businessman charlie baker. also independent candidates, evan falchuk, scott lively and jeff mccormick. patrick decided not to seek reelection. from springfield, massachusetts, this debate is courtesy of wbez tv. good evening. welcome to the wbez gun nor tor yal debate. i'm jon keller for webz. welcoming our listeners, and our

viewers and c-span. welcome to the candidates for governor. the five people who gathered 10,000 certified signatures to qualify for the november 4th ballot. they are, the republican nominee, charlie baker, a former state government official. the democratic nominee, martha cokely, attorney general of the commonwealth since 2007. united independent party nominee, falchuk. and scott lively, a missionary pastor. and independent jeff mccormick, a venture capitalist. candidates, welcome to you all. >> thank you. >> before we begin, a quick word about our format. i'll be asking questions, some of which were submitted by citizens to cbs boston.com. each candidate will have up to 45 seconds to respond to the same questions, so you can compare their answers. after they've had their initial say, we will enter open periods

of rebuttal and cross-talk where candidates can question one another and engage directly. there are only three strict rules. no talking over each other, no filibustering, and total utter obedience to the moderator. sound fair? >> sure. >> very much. >> thanks. let's begin our debate. you'll go first in the sequence, mr. baker. we'll go in alphabetical order and rotate who goes first. the last couple of years have been plagued by a range of managerial failures costing lives and millions of dollars, including oversight of compounding pharmacies, the health connector website, the rollout of medicinal marijuana dispensaries and tragic errors at the department of children and families. here's my question. what went wrong with executive branch management, and how will you avoid similar embarrassments on your watch? mr. baker, 45 seconds.

>> i think the biggest thing that went wrong, jon, is the commonwealth took their eye off the ball. the problem we faced here in massachusetts, it was clear before it was launched a year ago, that there were going to be issues and problems with it. and the health care connector board went ahead and did it anyway, much to the chagrin of the massachusetts residents and hundreds of millions that is a result of that. we still have a broken connector with no idea what's going to happen next. the medical marijuana problem, basic principles associated with management weren't pursued. step by step by step, that process didn't work. i think the most important thing the next governor's going to have to do is have a firm hand on the tiller and follow through and execute. >> thank you. miss cokely? >> there are a lot of things that have gone right in the last four and eight years of this administration. including innovation, education investments, infrastructure investments, and a very tough economy, by the way, that we

know we're coming out of now. one of the things that the next governor needs to do, and i will do, is look at those issues and see how we better. i've already talked about the reason that we need to change our structure at the department of children and families. i've known that for the last 25 years, having worked with kids and families for as long as i have. we needed vision in that agency that worked just to protect kids. and i know we can do it under governor cokely. i know, and i've said under the marijuana licenses, we needed to do a better job. i will do a better job on that. the health connector is on its way to being fixed. that was an error and we need to do better, with technology. >> it's relatively easy to describe the things that have gone wrong and said, i would have handled it perfectly, differently if i were the governor. we don't know the different things that will go wrong under the next administration. and what's gone wrong more than anything is the question of leadership from the governor to be communicating with the public saying, this is what happened,

this is what we're going to do it, and provide the confidence and faith that we need in the government for the important work we need it to do. when these are used as political fodder, it's predictable what charlie and martha were going to say when they answered that question, as a voter i want to see voters treated like adults. >> mr. lively? >> i believe this government is too big, that power is centered too much at the top. i think we've been following liberal policies for a very long time. that just inherently cause trouble in the management process. my goal would be to streamline government, to downsize, to return power back to the localities. i believe in the original perspective of the founders of this commonwealth in a government of limited delegated powers. and we instead have been following a marxist big government that is doomed to

failure. it doesn't matter who's at the top. >> thank you. mr. mccormick, 45 seconds. >> thank you for your journalistic integrity for having all of us here. i'm here with my wife christine. i'm a father of three. i'm running because the system is indeed broken. i've created thousands of jobs, often in technology companies that solve the problems. we don't have the technologic l where withal to create deficiencies. we would have avoided this whole website integration issue. there's so much we could do if we just break from the status quo. and we're not doing it now. that's why we need an independent voice. >> rebuttal, mr. baker? >> i think one of the major problems associated with what's happened, especially with something like the health connector, is one-party government. you have a health connector board that's made up of representatives from the governor's office and attorney general's office.

they're all part of the same team. the legislature is led by democrats. and here we sit a year into this, and we still don't have any visibility into what actually went wrong, what could be done to fix it. no one knows what the total value of the price tag's going to be other than it's going to be north of $500 million in taxpayer money. and we're the only state in the country, jon, where no one who is involved in the bombing out of that particular initiative lost their job. >> go ahead. >> let's talk about dcf. i'm the only one on this stage who has actually worked with families, and the kids, who has testified. kids, who like this young woman i met who said, you handled my case when i was 13 years old. the sex abuse. i'm 30 now. i've gone to work, i've got a college degree. i still have nightmares. but i came to thank you. it's the work that i have done and the reason why i have come up with a plan to fix dcf. i'm the only one who's done it. charlie was head of the secretary of health and human services, and one year reverted $2 million. when he could have been working

to make kids safer. >> go ahead. and we'll get you in, gentlemen. >> in the 1990s, we hired hundreds of additional social workers. we got the caseload down. by the way, the child welfare league of america, which is the organization that the governor brought in to actually do an audit and analysis on what was broken at dcf, actually gave us awards during that period for the work that we did. i'm proud of it. i can tell you this, i would not have chosen not to fix the agency as opposed to lit gate that case. >> i need to -- >> go ahead. you'll make up the time. promise. >> i've been very clear that that case didn't have a merit. the case was dismissed. and what we said was, rather than spend millions of dollars on outside lawyers, let's work on a solution that one size fits all to make that happen. that's what we need to do here. and i'm the one who knows how to do it. >> mr. falchuk?

>> this is the reason i'm running. we need to have people that will deal with these issues. the stuff that we're talking about here has to do with children that lost their lives. children who have been put at risk. there's an argument going on, you guys, both you martha and charlie, have been having this argument attacking each other, talking about these issues that are really serious things. and used for political fodder. we should be able to work together on solving these issues. it's disrespectful to voters and certainly to the lives of those who have been lost to talk about them in these ways. >> either one of you want to respond? >> i agree with evan. the super pac that is up to charlie wolf criticizes me for what was doing what was in the best interest of commonwealth. that shouldn't be a political football. >> both of you have had plenty of super pac opportunities to support what you're doing in your campaign. i sent out a challenge to both of you in july saying when you agree we should amend the u.s. constitution to eliminate super pac.

there was no response from either of you on this issue. >> i'll get back to you. i promise. go ahead. >> i read the brief that was filed in 2010. it's a compelling brief written by a nonprofit children's rights groups that managed to settle cases with 15 other states and moved forward to fix what was wrong in child welfare. you're right, evan, there should be nothing more important than making sure child welfare agencies do the work they're supposed to do. anybody who read that brief would come away thinking that the right thing would be to fix it and move forward on a settlement instead of litigating it for four years. >> i will let you respond. >> that is an unmitigated disaster. it is the poster child for out-of-control government. it completely tramples parental rights. the justinea pelletier case created a national outrage. that child, that girl would still be in dcf control if it hadn't been for the pressure

brought by millions of people across the country. dcf should be shut down, frankly. >> let's let mr. mccormack in. >> this is not something that prosecutorial skills or financial engineering will solve. we need, roll up your sleeves, solutions on this. this has been going on for decades. i'm the only one who put out a plan. i listened to people. we need to change the system completely. so it serves the constituency, which are the most at-risk people in our commonwealth, our kids. >> go ahead. >> and so charlie has read the briefs, but i have sat with those families, i have sat with the people for years. and i am the one who has put out a plan, jeff, with all due respect, to say that we need within the agency a division that will just protect kids. i've seen what happens when we don't doit. when your administration was cutting caseloads and cutting budgets, we were seeing the uptick in the caseload where i

worked. >> rebuttal? >> i would say two things. one is, no one is questioning your work as a child advocate across your long and distinguished career in the public sector. >> i am. >> i'm not questioning her work. it's work that she and all of us should be proud of. but on the choice you made with respect to that case, i simply believe, and i think the history has borne me out on this, massachusetts and the children served by that department would have been better served if the commonwealth had moved instead to fix what was wrong at that agency, instead of litigating that case. because here we sit today with an agency -- i have a plan, too, by the way. no one disputes the fact that we need a plan at dcf. but what everybody does agree on is the agency has major issues and we're still litigating a case that was filed four years ago. >> final word across the board. then we'll move ahead. >> we made the right decision,

because with the lawyers outside wanted to do is one size fits all. it wasn't right for massachusetts. the globe said that. the only one standing up for it were the lawyers that would benefit. >> it's important that we get on to the -- this is a serious issue, but we're getting in the weeds on this. i think a lot of voters would listen and say i'm not sure what they're talking about. i'm trying to figure out who the next governor is going to be. >> go ahead. >> the next governor should be a weed whacker. getting back to your first question, jon, we have not had leadership on beacon hill that gets down into the weeds and down into the details, and out onto the front lines, to find out what's really going on, ond to make sure that what we're saying is happening is really happening. >> i don't know how any of you can be talking about caring for children when every single one of you supports the killing of unborn babies in the womb. you talk about born babies, how much you care for them.

yet they're being slaughtered by the thousands in massachusetts. you all support it. >> thank you. i'm going to move on now. and keep in mind, you can return to this if you choose later on in the open period. that's your right. you'll start here, miss coakley, for this question. in the most recent poll, the majority of respondents cited the economy and taxes as the issues most important to them. let's turn to those topics now. when you're governor, will taxes go up, go down or stay the same? >> what we need to do is start with priorities and where we need to invest, in early education, in making sure that our workers get earned sick time, investing in education. so as our economy grows, and it is growing, that we're able to supply for people across the commonwealth the skills they need. computer skills, science skills. we were at a forum the other day with sciences, and the growth in

that particular industry is enormous. so as we look at where we're growing, and investing in education for people so they can do those jobs, i have said, let's make sure that we increase those revenues, that we look for efficiencies in quogovernment. and i'm sure we'll talk about that. and if we invest in the roads and bridges, we'll make that decision with the people in the state and legislature. >> you mentioned that bioforum. you were at the bioforum. they didn't invite the independent candidates. you may have seen that the worcester coalition partners called me and i imagine the others and told us, you're not allowed to come to the debate. martha, you put out a statement that you think there should be six debates and include all the candidates. will not both of you join in saying we won't go to that forum unless you invite the independents?

>> that was not our decision obviously on either the forum or the debate. >> you could do so. >> if charlie wants to join me to revisit it. >> i'm saying, don't go if -- >> voters have a chance and a right to see who's running. i don't control what they do. >> as governor, a leader -- >> tell you what. you can get back in this later on if you like. mr. lively, 45 seconds. >> if i am elected governor, taxes will go down substantially. frankly, i would like to give back every dollar that i'm able to save by streamlining and downsizing government. but i can't do it as fast as i'd like to, because we have $129 billion of debt. and we have a responsibility to pay that down at the same time. so i'd say for every dollar that we save, by streamlining, downsizing departments, getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, that we take half the money toward the debt, half back to taxpayers. >> thank you. mr. mccormick?

>> the middle class is hurting right now. their earning power has gone down considerably. i think we ought to increase earned income credits. i think we also ought to roll the income tax back to 5%, as people voted quite some time ago. but we need to do it sensitively through attrition. and i have a plan to attract businesses to communities throughout the commonwealth, creating jobs, like i've created jobs by the thousands. we need to do that throughout the commonwealth. you do that through things like doubling the historic tax credit. we need to get rid of the inventory tax. that's a job killer, upwards of 50,000 jobs that could be created with that. we also need to have specific incentives to move into our gateway cities again in the form of a tax break. >> thank you. mr. baker? >> taxes under a baker administration will go down. we've proposed tax cuts for the inventory tax. we've proposed tax cuts for small businesses. we've proposed tax cuts for

people coming on public assistance. the most important thing we've done, jon, is put out a very specific, very detailed, very comprehensive economic development and growth plan. the greatest thing we can do here in the commonwealth of mass is make the kind of decisions that will create growth and jobs across the commonwealth. my first thought as a candidate, is with the emerging technology center. it was a masterful partnership between manufacturers in merrimack valley. we need to do more of that. >> thank you. rebuttal, miss coadley? >> by the way, it leaves us with at least a $300 million deficit with income we have now. so he hasn't explained where that's going to come from. more importantly, if we don't invest also in our education, particularly computer science and stem with our kids, we're not going to have the work force, even if you give tax cuts to corporations. i talked to one business who said we moved south because

health care and energy costs are high. they said, we moved back up here because we want people with a good 8th grade education. >> this is the challenge with efface in massachusetts is the high cost of living. it is driven by health care costs. the amount of money that my wife and my three kids have to pay for health care coverage is driven by how much it costs to go to the hospital. since the 1990s when charlie was at hhs and they decided to deregulate the hospital market, and this is the deal with partners, that martha's trying to get approved, they're been raising prices relentlessly. it's taking money out of people's pockets. >> why don't you start, mr. baker, and we'll get miss coakley in there. >> we need to create full transparency around price and performance in health care. i can't think of any other sector of our economy where the same service delivered to the same person with the same outcome at four different institutions within a couple of miles of each other can vary in price by as much as 300% or

400%. that more than anything has been driving up the cost of health care. the baker administration, we will have transparency around price and performance. it bothers me that you can learn more about a refrigerator, a washing machine than you can about health care. we should get serious about opening up the cloak. >> go ahead. >> two things. it was under charlie baker's administration that partners was allowed to be created with mass general. o the second thing is the agreement we reached to be approved by the court caps costs, and lowers costs as opposed to maintaining the status quo that we all agree is too expensive. >> the deal you made is closing the barn door after the horses have left. >> but go back and forth a little on this. you have a clear disagreement. >> you're taking money out of people's pockets a little more slowly, but the damage has

already been done. >> that's not true, evan. it puts price caps on what they can charge. it holds them accountable for better quality. and other than just filing a suit and making it a status quo, it's a better result for consumers and costs. >> i read the deal. and in there, i see what you're talking about, slowing the growth. the problem is the distortion has already happened. partners is fresh out of hospitals in eastern massachusetts to buy. they'll be looking west. the distortions will continue. >> the problem is systemic. what you folks are talking about is picking at things around the edges. the system itself is corrupt. we're talking about the most extensive mani state in the world. in massachusetts it's outrageous. we are spending money that we don't have. and we -- and the prices keep going up and up and up. you keep asking for more and more taxes. we need to reverse that trend. >> i have to tell you, we both

worked in health care. you obviously at harvard pilgrim for a long time. transparency is going to help. that will also take years to implement. we need to change the delivery model. we need to emphasize primary care, and community health care centers to bring down the costs. it is proven that we'll save a considerable amount of money, and get better outcomes. >> rebuttal? >> i agree with a lot of what he said. the only thing, jeff, i agree we need to put more money into primary care. that's in my health care reform plan. i believe the transparency piece should be done, and done quickly. every study that's been done shows that the biggest single factor of driving up health care in massachusetts is the incredible disparity between and among providers with respect to what they get paid. frankly, i don't think that can be solved through bureaucratic infighting. whether it's the agreement with partners or the health care commissioner or something else. the way to deal with this is to

make everybody post their prices. i don't think that would be that hard to do. >> final words on this. >> one thing we're talking about is what are the values that drive you when you're making decisions as governor. i have this question for charlie. we're talking historically. how is it, and what do you say to people when you successfully turned around harvard pilgrim but left 3,500 seniors off. you tripled premium costs and tripled your salary. >> response? >> let's get one thing straight. i walked into a health plan that employed thousands of people across massachusetts, new hampshi hampshire, and maine. in addition to that, it owed hundreds of millions of dollars to hospital organizations, and other health care providers across eastern mals. if harvard pilgrim had gone down, thousands of people in massachusetts would have lost their job. and a whole series of very important health care institutions would have gone away. the fact that we saved harvard pilgrim, and it was a we, there was a lot of people involved in

that, saved jobs for thousands of people, saved many really important health care organizations here in massachusetts. and i believe was a major turning point in trying to reset the marketplace. >> and in a not for profit, your salary went from $600,000 to $1.7 million. how do you explain that to people whose premiums went up, who lost their care? >> briefly. >> my salary was set by the board. it was completely consistent with market salaries overall. it wasn't something i spent a lot of time, frankly, negotiating with, with the board on. and i'm so proud of the work that we did to save that organization, and the thousands of jobs that came with saving it. >> we have a break at hand. i'm going to give you a few seconds. >> what charlie is saying about the prices going up is true. the transparency is in the hands of the attorney general's office. they know it as well. they're both two sides of the same coin on this issue and we need new leadership. >> you can revisit this later if you'd like. let's take a break, have a sip of water. and when we return, the wbz

gubernatorial debate will continue. please stay with us.

a break in this massachusetts governor's debate, five candidates in this debate. martha coakley, charlie baker, and three independents, evan falchuk, mr. lively.

>> welcome back to the wbz gubernatorial debate live from the studios in boston. let's resume oir debate here. mr. falchuk, you'll lead off with this question. we'll get back to the policy stuff in a moment. but here's a question that hopefully will give us a little insight into your character. what was the most difficult decision you ever had to make in your professional life? and why did you decide the way you did? 45 seconds. >> it was the decision to go about founding a new independent party and running for governor. it's a departure from a successful business career, and talking with my wife and with

our kids, who have been hugely supportive. i think the system is not representing people. i felt the way to change it was not just to run, but build a new party that everyone is equal, and the government's got to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. i think we have an obligation and opportunity to inspire people about the chance to be involved when we see 16% of people voting, in the primary, it's a terrible sign for our democracy. when a majority of our legislators run unopposed. it's not good for resolving these issues. i feel it was a tough choice but i feel hop enored to be a part this. >> mr. lively? >> that's a tough question. i've made a lot of career choices that were difficult to make. the one i suppose was more challenging in recent years, i closed down a successful law firm in southern california. i was a managing partner in a firm. in order to go back on the mission field, i gave up substantial salary. and really, it was a very good

lucrative business. my wife and i now run an inner city mission in springfield, massachusetts. we bought an abandoned house in the middle of the hood. we set up -- our church serves the most disadvantaged people in our society. but it was worth it. >> thank you. mr. mccormick? >> john, i'd have to say it's starting up a company to treat als, and it was a struggle. and neurological diseases are extremely complicated. and in growing that company, and going through clinical trials, and having outcomes of a trial that didn't make sense to anyone, that was a real gut-check moment. my wife and i talked about it. we had more than double down. it was a huge investment. we felt it was the right thing to do. because not only do we believe it's going to ultimately help als patients, but we think our findings in the laboratory are going to lead to other neurological diseases like some

break-throughs in parkinson's and alzheimer's which other people are going to pick up and take to the next level. that was a very, very tough decision. >> mr. baker? >> great decision or professional? >> you can define it however you want. >> when harvard pilgrim was in terrible trouble, we made a decision to exit the rhode island marketplace. that involved thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of members. and that was easily the hardest decision i ever had to make. i'm proud to say that we worked overtime to make sure everybody who was in active treatment stayed in active treatment. we made sure every organization that worked with us got paid for the services they rendered. we did everything we could to make sure every single person who worked for the organization the opportunity to find other employment as we went through that process. but that was -- that was the classic example of having absolutely no way out, and no

good choice. we had to make it. to this day, i still think it was the toughest decision i ever had to make. >> the easy decision for me was after law school and working in a big firm, making a call to go into public service. the hardest decision, once i was there, working with district attorney tom reilly, and active as head of the child abuse department. i wanted to be in the courtroom trying cases for victims. and this was the hardest job i've ever had and the hardest decision. i hadn't done child abuse cases before. as charlie knows, numbers of cases were growing. including physical abuse cases. we started to work with doctors around broken limbs and fractured skulls. and one 8-year-old ended up in the emergency room, we had that case. it made me a much better district attorney, and i think prosecutor and problem solving around domestic violence and child abuse. >> i should have noted this was a question submitted by cbs

boston.com by steve in arlington. would anyone like to follow up or rebut anything they heard? >> i want to congratulate jeff. one of the good pieces of news this summer after all the crazy stuff around the ice bucket challenge was because of the money that was raised on that, the clinical trials have been, you know, they're ahead by three or four years now. that kind of debilitating disease, and what we're actually able to do in massachusetts with our biotech, people like jeff are willing to invest in it, means not only an economic driver for massachusetts, it means people's lives are going to be better. >> it was personally and professionally disinvited from the biotech meeting. >> you'll start here, mr. lively. let's turn back to an issue that made the top five issues on voters' minds, according to the wbz amhurst poll. homeland security. the u.s. supreme court yesterday declined to hear the appeal of a

conviction on terrorism charges. mahani's associate of stoeten is on the fbi's most wanted terrorist list and believed to be a key isis operative. these are only the most recent names on a growing list of terror suspects and perpetrators from massachusetts. and boston is one of just three u.s. cities where the feds are focusing efforts to deter recruitment of terrorists. so here's my question. is massachusetts in some way a magnet for terrorists? if so, why? and what would you do as governor to help proactively identify them before they act out? >> well, i think, yes, massachusetts is a target. because it's a liberal state. if you look around the world, the place where radical islamists are going are the most liberal countries. the netherlands, england, sweden, and in the united states. they're going to the states with the highest democrat

populations. and greatest amount of power. it's because they know that they can get away with more. in a society where there's not a lot of scrutiny, where people don't have guns to defend themselves. the places they're going is where they have the strongest gun laws. they're going to the places where the government is the most -- is concentrated at the highest. so there's no local focus. >> thank you. mr. mccormick? >> i don't think we're really a magnet other than the fact that we're a very cosmopolitan area. we have a lot of influence on what happens in the united states. and in fact, in the world. and i think that people from abroad who want to inflict terror, they want to get an impact. so, of course, they're going to go to the kinds of cities that they think that they can make that. and be seen. they're not going to go to nowhere. they're going to come to some of the major northeastern cities, for example, jon. i think what we need to do as governor, we have to work with

our federal government very, very closely. those agencies don't talk to each other well at all. obviously our state agencies don't either. and a lot of this is going to come down to just relentless use of technology, and vigilance. >> thank you. mr. baker? >> i would agree with jeff's opening comment there, that i think the cosmopolitan nature of massachusetts and boston has something to do with it. we have a lot of people who come here to go to school. we have a lot of people who come here to work. we have a lot of people who visit here. we're a terrific location geographically in terms of someone's ability to get to and from a lot of different places from here. and i think as a result of that, as governor, there's probably no single priority that should be higher than the protection in public safety as a people here. i can tell you that as governor, i would make sure that my administration was in constant contact with federal agencies, city agencies, national security agencies, and i would take a personal interest in making sure that we did everything we could to stay on top of everything

that's going on in the cyber community, in the maritime community, and in the community generally. >> thank you. miss coakley? >> i remember like it was yesterday, i was district attorney on the second floor in the tallest building in cambridge on 9/11. we knew after that second plane hit, that the country was being attacked. even in boston, which we later learned the planes had come from there, but we had to leave that building. as a result of that, though, and i know this, because as district attorney working in the organized crime strike force, since that time, in the state level, and improving communications, we have a terrorism task force. we stay in touch all the time. and what we need to do as governor is make sure that we continue that communication, that we look at better threat assessment tools. because new york, boston, all those cities will be in there, and we continue to deter threats, to respond as we did in the boston marathon as soon as we can. and keep that communication

going. >> thank you. mr. falchung? >> the world is a dangerous place. the government has an important obligation to make sure everyone is kept safe. when we saw in boston after the marathon bombing, the heroic work done by the police, but as residents of massachusetts, we were told stay in our homes. in my community that happened. when you saw the very militarized police in the streets, this is a worrisome development. and when you think about the words of the national anthem calling us, this is the home of the brave, we're brave. we can handle the kind of threats that exist in the world. yes, law enforcement needs all the tools it has, but our civil liberties should not be negotiable. >> rebuttal anyone? >> sure. >> go ahead. >> on that friday, i know i went to where all the police were. because we didn't know who was at large and where they were. we understood that the judicial system had to control that. i worked to make sure we got

search warrants for places in cambridge. because if we were ever going to bring cases we knew they would be held to the u.s. constitution. we need a balance between the way we get information and collect it. but we're dealing now without borders, people who come out, and sharing information, doing threat assessments under the rule of law is the way we'll keep people safe. >> response? >> the rule of law is increasingly interpreted to allow the government to snoop on people's e-mails, and we've got secret -- >> we need to respond with the rule of law and not the subject of terrorist threats. >> this is what's happening. it's happening at the state level as well. we need leaders that are going to say, we need to stand up against these terrorists. they need to be held to account but protect people's civil rights. >> go ahead. >> i'll go back to something evan said back at the beginning of the conversation, which is, of the debate, which is that public leaders, public officials need to be forthright and public with people and open with them about the decisions that they

make. i happen to think on this particular one, most of the people that i know, and most of the people i've talked to about the issues around surveillance, and phone calls, and wiretaps, and all the rest, the big issue people had was that this was all going on and no one in the government was telling them about it. i think people -- i also think people are not only brave, i think they're old enough and mature enough to have a conversation about this. i think that's part of what's been missing. >> one thing here that i would add to my original comment, that is the problem we have with immigration. that we need to be -- we need to close the borders from illegal immigrants. we need to stop bringing so many radical islamists into our country. if you look and see where the radicals are going, they're also going to the places that have the most liberal policies regarding immigration. >> you made that point. rebuttal to that? >> sure. i think we do need a system that is fair to people.

including residents who are here. that means that you need the rule of law, and ability to make sure we have information that we can assess. and protect. and there are times, charlie, and i know this, when you can't tell everybody what you're doing in realtime, but i believe government information should always be made public at some stage. >> 61% of the companies founded in the commonwealth are founded by immigrants. this country was built largely by immigrants. >> legal immigrants. >> most of us are descendents of immigrants. >> legal immigrants. >> people don't have a sign on them. i have friends all over the world that come here saying our government does the best job possible to keep terrorists out of the country. no one would disagree with that. but it is a function of technology, it is a function of agencies working together, states working together with the federal government. it is a complicated situation. >> go ahead. i'll move on after this. >> the government issue, i talked to enough folks in law

enforcement at the state level to know that the federal government, to follow up on the attorney general comment, there are situations when the federal government is not even telling people at the state and local level about stuff going on in their own community. as governor i would be all over that. i think one of the big problems we have is a disconnect between what the feds know and what the states and locals know. that has to change. >> briefly, if you have any more on this, then i want to move on. >> there wouldn't be things having to be hidden from us if we hadn't brought so many people, troublemakers into our country. >> all i know is that this -- what we face and the challenges we face are not going to be solved by inciting fear and prejudice people here in massachusetts. >> i'm saying we need to be responsible with our immigration policy, and not let people slip across that border. >> thank you, candidates. you can revisit this later on as we go along here. we spoke about health care briefly. but i want to return to that topic in a little different perspective here. you'll start here, mr. lively.

if republicans win back the white house in 2016, it's entirely possible they may try to repeal at least parts of the new federal health care law. are there any -- if you're elected, you'll be in office, as governor at that time. are there any aspects of that law you would encourage washington to change, or are you satisfied with it as is? 45 seconds, please. >> i think socialized medicine is an absolute disaster for our country. i would completely repeal obamacare. and rebuild there the ground up. in fact, all the things i'm talking about, talking about tearing down dcf, we have to have agencies that deal with these sorts of things, but let's do it on conservative principles and not keep following these far-left ideas that take us off into la la land. >> mr. mccormick? >> i'm running as an independent to pull people together to solve the problems. i personally believe we should have asked for an innovation waiver. we had the most inclusive health care system in the united

states. and i think we, frankly, should have tried to perfect that system, emphasize primary care in community health centers. and our large providers know that. they're making investments in that area. but with 42% of the state's budget, we have to do it much more aggressively. than we're doing it now. so we have to take those models to the next level, give people better outcomes, decrease the cost of care, and these are well proven out. >> mr. baker? >> i think the most important thing the next governor would have to do with respect to the affordable care act is make sure that most of the important decisions that matter with respect to health care and health care coverage in massachusetts are made by people in massachusetts. the main reason i supported pursuing a waiver, not knowing, of course, that the whole thing would blow up all over everybody, was because i wanted massachusetts to continue to be in the driver's seat and to control its own destiny with respect to health care here in the commonwealth. it's a big employer.

it's an incredibly important issue, and one that people take personally. i would like the commonwealth, if there are changes to be made with respect to the affordable care act, to have the latitude and ability to make decisions about how our health care system that works that will benefit people in massachusetts. i fear terribly losing control of this to some bureaucracy in washington that's never even been to massachusetts. >> miss coakley? >> if your child has a brain tumor, you want them to go to children's hospital. if your sister is suffering from breast cancer, you want her in a good hospital in massachusetts. people come from all over the world to get their health care here. because we do have health care that's been focused on quality care, excellent care, and what our office has done is show that it's very expensive. i point out to the ags around the country that we've been able to put together with a republican governor, democratic legislature, our business community, our providers, our health care, our consumer advocates, a health care reform that said, let's cover people,

let's keep the quality, now let's address cost. it will not happen overnight. we need some waivers from what the federal government has looked for. but we've got the right plan here. and we know what we want to happen in massachusetts. >> thank you. mr. falchuk? >> we should have gotten a waiver from those standards. but we've got to change the health care model in massachusetts. it's fee schedule which would put the risk of care on hospitals. they could be much more efficient. today they raised their prices. every time you pay a higher insurance premium or higher deductible, it's because of the enabling of the republicans and democrats working together, partners becoming a monopoly and government allowing for this to take place. as voters, we're not going to get any different result if we keep going down the same path. i've got a very specific clear plan to change the model. >> thank you. rebuttal? who wants it? anyone? go ahead, mr. mccormick.

>> we have to have a governor who will bring people together. this is how you solve problems. we have world-class clinicians and nurses and surgeons. and it's going to take everyone, including providers, and payers, that come up with a common solution. this is a huge problem. it does not make sense if we are all physically fit and fiscally bankrupt. we have to do this together. >> go ahead. >> the dollars that are being sent to those hospitals, because of the way they distort the market with the pricing is the issue we fade for economic development and families' pocketbooks in the next administration. i'm willing to call out partners for what it is and take the steps necessary to provide the kind of fee schedule that will save consumers millions of dollars. >> i think the insurance corporate model versus the government socialist model is a false choice. there's a middle path of nonprofit risk pools that are much less costly. where people are not restricted to doctors and hospitals that they can go to, and where the

members are stakeholders in the billing process, which has a substantial downward pressure on costs. >> go ahead. >> jon, as we move away from fee for service, trying to get into our communities more affordable and integrated health care, it is the one way we'll be able to address mental health care and behavioral health care. it's a huge issue in massachusetts. it's expensive because we don't deal with it. more importantly, it creates an enormous nightmare for those who suffer from mental illness and their families. >> mr. baker? >> i just have to say, four of us on this panel today talked about the waivers the commonwealth should have pursued instead of going down the road of full speed ahead into the affordable care act last year. there's only one of us who could have done something about that. as we sit here today, we have a broken website. we used to have the best in the country. now we have the worst. and we've spent as a commonwealth hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and disrupted the care for hundreds of thousands of people.

>> response? >> i have supported the waivers that will make sense for massachusetts. because i have worked with how it's happened here. that's what i'm talking about. we also have the appointees who are independent on health care, who are the best on the board. i'll stand up for my appointees on the health connector board. >> did you want to rebut that? >> one member of the board was an independent director who actually questioned a lot of the decisions that had been made, got canned about three weeks ago. i think it is a great example of a broken government. we're the only state in the country that had a horrible experience with rolling out the affordable care act where no one lost their job. i think it has to do a lot with the lack of transparency that comes with one team on the field, one-party rule. we need to fix that. >> go ahead. >> we're the only thing in the country that provided the model for what happened at the national level. i've been the first one to say consistently that one size does not fit all.

we have shown the way in massachusetts. >> this is another serious problem that the left has gotten us into. we shouldn't have to have waivers. the fact that we have to have waivers demonstrates it's a broken system. >> folks, again, you can bring this up again in the next open period. let's move on to another question here. we're doing great. at least i think so. >> as long as no one ends up in the cocoon of horror. >> no, you don't want to go there. thank you, sir. this next question comes from barbara from the north shore via cbs boston.com. thank you, barbara. in massachusetts, voters themselves, as you know, can make laws using the initiative petition process. but the voters' decisions have not always been carried out by the legislature, most notably in the failure to roll back the income tax to 5% as the voters ordered in 2003. if voters next month repeal the automatic gas tax indexing, and the casino law, will you honor their will, and if not, do you

favor the repeal of the initiative petition process? mr. mccormick? >> i do not favor the repeal of that process. but i think that process should be used judiciously. we of that process, but we obviously can't letting slate by referendum, but when the voters decide that their decision should be heard and frank achkd martha, i don't know why you have -- to say, you know what? i'm going to file legislation for casinos to be legislated back in. it just doesn't make sense to me, that's why we vote. >> go ahead, mr. baker. 45 seconds. >> i was one of the people who collected signatures on the repeal of the indexing on the gas tax, so i certainly am going to vote for that and i would be pleased to implement that as governor. i'm going to vote for the casino

repeal. i think massachusetts should have one, and i think that one should be springfield. if the vetters choose to reject that i do want to have a debate about the springfield site and if it doesn't go anywhere, that will be that. but i do want to be part of the decision making process. i supported getting that casino initiative on the ballot, and i was glad that the supreme court said it should be on the ballot. >> if we are going to move ahead in infrastructure development, if we're going to fix what we haven't been able to fix, because the economy's been so hard on our road and bridges, i support it. i know many business leaders throughout massachusetts support it and i think that is one good investment in what we need, not only in boston and cambridge,

but around the state, the economic plan that i have rolled out will invest in our kids and our businesses. in terms of the question, we have a job in the attorney general's office, to make a threshold issue. no one was disadvantaged by that. if the voters in springfield voted for a casino, if can be part of a larger economic plan, i'll support that if they want it. >> it defies credit yulity, that if the voters go and repeal the entire casino process, if we go to the legislature and say let's try to put the casino back in. but we have laws that are passed but not implemented. chapter 7 budget for education, it's supposed to be updated every year, it was just last updated two years ago. we talked about 57 where the state has not lived up to the obligations that it set out for

itself. so when we have a government that it is not even following it's own laws, then we have got a need for new leadership. >> thank you. mr. lively? >> barbara, i'm with you, i think massachusetts should do more to respect citizen legislation. i lived in oregon for years, the here in massachusetts, the legislators can vito the people like they did on the gay marriage vote. the citizens collected well over 100,000 signatures to put that on the ballot. the left put the screws to the legislators ach s and prevented from going to the -- >> just so the two of you are very clear on that. one of the things we need to do is look at what it's going to do to lottery revenues as well. we are going to have hundreds of communities negatively affected by that, and if your advocates of local aid which you say you

are, the numbers are going to be eye popping for most of these communities. responses. >> responses? >> i know charlie agrees with me on this because we have talked about it before. and i am have proud you've been the first attorney general in the country to challenge the defense of marriage act, as is in massachusetts the denial of certain supreme court, people can marry who they love. i stand on that decision, i'm very proud of it. >> go ahead, mr. baker. >> there was a concern about what the collateral impact of more than one casino can be. the site in springfield is planning to build a casino as a site that was torn up by the tornadoes. it's a very sincere proposal where we're going to -- where

the unemployment rate is 20% where it is anywhere else. >> a lot of people don't want that casino there, the last thing we want to do is enrich and empower people who are willing to exploit the weaknesses of others for their own personal game gaining. that's what casinos do. the voters voted in the cities a and towns and that should be the end of it. and for a democracy to move on, we have to have the side that loses, join with the side that wins. >> if we don't have the income from the gas tax, we're not going to be able to grow the state like we need. >> we will if we downside the government. >> my one final comment on this would be, if the legislator wants to raise the gas tax, the legislator should raise the gas tax and be accountable at the ballot boxes.

the gas tax goes up every year without anybody doing anything. question two on the ballot will raise the deposit on bottles every five years for years and years, this is not the way to run a politically responsible government. >> i don't think this is the slippery slope that you make it out to be, charlie. what we're really talking about the business leader support. if we want to move ahead in massachusetts, we need the predictable-zbloe it works more like a percentage. there's a law on the books that's lowering the income tax gradually. let's be real about what's happening. we have a way to deal with our infrastructure and we have a way to deal with it. >> the voters in 2003 said they wanted the income tax to be 5%. to some extent, the legislator created this slope which is

better than anything i suppose, but if you would ask the 65% of the electorate who came out in 2003 and said they want a 5% income tax, we're late on delivering that. >> we need an accountable legislator, we need a group of people who can look at the facts and make a good decision, people that are forced to look outside of the box and force to institute change. >> that concludes our debate. thank you all for participating and thank you all very much for watching. if you would like to watch aller part of this debate again, go to cbsboston.com. we invite you to follow wbc news 1030 for thorough coverage and analysis on the election of 2014. thanks so much for watching. >> you've been watching live

coverage of a massachusetts governor's debate forum from massachusetts. here's more about our upcoming 2014 coverage. >> our 2014 campaign coverage continues, live coverage of the pennsylvania governor's debate between republican tom corbett and democrat tom wolf. and thursday on cspan, live coverage of the illinois u.s. house debate between representative sherry bustos, and republican bobby schilling. and live coverage of the illinois governor's debate. and friday night, live at 8:00 eastern, the wisconsin governor's debate, between the incumbent governor scott walker and democrat mary burke. and live coverage of the iowa

senate debate with u.s. congress map democrat bruce brayley and less than joey earnst. and the debate between rick snyder and democrat mark shauer. campaign 214. coming up on cspan 3, programs about journal oichl. we'll begin with new york reporter james risen fog about freedom of the press, then bob woodward of the "washington post" moderates a discussion on journalism and national security. later the national association of black journalists hosts an event on government and the media. after that association of black journalists mark rogers. "new york times" reporter james risen was subpoenaed in 2008 to testify at the trial of a former

cia officer accused of leaking information on iran's nuclear program. in august, mr. risen spoke about freedom of the press at an event hosted by the institute for public accuracy. you'll also hear from former talk show host phil donahue, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm myron belkheim, president of the national press club, i would like to welcome you on a day that is important to our -- where journalists are once again at the front line, courageously trying to cover news developments in the most difficult of circumstances. late last night, the national press club issued a statement expressing its deep concern about reports that at least two reporters from "the washington post" and t"the huffington post who were covering the unrest in