How you would go about creating new jobs?

Government doesn't create jobs; people do. Small businesses in particular create huge numbers of jobs – especially young startups. Moreover, if you can't find a job, you need to be able to go into business for yourself and earn some income, because you have to pay the rent and put food on the table. There are more opportunities than ever before to work for yourself – and quite possibly work from home – but the process of starting a business is far more complicated than it needs to be, and once you have your business up and running, it can be hard to connect with customers. That's where government comes in.

As President, I pledge to ruthlessly simplify the process of starting and running your own business. It should take no more than a few hours to handle the paperwork and figure out the taxes; you should be able to start the process in the morning and be making money by afternoon. And you shouldn't need to hire an accountant to do your taxes or spend endless hours filing forms yourself.

I will also promote and assist existing venues for customers to find the services they need, and for small businesses to find customers; and where such venues don't exist, I'll create them. This isn't particularly hard to do, and in some places it's been done very effectively, but in other places it hasn't. My staff has studied the most successful such programs, from websites to job centers, and drawn up plans to replicate them nationwide.

But what if your skills are out of date? The economy has changed rapidly in recent years, and it isn't always possible to predict what's coming or what skills you'll need to be successful. I pledge to provide education and job training to anyone who needs it. No one should be left behind simply because they can't foresee the future.

I'll anticipate Mr. Lehrer's next question: How will we pay for all this? Quite simply, it will pay for itself – as the very best programs often do. People who receive training will get part of that training on the job, learning practical skills and doing constructive work in return. Depending on the cost of their education, they may also be asked to work a certain number of unpaid hours after graduation. Alternately, they can repay the remaining cost over a period of time – or they can combine these methods.

How would you go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?

The deficit, and the national debt, were caused partly by mismanagement, partly by structural problems in the economy – such as the lack of true competition – and partly by lack of will on the part of politicians – and let's be honest, on the part of the voters, too. Eliminating the deficit will take more than a few cuts to programs the Republicans or the Democrats don't like. It will take fundamental structural reforms, and a President with the will and expertise to bring costs under control.

Politicians always promise to cut waste and eliminate nonessential programs, but how many actually do it? How many are genuinely committed to reform, rather than just to getting elected – or paying back contributers? Too often, “wasteful programs” are those which aren't providing kickbacks to the right politicians – the way the Postal Service provides kickbacks to every single Member of Congress in the form of free mailing privileges. If you want to identify a genuine reformer, ask if they're prepared to buy their own stamps.

What is your position on entitlements and Social Security?

Entitlements are programs to which the recipients are entitled simply because they meet certain criteria. They don't have to do anything in return for their welfare benefits, for example; they're entitled. Such programs shouldn't exist. No one should be at risk of starving or being forced to live in the street, but anyone who needs money should be prepared to work for it.

Social Security is a retirement program, not an entitlement; contributors receive benefits in return for the payments they've made their entire career. In theory, this should work just like an annuity, and retirees should be confident that their money is safe. In fact, the government can raid the Social Security Trust Fund whenever it wants, and often does. This must change. Each contributor's benefits should be paid into an account with a third-party financial institution which the government cannot touch. These accounts will be federally guaranteed, just like savings accounts, so that there is no chance of loss – or theft. We can't do this immediately, because we'll have to fix the economy and eliminate the deficit before we can afford it. But we need to do it as soon as we can, or one day the government will borrow from your retirement and forget to pay it back.

What is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much? Should there be more?

The question is what sort of regulation is needed, not how much. Regulation should be skillfully designed and precisely targeted to accomplish its goals. Instead, it is frequently designed and implemented with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop.

Price controls are a good example. They don't work. Almost everyone realizes this is true, and yet they're still used simply because they're easy. It's very satisfying for politicians to stand up and say they won't allow big businesses to take advantage of their customers, and pass a law dictating how much they can charge. It also makes for a good sound bite. If we want to solve problems instead of thumping our chest, however, we need to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.

Consider recent price controls on electricity. If power companies must sell electricity below their cost, they lose money. The more they sell, the more they lose. Thus, their incentive is to sell as little as possible. Furthermore, if supply is low and prices are also low, customers will use too much electricity, resulting in blackouts. The solution is to increase supply. Doing so is not particularly difficult, but it does require honest and competent leadership, something which has been sadly lacking.

Do you want Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, repealed?

Obamacare is irrelevant. The politicians involved simply tinkered with the health care system a bit. They went to considerable trouble to avoid solving problems or making difficult decisions. If we want to address the real issues, the entire system, not just one law, needs to be thrown out and redesigned from scratch.

The problem with health care is that it's absurdly expensive. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to care. After all, a portion of the money spent on medical care goes to them in the form of campaign contributions from the health care industry. Why should they reduce the amount of money we're spending? If the pot of gold gets smaller, so does their own slush fund.

Of course, both parties talk about reducing costs, but somehow they never seem to do it. And the costs they're proposing to target are only the low-hanging fruit, the obvious measures that can be implemented relatively quickly and easily: Free preventive care and wellness checks, exercise and nutrition programs, malpractice reform, placing doctors on salary rather than paying them on a fee-for-service basis, electronic medical records, and similar reforms that have been proposed many times in the past. Certainly these should be implemented, but they're not enough. Costs will remain high, and will continue to increase far faster than inflation, as long as we ignore the elephant in the room: Patents.

Health care is expensive because there is no real competition in the industry. Against every principle of capitalism, the government grants monopolies to the incumbents and allows them to block new entrants. Potential competitors, including nonprofit research institutes trying to find new cures to save lives, must work under the constant threat of lawsuits if they infringe vague patents that the holders may not intend to ever use.

Patents must be abolished and replaced with a rewards pool. Patent laws are unconstitutional and should never have been passed. They remain in force only because so much patent money is funneled to an eager Congress.

How do you view the mission of the federal government?

The primary role of government is to defend the nation and protect the American people. These missions are ably performed by the United States Armed Forces, intelligence agencies, federal, state, and local law enforcement, and first responders. The very survival of our country is in their hands. This is why it's critical that these agencies be fully funded and that all of their personnel work for the American people. We should not place our lives in the hands of mercenaries.

In addition, the federal government serves as a neutral referee for the free market, guaranteeing a level playing field and vigilantly preserving – or, when necessary, creating – competition. This includes breaking up monopolies, building and then selling infrastructure such as a truly nationwide cell phone network, and encouraging industry trade groups to establish interoperability standards for such things as cell phones, so that any phone works on any network – just as with landlines.

Does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in America?

Yes. A modern economy can't function without a skilled workforce. When people find themselves unemployed, the government can help them get back into the workforce by providing education and job training. This raises the question, however, of why educational institutions – including government-run schools and colleges – failed to perform their basic functions and educate their students. We can hardly ignore the fact that we're spending massive amounts on the educational system without getting a skilled workforce in return.

It's the government's responsibility to ensure that tax money is spent wisely, including federal financial aid. Clearly, financial aid should go only to institutions that provide a high-quality education. Those lagging behind should be given an opportunity to improve. If they fail to do so, they should not receive further government funding. It is never wise to throw good money after bad; and at the end of the day, our focus should be on saving students, not schools.

Given that focus, we should also ensure that everyone who wants to go to college is financially able to do so. We should expand the Federal Work-Study Program as much as needed, awarding work which is actually productive, and thus self-funding.

Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. What would you do about that?

The first requirement for a functioning government is a willingness to negotiate in good faith. In a democracy, we don't always get what we want. Compromise is not a bad word; it's how we solve problems in a way that everyone can live with.

And yet gridlock has become standard fare in Washington, and in many state capitals as well. This is not a result of division among the American people, or a sign that they're unwilling to compromise. Rather, it's because everyone isn't represented at the table. And that's because of the flawed system we use to choose our elected representatives – a system designed specifically to exclude third parties and guarantee a duopoly to the established parties; a system increasingly vulnerable to being hijacked by extremists on either side.

To end gridlock and return to the pragmatism the Founders showed in writing the Constitution and building this great nation, we must end the two-party system and eliminate the influence of money in politics. As is so often the case, the states are leading the way. Louisiana, California, and Washington now have “top two” primaries – essentially runoffs – which ensure the winner has majority support and give third parties a real chance of winning. Twelve states have taken control of redistricting away from the legislatures and the political parties that control them. These and similar measures, such as reforms to demonstrate the accuracy of election results for all to see, can sharply reduce partisanship and bring Americans' willingness to cooperate to Congress.

That brings us to closing statements. You have a closing two minutes, Senator.

Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank everyone watching today for taking the time to participate in the democratic process. Your participation is the only thing that keeps democracy alive.

(Hays looks directly into the camera.)

And in that vein, I want to ask each of you individually to continue taking part, and to ask your friends and neighbors to take part as well. We all believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people; but for that to work, the people must stand up and choose their government. Only a little more than a hundred years ago, it wasn't unusual to see nearly 80% of voters turning out for elections. Today we're lucky to approach 60%. Our adversaries see this as evidence of the decline of America and the failure of democracy. Let's stand together and show them they're wrong. I call on every citizen to read the news, watch the debates, meet the candidates, and go out and vote on Election Day – regardless of whether you vote for me or for one of my opponents. I pledge to work to increase turnout and help every qualified person to vote, without focusing my efforts on my supporters or even considering which way they'll vote, and I call on my Opponents to do the same. At the end of the day we're all Americans, and if we're going to solve our problems we're going to have to do it together – and the first step is to sit down at the table together. Please, come to the voting booth and join us.

Thank you. Good night and God bless.

"We are defined by our responsibilities.

Our first responsibility, always, is to God. To do the right thing. To choose the common good over our own selfish interests. To stand by our principles no matter what pressure is brought to bear against us.

Our second responsibility is to our country. To give unwavering loyalty to our nation and its people. To serve selflessly, not for our own benefit but for the United States of America. To fight to defend the lives and liberty of those who depend on us.

Our third responsibility is to our superiors, our comrades, and our families. To work hard, to do our share and a bit more, to help those who need help, to guide those who need guidance, to protect those who need protection. In the end, we're fighting for our children, our neighbors' children, our children's children; and we don't doubt that they're worth dying for.

Our fourth responsibility is to ourselves. Because we cannot be entirely selfless and still survive; we cannot give everything of ourselves. We must care for ourselves before we can care for others.

Every American has the responsibility to serve. In today's world, we must all work together if we are to survive; we cannot afford dead weight. We have an obligation to be good citizens: To vote, to perform jury duty, to serve our time in the military or the National Service Program, to educate ourselves about our nation's past and present. To speak up when we see something unethical. To answer to God, not to popular opinion. It has been documented that human behavior changes in crowds; but this is no excuse. Shake off the inertia, ignore the crowd, and do what's right. What others are doing is irrelevant.

We have an obligation to make sure we can help others: To learn basic first aid, to have the means to notify the police in case of an emergency, to know what to do in a crisis, to be able to take point if necessary. To be prepared.

Once we have accepted our responsibilities, once we have committed to being good citizens, good friends, good fathers or mothers or sisters or brothers, we must still deal with ethical dilemmas. What do we do when we aren't sure what's right?

Most of the time, however, in our heart of hearts we do know what's right; we just don't want to admit it to ourselves, because it's not what we want to do. We don't want to admit our mistakes, we don't want to give that apology, we don't want to go back and redo the job that we didn't get right the first time. We don't want to give up a personal benefit – perhaps a well-earned personal benefit – for the common good. Even more, we don't want to sacrifice the interests of our state, our community, or especially our family for the good of the nation. But that's what's right. Not to sacrifice all our interests, of course; the good of the nation does not mean tyranny of the majority. But to accept a solution that, while still looking to our interests, looks first to the interests of the whole.

And so a pretty good rule of thumb is that if you don't want to do it, you probably should. Should you share that last roll with the cousin you don't like? Yes. Should you offer to drive him home after he's had a bit too much to drink? Yes. Should you return that really obnoxious hat he likes to wear after he leaves it in your car? Yes. Should you go the extra mile, even though no one else does and you're not going to be thanked for it? Yes.

We could make a list of things to do, or of things not to do. Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not murder. Do not torture. Do not betray your country, your God, your employer, your spouse, your friends. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor, or fail to step forward to set the record straight. Do not break your word. Do not allow a problem to go unsolved. Do not accept a job you aren't competent to perform. Do not fail to give your best. Do not allow even the appearance of impropriety. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated or blackmailed; do not allow anyone to prevent you from doing the right thing.

But a list is never enough. You can never cover every possible situation. Ethics class can never discuss every dilemma. To face the world with confidence, you must have a clear belief system based on consistent underlying principles. If you have clear guiding principles, if you truly think about what God is asking of us rather than making a list of commandments, then your instincts will be strong, and when you face the crisis, you will know what's right.

So, first establish the core principles, then consider the implications of those principles. Love your God and your neighbors; act from love rather than from greed, envy, or lust. Do what you can to help others, but don't just give them what they want; help them become better people. To help others, we must first look to ourselves; ensure that our basic needs are met, that we are fulfilling our obligations, that we are doing our job. Better to do your own job adequately than someone else's well.

How to do your own job well, then? First, you must know yourself; you must understand your strengths and especially your weaknesses, so you can overcome them, compensate for them, or – since we will never be perfect – plan for them. Then you must understand others, not only your enemies but your friends as well. It's difficult to help someone you don't understand. Often this means putting yourself in someone else's shoes and, to some degree, experiencing what they experience. (“Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.”) Empathy and compassion come from understanding the suffering of others, typically because we have suffered ourselves. Our pain makes us human.

Once you have a basis for understanding your coworkers, subordinates, friends, and family, once you grasp their hopes, fears, and motivations, then you are in a position to help them. For a leader, this means inspiring them to surpass what they thought was possible, overcome their problems, and fulfill their obligations. Like most things that are worthwhile, and like any relationship, it's hard work, but it's something anyone can do with persistence and dedication. Inspiring others requires earning their respect and trust: Leading by example, showing that you practice what you preach and do your job as well as you expect them to do theirs; demonstrating that you trust them, and they can trust you, because you are responsible. And a leader is always responsible, never trying to shift blame, evade work, or avoid dealing with consequences. As a leader, you never ask subordinates to do something you won't do, you never give an order that you know will not be obeyed, you fearlessly advocate for your subordinates, and you make sure they have everything they need to do their jobs without hindrance. Because that's the core function of a leader: To make sure your people know what to do and are able to do it. And that's the core function of ethics as well: To determine what's right, and to do it."

John Hays was born on March 18th, 1959, in Austin, Texas. He came from a military family and was descended from John Coffee Hays, who was his namesake as well as his ancestor. His father Robert Hays reached the rank of lieutenant general before being killed in an auto accident in 1980.

Hays graduated from West Point in 1981, marrying his high-school sweetheart immediately upon graduation. He entered the Infantry and quickly established himself as a superb leader and battlefield commander. He had a natural magnetism which made people want to follow him, and a gift for selecting skilled and trustworthy subordinates. He advanced rapidly and soon proved himself in battle, acquiring a reputation as an absolutely fearless officer who led by example.

Hays eagerly sought opportunities for combat commands, serving in El Salvador (1981), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1985), Bolivia (1986), and Panama (1989). He was soon highly decorated and twice received battlefield promotions. By the beginning of the First Gulf War, he was already a brigadier general. He was deputy division commander in one of the lead divisions during Desert Storm. When the division commander was killed by a sniper almost at the beginning of the war, Hays took over and commanded his division throughout the conflict. At the end of the war he was promoted to major general.

After the war, Hays commanded troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. It was then that he came in contact with the terrorist known as Abu Kareem. In 1992, while visiting troops in the field, he was badly wounded and almost killed in an ambush set by Abu Kareem. Both his aide and his driver were killed outright. Even before he could leave the hospital, Hays organized a hunt for the assassin, but it was futile; his men never even came close. In the years that followed, Hays was to repeatedly attempt to catch Abu Kareem, sometimes setting elaborate traps for him. But although he was able to learn a good deal about him and in several cases missed him by only hours, he was never able to trap him.

By 1998, Hays was a full general, and his name was being mentioned as a future Chief of Staff. Many in the Army establishment were therefore shocked when he resigned his commission to run for Governor of Texas. He had decided that he could no longer be satisfied with carrying out policy; he wanted to set it. He wanted to become President of the United States. When the incumbent decided not to run for reelection in order to pursue national ambitions, the resulting open race presented just the opportunity he needed. He was elected easily even though he chose to run as an independent. He again surprised observers when he chose not to run for reelection in 2002, instead seeking – and easily winning – an open seat in the U.S. Senate.

While governor, Hays established the Independent Party, which was originally known primarily in Texas but rapidly gained popularity in other states.

Only a year after his election as senator, tragedy struck. While on vacation visiting relatives, his wife was kidnapped, raped, and murdered. It appeared to be a random act of violence perpetrated by four gang members with a long history of violent crimes.

Without telling anyone what he was doing, Hays left Washington and tracked down the killers. For several days he was reported as missing, and speculation ran rampant. He managed to find the killers, who were holed up in an abandoned house, before the police. Instead of reporting their location to the authorities, he walked in and shot them to death. He then held a press conference and calmly stated what he had done, giving no explanation.

Hays was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. The trial was televised live and quickly became an international sensation. The facts of the case were not in dispute; the evidence clearly showed that Hays had fired first, and he admitted that he had not given the killers a chance to surrender. When the jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict, pandemonium erupted.

It was not to be his last brush with controversy. In an eerily similar event, his eight-year-old daughter was kidnapped in early 2008 while visiting relatives. Once again, Hays left Washington without revealing his intentions. This time he found the kidnapper living in a nondescript middle-class home in the Houston suburbs. Hays entered to find his daughter's dismembered corpse arrayed on the kitchen table, cooked and partially eaten. The killer was having his midday meal. Hays shot him down in cold blood.

Once again, Hays held a press conference and flatly stated what he had done. Once again, he was tried for first-degree murder.

Though Hays had given no details, all aspects of the case were soon widely known, and this trial became even more an international sensation than the previous one. Under the prosecutor's questioning on live television, in a line that was to become world-famous, Hays stated that he would be judged by God and the voters of the state of Texas. The prosecutor responded that he would be judged by a jury of his peers. Hays turned out to be right; the jury voted to acquit, 12 to 0. Two months later, he was reelected with over 80% of the vote.

The deaths of his wife and daughter left Hays with nothing but his ambition, which became stronger than ever. Thus, it was at a particularly propitious time that he was approached with an offer that was to change his life …

Hays is obsessed with seeing justice done, whether by the law or by the vigilante. However, he has lost none of his leadership skills and understands the importance of justice being seen as impartial. Accordingly, he has acquired a reputation as a tireless reformer. He has successfully pushed to tighten ethics laws, and for harsher penalties for corruption and violent crimes.