Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama, Panetta, Dempsey Defense Briefing; Rick Santorum Gives Speech in New Hampshire; GOP Candidates Crisscross New Hampshire

Aired January 05, 2012 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Live from Studio 7, I'm Suzanne Malveaux. I want to get you up to speed for this Thursday, January 5th.

Happening any minute now, as we mentioned, President Obama is going to announce a new defense strategy for the nation. Standing by to take it live at the Pentagon the moment the president appears. We are watching those pictures there.

He and his top defense officials are going to outline plans to give up this country's ability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. They intend to cut tens of thousands of ground troops, invest more in air and sea power. It's also going to allow the Pentagon to slash hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget.

And Rick Santorum heads to the New Hampshire primary with a million- dollar boost from Iowa. That's right, a million dollars. A source close to the campaign says that Santorum raised more than $1 million after finishing second in the Iowa caucuses.

Santorum, he is attending a faith, family and freedom town hall meeting in Northfield, New Hampshire. That is happening this hour. He's trying to position himself as the main conservative challenger to Mitt Romney.

Let's go to the White House. I understand the president is there at the podium to make the announcement.

(BEGIN LIVE SPEECH)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning, everybody.

The United States of America is the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known. And in no small measure that's because we've built the best-trained, best-led, best-equipped military in history. And as commander in chief, I'm going to keep it that way.

Indeed, all of us on this stage, every single one of us, have a profound responsibility to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman who puts their life on the line for America: We owe them a strategy with well-defined goals, to only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary, to give them the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done, and to care for them and their families when they come home.

That is our solemn obligation. And over the past three years, that's what we've done.

We've continued to make historic investments in our military, our troops and their capabilities, our military families and our veterans.

And thanks to their extraordinary service, we've ended our war in Iraq, we've decimated Al Qaida's leadership, we've delivered justice to Osama bin Laden, and we've put that terrorist network on the path to defeat.

We've made important progress in Afghanistan and we've begun the transition so Afghans can assume more responsibility for their own security. We joined allies and partners to protect the Libyan people as they ended the regime of Moammar Gadhafi.

Now we're turning the page on a decade of war.

And three years ago we had some 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we've cut that number in half. And as the transition in Afghanistan continues, more of our troops will continue to come home.

More broadly, around the globe we've strengthened alliances, forged new partnerships and served as a force for universal rights and human dignity. In short, we've succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm's way, and we've restored America's global leadership.

That makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that's an achievement that every American, especially those Americans who are proud to wear the uniform of the United States armed forces, should take great pride in.

This success has brought our nation once more to a moment of transition. Even as our troops continue to fight -- to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding. Even as our forces prevail in today's missions, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to look ahead to the force that we are going to need in the future.

At the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength around the world. And that includes putting our fiscal house in order.

To that end, the Budget Control Act passed by Congress last year, with the support of Republicans and Democrats alike, mandates reductions in federal spending, including defense spending. I've insisted that we do that responsibly. The security of our nation and the lives of our men and women in uniform depend on it.

That's why I called for this comprehensive defense review, to clarify our strategic interests in a fast-changing world and to guide our defense priorities and spending over the coming decade.

Because the size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around.

Moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. We can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past, after World War II, after Vietnam, when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. As commander in chief, I will not let that happen again, not on my watch.

We need a start -- we need a smart, strategic set of priorities. The new guidance that the Defense Department is releasing today does just that.

I want to thank Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey for their extraordinary leadership during this process. I want to thank the service secretaries and chiefs, the combatant commanders and so many defense leaders, military and civilian, active, Guard and reserve, for their contributions.

Many of us met repeatedly asking tough questions, challenging our own assumptions, and making hard choices. And we've come together today around an approach that will keep our nation safe and our military the finest that the world has ever known.

This review also benefits from the contributions of leaders from across my national security team: from the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, as well as the intelligence community. And this is critical because meeting the challenges of our time cannot be the work of our military alone or the United States alone.

It requires all elements of our national power working together in concert with our allies and our partners.

So I'm going to let Leon and Marty go into the details, but I just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance that I personally gave throughout this process.

Yes, the tide of war is receding, but the question that this strategy answers is: What kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over? And today we're fortunate to be moving forward from a position of strength.

As I made clear in Australia, we will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region. We're going to continue investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, which has demonstrated time and again, most recently in Libya, that it's a force multiplier. We will stay vigilant, especially in the Middle East.

As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints, we'll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We'll continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems, so that we can invest in the capabilities that we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access.

So, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.

We're also going to keep faith with those who serve by making sure our troops have the equipment and capabilities they need to succeed and by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors, mental health and the well-being of our military families.

And as our newest veterans rejoin civilian life, we'll keep working to give our veterans the care, the benefit -- the benefits and job opportunities that they deserve and that they have earned.

Finally, although today is about our defense strategy, I want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from this strategy.

The details will be announced in the coming weeks. Some will no doubt say that the spending reductions are too big. Others will say that they're too small. It will be easy to take issue with a particular change in a particular program. But I'd encourage all of us to remember what President Eisenhower once said: that each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration, the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.

After a decade of war and as we rebuild the source of our strength at home and abroad, it's time to restore that balance.

I think it's important for all Americans to remember, over the past 10 years since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership.

In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration.

And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

So again I want to thank Secretary Panetta, Chairman Dempsey, all the defense leaders who are on the stage and some who are absent for their leadership and their partnership throughout this process.

Our men and women in uniform give their very best to America every single day, and in return they deserve the very best from America. And I thank all of you for the commitment to the goal that we all share: keeping America strong and secure in the 21st century and keeping our armed forces the very best in the world.

And with that, I will turn this discussion over to Leon and to Marty who can explain more and take your questions. So thank you very much. I understand this is the first time a president has done this. It's a pretty nice room.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you, guys.

LEON PANETTA, UNITED STATES SECRETARRY OF DEFENSE: Let me -- let me begin by thanking President Obama for coming here to the Pentagon this morning. And also in particular to thank him for his vision and guidance and leadership as this department went through a very intensive review that we undertook to try to develop the new strategic guidance that we're releasing today.

And in my experience, this has been an unprecedented process to have the president of the United States participate in discussions involving the development of a -- of a defense strategy and to spend time with our service chiefs and spend time with our combatant commanders to get their views.

It's truly unprecedented.

This guidance that we are releasing today and which has been distributed now throughout the department -- it really does represent a historic shift to the future and it recognizes that this country is at a strategic turning point, after a decade of war and after large increases in defense spending.

As the president mentioned, the U.S. military's mission in Iraq has now ended. We do have continued progress in Afghanistan. It's tough and it remains challenging, but we are beginning to enable a transition to Afghan security responsibility.

The NATO effort in Libya has concluded with the fall of Gadhafi. And targeted counterterrorism efforts have significantly weakened Al Qaida and decimated its leadership.

And now, as these events are occurring, the Congress has mandated by law that we achieve significant defense savings. So, clearly, we are at a turning point.

But even as our large-scale military campaigns recede, the United States still faces complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe.

And unlike past drawdowns, when oftentimes the threats that the country was facing went away, the fact is that there remain a number of challenges that we have to confront, challenges that call for reshaping of America's defense priorities, focusing on the continuing threat of violent extremism, which is still there and still to be dealt with, proliferation of lethal weapons and materials, the destabilizing behavior of nations like Iran and North Korea, the rise of new powers across Asia, and the dramatic changes that we've seen unfold in the Middle East.

All of this comes at a time when America confronts a very serious deficit and debt problem here at home, a problem which is itself a national security risk that is squeezing both the defense and domestic budgets.

Even as we face these considerable pressures, including the requirement of the Budget Control Act to reduce defense spending by -- what we have now is the number $487 billion over 10 years -- I do not believe -- and I've said this before -- that we have to choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility.

The Department of Defense will play its part in helping the nation put our fiscal house in order. But the president has made clear and I've made clear that the savings that we've been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by rigorous analysis not by numbers alone.

Consequently, over the last few months, we've conducted an intensive review to try to guide defense priorities and spending over the coming decade, all of this in light of the strategic guidance that we received in discussions with the president and the recommendations of this department's both senior military and civilian leadership. Both of them provided those kinds of recommendations.

This process has enabled us to assess risk, to set priorities and to make some very hard choices.

Let me be clear again: The department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation. We are at that point in history. That's the reality of the world we live in.

Fiscal crisis has forced us to face this strategic shift -- shift that's taking place now.

As difficult as it may be to achieve the mandated defense savings, this has given all of us in the Department of Defense the opportunity to reshape our defense strategy and force structure to more effectively meet the challenges of the future, to deter aggression, to shape the security environment, and to decisively prevail in any conflict.

From the beginning, I set out to ensure that this strategy review would be inclusive. Chairman Dempsey and I met frequently with department leaders, including our undersecretaries, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combatant commanders, our senior enlisted advisers. We also discussed this strategy and its implications, obviously, with the president, his national security advisers, with members of Congress, and with outside experts.

There are four over-arching principles that have guided our deliberations. I said this at the very beginning as we began this process.

One, we must maintain the world's finest military; one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role of the United States in today's world.

Two, we must avoid hollowing out the force. A smaller, ready and well-equipped military is much more preferable to a larger, ill- prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board.

Third, savings must be achieved in a balanced manner, with everything on the table, including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the Congress, from industry and from advocacy groups. That's the nature of making hard choices.

Four, we must preserve the quality of the all-volunteer force and not break faith with our men and women in uniform or their families.

With these principles in mind, I'll focus on some of the significant strategic choices and shifts that are being made.

The United States military -- let me be very clear about this: The United States military will remain capable across the spectrum. We will continue to conduct a complex set of missions, ranging from counterterrorism, ranging from countering weapons of mass destruction, to maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. We'll be fully prepared to protect our interests, defend our homeland and support civil authorities.

Our goal to achieve the U.S. force for the future involves the following significant changes.

First, the U.S. joint force will be smaller and it will be leaner. But its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative and technologically advanced. That is the force of the future.

Second, as we move towards this new joint force we are also rebalancing our global posture and presence, emphasizing the Pacific and the Middle East. These are the areas where we see the greatest challenges for the future.

The U.S. military will increase its institutional weight and focus on enhanced presence, power projection and deterrence in Asia- Pacific. This region is growing in importance to the future of the United States in terms of our economy and our national security. This means, for instance, improving capabilities that maintain our military's technological edge and freedom of action.

At the same time, the United States will place a premium in maintaining our military presence and capabilities in the broader Middle East. The United States and our partners must remain capable of deterring and defeating aggression while supporting political progress and reform.

Third, the United States will continue to strengthen its key alliances, to build partnerships and to develop innovative ways to sustain U.S. presence elsewhere in the world.

A long history of close political and military cooperation with our European allies and partners will be critical to addressing the challenges of the 21st century. We will invest in the shared capabilities and responsibilities of NATO, our most effective military alliance. The U.S. military's force posture in Europe will of necessity continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging strategic priorities that we face elsewhere.

We are committed to sustaining a presence that will meet our Article 5 commitments, deter aggression. And the U.S. military will work closely with our allies to allow for the kinds of coalition operations that NATO has undertaken in Libya and Afghanistan.

In Latin America, Africa, elsewhere in the world, we will use innovative methods to sustain the U.S. presence, maintaining key military-to-military relations, and pursuing new security partnerships as needed.

Wherever possible we will develop low-cost and small-footprint approaches to achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises -- military exercises with these nations, and doing other innovative approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world.

Fourth, as we shift the size and composition of our ground, air and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare.

Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time.

We are not confronting, obviously, the threats of the past. We are confronting the threats of the 21st century. And that demands greater flexibility to shift and deploy forces to be able to fight and defeat any enemy anywhere.

How we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts. But make no mistake: We will have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.

As a global force, our military will never be doing only one thing. It will be responsible for a range of missions and activities across the globe of varying scope, duration and strategic priority.

This will place a premium on flexible and adaptable forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries.

Again, that's the nature of the world that we are dealing with.

In addition to these forces, the United States will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interests, through a better use of diplomacy, development and security force assistance.

In accordance with this construct, and with the end of U.S. military commitments in Iraq and the drawdown that is already under way in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale, long-term stability operations that have dominated military priorities and force generation over the past decade.

PANETTA: Lastly, as we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect, and in some cases increase, our investments in special operations forces; in new technologies, like ISR and unmanned systems; in space, and in particular in cyberspace capabilities; and also our capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary.

These investments will help the military retain and continue to refine and institutionalize the expertise and capabilities that have been gained at such great cost over the last decade.

And most importantly, we will structure and pace the reductions in the nation's ground forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency.

Building in reversibility and the ability to quickly mobilize will be key. That means reexamining the mix of elements in the active and reserve components. It means maintaining a strong National Guard and Reserve. It means retaining a healthy cadre of experienced NCOs and midgrade officers and preserving the health and viability of the nation's defense industrial base.

The strategic guidance that we're providing is the first step in this department's goal to build the joint force of 2020, a force sized and shaped differently than the military of the Cold War, the post- Cold War force of the 1990s, or the force that -- that was built over the past decade to engage in large-scale ground wars.

This strategy and vision will guide the more specific budget decisions that will be finalized and announced in the coming weeks as part of the president's budget.

In some cases, we will be reducing capabilities that we believe no longer are a top priority. But in other cases we will invest in new capabilities to maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats.

PANETTA: There's no question -- there's no question that we have to make some tradeoffs and that we will be taking, as a result of that, some level of additional, but acceptable, risk in the budget plan that we release next month. These are not easy choices.

We will continue aggressive efforts to weed out waste, reduce overhead, to reform business practices, to consolidate our duplicative operations. But budget reductions of this magnitude will inevitably impact the size and capabilities of our military.

And as I've said before, true national security cannot be achieved through a strong military alone. It requires strong diplomacy. It requires strong intelligence efforts. And above all, it requires a strong economy, fiscal discipline and effective government.

The capability, readiness and agility of the force will not be sustained if Congress fails to do its duty and the military is forced to accept far deeper cuts, in particular the arbitrary across-the- board cuts that are currently scheduled to take effect in January of 2013 through the mechanism of sequester. That would force us to shed missions and commitments and capabilities that we believe are necessary to protect core U.S. national security interests and it would result in what we think would be a demoralized and hollow force. That is not something that we intend to do.

And finally, I'd like to also address our men and women in uniform and the civilian employees who support them, who I -- who I know have been watching the budget debates here in Washington with concern about what it means for them and for their families.

You have done everything this country has asked you to do and more. You have put your lives on the line and you have fought to make our country safer and stronger.

I believe the strategic guidance honors your sacrifice and strengthens the country by building a force equipped to deal with the future.

I have no higher responsibility than fighting to protect you and to protect your families.

And just as you have fought and bled to protect our country, I commit to you that I will fight for you and for your families.

There is no doubt that the fiscal situation this country faces is difficult, and in many ways we are at a crisis point. But I believe that in every crisis there is opportunity.

Out of this crisis we have the opportunity to end the old ways of doing business and to build a modern force for the 21st century that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and any challenge of the future.

Our responsibility -- my responsibility as secretary of defense is to protect the nation's security and to keep America safe.

With this joint force, I am confident that we can effectively defend the United States of America.

Thank you.

(END LIVE SPEECH)

MALVEAUX: You've been watching Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta talking about a new strategy, a new military strategy. He and President Obama outlining this, essentially saying that this is required, $487 billion worth of cuts at the Defense Department over the next 10 years. But the secretary as well as the president reassuring the American people that this will be a smaller and leaner force, more agile, more flexible, to deal with the national security concerns around the world.

I'm going to ask an Air Force colonel after a quick break whether or not he thinks this is an adequate plan, whether or not this is a good idea. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: President Obama laid out his plan to slash billions of dollars from the Defense Department. His strategy to cut the number of ground troops as well and invest more in air and sea power. The U.S. military is currently deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, everywhere, in the war in Afghanistan, Europe, Asia, African, Australia. The latest Defense Department figures show more than 200,000 military personnel currently are serving overseas. 91,000 are working in Afghanistan right now. Roughly, 200 non-combat troops are in Iraq following the military pullout last month. Other troops are deployed to several parts, different peace-keeping missions around the world.

So under this U.S. plan, the new plan here, the country's no longer going to be capable of fighting two major ground wars at the same time.

Joining us, live, from Washington to talk about all of this, former Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton.

Colonel, first of all, people hear that and they become concerned. You cannot fight two ground wars at the same time. Does that put our security, Americans at risk in any way? What do you think?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, FORMER AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, Suzanne, it really depends how we approach it from a strategic standpoint. The way the secretary clarified the president's remarks or added to the president's remarks was kind of interesting, I thought, because what he said was that we would be able to do more than one thing at once. So it sounds like he's saying we're going to do more than one thing, maybe not two full-blown wars, but we're going to do something in addition to one major contingency.

I think they're right in looking at it from the standpoint that major wars in the mode of World War II are probably not going to happen immediately in the immediate future, but we have to be ready for almost anything that's out there. As we know from the experience of the last 10 years, there are going to be a lot of things that pop up that we don't quite know yet that we can't quite predict and that's why this becomes an important way of doing the strategy. So it has the possibility of success. The devil, as they say, will always be in the details though.

MALVEAUX: Colonel, one thing I found striking was the secretary said that he would accept a level of acceptable risk. What is he talking about? What does he mean when he says acceptable risk?

LEIGHTON: Well, it's -- you know, somebody will have to ask him directly, but for most people, what it is, is the ability to actually say I can take a risk, let's say, in Latin America because I don't think anybody in Latin America is going to attack me right now as, an example. but in East Asia, in the Pacific realm, there's a greater risk that we may be attacked or our interests may be adversely affected, therefore, we will put more emphasis in that area. So that is what he is talking about. I can take risk in some areas because nobody will probably attack me there. In other areas, attack likelihood, the likelihood of a confrontation that would require the use of military force, is more pronounced.

MALVEAUX: Is warfare moving in a different direction, with the use of these unmanned drones, flying from the air, followed by these surgical attacks to specific targets?

LEIGHTON: Most certainly. What we're doing here is really emulating in the conventional forces what has been going on in the Special Operations for quite some time. That actually is a welcome development. What it does is make it possible for us to reduce our forces, to not put as many people in harm's way as we used to do. You see that in the reduced casualty rates. Any casualty is bad, but we are far, far different -- a far, far different military because of this technology and because of the fact that we can actually be very effective with far fewer people on the ground, generally speaking.

There are other missions like we saw in Iraq where you still do require a significant ground presence, but it's nowhere near what we had in World War II.

MALVEAUX: Colonel, just to be clear, to be honest to our viewers here, is this not motivated more by money and budgetary concerns than security interests, the fact that the bottom line is, we can't afford, no longer afford to fund two ground wars at once?

LEIGHTON: Well, Suzanne, that's really part of the problem. Because of the budgetary situation that we're in right now, we really cannot do a Cold War-like two major wars at once scenario. That's the real problem. But what we can do is we can work smaller scale contingencies and hopefully shape the rest of the world in such a way that we don't need to put a larger footprint of forces in areas that we're not wanting to put that into. But we have to be very careful with that because the minute that adversaries sense a weakness, they will try to exploit that. We have to be very careful how we communicate our capabilities to them.

MALVEAUX: Colonel, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

We are following all things politics as well. Rick Santorum having his surge, if you will, momentum, a lot more money since his near victory in Iowa. He is now in Northfield, New Hampshire. Let's take a listen in to his campaign event.

(BEGIN LIVE SPEECH)

RICK SANTORUM, (R), FORMER PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: -- to reduce the payroll tax. I'm sure you'd like to say I don't want to pay the employer's side of that or whatever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It used to be structured that way. That's the history of it. It used to be that way. Even Reagan made it, it was 1.5 times the employee and the 1986 tax format raised it from 10 percent to 15.3 percent. So it's not just a -- it evolved that way.

SANTORUM: It was: '83.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: '83. Thank you. I love how good you are at remembering details.

(LAUGHTER)

That's a real good point for you.

SANTORUM: Well --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But really, the last -- I'll let you go to other questions. But Harry Truman was the only self-employed president I believe we've ever had. He put us in that system at 1.5 percent. It was only the employee's share because he understood what the evolution of employee and employers would be. So I would like to go back in time a little bit to some fairness.

SANTORUM: Yes. The '83 Social Security reform -- I love Ronald Reagan. He got snookered in the '83 reform. Because what happened in '83 was he got a bunch of tax increases that Tip O'Neill and Greenspan and the folks who put -- this was the Greenspan Commission.

They were -- they got a bunch of tax increases immediately, what you were talking about, and the rate went way up. It went up to -- Social Security went up to 12.4 percent. They did get some benefit cuts. And they did it in a very smart way. The benefit cuts didn't come for a long, long time. In fact, I suspect -- I was at a town hall meeting in Brentwood, someone was complaining -- talking about Social Security, not complaining, but talking about Social Security. And I talked about some of the things we're going to have to do to change the Social Security system. I asked what's the eligibility age right now for Social Security? Anybody know?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 67.

SANTORUM: It's 66 and a month or two. It's going to go to 67. When did that happen? In 1983. And they didn't start changing it -- it was 65 back then. And they changed it in 1983 under Ronald Reagan, but it didn't take effect for 20 years. So none of you people are mad at Ronald Reagan for having done that, right?

(LAUGHTER)

Because none of you know. See, this is how politicians do things that are really smart. That's why you see Paul Ryan saying, oh, I'm going to fix Social Security. I'm going to fix Medicare in 10 years. Right? So figuring, if you're under 55 you won't be paying much attention, right? The problem is, the problem is this is not a problem we can wait 10 years to solve. We've got a huge deficit, $1.2 trillion dollars. We now have as much debt as the size of our economy. Think about that. Our debt, $15 trillion, is the size of our economy. Our ability to pay that debt -- think about this.

If we are -- if we were in the European Union, we would be one of those countries that would be in a forced austerity program. And yet, we go about as if nothing's wrong. Oh, we can wait. We can solve these problems later. We don't have to balance our budget. We -- the president wants to spend more. If you asked him whether he would rather cut spending to reduce the deficit or increase spending to, quote, "help the economy," pay of his friends, his answer would be -- how many people think he would say cut the spending? You're right.

We're in a financial crisis right now. Our credit has been downgraded. And we have a president who's completely disconnected from the reality that something has to be done. Something has to be done, and we have to do it in the areas where the deficit has been created. And that is? Spending.

This is not a revenue problem. Yes, revenues are down slightly from the average. 18 percent is usually the average revenue of the overall economy. It's the average revenue we collect. We're down to about 15 or 16. Spending's at 25 percent of the overall economy. The reason for the big deficit we have and for the debt we've accumulated is government has exploded in cost.

And that's why you see Republicans, justifiably, saying, don't even try revenues. That isn't the problem. Revenues will come up to historic levels as soon as the economy starts growing again. And some expenditures will come down if the economy starts growing again. But there is a structural deficit that is a spending deficit, not a tax deficit. And if we don't address that spending --

(END LIVE SPEECH)

MALVEAUX: We're listening to Rick Santorum out of New Hampshire, talking about an economic crisis.

Interestingly enough, we had heard from the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta saying that we are at a crisis point, talking about the economy.

We're going to have more on the horse race out of New Hampshire. The Republicans who would like to replace President Obama, what their ideas are about the economy and what they are now calling an economic crisis.

We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Most of the Republicans presidential candidates are crisscrossing New Hampshire today. This is just five days before the first primary. Polls show Mitt Romney is leading but Rick Santorum has momentum in his near win in Iowa. He also has a lot more campaign cash than before.

Our Jim Acosta joins us live from Northfield, New Hampshire. That is where we saw Santorum speaking just moments ago.

It is a hushed voice there, I understand, because you're in the room with all those guys. I understand he's raked in a lot more money, even perhaps $1 million after his showing in Iowa. Tell us about the fundraising. JIM ACOSTA, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Suzanne. I'm just going to throw out there in the very beginning of this that I'm speaking in my golf announcing voice because we're inside this town hall.

(LAUGHTER)

And it is in an echoey old railroad museum. And I'm going to get in a lot of trouble if I don't speak in hushed tones.

But, yes, that's right. The 24 hours after those results in the Iowa caucuses, the Santorum campaign says it raised $1 million. Is that enough to take on Mitt Romney and go toe to toe with the former Massachusetts governor and go all the way to the convention in Tampa? No, it is not. But it is a good start, considering the fact that his campaign wasn't really even spending that money on advertising in Iowa before the caucuses. But the Santorum people will tell you, but look how that turned out. It turned out pretty well for them.

I think the key question this week in New Hampshire, Suzanne, is, can anybody catch Mitt Romney. The polls are showing -- and, yes, many of these polls were taken before the caucuses. We are still waiting for some fresh ones to come in to see whether or not Santorum is carrying that momentum into New Hampshire. But the question is whether any of these candidates can actually catch Mitt Romney in this state that neighbors the state where he used to be governor. People are saying maybe the next fight is really going to be in South Carolina. I think in the next 24 hours or so, we'll see new polls showing where this race stands.

But you heard former Senator Santorum just a few moments ago talking about the deficit and fiscal crisis in this country. That's exactly what these conservatives want to hear in this state. And it is in the setting of the proud tradition of the town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Suzanne, which I know, you know all to well. It is a fun format. It is great to hear voters asking these types of questions. And it is a free-wheeling format. Makes it a lot of fun to cover.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. I know what it is like to talk in that hushed voice. Everyone turns around and looks at you, the candidate is talking, if you're too loud there.

(LAUGHTER)

Thanks, Jim. Appreciate it.

Of course, all eyes are going to be on New Hampshire Tuesday as the new political year is heating up. Make the best choice for politics, CNN "America's Choice for 2012." Join my friends Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, Candy Crowley and John King for live coverage of the New Hampshire primary, CNN Tuesday night at 7:00 eastern.

A driver loses control, crashes. Check out where this car landed. Pretty amazing -- on a roof. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A speeding driver loses control of his car, hits rocks and a tree stump, goes airborne, landing on the roof of this house. This is in Fresno, California. The woman inside and the nephew that she was baby-sitting, thank god, they're OK. The driver fled but was later arrested, charged with stealing his ex-girlfriend's car. Go figure.

To a Minneapolis suburb where leftover merchandise at a bridal shop is destroyed -- oh, god -- on purpose. This Priscilla of Boston store is closing but instead of donating the dresses to charity, workers used spray paint to get rid of the ones they considered damaged or unsellable.

Finally, we go to southeastern Colorado where it took firefighters 20 minutes to rescue a golden retriever from a frozen pond. You see them working here. It fell in while chasing geese.

And listen to the voice of a young woman with a shotgun. Home invaders trying to break down her door.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?

DISPATCHER: Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself. I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: I'll tell you what happened and whether or not you are legally allowed to shoot a person who is breaking into your home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)