here. >> so, charlie, what do you think of that plan? >> well, i think the big issue we do face is jobs. i mean, it's the number one issue for people everywhere we go. and as i've traveled around the commonwealth, it's very clear to me that some parts of massachusetts are doing really well and other parts respect, and a big part of our economic development plan is focused on those regions and those communities that have not done as well as others. and that's why we've been talking about building economies based on the jobs that are already in certain parts of massachusetts, and it's why, for example, my first campaign event was at u-mass lowell at the emerging technology center, because that is a great public/private partnership between the plastics and polymer manufacturing industry up in the merry mack valley, and it's created this really terrific, virtuous circle between a higher ed institution that provides research and product development can expertise to a bunch of firms that want to be here and want to grow here, and it's a great pathway for kids to go through that school into those

companies when they graduate. we should do more of those, build on what we have region by region. >> and, sure, that's why i have a regional economic plan that does precisely that in 13 regions, aligning what's happening in our schools already with curriculum, with making sure that as we roll out half a billion dollars over the next ten years, we will build an economy in the ground up. one that's sustainable, one that invests in our kids and work force so that we won't have jobs going begging as we do now, and we won't have people unemployed as we do now. ..

save the jobs of thousands of hospitals and in some respects yes we have to made some tough decisions. the leadership requires you to make tough decisions. and i said many times the hardest decision i had to make was to exit the rhode island marketplace but even then i'm proud of the fact that everybody we owed money to go to page. everybody that was in treatment we continue to make sure they got transitioned properly and everybody that was employed by us who lost their job was provided to job training and job placement in the vast majority into getting high here by somebody else.

i get the explanation that you needed to do that but what i don't get is the picture when you got dressed up in a tuxedo and got an award bike there was something to celebrate about outsourcing jobs out of the country. what were you thinking? baker: it was a partnership that we have and remember those state state here in massachusetts and was a big part of the success we had taking our organization that was fundamentally broken and a lot like many parts of the state government are today turning it around and making it work for everyone, for the members of the program and for the providers that do business, making it work for the employees in the program but we saved thousands of jobs and kept them right here in massachusetts as a result of saving the company and we also saved the jobs of many other organizations that would have failed if we had gone under. >> moderator: questions were

about the history and should i assume from your answer and yours that you don't have that and that you preserve jobs and what you did there you were a private-sector person for decades of in terms of actual job creation the experience is limited is that fair? baker: working in the administration during which time between the tax cuts, workers comp reform and a host of other reforms the state of the highest unemployment rate when we took office in 1991 to the lowest unemployment rate in the country by the time that left ten years later and we created 500,000 new jobs in massachusetts. >> why do you disagree? >> the public sector doesn't necessarily create jobs but the public sector plays a big role. i will give you one example. the company that had very expensive energy, they wanted to do on-site outsourcing, energy

production and because of that they saved money and they hired people in that factory. >> one thing before we move on, governor patrick is shifting 500 employees from the managerial position to public employee and particularly if it is a person of the other party insulating them. do either of you have a problem with what the governor did? >> first i wasn't involved in this negotiation and i think the government needs to be more transparent about what actually happened and until we have that i think that he needs to explain that. >> moderator: they did something to the same degree. baker: 500 people have a management workforce. you're talking about almost won six of the management in the state government.

it happened two weeks before the election into so far there is no publicly available explanation about what agencies are affected or how they are affected. i also worry about the message. one of the things that makes people crazy about government is that there are two sets of rules. one on the inside and one for the people that pay the bills. look at something like the probation scandal day after day we had to listen to testimony and indicated a lunch of people got jobs not because of what they knew but because of who they knew and to this day i'm still the only candidate for governor did actually put out a proposal to make transparent the process which massachusetts state government hires people creating a process to make sure the public understands who gets the job and why he and i think that is a big difference frankly between me and the -- >> let's go back to transparency about the big financing and kicking the can down the road and being transparent about

letting go of the department of mental health workers outsourcing that is mental health, so i am happy to stand on my record. i didn't have anything to do in a particular decision but let's be transparent about our own records and the values that drive those decisions. >> you said you won't raise taxes is that correct? martha says he will only consider the taxes to protect the services that you deem critical. is that a fair statement? why would a good manager like you take anything off the table before? you didn't take precedence off the table in fact you raised premiums pretty dramatically which hope you achieved your goal. why do you take a solution even if it isn't your favorite one before you take office? >> i took a company that was bankrupt and made it the number one for the satisfactory in a

number of operating improvements as well and the kind of things the state government can do. i think it's important to send a message to employers, small businesses, everybody in massachusetts many of whom feel they have been the goal and a diamond over the past few years but we are not just going to raise taxes to figure out how to pay the bill. somewhere we have to draw the line. think about energy costs. next month families and businesses are going to be dealing with a 40% increase in their energy costs because the commonwealth, the governor and the attorney general and the ratepayer advocate didn't do the work they should have done to deal with the fact we knew we were taking the plants out of production which is fine but therefore we needed to build additional capacities to deal with that and what we should have been doing is moving forward or to simply expand existing natural gas pipelines from 3 feet to 4 feet which is a pretty simple process for people

wouldn't get hit with those increases. coakley: that is a market issue not a taxpayer issue. you're talking about taxes so let me respond to that. in the last four years when you haven't been on the scene, the rate of pay advocate prospects of an hundred million dollars on behalf of consumers. standing up to the national grid to make sure none of those costs are passed along. we have come much further along with clean energy technology than we would have thought four years ago so we need to catch up, i agree but you can't take this one season and say that we haven't done our job moving towards energy efficiency and

clean technology. >> it depends on which fees you're talking about and what it is associated with. the attorney general has $1 billion of spending she's already proposed. >> a number of people are saying if you total up the numbers ultimately you do have to raise but here is the if i had to raise revenues and you do not increase the burden on the middle class, give us a couple of examples of not small change examples but serious examples of ways you could do that without increasing the burden on the middle class. coakley: both my opponent and i will let the honest about what we are talking about we need to invest in this state and in businesses and in our kids. we need to invest in our workforce development otherwise you're missing about a patient. what charlie has proposed is at

least 300 million of the tax costs. maybe 600 million according to the "boston globe." he says i will find that money somewhere. he also talks about all the kind of things he wants to do now including workforce development. so where does that money come from? i've been saying i know what my parodies are investing in kids and roads and bridges and that's why i support the indexing. >> moderator: if you have to raise taxes while with those revenues be that would increase the burden on the middle class and low-income? coakley: they would be people at the top to -- how do you do that? the legislature has done a study on that. every four years someone says they are not going to raise taxes and we've been hearing that for seven years.

gas tax, middle-class, sales tax. satellite tv, middle-class, registry fees, middle-class. most of these tax increases, fees for afterschool sports, all this stuff lands on the middle class. that's one of the reasons i said i not going to raise taxes is because i think the middle-class is strapped already into the last thing they need is another four years of getting nickel and dime again. >> moderator: they quickly you feel that the gas tax and charlie you supported basically saying they should vote. they never review if they are doing what they were supposed to do including creating jobs so in the spirit of question number one would you endorse the position of all corporate tax breaks to expire unless it is a vote of the legislature to expand and renew them? baker: we ought to do an annual review if we are getting what we think we should be getting out of them and i would

do that as governor. >> moderator: would you do that? coakley: i've always said we should look at the tax breaks to get the businesses, bring the money back and have the fallback positions if they don't. >> moderator: where are you on driver's license for drivers license for immigrants are here illegally? baker: i don't support licenses for people that are undocumented and the reason for that is no one's been able to explain to me how you can document and verify someone who is undocumented and i get the fact that for many people this is a burden and an inconvenience and i understand that and i've talked to a lot of them about it but fundamentally we need washington to deal with this question and salt this problem. so that the state and local level we can figure out how to deal with it. another thing i said i would do is create a coalition of governors to make the case probably in conjunction with mayors and other officials in washing them that we at the

local level and the people who live at the local level deal with the hard reality of a broken immigration system. the folks in washington for the most part treat immigration like a football and i think for both sides in many cases it works not to fix it and got a problem and we need to create a coalition bipartisan and get after them on this one. coakley: i wish they they would treat they would've treated like football. they are not doing anything about it or even handling it. they don't have the birth certificates and i think that this is an appropriate time and i said this during the campaign and if they don't have licenses i don't know how we do at it there is pending legislation that we have to address this issue.

>> moderator: the people that are here illegally are you for it or against it? baker: i don't support going beyond that because in my opinion if you are going to get an in-state tuition subsidized by the taxpayer you need to be able to work in massachusetts when you graduate. the baker: the governor's executive order basically says that if you fall into certain categories where you can in fact work here after you graduate and you are a legible basically saying people that can't work here in massachusetts by the graduation should be able to access a taxpayer funded. the kids that come here throughout reason of their own and that a young woman just yesterday who said i want an education and i came to get a

job. we should be encouraging people that want the opportunity to do that. >> moderator: let's bring in the "boston globe." >> i cover immigration. people are unable to vote and run for public office and serve on juries. half of the adults couldn't vote in the casino referendum because they were not citizens. is this an issue for you and if elected governor, what would you do about it? wusa 9 to be a citizen to vote and i come back to what i said at the beginning of the conversation. we need governors and local officials for whom the issue is associated with the federal government in ability and willingness to form a motion and make the case and make these guys uncomfortable. it makes me nuts that every day i run into people in the circumstances and situations that are compounded by the fact

the federal government hasn't been willing to address this question. >> moderator: congress isn't meeting and we are in the middle of a war so they are not going to do that, so it's sort of falls back on the states, governors like you both want to be to decide too decided the absence of leadership in congress would you do. so what do you do? there are 500,000, two thirds of them are here as legal permanent residents and a huge number of them in east boston for example are affected by this. the coakley: i think they look to getting a local option and i think that there should be some requirements ahead of time. but i do the leave, and i've seen in particular when you are with the population we have a new massachusetts and residents that are going to be here.

i know washington is moved. >> moderator: can you name a citizen that is here can you imagine allowing them to vote in a local election. you lost by 24 points the last time around when you ran for governor. i'm going to remind you a few more times. you got in hot water. at the hobby lobby decision-makers corp. stock to cover contraception and i think that it doesn't matter in massachusetts and we can apologize for both of those great martha coakley supporters made a lot of hate about this. do you think that the supporters and the media treated you fairly about those issues or not?

baker: i basically am guilty of overthinking if i am pleased to say i'm the only candidate that proposed a solution to that problem for women in massachusetts by proposing the increased funding which i would do as governor at the department of public health to make it possible for women here in massachusetts if they work for a company that falls between the cracks associated in the state law and federal law to be able to access that decision and i'm proud of that recommendation and i will always support women's access to full benefits and contraceptive services. i'm pleased with the response we've gotten across the commonwealth from every neighborhood men and women to our agenda about how we create more jobs and build great communities and balance in the bipartisanship and i've been really pleased by the response we've gotten from everybody.

it's a campaign. i fully expect that if i say something dumb -- marfa's people are going to let me have it. and i would expect and anticipate -- >> moderator: you've known him for a long time. is there anything in the record that would lead you to believe that? baker: he's done great work and he is done a good job and the issue for me is who do you see, who do you work with and who are you going to champion when you move forward the first response for me and the decision was no this isn't just about contraception it's about other forms of discrimination and i've been very much involved in these issues because they are personal to young girls and women getting

equal pay making sure they have access to healthcare. these are things that i know are issues in the commonwealth. what is the one misconception when you go home at night and speak to your spouse and they drive you absolutely up the wall baker: i care about numbers and that i don't care about people. that is the single biggest thing that drives me up the wall. my professional career has been about people because we cared about the numbers. i didn't spend eight years working in the administration. i did it because i wanted to help people. thousands of people were going

to lose their jobs and millions of people were going to lose their health care coverage if we didn't figure out how to fix it. for me it's always been about people and the guy is pretty good at math which does matter when you're talking about a 38 billion-dollar budget. baker: i will put my record up against yours very i'm not criticizing what you did. i wouldn't make those choices and in my lifetime as a prosecutor and attorney general always make the decision to stand for people there were 200 jobs outsourced to india. there were 700 that lost their

job because of your decision. -- we can debate about whether you are a good guy or not. baker: building and creating a health care system for people that no longer belonged in the institution, those places were not great places to take care of anyone and many folks in the community supported what we chose to do in the period of time. have we solved all of the problems absolutely not. that's a good piece of the work that we did and the structure that we put in place and the solutions are exactly the way it works today. baker: it's in the globe today but assume that the missing piece was providing the support, 700 workers 60% went.

if people are homeless and have mental-health mental health problems went up in the criminal justice system because we didn't take care of them. >> moderator: is there something that upsets you, martha coakley clicks coakley: that i don't have a sense of humor or that i worked to overcome that. >> i've been covering casino issues here for three years. if the state casino law survives on the day that one of you is elected come and then as many as two are likely to open during the first term making you the first to govern massachusetts as a casino state. how much casino gambling have you done personally in your life and how does that experience or

the lack of it and form your policies on gambling? >> moderator: let's start with you charlie and then martha are you baker: playing a little blackjack. the one time i made money i sent money to my friends and to survive was going to quit my day job and then i gave it all back the next day. i said all along i'm a big fan of one casino. my preferred option would have been from massachusetts not to build a casino but i think would have been the best outcome of all they enjoy the atmosphere and all the rest and so i said for a long time i always thought one casino in massachusetts made sense. the coakley: i'm not a gambler.

i know from working with the attorney general the kind of oversight and regulatory work you have to do it around everything from money laundering to organized crime and human trafficking soap one of the things i did as attorney general is looking at what we have to give in massachusetts if we were going to maximize the economic benefits and minimize the social. both of you have said that if we get rid of the casino law and massachusetts that he would like a springfield casino. start with you charlie.

baker: good for the voters. that's how it's supposed to work and i'm glad this question is on the ballot. when you collect 125,000 signatures you belong on the ballot. but i've watched the site in springfield and i'm pretty sure that's a really interesting proposal hit by a tornado and basically dying right before our eyes. it's a $600 million investment in a very innovative model in the sense that the casino doesn't wrap the whole thing up into the project. they connected to the civic center so that it becomes a global player that can actually bring entertainment venues.

i have said that if it is repealed i would consider it a part of an economic development as that kind of leveraging that could provide growth by the industry. >> we are halfway through so we are going to try to pick up the pace. moore is back and lost than any state in america by far. we had three casinos if your vote is successful are either of you troubled by the fact that we have this increasing huge reliance on low and moderate income people losing money to help fund the state and local services that give -open-brace? baker: it's one of the reasons we make sure that there isn't not so people can't be opposed upon if you somehow get into

debt because of casinos so there are casino protections. baker: one of the reasons i supported the casino is i can't imagine that they would have a huge impact on the lottery which as we now know is for the common law cities and towns. it would absolutely have an impact on the other industries, hospitality, restaurant retail and to compete for that entertainment and discretionary dollars that people spent. part of what made this thing field project interesting to me is when you talk about making an investment where there is not currently a lot going on and that is what makes it attractive. >> moderator: let me ask about judges. after he murdered jennifer a lot of us believed judges would be getting tougher about repeat violent battering and yet after

he dragged his girlfriend. so what should happen to these judges? should they be able to serve until they retire or should there be something here? the coakley: we have made changes because there is more information before people are released and frankly judges should be reviewed on some of the decisions they make. there is a process that happens and they haven't made that public. and look, you can always take one case an essay while this was the wrong decision. that is obviously not the right result in that case. this has happened again and post all the talk about tightening things up. coakley: i understand it doesn't sound like the situation so much where he wasn't unveiled before he was convicted that this is leniency in sentencing the sentence guide lines.

getting the balance with judges is tough but it's something i care deeply about and it should be part of the process. do we review them in five or ten years down the road? it's done by the courts. they've not made public but i believe perhaps in cases where the results appear to be not consistent with public safety. >> moderator: what do you think should happen to the judges? coakley: baker: we made a series of renovations with domestic violence reform in the wake of the remedy case and one of the things that i learned was that he'd been in a bunch of different courtrooms and he didn't talk about this so this has got to be a part of the game going forward. you can't have people in front

of four or five judges each time people are behaving like it is the first time into court. we have to be old be altered consolidated and aggregated information so that the judges can make informed decisions about everything associated with this kind of cases. i have no problem at all and i think that it would be a good idea to have some sort of a review, judicial review that takes place every ten years or so. >> moderator: not only should there be a review every ten years but then they should have to be re- opt by the governor's council or governor's counsel or whomever. should there be another road? baker: i guess what i would say is you can either have a process where they have to be ordered a review would determine whether or not they would go before the governor's counsel. i like the latter better than the former. these are lifetime appointments. we want them to make good decisions and that's why we set it up as a lifetime appointment. everybody ought to know that at

some point they are working for the public and they should be held accountable for the decisions they make. >> moderator: i cover social services extensively, and i have a question about the department of children and families. both of you have talked about caring about affordable children and the need for the fixes. neither of you though have talked about adding more money for the agency. a federal judge recently said that the primary problem is a budgetary shortfall more than anything else. my question is do you think that you can fix without adding any more money? baker: i supported the budget for dcf in the past legislative session session before social workers and technology and a variety of other pieces but i also think there are management reforms that ought to be part of what happens and i made a bunch of reform proposals into

jeremiah oliver case that broke earlier this year. i think in many respects they have a very difficult and comfort you get a job cleaning meaning in some ways they are dealing with the more troubled and the fact that the commonwealth had an opportunity to move towards fixing this four years ago until they filed the case which was a very compelling case against the department and the attorney general chose not to fix that but instead to fight it was a problem and clearly borne out by what happened after that and in addition to that, and i said this before, you have a terrific record with respect to advocating for children. but to have the case in front of you and to stand silently by while the state of massachusetts cuts by over $40 million is a problem and shows a lack of judgment on an issue that is right in front of you.

coakley: let's be clear about what happened in this case. i always do that to the best interest of the children and families we need to represent. let's be clear about what is going on. the lawyers are suing us with a one-size-fits-all solution. it wasn't the right solution for massachusetts. i thought better use of the money to go into dcf. i planned for that for 25 years. we have an agency that has a mission to protect kids and keep families together and it's a mixed mandate. they don't do it right. by the way i'm glad that you are advocating for all these changes while you are running for governor but you had an opportunity and the secretaries need to book at the caseloads and technology and a one-year reverted to $2 million when you

could have used the workers for the case workers. is $30 million enough money? with all due respect moving things around. coakley: it's not all about money, marjorie. they don't have enough money. they could get more money. if we get more money the problems don't get solved because the structure of the agency doesn't work to get a mission to the social worker. you don't get enough support in the caseloads that are too big or they don't. i've worked with terrific social workers. i don't mean to criticize them but we need to change the structure of the agency and then we need to say that increasing technology and c-charlie would probably agree with me we need to communicate with the agency is and what the workers are supposed to do and hold them accountable when they don't get those measures.

baker: workers worked on the clinton administration and hardly what i would call partisan. the way you described that you said you did what was best for massachusetts. you should have done what was best for the children served in the department. coakley: settling the lawsuit for a one-size-fits-all isn't what everybody wanted. you said the brief is by the partisan lawyers and use it you would rather give a lot of money to al qaeda voyeurs to tell massachusetts what to do. i don't think that is a good solution for a manager or the governor of the state should do. >> moderator: they praised her work for children and we have to show when they air on television most told her children to have to leave the room. let's just watch a little piece if we can. >> more than 50 children abused,

neglected, lives cut short under the care of the massachusetts department of children and families. martha coakley knew about the mismanagement. how can we trust her again? >> beeker hiked premiums 150% raising their rates an average of $3,000 a year and eliminated nearly 2,000 jobs at his company while tripling his own salary to over $1.7 million a year. >> moderator: very quickly somebody that supports you, the former attorney general said you did a great job and you say she's done a great job with choking. i still don't understand briefly why are you not asking for super pack please take that commercial off the air it doesn't represent my values. baker: she and i are still having a discussion whether they made the right decision or not and the proof with regard to that is the tragedies and the

problems and the broken agencies that dcf became in many respects at the time and through the 40 and 50 million-dollar cuts. >> moderator: so why instead of that's that than the/her films? why don't you talk about the fact that everyone says despite your criticisms he led the saving of the program. coakley: the premium end of the salaries went up. there is factual inaccuracies and it's not just about me but suggesting i sat by while children were killed that outrageous but this is a campaign and i understand that and unless you take the pledge there is no way to control. baker: it was run by the super pack when they started running that ad against me they gave thousands of dollars to the

attorney general for the campaign-finance loopholes. to some extent she doesn't have any credibility on this issue in my opinion. >> i would agree. >> moderator: ms. johnson from the "boston globe." >> moderator: i spent five days of this summer reporting from ferguson missouri that erupted in the near constant protests after an african-american teenager was shot and killed and many of the officials in the city and the state were criticized for not understanding the circumstances that contributed to the volatile situation and so my question is how would you as governor make sure all communities have a seat at the table is is -- as well as healthcare should? >> moderator: can you give me

one example to address what she's talking about? coakley: first we want a massachusetts briefing and that means having well-trained and diversified police department and i would propose getting men and women in the fire, teaching, police services by lower forgiveness for getting people involved that would address some of those issues. >> moderator: get give me one example of addressing the question. baker: i'm proud that i've been endorsed by the law enforcement officers association because of the time and the effort but i've made getting to know the folks in the communities and a huge part of my economic development plan is about creating economic opportunity and the quality of education in the safety of those communities. it's proud to stand with 40 or 50 meters in the communities. a week ago today we talk about that plan. one other thing i would say quickly i just happened to do a

ride along the friday night when the ferguson was breaking and sergeant johnson and i wanted him to just take me around the city for five or six hours and show me what goes on. the first thing he did is he took me to dorchester high school where they were holding practice and cooking hamburgers and hotdogs and cheerleading practice and he said this is what goes on in this community on these communities which no one ever talks about. and he knew every single one of the things we have to do is we have to embed ourselves as human beings in the communities so people understand not only do we care about them but they know if we make they make it good to them we are going to follow

through. >> moderator: glad you got to ride along. it's an important job for the governor to make sure that we have a good criminal justice system. >> moderator: here is one other thing is charter schools. i went to the charter school drawing and nobody was there, no parents, no kids, then i realized the reason i didn't come is because so few kids can get and it is so depressing to go to these things and not get called year after year after year. you've been supportive not that strongly for the charter schools with 45,000 kids on the list and charlie baker said that the denying of the options of charter schools to poor kids is nothing less than a front for their civil rights. so, how is he wrong? coakley: this is where we differ because to me it is about education. i think that we have made this distinction between the charters

and non- charters. remember they were the reason that we were able to see what works and what doesn't work. early education, which i support c-charlie doesn't. the way in which we are going to give every kid that kid best possible education. it's not about charters, it's about making sure we keep that promise to take the best practices and see them in the district schools. we have innovation schools and we know what works. >> moderator: you mentioned pre- k.. we celebrated the universal plan. the universal plan has 16 or 17,000 people on the waiting list who need support. what happened? coakley: i said we will start with 17,000 kids $150 million immediately to get them into places that we have. there are parents that have that ability now. i am trying to level the playing

field and make the start. they are basically the same and i'm glad to see she will make targeted investments expanding the participation in pre- k. and the charter school question i spent a lot of time and in a lot of city schools, parochial, traditional, charter. what i'm looking for is excellent and there are many schools out there that do a good job and 45,000 parents on the waiting list. those parents deserve choices. when i knock on doors in springfield, the first question that comes up when i'm talking to someone is i don't have enough choices for my kids and these people are desperate when they talk about this. for anybody that has kids, it is

a just cause you to use the concern in their voice. and there are a lot of great traditional schools out there and one of the things i talk a lot about during this campaign is wanting to create relationships between folks that are actually doing a terrific job educating kids in traditional public schools with other folks in public schools. we don't duty in service learning and teaching best practices we should be doing doing in as governor is going to make that happen to come come a three to four times a year we have to start doing that because there are scholars performing in urban education and we are not leveraging that. >> moderator: we are going to move to two measures i want to get your thoughts on. one can with a minimum-wage increase that went to $11 it would give mandatory paid to anybody that works. do you support that? are you not concerned about the arguments of small businesses

that one or both of these things? the coakley: coakley: the minimum wage has been passed and i think most people supported that. it makes sense because we have families that are looking for an week to week to pay their rent or put food on the table and then a couple that works at the air force cleaning planes and they can barely afford to put food on the table. that's not right and the corporations they work for are doing quite well, thank you. this income inequality as we turn this around has to be for everyone. >> moderator: the states have mandatory sick pay lever connecticut and california. we would be the outlier if we became the third in part because small businesses say they should kill it. coakley: i think it is absolutely a cost of doing business they will be able to afford. this is a right for most people in this audience tonight and i did many of the viewers don't worry about earned six times. if they or their kids are sick they are about to lose their job

if they don't show up and it's a public health issue and it mostly affects women. it's disproportionately minimum-wage women who do have child care responsibilities and don't have those vouchers. this is a fairness issue and i support it and i think the people of massachusetts will support it. >> moderator: you said earlier in the campaign that he would consider, was your word, the sub and among wage for teenagers are you still considering his? baker: we should pursue what's happening which i i separate a minimum-wage legislative leaders i also believe we should file a bill as governor and advocate for small business tax credits for small businesses so they have the ability to observe the increase without taking hours away from people. just go with what we've got. >> moderator: on question for you propose a threshold of 11 employees in 50 or more. we called the national federation of independent businesses that means 120,000

businesses in the neighborhood of 1 million employees would not benefit from paid sick leave is that not troubling? baker: it would be the same as the connecticut law by the way which as you point out are the only two states in the country to have this law and both of them by the way have a lot more flexibility than the massachusetts law as written and would propose. i support doing this and i will work with the legislature to get it done but i worry a lot if we are all concerned about jobs and small businesses and their ability to grow and thrive and create opportunity if this puts us at a significant disadvantage coakley: 1.2 million people wouldn't get sick time under his proposal. >> there are a lot of people who are going to lose their existing benefits when it passes because they won't be able to access the benefits their companies currently put in place. >> moderator:

>> moderator: an organization run by the cochair of the finance committee surprised beneficiary against fannie mae and freddie mac. do you think the public should be worried about this? >> as the chief law enforcement overseer of the office of campaign political finance i think it would have been appropriate for the attorney general to disclose that relationship especially since she had financial opportunities and was the sole beneficiary of the proposal. the coakley: that statute i've been fighting it as everybody knows to keep people in their homes. the only purpose of the statute was to made sure homeowners could stay in their homes. it's not the only company that does that. it's a not-for-profit and we disclose everything we needed to. we checked and we checked again

and all of her conjugations were disclosed and we did everything we needed to do. >> moderator: some critics have suggested that you engaged in $10,000 in the new jersey gop. seven months before general kyl listed as an executive residence and received 15 million from the state pension fund and by the way they recently sold. should voters be concerned about that if he said he did nothing wrong? coakley: yes he's under investigation for the pay to play scheme. they indicate at least from my point of view a reason to investigate he's under investigation in under 33 different kinds he said he was a partner and employee of it and if that's the case than he is in violation of the law and if he's not then he should disclose his contract. >> moderator: the reports today that chris christie and the treasurer of new jersey who was appointed by chris christie

is holding up release in the investigation about this pay to play again until several days after the election in massachusetts. would you use this opportunity now to urge christie and his treasurer to disclose whatever their investigation is and prior to that report? baker: i can't control -- they are doing an investigation and i stay away from it as far as i can which i think is appropriate and they will issue the report whenever the issue is that i will say this mike mentioned the fact 33 times i point out the fact that i was working with a general catalyst. i've been completely transparent about this from the beginning. i never hide it you could try to hide anything about this. i hired a former general counsel of the commission and i gave him all of the occupation and said if there is something i need to do here, tell me. i wrote a brief on it and i made publicly available to anybody that wanted to see it.

for the voters of massachusetts that have an objection. the baker: pension board in new jersey is going to make their decision and issued the ruling whenever they finish their study and as far as i can tell based on the work that was done by the lawyer for the ftc i've done nothing wrong. coakley: that disclosing his contract would be the easy way. there's only one person at this table that has paid the fine and that would be the attorney general. coakley: i've been completely transparent. we've reverted the money to where it should have gone and i've always done that. that's why i'm calling on you. >> moderator: do you want to release it or should i?

serious questions about taxes but we don't have time so one quick question. here he is. >> who would play you in the movie of the campaign and who would play your opponent? [inaudible] >> moderator: okay. forget that. clint eastwood. final question. same question that we have before we entered the debate in the mayor's race. we focus on the cover you have if you are elected to reelect talk about power you don't have. pick one issue you don't have any statutory power would have increased funding for but you would use the bully pulpit of

the governor's office to advance. no statutory power, you just use your position as the governor of massachusetts to try to move the public. coakley: baker: we need to create more for kids to do in the urban communities and i would like to put together a big coalition of folks that are involved in all kinds of her creation will and community-based and athletic activities across the commonwealth and involving the urban communities and come up with things kids can do at night. that is a big problem. >> moderator: how about you? coakley: the legislature could also write something. i think i am most concerned about kids schools for girls and not-for-profit that just don't have the resources to get what they need not just in social work but there's a lot of kids in the state but need help. >> moderator: thank you both.

that's all the time we have. >> and we want to thank everyone for tuning in tonight. [applause] ♪ tom reed is running for reelection against democratic challenger arthur robertson. they are debating in debating an ally or a new york and it starts at seven eastern in the companion network c-span. earlier this month a democratic campaign committee canceled plans to spend $465,000 on tv ads supporting the campaign. but the candidates are still running campaign ads themselves.

here's a look at a few of them. i am tom reed and i approved this message. >> martha robertson's agenda is already hurting us. robertson opposed refitting our power plants with gas and when she didn't get her way, the supporters shouted down. robertson sacrificed our jobs for our from our community can raise our taxes and utilities because of their radical ideas on the global warming. and that is exactly like martha robertson's liberal agenda is wrong for us. >> communities first. tom reed put himself $200,000 in tax breaks for wealthy people like himself. then he voted to raise middle-class taxes by $2,000. martha robertson voted to protect our jobs. it's time to put these people

first. >> i martha robertson and i approved this message. >> i am tom reed and i approved this message. >> we know by her words martha is an extreme liberal that supports obamacare, higher taxes and nancy pelosi and her voted to double the property taxes and spend that money on pay raises and 110,000-dollar debt for herself told the same extreme stories. so whether we take her word or her vote for it the story remains the same. martha robertson is an extreme liberal and is too radical for us. >> tom reed is attacking the false negative tv ads but the facts have to matter. the aarp says the plan removes the medicare guaranteed. its effect and he voted to raise the retirement age for social security. and another fact, why? to pay for the votes to give tax breaks to millionaires like himself. that is a sad fact.

>> i approved this message. i will protect america's promise of retirement with a committee. that's a fact. >> you can see the debate between incumbent tom reed and challenger martha robertson live tonight on c-span at 7 p.m. eastern. ..

up for reelection this year. earlier this week she debated democratic challenger vincent sheheen and three other candidates. this race is listed as likely republican. from greenville, south carolina, this is an hour. >> your voice, your future, live from the campus of thurman university in greenville, welcome to a town hall south carolina gubernatorial debate brought to you by wciv, wpde, wach, wlos. please welcome tonight's moderator, mark hyman.

>> moderator: good evening, and welcome to farm in university. this is the second and final gubernatorial debate before the election. joining us this evening are dr. morgan reeves, mr. steve french, a judge tom ervin, center vincent sheheen, and governor nikki haley. the topics to be discussed tonight our education and health care. the candidates are permitted 60 seconds to answer each question. also given up to three rebuttals, which they may use at their discretion to rebut an opponent's answer or extend their own remarks. however, they must be used prior to closing statements. panelists joining me this evening are darcel grimes,

cynthia roldan, brian mcconchie, and schuyler kropf. in the interest of time and out of respect of the candidates we have asked the live audience refrain from clapping, cheering, or otherwise making noises to exceptions, at the conclusion of the debate and right now when we welcome our candidates. [applause] to our candidates, thank you, again, for joining us. good luck. time is short, so let's is started. the first question will come from darcel grimes and it will go to dr. morgan reeves >> the department of justice has warned school districts

that they are required to educate all children regardless of immigration status. now, one estimate puts the cost of doing this in all 50 states at at least $760 million. should this additional cost be the responsibility of local school districts or the federal government? reeves: i think the funding is coming from the federal government, and it should be responsible for all of the -- just take a look at the corridor of shame. president obama came down to a south carolina. and the program he pushed to schools that have been neglected in rural areas. 79 percent of children on free lunch are partial free lunch. so we turn that money down. that is what you call the is

corridor shame. borders is education. the planes in that case complain because they did not have enough money to run their schools. because i was governor. i receive that money from the federal government and would improve our schools. i would have sent jobs several areas so that it would help tax base is. and where i live we have nearly 40,000 people and only one library. >> moderator: your time has expired. the same question. french: i would like to start off by thinking of farming for having a certain night. i want to start by introducing myself again. you i am and what makes me the best candidate. i am a young father, young husband, a small-business owner that came to this state a short number of years ago in poverty, destitute party, must. nothing but a truck, a

strong work ethic, and a dream to build my business. i am running for governor because i believe that a libertarian can bring you the freest state in the next -- in the nation. everything i talked about will be based on that. it does not make you free economically or socially. to answer the question, i am not for south carolinian is paying for this. this is the federal government and their broken immigration policy. this is not free as economically by continuing to take on people we cannot support. i am 100 percentage of coming to this country legally, 100 percent about them coming here with their kids. >> moderator: judge, some question. ervin: at oppose. we simply don't have the resources to educate our own children. you look at the reasons course that cannot for south carolina schools, we have a number of school districts that are failing, and we do not have adequate resources

to provide for the education for those children. so we, first, need to set a high bar of excellence for all our public school kids in south carolina and see that we properly educate them, give them a world-class education so they will be ready for the manufacturing jobs in the future. and we also need to keep in mind that our local tax base simply is not equipped to handle a mass immigration of illegal immigrants. we are struggling as a state, coming out of an economic downturn, and it would require more tax revenue, and we simply don't need to raise taxes to try to educate. >> moderator: your answer? sheheen: i do not believe in the unfunded mandates. of the federal governor of forrest the state to do something, the federal government should pay for it. i have a simple plan for improving public education. the first graduate of public

schools in the governor's office in a long time, and i think we need that perspective begin. focus on the basics. gimmicks don't work. we obsess about standardized testing. focus on the basics from the good kids early, and that is why i support kindergarten to breed pay our teachers decent money. right now south carolina pays teachers of the were salaries in america. when we have the dollars we should focus them in the classroom on teacher pay. and if we want to get to the basics we need to shrink class sizes. gimmicks don't work, vouchers don't work. it is the basics that work. i want to create a teachers council to help us understand why we can do as a state government to improve public education. we need a governor who supports public education every year, not just an election year, and i will be the seventh. >> moderator: governor. haley: thank-you.

the question was with the undocumented children should we be paying for the local school district of the federal? >> until you is it has been troublesome to have the federal government send over undocumented children. it is dangerous for them to cross the border but more troublesome for the fact that president obama and his administration refused to close our borders. today we have over 500 undocumented children. the one month tell us today are, where they're going, which counties and school districts they're putting into saying that we have to educate. they need to close up borders, pick up the ticket, and stop sending undocumented children to our state. >> moderator: the next question will go to mr. french from cynthia roldan. >> states initially adopted a common core standards for education. since then several states have withdrawn one and four

states have delayed implementation. french: of the fastest and easiest ways to talk about this issue is getting a full , state-wide school choice program. there are so many arguments for and against. i am personally not a fan. i know what it is going to take to succeed, all but the fact is, in south carolina we were neck and neck with florida. the average student in south carolina rank better than the average three -- floridian student. floridian students not outpace the average south carolinian student, and it is because florida has enacted certain reforms. you guys out there, parents out there know what is better for your children than anyone appear on stage. you need the power and choice to be able to send your student anywhere that you see fit.

if you like, in court, that's great. i want to give you the option to continue. if you do not like common core and want to get to a charter school, private school, our own school, want to fully support that. we spend 12,000 per year per student. we can do better than we are right now. ervin: i am opposed. we can do our own homegrown right here in south carolina. i was surprised when governor nikki haley signed a memo which reauthorize common core. if you want to read it for yourself, go to my website, and you can see where the governor supported reauthorization. that was wrong. when i am governor we will fix this by adopting our own standards. we can do it in south carolina. we can make sure that parents and teachers and educators have input, and let's have our own standards in the state.

>> moderator: center. sheheen: amelie our standards should be developed. at think there's a clear distinction in this campaign . i believe that the basics need to be improved. i supported increase in teacher pay. the governor vetoed teacher pay but thought it was okay to give her own staff of 25% pay increase. and i am governor we will do the opposite, cut government staff pay increases and increase teacher pay. i think we need to catch up with other states. and i led that charged, expanded it to 17 counties. the governor vetoed the program to implement kindergarten programs. my focus is on how we improve the basics. pay our teachers decent wages. smaller class sizes. make sure that teachers are

included in decision making. make sure that every child has an on virginity tolar regardless of where they happen to live. haley: we have always opposed common core. we've worked with the center back in february of 2012 to let the legislature know how harmful lead was and that we wanted to reverse it. we came together and it are happy to say that we have reversed, in court. common color is just like a obamacare command nationalizes education and health care, but i want to talk about whether the senator is saying. just like his commercials have not been true. independent fact checkers have said that. we did not veto teacher pay. what we did was say enough of the 1-time money. and they deserve better and we did not agree with that. we did not increase our

salary staff budget. we have less than the previous seven lustration. but it will increase individual members, it is still less than the previous seven restoration. i appreciate the support, but we not only supported it in 2013 but 2014, and it went statewide this past year. reeves: i don't get it. i don't get it here. king kong is the seventh wonder of the world. i am the eighth. here we are, to politicians have been in office, 115 years, and one was the governor of the state of south carolina. all of a sudden it is everybody else's fault. you keep voting on the same people and one different results. we talk about education, let's look at our personal education. i have to doctorate degrees. that does not make me better than anyone else. i love, and court. i am a football player.

i have been hit in the had a lot of times. check this out. they both voted against legalizing marijuana, why should we not legalize marijuana when it can help our children become educated i mean, this is a powerful choice. we have two people that voted against legalizing marijuana. they come on let's legalize it. let's get on down with it. the bottom line is, 79 percent of the students in the status of carolina in rural areas and not have money. years of democratic candidates from a republican governor. >> moderator: your time has expired, and a recognized the senator. sheheen: what we need is honesty and truth. to have the governor stand here and said she did not veto teacher pay raises when she did is frankly a disturbing. is wrong to veto a teacher pay increases and give your

staff 25% pay increases. it is wrong. we need honesty, truthfulness, and the governor we can trust again some. french: i would like to talk quickly "everyone wants to talk about this initiative. the fact is, in south carolina we do not have the infrastructure to support that, the buildings, the trailers. aside from that fact, any church or fades based organization right now, you can give this pre case system. lee's death kindergarten at the faith-based organizations. we don't have that anymore. what will happen is you will eventually lose these faith based organizations before when we came into office we had three agency deficits, and the way the budget was funded was with one time money. we made a decision whining that we will not going to the paper programs ever won ton money.

40 percent went ahead and passed. we are not going to get into the budgeting of washington d.c. i don't agree with the wave they'll legislate. you don't pay people onetime money and hope you have the money next year. ervin: yes, and governor nikki haley, you signed the memo reauthorize in common corporate how can you stand appeared tonight and say you are against it when you're the one who reauthorize did in south carolina? go to my website and you can read it for yourself. you have trouble with the truth according to the state editorial board. you just cannot get it right. of what you to read the middle of website. you will see she supported it. >> moderator: we will move on to our next question from brian mcconchie. we will start with judge tom ervin. >> to continue on this theme of teacher pay, south carolina has been rings near the bottom. do you believe is harming education where?

what if anything will you do to raise teacher salary of? ervin: teacher pay is harming our state. we lost a written dozen teachers last year alone because of the fact that we are not staying competitive with neighboring states. when i was in the legislature we passed governor dick riley is education improvement act. part of that act was to make sure that teacher pay in south carolina state at the southeastern average. well, the legislature has not funded that. they should. teachers are the direct way to improve education, the direct line, and the classroom. they need to serve full time as professionals so young people can succeed in school perry made to cut down on standardized tests and to let teachers like the professionals that they are. many teachers have to buy

school supplies out of their pockets which is simply wrong. we have to do a better job of bringing the pay up to the southeast an average. sheheen: we need a governor who will support public education every year, not just in an election year. i have supported increasing the teacher pay because it is the right thing to do. you know, the for the first three years her veto pen and start replicate the case and over and over and over again paraded was not until an election year that we heard the governor talk about quick education. we have got to have a governor who can be honest with us, truthful and plans a public education every year. i remember leading the charge with republicans and democrats to overturn the veto. i remember working with republicans and democrats to create kindergarten and counties, and the governor was missing.

so either we will have on as leaders or more and more political rhetoric that is not true and does not lead this state forward. is it any wonder our public schools have suffered and been told for so long in the state and we have not had leaders who will speak the truth? haley: i support teacher pay raises. the strongest education reform in decades. we did not talk to people at the top. we talked to teachers and principals and superintendents. we spent two of the last three and a half years trying to get this passed. what did we get? reading coaches, summer camp , technology, internet to every school, private school, 1-to-1 computing, professional development money.

we did such an amazing education reform that for the first time we can say children in south carolina no longer get funded based upon where they live. we now educate children in south carolina because it is ever good education, and that is our future work force. we said then and i will say now that is the first year of making education a priority in. we met with the teachers' top suppose, and everyone else. we will continue to support our children as we go forward. reeves: teacher pay. i got you. sorry. again, everybody, here we go again. the executive branch and the legislative branch sitting there. let me tell you the politics , the art and the science concerned with control of our government. the center for the state of south carolina owned the state house.

we are in the governor's mansion, two people here that have been given by lobbyists to figure out the problem. here is our democratic and republican candidate. we gave $10 million to play in a golf tournament at myrtle beach. i am not getting at the back of the bus were you or anybody. it is not about black or white. it is what is right. they gave us. this is all changed. what do we call this thing now? >> moderator: your time has expired. reeves: i will get back to it. [laughter] french: i sound off on a lot of things that were said. to begin with south carolina when it comes to a teacher pay can we at least all agree there are certain teachers that we need to be

paying a lot more and certain teachers we don't need to be paying a halt. we need to be able to decipher how we go best about doing that. i am the only candid it up here talking about getting rid of the department of commerce which is just another crony capitalist sludge fund that cost the state hundred and $36 million a year. we can treat -- decriminalize marijuana and $757 million year. a hundred and $303,000 per school. at $30,000 bonus to start this summer with. competition, that's a good way of starting it. that's another reason i am about of fall statewide school choice program. it puts competition into schools, and i am doing it based on no income

restraint. if you have a child in this state you should get the choice and our. >> moderator: in the interest of fairness we will now reverse the order. the next question will go to governor kate tomb from schuyler kropf. >> south carom line at domestic violence demonstrated that guns were the weapons of choice and two-thirds of all killings. should the state make it easier for police to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted domestic violence offenders? >> have always believed in the second amendment and because i am a certified weapons permit holder myself i know the class is in that time in the education you need in order to be able to carry. we want to make sure we put it in the hands of responsible people which is of the passed legislation that says anyone that had been ordered by the courts to have a mental disease, they could not carry. for everyone else we want them to have the ability to

protect themselves, their homes, and their business. domestic violence plague south carolina, but we need to go deeper. a cultural issue, a generational issue. the best bet we have will be making sure that victims of domestic violence understand there is a safe place for them. they're not comfortable law-enforcement. we have to do better to make sure that in other places they can go, continue to increase penalties against domestic violence victims and make sure that we are doing all it can to educate people on how they can have a better life. >> moderator: senator. sheheen: people who have been convicted of domestic violence should not have guns. i believe in the second amendment. i believe in protecting people's rights to guns, abusers to have been convicted should not be having guns, and i am shocked to hear governor nikki haley say that she thinks it is okay. maybe we should not be since just a few years ago she vetoed funding for rape

crisis centers, funding for domestic abuse centers when we know that those women are some of the most at need women in the state for protection. i was proud to work with republicans and democrats to override the veto because it was the right thing to do and disappointed in the governor when she said that she was not going to back out to special interest groups like these victims are special interest groups. that is wrong. we have been ranked in the last two years in the the governor number one and number two in women killed by men that they know. it is a cultural problem, but we need on this leaders at the top of whoever changes. ervin: the governor has failed to lead on the issue of domestic violence. it is a shame because she could have done that. she did veto funds that would have come right here in the of state of south carolina to help save harbor , a nonprofit that works with victims of

domestic violence. not only do they have a shelter, but they go into schools and teach the next generation of young people that it is not right to hit people, not appropriate to lash out against your spouse you have to find appropriate ways to resolve conflict. yet the governor vetoed those funds. she -- i support the second amendment, and i am also a member of the nra and a holder of a concealed weapons permit, but i can tell you this, when someone is convicted of domestic violence in south carolina they have no business with loaded guns in their home did to mr. french. french: south carolina, the second amendment is your insurance policy against tyranny. everyone of us up here talking about we are all about the second amendment, but i want you to understand, that is a big point. when it comes to domestic

violence and mental illness, can we not agree that we want people with mental background or a violent background and not allowed to get weapons? the question becomes, how do we keep those weapons out of those peoples hands? unum, i am for concealing carry, but being a libertarian and about a consistent philosophy timesaver restaurant owner does not want to allow guns and his establishment in that restaurant owner, believe, is to make that decision. we have to be talking about both sides of the point. when it comes to domestic violence one of the best ways of helping this situation is getting a bunch of jobs in the state can giving opportunity so that women can leave the house sold in the will to support themselves and not be stuck in the same recurring situation. again. second amendment is the biggest insurance policy against tyranny, and i am a big supporter of it did for your answer? reeves: i say guns don't kill people. but i think you have to be very responsible whiff of

fire weapon, not only the citizens of the state of south carolina, but we need to change some of our law enforcement officers. we have law enforcement officers out here, and i have not heard the candid say anything about a young african american kid get shot at four times, you know, i am sick and tired of law enforcement that we pay this support our citizens going around in these communities like bullies. again, love the law, love your neighbor. the one thing that makes me different than everyone else , i kept got in it. and i mentioned his name more than anybody appear. but that does not make me better. don't make me start preaching. love one another.

>> moderator: thank you, doctor. the next question will come from the -- i'm sorry. rebuttal to. haley: i think it is absolutely amazing that senator vincent sheheen speaks on domestic violence. a trial lawyer who has defended many have abused women, defended individuals who have abused children, as it did not talk to us about domestic violence and stop here and say what you wanted does not work that way. the reason we veto those nonprofits is because there independent private nonprofits. it is not up to me to decide where taxpayer dollars go to individuals decide, not the budget of the general assembly. sheheen: i don't apologize for defending the constitution of the united states. but she hires lawyers when she violates the ethics laws, more lawyers than any governor in the history of the state. ..

>> >> the appointee one away. kids have died. kids have been harmed and governor haley have been covered up the numbers. this is true we talked about for one year and an audit canada few weeks ago saying that kids died when they should not have. that governor haley and her administration messed with the numbers so we have to change this state and have honesty unprotected children of south carolina. >> this is why i ran for

governor because governor haley because she has filled most vulnerable children. she stood by and let to under 51 children died between 2011 and 2013 her administration will not tell us how many kids have died this year under her watch. it is shameful what is happening at that agency. the legislative audit council has been around for years this is the third report. she knew when she took office we hadn't of crisis had the chance she knew they had too many cases assigned to them. but then over this an investigative committee to lie about the numbers of caseworkers and now read before the election we announce suddenly they found the money in governor haley administration to hire 120

new caseworkers? why wasn't that done for years ago? we could have saved some allies for the most vulnerable population in our state. french: i am well libertarian because i believe in small lead fishing government. it does have role with police and fire being fined $1 million per year because we don't have a child support online network system we have 14 years of this. we have a two-year backlog on fatalities this is prioritizing. we can give plenty of money to the things we want by getting rid of corporate subsidies and criminalizing marijuana. i think he become officers to help protect and serve you rather go after the true

criminals. we need to stop busting up the bill and ted's excellent venturing going after real criminals like the deadbeat dads and all the different men creating domestic violence. that is why i support that program as my administration project. >> the question again please? teeeighteen south carolina and they're overworked and underpaid what would do to fix the problem? reeves: we have the legislative branch and the executive branch how will the government pay everybody in the state of south carolina?

vote for them. if you want to be a democrat then go for them. i am trying to help the citizens this state of south carolina young wife does not need to work two or three jobs if we doubled our page she could stay home to spend time with children the father could stay home we're living on a big slave plantations. but in being in control? let's get somebody in new for a change. why not? that would resolve those problems. >> it has been one of the saddest agencies we have had to deal with as a mom and governor it is hard to rapper arms about the fact we have to protect children from their own parents.

this is an agency that has had problems from many different governors and many general assembly's. so we tried to make changes over the years and we have. we have put a law-enforcement liaison so caseworkers can work with law enforcement going forward also mental health officials and alcohol and drug abuse and officials to put teams around the case workers so supervisors still have cases are the second set of eyes and began on case workers to go forward it is not an easy agency i don't take that lightly it is extremely painful but we are trying every day. those case workers are trying every single day and will continue to do that going forward. >> this issue is so important. i met with a woman who was an advocate for abused and

neglected children for 30 years is she said governor haley has destroyed the department of social services it has seen more broken bones and more fractured skulls that she is seen in the previous 30 years that is so critical this important this racism need have leadership and the governor's office. >> moderator: the next question. >> the affordable care act for the u.s. supreme court rules to expand medicaid from south carolina what positions do not expand medicaid? ervin: data like obamacare whole congress appeals it or fixes that but the united states supreme court says it is a lot of the land. once the supreme court said

that governor haley said in a board decision to make. will she take our tax money back and expand coverage for 330,000 of our people who had no coverage who could not see a doctor or get treatment? or would she make it a political decision? and here's how governor haley decided the issue. what will be best for her election? the political future? it would be best to reject it. like fighting obama. i am different. what i would do is use my christian faith as a guiding principle and take care of the folks that needed most. >> moderator: your time is expired.

french: south carolina the federal government is broke. it is broke. they have no money. i stepped back in october when my son was about to be born in the government would shut down the moment we have another gridlock in congress that money will not come back to south carolina they don't have it. their printing it on your children and your grandchildren. i know what it is like to make $5,920,000. book get my tax return by a understand people wanting medicaid but we have to keep the program's strong for those that needed if you're under 18 i want you to be able to have coverage but i have full coverage health insurance will have seen a policy more than double in the past two years when i had my firstborn son i have

to pay 100% of a pocket because now with private coverage you cannot get maternity care anymore that is a obamacare has given us with that is access we have a world of pain coming. enough for expanding medicaid. reeves: 94 expanding medicaid. and therefore the government. this is why. the government controls medicaid as the state's and federal government program to provide health care with people with more income. it pays for services such as preventive health care. it pays for doctors. it pays for some people's medical bills are we out of our mind? and then there have to worry

about ebola. we have to live on a 2014 budget for medicaid for the next few -- for years. where have those jobs gun? they were both there. >> absolutely was the right decision not to accept medicaid expansion. i said this it was bait-and-switch for obamacare. promise to hold a new set of people they will get new coverage when we have old promises we have not kept. our promise these major we are creating jobs to the private sector but what we have seen with obamacare is people will continue to see their doctors their premiums go up with the quality of health care to go down and see small businesses have to

have workers because of the cost of obamacare. it was not good than it is not good now we will not be a part of it. >> we should keep our tax dollars in south carolina is insane for governor haley to take our tax dollars sending to other states to defend the jobs that could be created and the care for an idea comes from a republican or democrat the fed also carolina and florida provided not support some things like the individual mandate price support keeping medicaid tax dollars here. in rural south carolina our hospital is slated to close down in a few months because governor haley is blocking the earned a medicaid tax dollars from coming there would we say to the people in chesterfield or union whose hospital will golding kraft door are closing

because governor haley does throw a political career above the good of those communities? what do we say to the people , 300,000 of us that should be getting help with their health insurance except the governor blocking it to a general hospitals are not closing down because of medicaid expansion not be accepted but it is because the rural population is getting smaller and the people that are left are choosing to drive to more modern facilities. what we decided with several hospitals we're paying 90 percent of all uninsured patients a month into percent of all medicaid patients we started the transformation program to let them have verging care facilities when they treat chronic disease and help with the emergency room issues and a partner with larger hospitals. >> moderator: your time is expired.

french: ladies and gentlemen, our governor tells us she is not for the expansion of medicaid but read the notes so many other organizations are expanding medicaid at a faster rate. look at the numbers it will be 16% expansion and they say by 2020 anti-takeover 30 percent of the budget. this is not sustainable or something we can do. we need to stop picking and choosing winners and losers to have free market competition. >> when we look at the role hospitals and our state, 14 lost money and one went bankrupt and when they go wonder they have a health care cost so the university of south carolina said

trading 42,000 high-paying jobs but yet she turned her back on the taxpayer money teeeleven with the supreme court rules what happened? we'll tell you. health care should stay in the hands of the federal government and has not missed a beat the federal government never lets you down with these insurance companies but what we did the health plan can no longer limit the benefits. >> moderator: your time is expired. we will have one more question but due to time constraints it is an absolute 302nd response.

>> moderator: childhood obesity is on the rise leading to other health problems. what would you do to address the problem? french: it is about self carolina economics. making $15,000 a year i had no money to go anywhere but mcdonnell's or buy organic produce or blueberries or fresh fruits and vegetables. this is about raising the poverty level in this state 25 percent of south carolina on medicaid money to talk rupp people getting money in their pocket to get the things that they need to 11 repeat the question. >> moderator: how would you address obesity in this state? reeves: i would address the issue the government doesn't know everything.

and to respect the doctors out here so why not include the cannabis plant to hill -- deal people? >> moderator: your time is expired. haley: obesity is an issue really care about the lot of the diseases are coming up because of it initially looking at the food stamps with their buying and they would eliminate those end d.c. was quick to say we could do that as a look get the most chronic counties to incentivize them to take nutrition classes and buy healthier. >> moderator: your time is expired. >> we need to set a good example in the schools to encourage local produce and

choices. i have an eighth grader who might be watching this. >> i want him to eat well in the schools we set an example it can lead to a healthy lifestyles rises -- joyce's. >> one of three children are living in poverty we have to raise the minimum wage to buy healthier foods incursion into exercise in public schools. >> moderator: this concludes the question period rebuttals are expired we do have closing statements earlier the campaign drew cards to determine the closing remarks. french: south carolina and new hampshire may have the

most popular saying give me liberty or give me death but i think we have the best while a brief i hope. while i read i hope that something i have said as it touched a nerve hits you in your mind or sold because i want you to know that you have the power of your child's education you to make the best decisions for them that $250 back every month in your own money only to wake up with the government to tell you you cannot cannot love it is in a breaking tradition with transportation for corruption and violence against women and if you

vote for me you will make a difference not just in the state but in the united states. sheheen: is being governor is more than hanging and the governor's mansion we need honest leadership governor haley department of health and abetted tuberculosis outbreak over year ago and did not tell the parents for almost two months after it became known i went to make "meet the parents" and they told me why doesn't governor haley come hear? why were we told there was a tuberculosis outbreaks? why did teachers' contract it? i met with them again months later and i promised i would tell the story so i am telling it to you. sova to say that they have been exposed when they tried to get jobs this is bigger

than the stages of honesty and leadership to bring south carolina to gather to begin -- together again i ask report. reeves: it is now ended down stretch at university we put the polls out that was personal opinion but let me say to all of you what separates me from the rest i keep god in the pitcher and i have mentioned his name with anybody may he bless your children. vote democrat fell for then they think they have wrapped up and hope we can show them something different this year. >> we have a vested government money can buy and in a sad way it is true

about self carolina just the past week governor haley there was in a loophole exploited by taking contributions in excess of the limits taking $70,000 from a shady businessman in texas and the senator took 30,000 from the trial lawyers. and returning to the contributions but she doesn't act that way we need changes in this state. i am an independent and not thai political parties or special-interest. but to swap corruption. >> moderator: your time is expired. haley: it is about honesty that is why the state was

notified about tuberculosis after we were contacted. last amassed for your support you had no reason to support me. i wanted a good education for children and jobs for the people now four years later i'm not asking you to go on my word that our results and where we are. there has been a lot of negativity and there has been a lot here tonight but we can handle it. look at south carolina today over 57,000 jobs 45 of 46 counties welfare to work the third best in the country to do business. lots of transportation so what i tell you now it is a great day in south carolina the ladies and gentlemen, we're just getting started god bless. >> moderator: this concludes a televised debate thanks for joining us

tonight we're a lot of time. good night. ♪ >> martha represent extreme liberal agenda is hurting as.

she opposed refitting power plants of natural gas when she denied get her way her supporters wanted to shut it down. they're willing to sacrifice our jobs and community and raise our taxes and utility bills because of their radical ideas on global warming. that is why she is too extreme with the liberal agenda and is wrong for us. >> there are those who put country and community first. tom reed put himself first by voting $200,000 in tax credits for wealthy people like yourself. then he voted to raise middle-class taxes on us by $2,000. martha robinson will cut middle-class taxes it is time to put these people first again. i approve this message. >> i am tom reed i approve the message. >> we know by her word

martha is a liberal who supports higher taxes higher than nancy pelosi. and then will spend that in case of for her so what we take her word? martha robinson is too radical for us the facts have to matter they are pieces tom reeves plan cometh removes the medicare guaranteed. is a fact so we paid for reads those to give tax breaks to millionaires like himself that is a sad fact. >> by martha robinson and i approve this message i will protect america's promise to retire with dignity. that is the fact.

>> when our founding fathers wrote the founding documents and intended for corporations to run the show is intended for teachers and electricians and plumbers to make decisions that affect us and i have found that montana is afraid that they're not quite smart enough and the reason i have stepped up to the plate but he denied have to be a silver spoon fed politician to represent working families the best workers represent us is one of us.

>> i think we're getting experience you have an experience to represent the state was one year in the house of representatives with a background as a high-school teacher? >> absolutely by now people have read about my background in poverty in billings in the diversity that i experienced that have dedicated my life to education a pathway to overcome the diversity i have experienced to be in a working-class family in the state of montana absolutely makes me the best person to be in the united states senate. >> into a greek we knew to have more citizen legislature in washington where men and women with real-world experience to bring that back. . .

fonta o