this a legitimate issue? >> i think it is a huge issue. when i talk to small business owners in my reporting, is one of the things they mention constantly. that has to do with the expiration of the 2001 tax cuts. it also has to do with the year- to-year extension on things like the r&d credit, which, from one day to the next, people do not know if it will be extended. it is definitely important. it is definitely important. >> this is one of the reasons that mr. mundaca pointed out. most people agree that the tax code is a jumble right now and it needs to be -- it needs broader reform. it will not happen in the next couple of years with a presidential election. >> the president's proposals of this week, the business tax

proposals, a lot of those are supported by republicans. a lot of the proposals are supported by republicans. is this more politics than policy? >> i think that was part of the strategy in offering these proposals. nothing can really be done about the economy into months. most people understand that. yes. i think it was aimed at putting republicans of saying that here are some proposals that decrease taxes on business which republicans normally champion. will you support me on this? it is seen as a way for the obama administration to perhaps take control of the conversation where republicans have been screaming about the bush tax cuts and defending tax increases on the top two income groups. >> the republicans have tried to

stake out a position that is different from the present on these broadly popular tax cuts. their argument has been, we like it, but we do not trust it. you will not slap a tax increase at the end of the day it is going to be worse than the r&d tax credit. >> thank you for being with us. book is usedky's as a blueprint for bringing about change. >> nicholas von hoffman spent 10 years working for him and writes about his experiences in "radical, a portrait of salt alinsky."l

there was an hour-long debate tuesday. political analyst john keller the question of the candidates about the state's budget, health care system, and schools. this is 55 minutes. >> good evening and welcome to the first televised debate between the four candidates for governor of massachusetts. let's meet the candidates and

get our debate started. they are republican nominee charlie baker, former ceo of harvard pilgrim health care. the democratic nominee is the incumbent. then kent k. hill and green party jill stein. thank you for being here. there are no opening or closing statements tonight. we have just questions from me and from voters. each candidate gets up to one minute to respond to each question and then we will open it up for free and open debate. let's begin. mr. baker, your name comes first in the alphabet. you'll take the first question. let's start with getting people back to work. >> the political debate in general has been faced by two

different approaches, government spending or tax cuts. what is the better way to produce the quickest job growth of the next year and why? >> i think the quickest way to produce job growth is to get spending under control, deal with the $2 billion budget deficit, and get real about the fact that we cannot possibly spend and tax our way out of this. the only way we will provide economic opportunity is created a climate where we have affordable tax policy, predictable fiscal policy, and predictable regulatory policy. i am glad you started with this because i believe that this is what the whole race is about, jobs, tax, and spending. we are doing everything we can to possibly reform state government, live within our means, cut state spending, and create growth and opportunity. if you believe that we can do better, you should vote for me.

>> mr. cahill, 1 minutes. >> i believe we should focus on tax cuts. i believe then supply-side economic theory. people can spend more of their money and invested. we need to keep taxes competitive. we also need a gaming bill. there is room for government to play a role. stimuluses ok around the edges. if the money is being barred to spend it, borrowing it from the chinese and spending it here in massachusetts, we will all have to pay in the end. tax cuts in the beginning, making your state more competitive, that is the key, and presenting opportunity for

things like casinos, we cannot wait any longer. >> thank you. good evening, everybody. i think it is clear that 10 marie and i have made different -- that tim murray and i have made different choices. we have the results. we are first in the nation in student achievement, in health care coverage for resins, and job creation. we have added more than 60 -- in health care coverage for residents, and job creation. we have added more than 60,000 jobs this year. we want to finish what we started. we want to close the achievement gap in education, i get costs down for businesses and working families alike, and job creation, continuing the pace we have been on so that everybody who is seeking work can find it. >> miss stein, one minute.

>> i would start off taking issue with the governor and that we started jobs. we have serious problems doing that job. we have record unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and so on. we needed jobs and good jobs. we need affordable health care and we need strong schools. it will take a real change to help us do that. we cannot do that with more of the same. i think we have seen what we're getting from this administration and from past administrations on beacon hill. we do not want to go back to the ways of the past. we need jobs that will jump- start a recovery and a real transition. i am looking particularly at green jobs, not low-wage, dead- end insecure casino jobs in three communities, but green jobs throughout the commonwealth that we can create in every community. >> thank you.

>> the best way to grow the economy in massachusetts is the climate for businesses who want to be year and grow. until they feel that the climate on beacon hill is one that is predictable and certain, they will not expand year. right now, we do not have that in massachusetts. >> one of the big issues is health care costs. both the the governor and the treasure has made a level playing field. subsidizing businesses, that is where real job growth will be. >> in terms of the business climate, cnbc dozen annual survey of -- does an annual

survey each year. there are a whole host of decisions and factors that business leaders make about investing. there are things we need to do better, but we are competitive today and we are growing. there is evidence of that. they are adding jobs in north andover. there is a clean energy efficiency company that doubled in size in the last two years. you did business here. elsewhere. you shut down your operations in rhode island and consolidated here in massachusetts. you're right, what will help is improving the business climate. >> he addressed you directly, so i want you to respond. >> governor, you have been in charge of the health care system in massachusetts for the last four years.

until march 2010, you did not pay too much attention to it at all. it drove up the cost for small business. it is eight tax increases over the past four years. you talk to anybody in the liquor business whether the liquor tax increase hurt them. you talk about the $2 billion deficit that the state faces and you will not raise taxes to solve that problem next year. they talk about that, too. >> that is my problem. do not worry about it. >> i have to address the health care costs. that is the single concern of businesses. that is what i hear everywhere. theou're in charge of health care -- >> you raised the premiums 150% current those are paid -- 150%. those are paid by small

businesses and families. >> our premiums were priced competitively. but there were issues between the rules and requirements that have not solve the health care problem in massachusetts. >> i have a few things to say about health care. looking at our state government, we have only seen the cost climb from where it used to be 35% of the budget 10 years ago. it is now 50% of the budget. that is one out of every two tax dollars. we have to cut the waste in health care. we need to bring the cost down. the biggest which we can cut out of health care is insurance waste. we know that about 15% right off the top is going to needless bureaucracy, pencil pushing, and a system can cut that waste, a

single-payer, a.k.a. improve medicare for all. it works. we do not have to keep going around the bush with inadequate solutions that we have been trying for the past 20 years. it is time to move on. >> charlie blames the governor and the governor plans trolley. people want solutions. they want lower taxes and lower health care costs. unless we have solutions and not just statements about whose fault is, we will not move forward. we want to move forward for those small businesses and those people who are struggling, who do not have jobs, and you have not had one for a couple of years now. >> this means expanding medicare. we know how it works. we know that it cuts at the one thing we can cut out. instead of reducing the cost by cutting out care are making people pay more or reducing their choice of providers, why not reduce the insurance bureaucracy? >> medicaid has gone up about $4

billion since health care reform was passed. there is a significant cost to putting everyone in medicaid. that was part of the solution, opening of eligibility and dumping about 400,000 more people added. >> we spend so much on interest bureaucracy. simplifying it would be enough to cover the cost of health care in its entirety. that is just an idea. this is a system that is working. >> i do not agree with the medicare for all of us that was mentioned. there is a lot that we can do that has not been mentioned. but one thing i want to say is that, even if you clear all that out, you have underlying growth in health care costs that is around 10% to 12% annually. >> if you look at single-payer systems, they are growing at the rate of medicare. >that is about 3%.

>> kim is right. we need robust solutions. there are solutions right now and in the medium-term. because people need help right now, we capped those insurance premium increases. most of these gentlemen opposed to that. but people need that right now. in the medium term, payment reform, which has been worked on, is a way to go. there is a consensus around that. but it will take some time. i do not want to leave till out of this. i am proud of the health care reform have done. it is a hybrid system. it is not a single-payer. it has served as a model for the nation. we have added 400 adults and children who had no insurance into the insurance rolls. >> and our cities and towns are going bankrupt. >> you can return to these

issues later. we need to move on to another question. this one is from steve in acton. by some accounts, the state is facing a two billion dollars budget deficit. can it be cut by two billion dollars without a serious impact? if so, how? if not, what taxes and fees are you prepared to look at it? >> i am not prepared to look at any new taxes or fees. we may have to cut them by two million dollars or more. we will have to look at every issue, health care costs. we spent $4 billion funding a connector for the past four years. that is money that cannot continue to go to the connector. transportation costs have been through the roof. we cut the cost of building schools. we brought real discipline and

auditing functions. we paid down more debt in the last four years or five years than have been paid all across state government. we need to focus on health care, transportation. if the question is a cut of 3%, everything will be on the board. >> i think you're right. we will have to look at further cuts. we have taken $3.4 billion out of this budget already. we eliminated 3000 jobs. everyone is having to contribute and we will have to do that as we go forward. but the long-term solution is to grow this economy. that means investing in education, health care, and job creation. that is getting results. if we stay on this pace, we will make up all the jobs we lost in this recession at the end of this year. if we continue on that, we will be soaring going forward.

those are trusses, but they are based in a different set of values. >> -- those are choices, but they are based in a different set of values. >> we need to fill the hole in the deficit with a combination of cutting ways and through savings. i am looking at sweetheart deals which are throwing away taxpayer dollars without a return on that dollar. i would look at the $200 million that you are spending, governor, with all due respect, on developers for shopping malls and office parks. i think that is not a good investment that we need right now. it does not generate other jobs. it is not the good use of taxpayer dollars. we need to put our firefighters and teachers and our librarians back to work. the federal reserve recently issued a report saying that these kinds of giveaways, these tax giveaways, these incentives for drawing in business do not work.

paul o'neill also said that. there is $1.7 billion in economic development tax incentives that need to go through -- to be gone through fairly. >> i am not good to raise taxes. we need to cut taxes. i am the only candidate has put a serious series of reforms on the table. i think we need to get rid of the pacheco loss. we need to -- the pachico laws. we have over 100 agencies and they are working against each other. talk about reducing of the executive branch. there is no way the current administrative model is affordable going forward. i have talked about welfare -- about health read -- about

health care reform and construction workers. frankly, i do not think we will ever get there unless everyone moves in there with a wide-open capacity. if you have the kinds of unions that the governor and the treasure have, you'll never get the work that needs to be done. >> cutting deals with unions, they have given of concessions and then for los. -- and furloughs. what we have to be about is balance. this goes back to a difference in values. i respect that surely has a different set of values two of those tax increase were closing corporate loopholes that gave unfair advantage to great big companies. we raised the alcohol tax. that is true. as for programs for people who

are and that did -- who are addicted to oktaha, oxycontin, and other drugs. it amounts to about $500 million, accounts for one-fifth of the total amount that would have to be cut in this budget, if you got your way with taxes. >> my proposals are worth $1 billion. i have more real proposals to cut state spending then either you or the treasurer. when you talk about the fact that people are behind some of these, they are also behind the tax increases, too. you talk to the people with retail shops along the new hampshire border or in a liquor store anywhere in the state, these tax increases have heard them. when you have fines and regulations -- >> we are going to let others in. >> when you have the conversations, beyond listening

for whether they pared back the sound bites, yours or mine, it turns out it is more complicated in people's minds than what you said. i had a conversation the other day with a woman in chaucer. she came up to me and said, governor, i really like you, but i want you to tacut my taxes. how bad education? >> not that. how about local laid? no, not that. this is the balance i have to make. >> we have been balancing this budget with federal stimulus money for three years, probably about $4 billion. you really have to take an approach that has audit function. there are no more $200 million high schools because we brought

discipline to the process. we are still building high schools. in the state. the legislature took $150 million from our budget last year to balance the budget. you can do the job. neither one of you have done it. >> we are coming up to a break. i will give each of you 30 more seconds. >> for one thing, there is an elephant in the room for where our dollars are going. 50% of the state budget is going into health care. 75% of government expenses in health care is spent on chronic diseases that are preventable. we do not have a health care system. we have a disease care system. we can prevent billions of

dollars worth of needless expenditures. we do that by creating green jobs that will build in that infrastructure for health care. >> i completely reject the governor's point of view that there is nothing left to cut in state government. that is 100% efficient. that is exactly what you said to that lady. >> that is not what i said. >> the stuff that i have talked about that no one else has talked about. >> let's talk about results. we have done more consolidation in this administration. we are getting the -- >> name 1. >> we just named three agencies involved in economic development because we do not need unnecessary duplication. we move to the housing agency into mass development. that is just one example. and there are many. >> that is so low of a margin. >> i am talking about results. you talk about the pension system. we are the only ones who got it done.

>> you should be swinging away. >> you never even swung at the ball. >> i think i will let these two guys fight it out. >> this is the kind of bickering that we have come to expect from business as usual. we heard the democrat person and the republican version. over the years, nothing changes. we can raise revenue fairly at the same time that we get the breaks to people who are overburdened. >> you still have a choice in 60 days about where you think -- about whether you think massachusetts is going in the right direction. >> i was in this debate eight years ago. >> the gubernatorial debate continues in a moment. please stay with us.

>> welcome back to the massachusetts gubernatorial debate. our next question will be fielded by mr. patrick. you are all on record expressing concern about the rollback of the state sales tax to 3% as called for in the question no. 3 this november. but some people believe that, even if it is unwise policy or even if it is never enacted, a yes vote would send an important message of voter discontent with the level of taxation and the overall management in the state. do you believe that message is necessary or do political leaders already get it? >> i get it. let's be clear. if the voters vote in that way, we do not have any choice but to respect the will of the voters. but it would be a calamity. earlier in the year, before the great charlie completely misinterpreted the conversation

i had with this woman, is not that things cannot be cut. it is that the level of cuts and the impact on people would be so profound that it is incumbent on responsible candidates to talk about that. people can handle that conversation. they anderson and the complexities of life and that balances have to be struck. -- they understand the complexities of life and that balances have to be struck. we value health care, job creation, and those investments are getting results. massachusetts is better off than many places in the country. we have a lot of work to do, but we are moving in the right direction. >> i would say that voters who want to send a message should not just express themselves on question 3. they should really make that change. they can elect someone into the governor's office who is not a part of business as usual and who never has been. i urge voters who to not -- i

urge voters to not hold back. if it were passed, it in and of itself, it would be really problematic to take $2 billion out of the budget. by way of balancing overpayment that middle-income and working families are paying right now, it cannot happen by itself. i want to take that burden off their shoulders and as those at the top to pay their fair share. if you look at how taxes rollout currently, middle-income and working families are paying half as much as a percent of their income as millionaires. that is not fair. we need to ask millionaires to step up to the plate. they have had all of the game and none of the pain. >> i think we should be cutting taxes. i would like to simplify our

business taxes and get that back to 5%. i think we should repeal the increase in the sales tax as well. we need to create a massachusetts that is affordable and competitive to get people back to work. 200,000 people are out of work. the 3% issue is that it is $2.5 billion on top of two $0.5 billion. -- on top of $2.5 billion. if the state was in a better position, if we make smart choices in the previous four years, we would not have the deficit and it would be a .ifferent story appeare if we do not start cutting taxes, we will never get everybody back to work. you can always look for the people who were not on beacon hill, like me. >> i think people are truly sending a message and will send a message next year. i talked with barbara anderson.

the only time taxes get made statewide is when the voters step in. the income tax cut is an example. even though it was not at 5%, it was sold as a temporary tax. people have lost faith in government. they may have to take action into their own hands. our job is to make sure we fulfill that action. .

we need to raise it for those who have not been paying their fair share. >> why are we here? we raised state taxes eight times, and people believe there are two sets of rules -- one set of rules for people living with less at every turn. you change the way you behave. you do things differently. when people see is a state

government where revenue goes down but funding still goes up. the system has not gone through anywhere near the reform it needs, and they let that stuff like municipal health insurance, and they are running around with with the dollar copays or $30 copays. you do not support it. people look at it and say it is not fair. >> let's give the response. >> first, it is not true we have not cut spending. we took $4.3 billion out of this budget. the budget has increased it increase that half the rate increase when you were in charge, so it is not correct to say we have made up the difference with new taxes.

what we have done is use federal stimulus, rainy day funds, because i agree with jill. there are things we are supposed to do to try to hold people together, families together, communities together. those are different choices. it does not mean it is evil, but those are the choices the voters will vote on. >> i am glad you qualified they are not evil. at the end of the day, the way to fix the state is to grow jobs. our job is to make sure we get behind it and grow jobs in the state of massachusetts.

we provide the services we need. i think people would prefer to vote on their own taxes. that is the beauty. if they have to pay a fee, they might choose to do that, but let's let the people decide. we have to trust the people. they are not stupid. they know what they want. >> i want to ask you a question. tim talks about letting the people decide. you endorsed him in part because of his crazy stand against reducing income tax. why now are you saying we should let the people decide? >> we have 4% unemployment and a solid economy. >> of promise was made to cut

property taxes. we have already rolled down taxes. we are at full employment, so i thought it made more sense to do it that way. we have shown it is very difficult to cut them from the state level, so we have to cut taxes to bring costs down. >> i think it is difficult to not give them tools, and we have done more to bring down municipal costs. >> let me respond to that, because that is an important issue. >> it is right and there's more that has to be done, and when you talk about a plan designed,

i think there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. i will support that. >> we have to take a break in briefly. >> neither the governor or the treasurer has lead on this issue. if i wouldn't, i will give the campaign the same to make this happen. it is hundreds of jobs on the line. >> if premiums keep spiking up year after year. >> it is teachers and firefighters and cops whose health care will go down, so that is what we are talking about. we need to talk about cuts where they are not hurting people, and

instead of cutting social services and game the -- gang violence prevention, we should be cutting the sweetheart deals and the wasteful spending. every year. -- every year we are paying $300 million for jobs they never created. we need to put it to work providing health care. >> my home town passed the bill. it is not an easy town to work with. if he can do it, everybody can do it, but it has to be negotiated, and i do not think there is a problem with that. >> later you can return to some of these themes. right now we will take another break before the massachusetts gubernatorial debate continues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

welcome back. let's continue with our discussion. it is your turn to go first. in another e-mail, wally from dorchester us, with all the recent publicity regarding patronage of the state work force and elsewhere, i notice all of you have supporters carrying signs with your campaign. as governor, will you hire political supporters, and if not, how will you stand out the process elsewhere? >> people should be hired according to the abilities and experience and what they contribute -- not by campaign contributions they have contributed to the person making the decisions. unfortunately, this is what we are seeing in the case of the patronage scandal at the probation department, and there

have been a lot of revelations that have commoe in, because the legislature has enormous power over this patronage tool they have, but this raises the broader issue of ethics, and it is such a commentary on the failure of ethics reform that there is a scandal taking place right under the noses of the ethics committee as the bill was written, and i think it is a statement of how beacon hill is not working that we are getting reforms that are not addressing the issues. >> the boston herald wrote a bunch of stories about the system over the past few years. the big story is the globe's story, but it was an open secret of the probation department was are rogue agency hiring all

sorts of people for a variety of reasons, most of which did not have to do with merit, and i think it is outrageous that it took so long to get anybody to do anything, and we still have not change the way the probation department works. we did move john o'brien out, and we have a fellow most the book considered to be a problem, and there is a vague investigation, but i think in many ways this is an example of ned -- of what many of us knew was the problem and nobody did anything about. >> i think probation should be moved back to the judiciary. maybe the employees should be brought back to civil service. if the people are working hard, we should not discourage them from seeking government employment. i have hired great people to

work on my campaign. i hired three people who did not work on my campaign, so the key isn't to make sure they are qualified and to make sure they have a goal in place to serve the taxpayers, and if we keep that in mind, what matters is they do the job for the taxpayers in massachusetts. >> i think jim is right, and i want to thank the viewer for the question. i did not come here to be concerned about probation. i filed an overhaul while before "the boston globe" wrote in the stories, and it was about taking probation, combining it with parole, and most of them to come out of jail, and are frequently more dangerous than they were when they left. a lot of really good people

working the probation department. i want to be really clear about that. a lot of them do a great job, but the ability to get transparency have been of personal frustration. ethics reform -- it was the broadest changes in two decades. i am very proud of it. it did not solve the problem, but i am very proud of it. >> i know there is a lot of lip service given to ethics reform, but my concern is it has not fix the problem, and if it did not fix the problem right under its nose, what is it going to fix? we should have solved the problem of money and politics a long time ago, and back in the

1970's's, the award commission was established, and they said it was the whole system that was rotten, and where money and power and patronage come together, the system was rotten we should have investigated, because that was $20 million down the drain. we should have solved the problem. ethics reform has not touched it. >> i think one way is to create balance on beacon hill. i think when one party controls it all, you get complacency of laziness. i have a number of people who came up to may during the campaign. basically the same amount as we had before the crash. they look at me and say we have

indicted more speakers than we have created, and that is what a lot of people do in beacon hill. this is a big opportunity for people to change a lot of them. >> they have 16 years of republican gov. sheriff. the republican party loaded up in advance of 9-11, with a lot who had no idea how to run and arafat -- an airport. i think it is not just a question of replacing one party with the other. it is going in a new direction where you are not just bringing back the old people who made the mistakes in the first place. you are bringing in new people and a new perspective. >> it is true that the issues

with probation apparently went back many years when there were republicans. i do not think the issue is party or what you call yourself. the thing is you acted independently you make judgments and take with the consequences will be very good we have done that over and over again. that is one reason the police are protesting right now. >> let's start at the end. >> you called patronage the cost of doing business. i do not think that demonstrated any serious attempt to deal with that. as far as the future is concerned, a $2.5 billion deficit is going to land on the desk of the next governor.

that is not planning for the future of massachusetts. >> let's talk about the financing plan. that was flawed because he had starved infrastructure in favor of one project, because it drove ops ferris -- up fairs, and because it misled about the cost of that theory of we have been dealing with that -- about the cost of that. we have been dealing with that. >> the project started in the 1980's. i worked on one piece of it, which is to create a plan to deal with the federal shortfall. the same plan you used to fund your accelerations. the reason everyone still wants to talk about this is because

you do not want to talk about what happened. >> let's weigh in. >> if you have taken the approach we have taken with schools, we inherited the same amount of debt. i have taken on mayors all across the state of massachusetts and said we are not going to build the school you want. you are not going to get a new school if you do not deserve it. i am willing to work with everyone, but is is about taking fiscal responsibilities for the parts of government you are in charge of with a building at less than a third of the cost, we are paying down debt so our children do not pay that debt as we go forward. >> we will take about 15 seconds. >> i got to give crops to tim in the management of the school board during the -- school

building authority program. it is functioning better than it has been, and you deserve some credit for that. the problem is it is still a dragon. it is a great thing drag for the commonwealth, and we are dealing with it today. you wrote the financing plan. good >> i talked about my role as it was. that is the same plan you years. >> that is also wrong. the difference is we are not starving needs everywhere else to fund these programs. >> how much has the state of massachusetts and on programs over the last 10 years. $13 billion. >> i can tell you if had been

ignored for years. >> every administration since michael dukakis spend more on roads than than ministration -- the administration before. to blame it on what happened 20 or 30 years ago -- when you ran four years ago, one thing you said was that whoever is in charge on beacon hill needs to man up and take responsibility for what goes on on their watch. that is what i said at harvard. you cannot blame things on the path. -- past. >> i am not blaming anything on the path. i am talking about dealing with what you left on beacon hill. you spend twice as much time on beacon hill then i have. you spent the last 10 years

improving the company with the help of state aid. >> i think you both made your points. i want to let the others in. >> we are not going to create jobs bickering back and forth. the only way we are going to create jobs is by lowering the cost of government and to make sure we are creating a real investment and paying for it as we go there. we are using tax revenue to build schools. we are not leaving it for the future generation, so 10 years from now, someone will be blaming someone else. what we have to do is start looking to the future, not putting blame on the past. >> i want to give you 30 seconds, and i want to move on. >> 10% of $20 billion is $2 billion, and it is important to take responsibility. we are telling students to take responsibility.

we need teachers to take responsibility. the problem has not gone away. it lives on in our budget and the corruption. i mean legal corruption. $100,000 that came in to the administration from the contractors. that is why we are spending $200 million on developers instead of putting that money into the firefighters and teachers, and there is a culture of sweetheart deals on beacon hill, which accounts for billions, and this is how we create jobs, by taking that money back and putting people to work. >> we have a philosophical difference, although not that wide of one -- on incentives to encourage investments. i will say one thing we do is conditioned the investment on job creation.

we have callbacks. if someone does not produce the jobs, they are the states that money. >> they ought to, but that is not happening. -- they owe the states that money. >> they ought to, but that is not happening. >> in late 2008, we learned that the woman president obama called his father's half-sister was living in public housing even though she was under a deportation order for being here illegally. at that time close to 20,000 people were on the waiting list for public housing. would you do anything to prevent this from happening again? >> i would support the prohibition on students from -- people from accessing state services.

i hear about immigration issues and about this particular one everywhere i go. they feel they play by the rules and get played by jumps, because their tax dollars go to people who will never be contributing here at home. it falls into the category of -- if you do not like what is going on with issues like this, you can vote for me in november. good >> i think it is wrong for any illegal psittacine to give public benefits, whether it is housing benefits, reduce college tuition benefits theory of we have to focus on legal immigrants. we have to crack down on public safety. they have to have tools to make sure when immigrants get pulled over the fair immigration status is checked, and they did to get

them out of state and the country. >> first, it would not have done anything for the example you gave, because it was under federal law and not state law. we have rules in place that limit public benefits for people entitled to receive them, and we enforce those rules, and we should. illegal immigration is a serious national issue, and it requires a serious response. i think the idea of trying to have 50 different responses to illegal immigration, which is a violation of federal law, it is impractical and unwise. >> i would point out it needs to be solved at the national level. illegal immigration tripled

after nafta was passed, and it was not only very problematic for workers in this country, but it was problematic south of the border, too, so the problem was created in passing nafta, and i think it needs to be fixed there. it is a place to go after little guys and encourage people struggling for jobs and health care to be fighting with each other. immigrants did not create this problem. that is where the problem fundamentally needs to be fakes. >> we have 9% unemployment. we cannot wait for washington to fix this for us for your we have to deal with it -- fixes.

we have to deal with it and make sure government and local businesses are not hiring illegal citizens before legal citizens. we have to put our people first. >> this is a difference. he endorsed the governor, knowing full well he supported in state tuition for illegal immigrants and driver's license as well. i think one of the first things you did was to resend the connection to deal with that because in states police to take some of the really bad actors off those st. and use those. >> the state police have more than their hands full, and i see it is hard for them to keep up with the responsibility to

enforce state law. when someone violates the law, their immigration status is enforced. that is a fact. >> if state police are in the position of having to enforce immigration law, you segregate immigrant culture from the mainstream, and you have our real problem here a good >> -- you have a real problem. >> we have proposed in three or four times, and it has come from nowhere in the administration. i would like to have your help in advocating. >> thank you, and thank you for watching. this will be posted as soon as possible for you to review, and even though these are uncontested, there are other important races to be decided.

do not forget to go on election day, and watch your vote count. goon behalf of all of us, thank you very much for watching. ♪ debora>> low if the political nf the week and midterm election strategies -- a look at the political news of the week and midterm election strategies. this is about half an hour. continues. >> and our sunday roundtable with two familiar faces. welcome back to both of you. thanks for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> let me begin with you because boats of you are

blogging. you are for the hill and youor for the reports. you said most of the discussions on the president's iraq speech focused on the political importance and the policy but we should not unrval i nonpolitical importance to the american psyche. how so? >> i think it's important whether you're democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, to mark the end of this phase in iraq. it's been sort of dominated on news, o lives. we have young people for whom they've only known us for war in iraq. so to mark the end of that is important. in addition, i thought it was important for the president because it is something that he said he would do during the campaign. it's something that democrats campaigned on in 2006 and i think to mark the end and make good, show that you're making good on a promise is very important. >> in ur blog you say it was nice for the president to recognize president bush. they had a phone call the day that he delivered his remarks

in the oval office. you added, though, i wonder if the current president acknowledged that the former president was right. i doubt it. >> the whole thing about that iraq speech was nice that he called the president. but the way that we got to such good shape in iraq was with esident bush's courageous decision to do the surge. and i don't think that president obama wanted to acknowledge that in his speech, and i understand why because he was wrong on it. and i just thought it's my duty to point that out. >> your response? >> i think it was clear. the president also got attacked from the left for not pointing out the things about which presidenbush some would say lied. but i think the president felt it was more important, rather than one side or the other, to go straight down the middle and say we're getting out of iraq. that's what's important, to acknowledge president bush's role i think in a positive way i thought that was the right thg to do.

it was not the place for a political approach. >> leth me talk about a number of posts. this is from the opinion section. and then, this. john? >> well, i like the first comments. i think that the republicans have had two rotten elections in a row, and it's really the

pendulum has swung far left in the country. politically. but the coury is still very much center right. so i think it's going to be a fairly big election. if you look at the turnout models, voters are much more excited about this election. if you look at all the different progress noss caters from charlie cook to larry to stew, they e this election moving dramatically towards the republican candidates. i think that it's a reaction -- all mid-term elections tend to be a referendum on the curnt president. let's face it, the economy is not doing well, hasn't had an uptick. people are angry, they're upset. the number one thing that the obama administration passed was the health care legislation which is exceedingly unpopular with voters. one of the number one issues in many districts. so you add that all in and it's

going to be be a very good election. it's still going to b tight margins. republicans aren't going to get 290 votes in the house. so they're going to have to -- there's going to be a situation here where it's going to be very difficult to get major progress done. but perhaps that's what people want, less big government and spending. >> let me put another theory on the table. republicans pick up 20 to 30 house seats and gain four or five senate seats but do not gain a majority. what happens within the republican leadership in congress? >> you know, the expectations are pretty high. so i think that republicans will see that as a loss and i think the ramifications will be that there will be a lot of soul searching. did we do enough at the campaign level to get the right candidates in there? and that's a definite possibility because the democrats have a lot ofoney and they're going to spend it right now and there are some candidates out there who tea party candidates who might not

be the best candidates to win in a normal election year. now, that being said, this is not a normal election year. i think a lot of those tea party candidates are going to win. >> let's remember, first of all, that a number of those same progress noss caters did not think president obama would be president. but i think there are three factors that we can't fully measure at this point. one, as john mecksed, is money. and we know that when it comes down to the end of a race, having money, democrats happen to have more money overall campaign by campaign than republicans the. obviously republicans will get a lot of help from outside groups, but money at the end of the day, how that gets spent is going to have an impact. secondly, while people talk a lot about the entsiasm gap and the enthusiasm on the part of republicans, i think we should remember that that enthusiasm has actually been enthusiasm from folks in republican primaries against the republin establishment candidate. that's very different than the

kind ofoter that comes out i a general election. so again, i think right in we can't quite know how that's going to shake out when many of these candidates as you're already seeing, the nrsc has sent baby sitters out to kind of tamp them down a lit bit. those folks are going to have to move to the middle. how do they do that without upsetting the tea partiers? and the next thick is mobilization. i think the president did an excellent job at the press conference. i think he's fighting back. democrats have a better message of drawing thatontrast and ho that impacts democratic voters and getting them out in the next 50 or so days we don't know and you can't measure that in a pole. >> we'll get to your calls. you can join the conversation on line twitter.com/c-span wj. the front page of the iladelphia enyirer has this.

. . on real issues, issues that count, castle is just plain wrong -- wrong on his votes. wrong on his records. wrong for delaware. five i m mike castle, and i approve this message.

-- >> i am mike castle, and i approve this message. >> she did not pay thousands in income taxes, had to be sued for thousands in unpaid bills, the fault of on her mortgage. she left vendors and staff and paid wall using campaign fund to pay her own red and personal expenses. say hello to christine o'donnell. o'donnell. >> isn't democracy wonderful? >> i think mike castle is one of these more moderate campaigners facing a conservative tea party challee. >> supported by sarah palin. i think what he has done with this ad is figured out that you can't be nice.

i think he will win, hands down. if o'donnell wins, it is a challenge for the united states. >> the reported in kentucky, ran paul tied in the senate race. >> that shows the tea party candidates -- are they going to match up to the scrutiny when people relate pola park the

things they said and what they want to do. -- really listen to the things they said and what they want to do. some people are not so comfortable with things to the far right to. one of the things you want to see in a campaign. it is going to get ugly. message, it works. if you've got the money to do it, this is what you have to do.

>> here is part of that. let's get your reaction. we got a lot of resistance very

early. i think what is also true is when you take on tough issues like health care or financial regulatory reform, where special interests are deeply entrenched -- there is a lot of money at stake for them, and were the issues are so complicated it drags on for a long time, you end up having a lot of big fights, and it is messy, and it is frustrating. town and it is messy and frustrating. >> the president seems to want to blame john bainer for his a againeda not working out very well.

>> he disagreedn healthcare and cap and trade and the stimulus. the president has finally lately come up with a couple tax proposal that make sense. he wants to cut taxes in one area and raise taxes in another. the reason the president is struggling right now is that his a againeda doesn't work. the american people are coming up saying this doesn't work. g.o.p. leader tightly bound to lobbyist. you both readhe piece? >> yes. it is obvious that under the leadership, we would go back to the same. this whole k street infa

structure. that sounds a lotted like tom delay to me and what got republicans in trouble in 2006. >> isn't that what happened in 2002? >> not so far as giving out checks to tobacco lobbyists on the floor. it is not that we are blaming him, we are saying if republicans were i charge, they would go back to many of the same policies that got us in this mess. if you are truly interested in doing something for the american people, here is a place we can agree. we may disagree on some of these other things. from a policy perspective and a political perspective, this shows a lot of what happened and that republicans really haven't

wanted to work with the president. joining us, good morning on the democrat's line. caller: good morning. i keep hearing the republicans say that they are going to create jobs. how can you create jobs when factuallies around in the city ar going overseas. they keep saying elect us, we are going to create jobs. how are you going to help the working people when you won't extend unemployment.

they have children t feed and homes. these jobs was already leaving america under the bush administration. they are trying to make it look like when obama got in there, the jobs were leaving all of a sudden. my niece is working for a firm that they are sending her to china and india to train people. in a few months, she'll be out of a job. >> thank you for the call. who wants to take that. guest: john boehner was a business owner that created jobs. president obama never worked in the private sector.

if you talk to business owners, the assault and increase in taxes and the big worry that taxes willncrease even more. there's a perfect example of this in the "new york times," you have this story about the 1099 crisis that will require every small business owner and every expenditure over $600, they have to fill out a form. do you know how much that will take for people? >> obviously, we disagree.

we've gone through a period of deregulation. what's happening. toys are coming in from china. there's a point we have to say wait a second. some regulation is right. we won't say go ahead. i think some regulation is right. the question is how much is too much and how much is enough. remember that this president came into the office. $750,000 jobs were being lost per mont we are not creating the number of jobs we want to be. we are back to creating jobs month by month. you can't say it is not working. i think the president acknowledges that. we have to turn this country around. >> i would make one note.

when obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate was 6.9% and now it's about 9.6%. the president hasn't focussed on jobs at all. that's the beauty of america and the president should revel in being called a dog. >> when you have a member o

congress calling from the chamber, that's a big shi from whe we've ever been before some of the thing that's happen said and done go beyond the pale. >> he told us he fails to unite the couny. he admitted he did not succeed in that area. >> then president bush really lost his way. dik cheney took way too much control of what was going on. we saw that leading into 9/11 which really should be a day of national unity and remembrance. so much of what we werealking about yesterday was divisionnd how much deviciveness there is in this country.

host: welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i blame most of the mainstream media for giving us this disaster. congress controlled the money. controlled by 20 # by the democrats. i get sick of any so-called republicans that sit there and don't bring that up. i question his credentials. he spends most of his time at msmbc. they give us this guy that has never run anything in his life. we'll get a response. thank yous bob.

this is a big country. we have an economic down turn. people really hurt now in the country.

too many jobs are being shifted overseas. >> i want to read a couple of clips, and this is from the front page of the article. he writes, mr. boehner once and national headlines after he was caught handing out checks.

he flew of least 45 times with his wife, and finally, mr. boehner continues to travel paid for through his political action committee. he has spent $57,000 at the ritz-carlton in naples in florida, and $29,000 at the village golf club in ohio. >> john boehner does a lot of fund raising. it is one of those things. he is someone who understands

the community. he works closely with the business community. you should think that is a green thing. -- a good thing. >> it includes people but a former aide. could you not say there are others also influencing legislation in washington? >> i think it is absolutely fair. part of the way he is campaigning -- i think it is absolutely fair.

i think we have seen a change in transparency. the way he has tried to do business and some of the democrats, we could take a look at democrats, but if you looked at the accomplishments and things the democrats have tried to accomplish -- we are out of iraq. we are taking care of our children, not to mention 95,000 have gotten tax breaks. he is proposing an additional tax breaks and tax credits for research and development. if he is so concerned about the job creation, let's come together on things were there is agreement. >> some are routinely seeking his help, calling as often as

several times a week to advance their agenda, and in many cases, mr. boehner has helped them out. >> if you are a business community that is going to be devastated, you want help, and i think he says, i am going to help. a lot of these lobbyists represent companies that are trying to do their best, and the obama administration is trying to do the health care bill that is putting a lot of businesses out. hopefully, there is going to be an opportunity to repeal some of these terrible laws that are so unpopular and are killing jobs in this country. >> they are shocked began --

again. >> i think being a lobbyist is not a very popular profession of said of the country. -- upset at the country. they do play a useful role in trying to help businesses stop bad relations. >> good morning. i think they should stop blaming for the jobs caller: i think they should stop blaming chavez. hat the president is working on these jobs but the government section, it is not helping everybody.

we have >> thank you for the call. is this election a referendum? >> i think republicans would like to make it a referendum on president obama, and democrats are trying to make it about the choice between two different philosophies about how we should be managing our economy. i think you heard that in terms of the republican ideas.

those are many of the same policies most americans would believe got us into this mess. they continued to show people recognize it is the bush era of policies that created the economic situation we are in. democrats are trying to talk about what we have done. it is a different philosophy. republicans think that by making it about obama, that is the magic bullet we will see. >> tomorrow, david hocking's looks at what is ahead for congress before the midterm election. colin kahl discusses what is next for iraq now that the u.s. combat mission has ended, and michelle mello talks about malpractice liability costs in the u.s. the u.s.