

Now, the right answer for us to have energy independence is to start developing our own energy in this country, and we’re not doing that. We — we have a huge find with natural gas; 100 years of new natural gas has been found. More drilling for oil, natural gas, clean coal. We have coal in great abundance, nuclear power ultimately, and all the renewables. But it’s time for us to have a president who really cares about finally getting America on track for energy security.

KING: And so let’s stay on this issue, because it is a very important issue. Josh McElveen down on the floor.

MCELVEEN: Thanks very much, John. Timely issue. Question for Senator Santorum. The Senate tomorrow is going to be voting on possibly abolishing the ethanol tax, effective July 1st (inaudible) major impact on our friends in another early voting state in Iowa. They grow corn. This is a move that would basically remove tax credits worth $6 billion. Question to you is, do you support abolishing?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I actually had proposed that we can phase out the ethanol subsidy, which is the blender’s credit, over a five-year period of time. I also proposed, as part of helping him in that transition — one other thing. I also phase out the tariff on ethanol coming into this country over that five-year period of time.

One of the issues for the ethanol industry is distribution networks. So I would take half of that credit every year, 4.5 cents, and use it to help expand distribution for E-85 in other areas of the country. And that all would be shut down in five years.

And I say that because I think the ethanol industry — I voted against ethanol subsidies my entire time in Congress. But I will tell you, the ethanol industry has matured greatly, and I think they are actually capable of surviving and doing quite well going forward under that — under that plan.

KING: All right. I want to — got to work in one more break before we go. We’ve got a lot more ground to cover. Believe it or not, our candidates — we’re running out of time here.

Into and out of every break we’re having a little experiment called “This or That.” “Spicy” from Governor Romney was the last one.

Governor Pawlenty, to you, Coke or Pepsi?

PAWLENTY: Coke.

KING: Coke it is, a good, swift answer there.

We’ve got to work in one more break. Before we go to break, though, I just want to show you. We’re asking you on Twitter to show us what you think. What are the candidates’ opinions on whether or not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? That and a number of foreign policy questions when we return here to the campus of Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, seven Republicans who want to be your next president debating. Stay right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas gestures as he answers a question as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, listen during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.7

KING: Seven Republican candidates for president here on the campus of St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Let’s continue our conversation.

But, first, let’s continue to know our candidates a little better.

Deep dish emphatically from Mr. Cain before the break.

Governor Romney, to you now. Imagine you’re getting to the barbecue joint. Maybe it’s here in New Hampshire, maybe it’s South Carolina ordering some wings. Spicy or mild?

ROMNEY: Oh, spicy. Absolutely.

And, by the way, Bruins are up 4-0.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. All right. There you go. There you go. I think — I think that’s an audience pleaser.

Let’s continue our questions. Let’s get right down on the floor with John Distaso of the “Union Leader.”

DISTASO: Thank you, John.

Congresswoman Bachmann, let’s turn to a serious subject.

New Hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. This is a question of conflicting interest. I know you’re opposed to same-sex marriage.

As president, would you try to overturn — what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?

BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.

I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.

Now, I didn’t come from a perfect background. My parents were divorced. And I was raised by a single mother. There’s a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. That’s why my husband and I have broken hearts for at-risk kids and it’s why we took 23 foster children into our home.

DISTASO: What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level? Anything at all from the White House? Would you come into the state of New Hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?

BACHMANN: I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: On that point — on that point, to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let’s try to quickly go through it. Let me start at this end, we’ll just go right through. I’ll describe it this way. Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made — this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state’s decision?

CAIN: State’s decision.

QUESTION: Yes.

PAWLENTY: I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. I was the co-author of the state — a law in Minnesota to define it and now we have courts jumping over this.

KING: OK. Let’s just go through this.

PAUL: The federal government shouldn’t be involved. I wouldn’t support an amendment. But let me suggest — one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.

But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

KING: Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?

ROMNEY: Constitutional.

KING: Mr. Speaker? GINGRICH: Well, I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to (ph) constitutional amendment.

KING: We heard the congresswoman’s answer, Senator.

SANTORUM: Constitutional amendment. Look, the constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to — have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is.

KING: Very quickly?

BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on — on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process — and Leon Panetta, who’s the new defense secretary, will implement — essentially, the repeal of “don’t ask/don’t tell” so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you — and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question — if you were president — if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to “don’t ask/don’t tell,” or something else?

CAIN: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned “don’t ask/don’t tell” in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn’t create a distraction trying to turn it over as president. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.

KING: Leave it in place if you inherit the new Obama administration policy or try to overturn it?

PAWLENTY: John, we’re a nation in two wars. I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders, and in this case, I would take my cues from them as to how this affects the military going forward. I know they expressed concerns — many of the combatant commanders did — when this was originally repealed by the Obama administration.

KING: Congressman?

PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don’t come in groups. We shouldn’t have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.

(APPLAUSE) KING: Leave it in place, what you inherit from the Obama administration or overturn it?

ROMNEY: Well, one, we ought to be talking about the economy and jobs. But given the fact you’re insistent, the — the answer is, I believe that “don’t ask/don’t tell” should have been kept in place until conflict was over.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it’s very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as president — I’ve met with them and they said, you know, it isn’t working, it is dangerous, it’s disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.

KING: Congresswoman?

BACHMANN: I would — I would keep the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy.

KING: So you would — whatever the Obama administration does now, you would go — try to go back? You’d try to reverse what they’re doing?

BACHMANN: I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with — also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I’d want to know how it was being implemented and if it has — had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.

KING: All right. Last word on this issue, Senator?

SANTORUM: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place, as Ron Paul said, that punishes — that punishes bad behavior.

KING: Let’s go back down to the floor here. Jennifer Vaughn has a question.

VAUGHN: Thanks, John.

Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think — I think an issue should be — in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their — at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that’s — that a factor that — that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I’ve taken the — you know, I’ve not just taken the pledge, I’ve taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that’s a factor that people should consider when you — when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and — and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Governor Romney, let me give you — take — take 20 or 30 seconds, if there’s a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?

ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I’ve said as — as I’ve been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I’m firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.

KING: Is there anybody here who believes that that’s an issue in the campaign, or is it case closed?

(UNKNOWN): Case closed.

KING: Case closed it is. All right. Let’s move on to the questions.

Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We’ll give you a few seconds.

PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results — not just based on words — I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.

As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women’s right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.

I’m solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven’t just talked about these things; I’ve done it.

KING: All right, Governor, thank you for that. Let’s go back up to — now up to Plymouth, New Hampshire. Thomas Fahey is standing by with a voter and a question.

FAHEY: Yes, thanks, John. I’m here with Lydia Cumbee. She lives in Franconia, and she is a naturalized citizen who moved to New Hampshire several years ago from Minnesota, of all places. And she’s got a question about immigration.

QUESTION: As a naturalized American citizen who came here legally, I would like to know how you, as America — as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, educational, or welfare systems?

KING: Senator Santorum, why don’t you lead off on that one?

SANTORUM: Well, I’m the son of a legal immigrant in this country and — and believe in legal immigration. That is a great wellspring of — of strength for our country.

But we cannot continue to provide — the federal government should not require states to provide government services. And I have consistently voted against that and believe that we are, unfortunately — my grandfather came to this country — I announced in Somerset County. He didn’t come here because he was guaranteed a government benefit. He came here because he wanted freedom.

And I think most people who come to this country — certainly all people who come here legally — want it because they wanted the opportunities of this country. And that’s what we should be offering. We should not be offering to people — particularly those who broke the law to come here or overstayed their visa — we should not be offering government benefits.

KING: And so, Dr. Paul, to you on this one, the question comes up, though, once they’re in the country illegally, you have — compassion sometimes bumps up against enforcing the law and state budget crises. A 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. Does the child get care?

PAUL: Well, first off, we shouldn’t have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn’t give them easy citizenship.

We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

(APPLAUSE)

But on — on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn’t — we didn’t depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after…

KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?

PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn’t — we shouldn’t be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they’re trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.

If we believed in our free society — as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren’t coming over as much now because it’s weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn’t work (ph) and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here, as well.

But, no, if you have an understanding and — and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don’t have to say, oh, you’re not going to have care or there won’t be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and — and die on the streets without medical care. That’s the implication of the question. That’s just not true, and you shouldn’t accept it.

KING: Mr. Cain, another issue that’s come up in recent years…

(APPLAUSE)

… as this debate has bubbled up is the whole question of birthright citizenship. If there are two illegal immigrants, two adults who came into this country illegally, and they have a child, should that child be considered a citizen of the United States?

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.6

From left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and businessman Herman Cain stand on stage before first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: Let’s spend a little time talking. Let’s spend a little bit of time talking about it.

Senator, let’s start with you. Just what role does faith play in your political life? Are there decisions, certain issues where some might you just, let’s meet with my advisers, what does my gut say, and others where you might retreat and have a moment of private prayer?

SANTORUM: I’m some who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they’ll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country — Madison called it the perfect remedy — which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite — we get along because we know that we — all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.

KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?

PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral.

But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws — which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

KING: OK. Great. Let’s go down to Josh McElveen, and let’s continue the conversation.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we’re on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.”

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances –

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey — there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have — my term, not his — a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let’s make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their — you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization —

KING: When I asked — I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn’t you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it’s not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor — I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we’re not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That’s in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath — their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed — when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, “You’re my enemy. I lied.”

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

KING: We’re going to work in another break.

Still a lot more ground to cover with our seven Republican candidates for president tonight. Voters here in New Hampshire are asking the questions. You can help us at home on Facebook and on Twitter. Please send in your suggestions.

In and out of every break, we’re asking a candidate a personal question, this or that, to make a choice.

Mr. Cain, deep dish or thin crust?

(LAUGHTER)

CAIN: Deep dish.

KING: Deep dish, it is. Our seven candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will be right back.

From left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and businessman Herman Cain stand on stage before first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.5

KING: Welcome back to our Republican debate here in the first- in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. Seven candidates up on stage as they try to impress the voters of New Hampshire and the voters of the country tonight. We’ve become, we are told, a trending topic on Twitter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look up there just a bit, and we’ll get to some of these questions, because they’re good questions, privatization there, improving relationships with the Middle East, what industries do you think can reinvent America. All good suggestions from concerned citizens across the country watching this debate unfold.

Before we go and out of every break, we’re doing an exercise called “This or That” to learn more about our candidates. The speaker had no hesitation at all: “American Idol” over “Dancing with the Stars.

Congressman Paul, BlackBerry or iPhone?

PAUL: BlackBerry. KING: BlackBerry it is.

All right. We’re going to continue our conversation now. We want to bring up a very important issue I know all of you will want to weigh in on, and that is the debate about entitlements — Mr. Cain mentioned those — and specifically — specifically Medicare. Right now, I want to go down to our audience. We’ve got Josh McElveen with a question.

MCELVEEN: Thanks very much, John. And I have Dr. Paul Collins who — you’ve been running a family practice in Manchester for how long?

QUESTION: Twenty-seven years.

MCELVEEN: Nice work. So not surprising your question is related to health care. What’s your question, sir?

QUESTION: Yes, sir. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I’ve been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?

KING: Let’s start with Dr. Paul on this one.

PAUL: Well, under these conditions, it’s not solvent and won’t be solvent. You know, if you’re — if you’re an average couple and you paid your entire amount into — into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much.

So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it’s not solvent, so we’re up against the wall on that, so it can’t be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine.

And I would think that if we don’t want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.

And that’s why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.

But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just — you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can’t we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right, let’s — let’s continue the conversation. Governor Pawlenty, Congressman Paul says opt out. Congressman Ryan says squeeze a lot of savings across the federal budget, including a lot out of Medicare to turn it into a — he doesn’t like this word — but it turns essentially into a voucher program. Instead of having the federal program, the government would give you some money and you’d go out in the marketplace and shop for it. Is that the right way to do it?

PAWLENTY: Let me first address the doctor. Doctor, you said in your question that you’ve paid in your whole life, and we respect that. People have made plans, particularly people who are on the program now or close to eligibility. We should keep our word to people that we’ve made promises to.

So under my proposal, if you’re on the program or near the program, we’ll keep our word. But we also have to recognize what Congressman Paul just said. There was a recent report out that the premiums for Medicare and the payroll withholdings are only paying about half the program. So it is not financially solvent. We have to fix it; we have to reform it.

I’m going to have my own plan, John, that will feature some differences from Congressman Ryan’s plan. It will feature performance pay rather than just volume pay to hospitals and clinics and providers. It will allow Medicare to continue as an option, but it’ll be priced against various other options that we’re going to offer people, as well, and some other things.

And I also said, if it was a choice between Barack Obama’s plan and doing nothing (ph), we have a president of the United States got one of the worst crises financially in the history of the country, and you can’t find him on these issues. He’s missing. I’ll lead on this issue.

KING: All right, Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring you into this conversation, because I’m looking down — I want to get the words just right — your initial reaction to the Ryan plan? It’s radical right-wing social engineering. Then you backtracked. Why?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, it was a very narrow question, which said, should Republicans impose an unpopular bill on the American people? Now, I supported the Ryan budget as a general proposal. I actually wrote a newsletter supporting the Ryan budget. And those words were taken totally out of context.

I’m happy to repeat them. If you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare and you can’t have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you’re doing is the right thing, you better slow down.

Remember, we all got mad at Obama because he ran over us when we said don’t do it. Well, the Republicans ought to follow the same ground rule. If you can’t convince the American people it’s a good idea, maybe it’s not a good idea. So let me start there.

Second, there are certain things I would do different than Paul Ryan on Medicare. I agree strongly with him on Medicaid, and I think it could be done. But let me just say two quick things. KING: Quickly.

GINGRICH: Congressman Tom Price has a very good bill in that would allow private contracting so those people who want to voluntarily could contract with their doctor or their hospital in addition to Medicare, and it would be outside the current system and it would relieve the pricing pressure on the current system. We did a study called “Stop Paying the Crooks.” We think you can save $70 billion to $120 billion in Medicare and Medicaid annually by not paying crooks…

KING: All right. We have to — we have to save time.

GINGRICH: … two examples.

KING: We have to save time. Let me start with the senator first. Should the Republicans slow down?

SANTORUM: No. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit, and it isn’t getting any better anytime soon. We have to deal with this problem now. And what Paul Ryan has suggested, which I wholeheartedly support, is to use a program that is identical to what seniors already have. It’s called Medicare Part D.

They have a program right now which seniors like. It is a program that’s called a premium support program. We give seniors — depending on income — a certain amount of money so they can go out and they can purchase health care that they want that helps them — and this is the key, John — we need to include seniors in controlling costs.

What President Obama — let me finish, please — what President Obama has done is he put in, in the Obamacare bill, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Ladies and gentlemen, seniors, Medicare is going to be cut, starting in 2014, by the federal government, and it’s going to be rationing of care from the top down.

What Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum want to do, which is not radical, which is take a program, Medicare prescription drugs, that is 41 percent under budget, because seniors are involved in controlling costs, and apply it all to Medicare. It is the right approach for Medicare.

KING: The speaker’s point — the speaker’s point, Mr. Cain, was that if you’ve lost the American people, if they’re not following you, you have to slow down until you can get them with you. Is that a fair point?

CAIN: We don’t need to slow down. I hate to tell you — I hate to be the one to give you the bad news, Doctor. You’re not going to get most of the money you put into Medicare if we don’t restructure it.

The reason we’re in the situation we are today with Medicare and Social Security is because the problem hasn’t been solved. We can no longer rearrange it. We’ve got to restructure those programs. And the Paul Ryan approach I totally support.

And he has been very courageous in taking the lead on this.

And you know that commercial where they have demagogued the whole thing with medi-scare and having grandma tossed off the bridge? If we don’t fix this problem, it’s going to be our grandkids in that wheelchair that they were going to be throwing off the bridge. We have got to fix the problem.

KING: Let’s continue the conversation on entitlements. I know Congresswoman Bachmann wants to get in and others want to get in.

Let’s get on John Distaso on the floor.

DISTASO: Thank you, John.

Mr. Cain, back to you. And while you’re fired up there, let’s turn to Social Security. Can you be specific regarding ages and income levels? Everyone talks about reform. What is your specific Social Security reform plan in regards to raising the retirement age, at what ages, cutting benefits and what income level means testing kicking in?

Thank you.

CAIN: Let’s fix the problem and that is to restructure Social Security. I support a personal retirement account option in order to phase out the current system. We know that this works. It worked in the small country of Chile when they did it 30 years.

That payroll tax had gotten up to 27 percent for every dollar that the worker made. I believe we can do the same thing. That break point would approximately 40 years of age.

Now, young people realize they still got to contribute to the current system for those people that are on Social Security, that are near Social Security.

DISTASO: Are you going to raise the retirement age as president of the United States?

CAIN: I don’t have to raise the retirement age, because that by itself isn’t going to solve the problem. If Congress decides to do that, that’s a different matter.

Here’s — let me give you one another example where this approach has worked. The city of Galveston, they opted out of the Social Security system way back in the ’70s. And now, they retire with a whole lot more money. Why? For a real simple reason — they have an account with their money on it.

What I’m simply saying is we’ve got to restructure the program using a personal retirement account option in order to eventually make it solvent.

KING: All right. We’re going to keep the conversation move. I know people want to weigh in. You’ll get a chance to weigh in.

Let’s move now. Jennifer Vaughn is on the floor with a question.

VAUGHN: John, thank you very much.

Governor Romney, I’d like to ask this to you first, please.

The Treasury Department says the United States will hit its credit limit on August the 2nd. Do you believe we will ultimately have to raise the debt ceiling?

ROMNEY: I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president finally, finally is willing to be a leader on issues that the American people care about. And the number one issue that relates to that debt ceiling is whether the government is going to keep on spending money they don’t have.

And the American people and Congress and every person elected in Washington has to understand we want to see a president finally lay out plans for reining in the excesses of government.

You’ve heard on here a whole series of ideas about entitlements. And that’s about 60 percent of federal spends. That’s a big piece. That’s a big chunk. Ideas from all these people up here.

Where are the president’s ideas?

Each person has different ideas here. We can try them and try different ideas in different states and different programs at the federal level.

But why isn’t the president leading? He isn’t leading on balancing our budget and he’s not leading on jobs. He’s failed the American people both in job creation and the scale the government.

VAUGHN: Governor —

ROMNEY: And that’s why he’s not going to be reelected.

VAUGHN: Governor, what happens if you don’t raise it? What happens then? Is it OK not to?

ROMNEY: Well, what happens if we continue to spend time and time again, year and year again more money than we take in?

What we say to America is: at some point, you hit a wall. At some point, people around the world say, “I’m not going to keep loaning money to America to pay these massive deficits pay for them because America can’t pay them back and the dollar is not worth anything anymore.” In that circumstance, we saddled our future — the future of our kids in a way that is just unacceptable.

And so, you’re going to see Republicans stand up and say, “Mr. President, lay down plans to balance this budget.” If he does so, if we gets Democrats to come at that time table and honestly deal with the challenges we have, with the entitlement challenges, with the spending and discretionary accounts, with our jobs issues, and finally say you know what? We really can’t afford another trillion dollars of Obamacare.

KING: OK.

ROMNEY: If he’ll be honest about these things, then I think you’ll see the kind of progress you’d hope to see.

KING: Congresswoman Bachmann, you’ll get a vote on this issue. What Governor Romney outlined is the goal of Republicans, who’s got a big deal to balance the budget. If you can’t get that on the short term and this date approaches, those negotiations are continuing, what is your price tag — what is your price tag in at least a first wave of cuts? And if you don’t get it, would you say to the House Republicans, “No, let the government go into default, that’s where we need to stand”?

BACHMANN: I’ve already voted no on raising the debt ceiling in the past. And unless there are serious cuts, I can’t.

But I want — I want to speak to someone that’s far more eloquent than I. Someone who said just dealing with the issue of raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership. That person was then Senator Barack Obama. He refused to raise the debt ceiling because he said President Bush had failed in leadership.

Clearly, President Obama has failed in leadership. Under his watch, in two and a half years, we’ve increased the federal debt 35 percent just in that amount of time.

So, what we need to do both, from the Congress and president, he needs to direct his treasury secretary: pay the interest on the debt first, then we won’t have a failure of our full faith and credit from their prioritized spending. We have to have serious spending cuts.

KING: OK. Appreciate that again. I want to ask the candidates a little shorter on those answers so we can keep the voters involved.

Let’s go down to Josh on the floor.

MCELVEEN: Thank you, John.

And I’m joined by Mr. Jerry Kitty (ph) who runs a juvenile institution out of Massachusetts.

And I’m told that has nothing to do with your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

I’m just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making.

KING: Governor Pawlenty, I want you to take that one first.

PAWLENTY: Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. This is a country that in our founding documents says we’re a nation that’s founded under God, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator. They’re not from our member of Congress. They’re not from our county commissioner.

And 39 of the 50 states have in the very early phrases of their constitutions language like Minnesota has in its preamble. It says this, “We the people of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberties,” and so the Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that.

Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.4

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas gestures as he answers a question as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, listen during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

KING: Welcome back to our Republican debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.

One of the things we are very eager to do throughout the campaign is to involve you at home and to use technology and innovation. So if you have a smartphone, look at your screen right now.

If you’ve used it before, you’ll know. You’ll see an electronic code on your screen. You can snap a picture of that code, you’ll get some exclusive access about the debate. Some behind-the-scenes video, some analysis and content. We’ll do this throughout the debate and we’ll do it throughout the campaign.

Now we’re going to get back to questioning our seven Republican candidates for president.

Right before the break we did this thing called “This or That.” Just to learn a little bit about the personality of the candidates.

Senator Santorum doesn’t stay up very late. He’s a parent. I understand that. He said if he had to he would pick Leno over Conan.

Congresswoman Bachmann, to you, Elvis or Johnny Cash?

BACHMANN: That’s really tough. That’s really — both, both.

KING: Both?

BACHMANN: Yes.

KING: Both.

BACHMANN: I’ve “Christmas with Elvis” on my iPod.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: All right. Now we know what’s on the congresswoman’s iPod.

Let’s get to John Distaso of the “Union Leader.” He’s down here in the audience and he has a question.

JOHN DISTASO, NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER SR. POLITICAL REPORTER: Thank you, John.

To federal — Congressman Paul, this is for you. The federal government now assists many industries, green jobs, the auto industry, research and development, all get subsidies. Given the current state of the economy, what standards do you have, if any, for government assistance to private enterprise?

PAUL: There shouldn’t be any government assistance to private enterprise. It’s not morally correct, it’s legal, it’s bad economics. It’s not part of the constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they’ll decide how R&D works or where they invest their monies.

But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment. They do the dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it’s a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn’t happen.

KING: All right. These are the Republicans, the conservative candidates. Every time you applaud, I know you’re happy with the answer. You take your time away, though.

We would expect to get an answer of less government is better. One of the questions we want to explore tonight is when — when do you reach that extraordinary moment where the government might want to do something.

Mr. Cain, I want to ask you because you’re a businessman who initially at least supported the TARP program. The former senator Judd Gregg of this great state of New Hampshire was one of the architects of that program during the late hours of the Bush administration. Then you said, quote, “We needed to do something drastic because we were facing a very drastic situation.”

CAIN: I studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own that we needed to do something drastic, yes. When the concept of TARP was first presented to the public, I was willing to go along with it. But then when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also directing funds to General Motors and others that had nothing to do with the financial system, that’s where I totally disagreed.

We should — the government should not be selecting winners and losers, and I don’t believe in this concept of too big to fail. If they fail, the free market will figure out who’s going to pick the up the pieces.

KING: Well, let’s stay on this topic. Let’s bring Tom Fahey back into the conversation. He has a question — Tom.

FAHEY: Yes, thank you, John. I wanted to ask Governor Romney about the auto industry. General Motors and Chrysler have rebounded since the Obama administration bailed them up. Bankruptcy is no longer a threat.

Would you say the bailout program was a success?

ROMNEY: The bailout program was not a success because the bailout program wasted a lot of money. About $17 billion was used unnecessarily.

When the CEOs of the auto companies went to Washington asking for money from Washington, I wrote an op-ed, and I said, look, the right process for these companies is not a bailout, not a big check from Washington, but instead letting these enterprises go through bankruptcy, re-emerge, getting rid of the unnecessary costs that they had, the excessive debt, re-emerge, and that would be the preferred way for them to be able to get on their feet again.

Instead, the Bush administration and the Obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry. Ultimately, they went through the very bankruptcy process that I suggested from the beginning.

But the big difference was $17 billion was wasted. And then President Obama, given that money, was able to put his hands on the scales of justice and give the company to the UAW.

There is a perception in this country that government knows better than the private sector, that Washington and President Obama have a better view for how an industry ought to be run. Well, they’re wrong. The right way for America to create jobs is to — is to keep government in its place and to allow the private sector and the — and the energy and passion of the American people create a brighter future for our kids and for ourselves.

KING: Let me read you, Governor, just a little bit of an op-ed piece you wrote back in November 2008.

(APPLAUSE)

“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” From a profit standpoint, they’re doing pretty well right now. On that point, “kiss goodbye,” I understand you disagree with the policy. Kiss the industry goodbye, were you wrong?

ROMNEY: No, I wasn’t wrong, because if you read the rest of the op-ed piece, it says what they need to do is go through a bankruptcy process to shed unnecessary costs. If they just get paid checks after checks from the federal government, they’re going to be locked in with high UAW costs, legacy costs. They’ll never be able to get on their feet. They have to go through bankruptcy.

And it turned out that that’s finally what they did. And the head of the UAW, he wrote an op-ed piece saying, Romney’s wrong, the government has to step in and give them a check.

That’s the wrong way to go. Use the process of law. Use the process of American ingenuity. Don’t have government try and guide this economy.

KING: Anyone — is there anyone here who, given that prospect, and President Bush started the program, given that prospect, anyone here who would have stepped in and said, “I don’t want to do this, but this is the backbone of American manufacturing, I’ll do something”?

SANTORUM: No, absolutely not. We should — we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.

All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they’d have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they’d have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.

KING: Quickly, please.

BACHMANN: John, I was in the middle of this debate. I was behind closed doors with Secretary Paulson when he came and made the extraordinary, never-before-made request to Congress: Give us a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached.

And I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP. It was a wrong vote then. It’s continued to be a wrong vote since then. Sometimes that’s what you have to do. You have to take principle over your party.

KING: All right, let’s continue the conversation, but we’ll come back to this if we have to. Let’s go to Jean Mackin in Hancock. She has a question.

MACKIN: Thanks, John. This question goes out to Speaker Gingrich. Next month, the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30 years, and last year, President Obama effectively killed government-run space flight to the International Space Station and wants to turn it over to private companies. In the meantime, U.S. astronauts would ride Russian spacecraft at a cost of $50 million to $63 million a seat. What role should the government play in future space exploration?

GINGRICH: Well, sadly — and I say this, sadly, because I’m a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point — NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can’t innovate.

If you take all the money we’ve spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we’ve had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure.

I think it’s a tragedy, because younger Americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier.

You know, you’d asked earlier, John, about this idea of limits because we’re a developed country. We’re not a developed country. The scientific future is going to open up, and we’re at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And, unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.

KING: Is there any candidate who would step in and say, no, this is vital to America’s identity, this is vital to America’s innovation, I want the government to stay in the lead here when it comes to manned space flight? Nobody?

PAWLENTY: Yeah, I think the space program has played a vital role for the United States of America. I think in the context…

KING: But can we afford it going forward?

PAWLENTY: In the context of our budget challenges, it can be refocused and reprioritized, but I don’t think we should be eliminating the space program. We can partner with private providers to get more economies of scale and scale it back, but I don’t think we should eliminate the space program.

KING: In a sentence — in a sentence or two?

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: John, you mischaracterized me. I didn’t say end the space program. We built the transcontinental railroads without a national department of railroads. I said you could get into space faster, better, more effectively, more creatively if you decentralized it, got it out of Washington, and cut out the bureaucracy. It’s not about getting rid of the space program; it’s about getting to a real space program that works.

ROMNEY: I think fundamentally there are some people — and most of them are Democrats, but not all — who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector.

KING: All right, let’s go down to the…

ROMNEY: And they happen to be wrong. And… (CROSSTALK)

KING: All right, the role of government — we’ll continue on the role of government. I’m sorry — Josh, please.

MCELVEEN: Thanks very much, John. And, Governor Pawlenty, I’d like to go back to you. Let’s talk about housing. Roughly right now, there are about a million — a million homes in the — in the hands of banks and lenders, millions of more homeowners are upside-down, meaning they owe more than their home is worth. What would you or your administration do to try to right the housing ship?

PAWLENTY: Well, the first thing we need to do is get the government out of crony capitalism. We have this alliance between big government, big unions, and certain big bailout businesses. And as Congressman Paul said a few minutes ago, we had politicians in Congress trying to micromanage the housing market, and they created a bubble and they created the mess. And now we have all these innocent bystanders, the good people of the United States of America, many middle-income and modest-income people, who’ve been devastated by this.

And so the market is going to have to adjust. The programs that President Obama has put forward haven’t really worked. They’ve been a failure. They’ve been slow. They haven’t really solved the problem.

But the best thing that we can do is get the economy moving again. And it’s not going to happen by growing government. His way failed. We’ve got to get the private sector going. We have to have people starting businesses, growing businesses, building things, starting places of employment. This is how we’re going to get money back in people’s pockets and get them financially stable.

KING: So, Congressman, come into the conversation. As you do, don’t make it just about foreclosures. This is — this is an interesting topic of discussion, especially — especially when money is scarce and you’ve got to start cutting. It’s a question of priorities. What should the government be doing? And maybe what should the government be doing in a better economy that it can’t do now that has to go?

So talk about foreclosures a bit, but then tell me something, if you were president and you were dealing with it in your first few weeks, and you said, “I might like to do this, but I can’t afford to do this,” be as specific as you can, what goes?

PAUL: Well, I — I would want to do much less, much sooner. The government shouldn’t be involved. You take the bankruptcies, we’ve been doing a whole lot. We’ve been propping them up. We’ve had the Federal Reserve buy all the illiquid assets, which were worthless, stick it with the taxpayers. The people who’ve made the money when the bubble was being blown up, they’re the ones who got bailed out.

But you want the correction. Corrections are good. The mal- investment in the bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve and the government, and we keep propping it up. And that’s why this is going — it was predictable it would come. It’s predictable it’s lasted three years. And it’s predictable, as long as we do what we’re doing in Washington, it’s going to last another 10 years.

We’re doing what we did in the depression. We’re doing what the Japanese have done. You need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market, but they’re trying to keep the prices up. They actually have programs in Washington which stimulating housing. You need to clear the — clear the market and then we can all go back to work. But what we’re doing now is absolutely wrong.

KING: Well, let me give you another topic that people say the government is too involved in. That’s food safety. You worked in the business.

CAIN: Yes.

KING: You see the E. coli scare that’s going on in Europe right now. You’re trying to cut money. The FDA, other agencies that get involved in that are in front of you. What do you do?

CAIN: You look inside the FDA and determine whether or not it needs to be streamlined, and maybe it does.

KING: But should the federal government be doing food safety inspections?

CAIN: The federal government should be doing food safety, yes. But I want to go back to this point about what we need to do to help the housing market.

We don’t just have one problem; we have a crisis of the three E’s. We’ve got the economy, entitlement spending, and energy. We’ve got to simultaneously work on all of those so we can put 13 million to 14 million people back to work. That’s what we’ve got to do. So it’s not just a single issue. It is the multiplicity and the compounding effect of those three critical problems.

KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

KING: All right, we need to work in another break. I know all the candidates want to get in on these issues and other issues. We will get back to them, I promise you that.

As we go to break, remember at home, if you have a question on Facebook, send it to us. If you have a question on Twitter, send it to us. You also can use your smartphone to get some exclusive information.

We’re playing a little bit of an exercise called “This or That” to learn more about our candidates. It was Conan or Leno. It was Elvis or Johnny Cash.

Mr. Speaker, “Dancing with the Stars” or “American Idol”?

GINGRICH: “American Idol.”

KING: “American Idol” it is.

Our candidates continue their debate in just a moment. Stay with us.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)