The U.S.s economic strength is a natural outcome of our freedom.

The job crisis we have in this country today is a direct result of our lack of economic freedom. From our overburdensome tax code, to our fast rising debt, to our growing entitlement problem, and to our regulatory burden that is growing at unprecedented levels out of reach of the American people, virtually every aspect of our economy is tightly controlled and manipulated. It is a recipe for disaster that we are seeing come to fruition right now.! We can no longer afford to lay by quietly as politicians in Washington wheel and deal our prosperity away to the highest bidder. Corporate welfare is at an all time high. Political class warfare continues to divide and conquer on behalf of big donors and lobbyists. The deck is stacked against the middle class more today than ever. Thats why Im running. Because I believe we must change this course NOW, and I believe there is still time to save the promise of our country for future generations.

There are a few things we need to reestablish in order to get there.! 1. A clear limited role of government 2. A reliance on markets, and the resolve to keep those markets free of overreaching government regulation. 3. Strong incentives for individuals to work and produce for themselves and their families by allowing people to decide how best to use the fruits of their labor. 4. An adherence to the rule of law 5. And a predictable policy framework

Today I will speak primarily to the policy framework, as that really encompasses all of the other points as well. Working to improve the economy by pushing for economic freedom means we automatically improve the other things that people care about.! Four of the top issues that the public overwhelmingly says it cares most about are Economy Jobs the budget decit Social Security Medicare Ill address all of these and what we can do to push for reforms in each, but its important to know that each of these are widely affected by improvement in the economy.!

First we have to understand where we are. We have to be willing to assess the reality of the situation to understand why we need now, once and for all, to kill the menace of discretionary government before it kills our country. While the economy had growth rate in the fourth quarter in 2013 of 2.4%, The overall 2013 growth rate was still an anemic 1.9%.

For our economy to make a real comeback that gure should be a sustained 3.5%. That requires an expanding workforce, which we are not seeing largely due to government regulation and a heavy tax burden.

The average recovery from all recessions since the post-World War 2 era began is an average of over 4%. So you can see we have a long way to go before we can call this a true recovery.

Compared to past recoveries from recessions we are behind by $1.3 trillion.

Employment is estimated to be 6 million jobs short of a normal recovery. This is largely due to a heavy government hand. Defenders of big government stimulus excuse the soft growth in 2013 saying it was a result of the sequestration and 6 months of reduced government spending. But, the truth is it was the governments reduced spending over the last 6 months of 2013 that facilitated the small pickup in growth that occurred. The money the government did not spend is money it did not take out of the private sector through taxes or through borrowing. That allowed the private sector to spend those resources and boost the economy.! So, imagine what would happen then if we reduced spending AND promoted policies of economic freedom at the same time. You would see a true recovery begin and Americans getting back to work.

While I am absolutely for strong spending cuts, it is important to note that our recovery depends on an all of the above strategy that also simultaneously promotes economic freedom and economic growth which produces jobs. As we rein in the government, we must also enable the private sector to grow. This improves our governments scal imbalance and reduces the decit in a faster more orderly and sustainable way.

As is the case with any math we can check our work and determine whether we are correct. If it is correct that reduction in government spending plus economic freedom equals production and job growth, then we can say the opposite is also true, that is that growth in government spending minus economic freedom through heavy regulation equals less production and little to no job growth. You need only look to Mississippi to see that is absolutely true. Mississippi ranked 5th in total federal government spending to the states as a percentage of state GDP in 2010.

3 years later, our state, along with the others on the top of the list for receiving federal funds, were on the bottom of those producing full time jobs. Incidentally this is not the only list Mississippi is at the bottom of. Its time we begin to reject business as usual and begin taking seriously the lessons of history if we ever hope to pull our state off the bottom.

Debt Drag is the term used to describe what the Congressional Budget Ofce describes as a slowing of the economy due to increasing decits and debt. CBO warns of serious consequences if we dont get spending under control.

The rst consequence is through Less Economic Growth. The CBO nds that the debt burden will "reduce national saving and income" and that the increase in government borrowing in order to keep up its spending regime will crowd out private investment. The shrinking of the private economy caused by America's debt burden will also lead to reduced wages and fewer jobs in the long term.

2. Tax hikes and spending cuts Because the CBO doesn't believe that our long-term debt projection is sustainable, they forecast that tax increases and spending cuts are in our future in order to bring the federal ledger back into balance. Tax hikes tend to shrink the economy, obviously, and sharp spending cuts can be a negative economic shock as well.

3. Inability to deal with unforeseen challenges There's always the chance of another economic crisis. And our standing in the world is severely compromised by the poor scal condition of our country. Take for example Russias invasion of Ukraine. Our options become limited as a result of our economy. Also of concern is the number of other foreign currencies that use ours as a standard. The exibility provided by numerous options and to respond appropriately are strengthened when we have a strong economy.

4. Increased Chance of Crisis A large and continually growing federal debt would have another signicant negative consequence: It would increase the probability of a scal crisis for the United States. In such a crisis, investors become unwilling to nance all of a governments borrowing needs unless they are compensated with very high interest rates; as a result, the interest rates on government debt rise suddenly and sharply relative to rates of return on other assets. That increase in interest rates reduces the market value of outstanding government bonds, causing losses for investors who hold them. Such a decline can precipitate a broader nancial crisis by creating losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of government debtlosses that may be large enough to cause some nancial institutions to fail.

Estimates across advanced economies show that debt drag reaches large and statistically signicant levels as debt grows, with the worst effects occurring after debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With U.S. federal, state, and local government debt at 84 percent of GDP and rising, we have to do something now. Federal debt alone is now about 73 percent of the economys annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. Under the Congressional Budget Ofces most recent extended baseline projections, budget decits would rise steadily and, by 2038, would push federal debt held by the public close to the percentage of GDP seen just after World War IIeven without factoring in the harm that growing debt would cause to the economy. That is signicant because as debt drag worsens, so too will the harm it has on the economy and jobs, which in turn will further reduce overall GDP and increase the federal debt percentage of GDP. At some point the vicious cycle will spin our economy out of control. Without a drastic change of policy, that WILL happen in our lifetime. In fact, I believe that without drastic policy changes dangers the projections indicate exponential loss accompanying out of control spending means it could happen in the next decade. The scary part is that even the best projections cant account for the effects of decit spending that is this large a percentage of GDP.

Unfortunately the Presidents most recent budget proposal does nothing to rein in this problem. Under the Obama budget proposal for FY 2015: -- By 2024, the total national debt would rise from $17.4 trillion to nearly $25 trillion. ! -- By 2017, those interest payments would be bigger than the budget for Medicaid. -- By 2020, U.S. taxpayers would be paying more in interest on the debt than they would on the entire Defense budget.

The Presidents proposal also increases spending by $791 billion over 10 years. Spending would rise $114 billion in 2015, $56 billion above the bipartisan budget agreement that the president signed into law on Dec. 26. Overall, spending would increase 63 percent over the next 10 years, and the proposal would hike taxes by $1.8 trillion. -- By 2017, those interest payments would be bigger than the budget for Medicaid. -- By 2020, U.S. taxpayers would be paying more in interest on the debt than they would on the entire Defense budget. This type of careless approach is not only irresponsible spending, it is dangerous and reduces the security of our country.

Meanwhile, we approach and surpass the debt limit now with such regularity that Congress barely questions it. Its important to understand something about the past 3 debt ceiling votes. Congress didnt really vote to raise the debt limit. They actually vote to suspend it, each time giving the treasury and the bureaucrats at the fed a blank check to spend as much as they wish. As our economy spirals out of control, the men and women elected to represent the American taxpayer are voting to hand that constitutional authority over to a group of unelected bureaucrats, in essence giving them a blank check to spend money against the future of our children and grandchildren.

But, this is only part of the story of our debt. Congress authorizes only about one-third of federal spending in any given year. That is the portion of the budget that is discretionary. But, two-thirds of federal spending is mandatory and goes to nance long-standing entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in addition to interest on the debt. The spending for these programs was authorized many Congresses ago. They are on autopilot, and they are the key drivers of expanding federal spending and debt. So, stopping the debt ceiling increases is only part of the problem that needs attention. There needs to be reform of entitlement spending, as well.

Federal transfer payments for welfare and food stamps, when added to disability and unemployment benets exceeds an additional $1 trillion annually. In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $750 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service. But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year. Adding state spending, the Senate Budget Committee found another $257 billion spent each year. The welfare state is now larger than the GDP of 175 of the 190 wealthiest countries.

Adding state spending, the Senate Budget Committee found another $260 billion spent each year. The welfare state is now larger than the GDP of 175 of the 190 wealthiest countries. Astoundingly, if all this spending were simply sent in the form of a check to every household in America living below the poverty level, we could raise each of these family's incomes not just above the poverty line, but double that level. Every poor family of four could have a cash income of $44,000 a year. What does that mean? It means were spending a lot of money for government bureaucracy and inefciency that is leading to waste, fraud and abuse.

The most recent complete data from 2012 shows that the highest error federal government programs cost the taxpayers $100 billion in that year alone. Medicare Fee-for-Service had an improper payment rate of 8.5% or $29.6 billion. Federal expenditures of Medicaid showed improper payments made of 7.1% of Medicaid expenditures or $19.6 billion. Medicare Advantage, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Unemployment Insurance round out the top ve, all of which made improper payments over 10%. How many private sector businesses would survive with this level of fraud and abuse? So the question becomes, what can we do about all this to slow down the spending that will ultimately result in a catastrophic loss of jobs and the very real possibility of the cratering of the the economy?

What is needed is a series of reforms in entitlement spending, tax policy, and regulatory policy that pulls us back from this cliff. There are many potential reform proposals out there. While I support a return to a small federal government that allows states the power granted them in the Constitution, it is important that we all realize we cant get out of this overnight. It will take a steady and responsible plan. But, it will have to be implemented by those who are willing to stand up and say that this is but a step towards the ultimate goal of returning to a balanced federal/state approach to governance. It isnt politically feasible to expect this will happen all at once. Thats the reality of our politics and the seriousness of our situation. It will take a continued effort to put principled scal conservatives in ofce. But, at the very least we must send people to Washington that recognize the problem and will stand in the way and say enough is enough. Even if we were able to do this overnight, at this level of spending, where markets and people have come to rely to a great extent on government overreach, it would likely create chaos. As much as conservatives have been blamed for being irresponsible, it is important to point out that we are not. We simply want to see a plan to move us back towards scal sanity. Heres how we begin to do that.

The tax codes havent been cleaned up since 1986. Since then, year after year, the tax code is lled with more special interest loopholes, credits, and carve-outs. Not only is this unfair to those without lobbyists, it makes the tax code too complex for the average American to understand. Worse yet, back in the 1980s, the U.S. had among the lowest income tax rates on businesses in the world. Today, our small and large businesses pay among the highest rates. In the 1980s after two rounds of Reagan tax rate reductions, income tax receipts doubled, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent rose as the economy expanded.

There are two big hurdles that must be overcome to achieve tax reform. The rst obstacle is that the class-warfare crowd wants the tax code to penalize success with high tax rates. But, the resulting protections created by lobbyists mean upper-income taxpayers are far more likely to benet from all the deductions, credits, exemptions, preferences, and other loopholes in the tax code, which is the reason for second obstacle. On one hand, the tax code allows for liberals to punish the wealthy, but on the other the tax loopholes allow for politicians to reward campaign donors. This is a very rewarding system for lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats, but not so much for the average American. A at tax or a consumption tax like the Fair Tax would take this power away and give it back where it belongs, to the people.

Also, in need of reform is our corporate tax code. The U.S. corporate tax rate is now the highest in the industrialized world at 35 percent because almost all other nations have slashed their business taxes to attract jobs and businesses. This is a major reason why jobs are shipped overseas. This high corporate rate in practice also acts as a tariff on the goods and services we produce in the United States, which lowers wages of American workers who are able to nd jobs. Want to give U.S. workers a raise and create jobs? Cut the tax rates on businesses so they invest more here, and so American jobs can return home. Right now is an opportune time to do so, as emerging foreign markets have begun to slow, and American owned companies nd it more difcult to deal with foreign governments lax property rights laws, and slow and expensive supply chain problems. We also should not be doubling taxes on saving and investment. We should remove the double tax on dividends. And we should reject attempts to tax internet purchases. The internet is one of the last places that small start up companies, mom and pops, and entrepreneurs have that allows an even playing eld to compete. The internet allows a true free market that fosters innovative products and services.

Ultimately, Id like to see a pure at tax with one tax rate, and a postcard-sized return, or a consumption tax that would completely do away with the IRS. This is a very real possibility. The IRS is the enforcement arm for the majority of our governments overreach. Were we to move towards a tax code that would abolish the IRS and move collections to the Treasury Dept. we could remove this government threat, remove the ability of politicians to reward their friends with tax exemptions that picks winners and losers, and force an even playing eld among everyone.

We must stop the dangerous federal spending. Its that simple. No more debt ceiling increases, no more handing over the Congressional spending authority to bureaucrats at the Treasury Dept. by suspending the debt ceiling. We must demand reforms now in the areas where waste is running rampant such as in the high-error programs of Medicare Fee-For-Service, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. One way to do that is through reducing the numerous discretionary rules we allow agencies to promulgate without Congressional authority, and by Congress relying on the Inspector General system, and demanding that these IGs be allowed to do their job free of meddling. Our Congress must once again begin the hard work of fully developing the rules for the laws they pass and providing real oversight. We must also end corporate welfare. Many Republicans have demanded an end to Federal Reserve funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as wasteful. But you will never hear about the Feds direct subsidy to private banks that costs over three times as much as the total CFPB budget. The subsidy comes in the form of a 6 percent dividend, paid on stock that over 2,900 banks purchase to participate in the Federal Reserve system. Very few places where ordinary Americans park their money offer such a risk-free benet. In 2012 (the last year with available data), the Fed gave away $1.637 billion in dividends to banks, tax-free in the majority of cases. And the Fed has been doing this for the last 100 years. Its one of the many unknown ways the Fed extends special benets to Wall Street. This should end!

Then there is the Wind Production Tax Credit that gives wind companies $23 in a subsidy for each megawatt-hour of electricity they produce. This money adds up quickly and it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Rarely does an industry enjoy such disproportionate favoritism. Even though the wind industry produces only 3.5% of the country's electricity, it receives 42% of the federal government's electrical nancial support. Combined with other targeted incentives, the federal government gives wind producers $56.29 per megawatt-hour, according to the Energy Information Administration. Natural gas, oil and coal power, by comparison, only get 64 cents, while nuclear power receives $3.14. Another example is the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank provides taxpayersubsidized loans to U.S. exporters. The banks charter will expire at the end of May. President Obama supports a four-year extension and, further, wants to increase the banks $100 billion loan limit by an additional $40 billion. The Ex-Im Bank provides government-subsidized loans and low-interest payments to foreign corporations that receive exports from American companies. Expanding the banks loan limit is asking for a repeat of Fannie and Freddie. Even at its best, the bank just picks winners of a few exporters and hopes there are no losers. More than 90 percent of the benets are going to just a few companies in the United States. That is the very denition of corporate welfare and cronyism. These are but three examples that you may not have even been aware existed. As your next US Senator I will work to let the American people know about these huge wasteful programs and do everything I can to end them.

Entitlements We must reform entitlement spending, the largest and most out-of-hand expenditure if we hope to have a chance at reducing the decit and allowing private enterprise to once again prosper at levels that creates jobs and opportunity. Social Security Social Security is by far the largest federal expenditure, which is projected to cost $848 billion in 2014 and at least $11 trillion over the next 10 years. It is clear that we will never control spending and bend the trajectory of our scal insolvency without offering comprehensive and effective reforms to Social Security. However, the budgetary cost of this program is by no means the only pernicious aspect of our burgeoning entitlement state. Under the current system, the federal government has complete control over our personal retirement. Their monopoly on 12.4% of our earnings (on the rst $113,700 of income) undermines savings, investments, and personal ownership some of the most cherished values of a free and prosperous society. Other nations have gured out the right approach. Australia began to implement personal accounts back in the mid-1980s, and the results have been remarkable. The Australian governments nances are stronger, and national saving has increased. But most important, people now can look forward to a safer and more secure retirement. Another great example is Chile, which set up personal accounts in the early 1980s.

About 30 nations around the world have set up some form of personal retirement accounts. Even!Sweden has partially privatized its Social Security system. Personal accounts would also be good for growth and competitiveness. Reforming a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme into a system of private savings will boost jobs by lowering the marginal tax rate on work. Personal accounts also will boost private savings. And Social Security reform will reduce the long-run burden of government spending, something that is desperately needed if we want to avoid a scal crisis and grow the economy and create jobs. It is important to understand that personal retirement accounts are not free. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, so if we let younger workers shift their payroll taxes to individual accounts, that means the money wont be there to pay benets to current retirees. Fullling the governments promise to those retirees, as well as to older workers who wouldnt have time to benet from the new system, will require a lot of money over the next couple of decades, probably more than $5 trillion. Thats a shocking number, but its important to remember that it would be even more expensive to bail out the current system. Were in a deep hole, but it will be easier to climb out if we implement real reform and accept the reality of the Social Security System. To add insult to injury, the federal government taxes the Social Security benets of seniors, even though the money had already been taxed. Moreover, the more a senior earns in private income, dividends or interest while receiving Social Security, the more they are taxed. My generation understands that paying for the Social Security of the retirees older than us is a sacrice we will have to make due to irresponsible government. Its a sad fact. We should at least encourage the young to also invest a portion of their income to offset what we know will not be available to us. If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bondsthe benets from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security. The argument that private investment is too risky compared with Social Security does not hold up. With Social Security already running a cash ow decit todayand facing a $21 trillion shortfall in the future that will make it impossible to pay promised benets private investment and personal accounts should be part of any discussion about reforming the troubled system.

Medicare Reform While Medicare is currently not as costly as Social Security, it is growing at a faster rate and will surpass Social Security spending in 15 years. On its current trajectory, Medicare will surpass all other non-interest spending by 2050 and will be the equivalent of nearly 10% of GDP. Reform of the program is an absolute necessity. Moving traditional Medicare from a third party fee-for-service to a premium support plan could be a step in the right direction. It would switch from paying doctors, hospitals, and other medical professionals to paying health plans directly on behalf of Medicare beneciaries. The payments, in the form of xed amounts, would be made to competing plans offering traditional Medicare benets, as they do today in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D. This payment would be made, based on the beneciarys choice, to either a private plan or Medicare. Projections show that moving to a premium support system by 2016 would result in an initial 10-year savings of $702 billion. Overall, the changes to Medicare would secure total Medicare savings of $9.4 trillion by 2035. But, this would only be a step. The best reform would be to move towards a system that gave control of healthcare spending to individuals, and required an eventual move by doctors and hospitals to provide actual prices of services and procedures. The potential for a voucher proposal is a step in that direction.

Its important to understand that healthcare problems we nd ourselves in the midst of are a result of costs. 90 percent of every health care dollar in America is paid for by someone other than the consumer. This inefcient system causes spiraling costs and bureaucratic inefciency because it erodes any incentive to be a smart shopper when buying health care services (much as its difcult to maintain a good diet by pre-paying for a year of dining at all-you-can-eat restaurants).! In other words, government intervention has largely eroded market forces in health care. And this was true even before ObamaCare was enacted. Medicare reform, by itself, wont solve the third-party payer problem, but it could be part of the solution especially if seniors used their vouchers to purchase real insurance (i.e., for large, unexpected expenses) rather than the inefcient pre-paid health plans that are so prevalent today. Of course any changes to Medicare would have to be premised on the repeal of ObamaCare as ObamaCare relies on major changes to Medicare. ObamaCare if allowed to stand will be the main driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs in the future. Unfortunately, we dont have time to go into the full details of Healthcare reform here today. If you are able to be in Jackson on the evening of April 10, Ill have a town hall then to address healthcare. And, of course, I will be back to the coast to discuss these other policies in the future.

Medicaid Speaking of ObamaCare we should also mention Medicaid reform. Medicaid should be turned into a true block grant program to the states. Medicaid block grants would replicate the success of welfare reform. Getting rid of the federal welfare entitlement in the 1990s and shifting the program to the states was a very successful policy, saving billions of dollars for taxpayers and signicantly reducing poverty. There is every reason to think ending the Medicaid entitlement will have similar positive results. The third-party payment system is a major source of fraud and abuse. Handing Medicaid over to the states makes sense, because it would be those individual states responsible for cracking down on the fraud, and innovating their policies to taylor specic solutions to specic problems.

We have to get serious about these three basics of recovery if we hope to have a serious rebound in our economy and to pull back from the tipping point we now nd our country.

Economic Freedom is the key. It requires a seriousness about freedom, and an understanding that freedom is what we owe our prosperity to, and it is what we must return to if we hope to regain it.